4 ms·
> none appear to have actually experienced a structural failure, suggests the probability is low. Low probabilty is much too high for this domain, of course. T
by wolverine876 3y ago
> none appear to have actually experienced a structural failure, suggests the probability is low.
Low probabilty is much too high for this domain, of course. The question is, how low?
In airplane design, almost all catastrophic failures happen only the first time.
- MaxBarraclough 3y ago> In airplane design, almost all catastrophic failures happen only the first time. Presumably you meant airliners specifically?
- wolverine876 3y agoWithout knowing the specific technical meaning of 'airliners', yes that sounds about right. Maybe 'non-experimental airplanes'?
- marcosdumay 3y agoGeneral aviation is full of repeating disasters. And agricultural aviation is well, about as safe as a bunch of cowboys operating tractors.
- wolverine876 3y agoRepeating catastrophic design flaws though? I'd think the even the most inhumane manufacturers would face too much liability to allow the second one to happen.
- MaxBarraclough 3y agoWhat counts as a catastrophic design flaw? Piston engines sometimes stop unexpectedly. This happens in general aviation, and sadly it quite often results in a fatal crash. If you ban piston engines and only allow turbine engines (which are much less prone to unexpectedly stopping), you effectively kill general aviation.
- throwup238 3y agoThose repeating disasters are mostly misjudging the weather and miscalculating fuel.