6 ms·

Aviation is insanely reliable. The 777 flew thousands of flights per day, every day for 18 years before its first fatality. It’s why scandals like the 737 Max

Aviation is insanely reliable. The 777 flew thousands of flights per day, every day for 18 years before its first fatality. It’s why scandals like the 737 Max are so appalling. We know better. Boeing knew better.

Retric 2y ago
Personally I am amazed just what the focus on safety has achieved. The 737 Max was objectively surprisingly safe to fly at the time of the groundings. As in for the average flying passenger their odds were significantly higher to die of something else on the day of their flight than from a crash. But still we know how to do better and things improved. Imagine if we treated each individual car accident as a failure and millions of like could have been saved. It may have involved making breathalyzers a mandatory feature etc, but I suspect there’s a lot more we could do even without that.
- beerandt 2y ago
  Decades of focusing on safety are being unwound because of ~decade plus (so far) focus on efficiency and environmental regulation. You can't maximize both.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    What efficiency and environmental aspects of car design do you see as causes car accidents?
    - beerandt 2y ago
      Dozens. #1 most obvious atm is autostop. Starter gives you enough juice to enter the intersection, but engine sputters and you get tboned. Same for not providing enough acceleration/ hp. Also 1 pedal driving. Electric cars that outweigh the 'old' 'inefficient' light trucks because batteries are heavy. Harder to stop, more wear on roads. Tires that are designed to extract breaking energy over stopping. Lithium fires (not cause but much more dangerous result). Aluminum crush zones in cars not big enough to have crush zones. Every design decision is a compromise.
  - dmd 2y ago
    That's right. It's definitely those darn environmental regulations. Nothing at all to do with short-term profits and MBA-syndrome.
    - beerandt 2y ago
      Yet you probably loved cash for clunkers.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Getting old cars off the road meaningfully improved safety even if it didn’t do much for the environment.
        d110af5ccf 2y ago
        It actively harmed the environment. Once the thing has been manufactured doing anything less than driving it into the ground is wasting the upfront environmental cost.
        Retric 2y ago
        Not always. The average car in Wyoming gets driven 24,000 miles a year something getting 12 MPG is burning 2,000 gallons a year directly and another 30% indirectly from manufacture transportation and extraction of oil. That’s a lot for a 5 year old car you could easily be saving 30,000+ gallons of oil. Obviously, that’s average many cars are significantly worse. Run the numbers and swapping a high mileage but poor fuel economy car for a hybrid/EV and the payback can be a net positive.
      - dmd 2y ago
        Er, no? A program designed mostly to enrich automakers that had little or even negative environmental effect? Why would I love that?
  - ahartmetz 2y ago
    Yeah, 50+% of new cars being SUVs (gas guzzlers, kill pedestrians, easily roll over) is because of those damn environmentalists.
    - djbusby 2y ago
      And those killer Class 2b and 3+ pickups. Manufacturers push those because of less environmental regs on those vs the perfectly viable Class 1.
      - beerandt 2y ago
        Or don't try to regulate 'class 1' into something people don't want to buy. And FYI those trucks are bigger because you need more volume and moment-arm when building them out of lighter aluminum instead of heavier steel- a direct consequence of CAFE standards.
        djbusby 2y ago
        Yea, I know why. And I'm mad about it. And I love my Class 1 and am mad they are hard to find. I imagine we'd agree that CAFE was poorly done.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      This is actually true though; it’s a case of unintended consequences.
    - beerandt 2y ago
      If you regulate 'normal' cars into things people don't want to buy, don't be surprised if they want suvs or trucks instead.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        If you price gasoline higher, people don't want those SUVs or trucks. Gasoline is too damn cheap in the US. Gov't regulations work on multiple levels.
  - core_dumped 2y ago
    Focus on “efficiency” and environmental regulation? I think you mean to say cutting back on costs due to corporate greed?
