4 ms·

The limit is five why's and often you can't even get that. Planes still crash. Perhaps we've pulled on this thread as much as we can. Especially with long ass a

by th0ma5 3y ago

The limit is five why's and often you can't even get that. Planes still crash. Perhaps we've pulled on this thread as much as we can. Especially with long ass articles like this that say nothing new. Seriously, what are we expecting to learn. This is like a plane at the bottom of the ocean never to be found. We'll never know what happened to this plane, and we don't have to. We know that situation was probably poor pilot mental health but pilots still have to lie about antidepressants. We don't need to find that plane to fix that.

khazhoux 3y ago
> We'll never know what happened to this plane, You've decided the truth is unknowable, no good would come from knowing the truth, and searching for the truth is itself causing harm.
- th0ma5 3y ago
  Well we stopped looking for it though
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Only after it became effectively impossible to find it or recover anything useful. That’s not anything like the Wuhan lab, which still exists and has many survivors and still has tons of evidence that hasn’t been corroded away by years of seawater. You edited in your quip about antidepressants and it just made your point even worse. There was still a significant amount to learn about what he did to the copilot and what the actual flight route was. There were multiple parties outside of the plane that had to be incompetent in many of the possible flight paths for MH370. Your solution of “stuff more antidepressants down everyone’s throats” will not work for the coverage gaps in ATC monitoring and handoffs between boundaries. Your lackadaisical approach to “well we spent a few days looking into this and can’t see anything obvious or think there is anything to gain by knowing the truth” is far from acceptable in any root cause analysis related to loss of life. How do you unequivocally know that this can’t be traced back to a manufacturing or design flaw in a piece of containment equipment used by many BSL labs around the world? The answer is that you can’t because there is no investigation right now. Burying your head in the sand is never good enough, not even if it’s politically convenient.
kortilla 3y ago
> The limit is five why's and often you can't even get that. Planes still crash. This is a shockingly ignorant statement or willfully misleading. Air safety has improved by at least an order of magnitude[1] because of the culture of seeking out the truth, regardless of how disruptive or inconvenient. It is very rare to have a commercial airline crash now and significantly rarer to not understand exactly why (MH370 being a notable exception). Wherever you got that “often you can’t even got that” is complete and utter bullshit. 1. https://news.mit.edu/2020/study-commercial-flights-safer-ever-0124 https://news.mit.edu/2020/study-commercial-flights-safer-eve...
- th0ma5 3y ago
  The fact that commercial airlines don't have many crashes is due to a completely vertical integrated system beyond just the analysis of crashes. Are you saying we need to integrate virology globally?? I'm for that, sure. General aviation is 3x as dangerous as motorcycles.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    General aviation is irrelevant because the NTSB does not care about it nor does the FAA ratchet regulations based on it. >The fact that commercial airlines don't have many crashes is due to a completely vertical integrated system beyond just the analysis of crashes. It has nothing to do with vertical integration (or you don’t know what that term means). There are several manufacturers of airplanes, several different manufactures of the engines for them, and hundreds of airlines all with their own business models, flight routes, personnel, financing models (old vs new planes), crew models (contract maintenance vs in-house for various parts), fleet models (unified 737 like southwest, potpourri like the other majors), regional offload (skywest), etc. The only thing consistent about airlines is that they have to follow a strict set of regulations set by the FAA written in blood root caused by the NTSB. If the government took your attitude of not caring about the cause because “it’s too hard” or “we don’t think it will be useful” (despite not knowing it), commercial aviation would be just as dangerous as general aviation and nobody in their right mind would fly frequently.

by th0ma5 3y ago

khazhoux 3y ago

> We'll never know what happened to this plane, You've decided the truth is unknowable, no good would come from knowing the truth, and searching for the truth is itself causing harm.

th0ma5 3y ago
Well we stopped looking for it though
- kortilla 3y ago
  Only after it became effectively impossible to find it or recover anything useful. That’s not anything like the Wuhan lab, which still exists and has many survivors and still has tons of evidence that hasn’t been corroded away by years of seawater. You edited in your quip about antidepressants and it just made your point even worse. There was still a significant amount to learn about what he did to the copilot and what the actual flight route was. There were multiple parties outside of the plane that had to be incompetent in many of the possible flight paths for MH370. Your solution of “stuff more antidepressants down everyone’s throats” will not work for the coverage gaps in ATC monitoring and handoffs between boundaries. Your lackadaisical approach to “well we spent a few days looking into this and can’t see anything obvious or think there is anything to gain by knowing the truth” is far from acceptable in any root cause analysis related to loss of life. How do you unequivocally know that this can’t be traced back to a manufacturing or design flaw in a piece of containment equipment used by many BSL labs around the world? The answer is that you can’t because there is no investigation right now. Burying your head in the sand is never good enough, not even if it’s politically convenient.

kortilla 3y ago

> The limit is five why's and often you can't even get that. Planes still crash. This is a shockingly ignorant statement or willfully misleading. Air safety has improved by at least an order of magnitude[1] because of the culture of seeking out the truth, regardless of how disruptive or inconvenient. It is very rare to have a commercial airline crash now and significantly rarer to not understand exactly why (MH370 being a notable exception). Wherever you got that “often you can’t even got that” is complete and utter bullshit. 1. https://news.mit.edu/2020/study-commercial-flights-safer-ever-0124 https://news.mit.edu/2020/study-commercial-flights-safer-eve...

th0ma5 3y ago
The fact that commercial airlines don't have many crashes is due to a completely vertical integrated system beyond just the analysis of crashes. Are you saying we need to integrate virology globally?? I'm for that, sure. General aviation is 3x as dangerous as motorcycles.
- kortilla 3y ago
  General aviation is irrelevant because the NTSB does not care about it nor does the FAA ratchet regulations based on it. >The fact that commercial airlines don't have many crashes is due to a completely vertical integrated system beyond just the analysis of crashes. It has nothing to do with vertical integration (or you don’t know what that term means). There are several manufacturers of airplanes, several different manufactures of the engines for them, and hundreds of airlines all with their own business models, flight routes, personnel, financing models (old vs new planes), crew models (contract maintenance vs in-house for various parts), fleet models (unified 737 like southwest, potpourri like the other majors), regional offload (skywest), etc. The only thing consistent about airlines is that they have to follow a strict set of regulations set by the FAA written in blood root caused by the NTSB. If the government took your attitude of not caring about the cause because “it’s too hard” or “we don’t think it will be useful” (despite not knowing it), commercial aviation would be just as dangerous as general aviation and nobody in their right mind would fly frequently.