Skip to content

Comment on Internal FAA Review Saw High Risk of 737 Max Crashesparent

Comments

Your point is well taken, thank you.

Though, presumably the FAA's tolerance for risk has also dropped tremendously over the past several decades, so I feel like the more relevant comparison is the perceived risk to the actual risk.

Although the public thinks the risk it's taking is much smaller, it still vastly overestimates the danger of flying.

I agree completely that the public thinks flying is a lot safer than they used to, which is a change, but I think they also still really overestimate the danger, which is not a change, and which I believe is borne out by the same evidence provided by the parent, people buying life insurance when it was a bad deal and people continuing to demand that the FAA make flying so much safer than activities like driving that they engage in without a second thought.

I'm also not so sure that a lot of people wouldn't still buy life insurance at the gate if it was available.

The FAA estimated the 737 Max would crash roughly once every 2-3 years. That is 8x more often than the rest of Boeing’s fleet.

This apparently was still within FAA guidelines. I gurantee the flying public’s risk tolerance is lower than that. I know mine is.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.