6 ms·
737 Max is going to end up being one of the safest planes to fly in. Every inch of every plane combed over, every engineering decision re-examined, every syste
by DriverDaily 3y ago
737 Max is going to end up being one of the safest planes to fly in.
Every inch of every plane combed over, every engineering decision re-examined, every system and sensor double-checked for redundancy and reliability, the pilots alert for any sign of problems.
- elsonrodriguez 3y agoIt is still an airframe that does not have the same redundancies required of new air frames. It exists specifically to bypass those new requirements. All else being equal, it will never be as safe as something designed to meet modern standards.
- josemanuel 3y agoDo you really believe that?
- likeabbas 3y agoEngineering can’t always combat a poor integral structure.
- bootlooped 3y agoIf that's true why wasn't it already made the safest after the two Max 8 crashes that killed everybody on board.
- ducttapecrown 3y agoBecause they kept letting Boeing do (or not do) the inspections?
- diggan 3y ago> 737 Max is going to end up being one of the safest planes to fly in It already has two crashes under its belt, compared to other models that never had any crashes (like the A380). But I guess if we put the disclaimer "From today on!" then it might be accurate.
- DriverDaily 3y ago"end up being" is not enough of a disclaimer for you?
- vlovich123 3y agoNo, they’re correct. “End up being” does not imply that you ignore the existing track record. That’s why OP clarified “only if you ignore their existing safety record” - given that other planes have had 0 crashes and 0 fatalities, I’m not sure how the 737MAX could even ”end up” being “safer” even if you ignore existing issues - you can’t get better than 0 issues, so at best it would be as safe as most other aircraft.
- DriverDaily 3y agoIf you want to be pedantic, you're conflating 'having a safe record' with 'being safe.' It's just an indicator.
- vlovich123 3y agoNot really. All safe planes have a safe record and a safe record implies some amount of inherent safety. Since safety is really hard to quantify and compare and in some ways is qualitative, the safety record is a justifiable and defendable proxy for comparing safety.
- DriverDaily 3y agoWe’re on the same page. You’re acknowledging that the safety record is just a proxy for safety. That’s what I’m saying too. I would argue that using the number of incidents as a proxy for safety ignores the trend.
- PedroBatista 3y agoWe wish.. They should have been doing that since the beginning and it doesn't deserve a medal the same way we don't deserve a medal to do the job we agreed to do. But I'm not even that optimistic: - What's the point of combing over the plane when the microscope is broken and nobody seems to care? - How about stop putting lipstick on a pig and retire the whole 737 entirely? A large percentage of the MAX faults are due to Boeing doing everything to make a plane that the original design simply cannot accommodate. At what point somebody says: "No, enough!" ?
- DriverDaily 3y ago> nobody seems to care? Clearly people care. They are literally checking every bolt for proper torque. When they found a few undertorque bolts it becomes a national news, it gets shared so much it ended up on Hacker News, and you cared enough to comment.
- throwway120385 3y agoI'll never consider this plane safe unless Boeing fixes the process the yielded these systemic quality problems.
- DriverDaily 3y agoSo your assesment of how safe the plane is doesn't depend on anything except Boeing's process? For example, you don't care about the number of accidents per operating hours?
- com 3y agoBut that is highly likely to be a trailing indicator. Some things like door plug blowouts apparently happen a few months after poor manufacturing processes occur, the question is how long do loose screws, cable frictions, or incorrectly bored holes in pressure bulkheads take to manifest? It seems to me that we’re only at the start of statistical changes to the 737’s historic accident to operating hours ratio. Do I want to be an unexpected data point or death and injury there? Not so much. A320-series or 737NGs for me for the foreseeable future I think, and those flights don’t generally cost a penny more.
- eastbound 3y agoOur software is the safest software, because we’ve discovered a lot of bugs in it. Historical note: ActiveX and Flash were never successfully made safe. They just stopped being a threat… by dying, a bit like the USSR never resolved communism, it just stopped doing it by dying.
- axus 3y agoNot the worst analogy. Microsoft Windows did turn out pretty well after 20 years.
- whalesalad 3y agocan't tell if this is satire or not
- FerretFred 3y agoThe Stasi would love the telemetry features that M$ Windows provides as standard!
- vundercind 3y agoFirst release: 1985 20 years later: 2005 Current consumer Windows in 2005 was late-lifecycle WinXP, so this actually checks out. It just got a lot worse again some time after that.
- philip1209 3y agoYeah, it's similar to how SVB went from least safe to most safe bank (for a short period).
- cjbgkagh 3y agoThis is nonsense, this is a repeat of correctness by construction vs correctness by test that we see in software. Since these planes are poorly constructed, due to failure in process controls, they must now rely on a correctness by test which is more expensive and less effective. I would argue that in such complex systems no amount of testing can ever make up for failures in controls. Relying on the constant vigilance of pilots is a non-starter due to the limits of simply being human. Which is why risk is modeled using the Swiss cheese model. Pilots have off days and cannot be relied to catch everything, especially if the issue is previously unknown. This isn’t the first 737 Max issue so why didn’t Boeing take the opportunity then to fix everything else wrong with the plane after the MCAS issues? Especially when they had the time during the pandemic to do so. How many new final issues should we expect? 3.. 4? I’m not saying flying is going to be drastically more dangerous, just that it’s more dangerous than it could have been.
- uh_uh 3y agoAren't there some fundamental issues with the Max regarding its engine placement which necessitated the MCAS system that was responsible for the two fatal crashes? If that's true, I don't think the Max can be as safe as a plane that doesn't have these issues in the first place due to its design.
- throwanem 3y agoHow'd that work out for the DC-10?
- insonable 3y agoMaybe, but instead of redesigning and building a new jet suitable for the larger and more efficient engines allowing their competitor's A320 to be more efficient, they appear to have kludged them onto the old (and low-sitting) 737. To do this, they had to change their location on the wing, which made the aircraft more unstable, which lead to the MCAS system to mitigate this, and problems with MCAS and sensor redundancy led to the two fatal crashes. I have a hunch many of us have seen this sort of thing and consequences before.
- FredPret 3y agoPeople said exactly this after the first two crashes. At this point design should be scrapped. No amount of review can fix a broken concept executed by an incompetent manufacturer.