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

241–250 of 344 posts

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#241

Post by keko039ndnfm »

sib wrote: post #227
poof131 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My company's error rates have increased on the "common fleet" by almost triple. That is Terrifying. It seems like the FAA has optimized for allowing the Manufacturers and Airlines to streamline changes and operations while slowly letting safety deteriorate. Perhaps these accidents will force what seems like a needed change in type ratings.

From GP's comment, it appears that s/he is not referring to the FAA. "It isn't just the FAA and Boeing."

He/she is saying “It’s the FAA and $plane_manufacturers.”

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#242

Post by CaptainZapp »

jhayward wrote: post #217
CaptainZapp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

We don't know which pilot was the flying pilot on this takeoff.

That should not be relevant at all.

During the critical phases of flying both pilots will be engaged with the operation. While it's true that the first officer may execute the take-off the captain will be at the controls, alert and ready to intervene at any time.

Later during cruising the responsibilities may be split. For example: The captain may deal with administrative stuff while the first officer is actually flying the plane.

Especially since the crew knew that the plane can potentially behave in an erratic manner you can bet on the fact that an experienced captain is standing by and observing very closely what's happening.

Source: I had the oportunity to sit in the cockpit during an entire (short haul) flight, when that was still possible. Both pilots were always engaged during all critical periods of the flight and very specifically during take off and landing. Even when the first officer executed the operations.

As a sidenote: It's not like driving a bus up there. Both pilots were focused, concentrated and busy during the entire flight (this may be somewhat different on a long haul flight ).

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#243

Post by rb666 »

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.

With the X-ray scanners installed at modern airports you're allowed to bring filled bottles into planes again. Also don't have to remove anything from your luggage, it's great!

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#244

Post by easytiger »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #118
briandear wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

8000 hours on type? Or 8000 hours on safari tourist drops. He was only 28 years old. The sums barely add up, and only then as an exceptional case

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#245

Post by mannykannot »

_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…

I understand the point that the aircraft itself is probably safe (up to the fact that we don't know what caused the latest crash), but there appears to be an inconsistency between these opinions (emphasis added:)

- 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.

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

My best guess is that the latter refers only to the situation where things are working properly, and may also ignore the what-its-like-for-a-pilot issues raised in ASRS report 1555013, as mentioned by hnnmzh in another reply to this post.

Plus, at the time of the Lion Air crash, no-one had said anything to pilots about these 'adjusted mechanics'.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#246

Post by easytiger »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #175
CaptainZapp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

So in perfect conditions he's very likely to tell the rookie beside him to fly the plane so the rookie can rack up experience. Edit: Why is this being down-voted? Letting the new guy get experience this way is a common industry practice.

For ET that is a captain only airport

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#247

Post by beart »

rbanffy wrote: post #222
keiferski wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia — At least eight of the victims of the Ethiopian Airlines crash were confirmed Tuesday to have been Americans, including Melvin and Bennett Riffel from Redding, California. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ethiopian-airlines-crash-victim...

How is that relevant in FAA's decision not to ground the planes? Do you think they'd ground the planes if the majority of the victims were American?

If both of these crashes happened on US flights, they would most definitely have grounded these planes, but I don't really think that's a surprising or significant observation.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#248

Post by jmull »

Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow its normal procedures.

Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads to mistakes and gaps.

Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the FAA is investigating this normally.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#249

Post by ceejayoz »

crushcrashcrush wrote: post #233
lb1lf wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-Quite different scenario. One was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile (And one can hardly fault Boeing for not providing ECM equipment as standard!), the other was (probably) wilfully flown into the great void. Here, on the other hand, there are two eerily similar cases where the likely -mind, likely- common denominator is a new 'feature' which has been undercommunicated to the pilots flying the thing…

MH 370's crew and passengers went hypoxic. (edited from 17 to 370)

That's one theory. It's certainly not confirmed.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#250

Post by sangnoir »

jhayward wrote: post #217
CaptainZapp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

We don't know which pilot was the flying pilot on this takeoff.

Let's assume it was the FO. Do you think the captain was just watching it all play out as the plane lost altitude?
Post reply on HN