[nemo44x]

Things “go wrong” fairly “frequently” on airplanes but they are hardened for this with redundant systems and manual (as well as computer) overrides. You don’t hear about most of them but they are all logged and used for improvements.

The main difference is when a car has a catastrophic failure there’s a good chance the people involved survive.

[bmitc]

I suppose by wrong I mean something more than the redundant, robust, and various protection systems can handle. For example, on a car, I wouldn't consider the anti-lock brake system kicking in as something going wrong.

I've had an engine failure in my car while driving it. I simply was able to slow to a crawl until I got home. I don't think engine failure on an airplane is such an anti-climatic event, on average.

[ceejayoz]

> I don't think engine failure on an airplane is such an anti-climatic event, on average.

It often is, actually. They have more than one engine precisely for that scenario, and can fly quite well with one down. Flights over water are also carefully planned based on distance to the nearest airport with an engine out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

Even if you lose all four on a 747, there’s surprisingly large amounts of time to troubleshoot if you’re at cruise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

[t0mas88]

Engine failure on a modern airplane is quite anti-climatic. We train for it regularly, and there are standard procedures to follow after the failure. Basically secure the failed engine, if it's just after takeoff climb to a safe altitude (sometimes following a predetermined route) using the other engine, then select a runway for landing and land almost normally.

[sklargh]

Sort of interesting how the edge of catastrophic failure has moved out in both cars and commercial aircraft.