Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by digdugdirk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

digdugdirk

[flagged]

View on HN

Zero. This almost certainly has nothing to do with the shutdown.

There's just no way that's actually true though in a complex environment like airports and airplanes.

Likely no impact. It was departing with ~75 tonnes of fuel and suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/majo...

> suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure

But was un-discoverable? Or un-preventable? Seems plane inspectors and safety-related roles were affected and have been furloughed:

> But for the people involved in inspecting our planes to ensure they follow Federal Aviation Administration safety standards, the situation is more complicated. While principal aviation inspectors were told to keep working, assistant-level inspectors and other support staff were sent home and then had to be recalled.

https://archive.ph/rEpTx

Of course it was not unpreventable, though it might turn out that preventing it would have been unreasonably expensive.

But, the FAA inspectors are not responsible for making sure planes are safe to fly. They are responsible for making sure the people whose job that actually is, are doing their jobs effectively. That’s a critical difference.

It’s UPS maintenance personnel who are responsible for making sure that UPS planes are safe to fly. Yes, it’s possible that there is some institutional failure at UPS, that could have been caught if FAA inspectors were working in the past 30 days, but this isn’t the most likely scenario, and the root cause and responsibility (in this hypothetical) would still lie with UPS and not the FAA and the shutdown.

The maintenance and inspection tends to be done by MROs, and any institutional issue within UPS's MRO would have been identified before the shutdown by the FAA and other regulators.

But based on your comment history, you aren't from the US, have not ever visited America, do not care to visit America, and haven't interacted with Americans, so I doubt you have on the ground experience with the US. But that also leads to the question of why you even care to comment on our affairs if you dislike us to such a degree.

Aviation regulations are updated in FAFO basis("written in blood" is the more common version).

Thats kind of insincere given how much safer flying is compared to driving a car. Modern flight is not dangerous, its just more spectacular when failures happen.

And that has a lot to do with the said regulations. It is not safer because of magic or because flying in air was inherently safer then driving on ground.

À lot of the reason why flying is so safe now is because of the culture of investigating every incident to make sure they won't happen again.

And, unfortunately, it's not that rare that the investigations to turn up things that were the result of corners being cut. I'm guessing that's what the "FAFO" comment points to.

Flying is only safer than driving a car when extremely regular and frequent maintenance is performed and performed correctly. The safety of flying goes down very fast when the maintenance effectiveness goes down. That is not true for cars.

Probably also worth pointing out that flying is only safer for Part 121 operators (airlines) -- private jets, sightseeing helicopters, skydiving operators, and general aviation are all more dangerous.

Is cargo in part 121?

UPS is, yeah.

You already know the answer. You answered yourself. Yet you ask this and then saying "don't start a flame war" is pretty disingenuous.

"I'm just asking questions."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com