Did Boeing pay for this article?
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
111 points (99.1% liked)
Uplifting News
11426 readers
26 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wall of rant incoming, sorry ;)
The website is a general aviation news source, and a decent one. Caveats: Given the size of Boeing in the global market, I have no doubt that they cover a lot of Boeing stories. Furthermore, given the size of Boeing in the global market, I would suspect they also advertise within, causing a bias to creep in there. However, none of the major bias reporting websites indicate anything about Simply Flying being bought and paid for. Furthermore, the numbers they are reporting are not their own.
Air incident doom and gloom stories make for excellent attention grabbing articles for news organizations -- clicks sell advertising, so of course they'll publish every doom and gloom article they can find, and Boeing makes an excellent target. Statistically speaking, due to the number of Boeing planes in the air, a good percentage of aviation related incidents will involve Boeing. But, even more so, there's now a narrative, and media organizations love articles that reinforce narratives. The narrative may be partially or wholly true, but it is often disproportionately reported.
Simple example: how many Tesla fires are reported my major media organizations, versus Ford fires, even though statistically there are far more Ford fires out there (both in terms of absolute numbers, and once normalized by the total number of vehicles). But that wouldn't fit the narrative and thus drive clicks.
The narrative in the media is that aviation is dangerous, and Boeing in particular. But the reality is that you're far more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than you are in an aviation related incident. That, however, is not sexy to report and doesn't drive clicks.
The reason I'm posting this is because it's not doom and gloom. People should feel comforted getting into modern aircraft that there are a ridiculous number of safety systems, regulations, inspections, and more going on and flying is literally the safest form of transportation.
(I'd add some exceptions for private bush planes, remote access to the Arctic and Antarctic, etc., where there is added risk due to lack of infrastructure or "cowboy" outfits operating ancient equipment, like the DC-3.)
Can we take a moment and appreciate the 737max aircraft, and what a fantastic piece of cruel cramped plastic shit it is to fly in, yet?
Boeing's quality processes have shown to be very lacking and are not engineering driven, but rather cost cutting and profit driven. They could not even catch bolts MISSING from a door plug on a brand new air frame.
That is the antithesis of flight safety.
MBA's are making decisions regarding complex engineering problems that really should be left to their betters.
Boeing richly deserves every bit of backlash heading their way. They have killed hundreds of people by slapping band aids on a 55 year old air frame in an attempt to keep it current. When they should have been working on a clean sheet design 20 years ago.
In 2024 so far (to the best of my memory), we had one crash on a runway in Japan, but zero casualties (on the jet -- several casualties on the other plane -- not a jet). And a door fell off a plane in Alaska with zero casualties.
There are always a small number of bush plane or private small plane casualties every year, but they don't count against jets either.
in other words, it sounds like a totally meaningless metric.
No. Commercial passenger Jets are pretty much the safest form of travel that exists by almost every metric. Comparing them against three seater Cessnas that Billybob from Oregon uses for sight-seeing expeditions is not fair. You don't compare SUVs to bicycles when talking about safety because they both have tires.
Note that military aircraft are also not included. There were a lot of people who died in Jets this year in military contexts. But would you call that fair when putting together the safety metrics?
What about passengers that suffered heart attacks while flying in a commercial plane? Actually, that might be an interesting example, but not in the context of this article. (Tangent: there's probably a metric here. If you have a heart attack in a vehicle, what are the odds you're driving, and what are the odds your heart attack causes multiple fatalities as a result. But your travel time to hospital and survival rate might be higher as a passenger -- it takes more time for a plane to make an emergency landing. I'd bet those numbers come in close, but it'll depend on the metric used.)
You always need to pick a reasonable metric. In this case, commercial passenger jets is a good one, because it's the largest group.
January 2024: « And then the fire nation attacked. »