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

281–290 of 344 posts

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#281

Post by cesarb »

lagadu wrote: post #223
cesarb wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 betw…

Those secondary effects are all part of the first point: "lose money".

I'd say it's the opposite: the first scenario (ground the aircraft type) would suffer less from those secondary effects. Once all the airlines on your region are no longer flying that aircraft type, people no longer worry about whether they're flying on a MAX8 or a non-MAX8; they know they're flying on the "safe ones", so they have less reason to memorize the name, to check the aircraft type on their tickets, to tell their loved ones "avoid that airplane", etc.

The third scenario is the worst case, if there's a third accident with the same cause (or at least perceived to have the same cause), the reputation of the 737-MAX8 will get tainted, and that taint could even spill to other 737 variants (less knowledgeable people don't know or care about the many variants of the 737, to them "737" is the airplane type).

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#282

Post by raverbashing »

poof131 wrote: post #143

As someone who flew a Boeing plane for a long time, if it’s true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn’t be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the aircraft,[2] but only by disconnecting the automatic trim then manually trimming the aircraft, was tied to only one AOA sensor, and then felt this was too much information for “pilots”.[3] Wow. See…

> if it’s true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn’t be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the aircraft,

In the case of the 737MAX the elevator input cannot compensate for the trim wheel adjustment. I believe this was highlighted in the Lion Air case.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#283

Post by School-Cotton »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #122
jbm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a questionable safety record. Can we please stop assuming that African countries and airlines are all the same? https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian...

Actually a lot of African airlines do have dodgy safety records and Africa is the unsafest continent to fly. That said Ethiopian is the shining exception and has, apart from a 70 year history, quite a stellar safety record.

It seems you’re directly agreeing with your parent comment’s point: not all African airlines are the same. Many are shitty; Ethiopian is not.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#284

Post by darkpuma »

argd678 wrote: post #14
stirlo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know Boeing makes up 10.5% of the Dow... [1] or it did before these crashes, currently under 10% due the the stock price dropping [1] http://indexarb.com/indexComponentWtsDJ.html

The FAA was intentionally made independent of airline advocacy to avoid conflicts of interest that previous government agencies overseeing air travel in the past had. So it’s odd if it’s not based on the data.

> "The FAA was intentionally made independent of airline advocacy"

The FAA is currently lead by an airline lobbyist, so that's a fucking joke.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#285

Post by Axsuul »

lagadu wrote: post #219
Axsuul wrote: post #57

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 2…

The FAA rates Ethiopa at category 1 which means they can fly to and from US soil. In other words, this crash could've happened on US soil under the watchful eyes of the FAA.

Yes but the planes they use on US soil can be vastly different than the ones used on the ADD-NBO route.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#286

Post by kirykl »

4BxHkLgUVBG wrote: post #59
sfilargi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's 2.5 degrees every 15 seconds. There's time to recover

"MCAS will trim the Stabilizer down for 10 seconds (2.5 deg nose down) and pause for 5 seconds and repeat if the conditions (high angle of attack, flaps up and autopilot disengaged) continue to be met. Using electric pitch trim will only pause MCAS, to deactivate it you need to switch off the STAB TRIM SUTOUT switches." http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#287

Post by magduf »

CydeWeys wrote: post #268
Legogris wrote: post #53

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?

All the listed people are in the legislative branch. The FAA is part of the executive branch. Short of passing a law that grounds the 737 MAX, legislators don't really have a say here. Interestingly, Trump has also come out against the plane, but his uninformed Twitter ramblings are by and large (rightfully) ignored by the executive branch. And he's not against the 737 MAX for valid reasons, but for luddite ones.

Yep, Trump says a lot of really stupid stuff (like his comments about the electromagnetic launchers on the new Ford carrier). But in this case, even if his reasoning is stupid, it'd be better if the executive branch actually followed his lead and grounded the plane.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#288

Post by magduf »

stingrae wrote: post #213

Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.

The indications are that Boeing didn't include this information in the type training, and also an important instrument needed to see if there was a problem with this system was made optional.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#289

Post by OldSchoolJohnny »

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."

"they" is a historic and accepted gender neutral pronoun.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#290

Post by vonmoltke »

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?

> How can something that important be an option?

Based on other comments here and in other discussions, it seems like adding that feature would increase the training requirements for the pilots since it is an additional instrument in the cockpit. I don't know whether it was Boeing, Boeing's customers, or both who pushed for the instrument to be an option. Any combination is plausible, and I'm not going to rush to judgement like a couple of my sibling commenters just because it's the fun and popular thing to do.

Post reply on HN