5 ms·
It is irrational. Since November 2001, there has been one death aboard a major airline operating in the U.S.[1]. That was a Southwest flight where an entire en
by stouset 3y ago
It is irrational.
Since November 2001, there has been one death aboard a major airline operating in the U.S.[1]. That was a Southwest flight where an entire engine self-destructed. It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did.
You might choose to include one more. An Asiana flight tumbled end over end after arriving short at SFO. Everyone survived the crash, but a passenger was killed when an emergency responder hit them with a vehicle, unable to see them due to firefighting foam.[2] The accident was again not caused by anything related to Boeing.
You are safer aboard any aircraft operated by a major American airline than you are on any other form of transportation. Including walking.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
- medstrom 3y agoLet's wait for statistics on the new plane :)
- m_a_g 3y agoWhy are you including only US airlines for comparing a plane model's safety? That seems very convenient. And even worse you are using other planes data as well.
- gruez 3y agoBecause most readers of this site are American, and fly on airlines from the US. When assessing their risk, it makes sense to use US statistics.
- stephenr 3y agoHi non American here, I have never and likely will never fly on an American airline, but I'd very much like to not die because some dickhead cut costs and another dickhead drilled the wrong holes in a part. The implicit assumption that all readers are Americans is ridiculous enough, making it an explicit reason for fudging the numbers to make a tire fire of public safety seem like it's just a dumpster fire is absurd.
- stouset 3y agoYou’ll be happy to learn that Boeing and Airbus have roughly equivalent safety records. If you wish to fly safely, fly in countries and on airlines that observe stricter requirements on pilot training, rest, and CRM, and which are rigorous about maintaining their planes.
- TylerE 3y agoWhich can basically be translated as avoid (especially) Africa, South East Asia (that isn't Japan or South Korea), and most of South America. Eastern Europe is a dodgy but no on the same level.
- zht 3y agoneither Japan nor South Korea are South East Asia
- TylerE 3y agoWhat part of Asia are they then? They’re East and south of its center.
- Lazonedo 3y agoThe vocabulary that defines geographical terms was always politically loaded and never meant to be interpreted in a scientific, rational manner. South east asia doesn't literally mean "everything that is south and east in Asia". Just like how Europe isn't an actual continent but an arbitrary border that defines itself, in reality, by "the place where white people live in the West of the continent and who aren't Russians". Because the actual contiguous landmass, is, well, Eurasia, and Europe is an arbitrary human color that paints something that doesn't exist over the world. https://dppa.un.org/en/northeast-asia https://dppa.un.org/en/northeast-asia The United Nations define Northeast Asia as being: Japan, China, Mongolia, South and North Korea. From wikipedia : > The term Northeast Asia was popularized during the 1930s by American historian and political scientist Robert Kerner. Under Kerner's definition, "Northeast Asia" includes the Japanese Archipelago, the Korean Peninsula, the Mongolian Plateau, the Northeast China Plain, and the mountainous regions of the Russian Far East, stretching from the Lena River in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east >The definition of Northeast Asia is not static but often changes according to the context in which it is discussed. If you think really hard about what those countries have in common, something that isn't related to a rational view of geography, it's that they're asians who don't look too brown. Yes, the origins of the definitions of SEA vs NEA are racially motivated and they're terms we're stuck with because most of the world knows what you mean when you talk about SEA vs NEA. https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/acta/15/kotokin/kotokin.html https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/acta/15/kotokin/ko... > "On the intimate frontiers between the Russian and the Chinese empires," Kerner wrote in the 1920s, "are face to face the world's largest, fastest-growing white population and the world's largest, ablest and perhaps fastest-growing yellow population." Much the same could be said seventy years later, even if we would disavow the racial categories that provided much of the attraction for Kerner Those definitions were written by people who didn't shy away from calling others "Yellow population". But they also became part of the language enough that even entities like the United Nations won't bother trying to change them.
