Whilst this may be true, there are millions of components used in building an aircraft. If the tolerance of each component is not set low enough, the cumulative risk across all the set of components could reach a level that people become uncomfortable with.
My understanding is that other measures were stipulated by the FAA to be put in place to offset the known higher risk from using these components.
Those measures seem to have 'worked' because they have managed to deplane everyone safely so far.
However, this 'risk management' approach to building a plane is obviously not an ideal way of working.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jan 2013, at 05:57, Vincent Granville <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The problems with this plane, which forced FAA to ground all of them today in US, is its new type of lithium-ion battery made in Japan, and never used in a plane before. This type of powerful battery is overheating easily, catches fire etc. resulting in a number of emergency landings over a short period of time.
Now I have a few questions:
1) Aren't these batteries (like pretty much any product that you can purchase, such as car or laptop battery) going through extensive quality control testing, using sound statistical techniques to make sure that faulty batteries, or risk of failure over the lifetime of the product, is below an acceptable threshold, say below 0.001%?
Read all my questions at http://www.analyticbridge.com/forum/topics/boeing-s-dreamliner-turns-into-a-nightmare-due-to-bad-analytics
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|