Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

Something about airplanes really brings out the illogical side of otherwise very smart folks.

You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few months - during which millions and millions of miles where traveled in perfectly safe Boeing aircraft of all ages and models, all over the world.

It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft.

Knee-jerk reactions and declarations like this are as foolish as naïve.

View on HN

And I’m more likely to die on a Boeing than an Airbus, so as long as we’re comparing micromort risks, why is my survival preference rational only above some threshold of risk differential?

There’s also the “vote with your wallet” aspect of it. I don’t like the direction Boeing is moving. Their past safety profile is less relevant to me than their future trajectory.

(Also, I take the train to the airport, and I minimize highway driving precisely because of its high relative risk.)

Airbus has their share of issues as well. You just haven't cared to read about them.

In fact, several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks.

I don't mean this is a disparaging way, but this perspective is naïve and ignorant.

Well let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infographic after a quick search which implies Boeing is a lot worse than Airbus.

https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg

This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait.

An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike.

The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.

If you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.

Last I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.

You've posted a case study of 'How to lie with statistics'.

This is a chart of incidents, but it doesn't define what an incident is (did anyone get hurt? how many people were hurt? how badly? was it a near-miss, or did the many layers of redundancy in safety handle it fine?), and it doesn't normalize it to incident/flight or incident/mile.

Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners?

The MAX crashes obviously were, and the MAX has a very bad safety record as a result.

The claim (Boeing is worse than Airbus) is probably correct, but that chart is horrible evidence for it, or for how much worse one is, compared to the other. If you're going to provide evidence for this claim, you need to find something better.

I'm not trying to lie and I'm aware my data isn't perfect, but I'm the only one providing any data at all so far. I have repeatedly asked for better data and been denied. I can only analyze the data I have, imperfect though it may be. When someone is consistently asking for better data, criticizing that person's data is kinda dumb.

> Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners?

You're making the mistake of assuming Boeing's fault is what matters. If, for whatever reason, Boeing's planes are more likely to be shot down - regardless of whether or not they are at fault - they are still more dangerous. We are not at the why stage yet, we are at the what stage.

Anyway, since then I've found better data that actually implies Boeing is safer than Airbus.

> Boeing aircraft have a lower frequency of crashes per million flights compared to Airbus, with Boeing having a rate of one crash per 184 million flights and Airbus having a rate of one crash per 081 million flights.

https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-inci...

I've also found a better breakdown comparing the events between the plane manufacturers from my initial graph.

https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-a...

> If, for whatever reason, Boeing's planes are more likely to be shot down - regardless of whether or not they are at fault - they are still more dangerous.

No reasonable person would conclude that.

You either need enough data for it to be statistically significant (Which, given the sample size of one isn't it...)

Or you can work around the lack of statistics, by having a bullet-proof explanation for why Boeings (N=1) get shot down more frequently than Aribuses (N=0). But the bar for that is much higher than 'Well, statistically speaking..."

Statistics are great, because they are a lossy shortcut inform our decisionmaking when we don't actually understand the root causes. But they require statistically significant data to do so. In the absence of it, we have to actually understand the root causes.

> You either need enough data for it to be statistically significant

I guess this wasn't clear, but I thought this was implied. When I said it's "more likely" I meant you can quantify it. You are correct of course.

Also I agree with everything else you're saying in principle. I kinda feel like we just started the conversation with a misunderstanding about shared assumptions and likely agree with each other.

The other problem with that chart is that its from the NTSB and not normalized to relative fleet size. Boeing aircraft are more common in the NTSB's jurisdiction.

> several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks.

Example please? I’m fairly well read on aviation incidents and I can’t recall a case of an accident being caused by this in particular.

Air France 447[1] went down in no small part due to conflicting pilot stick inputs (with neither being aware of the other's actions). As with all aviation tragedies, there never is one single failure, but here the stick control scheme played a non-trivial part.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

I wouldn’t say that this incident was “the result of” the sidestick issue. The fact that the airplane was in an upset at all was the result of prior miscommunication and pilot error, and while the sidestick confusion hampered the recovery, the crew should have realised what was going on, especially considering the “dual input” warning.

I do agree the Airbus sidestick setup is stupid, and certainly contributed to this incident. But it’s a different order of stupid to Boeing’s recent malfunctions. I don’t think it makes sense to equivocate here.

I disagree only slightly. In a more traditional control arrangement, both controls are slaved together to provide immediate feedback on input. With all of the confusion going on in that cockpit at that time, audible warnings likely were not as effective as it would have been to feel the stick move in an unexpected way.

But yes, aircraft crashes are rarely if ever the result of a single point of failure. It's always a cascade of failures that leads up to the crash.

Multiple reports cite the controls issue as contributing to the incident, e.g.:

CBS News aviation and safety expert Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger explained that he believes that the disappearance would have been less likely to have happened if the plane had been a Boeing instead of an Airbus. This is because the control wheels are larger and more obvious.

<https://web.archive.org/web/20130608033135/http://www.cbsnew...>

(More in the previously-linked Wikipedia article.)

Oh, there are more. The first dozen A380s built are said to be different than the later ones.

That doesn't mean that Boeing now has its QA in order, or that Boeing's current state proves that anyone else is equally bad. It's just whataboutism.

cough up some data or shut up

Looking at today's AV Herald, I see a collection of A)ccidents and I)ncidents from June 27th to July 9th.

If I have counted correctly, Airbus appears to be involved in a total of 11. Boeing appears to total 30.