- Symbiote 3y agoThe plurality are American, but not necessarily the majority. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986
- kelnos 3y agoI think it's safe to say that the commenter's observations about airlines operating in the US mostly apply to airlines operating in Europe, for example. That should push us well over 50%.
- lawn 3y agoNo it doesn't. That's called cherry picking data to fit a preconceived conclusion.
- renewiltord 3y agoThis is kind of why I don't mind playing Russian Roulette. I mean, think about the chances! Despite all the times people have played the game, how many have died in San Francisco, between 3rd Street and New Montgomery Street, while it's been raining on a Monday when Lionel Messi didn't play in Hong Kong because of injury. The chances are minuscule.
- hedora 3y agoNot only that, but zero people reading this have died playing Russian Roulette while flying on a Boeing! In fact, none have died doing either of those things independently.
- mmanfrin 3y agoDo you not fly internationally?
- kelnos 3y agoMost Americans don't! I'm sure HN commenters from the US fly internationally more often than the average American, but still. And the poster upthread talked about airlines operating in the US, not just US airlines. That would include, e.g. airlines from EU countries that fly to the US, and even have some domestic hops here.
- Symbiote 3y agoEthiopian Airlines had 8 (now 6) routes to the USA.
- stouset 3y agoBecause airlines and pilots operating within the U.S. are subject to significantly more safety restrictions and regulations than much of the rest of the world. Put simply, pilots are required to undergo more training, observe best practices in CRM, and have strict requirements on how much rest is required between flights. Planes are better maintained and inspected. I’m sure there are other countries that do a good job here, but in general America is significantly more strict about these things than much of the rest of the world.
- taylortbb 3y ago> Why are you including only US airlines for comparing a plane model's safety? That seems very convenient 737 MAXs are not identical worldwide. There's a number of optional add-ons, which even discount US airlines will pay for, but emerging market discount airlines will not. Specifically for the 737 MAX crashes, it was from a faulty AoA sensor. Neither of the crashed planes had the AoA disagree alert option, but all US airlines paid extra for it. It's not something you're supposed to need, hence being an optional extra, but for obvious reasons budgets aren't as tight at North American airlines as discount airlines in emerging markets. This isn't to say we're guaranteed that an AoA disagree alert would have avoided the problem, it was undeniably a faulty design, but it probably provides an additional layer of safety. There's a reason that when the MAX returned to service it became standard equipment for all MAXs sold. So, it's not entirely correct to totally exclude planes from other countries. But there is a fair point in putting more weight on similarly configured planes.
- jacobgorm 3y agoA company reckless enough to make "no single point a failure" a pay-for optional feature is not a company whose planes I would like to fly on, regardless of where the company operating the plane is registered.
- foldr 3y agoNot trying to defend Boeing overall here, but showing an explicit indication of an AoA sensor disagreement wouldn't magically have averted the two 737 MAX crashes. The basic cause of the crashes (apart from Boeing's dumb design decisions) was the pilots' failure to correctly execute the runaway stabilizer trim recovery procedure. Given that 737 MAX pilots didn't receive any training on MCAS, it's unlikely that the warning light would have greatly influenced their response to the situation.
- stouset 3y agoI actually specifically mentioned airlines operating in the U.S., which includes international flights operated by foreign airlines. But yes, you get to the heart of the matter. The U.S. in general expends more time and effort on safety: higher-spec airplanes, more crew hours and training, better maintenance, etc. It doesn’t feel relevant to most people on this site to include airlines operating on a shoestring budget in Southeast Asia or Africa in the statistics. It also doesn’t feel fair to manufacturers to penalize them for operators that barely maintain their planes, overfly inexperienced pilots, and that lack basic safety regulation.
- defenestration 3y agoFor distance traveled flying is safer than any other form of transportation (maybe except trains?). I wonder however, what the stats are for time spent. How much safer is time spent flying, compared to other forms of transportation? Is it about equal, a bit safer or an order of magnitude safer?
- CGamesPlay 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety By hours, flying is substantially safer than car or foot, on par with trains. By quantity of trips, substantially less safe than walking.
