7 ms·
2023 was one of the safest years in commercial aviation
- dotcoma 2y agoIn spite of Boeing.
- Izkata 2y agoDidn't all of that happen this year? Quick edit: But also the article is talking specifically about deaths, and as far as I recall no one died with the Boeing incidents. Granted the door plug one was probably pure luck (no one was sitting next to it).
- smt88 2y agoThe planes have been dangerous for more than a year, though
- tekla 2y agoStill irrelevant for Hacker News hysteria
- switch007 2y ago2023 wasn't completely uneventful for Boeing and the max (from wikipedia): - January 13, China Southern Airlines returned the MAX to service (i.e. still grounded for a small part of 2023) - In April of 2023, it was revealed that US engineers had recommended grounding 737 Max immediately following the Ethiopian Airlines accident. - December 28, the FAA revealed that Boeing had asked airlines to check newer 737 MAX aircraft for a possible loose screw in the rudder control system. The FAA wants to "closely monitor" the targeted inspections and consider additional measures if further loose or missing components are discovered.
- hinkley 2y agoThe first round of groundings seems to have ended in late 2020. The drama all started, as stated in another article: > Two years later, hundreds of Max planes were grounded worldwide after the crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people.
- smt88 2y agoThe incredible effectiveness of airline regulation shouldn't be understated. Despite being a criminally negligent organization, Boeing still failed to kill anyone because of the FAA (their direct action and also airlines' fear of consequences).
- fourseventy 2y agoExcept for the two Boeing planes that nose dived into the ground killing everyone onboard...
- sccxy 2y agoIn 2023?
- denotational 2y agoThe original claim wasn’t qualified with a year: > Despite being a criminally negligent organization, Boeing still failed to kill anyone because of the FAA Adopting the assumptions of the original comment, Boeing have managed to kill people despite the FAA, although as you point out it wasn’t in 2023.
- lxgr 2y agoIn the US. And you're actually raising a good point here: Only US citizens get to vote on the US federal government, which controls FAA, yet many countries indirectly rely on the FAA as the primary regulator for Boeing, as far as I understand. Maybe the regulators of a few large industrial nations or the EU have the size/staffing/funding and leverage necessary to make a difference (and that's still a few steps removed from the FAA!). Others (Ethiopa and Indonesia come to mind) are effectively at the mercy of the FAA.
- SteveNuts 2y ago> And you're actually raising a good point here: Only US citizens get to vote on the US federal government, which controls FAA, yet many countries indirectly rely on the FAA as the primary regulator for Boeing Except for when Boeing is allowed to regulate itself
- ajross 2y agoBoeing is about half the signal, so no, absolutely because of Boeing. That the 737 MAX is extremely dangerous for a modern jetliner doesn't refute the clear truth that the 737 MAX is very safe in a historical context. It's a huge outlier precisely because the industry has done so well at this.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- AdrianB1 2y agoGiven the level of sophistication and automation in commercial planes, the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year. It is like Newton's apple falling and reporting "the apple altitude decreased again" - it is obvious it should. At the same time, the incidents last year are not excusable. This is all the noise about, the quality control problems are inexcusable and having a safe year does not do anything to save face.
- bootlooped 2y agoI think a reasonable fear is that long stretches of exceptional safety could breed complacency and cause aviation companies to feel like they can slack a bit on it. The same thing happened with vaccines to a large degree, right? A generation grows up without measles, and then they think maybe vaccinating against measles isn't really that important. After all, they never knew anybody who got it, how bad could it be?
- AdrianB1 2y agoThat fear needs to exist all the time about everything. Aviation safety is one of many, food safety, health care, government in general, etc. Becoming complacent will start kill people again at some point. It is called entropy.
- nobodyandproud 2y agoNice analogy. Successful public health and aviation both require both deep engineering & science, strong top-down policies and enforcement, and robust & knowledgeable on-the-ground personnel. And of course a public bought-into all of this. The closest I can think of-prior and surely because I’m a poor student of history—goes back to Roman aqueducts and roads, where so many things had to go right and maintained.
- janice1999 2y ago> the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year. Technological advances also increase complexity which can increase risk in unforeseen ways. Here is a perfect example where a single action within a 180 millisecond window was almost enough to crash a plane [0]. [0] https://youtu.be/UC9mItvA9T4 https://youtu.be/UC9mItvA9T4
- edgineer 2y agoRefreshing to hear a review of the statistics.
- Izkata 2y ago> To wit, according to the annual report just released by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) 2023 goes down as one of the safest years in commercial aviation history. Not a single fatal accident was recorded involving a commercial jet. Not one. > Combining jet and turboprop operations, IATA says there were 37 million commercial flights last year. Among those, the only deadly crash was that of an ATR turboprop in Nepal last January. Someone both died and didn't die?
- beisner 2y agoTurboprop is different from jet
- Izkata 2y agoAh, I missed that the line that mentions the report wasn't talking about the report as a whole. Sounded like the second line was getting its information from somewhere other than that report.
- beeeeerp 2y agoNepal can also be a different world for aviation to boot. They have some gnarly airports there.
- Gare 2y agoAlso not the best safety record and practices. They are on the EU blacklist.
- terramex 2y ago> Not a single fatal accident was recorded involving a commercial jet. Not one. > the only deadly crash was that of an ATR turboprop Turboprops are not jets.
- hackernewds 2y agothe incident in Nepal was also determined to be due to intentional pilot malice. not to say the systems couldn't have been in place to prevent it.
- barryrandall 2y agoHow’s consumer confidence in aviation safety doing?
