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

Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 304 posts

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#61

Post by yread »

atdt wrote: post #32
rfugger wrote: post #3

They claim this is based on new "validated" satellite tracking data they received this morning showing similar altitude fluctuations to the Lion Air crash. Somehow every internet forum had this figured out within hours of the crash using public flight tracker data. I find it worrying that it took them so long to come to the obvious conclusion for lack of "validation" of widely known information, and that it took so l…

> Somehow every internet forum had this figured out within hours Assuming "figured out" was not sarcastic: can you recommend any particular threads? I'd love to go beyond the coverage in major newspapers.

Here is one:

https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10415517

Note how some engineer explains how MCAS works and there is a lot pilots who are completely surprised. That's quite damning for Boeing

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#62

Post by jostmey »

mcv wrote: post #42
ncr100 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Government is sadly conflicted. FAA claiming there is "no evidence" of this aircraft having a systemic flaw. Meanwhile: Boeing brought $70B into Washington State's economy in one year. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeingrsquos-economic-... Boeing is a major defense contractor, providing transportation, weapons, and other supplies to the US Military.

From what I understand about the issue so far, the systemic flaw is not in the aircraft, but in the training of the pilots. Or the lack thereof. Boeing wanted the 737 MAX to be considered just another 737 that didn't require any new training, but there are apparently significant changes compared to other 737 models that leave pilots feeling ill-prepared.

My understanding is that the Boeing 737 max jet is unstable. Instead of redesigning a new plane from the ground up, Boeing placed the larger engines forward and upward on the wings. Boeing then tried to issue a "software patch" on a bad hardware design. Boeing came up with an automated system to seize control of the aircraft in the event that the flight became unstable and neglected to inform pilots of this new automated system. Although not confirmed, it appears that both crashes may be the result of pilots wrestling with the plane's automated system, which they knew little about and may have been faulty

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#63

Post by elliekelly »

mcv wrote: post #42
ncr100 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Government is sadly conflicted. FAA claiming there is "no evidence" of this aircraft having a systemic flaw. Meanwhile: Boeing brought $70B into Washington State's economy in one year. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeingrsquos-economic-... Boeing is a major defense contractor, providing transportation, weapons, and other supplies to the US Military.

From what I understand about the issue so far, the systemic flaw is not in the aircraft, but in the training of the pilots. Or the lack thereof. Boeing wanted the 737 MAX to be considered just another 737 that didn't require any new training, but there are apparently significant changes compared to other 737 models that leave pilots feeling ill-prepared.

My understanding is that it's a bit of both. This Slate article[1] described it as both a design flaw and an effort to paper over that design flaw by tweaking the autopilot system.

>Boeing swapped out the engines for new models, which, together with airframe tweaks, promised a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency. In order to accommodate the engine’s larger diameter, Boeing engineers had to move the point where the plane attaches to the wing. This, in turn, affected the way the plane handled. Most alarmingly, it left the plane with a tendency to pitch up, which could result in a dangerous aerodynamic stall. To prevent this, Boeing added a new autopilot system that would pitch the nose down if it looked like it was getting too high.

Because of the changes to the autopilot system it functions differently than pilots expect it to during an emergency situation on this particular plane.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/ethiopian-air-crash-whe...

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#66

Post by ceejayoz »

ncr100 wrote: post #29
jdsully wrote: post #19

This goes beyond aircraft at the moment. The NTSB and America in general used to lead. Now it seems the world is going to get on without them.

The US Government is sadly conflicted. FAA claiming there is "no evidence" of this aircraft having a systemic flaw. Meanwhile: Boeing brought $70B into Washington State's economy in one year. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeingrsquos-economic-... Boeing is a major defense contractor, providing transportation, weapons, and other supplies to the US Military.

Boeing was a big employer, contractor, etc. back in 2013 when the FAA grounded the entire 787 fleet.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/16/169555027...

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#67

Post by mijamo »

js2 wrote: post #54
tapland wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the same procedures that make the US airlines the safest in the world Citation needed? > Let the downvotes begin. Bracing for impact doesn't invalidate the cause of it.

> Citation needed You’re probably asking for a citation that the US airlines are safest due to their procedures and not for other reasons. I don’t have a ready citation for that. But as to US airline safety: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2016/12/28/in-the-la... > Bracing for impact doesn't invalidate the cause of it. Fair, I should have left that out, but I won’t ninja edit it on you now. (And I have no ide…

Your link does not really help prove your point at all. Do you have a real source proving your point?

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#68

Post by js2 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #55
js2 wrote: post #20

Having read many commments on HN and elsewhere since the crash, I know I’m in the minority here when I say this but to me it seems like the US airlines and FAA are following their procedures, the same procedures that make the US airlines the safest in the world, while the rest of the world is, I don’t quite want to use the word panicking, but at least giving into pressure from people who aren’t aviation safety expert…

- We have a preliminary report from Lion Air, including a Emergency Airworthiness Directive and a Airworthiness Directive suggesting MCAS (w/faulty single AOA sensor) was closely tied to the accident. - The Lion Air flight had a certain aerial profile before the crash (a wave, as MCAS fought the pilots). - The Ethiopian Airlines aircraft has the same tell tale aerial profile It would be better to have the black box d…

At least according to Southwest’s pilots union SWA has seen no MCAS issues in its fleet (edit: this may not be correct - see reply from antsar) and its pilots are prepared to handle any MCAS issue were it to occur.[1]

I think a worse scenario is if the Ethiopian flight crashed due to some other not yet known issue specific to the Max.

[1] https://swaparesources.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf...

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#69

Post by carapace »

mcv wrote: post #42
ncr100 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Government is sadly conflicted. FAA claiming there is "no evidence" of this aircraft having a systemic flaw. Meanwhile: Boeing brought $70B into Washington State's economy in one year. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeingrsquos-economic-... Boeing is a major defense contractor, providing transportation, weapons, and other supplies to the US Military.

From what I understand about the issue so far, the systemic flaw is not in the aircraft, but in the training of the pilots. Or the lack thereof. Boeing wanted the 737 MAX to be considered just another 737 that didn't require any new training, but there are apparently significant changes compared to other 737 models that leave pilots feeling ill-prepared.

What you are describing is a systemic flaw in the aircraft.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#70

Post by howard941 »

tapland wrote: post #48
skookum wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were just southern Ontario that would be one thing. Every flight from the US west coast to Europe spends half (from SEA) to a third (from SFO or LAX) of its flight time in Canadian airspace. However all such flights would likely already be affected due to the widespread European bans. I have no idea if any of those routes were served by 737 Max 8s.

2/3 of the fleet was reported grounded before Canada joined. I doubt many 737s pass Canada on their way to Europe but I found this: > When it comes to riskier transatlantic and trans-continental routes, Boeing's new narrowbody 737-Max and Airbus's A320neo family can now be employed due to tremendous leaps in engine reliability and fuel efficiency. That has resulted in a considerable expansion of long-haul routes util…

That's ETOPS. Engines Turn Or People Swim
Post reply on HN