5 ms·

Probably the best take-away is that the media is sensationalizing this, primarily because there hasn't been a crash by a major airline in over 10 years.

by chiph 13y ago

supercanuck 13y ago
that and to leave your damn carry-ons behind in an emergency since you are slowing the process of getting everyone off the plane.
- chiph 13y ago
  Anyone who has had to wait while someone goes "against the flow" to retrieve their bag from the overhead (because the bin above their seat was full when they sat down) knows this pain. In an emergency, that delay could kill someone. When Boeing designed the 787, the composite construction allowed for larger windows. I wonder if it allows for larger emergency exit openings too.
Shivetya 13y ago
None with fatalities, however in 09 US Airways Flight 1549 ditched in the Hudson to much fanfare. There have also been accidents with fatalities involving feeder airlines to the majors within the US. Outside the US is another story entirely, but we tend to ignore most of the accidents unless the numbers are large. The interest I have in stories like this are, how many are preventable by having systems that can override a pilot and is there and preference to doing such?
- a3n 13y ago
  Look at your bug database. Multiply that by the complexity of not only an airliner, but the huge and complex system in which it operates. Add weight for consequences in human fatalities. Now, would you prefer that system overriding the pilot, or the other way around? Humans can think outside the box. Software is the box.
  - Kurtz79 13y ago
    "Look at your bug database. Multiply that by the complexity of not only an airliner, but the huge and complex system in which it operates." And take the n-root of the total based on the number of quality checks every minimal part of that software has been through before even being tried on a real plane, not considering the ones before it went into service. Seriously, you really think the software for an airliner is written in Ruby+Javascript and the developers use a cloud-based bug tracking app? I work on systems used in public trasportation that are NOT safety-critical and the number of tests, checks and counterchecks they have to go through before being approved for service is soul crushing. I'm pretty sure that the total count of in the bug database of any airline software currently in service basically amounts to zero.
    - a3n 13y ago
      "Seriously, you really think the software for an airliner is written in Ruby+Javascript and the developers use a cloud-based bug tracking app?" No. The point was to reflect on the nature of software and complexity. I doubt if bug counts are near zero. EDIT: And undiscovered bugs are definitely not zero.
    - omni 13y ago
      > the number of tests, checks and counterchecks they have to go through before being approved for service is soul crushing. > I'm pretty sure that the total count of in the bug database of any airline software currently in service basically amounts to zero. The military, NASA, and a bunch of other critical organizations really wish that what you were saying was true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs
    - snom380 13y ago
      That's pretty much the point. The safety required makes writing a complex, life critical system like this and getting it certified pretty much impossible with our current software methodologies. There's been quite a few software bugs in certified aviation software. One in the control system for ABS brakes caused a runway overrun, another in the Airbus fly by wire system caused an in flight upset with multiple head and spinal injuries.
eterm 13y ago
Air France isn't major enough for you? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 )
- pbreit 13y ago
  "in North America". Best to read the whole sentence before dishing out inaccurate sarcasm.
pinaceae 13y ago
AF447 crashed 2009 on its way from Rio to Paris. Co-Pilot error, wiped out all 228 onboard. Armchair experts tallyho!
- chaz 13y ago
  The article's statement is more qualified. "the first multiple-fatality crash involving a major airline in North America since November 2001"
  - pinaceae 13y ago
    well sure, but why even make this geo distinction? it was a Korean airliner on an trans-continental flight. hence the multi-national news this is making (vs. the even more recent crash in Alaska that killed more passengers but is indeed a local event). and this was not exactly a minor crash, it broke the spines of several passengers for chrissakes. the evacuation was top notch, even if the rescuers rolled over one of the victims. and a lot of luck, if that plane had turned on its head during the stumbling phase, the evacuation wouldn't have gone so fast.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    I feel like if you are following your "first" with that many qualifiers, it starts losing meaning.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      The first multiple-fatality crash involving a major airline in North America with an airliner carrying over 100 passengers and at least five kosher meals, not arriving on a Tuesday.
- marvin 13y ago
  And the best part is, in the huge amount of speculation around that crash, I never heard anything that came even close to what turned out to be the real cause of the accident. Which is part of the reason I think people should really stop speculating about this crash.
e40 13y ago
Because they spun out a lot of traffic to regional airlines. There's a good Frontline special about the regionals. Well worth watching. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/
ternaryoperator 13y ago
When I compare the coverage of this with the endless coverage of the safe landing of the US Airways plane in the Hudson in 2009, this coverage does not seem sensationalized or over the top. In fact, this strikes me as some of the least sensationalized coverage of a fatal plane accident that I can recall.

