4 ms·

> The trend is heading the wrong way. Contrary to this sentiment, air traffic safety continues to improve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and

> The trend is heading the wrong way. Contrary to this sentiment, air traffic safety continues to improve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_inciden... If anything, air travel is so safe now that non-fatal incidents such as this weeks' stand out more than they would have in previous decades. And in comparison, driving is getting much more dangerous (at least in the US). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

not-my-account 3y ago
But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? What's wrong with pointing that out and being concerned?
- legitster 3y ago
  I have concerns, but not enough not to fly. Everything I do in life is a calculated risk. If you told me my toaster was 3 times as likely to kill me today I would still probably toast my bread knowing that the base rate was already pretty low. If anything, knowing that all of the headline grabbing incidents has been confined to one product line at one company, and watching the amount of scrutiny they are receiving for it makes me feel safer overall.
  - nubb1nz 3y ago
    [dead]
- gruez 3y ago
  > But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? "systemic failure within Boeing" isn't necessarily inconsistent with "air traffic safety continues to improve". For instance, better pilot training and safety regulations might make flying even safer despite Boeing creating more crashes.
- stouset 3y ago
  > But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. We aren't. There were fatal issues with one system (MCAS) on one line of planes. This was addressed, and since then there have been zero fatalities (or injuries) caused by design and/or engineering issues by this manufacturer. Their safety record is not substantially different from that of Airbus (who have their own design issues, IMO, such as non-linked pilot controls which has also contributed toward hull loss and passenger deaths). The MCAS issue was, to be clear, completely inexcusable and both regulator and management heads should have rolled over this. I am not happy with our anemic response to this incident. And yes, one or two people could have potentially died due to this latest incident. It should be investigated and fixed. Beyond that there are wider aspects of the MBA-ification of Boeing that ought to (and I hope but don't expect will) drive regulatory and business change in this country. But the fact remains that once the issues with MCAS were resolved, Boeing-designed and -assembled airframes have resumed a track record of safety that eclipses that of any other transportation industry. Again, we can, should, and are expecting that every issue is a learning moment to improve the practices of the industry as a whole.
  - not-my-account 3y ago
    Sorry to pester, but here you go https://www.ft.com/content/1588974e-db75-4a02-9aff-deb0b75ed379?shareType=nongift https://www.ft.com/content/1588974e-db75-4a02-9aff-deb0b75ed... Where is this for airbus?
  - bitcharmer 3y ago
    > Boeing-designed and -assembled airframes have resumed a track record of safety that eclipses that of any other transportation industry. Could you please share some data to back this claim? For example comparison of the number of technical incidents per airframe in use for Boeing vs Airbus?
    - stouset 3y ago
      Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_in... You'll note the last time a major carrier in the U.S. experienced a fatality due to an engineering, manufacturing, and/or design error attributable to Boeing was in 1996, when a spark in the center fuel tank in a 747 caused it to explode midair. Before that, 1994. Then 1991, 1989, and 1988. We did also see one fatality aboard a 737-700 in 2018, but this was due to an issue with the CFM engine and which isn't attributable to Boeing. Given this, it's pretty obvious on face value that—however you slice it—flying on a Boeing airframe on a major U.S. carrier is safer than every other form of transportation, including literally just walking. Driving, buses, trains, trams, bicycling, scootering, ziplining, whatever. They're all less safe.
dionidium 3y ago
You'll sometimes see this dismissed almost derisively as, "people think they're in control when they're driving, but lack agency while flying, so that's why they fear the latter more." But that's completely true! Not every driver on the road is at equal risk of a fatal accident. A significant percentage of all fatal accident involve speeding, reckless driving, and/or alcohol consumption, to say nothing of distractions like cell phone usage. So you do have quite a bit of control on the road and exactly none in the air.
- stouset 3y ago
  Even "safe" drivers who aren't speeding, driving recklessly, or consuming alcohol are at greater risk of death and injury than on any major U.S. air carrier. So you do have control, and can put yourself into a safer cohort of drivers, but the best you can do still falls wildly short of the state of aviation safety.
  - floxy 3y ago
    In this age-of-big-data, it seems like you should be able to find data on each traffic fatality for the past ten years. Things like time of day, ages/demographics of drivers, demographics of victims, street address/gps coordinates, make/model of vehicles involved, blood alcohol level of impaired drivers, court determination of responsible party, etc.. Does anyone know where to find this?
- slingnow 3y ago
  This isn't an argument about control, it's about safety. Control is completely irrelevant to the absolute probability of dying when taking one form of transportation vs another. You may be 100% in control of a scenario where you are highly likely to die, and 0% in control of a situation where you could essentially live until you die of natural causes. In this case, even if you exercise 100% of the control afforded to you by driving a car, you are more likely to die in a car than you are in an airplane.
- caskstrength 3y ago
  You don't have control over drunk-driver-in-heavy-pickup-truck-who-is-browsing-instagram-while-speeding crushing into you on the road.