- theteapot 2y ago
  x2 737 Max nose dive crashes killing all onboard within 6 months of each other is not "surprisingly safe". It's surprisingly unsafe!
  - eropple 2y ago
    Perhaps be generous with your reading of the post and consider the 737 MAX's flight record and fatality rate on a per-mile or per-passenger rate to, say, cars in the United States. Because, by the standards of other transportation methods, even the 737 MAX was very, very safe. It is a testament to the not-yet-entirely-captured regulatory regime of international flight that the 737 MAX was not considered safe enough.
    - theteapot 2y ago
      2 nose dives in 6 months apart within 2 years of first operational flights. This is not safe. This was anything but a testament to the aviation regulatory regime at the time. There was glaringly obvious engineering and procedural issues the FAA and Boeing management waived through. Is the MAX safe now? After killing over 300 people needlessly, being grounded for 1.5y, and an extensive investigation? Yeah sure, probably. To be saying what your saying, I think you mustn't of followed Max 8 MCAS debacle very closely, or at all.
      - Retric 2y ago
        First being X months apart isn’t how you calculate risk. What matters is total failure over total flights and there’s a gap between the last crash and the fleet being grounded where that risk kept on going. ~2 years * 2 flights per day * 365 days per year * ~350 aircraft would be 511,000 flights but it’s / 2 because aircraft where being delivered over time that’s 2 crashes per ~255,000 flights or 1 per ~127,000. (Edit: Actual numbers were less than half that at 3 crashes per 1 million flights.) By comparison someone living to 80 is 80 * 365 days = 29,200 days. Meaning the average day would be more than 3x as risky as taking a flight on a 737 Max. It’s not actually that simple as hospitalized patients are unlikely to fly, but you get plenty of elderly people dying from hart attacks etc on aircraft. I don’t mean to suggest the aircraft was safe compared to other commercial aircraft, (edit: it beat the DC-8 and 707 which was still in use at the time) but general aviation in the US for example is 5.3 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours not flights. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Pages/GeneralAviationDashboard.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Pages/GeneralAviationDashbo...
- AceyMan 2y ago
  > The 737 Max was objectively surprisingly safe to fly at the time of the groundings [...] e.g., "Things ran great, until ... they didn't." This gets my vote for most vacuous statement on HN this year.
  - Retric 2y ago
    The groundings happened after the 2 crashes. When the groundings happened it had the 3rd worst record of then flying large commercial jet aircraft and far from the most dangerous of commercial aircraft of all time. Tossing that many caveats and still not being the worst aircraft is shocking to many people.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Compared to other models the 737 MAX had horrific deaths per passenger mile after the accidents.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Much worse than other modern aircraft, but there’s many with worse track records globally. The DC-8 and 707 where still in use at the time (https://simpleflying.com/douglas-dc-8-active-2022/ https://simpleflying.com/douglas-dc-8-active-2022/) and had worse track records, as did the 720 which just retired. Going back to Concord which retired in the early 2000’s and was far worse. Go back further and the prop aircraft were crazy dangerous. Again it should be compared to modern aircraft, but this just shows how far we’ve come that the bar has moved this far.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      > Again it should be compared to modern aircraft Right, exactly, and this is why this sub-thread is so maddeningly weird. I'm going to compare the 737 MAX's safety record to that of the 737 NG, 777, 787, 757, as well as to Airbus' current-gen 3xx planes. I don't care how it compares to the DC-8 or 707 or 720 because it's exceedingly unlikely I'll ever fly on one of those. And I'm certainly not comparing to the kinds of small planes general aviation pilots fly, and I'm not comparing against other modes of transportation. I already know that I'm safer in a plane (even in a 737 MAX) than in a car, but if I'm choosing to drive, I'm choosing to drive. If I'm choosing to fly, then then the 737 MAX's record, coupled with how poorly Boeing has handled the situation, is a big concern to me.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > is a big concern to me And I get that, it’s obvious given the choice you pick the safer aircraft. But in a broader context the numbers are so low it’s hard to contemplate. Currently it’s 2 per 6 million flights. Spend the cost of a flight on Powerball tickets and you’re more likely to with the jackpot than have been on one of those fatal crashes. But people still think of those risks and chances as worth thinking about, which is also why lotteries stick around.
