Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 344 posts

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#91

Post by sundayfunday »

nonamechicken wrote: post #82

Tinfoil: Someone said something could happen with Boeing 2 weeks ago: https://www.removeddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/atcby6/... >Hello >I work IT for a company that makes your nasty inflight dining funnily enough. This Saturday something will happen that could either mean fortunes or devastation depending on your luck. I don't know which way and I won't say why. >That is all y'all. Fellow autistic chum. Got it…

I have inside information from very reliable sources that Apple will maybe release a newer faster iPhone this year, but definitely by the end of 2020. I also have inside information that Donald Trump will definitely no longer be president of the United States in 2025. My sources also tell me that a crime will happen a few minutes from now, somewhere in the world.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#92

Post by thereare5lights »

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…

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_a...

Oh cool 5 events in the last 23 years. That sounds like a stellar safety record to me.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#93

Post by briandear »

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…

Did the E.U. ground the A320 when the Germanwings suicide pilot crashed the plane in the Alps, killing 150? Investigators didn’t know what brought that plane down for several days. Wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be to ground all Airbus A320s until the cause was confirmed? Did they ground the A320 after the Egyptair crash? They still aren’t sure what brought that plane down. But they didn’t ground the fleet. How about the Metrojet flight that crashed just a year earlier? At least 3 A320 crashes in as many years, but they don’t ground Airbus.

If it were a Boeing airplane, you can bet the EU would have grounded them. Given the E.U. has provided about $22 billion in subsidies to Airbus, it makes perfect business sense for the E.U. to ground Boeing 737s, but not ground Airbus when there are Airbus crashes.

In 2012, Australian safety engineers called for the grounding of the A380 due to significant structural cracks, in Qantas and Singapore airplanes, yet Airbus refused. Is it fair to say that the E.U. and Airbus cared more about profits than safety back in 2012? Has the E.U. ever grounded an Airbus plane ever?

Let’s not make the mistake of assuming benevolence that which is better explained by profit or politics.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#94

Post by La1n »

twblalock wrote: post #39
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.

What is known at this point is that another 737 Max crashed for some reason, which might have been unrelated to the cause of the last crash, while being flown by an airline with a questionable safety record. If this turns out to have been a terrorist attack or something like that, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.

You keep saying millions of dollars will have been wasted. However consider an other option where it turns out to be a problem with more airplanes and hundreds of of lives 'will be wasted'.

Some countries take a more precautionary approach to risk than others where there is uncertainty, and I, personally, am happy to live somewhere that is willing to take the decision to prevent possible harm to human life instead of possible harm to (a relatively small section of) the economy, where there is uncertainty.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#95

Post by nraynaud »

isostatic wrote: post #86
JackPoach wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. Boeing lobby power in US is exceptional. That's the only reason.

I really hope that’s not the case - I can see the argument that this might not be a design fault and we need to wait and see - just like a330s weren’t grounded after AF447 China clearly grounded ge planes for political reasons, and maybe other countries did it due to the optics. However if the decision in the US has been pushed simply for political reasons that’s a terrible indightment on the industry.

Af447 immediately suspected the pitot tubes, as it was an ongoing effort to change them for a different model when the crash happened. A bit like in the Boeing case, it was hoped that the pilot would manually handle the issue if the freezing happened.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#96

Post by isostatic »

johnsea wrote: post #43
baxtr wrote: post #20

From a customer perspective I would have appreciated a joint approach of the major aviation agencies. The way it is handled right now, I can’t judge whether the EU is reacting shortsighted or if the US is too careless. One seems to be true?

It's easier for the EU, they don't have many MAX planes. It's likely too early to say something definitive and in times of social medial pressure one conformes if possible.

The US doesn’t have many MAX planes either.

Southwest have 35/755 planes

American 22/956

Norwegian by comparison have 18/163 - a far higher proportion (of course Norwegian isn’t an EU airlin but they have EU subsidiaries included in that total)

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#97

Post by [deleted] »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #66
Legogris wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There is risk most any human activity. Your prudent thing would result in suspending any beneficial activity with any possible risk. The a prudent thing would be to err on the side of still receiving the benefits of 737 air travel.

[deleted]

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#98

Post by fegul »

thereare5lights wrote: post #92
prostoalex wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_accidents_a... Oh cool 5 events in the last 23 years. That sounds like a stellar safety record to me.

What other airlines are you comparing it to?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#99

Post by Animats »

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…

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.

Yes. And the recorders have angle of attack data. We'll know within days if it's another AOA sensor problem.

Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA Disagree" option on their aircraft, and recently added an AOA indicator. Many operators didn't get that option; Lion Air didn't have it. If you have that, you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data. It is somewhat less of a safety issue if you have the backup systems.

Why this aircraft was ever offered without "AOA Disagree" sensing is unclear. The single active AOA sensor can force the nose down. The pilots can switch to the other flight control computer and use the other AOA sensor, but at that point they're losing control of the aircraft.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#100

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

briandear wrote: post #75
tibbydudeza wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane. Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying right seat in an airliner? In the US, that would be illegal as a first officer has a 1500 hour requirement along with significant multi-engine turbine training. That copilot wouldn’t even have enough hours for a commercial certificate, let alone ATP.

> They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane. Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying right seat in an airliner?

So do European airlines and they have great safety records.

Post reply on HN