6 ms·

"Received a lot of scrutiny" != "Is actually safe/problems all fixed because of said scrutiny".

0xy 6y ago
Aviation is like software. "Safe" just means redundancies and failsafes. No plane is 100% safe because no plane has experienced all possible edge cases. Usually when a plane encounters a mechanical failure or experiences an incident (whether that be a crash or something less serious), it's because the plane was operating in a case that had never been considered or encountered before. So no, I don't think every conceivable problem has been worked out because that's an impossibility. Unknown unknowns of aviation prevent that from ever occurring. However, this plane in particular has had multiple independent regulators and thousands of independent pilots involved in the process to clear it. Additionally, pilots will receive new Max-specific training on the MCAS software so they'll be more aware of it and its operating modes from now on. I would fly on a 737 Max and I'd have no problem taking family with me. You're more likely to be in a car accident by a substantial margin.
- kqr 6y ago
  Safe does not mean redundancies and failsafes. Back in the days, when we had much simpler systems, and the primary type of safety problem was component failure. Then yes, safety was about redundancies and failsafes. That is actually fairly easy: bring me a list of all components and I can come up with reasonable redundancy schemes for them. Modern systems (including the operation of commercial airliners) are generally already built with reliable and redundant components. Safety problems tend to arise in the interaction between subsystems. That is a problem that can't be redundancied away. That is also why it's close to impossible to work out every conceivable problem, as you say. The number of components is comparatively small compared to the number of ways in which subsystems interact. Especially considering some of those subsystems are in fact humans.

0xy 6y ago

Aviation is like software. "Safe" just means redundancies and failsafes. No plane is 100% safe because no plane has experienced all possible edge cases. Usually when a plane encounters a mechanical failure or experiences an incident (whether that be a crash or something less serious), it's because the plane was operating in a case that had never been considered or encountered before. So no, I don't think every conceivable problem has been worked out because that's an impossibility. Unknown unknowns of aviation prevent that from ever occurring. However, this plane in particular has had multiple independent regulators and thousands of independent pilots involved in the process to clear it. Additionally, pilots will receive new Max-specific training on the MCAS software so they'll be more aware of it and its operating modes from now on. I would fly on a 737 Max and I'd have no problem taking family with me. You're more likely to be in a car accident by a substantial margin.

kqr 6y ago
Safe does not mean redundancies and failsafes. Back in the days, when we had much simpler systems, and the primary type of safety problem was component failure. Then yes, safety was about redundancies and failsafes. That is actually fairly easy: bring me a list of all components and I can come up with reasonable redundancy schemes for them. Modern systems (including the operation of commercial airliners) are generally already built with reliable and redundant components. Safety problems tend to arise in the interaction between subsystems. That is a problem that can't be redundancied away. That is also why it's close to impossible to work out every conceivable problem, as you say. The number of components is comparatively small compared to the number of ways in which subsystems interact. Especially considering some of those subsystems are in fact humans.