not-my-account 3y ago

But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? What's wrong with pointing that out and being concerned?

legitster 3y ago
I have concerns, but not enough not to fly. Everything I do in life is a calculated risk. If you told me my toaster was 3 times as likely to kill me today I would still probably toast my bread knowing that the base rate was already pretty low. If anything, knowing that all of the headline grabbing incidents has been confined to one product line at one company, and watching the amount of scrutiny they are receiving for it makes me feel safer overall.
- nubb1nz 3y ago
  [dead]
gruez 3y ago
> But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? "systemic failure within Boeing" isn't necessarily inconsistent with "air traffic safety continues to improve". For instance, better pilot training and safety regulations might make flying even safer despite Boeing creating more crashes.
stouset 3y ago
> But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. We aren't. There were fatal issues with one system (MCAS) on one line of planes. This was addressed, and since then there have been zero fatalities (or injuries) caused by design and/or engineering issues by this manufacturer. Their safety record is not substantially different from that of Airbus (who have their own design issues, IMO, such as non-linked pilot controls which has also contributed toward hull loss and passenger deaths). The MCAS issue was, to be clear, completely inexcusable and both regulator and management heads should have rolled over this. I am not happy with our anemic response to this incident. And yes, one or two people could have potentially died due to this latest incident. It should be investigated and fixed. Beyond that there are wider aspects of the MBA-ification of Boeing that ought to (and I hope but don't expect will) drive regulatory and business change in this country. But the fact remains that once the issues with MCAS were resolved, Boeing-designed and -assembled airframes have resumed a track record of safety that eclipses that of any other transportation industry. Again, we can, should, and are expecting that every issue is a learning moment to improve the practices of the industry as a whole.
- not-my-account 3y ago
  Sorry to pester, but here you go https://www.ft.com/content/1588974e-db75-4a02-9aff-deb0b75ed379?shareType=nongift https://www.ft.com/content/1588974e-db75-4a02-9aff-deb0b75ed... Where is this for airbus?
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  > Boeing-designed and -assembled airframes have resumed a track record of safety that eclipses that of any other transportation industry. Could you please share some data to back this claim? For example comparison of the number of technical incidents per airframe in use for Boeing vs Airbus?
  - stouset 3y ago
    Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_in... You'll note the last time a major carrier in the U.S. experienced a fatality due to an engineering, manufacturing, and/or design error attributable to Boeing was in 1996, when a spark in the center fuel tank in a 747 caused it to explode midair. Before that, 1994. Then 1991, 1989, and 1988. We did also see one fatality aboard a 737-700 in 2018, but this was due to an issue with the CFM engine and which isn't attributable to Boeing. Given this, it's pretty obvious on face value that—however you slice it—flying on a Boeing airframe on a major U.S. carrier is safer than every other form of transportation, including literally just walking. Driving, buses, trains, trams, bicycling, scootering, ziplining, whatever. They're all less safe.

dionidium 3y ago

You'll sometimes see this dismissed almost derisively as, "people think they're in control when they're driving, but lack agency while flying, so that's why they fear the latter more." But that's completely true! Not every driver on the road is at equal risk of a fatal accident. A significant percentage of all fatal accident involve speeding, reckless driving, and/or alcohol consumption, to say nothing of distractions like cell phone usage. So you do have quite a bit of control on the road and exactly none in the air.

stouset 3y ago
Even "safe" drivers who aren't speeding, driving recklessly, or consuming alcohol are at greater risk of death and injury than on any major U.S. air carrier. So you do have control, and can put yourself into a safer cohort of drivers, but the best you can do still falls wildly short of the state of aviation safety.
- floxy 3y ago
  In this age-of-big-data, it seems like you should be able to find data on each traffic fatality for the past ten years. Things like time of day, ages/demographics of drivers, demographics of victims, street address/gps coordinates, make/model of vehicles involved, blood alcohol level of impaired drivers, court determination of responsible party, etc.. Does anyone know where to find this?
slingnow 3y ago
This isn't an argument about control, it's about safety. Control is completely irrelevant to the absolute probability of dying when taking one form of transportation vs another. You may be 100% in control of a scenario where you are highly likely to die, and 0% in control of a situation where you could essentially live until you die of natural causes. In this case, even if you exercise 100% of the control afforded to you by driving a car, you are more likely to die in a car than you are in an airplane.
caskstrength 3y ago
You don't have control over drunk-driver-in-heavy-pickup-truck-who-is-browsing-instagram-while-speeding crushing into you on the road.