4 ms·
Some are forgetting how risk in technology works: No technology is designed or operated without flaws; that's an absurd approach and impossible to implement. T
by mmooss 10mo ago
Some are forgetting how risk in technology works: No technology is designed or operated without flaws; that's an absurd approach and impossible to implement.
To reduce negative outcomes, we use risk management: assessing the likely lifetime cost of the flaw, and taking cost-effective measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. As a familiar example, redundant mass storage drives are much more cost-effective than high-reliability mass storage drives.
- ksaj 10mo agoThey do mention that the DC10 (this plane's predecessor) was decommissioned for similar issues.
- fransje26 10mo agoThis article does not? And the DC-10 was not decommissioned. It is, in fact, still in service.
- beowulfey 10mo agoThey may have meant grounded, not decommissioned. DC-10s were grounded alongside the MD-11s. https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/us-faa-broadens-md-11-grounding-order-to-remaining-dc-10-fleets/165313.article https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/us-faa-broadens-md-11-gr...
- ksaj 10mo agoClose. I meant decommissioned from the UPS fleet, nearly 25 years ago. MD11 was considered a more modern and flexible replacement.
- kayfox 10mo agoDid UPS Airlines ever fly the DC-10/MD10? FedEx did and they retired them in the last 5 years because they had reached the end of their economical service lifetime and not because of any major flaw.
- itopaloglu83 10mo agoThe DC-10 and MD-11 are both McDonnell Douglas. They merged into Boeing, but instead of Boeing’s safety and innovation oriented culture, McDonnell‘s finance bros won with their cost and corner cutting measures. Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood.
- InitialLastName 10mo ago> Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood. Please, what fool subjects their own blood to the absence of regulation? If you've got blood on your hands, much better for it to be a customer that has already paid you.
- anal_reactor 10mo agoSure, but the problem is, Boeing is a company that has a proven record of lying about the flaws of their products. There's a huge difference between "shit, nobody thought this part would crack in this way" and "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".
- mmooss 10mo ago> "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place". The fundamental reality is, we can always spend more to prevent another death; and we must draw the line somewhere. People don't like it, but your latter example is the risk management I'm talking about, and it's unavoidable. Nobody can make airplanes that have no risk of killing people - the only answer would be no airplanes at all (which would result in more automobile deaths, more deaths because life-saving resources are unavailable, etc.). The calculation of cost per death prevented is a real one, and is done by manufacturers of planes, cars, etc. The problem with your wording is the criteria of paying damages, rather than the industry-standard value for human life. Again, that is awful to think about but there's no way around it. Edit: And I'm not saying, at all, that Boeing made the right decision here. I don't know enough to say, and Boeing's safety reputation is poor.
- jjk166 10mo agoThere is some nuance to risk management here. Yes, no one can make something that has genuinely zero risk, but we can and must eliminate particular known risks. A fix being too expensive is not a valid excuse. There are plenty of things we don't do because there is no economical way to do them safely.
- anal_reactor 10mo agoBoeing sacrifices 346 people in order to avoid plane recertification. Just so that we don't forget the context of the specific risk management strategies we're talking about.
- IAmBroom 10mo agoPlease point to someone ITT who is forgetting that. I can't see any such posts. And "shit happens; suck it up, buttercup" is not an approved PHA determination.