4 ms·

Why 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
    Hi 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 ago
      You’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 ago
        Which 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 ago
          neither Japan nor South Korea are South East Asia
          • TylerE 3y ago
            What part of Asia are they then? They’re East and south of its center.
            • Lazonedo 3y ago
              The 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 ago
    The plurality are American, but not necessarily the majority. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986
    • kelnos 3y ago
      I 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 ago
    No it doesn't. That's called cherry picking data to fit a preconceived conclusion.
  • renewiltord 3y ago
    This 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 ago
      Not 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 ago
    Do you not fly internationally?
    • kelnos 3y ago
      Most 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 ago
        Ethiopian Airlines had 8 (now 6) routes to the USA.
• stouset 3y ago
  Because 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 ago
    A 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 ago
      Not 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 ago
    I 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.