Probably the best take-away is that the media is sensationalizing this, primarily because there hasn't been a crash by a major airline in over 10 years.

by chiph 13y ago

Probably the best take-away is that the media is sensationalizing this, primarily because there hasn't been a crash by a major airline in over 10 years.

supercanuck 13y ago

that and to leave your damn carry-ons behind in an emergency since you are slowing the process of getting everyone off the plane.

chiph 13y ago
Anyone who has had to wait while someone goes "against the flow" to retrieve their bag from the overhead (because the bin above their seat was full when they sat down) knows this pain. In an emergency, that delay could kill someone. When Boeing designed the 787, the composite construction allowed for larger windows. I wonder if it allows for larger emergency exit openings too.

Shivetya 13y ago

None with fatalities, however in 09 US Airways Flight 1549 ditched in the Hudson to much fanfare. There have also been accidents with fatalities involving feeder airlines to the majors within the US. Outside the US is another story entirely, but we tend to ignore most of the accidents unless the numbers are large. The interest I have in stories like this are, how many are preventable by having systems that can override a pilot and is there and preference to doing such?

a3n 13y ago
Look at your bug database. Multiply that by the complexity of not only an airliner, but the huge and complex system in which it operates. Add weight for consequences in human fatalities. Now, would you prefer that system overriding the pilot, or the other way around? Humans can think outside the box. Software is the box.
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  "Look at your bug database. Multiply that by the complexity of not only an airliner, but the huge and complex system in which it operates." And take the n-root of the total based on the number of quality checks every minimal part of that software has been through before even being tried on a real plane, not considering the ones before it went into service. Seriously, you really think the software for an airliner is written in Ruby+Javascript and the developers use a cloud-based bug tracking app? I work on systems used in public trasportation that are NOT safety-critical and the number of tests, checks and counterchecks they have to go through before being approved for service is soul crushing. I'm pretty sure that the total count of in the bug database of any airline software currently in service basically amounts to zero.
  - a3n 13y ago
    "Seriously, you really think the software for an airliner is written in Ruby+Javascript and the developers use a cloud-based bug tracking app?" No. The point was to reflect on the nature of software and complexity. I doubt if bug counts are near zero. EDIT: And undiscovered bugs are definitely not zero.
  - omni 13y ago
    > the number of tests, checks and counterchecks they have to go through before being approved for service is soul crushing. > I'm pretty sure that the total count of in the bug database of any airline software currently in service basically amounts to zero. The military, NASA, and a bunch of other critical organizations really wish that what you were saying was true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs
  - snom380 13y ago
    That's pretty much the point. The safety required makes writing a complex, life critical system like this and getting it certified pretty much impossible with our current software methodologies. There's been quite a few software bugs in certified aviation software. One in the control system for ABS brakes caused a runway overrun, another in the Airbus fly by wire system caused an in flight upset with multiple head and spinal injuries.

eterm 13y ago

Air France isn't major enough for you? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 )

pbreit 13y ago
"in North America". Best to read the whole sentence before dishing out inaccurate sarcasm.

pinaceae 13y ago

AF447 crashed 2009 on its way from Rio to Paris. Co-Pilot error, wiped out all 228 onboard. Armchair experts tallyho!

chaz 13y ago
The article's statement is more qualified. "the first multiple-fatality crash involving a major airline in North America since November 2001"
- pinaceae 13y ago
  well sure, but why even make this geo distinction? it was a Korean airliner on an trans-continental flight. hence the multi-national news this is making (vs. the even more recent crash in Alaska that killed more passengers but is indeed a local event). and this was not exactly a minor crash, it broke the spines of several passengers for chrissakes. the evacuation was top notch, even if the rescuers rolled over one of the victims. and a lot of luck, if that plane had turned on its head during the stumbling phase, the evacuation wouldn't have gone so fast.
- smackfu 13y ago
  I feel like if you are following your "first" with that many qualifiers, it starts losing meaning.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    The first multiple-fatality crash involving a major airline in North America with an airliner carrying over 100 passengers and at least five kosher meals, not arriving on a Tuesday.
marvin 13y ago
And the best part is, in the huge amount of speculation around that crash, I never heard anything that came even close to what turned out to be the real cause of the accident. Which is part of the reason I think people should really stop speculating about this crash.

e40 13y ago

Because they spun out a lot of traffic to regional airlines. There's a good Frontline special about the regionals. Well worth watching. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/

ternaryoperator 13y ago

When I compare the coverage of this with the endless coverage of the safe landing of the US Airways plane in the Hudson in 2009, this coverage does not seem sensationalized or over the top. In fact, this strikes me as some of the least sensationalized coverage of a fatal plane accident that I can recall.