4 ms·
Something about airplanes really brings out the illogical side of otherwise very smart folks. You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few mo
by Alupis 2y ago
Something about airplanes really brings out the illogical side of otherwise very smart folks.
You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few months - during which millions and millions of miles where traveled in perfectly safe Boeing aircraft of all ages and models, all over the world.
It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft.
Knee-jerk reactions and declarations like this are as foolish as naïve.
- chatmasta 2y agoAnd I’m more likely to die on a Boeing than an Airbus, so as long as we’re comparing micromort risks, why is my survival preference rational only above some threshold of risk differential? There’s also the “vote with your wallet” aspect of it. I don’t like the direction Boeing is moving. Their past safety profile is less relevant to me than their future trajectory. (Also, I take the train to the airport, and I minimize highway driving precisely because of its high relative risk.)
- Alupis 2y agoAirbus has their share of issues as well. You just haven't cared to read about them. In fact, several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks. I don't mean this is a disparaging way, but this perspective is naïve and ignorant.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoWell let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infographic after a quick search which implies Boeing is a lot worse than Airbus. https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg
- Alupis 2y agoThis graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoIf you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
- Alupis 2y agoLast I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago[flagged]
- Alupis 2y agoI asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoYou never asked me for data, you were just implying Boeing isn't as bad as everyone says. So I said let's quantify it. And then you started getting upset with the data presented to you. I said to provide better data if you have it, and you still have provided no data. If you have data that supports Boeing being as safe as Airbus, please share it.
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago> several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks. Example please? I’m fairly well read on aviation incidents and I can’t recall a case of an accident being caused by this in particular.
- Alupis 2y agoAir France 447[1] went down in no small part due to conflicting pilot stick inputs (with neither being aware of the other's actions). As with all aviation tragedies, there never is one single failure, but here the stick control scheme played a non-trivial part. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
- HL33tibCe7 2y agoI wouldn’t say that this incident was “the result of” the sidestick issue. The fact that the airplane was in an upset at all was the result of prior miscommunication and pilot error, and while the sidestick confusion hampered the recovery, the crew should have realised what was going on, especially considering the “dual input” warning. I do agree the Airbus sidestick setup is stupid, and certainly contributed to this incident. But it’s a different order of stupid to Boeing’s recent malfunctions. I don’t think it makes sense to equivocate here.
- Alupis 2y agoI disagree only slightly. In a more traditional control arrangement, both controls are slaved together to provide immediate feedback on input. With all of the confusion going on in that cockpit at that time, audible warnings likely were not as effective as it would have been to feel the stick move in an unexpected way. But yes, aircraft crashes are rarely if ever the result of a single point of failure. It's always a cascade of failures that leads up to the crash.
- dredmorbius 2y agoMultiple reports cite the controls issue as contributing to the incident, e.g.: CBS News aviation and safety expert Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger explained that he believes that the disappearance would have been less likely to have happened if the plane had been a Boeing instead of an Airbus. This is because the control wheels are larger and more obvious. <https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57587193/four-years-later-lessons-from-air-france-flight-447 https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnew...> (More in the previously-linked Wikipedia article.)
- integricho 2y agocough up some data or shut up
- chasil 2y agoLooking at today's AV Herald, I see a collection of A)ccidents and I)ncidents from June 27th to July 9th. If I have counted correctly, Airbus appears to be involved in a total of 11. Boeing appears to total 30. A number of these listings do not involve equipment that was provided or supported by the airframe manufacturer. https://avherald.com/ https://avherald.com/
- Alupis 2y agoAgain, in the US there are vastly more Boeing aircraft than Airbus. Incidents and Accidents include a huge array of things, including low tire pressure, bird strikes, going off the runway, near misses etc. Many of which have absolutely nothing to do with Boeing as a manufacturer or their aircraft safety records.
- whimsicalism 2y agoi can see it making sense if the flight price and other details are identical, but even the remotest difference you care about (like a $1 price differential) should matter more than this
- whatevaa 2y agoI hate that statement. People have some level of control over their trip to airport. At the plane you are at the mercy of airline, pilots and airframe manufacturer. Failure to understand this psichological effect and just using naked statistics is naive too.
- williamcotton 2y agoDon’t you have no control over what other drivers are doing, nor control over the manufacturing of your vehicle?
- onemoresoop 2y agoToo many safety concerns raised by whistleblowers or stories about how poorly Boeing is being managed are not good reasons to risk your life. Why would you do it when there's an alternative? Maybe if flying with Boeing was heavily discounted people would want to incur the risk.
- thegrim33 2y agoYou're basing your decision off a handful of anecdotal reports whereas you could instead look at the literal billions of data points that say you have a better chance of winning your state lottery than ever dying on a Boeing plane. If you're worried about your safety, isn't the safety data what you should base your decisions off of?
