6 ms·

At some point it comes down to probabilities. With so many flights going on, one in a million incidents become a certainty. For example UA232 [1] suffered failu

by rft 10mo ago

At some point it comes down to probabilities. With so many flights going on, one in a million incidents become a certainty. For example UA232 [1] suffered failure in all 3 redundant hydraulic systems due to an uncontained engine failure. Any of the 3 systems would have been enough to retain control of the aircraft. Of course this lead to some investigations on why all 3 systems could be impacted at the same time and what can be done to limit failures. Besides the technical aspects that flight is an impressive example of resilience and skill. Bringing that plane down to the ground in nearly one piece was essentially impossible and a one in a million chance in itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

wat10000 10mo ago
Airlines operate to a much stricter standard than one in a million. If one in a million flights ended in a fatal crash, the US alone would see about 3 airline passenger deaths per day on average. The actual average over the past 10 years is under 0.02 deaths per day. It's true that you can never get to zero. There's always a chance of some catastrophic failure. The lesson of modern airline safety is that you can get extremely close to zero by carefully analyzing and learning from the failures, which is exactly why these thorough investigations are done. The lesson from UA232 was to make sure one failure can't take out all of the hydraulic systems. In this specific instance, "the engine fell off and took out another engine, leaving the aircraft with insufficient power to climb" is definitely not in the realm of "probabilities will get you eventually." It's very much in the realm of a mechanical failure that should not happen, combined with a bad design flaw that turns that failure from a mere emergency into pretty much guaranteed death. Cargo is held to a lower standard than passenger service, but I suspect this will still spell the end of the DC-10 and MD-11, at least in the US. Engines will fail, and for an aircraft of this size, that needs to be survivable in all phases of flight just for the safety of people on the ground.
- 16bytes 10mo ago
  > Airlines operate to a much stricter standard than one in a million. If one in a million flights ended in a fatal crash, the US alone would see about 3 airline passenger deaths per day on average. I think you conflated flights (several 10Ks per day) with passengers (several million per day). One in a million flights is one accident every few decades. > at least in the US. Engines will fail As per the report, this appears to be a structural failure, not an engine failure.
  - wat10000 10mo ago
    If randomly distributed, one in a million flights crashing and killing all passengers means that one in a million passengers dies. The US sees about 25,000 airline flights per day, or around 9 million per year. So with one in a million flights crashing, we'd expect roughly 9 crashes per year.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- chasil 10mo ago
  > The lesson of modern airline safety is that you can get extremely close to zero by carefully analyzing and learning from the failures, which is exactly why these thorough investigations are done. I have heard it said that "every air safety rule is written in blood." https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/travel/tokyo-plane-crash-safety-rules-analysis-intl https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/travel/tokyo-plane-crash-safe...
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  If the engine had just failed, they would very likely have been fine. Experienced crew, would likely have handled it. But the engine came off the wing, and then another engine was damaged. At that point there was no recovery possible.
  - foldr 10mo ago
    This is understating it. Any minimally competent crew should be able to handle a single engine failure on takeoff (in a normal scenario, not this one). It’s absolutely within the performance envelope of the aircraft and is something that crew train for. If pilots were not routinely able to handle this kind of failure, we’d see a lot more crashes.
    - bombcar 10mo ago
      The pilots did (apparently) exceptionally well keeping the plane level even with unbalanced weight and nearly no thrust; perhaps they had been over water they’d even have been able to ditch successfully.
    - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
      This is still understating it. Any barely competent crew should be able to handle a single engine failure on takeoff (in a normal scenario, not this one).

by rft 10mo ago

wat10000 10mo ago

Airlines operate to a much stricter standard than one in a million. If one in a million flights ended in a fatal crash, the US alone would see about 3 airline passenger deaths per day on average. The actual average over the past 10 years is under 0.02 deaths per day. It's true that you can never get to zero. There's always a chance of some catastrophic failure. The lesson of modern airline safety is that you can get extremely close to zero by carefully analyzing and learning from the failures, which is exactly why these thorough investigations are done. The lesson from UA232 was to make sure one failure can't take out all of the hydraulic systems. In this specific instance, "the engine fell off and took out another engine, leaving the aircraft with insufficient power to climb" is definitely not in the realm of "probabilities will get you eventually." It's very much in the realm of a mechanical failure that should not happen, combined with a bad design flaw that turns that failure from a mere emergency into pretty much guaranteed death. Cargo is held to a lower standard than passenger service, but I suspect this will still spell the end of the DC-10 and MD-11, at least in the US. Engines will fail, and for an aircraft of this size, that needs to be survivable in all phases of flight just for the safety of people on the ground.

16bytes 10mo ago
> Airlines operate to a much stricter standard than one in a million. If one in a million flights ended in a fatal crash, the US alone would see about 3 airline passenger deaths per day on average. I think you conflated flights (several 10Ks per day) with passengers (several million per day). One in a million flights is one accident every few decades. > at least in the US. Engines will fail As per the report, this appears to be a structural failure, not an engine failure.
- wat10000 10mo ago
  If randomly distributed, one in a million flights crashing and killing all passengers means that one in a million passengers dies. The US sees about 25,000 airline flights per day, or around 9 million per year. So with one in a million flights crashing, we'd expect roughly 9 crashes per year.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
chasil 10mo ago
> The lesson of modern airline safety is that you can get extremely close to zero by carefully analyzing and learning from the failures, which is exactly why these thorough investigations are done. I have heard it said that "every air safety rule is written in blood." https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/travel/tokyo-plane-crash-safety-rules-analysis-intl https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/travel/tokyo-plane-crash-safe...
SoftTalker 10mo ago
If the engine had just failed, they would very likely have been fine. Experienced crew, would likely have handled it. But the engine came off the wing, and then another engine was damaged. At that point there was no recovery possible.
- foldr 10mo ago
  This is understating it. Any minimally competent crew should be able to handle a single engine failure on takeoff (in a normal scenario, not this one). It’s absolutely within the performance envelope of the aircraft and is something that crew train for. If pilots were not routinely able to handle this kind of failure, we’d see a lot more crashes.
  - bombcar 10mo ago
    The pilots did (apparently) exceptionally well keeping the plane level even with unbalanced weight and nearly no thrust; perhaps they had been over water they’d even have been able to ditch successfully.
  - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
    This is still understating it. Any barely competent crew should be able to handle a single engine failure on takeoff (in a normal scenario, not this one).