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

211–220 of 304 posts

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#211

Post by sangnoir »

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)

Did any of those aircraft quietly oppose the pilots authority?

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#212

Post by mcast »

dragonwriter wrote: post #207
mcast wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager mass surveillance programs, Fast/Furious, and spying on White House journalists to be scandalous. Not sure why many people can't fathom seeing both parties as unethical.

I can fathom seeing both parties as falling below some threshold of being "acceptably ethical". I cannot fathom seeing every administration as being equally and indistinguishably unethical, however.

I completely agree, I was not trying to equate both administrations. I'm just tired of hearing people claim Obama had a perfect administration.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#213

Post by dharmab »

odorousrex wrote: post #39
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.

KAYAK has reported that people in the USA are filtering out 737 MAX8/9 flights now in ever increasing numbers. (Orbitz and Expedia have followed KAYAK's lead and added filters to filter out this plane.) IMO, It's only a matter of time before public pressure forces either the government, or the carriers themselves to ground the planes.

Even if customers don't have safety concerns, the stories if 737 MAX 8 flights being turned around midair are surely causing people to pick other jets to avoid travel inconvenience.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#214

Post by dragonwriter »

mcast wrote: post #212
dragonwriter wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can fathom seeing both parties as falling below some threshold of being "acceptably ethical". I cannot fathom seeing every administration as being equally and indistinguishably unethical, however.

I completely agree, I was not trying to equate both administrations. I'm just tired of hearing people claim Obama had a perfect administration.

> I'm just tired of hearing people claim Obama had a perfect administration.

I think you are looking too hard for things to be upset about if you mistake someone referring to Obama's administration as ethical in contrast to Trump's as claiming Obama's was perfect.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#215

Post by rootusrootus »

mikeash wrote: post #155
jsharf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way, the difference between the safety factors of driving and flying are not quite so straightforward. This is one of my favorite charts, which shows that per-mile, flying is safer, but per-journey, driving is safer (which makes some sense, since flying journeys are much longer, but 80% of accidents happen in the 5 minutes during takeoff/landing, so really in some sense, takeoff and landing are more dangerous…

Those numbers are for the UK in the 1990s. Commercial aviation is much safer today. The fatality rate per journey for US airlines over the last ten years is approximately 0.14 per billion journeys, several hundred times better than the number from your link. (Roughly 700 million journeys per year on average, one fatality during that period.) Cars have gotten safer too, but not nearly as much.

Is there a point at which the statistics are too muddy to be useful? We have had 1 fatality in the last ten years, but in the last 10 years, 1 month, and 1 day we have had 51 fatalities.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#216

Post by booleandilemma »

jackschultz wrote: post #111

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?

Just look at Facebook’s recent history, plenty of examples there.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#217

Post by lisper »

helaoban wrote: post #153
mzs wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WaPo's lead fact checker who covered FAA for four years as a journalist disagrees with you: https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/110585814000275456...

Quote: "I covered airline safety and the FAA for four years, and I cannot remember a time when the FAA was so alone among world regulators on a serious safety issue. " Neither viewpoint is supported here. The anomaly is that there is a disagreement between the FAA and the other aviation authorities, but no evidence has yet surfaced that would vindicate either party.

> no evidence has yet surfaced that would vindicate either party.

Except for two brand new aircraft crashing within five months of each other with all souls lost.

But you're right, other than that, there's nothing.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#218

Post by aquaticsunset »

Alex3917 wrote: post #205
cal5k wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My father used to work for Transport Canada (Canada's version of the FAA), and I've found it rather dismaying how little faith people seem to have in the FAA/NTSB despite many years of evidence as to their competence. They're probably the best independent regulator the US has at the moment. Ironically, if you were to dive into a thread about "Urban Air Transport", a hot topic in Silicon Valley, you'd likely see peopl…

> They're probably the best independent regulator the US has at the moment. Aren't most of the safety statistics they publish basically fake? If you look at the star ratings they give for crash tests, there is an asterisk with fine print saying that they only compare vehicles within 250lbs of each other. Which means that when you're trying to figure out which car is actually the safest, a car that gets a 3-star crash…

NTSB isn't the NHTSA, totally different agencies.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#219

Post by booleandilemma »

notJim wrote: post #100

Is it normal for there to be this kind of obsession about a particular plane following a crash? I feel like I've never seen this before. I literally saw someone on Twitter suggesting that you print out a page of the manual and hand it to your pilot…

If nothing else this situation has made people more familiar with Boeing’s products.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#220

Post by a3n »

jsharf wrote: post #134
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.

By the way, the difference between the safety factors of driving and flying are not quite so straightforward. This is one of my favorite charts, which shows that per-mile, flying is safer, but per-journey, driving is safer (which makes some sense, since flying journeys are much longer, but 80% of accidents happen in the 5 minutes during takeoff/landing, so really in some sense, takeoff and landing are more dangerous…

Also, for many (?) to most (?) people, flying is unnecessary, added risk, while for the same group of weasel word identified people, driving is an arguable necessity.

EDIT: Added more weasel words.

Post reply on HN