Originally Posted by
Sled
Of course its not perfect. There is no perfect metric. But if you think there is a better way to quantify the inherent safety characteristics of an airplane then I'm all ears. As far as not wanting to set foot on the airplane again being irrational, I think I've hinted at a rational argument...but I'll make the argument plainly so that you can point out my irrationality:
1) Flying carries a certain level of risk because the consequences of a mishap are often high (up to loss of life).
2) I desire to continue living.
3) Therefore in the context of flying aircraft, if given the choice, I should choose the safest aircraft which accomplishes the mission/task.
4) The MD-11 is (by a metric which, though not perfect, is "not a bad metric") 20-25 times less safe then similarly situated aircraft, which are available for me to choose to fly.
Conclusion: I will not fly or ride in an MD-11
Please point out which part of these premises are incorrect, or demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning.
number 4.
Like I said, that metric is a good starting point to a safety assessment, but you're stopping at the starting point instead of asking a lot of essential follow-up questions such as
"why is the hull loss rate high?"
"what has been done to mitigate the issues since the majority of those hull losses?"
"was this most recent issue preventable with better maintenance inspections or procedures?"
"will those inspections and procedures be improved?"
and so on.
It boils down to thinking one or two ways:
1. "what is the risk of being on an MD-11, and has it been effectively mitigated?"
or
2. "this bad thing happened on the MD-11 which means the airplane is never going to be safe again even if they adequately mitigate the risk"
Originally Posted by
Sled
No doubt the next revenue flight will be extremely safe. But thats not the one that I'm concerned about. Its revenue flight number 2,473 from now that is the problem.
Is it necessary to have flown the aircraft to understand the statistics and consequences? Though experiential learning is excellent, it is not the only type of learning available. If the airplane comes back online and you want to fly it, have at it. I'm not in a position to make that judgement for you. My only intent was to highlight the significant (negative) safety record of the airplane with a statistic that is easy to understand so that folks can make an informed decision.
Decisions and opinions made using only one highlighted statistic without giving weight to much else are not well thought out. Emotional response vs rational thought.
Let's say Boeing builds a new airplane, certifies it, and sells it. It flies for a year without a hull loss. Does that make it a safer airplane? If you measure it by hull loss per departure, sure, but that doesn't actually mean it's a safer airplane.
The 737 MAX had the lowest hull loss rate per departure up until the moment it didn't. Has Boeing adequately mitigated the risk since? Will you still get on a 737 MAX?
The 787 has one hull loss due to what is almost certainly a pilot decision, how is that weighted? does that airplane become less safe than it was the day before it happened?