[teractiveodular]

To put this in perspective, this is the first fatal crash of a US commercial airliner in 16 years (Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009) and the first fatal commercial airliner crash in the United States in 12 years (since Asiana Airlines Flight 214 on July 6, 2013).

We like to throw shade at Boeing, the FAA etc, but this is still an incredible accomplishment, especially given the explosive growth of traffic over those years. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were far fewer flights but multiple crashes every year was the norm.

[happytoexplain]

There is simply no reason to use the statistical safety of air travel to excuse incidents. We can appreciate the incredible feats of engineering and logistics that make air travel so safe without letting the bar dip down or throwing up our hands and saying "well it can't be perfect, don't throw shade" when a specific organization has a specific incident.

Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to what you said, not to the current incident.

[wat10000]

We can simultaneously acknowledge this amazing safety record and still want to fix issues that are found.

[paulddraper]

Well it is objectively true that it can't be perfect.

[sofixa]

> We like to throw shade at Boeing, the FAA etc, but this is still an incredible accomplishment, especially given the explosive growth of traffic over those years

To be fair to them, the Boeing-related incidents could have well happened in the US and killed Americans too. And the FAA absolutely refused to do their job until their hand was forced by everyone else - they refused to ground the Maxes until all other major air authorities did. That's also why EASA is involved in the Max recertification, and the 777X certification. Nobody trusts the FAA anymore.

And the fact that the door blowout didn't damage any part of the plane is miraculous - if it had hit the vertical stabiliser, the plane would have been a total loss.

So you're giving credit where very little is due.

[cameldrv]

That was my thought exactly when I heard of this. I trust that like other major accidents, that we will learn from this and make the skies safer. Sixteen years without a major airline crash was an incredible accomplishment. It's a tragedy it couldn't have gone on longer.

[OtherShrezzing]

I think Boeing specifically attracts criticism due to all the fatalities outside of the US in that time period.

[gota]

And the perceived sentiment that those fatalities are directly linked to changes in the corporate culture that emphasized 'greed' and 'middle management power structures' over 'engineering focus'

Not saying these are true - or false - just that the prevalent media coverage and social media commentary (including here on HN) has been touching on these points frequently. The 'good guys' at Boeing were pushed out or silenced, the 'sleazy guys' won and didn't care about the consequences as long as they got their payday

[coryfklein]

Can you clarify the difference between these?

> first fatal crash of a US commercial airliner

> first fatal commercial airliner crash in the United States

Is it that the 2009 crash was a US-manufactured plane while the 2013 crash was not manufactured in the US but happened in the US?

[hervature]

Actually, the planes from both crashes were Bombardier, a Canadian company. The first one means operated by a US company and the second one refers to a crash in the US.

[alistairSH]

I believe the distinction the OP was making was foreign-owned/operated airline vs domestic. Makes a small difference, but not hufe, as all commericial pilots landing in the US must have an FAA ATP, and the same minimum flight hours as American pilots (though the quality of those hours and other training may vary).

[paulddraper]

Operated vs Located

The 2009 crash was a Canadian-manufactured, US-operated plane, located in the US.

The 2013 crash was a US-manufactured, Korean-operated plane, located in the US.

---

The operating county has far more ability to ensure pilot training, maintenance of aircraft, on-board safety procedures, etc.

E.g. the 2013 crash was due to mismanagement of altitude by the (non-US) crew, resulting in crashing short of the runway.

[junaru]

Why is this being framed as airliners fault to begin with.

When a fishingboat gets rammed by an cruise ship it's not "cruise ship collides with fishingboat", its the reverse.

One is a big civilian aircraft thats being tracked and has no way of making sharp course adjustments the other is a 'VIP' with potentially ADS-B off.

Heads should fly at whatever military branch the hellicopter was operated at... but they wont.

[7952]

Although in terms of risk it is better framed as big ship vs big ship. Because if they touch they are both going down. And both will be constrained in how far they can realistically detect and avoid the other. That is a fact with flying visually and that is why you have instrument flight rules and atc based separation. I know nothing about this location but theoretically ATC could take active steps to avoid conflict. They could change the arrival sequence to allow crossings. Send the arrivals around if need be. The crossing could take place above the airfield or further away to provide more vertical separation. .

[gedy]

From what I've seen, military leaders can and do get fired and blamed for their unit failings, at least more frequently than equivalent corporate leaders do.