3 ms·
Unfortunately, that's wishful thinking. It just doesn't work that way under any kind of profit motive. Take a look at the third diagram in this paper titled "R
by jiggawatts 3y ago
Unfortunately, that's wishful thinking. It just doesn't work that way under any kind of profit motive.
Take a look at the third diagram in this paper titled "Risk Management in a Dynamic Society": http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.863/rasmussen-safetyscience.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.863/rasmussen-safetyscience.pdf
Essentially, the "gradient descent" of business interests will invariably push safety design right to the edge that is deemed acceptable. Not to some "safe region" with decent wiggle room! The very edge.
This is why the "minimum amount of concrete" will eventually be the minimum amount of concrete, and catastrophic failures will occasionally occur, even in foreseeable circumstances.
- krisoft 3y ago> safety design right to the edge that is deemed acceptable. Not to some "safe region" with decent wiggle room! And that is why having a safety margin is what is “deemed acceptable”. We do it with aviation and it has an excelent track record.
- jiggawatts 3y agoWe did it (past tense) in aviation, up to the point where business pressures pushed things to the edge. That's how MCAS happened and 346 people died -- because due to a profit motive, the minimum number of sensors (1) were installed instead of the desired safe number (3).