- DoesntMatter22 2y ago
  Surprisingly safe? Right now the 737 Max is at 1 death per 3 million trips. The 787 Dreamliner which came out 15 years ago, has no deaths at all. It's not good. It's about 5x as deadly as the 747-400... And it just got started.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 2y ago
    I agree it’s bad for modern aircraft, but the Concord would be over 33 crashes per 3 million trips not 1. These numbers are just really low by any objective measurement except modern airline safety standards. Driving 25 miles in the US is in 2022 was as dangerous on average vs a random 737 Max flight over its history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... In 2022 the average car was driven 14,500 miles or ~600 flights worth of risk, but people still really worry about it.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I don't really get why you insist on continuing to compare the 737 MAX deaths to unrelated, irrelevant other statistics. The Concorde was a niche aircraft that hasn't flown for over 20 years. Even if it were flying today, I would still consider its safety record as in a completely separate bucket than subsonic commercial airliners. And I don't care how the 737 MAX compares to driving. I care how it compares to other, similar, commercial aircraft in use today. If I'm going to drive, I drive. If I'm going to fly, I'm going to care about how the plane on my itinerary compares to other planes I could be sitting on with a similar itinerary.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > unrelated, irrelevant other statistics. Risk I regularly take are hardly irrelevant to me. I consider this kind of comparison to be foundational to rational behavior. > completely separate bucket than other subsonic commercial airliners It didn’t have the worst history compared to other subsonic commercial airliners flying at the time when they grounded it. What it had was the potential for improvement. If you actually care about safety knowing what the actual most dangerous aircraft are would be the rational decision. And today the 737 Max has had 20x the flights and still the same number of accidents. So if you’re concerned about safety how does it stack up?
- kelnos 2y ago
  Without diving into your bizarre claim about 737 MAX being safe... > It may have involved making breathalyzers a mandatory feature [for cars] etc, but I suspect there’s a lot more we could do even without that. My understanding is that drunk driving is a small minority of car crashes/fatalities. In most crashes, the driver(s) involved are completely sober. Making breathalyzers mandatory in cars would be awful.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > My understanding is that drunk driving is a small minority of car crashes/fatalities Your understanding is wrong, “About 32% of all traffic crash fatalities in the United States involve drunk drivers (with BACs of .08 g/dL or higher).” > 737 MAX being safe At the time it was under 1 accident per 300,000+ flights which is objectively lower than 2 other jets flying at the time. Today with 346 died in 2 crashes but another 200+ people died of medical emergencies on 737 Max flights. That’s the kind of risk people are taking, flying it’s slightly more dangerous than spending that much time sitting at home watching TV.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
phire 2y ago
And none of the fatalities were the fault of the aircraft. One crashed on the runway after pilot error, killing three people (two of them weren't wearing seatbelts) One was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all on board. And the other is a mystery, we can't even find the crash site. But most evidence points towards deliberate pilot suicide.
- core_dumped 2y ago
  [EDIT]: apologies, my reading comprehension needs work. I thought you were referring to the 737 MAX, not the 777 What? Do you have a source for the last one? That sounds like corporate propaganda. It’s well understood AND PROVEN that the MCAS system (which was a system borrowed from decades old military code) was at fault for this incident. Saying it was suicide seems incredibly disrespectful to both pilots… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610 In the article it even states they found the wreckage…
  - ak217 2y ago
    The flight you linked was a Boeing 737. We are talking about the 777. To date, neither the 777 nor the 787 have had any passenger fatalities from any aircraft engineering flaw. That is a monumental achievement.