- EricE 2y agoHandful? What are we up to - four? - magically dead Boeing whistleblowers? How many dead whistleblowers does it take before it moves from anecdotal to something else?
- onemoresoop 2y ago>You're basing your decision off a handful of anecdotal reports whereas you could instead look at the literal billions of data points that say you have a better chance of winning your state lottery than ever dying on a Boeing plane. If you're worried about your safety, isn't the safety data what you should base your decisions off of? It's your life, do what you want with it and I'll do the same with mine. Im aware that it may not be a rational decision, but a rational decision should be based on trust and trust is long gone. And there's an alternative, why risk it?
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoIt is essentially already discounted because [choosing to fly either Airbus or Boeing] is way more efficient and cheaper than [look for routes that don't fly Boeing].
- simion314 2y agoYou are assuming that OP is doing math and made some mistake, but what if it is more then math. now can you understand? Also you failed to provide the math proof that the user is wrong and Boeing is equal or better in safety then alternatives. In case you failed the understand, it is also about what we feel, I feel a GIANT negativity towards Sony because the shit they pulled to me and others so no mather what some apologists would try to spin things bringing math or other correct sounding logic I will not do business with assholes if I have an alternative, even if I pay a few cents more.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y agoI have said this before: I don’t worry about dying. I’m using my power as a customer to send a message to the market that I do not appreciate Boeing’s behavior. It’s a tiny message but that’s as much as capitalism gives me.
- hsshhshshjk 2y agoWell said. Direct register your stocks too. Use all the benefits the system has to offer.
- munk-a 2y agoCan I ask for clarification about what you don't appreciate about their behavior? Some of the reasons I've seen have been focused on the MBA-izationation of the company leadership, the relaxing of quality controls and the lack of long term R&D investment - I don't want to misattribute your sentiment though.
- hindsightbias 2y agoIf you dissuade them, that just leaves our flights more crowded.
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago> It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft. You're conflating two issues here. Yes, air travel is safer than any other means of travel. But comparing apples to apples (Boeing vs Airbus), Boeing has twice as many incidents per 100k flights than Airbus. It's not unreasonable to prefer one to the other, however safe they both might be in the grand scheme of things.
- pton_xd 2y agoIf I dislike a companies business practices, I will stop paying for their products. It's really that simple.
- anvuong 2y agoWell statistically Airbus is currently safer than Boeing, and as a consumer I have a choice to choose which plane to fly in, at least for my regular routes. Now you tell me why should I pick Boeing over Airbus?
- whimsicalism 2y agoif the time is even 5 minutes better or the price even $1 better, that should trump any difference in risk profile
- EricE 2y agoKnee-jerk? The entire flawed premise of the Max development was based on the economics of not having to retrain/re-certify flight crews above all else. No thank you! The planes do things that Boing didn't tell the pilots about. That's not confidence instilling! Juan Brown of the Blancolerio youtube channel has mentioned that on at least two different occasions - and as a professional pilot was pretty miffed at basically being mislead by Boeing. What we are seeing in Boeing are not just one-off lapses, but systemic failures in judgement and processes. Software processes, manufacturing processes, test and validation processes. There is serious rot at Boeing and until they get back to an engineering focus I won't be flying on any of their newer stuff - period!
- jrflowers 2y ago> You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few months This is true so long as you define “a couple” to mean “any number” https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239132703/boeing-timeline-737-max-9-controversy-door-plug https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239132703/boeing-timeline-73... Boeing just pled guilty to criminal charges yesterday stemming from two crashes. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/business/boeing-doj-criminal-charges/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/business/boeing-doj-criminal-... And there have been several whistleblowers talking about problems in production recently. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/business/boeing-whistleblower-safety-hearing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/business/boeing-whistleblower... It seems like your position is “I simply do not care about these things, personally” and anything else is foolish and naive
- snakeyjake 2y ago>It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft. For many people this is true. For me it is not. I drive one of the safest cars ever created (45,000 sold, zero occupant deaths so far in both the US and EU) in an area that, in the United States, has the lowest traffic fatalities per capita and per 100 million miles driven, and I am in a demographic group that makes me, "StAtIsTiCaLlY" the safest driver on the road. I've also received defensive driving training through a former job, held a CDL for over a decade (which makes me even safer than a regular driver), and have no health issues. My local airport is served, mainly, by the 737NG and MAX. The MAX has a fatal hull loss rate of 1.48 per million departures, or 0.06 per 40,000. I have made over 40,000 "departures" in my car and have a confirmed, irrefutable, unquestionable fatal hull loss rate of 0.00 per 40,000. You cannot use miles flown or driven as a comparison because of the nature of airline incidents, which tend (90%+) to occur on takeoff or landing.