111–120 of 304 posts
Anyone have other examples of events like this taking down a big company's stock price for a limited time, but not affecting it overall?
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 Rather like the identity of the Boston Bomber.
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…
> the US airlines the safest in the world Where do you people _get_ these ideas?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels like average software development mindset applied to airplanes to be honest. An airplane nosediving on sensor malfunction from time to time is not acceptable behavior that could be considered fixed by telling the pilots to disable the autopilot.
Of course the sensor malfunction still need to be fixed but in the meanwhile the workaround can be used.
The correct procedure is to ground the plane until the problem is fully understood, and use different planes.
Let’s say these planes should have never been certified. What’s the financial damage to Boeing?
From what I quickly skimmed online, 5000 737 Max have been ordered at about $100 millions a piece, so loss of revenue around $500 billions.
Can someone chime in on the following-- One possible lead in cause has to do with either software or sensors related to Angle of Attack (AOT). For such an intermittent bug in a safety-critical application, how do you even begin fixing it when reproducibility might be a 1 in 500,000 likelihood? (Obviously I'm not in software testing, but I'm curious how one approaches this problem.)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That link does not support your statement. There are countries with the same safety record and with a higher percentage of their airlines ranking higher in safety than US airlines. Lumping the US versus 'the rest of the world' together does not compare single countries against each other. The US is safe for air travel, but that does not show that it is the safest.
The primary reason is likely due to training requirements:
https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-safety
Those requirements are due to US regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the risk of grounding planes is operational inconvenience Is it possible there is a safety risk to grounding the 737 Max that outweighs the risk of allowing it to fly?
Yes, if the alternative is even less safe. This is important when the alternative might be driving, as driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous. Safety measures that annoy people too much can end up with a net loss of life because of this. If there are other airliners that can be put into service to take up the slack, though, they’re very unlikely to be more dangerous.
Of course, over the last 10 years or so the FAA has delegated much of the approval process to the corporations themselves. Perhaps the system really is rotten?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course the sensor malfunction still need to be fixed but in the meanwhile the workaround can be used.
Again, this sounds like a typical software developer mindset: "let's just use a workaround!" That's OK if you're using an office software product; it's not OK for an aircraft carrying hundreds of people where one small problem can kill them all (plus more people on the ground). The correct procedure is to ground the plane until the problem is fully understood, and use different planes.