US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max • Hacker News Board

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#51

Post by kalleboo » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #24

stirlo wrote: post #15

It’s scary to think how complicit the FAA was in granting Boeing’s wish that this 30 year newer plane with substantially larger engines only required 2-3 hours of new training and said training was able to miss covering entire systems like MCAS. Now 350 people are dead, all the FAA can be thankful of is the dead are foreigners so it’s unlikely they’ll be held properly accountable.

While you may end up being entirely correct, it is too early to start finger-pointing before the investigations are finished. Neither Lion nor Ethiopian had stellar safety records, e.g. * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_a... The training hours should also be looked in the context of the total hours flown on that specific mode…

> It's not like Boeing took a freshly minted Cessna 152 pilot, gave them a 2-hour seminar, and type-rated them for the 737 Max

This ASRS report almost makes it sound like that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#52

Post by akuji1993 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

adsadadsad wrote: post #42

curiousgal wrote: post #27

You are not allowed to bring more than 100ml of water because of safety concerns but we will fly you on on airplane model that has failed twice in 2 years of service.

I curse America everytime this inconveniences me, damn globalization of your silly rules..

You are not remembering correctly. TSA doesn't care what kind of water it is, you take 100ml or less with you. Also I'm not quite sure, you know what the word 'machine' means.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#53

Post by Legogris » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

I don't get it. Airline workers, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and democratic senators are for suspending it, which China, the EU and Australia have already done.

What's going on at the FAA?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#54

Post by nutcracker46 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:33 AM UTC

This is a "fifth risk" scenario, where the FAA misjudges other countries' aviation authorities as mere America bashers. The Feds also misjudge their own threat environment, gambling that the rate of hull losses due to MCAS problems is low enough to fly through.

The question, "What if we're wrong?" doesn't get asked. Instead, the FAA Administrator's boss tweets a complaint about aircraft being too complicated. No, the problem isn't overcomplication, it is failure to build, document, and train for the aircraft and pilots you have, not the ones you want.

The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts and airmen. They don't handle black swans well, and think of economic costs before human costs.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#55

Post by raverbashing » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:33 AM UTC

dbt00 wrote: post #29

tzakrajs wrote: post #2

What does the US know that the EU or China doesn't which gives them such confidence? Any clues?

In short, the Max-8 ships with a shitty default configuration. After the first crash, the FAA and the major american airlines with these planes aggressively updated the instrument panel settings, warnings and processes to ensure pilots were aware if there was a sensor disagreement that could cause the MCAS system to accidentally stall. (I know this is true for Southwest, I assume the rest followed suit.) While the de…

"Shitty default configuration" I suspect this goes by another name: it's a configuration that focus on commonality with the previous generation

Because adding the indicator and how to handle situations will add training hours, this is not done.

But I'm glad Southwest is doing it.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#56

Post by Legogris » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:33 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #50

Lots of jumping to conclusions going on in this thread, blaming the FAA, lobbyists, and politicians for being in the pocket of Boeing. Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them. The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It m…

> The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.

The prudent thing would be to err on the side of caution and suspend it until we know. What's millions of dollars (which I think is way exaggerated for a temporary suspension until the evidence is in) compared to a real risk of loss of human lives?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#57

Post by Axsuul » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:34 AM UTC

Quite frankly I think it’s a bit sensationalist for people and the media to point fingers at the FAA for making “irresponsible decisions” and being beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record.

The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009, a magnificent safety record.

The FAA is a very hands-on agency. There is an inherent difference to how planes are maintained that touch US soil vs. those in other parts of the world. For example, many planes that fly in South America would never pass FAA inspection and would never be considered airworthy. That means a flight itinerary of LAX-SCL vs. LAX-PTY-SCL are very different when it comes to safety since the plane that departs from Panama is not inspected by the FAA.

So not only is the FAA risking an insurmountable amount of fallout for making this statement, they also have the credibility and processes to stand behind it. With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#58

Post by wallace_f » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:34 AM UTC

Legogris wrote: post #56

twblalock wrote: post #50

Lots of jumping to conclusions going on in this thread, blaming the FAA, lobbyists, and politicians for being in the pocket of Boeing. Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them. The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It m…

> The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing. The prudent thing would be to err on the side of caution and suspend it until we know. What's millions of dollars (which I think is way exaggerated for a temporary suspension until the ev…

Millions of dollars could save a lot of human life right now, even in America.

Who in their right mind downvotes this? I realize HN is not representative of America, but I think if you take a moment to notice all the homeless people you step over on your way to work in SV you'd reconsider.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#59

Post by 4BxHkLgUVBG » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:35 AM UTC

sfilargi wrote: post #41

kerng wrote: post #28

What I dont understand is why the airlines themselves (Southwest and American) are refusing to halt the planes - this seems totally irresponsible with what is known at this point.

It’s pretty safe to assume that at this point every fricking pilot out there knows about MCAS and how to deal with it if this specific problematic behavior occurs.

But not if you have 20seconds to recover?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#60

Post by tibbydudeza » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:35 AM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #24

stirlo wrote: post #15

It’s scary to think how complicit the FAA was in granting Boeing’s wish that this 30 year newer plane with substantially larger engines only required 2-3 hours of new training and said training was able to miss covering entire systems like MCAS. Now 350 people are dead, all the FAA can be thankful of is the dead are foreigners so it’s unlikely they’ll be held properly accountable.

While you may end up being entirely correct, it is too early to start finger-pointing before the investigations are finished. Neither Lion nor Ethiopian had stellar safety records, e.g. * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/asia/lion-air-crash... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_a... The training hours should also be looked in the context of the total hours flown on that specific mode…

Nonsense.

Ethiopian airlines is rated Category 1 by the FAA and can thus fly direct to the US and they are a member of the star alliance.

Just because they are the largest carrier in Africa does not imply dubious safety or maintenance.