- marcosdumay 3y agoThat's on average. The Max is historically about 30 times more dangerous than the average, putting it on the same ballpark as cars. But of course, all the historical problems have been fixed...
- defenestration 3y agoThanks for the stats! Interestingly traveling by space shuttle comes down to 70.000 deaths per 1 billion hours traveled, compared 30.8 deaths per 1 billion hours flown.
- ibejoeb 3y agoLike anything else, not all operators are equal. I probably wouldn't want to try my luck as an Amtrak frequent traveler.
- altairprime 3y agoThat Boeing’s unforced errors have not killed many people on US soil is no excuse for shoddy manufacturing practices. We should no more accept plane doors falling off due to mismanagement, than we should accept railroad cars derailing due to mismanagement. Boeing made several billion dollars a year of profits for ten years prior to Covid, but failed to reinvest it in their manufacturing practices to prevent unforced errors, which left unchecked caused a plane to catastrophically decompress in the sky. Their shareholders may think that’s acceptable, but their customers do not.
- stouset 3y agoIt is absolutely no excuse for these issues. At the same time, not flying on Boeing planes out of fear of safety is completely irrational.
- luuurker 3y agoOne needs to ignore a lot of stuff to believe these newer planes are very safe, so I'm not sure if it's completely irrational. You have a long list of fairly recent problems... the stuff around MCAS that killed people, misdrilled holes, loose or missing bolts, debris inside fuel tanks, etc. And the reason why no one died on the Alaska flight was more luck than anything. I'm not sure if everyone would be alive today had it happened later in the flight when some people remove their seat belt.
- stouset 3y agoOne needs to look at the data to believe these planes are very safe. Even if one or two people had died on the Alaska incident (which—to be clear—would have been an avoidable tragedy for which Boeing would be responsible), flying on a major airline in the U.S. is still safer than any other form of transportation. You don’t think twice about hopping into a passenger vehicle. You don’t follow the latest NHTSA crash test reports and refuse to hop in an Uber driving the “wrong” make/model vehicle. You notice plane crashes because they are so exceedingly rare while traffic fatalities are so common they’re boring and routine.
- TylerE 3y agoYour own link doesn't back that up. A Delta Connections commuter flight killed 49 in Lexington, KY in 2013.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago"Delta Connection" isn't a "major" airline. It's a regional airline that Delta relabels. It's different airlines in different parts of the country. (And it's not just Delta. United does this too, and I'm fairly sure American does.) So, the word "major" means that the GP was at least technically correct. (You can argue that it doesn't matter, because if Delta relabeled it, they should own the results...)
- TylerE 3y agoThat's a hell of a lot of goal post moving. Comair is (and was at the time) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delta. It counts.
- gruez 3y agoIt's not "goal post moving" when his original post says "major airline".
- TylerE 3y agoThe flight was operated under Delta by a subsidiary of Delta wholy owned by Delta. This would be like saying if all of the Youtube database was hacked, Google wasn't hacked. Google owns Youtube. Delta owns Comair.
- gruez 3y agoSubsidiary or not, at least one source (wikipedia) thinks the distinction exists. You might argue that the distinction doesn't matter when it comes to assessing airline safety, but that's hardly grounds to accuse someone of "moving the goalposts". The goalposts might be arbitrary, but they weren't moved.
- iudqnolq 3y ago346 people died in two similar crashes of two Boeing 747 Max planes. Boing and the FAA initially cast the blame on supposedly lower standards at the Indonesian and Ethiopian airlines operating the planes, but this was completely unsupported and incorrect speculation. Poor processes at Boeing and the FAA were in fact responsible. Unfortunately the incorrect narrative has persisted.
- Closi 3y agoAgree! By the time there were c380 Max's built, two of them had already fallen out of the sky (despite operating for only a year). That's c0.5% of the fleet falling out of the sky every 12 months! Still not too risky on an individual flight, but if you were a pilot across a 40 year flying career those odds start to stack up across your cohort! Plus it's a bizzare safety stance to try and sell "So what their planes fall out the sky much more than our competitors... It's still safer than driving!"
