• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      196 months ago

      Well isn’t there a ruling in aircraft design and safety, that you calculate the probability of a certain failure and judge by its reoccurence if it was just random, or more than likely systematic?

      I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way. The first one was ruled as maybe just being some very very freak thing to happen, but it happening twice made it entirely implausible to be without systematic cause.

      And well now it is happening twice in a few years with Boeing that weird things happen twice in a row with little time in between in relation to critical security flaws.

        • @[email protected]B
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

          Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

          years

          Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

          I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          I agree, that we cannot rule either death to be an assassination by itself. But their distinct occurrence in this context, e.g. that they prevent whistleblowers from testifying warrants an in depth investigation into both of them. In particular given the circumstances it is sketchy if Police or other officials are eager to close the case and rule it as non assassinations, without actually analyzing what was going on.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago

              There can be far more done than just an autopsy in the second case. Is there a register who has entered and left the building? Is there camera footage showing anyone accessing the room that had no business being there? Is there anything unusual in the nurses schedules? Were all procedures followed according to the rules, especially sanitary rules?

              These are all things that should be investigated. If they show no signs of irregularities then the case can be closed. If there is irregularities, then these need to be investigated further, and then the question of motive comes into play, where there is one party with a very strong motive to silence the guy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        I don’t know if that’s a rule of thumb or not, but it certainly makes sense.

        First, the world of reliability runs on data and math. Lots of statistics, of course.

        And second, aircraft are over-engineered for safety margins on top of safety margins. The test data might say you need a part that’s X thickness of aluminum in order to be 99% sure to never fail in the field. So let’s just make it 3X thickness to be safe!

        So from that standpoint, back to back failures should pretty much always draw a bunch of attention in this industry.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 months ago

      I did do the math on it and the second guy only had a 1 in 3630 chance of dying of natural causes in that time window.