    - core_dumped 2y ago
      I guess I misunderstood the comment I was replying to. The parent comment mentions the 737 MAX so I assumed that’s what the commenter was referencing. I have read up on the 777 and yes, I agree it’s incredibly safe statistically (as is the 787). I didn’t realize the commenter was talking about the Malaysia flight either. Apologies to them

Retric 2y ago

Personally I am amazed just what the focus on safety has achieved. The 737 Max was objectively surprisingly safe to fly at the time of the groundings. As in for the average flying passenger their odds were significantly higher to die of something else on the day of their flight than from a crash. But still we know how to do better and things improved. Imagine if we treated each individual car accident as a failure and millions of like could have been saved. It may have involved making breathalyzers a mandatory feature etc, but I suspect there’s a lot more we could do even without that.

beerandt 2y ago
Decades of focusing on safety are being unwound because of ~decade plus (so far) focus on efficiency and environmental regulation. You can't maximize both.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  What efficiency and environmental aspects of car design do you see as causes car accidents?
  - beerandt 2y ago
    Dozens. #1 most obvious atm is autostop. Starter gives you enough juice to enter the intersection, but engine sputters and you get tboned. Same for not providing enough acceleration/ hp. Also 1 pedal driving. Electric cars that outweigh the 'old' 'inefficient' light trucks because batteries are heavy. Harder to stop, more wear on roads. Tires that are designed to extract breaking energy over stopping. Lithium fires (not cause but much more dangerous result). Aluminum crush zones in cars not big enough to have crush zones. Every design decision is a compromise.
- dmd 2y ago
  That's right. It's definitely those darn environmental regulations. Nothing at all to do with short-term profits and MBA-syndrome.
  - beerandt 2y ago
    Yet you probably loved cash for clunkers.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Getting old cars off the road meaningfully improved safety even if it didn’t do much for the environment.
      - d110af5ccf 2y ago
        It actively harmed the environment. Once the thing has been manufactured doing anything less than driving it into the ground is wasting the upfront environmental cost.
        Retric 2y ago
        Not always. The average car in Wyoming gets driven 24,000 miles a year something getting 12 MPG is burning 2,000 gallons a year directly and another 30% indirectly from manufacture transportation and extraction of oil. That’s a lot for a 5 year old car you could easily be saving 30,000+ gallons of oil. Obviously, that’s average many cars are significantly worse. Run the numbers and swapping a high mileage but poor fuel economy car for a hybrid/EV and the payback can be a net positive.
    - dmd 2y ago
      Er, no? A program designed mostly to enrich automakers that had little or even negative environmental effect? Why would I love that?
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  Yeah, 50+% of new cars being SUVs (gas guzzlers, kill pedestrians, easily roll over) is because of those damn environmentalists.
  - djbusby 2y ago
    And those killer Class 2b and 3+ pickups. Manufacturers push those because of less environmental regs on those vs the perfectly viable Class 1.
    - beerandt 2y ago
      Or don't try to regulate 'class 1' into something people don't want to buy. And FYI those trucks are bigger because you need more volume and moment-arm when building them out of lighter aluminum instead of heavier steel- a direct consequence of CAFE standards.
      - djbusby 2y ago
        Yea, I know why. And I'm mad about it. And I love my Class 1 and am mad they are hard to find. I imagine we'd agree that CAFE was poorly done.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    This is actually true though; it’s a case of unintended consequences.
  - beerandt 2y ago
    If you regulate 'normal' cars into things people don't want to buy, don't be surprised if they want suvs or trucks instead.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      If you price gasoline higher, people don't want those SUVs or trucks. Gasoline is too damn cheap in the US. Gov't regulations work on multiple levels.
- core_dumped 2y ago
  Focus on “efficiency” and environmental regulation? I think you mean to say cutting back on costs due to corporate greed?
theteapot 2y ago
x2 737 Max nose dive crashes killing all onboard within 6 months of each other is not "surprisingly safe". It's surprisingly unsafe!
