737 Max 9s are currently grounded due to a single incident; should the FAA have waited for a second door to blow off?
Reading that myself, it sounds like a gotcha question, but under this entirely arbitrary 2-but-not-1 threshold, the answer seems like it should obviously be yes.
The rational framework the author is advocating for is all about probabilities and percentages, so it seems like a weird exception to carve out that there’s some hard line between 1 and 2 event occurrences. I doubt he would hold fast to it if pressed, which is fine.
> Reading that myself, it sounds like a gotcha question, but under this entirely arbitrary 2-but-not-1 threshold, the answer seems like it should obviously be yes.
I think that's because the question implicitly assumes that the threshold applies for all things and all purposes. It doesn't. First the threshold is about adjusting your baselines, and second even if the threshold were for when to pull the "stop everything" cord, it all depends on your specific goals. The FAA might have completely different goals and targets than someone else in some other industry. Or to put it another way, the FAA has grounded all 737 Max 9's after a single incident with no fatalities. As of Jan 16, 11 people have been killed in homicides in Chicago. By the same "one threshold for everything", the entire city should be on complete lockdown until such time as it can be made safe by the proper authorities.
On the other hand, if you assume that one could have a very low "stop the world" response threshold for "sudden mechanical failures leading to explosive decompression" of planes, and simultaneously have a higher "stop the world" threshold for "people dying in Chicago", then it seems completely reasonable that one could have a third different threshold for the number of mass shooters that come out of any given arbitrary social clustering that trigger the "I should re-evaluate whether these people are entirely sane" routines in your brain.
It’s quite different. The incident with the door heavily implies a problem of airplane design. It makes sense to ground it.
What we knew at the time of the first crash of max 8 seemed to imply a pilot error. It wasn’t statistically significant. Only when another max 8 crashed soon after (I think soon enough to say “in a row”) was the max 8 grounded. If the second crash occured years after it wouldnt be significant.
elicksaur|2 years ago
Reading that myself, it sounds like a gotcha question, but under this entirely arbitrary 2-but-not-1 threshold, the answer seems like it should obviously be yes.
The rational framework the author is advocating for is all about probabilities and percentages, so it seems like a weird exception to carve out that there’s some hard line between 1 and 2 event occurrences. I doubt he would hold fast to it if pressed, which is fine.
tpmoney|2 years ago
I think that's because the question implicitly assumes that the threshold applies for all things and all purposes. It doesn't. First the threshold is about adjusting your baselines, and second even if the threshold were for when to pull the "stop everything" cord, it all depends on your specific goals. The FAA might have completely different goals and targets than someone else in some other industry. Or to put it another way, the FAA has grounded all 737 Max 9's after a single incident with no fatalities. As of Jan 16, 11 people have been killed in homicides in Chicago. By the same "one threshold for everything", the entire city should be on complete lockdown until such time as it can be made safe by the proper authorities.
On the other hand, if you assume that one could have a very low "stop the world" response threshold for "sudden mechanical failures leading to explosive decompression" of planes, and simultaneously have a higher "stop the world" threshold for "people dying in Chicago", then it seems completely reasonable that one could have a third different threshold for the number of mass shooters that come out of any given arbitrary social clustering that trigger the "I should re-evaluate whether these people are entirely sane" routines in your brain.
tomca32|2 years ago
What we knew at the time of the first crash of max 8 seemed to imply a pilot error. It wasn’t statistically significant. Only when another max 8 crashed soon after (I think soon enough to say “in a row”) was the max 8 grounded. If the second crash occured years after it wouldnt be significant.