313
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
313 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
58737 readers
4406 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You’re not accounting for the substantial differences between the physical contexts in which trains and aircraft operate; the physics in play are wildly different, and have substantially different risk profiles due to that.
If an engine breaks…
If a structural issue exists and begins to spread:
More generally: the difference is that the “catastrophic spectrum” that can affect aircraft is much broader and has far more extreme consequences - as in, passenger survivability is often all or nothing, or at least very close to it.
Edit: not to mention: you’re talking about Indian trains, which are in notoriously poor repair, and commonly operate at passenger capacities that would give most European, American, Korean, Japanese, or Chinese civil engineers a serious case of hives. Also not to mention: if this is the accident to which you’re referring, the fatality rate was ~25% - obviously not great, but if a similarity catastrophic air incident were to have occurred (e.g. a midair collision), the fatality rate would have been 100%.
I am intentionally not accounting for it, as its irrelevant to an end to end parts tracking system.
Your difference is only really relevant to the standards that the part is made, the safety systems the vehicle needs to have including redundancy, and the frequency and depth of the maintenance schedule.
Both need to be able to prove that shoddy third party parts haven't been fitted, that the parts have been replaced on schedule, even if the quality of the parts and the frequency of replacement is completely different.
They way you’re talking about this make me pretty confident you’ve never actually worked in a safety-critical environment. There are different thresholds for different things in different situations, and there are excellent reasons for that.
And once again, you are categorically disregarding the poor maintenance and high average age of the Indian train system. I don’t care that you are “intentionally” not accounting for it - not accounting for it means the basis on which you’re evaluating the incident is fundamentally flawed. If I were to not change the oil on my car for 25k miles, I would expect to have an issue, and it would be my fault. Poor maintenance can and does lead to catastrophic outcomes, and there are countless instances throughout history where poor maintenance was the proximate cause for a loss of life.
And again, I don't see that it applies at all to what is a parts tracking system, its not a maintenance plan, a direct safety system, operational guidelines for engineers or anything else you are falsely trying to make it.
You keep describing the maintenance schedule, which is again, irrelevant to tracking the history of parts. Age of the system is also irrelevant to the problem here, a system outside or inside its operational life span can still have shitty black market parts fitted to it making it more unsafe than using the correct part.
The airline industry in particular has been hit with a number of planes being fitted with bogus parts, this is despite all of the things you talk about, they have not worked for tracking parts and proving their provenance. Hence, a more robust system is needed.