3 ms·

>> I would probably try to take that with me, as I would hate to survive the crash but then have a fatal medical event in the aftermath and not have the tools.

>> I would probably try to take that with me, as I would hate to survive the crash but then have a fatal medical event in the aftermath and not have the tools. But you might just die in the fire yourself, prioritizing a hypothetical emergency over a real one. There would also be plenty of medical personnel present once you get off the plane, they probably won't let you leave the scene without talking to one.

anigbrowl 3y ago
It's fine to take something small you can carry in one hand/keep with you through the whole flight without it being a problem. It's the luggage in the overhead baggage compartments that needs to be abandoned.
ajross 3y ago
> But you might just die in the fire yourself, prioritizing a hypothetical emergency over a real one The Two Failure Fallacy is a fatal flaw of human reasoning. It's almost never correct to engineer anything on the assumption of two bad things happening simultaneously. You do your analysis based on individual/uncorrelated failure modes. And only then do you make design choices (c.f. "defense in depth", "redundancy", etc...) about how much the interactions overlap and what the tradeoffs are. In this case, duh. Positing that emergency medical personnel are somehow unable to handle an allergy attack is silly.
- nytesky 3y ago
  Well my problem is the conditions of an airline crash (the smoke, extreme heat, etc) are triggers for our disease. It’s not a simple as a peanut allergy where you just avoid eating a certain food. I’m not convinced that medical personnel would be on hand that quickly for all emergency landings — sure if you are at a major airport. But they may not notice someone who collapsed after being triaged away from the more severely injured.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  If you're in the market for a real HN style reply, actually, almost every aviation disaster involves two or more things happening the wrong way simultaneously. Usually more than five.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Which is sort of the exception that proves the rule though, isn't it? Aviation is outrageously safe, such that all the low hanging fruit has long since been picked and they're finally cleaning up the uncorrelated failures. Other areas of engineering aren't nearly so advanced, c.f. Fukushima, which happened because of the converse failure: the designers treated two failures (power grid failure and flooded backup generators) as uncorrelated and independent when they weren't (because tsunamis follow earthquakes).
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> You do your analysis based on individual/uncorrelated failure modes. May I introduce you to Fault Tree Analysis? NUREG 0492 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0492/index.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/... One result of that is to show that there are no double failures with common cause, rather than just assuming that to be true.

anigbrowl 3y ago

It's fine to take something small you can carry in one hand/keep with you through the whole flight without it being a problem. It's the luggage in the overhead baggage compartments that needs to be abandoned.

ajross 3y ago

> But you might just die in the fire yourself, prioritizing a hypothetical emergency over a real one The Two Failure Fallacy is a fatal flaw of human reasoning. It's almost never correct to engineer anything on the assumption of two bad things happening simultaneously. You do your analysis based on individual/uncorrelated failure modes. And only then do you make design choices (c.f. "defense in depth", "redundancy", etc...) about how much the interactions overlap and what the tradeoffs are. In this case, duh. Positing that emergency medical personnel are somehow unable to handle an allergy attack is silly.

nytesky 3y ago
Well my problem is the conditions of an airline crash (the smoke, extreme heat, etc) are triggers for our disease. It’s not a simple as a peanut allergy where you just avoid eating a certain food. I’m not convinced that medical personnel would be on hand that quickly for all emergency landings — sure if you are at a major airport. But they may not notice someone who collapsed after being triaged away from the more severely injured.
whatshisface 3y ago
If you're in the market for a real HN style reply, actually, almost every aviation disaster involves two or more things happening the wrong way simultaneously. Usually more than five.
- ajross 3y ago
  Which is sort of the exception that proves the rule though, isn't it? Aviation is outrageously safe, such that all the low hanging fruit has long since been picked and they're finally cleaning up the uncorrelated failures. Other areas of engineering aren't nearly so advanced, c.f. Fukushima, which happened because of the converse failure: the designers treated two failures (power grid failure and flooded backup generators) as uncorrelated and independent when they weren't (because tsunamis follow earthquakes).
phkahler 3y ago
>> You do your analysis based on individual/uncorrelated failure modes. May I introduce you to Fault Tree Analysis? NUREG 0492 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0492/index.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/... One result of that is to show that there are no double failures with common cause, rather than just assuming that to be true.