Yes, I know all of that and we do have the empirical data to support the safety argument. Still there's just too much efficiency mindset at play for my taste. I prefer big buffers, especially in mission critical scenarios.
back
2 comments
But then you still probably choose to drive your car every day, despite that doing so is many, many times more risky than flying over the ocean in a twinjet.
Human preferences ultimately shape these marketplaces, but humans are fundamentally terrible at evaluating risk, especially for extremely negative but highly unlikely outcomes (see also: terrorist attacks, home invasions, etc).
Personally I minimize time spent in automobiles, whether driving or as a passenger, precisely because it’s so dangerous. My risk of sudden death is drastically lower on days that I don’t spend any time inside a vehicle moving at high speeds on the highway.
Yeah no question, I definitely also feel uneasy on the road. Contexts differ greatly by the way.
> prefer big buffers
If the second one fails, you still have at least 75 miles [1]. (More engines would have actually hurt in that situation.)
How much of a typical transatlantic route (say, London -> New York) is within 75 miles of a safe landing zone? I assume routes are chosen to optimize for this, to some degree.
> How much of a typical transatlantic route (say, London -> New York) is within 75 miles of a safe landing zone
ETOPS 180 means 180 minutes from a diversion airport. At 737 speeds that could be 1,300 miles.
I don’t think two modern engines have ever failed in a way that wouldn’t have taken out four, e.g. the Air Transat flight, where again, having more dead engines’ weight and drag would have reduced glide distance.