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

231–240 of 304 posts

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#231

Post by dsfyu404ed »

freehunter wrote: post #183
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this down-voted? Your first statement is a statement of fact with a citation. Your second statement is a perfectly reasonable opinion (in what universe is a second distinct crash causing defect not worse?). It seems like anyone who dares say something that isn't proclaiming enthusiastic, blind and unquestioning support for the "ground them all this nanosecond, this problem is unambiguously MCAS related" line o…

The number of times I have seen "why is this being down voted" over the past week or so is absolutely insane. More so when most of the subjects of the downvoting complaints aren't actually below 0. People need to chill about about voting. The guidelines even say "don't complain about votes". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>The number of times I have seen "why is this being down voted" over the past week or so is absolutely insane.

The number of otherwise benign comments that get down-vote bombed in all the Boeing threads over the past week has been insane. It's no wonder that complaining increased with it.

Usually when there's a majority/minority opinion split on an issue around here the minority opinion doesn't get buried like it has on this issue. It's not surprise that some people don't like that change in community standards.

>People need to chill about about voting. The guidelines even say "don't complain about votes".

The guidelines also say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Which exactly nobody in any of these threads is doing.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#232

Post by Scoundreller »

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…

> the risk of grounding planes is operational inconvenience

I disagree. The EU grounded planes returned to their starting point, and will have to fly yet another leg: a double dose of flight risk.

How will airlines fill the gap from their MAX8 fleet? By dusting off their parked planes. Why are they parked? They could be lemons or reduced safety (e.g. Minimim Equipment Lists).

Or by deferring maintenance, which is done to keep planes safe.

Health care is trying to reduce its unnecessary testing habit: if they cost money and time without value, then resources are taken away from other life-saving interventions.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#233

Post by linuxftw »

yingw787 wrote: post #157

And then there was one. I do wonder if we can halt and revert the deterioration of the Civil Service before the whole "civilization is two days worth of food and water" scenario arrives. If it does, I think it'll be through something that generates a disproportionate amount of fear and anxiety in people resulting in a significant impact to the economy in a sector where middle to upper class folks are heavily exposed…

The problem, I think, is there's no established protocol in this situation. Congress leaves entirely too much decision making up to the executive branch. How hard is it to write a law such as "If the same (public) commercial model plane crashes with fatalities more than once in an 18 month period, that model plane shall be grounded indefinitely until a root cause is established and mitigated"

This would have some interesting knock-on effects such as maybe airlines would value diversity in the fleets just a little bit more.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#234

Post by Twirrim »

mikeash wrote: post #208
isostatic wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"UPS Airlines Flight 1354 was a scheduled cargo flight from Louisville, Kentucky, to Birmingham, Alabama" U.S. Airline U.S. origin U.S. destination European aircraft (A320) Seems that the cause was problems with American trained pilots, so it's a strong refutation to the assertion "Maybe from the fact that the last fatality in a US airline crash was over ten years ago? "

Despite the name, UPS Airlines is a cargo company, not an airline. If you want to quibble over semantics, just pretend I specified “passenger airline” since that’s what I was talking about and that’s the relevant category.

Cargo companies come under the same regulations. You can't ignore them just because it's detrimental to your narrative.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#235

Post by anigbrowl »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #26
bilbo0s wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll still be fun and games. It's just that the game will be "CYA".

The game has been "CYA" for a few days ago. Grounding the aircraft without information about the second crash is fundamentally a CYA exercise. It might be the right action to take but until we have the information we need to see if we are right or wrong it is a CYA exercise. Just because it's CYA doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because you turn out to be right later doesn't mean you didn't initially do it to CYA.

CYA generally refers to avoiding responsibility rather than a precautionary approach - one covers one's own ass (protects one's interests) while leaving everyone else exposed to risk.

The EU has grounded the Max 8s, accepting the disruption to commerce and inconvenience to travelers up front as the cost of avoiding an unlikely but potentially catastrophic accident. It's possible that if this were an Airbus instead of a Boeing plane that the situation might be reversed, but I'm inclined to think they would actually take the same action in that circumstance because EU regulatory culture is rooted in a precautionary rather than a palliative approach.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#236

Post by helaoban »

mzs wrote: post #180
helaoban wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

at least quote it all please, "When a major accident like this happened, global aviation authorities conferred with the FAA -- which took the lead."

Because that part of the quote it not only pointless, it's nonsensical.

The FAA DID take the lead by immediately issuing a notice in support of the airworthiness of the plane. Other aviation authorities then decided to contravene the FAA and ground the planes in their own airspace.

There is an irrational assumption that has been injected into this argument, which is that all of a sudden the FAA's judgment should be subject to abnormal scrutiny (at a time when there hasn't been a single fatal accident on a commercial US airliner in 10 years), and the judgments of other civil aviation authorities should all of a sudden be held in higher regard.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#237

Post by hu3 »

breck wrote: post #221
erokar wrote: post #160

If this Reddit comment is true it's pretty damning. https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/b08h03/737_max_mega... Claims intermittent fluctuations in AoA can activate the MCAS. So no need for the AoA indicator to be faulty then, means the risk of falsa MCAS intervention higher than previously believed.

I'd bet against that rumor with 50 to 1 odds. If there really was such a memo going around Boeing that would certainly be leaked. The leaker would probably due so publicly as well, as they would literally save lives and easily be free from retribution.

I don't know. Leaking dieselgate would arguably have saved more lives yet it took 6 years to surface.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#238

Post by linuxftw »

Scoundreller wrote: post #232
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 I disagree. The EU grounded planes returned to their starting point, and will have to fly yet another leg: a double dose of flight risk. How will airlines fill the gap from their MAX8 fleet? By dusting off their parked planes. Why are they parked? They could be lemons or reduced safety (e.g. Minimim Equipment Lists). Or by deferring maintenance, which is don…

> How will airlines fill the gap from their MAX8 fleet?

Europe will probably be fine. Unfortunately here in the states, the Airlines colluded with "capacity discipline" [1]. If you've been on a US flight recently, you'll notice that a whole plane canceled would require another entire plane to be found. And since airlines don't seem to invest too much into their workforce, well they just don't have the extra captains and crew to run extra-hour flights late into the evening either.

1: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-antitrust-airlines-la...

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#239

Post by devy »

yingw787 wrote: post #157

And then there was one. I do wonder if we can halt and revert the deterioration of the Civil Service before the whole "civilization is two days worth of food and water" scenario arrives. If it does, I think it'll be through something that generates a disproportionate amount of fear and anxiety in people resulting in a significant impact to the economy in a sector where middle to upper class folks are heavily exposed…

> and the Secretary of Transportation is the Senate Majority Leader's wife who is also lobbied by Boeing

When Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao got assignment as the secretary of Depart of Transportation, Mitch McConnell should resign already.

Additionally, FAA's no-action silent "we don't know if 737Max8 is not safe" approach as oppose to "we know it's safe" is unacceptable.

Re: Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8

#240

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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…

There's an additional confounding factor: Now that this has happened not just once but twice, causing hundreds of deaths, every pilot on the planet is acutely aware of this issue.

Instead of Boeing publishing information about the systems and requiring pilots to receive training in the new models, the pilots themselves have essentially come up with their own pilot training course, and used the tragedies plastered across global news as the change notification system.

Post reply on HN