5 ms·

You’re right, the goals were in a stupid place to begin with. I see no honest reason in the scope of this discussion to make this distinction. The regionals exp

by epcoa 3y ago

You’re right, the goals were in a stupid place to begin with. I see no honest reason in the scope of this discussion to make this distinction. The regionals expand the network of the majors, it’s not like they overlap. People buy and use these services just like the major airlines. The distinction is interesting in the context of comparing the relative safety of the regionals but in a discussion about general airline passenger safety it is disingenuous.

stouset 3y ago
My lack of including that flight was a mistake. I was unaware that Comair was operating as a subsidiary of Delta. Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot. No manufacturer was at fault here. And even if you include this flight in the data, flying in the U.S. is safer than any other form of travel. I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. I chose to limit it to major commercial airlines because that is what most people fly on, and it removes extremely small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices and which are crewed by relatively low-hour pilots who are working up toward qualifying for a major. It also eliminates cargo aircraft which are not relevant. And lastly, I’m choosing to include only passengers to eliminate things like people walking onto active runways. Hopefully you can understand why I chose these limitations. Not to skew the data, but because it is most relevant to most people on this site, and because it’s not really insightful or helpful to point out that there are many more crashes in the many countries out there with lax safety practices.
- epcoa 3y ago
  > Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot Indeed it does not, which made the omission more strange or innocent. What was ridiculous was the apologia subthread. > small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices, with relatively low-hour pilots. There have been some improvements (in part due to these accidents) but this isn’t so far off from the regionals which was definitely a factor in both Comair and Colgan. But crucially the majors are going to sell you a connecting ticket on them like any other, and they code share and mile just the same. Many of them are wholly owned to boot.
  - stouset 3y ago
    It was not my intent to exclude regionals operating regularly-scheduled white-label service for the majors. It was my intent to exclude microscopic commercial operators doing charter flights, tourism, and other similar activities. I sincerely apologize for the omission, I did not recognize that that Comair flight was operating under the United banner.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      Then you also have to count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight_101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight... and it's 20 fatalities. That was a regularly scheduled flight by a US carrier.
      - stouset 3y ago
        Chalk’s Ocean was not a major airline and it was not a regional airline performing white-label service for a major airline. I hope you can recognize that a company privately operating a fleet of seven floatplanes is not particularly relevant to a discussion about the safety of mass passenger air travel, in much the same way that a carnival operating a rollercoaster is not meaningful when discussing passenger rail.
        TylerE 3y ago
        Why isn't it relevant? They obeyed the exact same rules and regulations (FAR Part 121). That's the exact same part of theregs that applies to Delta and United. They weren't a charter or sightseeing operator. They were, prior to the their closure, the oldest operating airline in the US and something like #3 worldwide, post-dating only KLM and one of the other European flag carriers. (Lufthansa, maybe? I don't have the list handy)
        stouset 3y ago
        I'm pretty sure the US majors aren't flying airframes that haven't rolled off a production line in half a century, from manufacturers that shuttered their doors over a decade prior. I'm also pretty sure that you, nor anyone you know, nor anyone they know has ever flown on Chalk's.
- avar 3y ago
  > I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. The high-quality training that resulted in a pilot being unable to discern the correct runway to use? Your line of argument here and elsewhere in this thread is nonsense, especially because the very US authorities you're lauding disagree with you. If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
  - stouset 3y ago
    > The high-quality training that resulted in a pilot being unable to discern the correct runway to use? Is your argument that better-trained pilots are expected to be perfect? Because my argument is that better-trained pilots result in fewer overlapping holes in the Swiss cheese model. > If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The FAA being extremely cautious and willing to take serious measures to protect passenger safety is strongly in line with my argument.

by epcoa 3y ago

stouset 3y ago

My lack of including that flight was a mistake. I was unaware that Comair was operating as a subsidiary of Delta. Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot. No manufacturer was at fault here. And even if you include this flight in the data, flying in the U.S. is safer than any other form of travel. I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. I chose to limit it to major commercial airlines because that is what most people fly on, and it removes extremely small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices and which are crewed by relatively low-hour pilots who are working up toward qualifying for a major. It also eliminates cargo aircraft which are not relevant. And lastly, I’m choosing to include only passengers to eliminate things like people walking onto active runways. Hopefully you can understand why I chose these limitations. Not to skew the data, but because it is most relevant to most people on this site, and because it’s not really insightful or helpful to point out that there are many more crashes in the many countries out there with lax safety practices.

epcoa 3y ago
> Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot Indeed it does not, which made the omission more strange or innocent. What was ridiculous was the apologia subthread. > small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices, with relatively low-hour pilots. There have been some improvements (in part due to these accidents) but this isn’t so far off from the regionals which was definitely a factor in both Comair and Colgan. But crucially the majors are going to sell you a connecting ticket on them like any other, and they code share and mile just the same. Many of them are wholly owned to boot.
- stouset 3y ago
  It was not my intent to exclude regionals operating regularly-scheduled white-label service for the majors. It was my intent to exclude microscopic commercial operators doing charter flights, tourism, and other similar activities. I sincerely apologize for the omission, I did not recognize that that Comair flight was operating under the United banner.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Then you also have to count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight_101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight... and it's 20 fatalities. That was a regularly scheduled flight by a US carrier.
    - stouset 3y ago
      Chalk’s Ocean was not a major airline and it was not a regional airline performing white-label service for a major airline. I hope you can recognize that a company privately operating a fleet of seven floatplanes is not particularly relevant to a discussion about the safety of mass passenger air travel, in much the same way that a carnival operating a rollercoaster is not meaningful when discussing passenger rail.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        Why isn't it relevant? They obeyed the exact same rules and regulations (FAR Part 121). That's the exact same part of theregs that applies to Delta and United. They weren't a charter or sightseeing operator. They were, prior to the their closure, the oldest operating airline in the US and something like #3 worldwide, post-dating only KLM and one of the other European flag carriers. (Lufthansa, maybe? I don't have the list handy)
        stouset 3y ago
        I'm pretty sure the US majors aren't flying airframes that haven't rolled off a production line in half a century, from manufacturers that shuttered their doors over a decade prior. I'm also pretty sure that you, nor anyone you know, nor anyone they know has ever flown on Chalk's.
avar 3y ago
> I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. The high-quality training that resulted in a pilot being unable to discern the correct runway to use? Your line of argument here and elsewhere in this thread is nonsense, especially because the very US authorities you're lauding disagree with you. If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
- stouset 3y ago
  > The high-quality training that resulted in a pilot being unable to discern the correct runway to use? Is your argument that better-trained pilots are expected to be perfect? Because my argument is that better-trained pilots result in fewer overlapping holes in the Swiss cheese model. > If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The FAA being extremely cautious and willing to take serious measures to protect passenger safety is strongly in line with my argument.