Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

planteen wrote: post #105

jostmey wrote: post #62

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…

You are discounting the possibility of software controlling an aerodynamically unstable airplane safely. This has been happening for decades (see X-29, B-2, etc)

Post by mikeash » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #150

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.

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 tha…

Post by peeters » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #18

nikanj wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is extremely tightly tied to the US economy, and the US government is still taking Boeing’s side on this. I wish this didn’t have to be about politics.

But it is about politics. Ted Cruz spoke out in favour of grounding the 737-MAX, presumably because Southwestern Airlines is a major operator of these misengineered deathtraps and is based in Dallas. If a pilot lost control of his place and there was a crash shortly after takeoff it would hurt his ambitions.

Post by irq11 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

dokein wrote: post #43

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…

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…

Post by isostatic » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #169

Twirrim wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hardly a unique thing about US airline safety. You're building one heck of a fragile claim there to superiority, a number of other countries can make similar claims, including countries that have similar or better safety records. Just out of a quick wiki trawl over the last ten years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_1354 UPS airline plane crashed in 2013, killing all onboard. In the same year…

Are you really going to use a UPS crash as an argument here? You actually raise some good points but I can’t get past that one.

  U.S. Airline
  U.S. origin
  U.S. destination
  European aircraft (A320)