- Arnt 3y agoIsn't it 1%? If the oldest of the 380 has been operating for a year and they were produced at an even rate, their average age should be six months. I don't know much about car accidents, but 1%/year sounds like a lot. Can one even legally sell a car model if 1% of the cars are going to crash lethally in the first year? Or evne 0.5, or 0.2%?
- gruez 3y ago>By the time there were c380 Max's built ??? Are you talking about the 737 max?
- zerocrates 3y agoThey mean "c" as in "circa," i.e., about 380 had been delivered.
- coolspot 3y agoThat’s why god created “~” character.
- kayfox 3y ago> It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. The engine cowling was made by Boeing and was supposed to stay on when the engine lost fan blades, the cowling was what struck the side of the aircraft and broke the window in question. Boeing is redesigning the 737 cowlings to better respond to blade out failures.
- stouset 3y agoTurns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.
- sagarm 3y agoYou've excluded the >300 deaths from the two 737 MAX crashes.
- kelnos 3y agoThe poster upthread was specifically talking about deaths on airlines that operate in the US. Whether or not that's a useful distinction to make is up for grabs (I expect the point was to talk about flights that most Americans are likely to take -- and by extension most Europeans, since I believe EU airline safety records are similar), but excluding those deaths is fair based on the specifics cited.
- hedora 3y agoIf you choose criteria that arbitrarily exclude all fatal accidents after the fact, then anything can be said to be 100% safe.
- stouset 3y agoI chose criteria that reflects the reality of passenger air travel for most of HN. You can note that every carrier in the U.S. who purchased a 737 MAX opted for a more expensive configuration that included a third AOA sensor. This ensured that the MCAS accidents would not have happened for anyone flying on a major carrier in the US. I suspect this is also the case for most western European airlines, but I don't actually know. So I didn't include them. The majority of HN's user base is not spending most of their air travel on carriers operating on shoestring budgets in Africa or Southeast Asia. They are not flying most of their miles on charters run by operators with fleets of ten planes that carry a dozen or two passengers at most. They are not flying on ancient de Havillands or Grummans. They are not passengers on cargo planes. The majority of HN's user base is flying on comparatively well-funded carriers operating within jurisdictions that enforce strict controls around maintenance, pilot training, crew workload, and other wider operational considerations. This doesn't make flying risk-free, and it doesn't absolve Boeing of their responsibility in building reliable aircraft. But it does mean that the average HN commenter encounters significantly more danger crossing the street than they do when flying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nottorp 3y agoThe stereotypical American that is unaware there is a world outside their borders seems to actually exist :)
- stouset 3y agoIf I was unaware of a world outside American borders, I would not have explicitly excluded it. I make no claims regarding the safety of airlines operating in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. I don't think the safety records of those airlines are particularly relevant to the majority of those on HN nor to the manufacturers of the airplanes they operate (and which are frequently barely maintained).
- craig_s_bell 3y agoThere were a total of three fatalities resulting from Asiana 214. Two passengers died onboard, as a direct consequence of the crash. As for the third, it was later speculated that they could possibly have already died before encountering airport fire and rescue vehicles. This is still controversial; it is also possible that the original sequence of events was correct. The primary cause of the crash was a profound lack of airmanship by the flight-deck crew. There was also some mode confusion with the autopilot and autothrottle; however they should have overcome this using fundamental aviation skills. Nobody was minding the actual throttle state. Either way, it is worth noting the other two fatalities. Thank you.
- pests 3y agoThanks, I came back to point this out. Why link to a source that says directly opposite of what is being claimed? It doesn't make sense to me.
- stouset 3y agoI should have double-checked. I was going off memory. I lived in SF at the time, and I remembered only the person who died after the crash. My memory was wrong. If I could go back and amend my comment to address this (and other inconsistencies pointed out by others), I would.
- seb1204 3y agoYes it is all good until it isn't. There is no glory in prevention.