4 ms·

That's a pretty odd take when Boeing airplanes have superior safety ratings than their Airbus counterpars for the most part if we exclude the 737-Max variant. I

That's a pretty odd take when Boeing airplanes have superior safety ratings than their Airbus counterpars for the most part if we exclude the 737-Max variant. I need to find sources, I am writing from memory. I understand the situation with 737-Max safety, Boeing entirely deserves it. But, I think we should also look at the data as well and hold off on knee-jerk reactions. Edit: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

ucha 6y ago
Airbus seems safer from your link? They never had a crash on any of their newer models, A380, A350 and neo variants. The vast majority of flights are performed in 737s and A320 variants and the crash rate is 0.09 for Airbus vs 0.24 for Boeing. [edit]: actually excluding planes produced before the 737NG in 1984 and the 737 max, the 737 crash rate is 0.11 which is still slightly higher than Airbus.
Daho0n 6y ago
Your link disagrees with your conclusion?
rob74 6y ago
Do you mean the 0.07 "fatality rate" for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 vs. the 0.09 for the A320 family? I would say they are both very safe aircraft, but I wouldn't read too much into the 0.02 difference, because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 (where the copilot intentionally crashed the plane) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (which was 100% due to human error)
- capableweb 6y ago
  > which was 100% due to human error Not sure how familiar you are with the airplane industry but nothing is ever "100% due to human error" in these events. We know humans are controlling these planes and the equipment can always gets better. Usually it comes down to UX, checklists and more to have multiple stopgaps to prevent issues. Just a quick scan of the Flight 522 page shows there were in fact many UX issues like why can you take off when the pressure system is turned to manual? Forcing a manual override if so would have helped. Same alert sound was also used for "take-off configuration warning" and "cabin altitude warning", leading to the pilots making the wrong decision. Attributing Flight 522 to only human error is not what the courts did (check the "Lawsuits and criminal proceedings" section in the page you linked) so not sure why you would.
  - rob74 6y ago
    Ok, if you want to get into the details of this particular accident... it can be argued that UX issues made it easier for the pilots to make the fatal mistake they made (and the lawyers representing the victims' families of course made that argument, because going after Boeing is far more promising than going after a small airline which declared bankruptcy soon after the accident), but in the end it was still human error. Aircraft are complex systems which can't be made 100% foolproof, that's why they are flown by qualified and trained pilots who have checklists for things that have to be done before take-off, and one of them was checking the pressurization system ("the flight crew overlooked the pressurization system state on three occasions: during the pre-flight procedure, the after-start check, and the after take-off check"). ...and the courts ultimately had nothing to do with it, because the suit against Boeing was settled out of court. Which is not an "admission of guilt" on the part of Boeing, just "give them some money to make this unpleasant thing go away".
  - baylessj 6y ago
    I appreciate your point about nothing ever being "100% due to human error", especially in regards to air travel. I recently read "The Design of Everyday Things", a book that devotes a lot of its time to discussing this same principle. We should blame the UX wherever possible before assigning any blame to the individual.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- ejolto 6y ago
  > because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 > He had set the autopilot to descend to 100 ft (30 m) and accelerated the speed of the descending aircraft several times thereafter. That could have been avoided if the autopilot refused to crash the air plane. To be fair, I bet Boeing's autopilot also accepts commands to crash the plane. However this accident could have been avoided if the autopilot had refused to comply with an obviously deadly commands.
  - macintux 6y ago
    I'm skeptical that an AI for airplanes exists that can distinguish between "obviously deadly commands" and "trying to rescue the plane during a mechanical emergency".
    - notahacker 6y ago
      A hypothetical system would actually function almost exactly the same as the much derided MCAS. If angle of attack sensors indicate an inappropriate angle of ascent/descent, overcompensate for or override the pilot inputs. As we've learned at great cost, angle of attack sensors are wrong more often than pilots are homicidal though, which is part of the reason why the form of intelligence used to deter and attempt to prevent obviously deadly pilot actions is a lump of meat called a copilot.
      - ejolto 6y ago
        > a lump of meat called a copilot. Looks like that's how they fixed the issue. > aviation authorities in some countries implemented new regulations that require two authorized personnel to be present in the cockpit of large passenger aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#Regulatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#Regula...
  - vultour 6y ago
    An A320 already does much more crash-prevention than a 737 because of its FBW system. It’s impossible to stop someone who’s determined to crash the plane unless you make it fully autonomous.
- iso1631 6y ago
  I'm much more concerned by the operator than the aircraft on proven planes. Air France for example -- landing in Syria in a civil war due to a backup plan that prioritised money over safety [0], pilots ignoring stall warning for nearly a minute [1]. The Max does concern me about Boeing planes goign forward, but existing airbus and boeing planes are fine. [0] https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/air-france-has-whip-around-among-passengers-to-pay-for-fuel-after-emergency-stop-in-syria-26887990.html https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/air-franc... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
KptMarchewa 6y ago
If you'd read the website you linked more carefully, you'd see the reason: >Also excluded are aircraft models have no fatal events involving airline passengers: >Airbus: A220, A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A340, A350, A380 A300 and A310 are old planes, not in service in reasonable airlines.

ucha 6y ago

Airbus seems safer from your link? They never had a crash on any of their newer models, A380, A350 and neo variants. The vast majority of flights are performed in 737s and A320 variants and the crash rate is 0.09 for Airbus vs 0.24 for Boeing. [edit]: actually excluding planes produced before the 737NG in 1984 and the 737 max, the 737 crash rate is 0.11 which is still slightly higher than Airbus.

