4 ms·

I'm interested in such a model in part because I am curious where the safety line is. There's a point after which it becomes reckless to fly in the US.

by runako 1y ago

jacquesm 1y ago
I'm not. The only way to satisfy your curiosity is to sacrifice a few hundred people.
- runako 1y ago
  That’s the point of the model, so that it doesn’t have to play out in reality.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Yes, but if your model is wrong people will die. Unless you mean to use the model only from a curiosity perspective and not to base actual decisions on.
    - hypeatei 1y ago
      I don't think GP is an official at the FAA or has any influence over those who work at the FAA. It's kinda strange that you'd assume it's not for curiosity and/or personal use.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        It is you that is making assumptions here. I assumed nothing.
    - runako 1y ago
      Yeah, further down in my post I talk about making it a game, it being "cool" to make comparisons etc. I seriously hope the people making decisions have better tools and more insight than my late-night noodling, or we are well past the point where it is no longer safe to fly.
  - senordevnyc 1y ago
    I wonder if the FAA even has enough data on fatality to do something like increase the fatality risk by 0.1% or something. Commercial air travel is so ridiculously safe and has been for decades; would they even have enough of a sample to estimate that with any accuracy? Particularly around something like having fewer ATC available, since I'm guessing even fewer of the rare accidents have that as a cause?
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      This is one of those annoying safety paradoxes, subtly linked to the prevention paradox. The better you get at getting rid of the incidents the lower the rate, the longer it will take to gather data to improve further. There is a similar curve involved when it comes to debugging. High frequency bugs are easy to squash. Low frequency ones can be really hard.

I'm interested in such a model in part because I am curious where the safety line is. There's a point after which it becomes reckless to fly in the US.

by runako 1y ago

I'm interested in such a model in part because I am curious where the safety line is. There's a point after which it becomes reckless to fly in the US.

jacquesm 1y ago

I'm not. The only way to satisfy your curiosity is to sacrifice a few hundred people.

runako 1y ago
That’s the point of the model, so that it doesn’t have to play out in reality.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Yes, but if your model is wrong people will die. Unless you mean to use the model only from a curiosity perspective and not to base actual decisions on.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    I don't think GP is an official at the FAA or has any influence over those who work at the FAA. It's kinda strange that you'd assume it's not for curiosity and/or personal use.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      It is you that is making assumptions here. I assumed nothing.
  - runako 1y ago
    Yeah, further down in my post I talk about making it a game, it being "cool" to make comparisons etc. I seriously hope the people making decisions have better tools and more insight than my late-night noodling, or we are well past the point where it is no longer safe to fly.
- senordevnyc 1y ago
  I wonder if the FAA even has enough data on fatality to do something like increase the fatality risk by 0.1% or something. Commercial air travel is so ridiculously safe and has been for decades; would they even have enough of a sample to estimate that with any accuracy? Particularly around something like having fewer ATC available, since I'm guessing even fewer of the rare accidents have that as a cause?
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    This is one of those annoying safety paradoxes, subtly linked to the prevention paradox. The better you get at getting rid of the incidents the lower the rate, the longer it will take to gather data to improve further. There is a similar curve involved when it comes to debugging. High frequency bugs are easy to squash. Low frequency ones can be really hard.