121–130 of 304 posts
By now its safe to assume that most pilot will know about this specific issue and know how to handle it. Well, except those Ethiopian pilot. I don't see reason to ban.
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…
I don't think that is the case. The FAA and Boeing both said this plane is safe and approved it for use. They would look like complete idiots if they now turn around and say they were wrong and it would put a lot of focus on why and how they came to that initial conclusion that the plane was safe.
They are doubling down on their safety claim and are refusing to admit they could have made a mistake at the expense of potentially hundreds of lives.
Thd FAA + NTSB need to do something. They need to investigate and review past investigations and come out with their findings, they can’t just say “we don’t believe it”. Even if they are right, the right thing to do is thoroughly review past incidents and issue a finding.
I have no idea whether the correct default position should be to ground or not to ground these planes. But it's clear that the investigation is in-progress and their statement was not "we don't believe it" but "Thus far, our review ... provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft ... Nor have other civil aviation authorities provided data to us that would warrant action." > Even if they are right, the right thin…
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.
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.
They have more than 5000 orders for this model of aircraft. Each one costs approx 120million. Which means there are approx $640 billion dollars on the line. It is imperative that Boeing keeps it's reputation and grounding flights would destroy it.
Another 737 Max crashing in the face of the current scrutiny would destroy it even worse, wouldn’t it? Is that just a calculated gamble?
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…
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/110585814000275456...
Gotta ask, when's the time to buy Boeing stock? It's like all these things happen, stock gets dumped quickly, but it's not like this hurts the overall value of the company. 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 autom…
If this turns out to be a software bug of dangling pointer... oh imagine that poor developer has to take all the karma of lost lives...
I suspect the blame lies with Boeing's management and with the FAA for being complicit with Boeing.
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…
Tell me how China grounding the planes had nothing to do with the trade war.
This is about trade protectionism and a warning shot from the Europeans to the Trump administration that they are willing to play dirty, and this is about who will foot the bill for the grounded planes.