And that professionalism seems to have failed in parts in this circumstance. (And has been well noted to have failed in many other circumstances with often tragic consequences.)

All that aside, I still want to understand why the Austin airport doesn't have ARIS? Cost/benefit? Not mandated by the FAA?

I'm afraid that "shush, and leave it to the professionals" isn't a very compelling argument.

For fatal accidents to happen in aviation and aerspace, more than one thing has to go wrong at the same time. Single, isolated failures are no longer sufficient to cause serious accidents.

That's just luck, not a system that's working as intended.

However, the plane component of the system failed, because the wings aren't supposed to fall off.

When you’re up to the last “hole” in the cheese, that’s a failure.

Then i also know horror stories from someone thrustworthy, about surgeons throwing extracted body parts after nurses in high stress situations. No, i will not name names, but life and death situations need a perfect team and you dont always got that perfect team.

And surgery quality being dependant on the actual execution of the surgery (chief surgeon is not automatic the best individual contributor to surgery).

You want the most hours on the knife guy for best outcome, not some administrator with white coat.

Also you want to be near univesity clinics, they are spearheading new stuff, the more you get away from them, the operation technique is depending on the age of the doctors education and the hospitals financials to keep up to date, send doctors to regular re-trainings and try new things. Then there are lawsuits, they keep the people responsible, but also risk averse.

So if you are in a high risk situation, in a lawsuit rich country you are fucked, cause nobody will try the dice throw when worst comes to worst.

Trust in systems working, is upkept by untrusting agents.

So like in capitalism, were the price aware negotiate the deals down for the crowd who does not want to haggle.

Finally: The infrastructure & hierarchy of hospitals (in europe), as we know them today, emerged largely from the two world wars were lots of nurses and doctors were integrated into army structures. Which means it suffers from the same inefficency and structural problems those armies back then suffered from. Now you have the MBA process micro optimization on top of that, so i wouldnt trust that machine blindly..

"What follows is an account of how Martha was allowed to die, but also what happens when you have blind faith in doctors – and learn too late what you should have known to save your child’s life. What I learned, I now want everyone to know. In a small way, I hope Martha’s story might change how some people think about healthcare; it might even save a life."

Allow me to chime in and respectfully disagree with this sentiment and the metaphor.

As the saying goes - the aviation (just as the automotive) industry saves lives (as in "advances security") one accident at the time. It would make sense that close calls like this Austin near mass casualty event should contribute to the future safety as well. In that context, it's absolutely legitimate to be suspicious and ask safety-related questions, including in a HN comment or in real life - instead of shutting someone down.

Speaking of the developer-OS metaphor - any non-rookie developer should be aware of not only the security and vulnerability of one's own software but also of the security and vulnerability of the underlying OS, infrastructure and even hardware. The number of building blocks gets larger by the day and nearly each building block is becoming increasingly complex. Yes, there are professionals working on each those blocks yet there are new CVEs and associated attacks all the time (incl. ransomware). If we add 0-days into consideration (a.k.a. "the unknown unknowns" in the software context) IMHO we should be able to conclude that the used developer-OS metaphor is not helpful.

The older and more experienced we all become, the more should we be cognizant of the potential risks (not only in our particular industry niche) and we should welcome and consider a normal, widely accepted practice to challenge the status quo and pose questions that should overall increase the number of brains and eyeballs on the problem and (unknown) unknowns - be it vulnerabilities or security risks, especially to our bare lives.

When the experts in the field have successfully prevented all accidents and near misses, maybe HN commenters will stop providing their input.

There is such a thing as tunnel vision in a field you have been in too long.

In other words, aviation regulation exists to serve the interests of the people.

If the airport or airline industry is trying to cut corners or save money at the expense of the safety of passengers, the interests of other air users, or the people who live under flight paths, items the job of congress to grant the FAA the authority needed to stop that - or to ensure that it is using its already-granted authority effectively to that end.

And ultimately the only check on whether or not that is happening is the electorate’s oversight of its congresspeople.

So yes, you can take an interest in how the airline industry is regulated, as a passenger or a random person who has planes fly over your head from time to time, because you have a say in making sure it’s not captured by industry and allowed to compromise your safety.

They designate the class of an airport not by the number of people living in the metro area around it, but based on the complexity of the airspace and the density of the traffic.

Austin probably isn’t a class b because while it may be an airport for a large city it doesn’t see a ton of traffic as it isn’t a huge hub. The regional hubs in that area are DFW and Houston and are way more traffic.

It’s also worth noting that making a this a class B airport wouldn’t have changed anything in terms of how the arrivals and departures are controlled at the runway level.

In spite of what happened with Boeing, the FAA is usually very good at airspace safety.

That’s WHY this incident is notable.

Lobbying can be good, of course! Airports and airlines likely have good knowledge about how regulations impact their operations!

But it’s the job of Congress in theory to represent their constituents’ interests - not merely their constituents who own airline stock or work for airport ground handling companies but all their constituents - to make sure that the framework the FAA correctly takes into account the competing interests of ensuring an efficient and high capacity aviation industry, as well as making sure that passenger safety is maintained.

As you say, the FAA has a good record of doing this.

But individuals saying ‘well I’m sure the industry knows best’ is precisely what leads to regulatory capture and that leads to the situation where airports are permitted to accept heavy automated landings under conditions where maybe they really ought not to without additional ground safety equipment in place.

Airlines are generally the ones asking for these safety upgrades before anyone else. They would love if every airport had Cat. III approaches on every runway, and there were designated parallel runways at every airport.

Airlines like higher classed airports since it frequently means the ability to handle more traffic safely, and better service from ATC.

Opposition to airspace changes are ALWAYS nimby's. ALWAYS. Go look at the public comments for any proposed change.