4 ms·

We all know (even though we haven't internalized) that airplanes are so much safer compared to other means of transportation, I'd guess that planes are safer th

We all know (even though we haven't internalized) that airplanes are so much safer compared to other means of transportation, I'd guess that planes are safer than any other space a human can occupy including an hospital. The goal of a human should be not to die, not avoiding death from aviation, the fixation to hammer on this industry happens because people are intuitively scared of it and the physics is not sufficient to have them stay calm because they ignore the concept of lift , propulsion etc. etc. And also because of bad memories from the past which have nothing to do with planes, more like with the lack of a couple of Law Enforcement agents on board.

bediger4000 9mo ago
It occur to me that the shape of that Laffer-like curve is important to all this, and without numbers (which aren't present in concocting that curve, only in Table 1, which doen't allow you to reconstruct the curve), you can't say that adding regulation, or decreasing regulation will cost or save lives. As drawn, the curve looks parabolic to my eye, but maybe once you work out the numbers, it's quite a flat parabola. Adding more regulation might not change thing much. Removing regulation might not, either. If it's not a parabola, or bell curve of some kind, what shape is it? which side of the curve are we on? That is to say, upon reflection, this article is dumber than I thought. It's pure propaganda.
- JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
  I didn't post this thing to discuss about the merits of the Laffer curve etc. as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. We all know that airplane travel is the safest means of transportation and that a plane is among the safest space a human can occupy period. Intuitively we all know that deaths could be reduced elsewhere in society (not necessarily transportation) by taking some IQ brain power and computing power that is in heavy needed to reach the 5th 9 after the comma to make planes 99,99999% safe and diverting elsewhere Geez man zoom out
  - bediger4000 9mo ago
    is as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. You're reaping what you sowed. The article is propaganda, and can be dismissed as such because it uses the trappings of economics, but not the numbers, to try to justify a solely ideological point. That is, they're lying. Since this is from the Libertarian Cato Institute, I guess we knew that anyway. Don't know what I expected from them.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
      The article is the first thing that showed up on Google and wasn't too keen on browsing the obscure substacks So now that we got that out of the way, please stop acting robotic and give me your intuition on the topic not the one of the guy who has to win an argument against CATO
      - bediger4000 9mo ago
        I used to be a stress analyst at aerospace companies. Like every cog in that kind of big machine, I had almost no effect on the result. I did some very preliminary analysis on the candidate airframe that became the MD-11. My intuition is that Cato is wrong on this point. Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. Mass transit airplanes are absolutely not buses or cars, or even trains. There's very, very few of them made. There are only 2 ways to get to safe quality machines. One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, like Toyota, and to a lesser extent, other car companies do. This requires a lot of production, and a culture of feedback from in the field to the designers to the factory. The second is to have high standards and inspect, verify and qualify everything. Since transport aircraft production is so low, there's really no possibility for feedback like Toyota or Honda uses. We're stuck with regulation, or we don't have an air travel system. Did you read this far, or were you "not too keen" on finishing a longer post?
        9mo ago

bediger4000 9mo ago

It occur to me that the shape of that Laffer-like curve is important to all this, and without numbers (which aren't present in concocting that curve, only in Table 1, which doen't allow you to reconstruct the curve), you can't say that adding regulation, or decreasing regulation will cost or save lives. As drawn, the curve looks parabolic to my eye, but maybe once you work out the numbers, it's quite a flat parabola. Adding more regulation might not change thing much. Removing regulation might not, either. If it's not a parabola, or bell curve of some kind, what shape is it? which side of the curve are we on? That is to say, upon reflection, this article is dumber than I thought. It's pure propaganda.

JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
I didn't post this thing to discuss about the merits of the Laffer curve etc. as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. We all know that airplane travel is the safest means of transportation and that a plane is among the safest space a human can occupy period. Intuitively we all know that deaths could be reduced elsewhere in society (not necessarily transportation) by taking some IQ brain power and computing power that is in heavy needed to reach the 5th 9 after the comma to make planes 99,99999% safe and diverting elsewhere Geez man zoom out
- bediger4000 9mo ago
  is as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. You're reaping what you sowed. The article is propaganda, and can be dismissed as such because it uses the trappings of economics, but not the numbers, to try to justify a solely ideological point. That is, they're lying. Since this is from the Libertarian Cato Institute, I guess we knew that anyway. Don't know what I expected from them.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
    The article is the first thing that showed up on Google and wasn't too keen on browsing the obscure substacks So now that we got that out of the way, please stop acting robotic and give me your intuition on the topic not the one of the guy who has to win an argument against CATO
    - bediger4000 9mo ago
      I used to be a stress analyst at aerospace companies. Like every cog in that kind of big machine, I had almost no effect on the result. I did some very preliminary analysis on the candidate airframe that became the MD-11. My intuition is that Cato is wrong on this point. Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. Mass transit airplanes are absolutely not buses or cars, or even trains. There's very, very few of them made. There are only 2 ways to get to safe quality machines. One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, like Toyota, and to a lesser extent, other car companies do. This requires a lot of production, and a culture of feedback from in the field to the designers to the factory. The second is to have high standards and inspect, verify and qualify everything. Since transport aircraft production is so low, there's really no possibility for feedback like Toyota or Honda uses. We're stuck with regulation, or we don't have an air travel system. Did you read this far, or were you "not too keen" on finishing a longer post?
      - 9mo ago