618
F.A.A. Audit of Boeing’s 737 Max Production Found Dozens of Issues
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
618 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
61749 readers
831 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm going to take a leap of faith and say you don't work in aviation..
Step one.. define safety in the context of the airplane.
Step two.. measure it.
So yea. If safety is never defined it cannot be measured. But is the sentiment you are attempting to express is that measurable safety guidelines have not been defined for these massively complicated and long-running commercial aircraft?
Maybe I am misunderstanding because at first glance your comment comes across as nonsensical, please elaborate.
How do you think safety is verified?
Safety cannot be measured because it's a feeling. One person feels safe climbing a mountain without a rope and the next person is petrified. Safety is just word to describe a concept. It's different to the wavelength of light or force or charge. These things are based on fundamental properties of the universe that can be measured and are repeatable.
A reasonable approximation might be to consider the likelihood of an adverse event given a use case over time. We could say that an accident every million hours is our definition of safe but that is completely arbitrary in the way that the physical laws and constants are not.
One accident per million hours is a direct measurement of safety, not "completely arbitrary". The idea that the threshold in aviation regulations are "arbitrary" because it's not based on a physical law or constant is like saying the temperature we use as "too hot for prolonged contact" is arbitrary. If you exceed it you're likely to get burned, and if you exceed the safety thresholds in aviation regulations you'll be less safe in an airplane than other types of transportation that we as a society find acceptable.
In engineering safety is not "just a feeling".
Your arguments are so absurd I'm certain you're just trolling for a reaction with brain dead comments like this.
It's a measurement on an arbitrary scale. Nothing I've said is news to anyone who designs safety critical systems. I'm certainly not saying that safety isn't important or that we can't assess it. What I'm saying is that placing a number on that assessment will always stray into the realm of politics in a way that physics and mathematics never does. It lulls ignorant people into the belief that something is safe or not safe. They feel safe because they've been told it is safe or vice versa. Physics doesn't care if you feel safe.
It's notable that contemporary safety standards such as ISO 26262 generally avoid numerical assessments, for the reasons outlined above.
First Incidents per hour is not arbitrary. These numbers compare very well to daily activities such as walking, driving, bathing, eating, swimming so that non specialists have a good idea of how much risk an activity carries by comparing it to an activity they're familiar with.
Secondly ISO 26262 produces ASILs as its output which are qualitative, but still based on probably assessments in terms of chance of incidence per hour. The reason for qualitative instead of quantitative assessments of the more general SILs (based on IEC61508, the parent of ISO 26262) is that qualitative is cheaper than quantitative and the automotive industry is full of corner cutting.
Third, aircraft use QUANTITATIVE risk assessments based on ARP476, so risk can be directly measured and mathematicaly compared to any other activity. When people say "flying is safer than driving" it's not arbitrary, it's based on real math. The same math the FAA is using to find safety issues in the Boeing production line.
Fourth
Is this you?