<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>cameldrv</author><text>The FAA was not just using the fact of the first crash in the risk analysis.  This was the methodology they used: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rgl.faa.gov&amp;#x2F;Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library&amp;#x2F;rgPolicy.nsf&amp;#x2F;0&amp;#x2F;4e5ae8707164674a862579510061f96b&amp;#x2F;$FILE&amp;#x2F;PS-ANM-25-05%20TARAM%20Handbook.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rgl.faa.gov&amp;#x2F;Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library&amp;#x2F;rgPolicy....&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;They would have looked at the failure rate of the AoA sensor and the failure rate of the recovery procedure and the fact that there had been one fatal crash.  That gave them a reasonable estimate of the risk.  Based on that analysis they should have grounded the plane, but Boeing apparently convinced them that with pilot awareness of the problem that the recovery procedure would be more effective.  Unfortunately that was overly optimistic.</text><parent_chain><item><author>LeifCarrotson</author><text>On the other hand, generalizing from two incidents to a rate isn&amp;#x27;t great statistics. The list of accidents and incidents with the previous generation [1] shows some 9 fatal problems spread over more than a decade, which is closer to a rate.  But saying that the 737 Max is known to be 20 times worse when the real value might be anywhere between 2 and 200 if it had been allowed to continue flying is a little imprecise.&lt;p&gt;Put people in jail for negligence, sure. But we should be criminalizing based on that negligence and not on its results.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation_(-600&amp;#x2F;-700&amp;#x2F;-800&amp;#x2F;-900)_aircraft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_accidents_and_incident...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>forgingahead</author><text>&lt;i&gt;The MAX’s safety record when it was grounded, after two years in service, roughly amounted to two catastrophic accidents for every one million flights, according to estimates by industry officials relying on unofficial data. By contrast, the model of 737 that came before the MAX has suffered one fatal crash for every 10 million flights, according to data from Boeing.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, the 737 Max has a statistic of 1 catastrophe per 500k flights, whilst the 737 was 1 per 10 million, &lt;i&gt;basically 20 times&lt;/i&gt; as much.&lt;p&gt;This is criminal behaviour, and people need to go to jail. The MAX should never be allowed to fly again.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Internal FAA Review Saw High Risk of 737 Max Crashes</title><url>https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-risk-of-737-max-crashes-11576069202</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>me_me_me</author><text>Agree overall, one thing to note is that 737 Max already capitalizes on all errors corrected from 737.
Max is 20 worse with all off the old system being already excluded from possibilities of malfunction (as long they are not affected by mcas or other new additions).&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Put people in jail for negligence&lt;p&gt;The higher ups new this was a tragedy waiting to happened they just hope its going to be their successors that will have to pay. Negligence is definitely too light or a term for this. This is knowingly putting people lives in jeopardy  in the name of extra % in profits.</text><parent_chain><item><author>LeifCarrotson</author><text>On the other hand, generalizing from two incidents to a rate isn&amp;#x27;t great statistics. The list of accidents and incidents with the previous generation [1] shows some 9 fatal problems spread over more than a decade, which is closer to a rate.  But saying that the 737 Max is known to be 20 times worse when the real value might be anywhere between 2 and 200 if it had been allowed to continue flying is a little imprecise.&lt;p&gt;Put people in jail for negligence, sure. But we should be criminalizing based on that negligence and not on its results.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation_(-600&amp;#x2F;-700&amp;#x2F;-800&amp;#x2F;-900)_aircraft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_accidents_and_incident...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>forgingahead</author><text>&lt;i&gt;The MAX’s safety record when it was grounded, after two years in service, roughly amounted to two catastrophic accidents for every one million flights, according to estimates by industry officials relying on unofficial data. By contrast, the model of 737 that came before the MAX has suffered one fatal crash for every 10 million flights, according to data from Boeing.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, the 737 Max has a statistic of 1 catastrophe per 500k flights, whilst the 737 was 1 per 10 million, &lt;i&gt;basically 20 times&lt;/i&gt; as much.&lt;p&gt;This is criminal behaviour, and people need to go to jail. The MAX should never be allowed to fly again.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Internal FAA Review Saw High Risk of 737 Max Crashes</title><url>https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-risk-of-737-max-crashes-11576069202</url></story>