751–760 of 884 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a source for that? I'm not denying it, just curious to read more.
It's too bad that asking "source?" comes across as hostile unless clarified to be otherwise. Maybe the internet should adopt something similar to the "/s" tag that signals that sentiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US, the only thing that could kill the Max off would be if another big regulator such as EASA refused to let the Max into their airspace.
> FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US What are you basing this on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to consider what is safer when something goes wromg . Are there statistics that track this across different modes of travel?
Yes. Airplanes are literally hundreds of times less likely to kill you per mile than cars. There has not been a single US airline fatality since 2009.
We are seeing more and more that these systems and processes have been breaking down, from regulation to manufacturing to pilots to systems to maintenance.
It really is hard to compare, but for an airplane, a passenger has to have faith that literally hundreds of thousands of people and things have done their job correctly. When I drive my car, I am much less reliant on people, systems, and processes, as cars are just plain simple. Most leople barely change their oil or check tire pressure. I even once had a complete engine failure and was able to just roll to a stop from highway speeds. Furthermore, I am in control. If I am too tired, I don't drive. I can pay attention to other drivers. I am directly responsible for maintenance. Etc.
I think it's hard to compare airplanes to cars by numbers alone. There are subtleties that are not exposed by numbers.
For an airplane passenger, it is absolutely a risk. You rely on so much happening correctly, and you are not in control of any of it. As little bits in that chain of things that need to happen don't happen correctly, percentages of failure and death go way up, and fast.
And we haven't even discussed in-flight medical emergencies, as there are actually quite a few in-flight deaths every year that would likely not yield a death if the medical emergency happened on the ground.
> There has not been a single US airline fatality since 2009.
Wikipedia says there has been 51, not counting private or military. And that list doesnt include American aircraft flying overseas, to which the MAX planes would add hundreds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are all the differences between these MAX planes? Is this an intentional strategy by Boeing to confuse so that they can make all these loose arguments and skirt regulations?
Bigger number = longer plane. They start counting from 7 because the MAX 7 was the successor to the 737-700.
It does appear that Boeing tries to get away with "you've approved it for MAX , so just approve it already for MAX ".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
what? The death penalty is still around.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Un...
The only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.
Now i wonder, where did that broken door land?
There's a lot of green space in and around Portland. There's good odds it may never be found, especially if it lands in some remote corner of Forest Park.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wouldn’t build a website with a single point of failure, yet the argument here is it’s okay to engineer things badly because of the success rate of requests is high. For air travel impacting human lives. I think it speaks to current generation of leaders avoiding thought, consideration, foresight, insight, and just using any statistic that can justify a decision. It’s a decline and one that also explains the exci…
This statement makes no sense. It has never been safer to fly, precisely because aviation is so dedicated to root cause analysis. A whole door exploded out of a plane and 1. The plane did not suffer structural damage and could land safely 2. Nobody died because seat belts are mandatory 3. The crew is drilled over and over on what to do 4. The plane has extensive monitoring and logging so RCA is easier 5. The US funds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things like this are always alarming until you learn the base rate. Unfortunately, I cannot find a quick reference for this, but many many flights take off with some anomaly noted in the technical log book.
And it's not like driving is especially safe. It's just that traffic deaths are so routine that they're not generally widely reported, while pretty much every major issue with an airplane gets national attention. In the US, traffic deaths amount to the equivalent of a fully loaded 747 lost with all hands every couple days.
Slowly but surely we see more cutting corners in aviation, especially in the US.
This ranges from trying to evade certification for planes to crew hours, to more lax regulation on how air traffic is managed to increase movements at airports, to overworked and understaffed ATC.
I don’t think it has risen to levels that affect statistics in terms of death, but the statistics in terms of near catastrophic events has risen over the years.
To put that into perspective, you have a significantly better chance of winning the lottery than dying on a United Airlines flight.