[SystemSafety] "FAA chief '100% confident' of 737 MAX safety as flights to resume"

[Michael Holloway]

Only have the energy and interest to reply to one bit of PBL's response ...

> So you are suggesting that he is at least as confident that he won't die,
flying in a MAX, as he is
> that 2+2=4 ? Or should that confidence be relativised somehow?

I am saying that to the best of my knowledge, the most common intended
meaning of the phrase "100% confident" when used by a typical speaker in
the US is much closer to, "confident enough to stake my reputation and
life  on it," than it is to "certain beyond any and all doubt," or even to
"certain beyond a reasonable doubt." Personally, I abhor the use of any
phrase that appears to quantify confidence, but I see no benefit, and some
harm, in harping on such a usage, when the meaning is as generally well
understood as it is here.


*--Michael*

mercy > judgment
love > faith & hope
grace > law



On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 8:44 AM Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin at causalis.com>
wrote:

> On 2020-11-20 14:26 , Michael Holloway wrote:
> >  the criticism here is ridiculous.
>
> Thanks, Mike. Might you have a technical, rather than an emotional,
> reaction to share?
>
> > First, it is pedantry of an extreme sort to think that "100% confident"
> means anything more
> > than "as
> > confident as it is possible for me to be."
>
> So you are suggesting that he is at least as confident that he won't die,
> flying in a MAX, as he is
> that 2+2=4 ? Or should that confidence be relativised somehow?
>
> > Third, everything Tom wrote about the level of scrutiny the plane has
> undergone is correct.
>
> Yes. And that the defined procedures are not enough has been pointed out
> twice in reports.
>
> After Ermenonville, the DC-10 became "the most scrutinized [sic] aircraft
> in the history of the
> commercial transport fleet." Then came Sioux City. Along with nobody
> noticing that you could lose
> structural integrity if you lost pressure in one half of the PV (which led
> to Ermenonville through a
> couple of other occurrences), nobody apparently noticed that they had
> routed all the control system
> hydraulics through one spot in the tail, which was duly sliced through by
> a shed blade. Many put
> that down to the overall design process of the airplane and worried about
> other oversights. Which
> ended up being, some say, why the DC-10 fleet converted to freighters,
> followed quite quickly by the
> MD-11.
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
> ClaireTheWhiteRabbit RIP
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20201120/84728ffc/attachment-0001.html>