Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8 • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#141

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

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 of the crash using public flight tracker data.

They didn't. Every internet forum is speculating right now, none can support a conclusion.

> It seems clear that safety is being weighed against level of disruption

It is more than disruption. Democratic societies have some concerns about Rule of Law and fairness, all societies have concerns about not bankrupting the air-transit providers, and about providing confidence in a stable environment for business.

Besides, air-traffic disruption kills people too.

Democratic countries tend to be very transparent about this calculation, but you probably won't be able to get it this quickly. In a few days we will probably learn the details why Canada made their decision.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#142

Post by mikeash » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

Skunkleton wrote: post #119

mikeash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt that enters into the FAA's calculus here. It is more likely that there is not enough information to show that the plane is unsafe (a sample size of 2 is not statistically significant). The FAA has already approved this design, and to say that there is a design flaw would cast a shadow on their own approval process, and by extension their authority. Of course, over the last 10 years or so the FAA has delegated…

No, it doesn’t enter into this decision because there are other planes that can step in, and grounding this type won’t encourage more driving. That was just an example of how safety measures can potentially backfire.

The FAA absolutely does consider this in general. For example, this is a major reason they don’t require child safety seats: their analysis is that the extra expense would shift some travel to cars and ultimately kill more kids than it saves. https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?conte...

As for two crashes not being significant, I don’t buy it. Against such a low background rate (2017 recorded zero fatalities across all jet airliners of all types, for example), two crashes of the same type in a few months is huge. Six years ago, two non-fatal battery fires aboard 787s was enough for the FAA to ground the type until a fix could be made. In hindsight, that seems to have been the correct action. This 787 Max problem appears to be far more severe.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#143

Post by tzs » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

jostmey wrote: post #62

mcv wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 autom…

Unstability is not necessarily considered to be bad hardware design. Stability comes at a cost, such as less maneuverability or lower efficiency.

Before fly by wire, it was always worth going for stability because pilots couldn't fly unstable aircraft. Fly by wire enabled making flyable unstable aircraft, and so trading off some inherent stability for more maneuverability (military) or higher efficiency (civilian) became an accepted design option.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#144

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #78

dokein wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The level of certainty required for an action changes depending on the downside risk of action vs inaction. For example, if I am 20% certain that you have a pulmonary embolism, the correct action is to start treatment immediately; the risks of treatment are low relative the harm of waiting for further testing. The FAA and NTSB are rightly very conservative and cautious with respect to approving new designs, since the…

> 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?

People are most likely going to be shuffled around to other planes. 737s use to be for a lot of short haul flights, but they're being used increasingly for mid and even long haul flights.

They're often far enough it's impractical to drive, and at least in the European market, trains are always a more expensive, but available alternative. If the FAA took action, in the US people would probably just postpone trips unless they had the personal days to drive instead (or a lot of personal days to AmTrak instead).

Most people will be shuffled onto larger flights to hubs with connections via smaller aircraft; so they'll be switching to airplanes with proven safety records. It increases demand for the seats and may raise cost, but safety would actually go up if it turns out there is a problem with the 737-max8.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#145

Post by mikeash » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #124

mikeash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a fallacy that people compares chances of death/injury like a computer would. Things like being in control of your own fate matter too.

People in general do not, but agencies like the FAA absolutely do, and that’s what I’m talking about.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#146

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #132

dragontamer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different President, Different Secretary of Transportation, different FAA chief. Obama's administration was run grossly different than Trump's administration. Case in point: FAA doesn't even have a Trump-appointed administrator yet (Daniel Elwell was only appointed to the position of Deputy administrator and is only "Acting Administrator" for now).

That's fine, but that's a different claim entirely. The FAA has always had the "Boeing is a large employer and defense contractor" conflict. I'm perfectly fine with a "current management is bad" assertion.

Fair enough.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#147

Post by SECProto » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #113

peteretep wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US airlines the safest in the world Where do you people _get_ these ideas?!

Maybe from the fact that the last fatality in a US airline crash was over ten years ago?

As far as I could find, there were no Canadian airline crashes in the same time frame. Unless you include small charter-airline type crashes, which would mean some american crashes would be counted too (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Rediske_Air_DHC-3_Otter_c... )

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#148

Post by fbelzile » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #113

peteretep wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US airlines the safest in the world Where do you people _get_ these ideas?!

Maybe from the fact that the last fatality in a US airline crash was over ten years ago?

That means nothing. All airlines based out of France and Germany are ISOA certified, never had a fatality, and are rated 7/7 by AirlineRatings [0] (industry leader on airline safety ratings), for example.

[0] https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-rating-tool/

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#149

Post by janj » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

throwaway427 wrote: post #49

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…

I agree and I don't think you deserve the downvotes. The FAA is an institution with a deep sense of safety first and independence from (and even dominion over) private industry. They are also a body of experts, with more collective knowledge than any other similar body of domain experts in world. If we believe in institutions of experts who study and make recommendations regarding complex systems, we owe it to the FA…

It's interesting you put it this way. I just heard on NPR this morning that the FAA and NTSB is actually in partnership with private industry (like Boeing and the airlines) for cooperative self regulation because the FAA and NTSB just doesn't have the resources to provide adequate inspections without their help. I'll see if I can find that interview.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/702908761/why-did-a-boeing-73...

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#150

Post by js2 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #95

js2 wrote: post #78

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.

So the argument is to ground the Max because there is a known MCAS issue and have people fly on proven older equipment. But Southwest hasn’t seen the MCAS issue in its fleet and its own pilots union feels its prepared to handle an MCAS issue should it occur. Could the reasoning be the Max is believed to be safer with US pilots at the helm than flying on the older equipment the Max is replacing?

If the argument is that this is just about dollars and inconvenience to the airline, what would a 737 Max crash, now, cost Southwest in law suits and reputation? Maybe SWA is weighing this against the likelihood of another flight 1380 type incident.