Daho0n 6y ago

Your link disagrees with your conclusion?

rob74 6y ago

Do you mean the 0.07 "fatality rate" for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 vs. the 0.09 for the A320 family? I would say they are both very safe aircraft, but I wouldn't read too much into the 0.02 difference, because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 (where the copilot intentionally crashed the plane) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (which was 100% due to human error)

capableweb 6y ago
> which was 100% due to human error Not sure how familiar you are with the airplane industry but nothing is ever "100% due to human error" in these events. We know humans are controlling these planes and the equipment can always gets better. Usually it comes down to UX, checklists and more to have multiple stopgaps to prevent issues. Just a quick scan of the Flight 522 page shows there were in fact many UX issues like why can you take off when the pressure system is turned to manual? Forcing a manual override if so would have helped. Same alert sound was also used for "take-off configuration warning" and "cabin altitude warning", leading to the pilots making the wrong decision. Attributing Flight 522 to only human error is not what the courts did (check the "Lawsuits and criminal proceedings" section in the page you linked) so not sure why you would.
- rob74 6y ago
  Ok, if you want to get into the details of this particular accident... it can be argued that UX issues made it easier for the pilots to make the fatal mistake they made (and the lawyers representing the victims' families of course made that argument, because going after Boeing is far more promising than going after a small airline which declared bankruptcy soon after the accident), but in the end it was still human error. Aircraft are complex systems which can't be made 100% foolproof, that's why they are flown by qualified and trained pilots who have checklists for things that have to be done before take-off, and one of them was checking the pressurization system ("the flight crew overlooked the pressurization system state on three occasions: during the pre-flight procedure, the after-start check, and the after take-off check"). ...and the courts ultimately had nothing to do with it, because the suit against Boeing was settled out of court. Which is not an "admission of guilt" on the part of Boeing, just "give them some money to make this unpleasant thing go away".
- baylessj 6y ago
  I appreciate your point about nothing ever being "100% due to human error", especially in regards to air travel. I recently read "The Design of Everyday Things", a book that devotes a lot of its time to discussing this same principle. We should blame the UX wherever possible before assigning any blame to the individual.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ejolto 6y ago
> because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 > He had set the autopilot to descend to 100 ft (30 m) and accelerated the speed of the descending aircraft several times thereafter. That could have been avoided if the autopilot refused to crash the air plane. To be fair, I bet Boeing's autopilot also accepts commands to crash the plane. However this accident could have been avoided if the autopilot had refused to comply with an obviously deadly commands.
- macintux 6y ago
  I'm skeptical that an AI for airplanes exists that can distinguish between "obviously deadly commands" and "trying to rescue the plane during a mechanical emergency".
  - notahacker 6y ago
    A hypothetical system would actually function almost exactly the same as the much derided MCAS. If angle of attack sensors indicate an inappropriate angle of ascent/descent, overcompensate for or override the pilot inputs. As we've learned at great cost, angle of attack sensors are wrong more often than pilots are homicidal though, which is part of the reason why the form of intelligence used to deter and attempt to prevent obviously deadly pilot actions is a lump of meat called a copilot.
    - ejolto 6y ago
      > a lump of meat called a copilot. Looks like that's how they fixed the issue. > aviation authorities in some countries implemented new regulations that require two authorized personnel to be present in the cockpit of large passenger aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#Regulatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#Regula...
- vultour 6y ago
  An A320 already does much more crash-prevention than a 737 because of its FBW system. It’s impossible to stop someone who’s determined to crash the plane unless you make it fully autonomous.
iso1631 6y ago
I'm much more concerned by the operator than the aircraft on proven planes. Air France for example -- landing in Syria in a civil war due to a backup plan that prioritised money over safety [0], pilots ignoring stall warning for nearly a minute [1]. The Max does concern me about Boeing planes goign forward, but existing airbus and boeing planes are fine. [0] https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/air-france-has-whip-around-among-passengers-to-pay-for-fuel-after-emergency-stop-in-syria-26887990.html https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/air-franc... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

KptMarchewa 6y ago

If you'd read the website you linked more carefully, you'd see the reason: >Also excluded are aircraft models have no fatal events involving airline passengers: >Airbus: A220, A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A340, A350, A380 A300 and A310 are old planes, not in service in reasonable airlines.