- ultrarunner 2y agoSeems like that's more of a function of the whims of the media than anything. Passenger boardings were back up past 2017 numbers [0], though, so maybe only slightly down. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/186184/passengers-boarded-by-us-air-carriers-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/186184/passengers-boarde...
- ibeckermayer 2y ago[flagged]
- chasil 2y agoThe people in these planes probably didn't feel perfectly safe. https://avherald.com/ https://avherald.com/
- pseudoramble 2y agoSorry I'm unaware of what you're saying? Are you saying that pilots are being selected without meeting training requirements and licensing? That doesn't sound right and I must be missing your point.
- foldr 2y agoI think, reading between the lines, you are replying to a "blame wokeness for everything bad that happens" post. Being generous, it's about one order of magnitude more rational than blaming gays for earthquakes. But it's the same basic idea.
- lxgr 2y agoBoeing has been proudly outsourcing critical avionics software to contractors inexperienced with aviation and earning $9/hour [1]. But sure, they must have done that because of their race and gender, not because of the massive potential increase in profits. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39689516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39689516
- treyd 2y agoI didn't expect this ignorance on HN given the industry most of us work in. Safety and quality are a product of systems, processes, and policies and not individual skills. Mistakes will always be made even by including cishet natively english speaking upper-middle class white men. No good manager should expect individuals to be able to account for issues all on their own. In Boeing's case, the problems are very obviously management compromising quality by encouraging corner-cutting for reducing costs to increase profits. It worked for a while because Boeing had the redundancies in processes to catch errors before they had an impact, but eventually they compromises were too much. Tell me, what does this has to do with race and gender?
- porphyra 2y agoAnd then five people died after a commercial airliner hit an earthquake aid plane in Tokyo literally two days after 2023 ended.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 2y agoI am guessing many consumers considers aviation safety a broader topic than "fatal accidents" which this article focuses on.
- sokoloff 2y agoI'll also wager that consumers place "fatal accidents" in the high-order byte of overall safety comparisons across years.
- constantcrying 2y agoIt also should be considered that accidents depend on chance. It is completely fine to point out that aviation has gained an enormous standard of safety, which is the result of around of a hundred years of constant vigilance and self improvement of the industry. Nevertheless a commercial airliner, recently produced, lost a door mid flight. Under less fortunate circumstances that could have been a major disaster and the statistic would look very different. I think the worry people have is that safety standards are slipping, when it comes to building airplanes, specifically Boeing building airplanes. This is not something that would be noticeable in an accident statistic while it is actually happening, yet it is an extremely serious matter for the safety of aviation in the future.
- hurtuvac78 2y ago> It also should be considered [...] on chance To be fair to the author, this is very much mentioned. And yes, luck has played a role as well. We closed out 2023 with a near-perfect record, but not without a few close calls.
- hackernewds 2y agoyeah airline safety in a year can be a lagging indicator. and the airlines are safe due to the safety regulations being respected and issues being broadcasted rather than in spite of it
- solatic 2y agoThis exactly. Looking at the safety record to make predictions about airline safety in the future is like making a bet in 2006 that subprime mortgages should be rated AAA because the price of real estate is always increasing. The real characteristics of what lies beneath the numbers matter.
- User23 2y ago> self improvement of the industry Credit is mostly due to the government here. The NTSB[1] has been a shining success. And yes, hysteresis must be considered for transport safety. [1] https://www.ntsb.gov/ https://www.ntsb.gov/
- 2y ago
- hackernewds 2y agois partly to be attributed how reliant on technology vs humans we are now with aviation? practically a plane could be flown without pilots
- t0mas88 2y agoNot really. Planes can't fly without pilots. Even flying a large jet with a single pilot instead of two would be very hard. It can be landed in an emergency (e.g. one pilot incapacitated), but it is hard work for the remaining pilot and requires some cooperation from ATC. Can't really do that with multiple aircraft at the same time. Even more so in case of adverse weather or any systems failures. It quickly becomes too much for one pilot, that's why only small jets are certified for single pilot operations.
- jchw 2y agoThe actual number of fatalities is a trailing metric, not a leading one, and it trails by years. Same for security incidents. Same for downtime. Culture problems have a tendency of not showing themselves until things are extremely dire.
- wakawaka28 2y agoDoes anyone actually believe this? Lol
- frabjoused 2y agoDo you prefer John Oliver anecdotes or numbers?
- wakawaka28 2y agoI don't like John Oliver. Anyway, I would like to know how many near misses there have been over time. Not just deadly crashes. We could have seen a decline in already-rare fatal crashes as all other types of crashes increase, and planes literally keep falling apart. I think this blogger is trolling with a hot take and/or pushing propaganda.
- frabjoused 2y agoIt’s very easy to objectively see the improvement over time. Just google around and look at some charts from the 60s to today, preferably that relate accidents and fatalities per million flights so it’s properly scaled. Every chart you look at has improved remarkably. Doesn’t matter how many recent Boeing anecdotes you pull out, planes and regulations have improved and the result is in these numbers.
- wakawaka28 2y agoIt's not just anecdotes. Many planes were parked for 2 years and suffered unexpected issues as they were rushed back into service with minimal oversight, after many experienced personnel retired. This isn't even addressing the Boeing whistleblower who mysteriously "committed suicide" after telling his family that he wouldn't, or the spectacular accidents lately with wheels and doors literally falling off of aircraft. You can google all the stats you want but in the current environment I don't trust any recent stats. They are at best cherry-picked, like making dubious claims about "deaths in 2023" vs. serious accidents which indicate systemic problems.
- binary132 2y agoGee, I dunno. Probably no reason, haha.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago44,000 dead in car crashes in the US in 2023.