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

191–200 of 344 posts

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#191

Post by addictedcs »

Kipters wrote: post #146
Animats wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 operator…

> Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA Disagree" option on their aircraft...If you have that, you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data How can something that important be an option?

Greed.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#192

Post by agumonkey »

tialaramex wrote: post #186
agumonkey wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure we understood each other. I understand aviation is heavily monitored by the field, but maybe only a few (when fatal or grave) sample of incidents gets to the public eye. Unless walkingolof is also in the field and by 'track record' he meant even 'up to the slightest faults'.

All aviation accidents are reportable in most civilised countries, and the reports will be public. For an airliner (which these are) they'll invariably make the news. For little prop planes in GA nobody cares unless someone died. Take an example from Ireland, an island near me. A crew screwed up and typed the wrong temperature into the computer, which calculated take-off thrust based on higher density air than was re…

Aight, that's what I was curious about. Thanks

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#193

Post by AsyncAwait »

Kipters wrote: post #146
Animats wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 operator…

> Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA Disagree" option on their aircraft...If you have that, you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data How can something that important be an option?

Corporate greed.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#194

Post by improbable22 »

av_throwaway_19 wrote: post #68
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.

It isn't just the FAA and Boeing. Where I work many of us have a "common type rating" between the A330 and A350 (-900 and -1000). While I commend Airbus for making them similar they are in no way common enough to justify the minuscule training course. Flying the A350 you get lots of brilliant features like brake-to-vacate, auto wing leveling during a crosswind landing (when you de-crab), differential flap setting in…

I'm curious to hear more. I understand that common type means that much less training is required to fly the new plane for the first time.

But once you are trained for several kinds of aircraft, does the airline treat them differently? For instance, will they happily schedule you to fly anything you are type-certified for, tomorrow? Or do they keep you on one type for a block of time, perhaps with a simulator day to remember before switching?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#195

Post by AsyncAwait »

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?

As a customer, what stake do you personally have in this plane not being grounded? Isn't it always better to be cautious, like the EU/China seem to be?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#196

Post by nickjj »

But if you bring your own water then you wouldn't have the privilege of spending $4 for a single bottled water[0] at an airport vendor.

Sounds like the common ground there is profits come before anything else.

[0]: You could also bring your own empty water bottle and ask one of the bartenders to fill it up which is what I usually do and then drop them a $1 tip.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#197

Post by Tsubasachan »

peteradio wrote: post #176
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…

What is with this argument? Why the hell is it "carry on business as usual until we nail down exact causes" why is it not OMG two goddamn planes (brand fucking new of the same type) fell out of the sky under similar circumstances better ground them until we nail down exact causes. Like the longer the fucking mystery goes on the longer these death bombs stay in the air? That is an idiotic argument.

There are always things going on in the background. Boeing is a major US company so the FAA may be more reluctant to ground them.

For most countries "better safe than sorry" was an easy option. At the end of the day its airliners who are left holding the bag, but with some logistical wizardry everyone can still go on holiday.

There was just no reason for China, Singapore, the UK and the EU not to ground these planes. The airline industry has to deal with public perception.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#198

Post by cesarb »

crubier wrote: post #73
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. It might not be justified by a theoretical formal proof. It irks me that a lot of the HN population seems to always want to reason using formal proofs like if it was a silver bullet. In this situation, bayesian inference is appropriate, and tells us that grounding planes is highly justified. This succession of two relatively similar events in…

There are three scenarios, not two:

- Ground them for nothing and lose money

- Not ground them to save money, no crash happens before the cause is found and a fix is deployed

- Not ground them to save money, and see a third crash happen, killing 150 again

And that also doesn't consider secondary effects, like the loss of confidence from the public on that aircraft type, or the potential confusion from the public between 737-MAX8 and 737-800.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#199

Post by dsfyu404ed »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #187
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are. Any rational entity caught up in a situation like this will try to blame someone else. The cost of being liable for anything in today's society is very high so every party fights tooth and nail to make it 100% not their fault. This is especially amplified in a highly public case like this, the politicians will not rest until some entity has been punished, politicians are under a lot of pressure be…

It's worth noting that this particular plane was new. So 'poor maintenance' is not likely. I don't think anyone serious literally thinks that 'Boeing built a POS that fell out of the sky', but there are indications that they built a plane that required substantially different handling and tried to abstract that fact via the onboard systems, which makes the pilots unable to handle the actual behavior of the plane when…

I would consider pilots not being made sufficiently aware of the implications of a faulty AoA sensor a maintenance failure.

Clearly people have fucked up because planes have crashed. We're basically just arguing over whether the responsibility split goes 33/33/33 or 20/20/60 or something else.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#200

Post by shaki-dora »

_cerv wrote: post #45

Some points from personal experience from working at Boeing, family working at Boeing, and a close friend on the flight line for the 737-8; - not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster - reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot of cooperat…

> but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster

> training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in practice, these planes don’t fly differently.

These statements contradict.

Post reply on HN