Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SYLOH t1_ja8981f wrote

That's defective thinking as well.

Given that one plane crashed, it is much more likely that another plane of the same type will crash.

EG: a design mistake causes undue stress on a part, that part wears out faster that it should. That part breaks mid air and causes a plane crash. It is likely that the parts in all the similar planes has also been under stress, and might be breaking soon as well.

This is why the FAA tends to ground all planes of a certain kind until they figure out it wasn't the plane causing the issue.

See also the Boeing 737-800 MAX

1

PM_ur_Rump t1_ja8b7cu wrote

See my other response.

But also think that there are all sorts of reasons planes crash, and all sorts of planes. A plane crashing at a large airport often does not significantly slow air traffic outside that directly impaired by the use of that runway or airport, depending on severity.

2

SYLOH t1_ja8bwh3 wrote

And again, see the part about the Boeing 737-800 MAX.
Sometimes its a problem with the whole class of plane.
That's the most recent example I can name off the top of my head.
There are many many examples of this.

You can keep going to see sometimes how changes in process/certification lead to the crashes.
And sometimes that first crash is the sign those problems are starting to come home to roost.

1

PM_ur_Rump t1_ja8cqu5 wrote

Yes, but that was not the conversation we were having.

And the grounding of whole fleets based on one event immediately after it has happened without reason to think it was a flaw in the design of the aircraft itself is not exactly common. When a plane overshoots the runway on landing due to pilot error, they don't ground entire fleets of that airframe.

Planes crashing is very complex thing and the "odds" are as well. It's not remotely static like dice.

That part was also part of the conversation I had with the guy in trying to explain the concept of odds to him.

1