Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why you've never been in a plane crash

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 310 posts

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#51

Post by jacquesm »

josephg wrote: post #28
ssl232 wrote: post #12

One of the most important pieces of legislation in the UK that helped improve safety in workplaces was the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which placed a duty of care on organisations to look after the wellbeing of their staff. One of the tenets is to take near misses seriously. According to a health and safety engineer in a course I attended, near misses are like gifts from the heavens, as they show you exactly…

With the number of data breaches we see cropping up, I wonder if a similar law could be written to hold companies liable for the safe handling of personal data.

In the EU this already happened and slowly but surely it is having an effect. Some US companies are still fighting it tooth and nail though.

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#52

Post by EthicalSimilar »

izacus wrote: post #33
josephg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the number of data breaches we see cropping up, I wonder if a similar law could be written to hold companies liable for the safe handling of personal data.

TBH having software engineer output in general be liable to some minimum safety, correctness and quality standard would be a god send for the world. But of course the developers will revolt against that.

Would just cause more companies to outsource anyway.

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#53

Post by pintxo »

mnau wrote: post #40
izacus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH having software engineer output in general be liable to some minimum safety, correctness and quality standard would be a god send for the world. But of course the developers will revolt against that.

How do you define "minimum safety, correctness and quality standard"?

By having professionals agree on a minimal set, and writing them down?

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#54

Post by manojlds »

mulmen wrote: post #38
throwaway713 wrote: post #34

This concept of a blameless culture reminds me of one time when I was talking to a SWE at Facebook around 2010. I don’t know whether the story is actually true or just folklore, but apparently someone brought down the whole site on accident once, and it was pretty obvious who did it. Zuckerberg was in the office and walked up to the guy and said something along the lines of “Just so you are aware, it would probably t…

Eh, that’s a really strange way to phrase it. Singling out the engineer isn’t blameless. Sure it’s a learning opportunity but it’s a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn’t be able to take the site down. I have always thought of those situations as “failing together.”

Strange way to describe the same situation and Zuck's thrust there in different words. Zuck is literally saying "failing together" and "learning together".

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#55

Post by lfkdev »

mbork_pl wrote: post #35
aramndrt wrote: post #9

Reminds me of the guy at GitLab, I believe it was, who accidentally and irreversibly deleted a bunch of repositories. GitLab had a fantastic approach to that whole ordeal and public embarrassment. They essentially blamed themselves for not having the proper contingencies in place instead of blaming the individual. It's worth reading up on.

Any source would be appreciated, I'd like to read more about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLdRBsuvVKc

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#56

Post by mrjin »

defrost wrote: post #27
nsoonhui wrote: post #21

>> Why you have never been in a plane crash? Because those who are in a plan crash are mostly dead?

We don't count those that are eaten after the crash as they survived the impact and immediate aftermath. More seriously: But for those unlucky enough to be involved in the small percent of fatal air accidents, what are the odds of survival if your plane does crash? The NTSB says that despite more people flying than ever, the accident rate for commercial flights has remained the same for the last two decades, and the…

I guess it counts in minor accident that managed to land successfully and those more serious but crash landed with little or no casualties at all? As far as I know, there were no survivors in recent Boeing crashes. Correct me if I was wrong.

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#57

Post by [deleted] »

manojlds wrote: post #54
mulmen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, that’s a really strange way to phrase it. Singling out the engineer isn’t blameless. Sure it’s a learning opportunity but it’s a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn’t be able to take the site down. I have always thought of those situations as “failing together.”

Strange way to describe the same situation and Zuck's thrust there in different words. Zuck is literally saying "failing together" and "learning together".

[deleted]

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#58

Post by hef19898 »

defrost wrote: post #43
tialaramex wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very specifically works for Accidents - events nobody actually wanted to happen, where we can learn from experience and prevent it happening again. It specifically won't work for things which were not accidents at all, where blame remains a useful tool. There's some nuance, the Captain of the Titanic didn't intend to sink the ship and kill loads of people, in that sense it was an accident - but he also didn't ne…

> the Captain of the Titanic ... Any decent accident investigation should highlight that the Captain was under strict instructions from the ship owners to break a record, wealthy influential owners that could and would destroy his career if he failed to push the ship. Good investigations identify causes with a view to prevent repetition of circumstances. Cases like these (Titanic, UK Post) strengthen the case for whi…

Among other things, the investigation into the Titanic accident gave us the requirement of having enough life boats for everyone and standards in how to evacuate a vessel.

Captains being pressured by mamagement / organization to do hazardous stuff is a thing still, in aviation as well as in seafaring.

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#59

Post by dbrgn »

Just this month, there was a court case in Switzerland where an ATC was charged and convicted because he gave wrong instructions to a military jet, which then crashed into a rock wall. The case was quite interesting to follow, due to the various implications of a conviction or acquittal. It had quite some media coverage.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-military-jet-crash--publi...

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/air-traffic-controller-blamed-f...

(Note that this was a military court, not a civil court. Proceedings might be different in these cases, even though both civil and military ATCs work for the same company - Skyguide.)

Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash

#60

Post by mrjin »

hk__2 wrote: post #45
keiferski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same thought. You , reader, have never been in a plane crash, because if you’d have been in one, you’d be dead.

> You, reader, have never been in a plane crash, because if you’d have been in one, you’d be dead. You’d be surprised: > According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, plane crashes technically have a 90% survivability rate, and this figure is increasing, largely thanks to modern aircraft design, which features enough exits to allow for a full passenger evacuation in around 90 seconds. > Recent proof…

I would assume the pilots of those still had control to some extent?
Post reply on HN