Yes this is true. Accident implies nobody is at fault, or this stuff is excusable. It really isn't, because it's negligence at multiple levels. On the bright side, that is easier to fix than defective plane designs.
"Incident" vs "Accident" in Aviation have very specific meaning (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2 for example). Simply put, an accident is an event where there is any of: death, serious injury, or substantial damage to the aircraft, and an incident is an event relating to the safety of operations regardless of whether or not death, injury, or substantial damage to the aircraft occurred. Neither have anything to do with whether there is fault or whether they are excusable.
Regardless of the recent incidents, air travel remains exceedingly safe when compared with other modes of transport, and comments such as these make me wonder what I'm missing.
Again, I'm not excusing these Boeing issues -- they are very serious. However calling a simple (number of deaths/total flight hours) calculations that are trivially verified as "uncited stats" is extremely hysterical to the point where you cannot be taken seriously at all.
I don't care anymore if you take me seriously. The fact you are so in denial about the extent of what is happening makes me think you're not arguing in good faith. Maybe you wrote the blog post?
In your defense, I'm sure the general trend over like 30 years is that air travel has gotten safer, probably because of increased use of autopilot and other software, and general equipment advances. However, that does not disprove the fact that there is a recent spate of ridiculous failures that probably haven't even made it to statistics yet. Shall we overlook a dramatic increase in embarrassing incidents because the larger trend is downward? I don't think so.
I do appreciate the clarification about an industry definition of incident vs. accident. By your own definition, incidents and accidents appear to be on the rise. If you believe every stat that the government comes up with, I have a bridge to sell you. When they don't like a number, they redefine it and keep calling it by the same name. Just like CPI, unemployment, GDP, etc. Or average temperatures. We do need stats but you have to think critically about where they come from and who would be blamed if they were bad.
Comments
"Incident" vs "Accident" in Aviation have very specific meaning (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2 for example). Simply put, an accident is an event where there is any of: death, serious injury, or substantial damage to the aircraft, and an incident is an event relating to the safety of operations regardless of whether or not death, injury, or substantial damage to the aircraft occurred. Neither have anything to do with whether there is fault or whether they are excusable.
Regardless of the recent incidents, air travel remains exceedingly safe when compared with other modes of transport, and comments such as these make me wonder what I'm missing.
Again, I'm not excusing these Boeing issues -- they are very serious. However calling a simple (number of deaths/total flight hours) calculations that are trivially verified as "uncited stats" is extremely hysterical to the point where you cannot be taken seriously at all.
I don't care anymore if you take me seriously. The fact you are so in denial about the extent of what is happening makes me think you're not arguing in good faith. Maybe you wrote the blog post?
In your defense, I'm sure the general trend over like 30 years is that air travel has gotten safer, probably because of increased use of autopilot and other software, and general equipment advances. However, that does not disprove the fact that there is a recent spate of ridiculous failures that probably haven't even made it to statistics yet. Shall we overlook a dramatic increase in embarrassing incidents because the larger trend is downward? I don't think so.
I do appreciate the clarification about an industry definition of incident vs. accident. By your own definition, incidents and accidents appear to be on the rise. If you believe every stat that the government comes up with, I have a bridge to sell you. When they don't like a number, they redefine it and keep calling it by the same name. Just like CPI, unemployment, GDP, etc. Or average temperatures. We do need stats but you have to think critically about where they come from and who would be blamed if they were bad.
There could have been just as many or more ridiculous failures in the past, you just didn't have a chance to read about them with your coffee.
There’s a ton of reliable published stats and there’s nothing dubious about them.