- eropple 2y ago
  Perhaps be generous with your reading of the post and consider the 737 MAX's flight record and fatality rate on a per-mile or per-passenger rate to, say, cars in the United States. Because, by the standards of other transportation methods, even the 737 MAX was very, very safe. It is a testament to the not-yet-entirely-captured regulatory regime of international flight that the 737 MAX was not considered safe enough.
  - theteapot 2y ago
    2 nose dives in 6 months apart within 2 years of first operational flights. This is not safe. This was anything but a testament to the aviation regulatory regime at the time. There was glaringly obvious engineering and procedural issues the FAA and Boeing management waived through. Is the MAX safe now? After killing over 300 people needlessly, being grounded for 1.5y, and an extensive investigation? Yeah sure, probably. To be saying what your saying, I think you mustn't of followed Max 8 MCAS debacle very closely, or at all.
    - Retric 2y ago
      First being X months apart isn’t how you calculate risk. What matters is total failure over total flights and there’s a gap between the last crash and the fleet being grounded where that risk kept on going. ~2 years * 2 flights per day * 365 days per year * ~350 aircraft would be 511,000 flights but it’s / 2 because aircraft where being delivered over time that’s 2 crashes per ~255,000 flights or 1 per ~127,000. (Edit: Actual numbers were less than half that at 3 crashes per 1 million flights.) By comparison someone living to 80 is 80 * 365 days = 29,200 days. Meaning the average day would be more than 3x as risky as taking a flight on a 737 Max. It’s not actually that simple as hospitalized patients are unlikely to fly, but you get plenty of elderly people dying from hart attacks etc on aircraft. I don’t mean to suggest the aircraft was safe compared to other commercial aircraft, (edit: it beat the DC-8 and 707 which was still in use at the time) but general aviation in the US for example is 5.3 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours not flights. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Pages/GeneralAviationDashboard.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Pages/GeneralAviationDashbo...
AceyMan 2y ago
> The 737 Max was objectively surprisingly safe to fly at the time of the groundings [...] e.g., "Things ran great, until ... they didn't." This gets my vote for most vacuous statement on HN this year.
- Retric 2y ago
  The groundings happened after the 2 crashes. When the groundings happened it had the 3rd worst record of then flying large commercial jet aircraft and far from the most dangerous of commercial aircraft of all time. Tossing that many caveats and still not being the worst aircraft is shocking to many people.
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Compared to other models the 737 MAX had horrific deaths per passenger mile after the accidents.
- Retric 2y ago
  Much worse than other modern aircraft, but there’s many with worse track records globally. The DC-8 and 707 where still in use at the time (https://simpleflying.com/douglas-dc-8-active-2022/ https://simpleflying.com/douglas-dc-8-active-2022/) and had worse track records, as did the 720 which just retired. Going back to Concord which retired in the early 2000’s and was far worse. Go back further and the prop aircraft were crazy dangerous. Again it should be compared to modern aircraft, but this just shows how far we’ve come that the bar has moved this far.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > Again it should be compared to modern aircraft Right, exactly, and this is why this sub-thread is so maddeningly weird. I'm going to compare the 737 MAX's safety record to that of the 737 NG, 777, 787, 757, as well as to Airbus' current-gen 3xx planes. I don't care how it compares to the DC-8 or 707 or 720 because it's exceedingly unlikely I'll ever fly on one of those. And I'm certainly not comparing to the kinds of small planes general aviation pilots fly, and I'm not comparing against other modes of transportation. I already know that I'm safer in a plane (even in a 737 MAX) than in a car, but if I'm choosing to drive, I'm choosing to drive. If I'm choosing to fly, then then the 737 MAX's record, coupled with how poorly Boeing has handled the situation, is a big concern to me.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > is a big concern to me And I get that, it’s obvious given the choice you pick the safer aircraft. But in a broader context the numbers are so low it’s hard to contemplate. Currently it’s 2 per 6 million flights. Spend the cost of a flight on Powerball tickets and you’re more likely to with the jackpot than have been on one of those fatal crashes. But people still think of those risks and chances as worth thinking about, which is also why lotteries stick around.