A number of these listings do not involve equipment that was provided or supported by the airframe manufacturer.

https://avherald.com/

Again, in the US there are vastly more Boeing aircraft than Airbus. Incidents and Accidents include a huge array of things, including low tire pressure, bird strikes, going off the runway, near misses etc. Many of which have absolutely nothing to do with Boeing as a manufacturer or their aircraft safety records.

i can see it making sense if the flight price and other details are identical, but even the remotest difference you care about (like a $1 price differential) should matter more than this

> You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few months

This is true so long as you define “a couple” to mean “any number”

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239132703/boeing-timeline-73...

Boeing just pled guilty to criminal charges yesterday stemming from two crashes.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/business/boeing-doj-criminal-...

And there have been several whistleblowers talking about problems in production recently.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/business/boeing-whistleblower...

It seems like your position is “I simply do not care about these things, personally” and anything else is foolish and naive

I hate that statement. People have some level of control over their trip to airport. At the plane you are at the mercy of airline, pilots and airframe manufacturer.

Failure to understand this psichological effect and just using naked statistics is naive too.

Don’t you have no control over what other drivers are doing, nor control over the manufacturing of your vehicle?

>It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft.

For many people this is true. For me it is not.

I drive one of the safest cars ever created (45,000 sold, zero occupant deaths so far in both the US and EU) in an area that, in the United States, has the lowest traffic fatalities per capita and per 100 million miles driven, and I am in a demographic group that makes me, "StAtIsTiCaLlY" the safest driver on the road. I've also received defensive driving training through a former job, held a CDL for over a decade (which makes me even safer than a regular driver), and have no health issues.

My local airport is served, mainly, by the 737NG and MAX. The MAX has a fatal hull loss rate of 1.48 per million departures, or 0.06 per 40,000.

I have made over 40,000 "departures" in my car and have a confirmed, irrefutable, unquestionable fatal hull loss rate of 0.00 per 40,000.

You cannot use miles flown or driven as a comparison because of the nature of airline incidents, which tend (90%+) to occur on takeoff or landing.

Too many safety concerns raised by whistleblowers or stories about how poorly Boeing is being managed are not good reasons to risk your life. Why would you do it when there's an alternative? Maybe if flying with Boeing was heavily discounted people would want to incur the risk.

You're basing your decision off a handful of anecdotal reports whereas you could instead look at the literal billions of data points that say you have a better chance of winning your state lottery than ever dying on a Boeing plane.

If you're worried about your safety, isn't the safety data what you should base your decisions off of?

Handful? What are we up to - four? - magically dead Boeing whistleblowers? How many dead whistleblowers does it take before it moves from anecdotal to something else?

>You're basing your decision off a handful of anecdotal reports whereas you could instead look at the literal billions of data points that say you have a better chance of winning your state lottery than ever dying on a Boeing plane. If you're worried about your safety, isn't the safety data what you should base your decisions off of?

It's your life, do what you want with it and I'll do the same with mine. Im aware that it may not be a rational decision, but a rational decision should be based on trust and trust is long gone. And there's an alternative, why risk it?

It is essentially already discounted because [choosing to fly either Airbus or Boeing] is way more efficient and cheaper than [look for routes that don't fly Boeing].

> It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft.

You're conflating two issues here. Yes, air travel is safer than any other means of travel. But comparing apples to apples (Boeing vs Airbus), Boeing has twice as many incidents per 100k flights than Airbus. It's not unreasonable to prefer one to the other, however safe they both might be in the grand scheme of things.

Knee-jerk? The entire flawed premise of the Max development was based on the economics of not having to retrain/re-certify flight crews above all else.

No thank you! The planes do things that Boing didn't tell the pilots about. That's not confidence instilling! Juan Brown of the Blancolerio youtube channel has mentioned that on at least two different occasions - and as a professional pilot was pretty miffed at basically being mislead by Boeing.

What we are seeing in Boeing are not just one-off lapses, but systemic failures in judgement and processes. Software processes, manufacturing processes, test and validation processes. There is serious rot at Boeing and until they get back to an engineering focus I won't be flying on any of their newer stuff - period!

If I dislike a companies business practices, I will stop paying for their products. It's really that simple.

You are assuming that OP is doing math and made some mistake, but what if it is more then math. now can you understand? Also you failed to provide the math proof that the user is wrong and Boeing is equal or better in safety then alternatives.

In case you failed the understand, it is also about what we feel, I feel a GIANT negativity towards Sony because the shit they pulled to me and others so no mather what some apologists would try to spin things bringing math or other correct sounding logic I will not do business with assholes if I have an alternative, even if I pay a few cents more.

I have said this before: I don’t worry about dying. I’m using my power as a customer to send a message to the market that I do not appreciate Boeing’s behavior. It’s a tiny message but that’s as much as capitalism gives me.

Well said. Direct register your stocks too. Use all the benefits the system has to offer.

Can I ask for clarification about what you don't appreciate about their behavior? Some of the reasons I've seen have been focused on the MBA-izationation of the company leadership, the relaxing of quality controls and the lack of long term R&D investment - I don't want to misattribute your sentiment though.

Well statistically Airbus is currently safer than Boeing, and as a consumer I have a choice to choose which plane to fly in, at least for my regular routes. Now you tell me why should I pick Boeing over Airbus?

if the time is even 5 minutes better or the price even $1 better, that should trump any difference in risk profile

If you dissuade them, that just leaves our flights more crowded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com