5 ms·
I’m starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50 years ago: Very unsafe and expensive My expectation is that its going to take a serious accident to
by AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I’m starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50 years ago: Very unsafe and expensive
My expectation is that its going to take a serious accident to get anything to change.
I’m unaware of a highly utilized yet significantly broken system (Tacoma Narrows anyone?) that was able to improve iteratively without catastrophic failure driving improvement (Space Shuttle)
Most human systems don’t seem to have the ability to build fourth order forecasting into system design across all individual and integrated components
The idea of a “factor of safety” seems to be just completely missing in most engineering systems because tolerances mean waste and shareholders won’t allow waste that doesn’t go into their pockets
- plussed_reader 3y agoPlease qualify 'serious accident' in the wake of 2 crashes and a decompression event forcing landing.
- sixothree 3y agoThose two accidents didn't "happen here" and our news is very isolated from the rest of the world. Maybe that's what he means?
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoMy definition: Everyone on the plane has to die in a way that the plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to force structural change This is the same idea as the cynical idea of “taking advantage of a crisis” What I’m not saying here is that this is what should happen or that this is how things should happen in a normative way. I’m simply describing that humans make progress almost exclusively in response to disaster rather than proactively preventing it.
- plussed_reader 3y agoSo watching the FAA lurch to life after it delegated/abandoned its regulatory mission isn't a horrified response? Or is that business as usual in your estimation?
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoI’m not really aware of any meaningful change happening so no, seems to be business as usual
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to force structural change So basically only 9/11 or Perl Harbour would qualify.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoGreat Depression takes the cake here Pearl Harbor for sure Ozone Layer hole and the subsequent Montreal Protocol (banning of CFC) was notable in its speed and efficacy 9/11 is questionable - the response was bad and counter productive so I’d say no it doesn’t count
- patmorgan23 3y agoNo one died or was seriously injured in the decompression event. But people die in car wrecks on the highway everyday
- plussed_reader 3y agoHow does PTSD factor into your empathy radar? Is that not a serious injury and impediment to a life lived unabated?
- ejb999 3y ago>>I’m starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50 years ago: Very unsafe and expensive 50 years ago civilian aircraft deaths were, on average, 400% higher per year than now. You might want to rethink your comparison; it has never been safer to fly commercial airlines. IIRC, less than 5 people have died in the USA in commercial airline crashes since 2010.
- Fatnino 3y agoI'd be willing to bet it was safer to fly right before the 737 MAX was introduced than right now. Just a gut feeling.
- alex_lav 3y agoGut feelings are anxieties and biases.
- ejb999 3y ago...and in this case provably wrong - there have been (in the USA) just 2 deaths, in all of commercial aviation, since the 737-max was introduced in 2015 - thats 2 deaths in 9 years. In the 9 years before (2014 back to 2006) that there were ~100 deaths, so 5000% higher deaths in the 9 years before the 737Max was introduced - and even that is very, very low historically. (and for the record, not claiming the 737Max is directly responsible for those lower deaths, just that in general - and across the board - aviation has never been safer than it is now).
- Eisenstein 3y agoIn 2015 and 2016 there were 0 deliveries of 737 Max's. They were also grounded for a good part of 2019 and you are only counting one country, so your statistics should be revised.
- Fatnino 3y agoCovid makes for a very strange divot in all aviation statistics.
- amarshall 3y agoVery unsafe? In the past 14 years there have been 72 fatalities involving US Air Carriers, out of around 250 million flight hours flown[1]. That’s fewer fatalities in 14 years than there are US motor vehicle fatalities in a single day (on average). [1]: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAviationDashboard.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAv...
- crmd 3y agoHumans are bad at statistics. For example the incident at three mile island in 1979 didn't kill anyone, but the accident crystallized anti-nuclear safety concerns among activists and the general public, and accelerated the decline of efforts to build new reactors.
- nmca 3y agorequiring events to kill anyone as evidence of danger of death is a foolish standard, obviously. People are "bad at statistics" in the sense that the very real evidence coming from, e.g. 3 mile, is hard to bring into statistical models appropriately, not in the sense that there was no evidence there.
- Rallen89 3y agoSo what are you basing it on if not deaths/flight hours
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- j4yav 3y agoScary news reports per minute
- amarshall 3y agoFor Three Mile, indeed there is some disagreement on the long-term non-fatal health effects. That any causal effect is unclear does not mean it does not exist, but does suggest that, even if it does, it is likely small. (Admittedly, I have not done a thorough review of the data on this). Nevertheless, your point carries to the true comparison of nuclear power: fossil fuel power and its long-term economic and health impact. For the airline risk example: US Airline Carriers in past 14 years: 268 serious injuries (same source as above). Depending on the year, that’s about the same or less than the number of road traffic related injuries in the US in just one hour (on average)[1]. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191900/road-traffic-related-injuries-and-fatalities-in-the-us-since-1988/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/191900/road-traffic-rela...
- sokoloff 3y ago> I’m starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50 years ago: Very unsafe and expensive General aviation* is expensive and dramatically less safe than commercial aviation. I'm not sure what that has to do with Kayak's offering model-filtering in their UI (Kayak is selling commercial aviation tickets, which has nothing to do with general aviation). * - Civil aviation, minus commercial air carrier minus aerial application, pipeline patrol, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation
- cityofdelusion 3y agoGeneral aviation is and always has been unsafe, due to the prevalence of single engine aircraft and unskilled pilots. Did you mean commercial aviation?
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoYeah I did. I’m a private pilot so sometimes i mix em up. Thanks
- patmorgan23 3y agoCommercial aviation is incredibly save. Yes there are accidents, but there are accidents in every human system. Commercial aviation is the safest way to travel even with all the mistakes Boeing has been making lately. You are far more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane.