Innovation is Killing Us All
Innovation is killing people. Even though we use the word to instill a sense of better in our world it is still killing people. We innovate things like food containers all the way to airplanes. Innovation seems so simple, most would say it means improving something but when you dig deeper innovation doesn’t mean improvement.
Anyone could put a swirly hat on the airplane’s head and a big lollipop on its wing and call that an innovation. No one has ever done that before, so it is new. Did it improve anything significant? Children might laugh at it, making the trip a little less stressful for them. But there’s a reason why no one does that. Airplanes are shaped meticulously to not disrupt the many systems keeping it in the air.
True innovation in aviation starts with the Wright brothers, the two men credited with building and flying the first motor airplane. Their aircraft could not handle the loads, speed, and altitude required for World War One. The war pushed for major improvements in airplanes to handle high speeds and a tougher exterior. While they were still basic machines they had sturdy frames and sheet metal encapsulating the pilot. These innovations were needed, and they improved the aircrafts.
Post World War One innovation in aviation focused more on public programs, like mail planes. During these mail plane trips they discovered the profit that could be made with carrying passengers. This led to the industry to focus on the improvement of the plane ride for commercial passengers.
Once World War Two hit, our planes were turning away from the bi-plane silhouette. We saw large monoplanes develop, they were able to carry heavy loads of people and goods. After this airplanes became the machines we know today.
But when do our innovations stop being improvements? All of our modern commercial airplanes have amazing safety records. If we keep innovating at this rate that could change.
The Boeing 737 MAX, which included a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System(MCAS) the pilots were unaware of. The new MCAS was supposed to prevent stalls by pushing the nose of the plane down. Which sounds amazing in theory but the system would detect stalls in moments where there wasn’t a stall present. When pilots would try to fix this by pointing the nose upwards the system would override their input. This resulted in two fatal crashes. Part of the issue is that pilots were not properly informed of the MCAS being implemented. But even with this information Boeing tried to innovate but they didn’t improve.
So to prevent future crashes we have to determine whether an innovation is an improvement or not. An improvement should be making a plane safer or more efficient. The Boeing 737 MAX MCAS tried to make planes safer but there was a fundamental flaw in their technology. These events showed that pilots can prevent stalls by themselves. If the MCAS wasn’t there or was able to be overridden the pilots could have been able to prevent the crashes.
In the future if we keep innovating but not improving we could see more large fatal crashes. As of right now we have planes that can hold 500 people and ones that can get across oceans in a reasonable amount of time. We shouldn’t put ourselves in danger just to be more automated. Pilots have training to collect all known information and spit out a solution. Computers just aren’t good enough to do what humans can do. Striving to be faster and automated will result in unnecessary suffering.
References
Boeing History . Boeing. (n.d.). https://www.boeing.com/history
Konz, C., Happel, C. C., Turano, D., Daniel, G., Bigger, M., Design), O. R. (Cover, & Leishman, J. G. (2023, January 1). History of aircraft & aviation. Introduction to Aerospace Flight Vehicles. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/introductiontoaerospaceflightvehicles/chapter/history-of-aircraft-and-aviation/
Accident location. DCA09MA027.aspx. (n.d.). https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA09MA027.aspx
Ask me questions! Make me elaborate! I’m having a really hard time reaching my 1,000 words. The second paragraph feels weird.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
Let’s reorganize a major claim:
—FIRST tell me that the planes crashed and whether people died.
—Then tell me that they crashed as a result of an INNOVATION that was not an IMPROVEMENT.
—Then tell me what the INNOVATION WAS.
—Then tell me how awesome it would have been if it had worked as it was supposed to.
—Then tell me the fatal tactical error the AIRLINE made (not the pilots) that turned that innovation deadly.
—Then remind me that you’re proving your thesis: that innovations can be deadly.
I don’t think so. These events showed that a plane can crash itself despite the best efforts of an experienced flight crew that made no mistakes and couldn’t override the fatal design flaw.
But that doesn’t prove they could have prevented the stall themselves. There’s undoubtedly plenty of evidence of pilots recognizing and correcting for stalls, but this ain’t it. 🙂
Let’s think of some actual innovations that airlines have obsessed over so you won’t have to detail the silly ones.
They’ve put video screens in the backs of every seat and added audio systems to the armrests so we can listen to individual headsets.
They’ve created “class” sections to the interiors to reinforce the notion that some passengers are more important than others; namely, those who are willing to pay for the privilege.
They’ve more than once changed the size and shape of overhead bins to streamline baggage handling by encouraging most passengers to scale their luggage choices to whatever will fit.
In a way, you argue against yourself when you point out that the 737 hasn’t needed an actual fundamental overhaul for 80 years. I don’t see the detail from the Draft about how long it’s been since a US carrier had a fatal crash. Both bits of data seem to suggest that no IMPROVEMENTS are needed in commercial aviation.
The same cannot be said for small craft though, can it? You might be able to get some mileage out of that comparison. There were 1007 small plane crashes in the US in 2020. That’s a nice statistic to contrast with large carrier experience, yeah?
It could be asked, “Why change avionics at all?”
Is there anything here to help you?