4 ms·
can someone else tell me if the actual relative risk is significant? my gut tells me no
by frankthepickle 3y ago
can someone else tell me if the actual relative risk is significant? my gut tells me no
- highwaylights 3y agoCan’t answer this with data, although I’m not sure how many more headlines we need to see before we can collectively accept that something is very, very wrong with this plane at a fundamental level.
- bronco21016 3y agoGiven the number of airframes that rolled out over the decades that didn’t have this issue, I’m inclined to believe there isn’t necessarily an issue with the aircraft. Now Boeing’s manufacturing quality over the last 5-10 years though, that seems to be a major problem. Look at the issues the US Armed forces have had with receiving incomplete aircraft with missing parts and misplaced tools. The entire industry seems to be under strain since COVID. There was a massive brain drain across the entire system and it’s causing issues at all levels. Many working in the industry are on edge trying to maintain safety.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y agoThe 737 MAX 9 entered service in 2018. Not even 1 decade for these, let alone multiple "decades".
- bronco21016 3y agoThe fuselage, which failed in this instance, is a stretched copy of every other 737 fuselage.
- ReflectedImage 3y agoVery high. The incident suggests that there will be many more incidents in the years to come with different parts of the plane. It's a quality control thing.
- stouset 3y agoThere have been zero incidents involving passenger injury or death since the MCAS issue was fixed. Meanwhile there are something like 1,300 of them in regular service. You’ll note, maybe, that pilots continue to fly the plane without raising a stink. If there was a serious concern for their own safety, you’d hear something about pilots refusing to fly them.
- dap 3y agoThe FAA has grounded all of these aircraft. I think right now we have good reason to believe the risk is significant.