[simion314]

You are using statistics wrong here, FAA process changed , Boeing entered a panic mode so their process changed too, applying statistics from the past where processes were different(FAA did its job and Boeing was no cutting corners) is incorrect.

We need new statistics, and this are the stats for the recent Boeing plane where the MAX crashed 2 times, first crash was blamed on the pilots and no serious urgent investigation was performed, the MCAS issues that were discovered were trivialized, still Beoing is trying to shift t6he blame on a bad software and not on the actual causes .

My point is that you can't use statistics that way, there are rules on how to apply them correctly and many pitfalls when applying statistics in real world scenarios.

[shaki-dora]

No, I'm using statistics exactly as intended. Last year was much safer than any year in the 20th century, and so will this year be.

You have some ideas about how everything used to be better in the past, and you're trying to hold onto them in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There isn't some sudden increase in the pressure to earn money that wasn't there in, say, 2008. And while the 737 Max process was obviously flawed, the argument above was that somehow there are fundamental problems across companies and industries, not just a single model. Quote from above:

> So the same problem that pervades society everywhere now? [I]t feels to me that people just left the ‘building great products’ part behind.

While evidence of a breakdown in Boeing's ability to design safe planes would indeed lag, there are many other critical processes where regressions would show rather quickly, such as maintenance, fuel quality, air traffic control, IT security, etc.

[simion314]

Maybe you want to state it more clearly, like in math so I can have a better idea what you are talking about. I think I missunderstood you anyway, because I was thinking at airplane crashes statistics and not at the entire world industry.

In statistics you need some basic things to be true, like you need true random independent events, or sometimes a theorem apply only if the distribution of the events is known to have some properties.

What I understood you were implying (I was wrong, sorry) and other comments too, is that if we look at Boeing crashes (not MAX) for latest N years (but we exclude older incidents) then we can conclude things about the future statistics of the MAX.

About the rest of the industry I agree that most things got better. But for example in car industry there was a lot of competition and a lot of regulation bout safety and pollution that forced the companies to be better, if you had only 2 car making companies and have them self approve then we may get in the same situation as with the MAX.