DoesntMatter22 2y ago
Surprisingly safe? Right now the 737 Max is at 1 death per 3 million trips. The 787 Dreamliner which came out 15 years ago, has no deaths at all. It's not good. It's about 5x as deadly as the 747-400... And it just got started.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 2y ago
  I agree it’s bad for modern aircraft, but the Concord would be over 33 crashes per 3 million trips not 1. These numbers are just really low by any objective measurement except modern airline safety standards. Driving 25 miles in the US is in 2022 was as dangerous on average vs a random 737 Max flight over its history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... In 2022 the average car was driven 14,500 miles or ~600 flights worth of risk, but people still really worry about it.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I don't really get why you insist on continuing to compare the 737 MAX deaths to unrelated, irrelevant other statistics. The Concorde was a niche aircraft that hasn't flown for over 20 years. Even if it were flying today, I would still consider its safety record as in a completely separate bucket than subsonic commercial airliners. And I don't care how the 737 MAX compares to driving. I care how it compares to other, similar, commercial aircraft in use today. If I'm going to drive, I drive. If I'm going to fly, I'm going to care about how the plane on my itinerary compares to other planes I could be sitting on with a similar itinerary.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > unrelated, irrelevant other statistics. Risk I regularly take are hardly irrelevant to me. I consider this kind of comparison to be foundational to rational behavior. > completely separate bucket than other subsonic commercial airliners It didn’t have the worst history compared to other subsonic commercial airliners flying at the time when they grounded it. What it had was the potential for improvement. If you actually care about safety knowing what the actual most dangerous aircraft are would be the rational decision. And today the 737 Max has had 20x the flights and still the same number of accidents. So if you’re concerned about safety how does it stack up?
kelnos 2y ago
Without diving into your bizarre claim about 737 MAX being safe... > It may have involved making breathalyzers a mandatory feature [for cars] etc, but I suspect there’s a lot more we could do even without that. My understanding is that drunk driving is a small minority of car crashes/fatalities. In most crashes, the driver(s) involved are completely sober. Making breathalyzers mandatory in cars would be awful.
- Retric 2y ago
  > My understanding is that drunk driving is a small minority of car crashes/fatalities Your understanding is wrong, “About 32% of all traffic crash fatalities in the United States involve drunk drivers (with BACs of .08 g/dL or higher).” > 737 MAX being safe At the time it was under 1 accident per 300,000+ flights which is objectively lower than 2 other jets flying at the time. Today with 346 died in 2 crashes but another 200+ people died of medical emergencies on 737 Max flights. That’s the kind of risk people are taking, flying it’s slightly more dangerous than spending that much time sitting at home watching TV.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

phire 2y ago

And none of the fatalities were the fault of the aircraft. One crashed on the runway after pilot error, killing three people (two of them weren't wearing seatbelts) One was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all on board. And the other is a mystery, we can't even find the crash site. But most evidence points towards deliberate pilot suicide.

core_dumped 2y ago
[EDIT]: apologies, my reading comprehension needs work. I thought you were referring to the 737 MAX, not the 777 What? Do you have a source for the last one? That sounds like corporate propaganda. It’s well understood AND PROVEN that the MCAS system (which was a system borrowed from decades old military code) was at fault for this incident. Saying it was suicide seems incredibly disrespectful to both pilots… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610 In the article it even states they found the wreckage…
- ak217 2y ago
  The flight you linked was a Boeing 737. We are talking about the 777. To date, neither the 777 nor the 787 have had any passenger fatalities from any aircraft engineering flaw. That is a monumental achievement.
  - core_dumped 2y ago
    I guess I misunderstood the comment I was replying to. The parent comment mentions the 737 MAX so I assumed that’s what the commenter was referencing. I have read up on the 777 and yes, I agree it’s incredibly safe statistically (as is the 787). I didn’t realize the commenter was talking about the Malaysia flight either. Apologies to them