151–160 of 195 posts
So this is the equivalence of “let the software engineers do the QA” thing.
Nope, software engineers at least have a sense of proper QA. This is the equivalence of “let the product manager do the QA” thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But at the same time that trim system is, by design, not strong enough to overpower pilot input to the other control surfaces. That is incorrect for the 737 and many airliners. Elevator input is way less strong than trim. Trim moves the entire surface, not just the elevator control surface. I had the same misconception, my brain was translating GA aircraft knowledge to airliners.
The GA Aircraft; Cessna 182B has Stab trim.
Some light GA aircraft have systems with jackscrews that deflect the horizontal stabilizer as in airliners. These systems are more efficient aerodynamically, but can overpower pilot input, at least in theory. The aero trim system (in prior paragraph) cannot.
So what's the most likely outcome for all the grounded planes at this point? As someone who has some fear of flying I'll definitely make sure none of my trips include a 737 max in the future, no matter how many patches or upgrades boeing releases
It is very unlikely they will be scraped. There isn't just a handful out there, but more than 300. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_order... My uninformed assumption is that once a suitable issue is isolated some sort of remediation (training/software/airframe/cockpit) all under the onset of various international gov bodies. No idea if the is a 1 year or 5 year process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's why I phrased my comment as a question. When the implementation difficulties of regulation come up on libertarian-leaning forums, it often seems like it's really an indirect way of arguing against the whole concept and practice of regulation (e.g. like this comment describes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19424511 ). I just wanted to see if that was the case here or not, hence the question.
Libertarians probably don't often advocate the strawman position of no regulation whatsoever, or the ill-defined yet ludicrous "self regulation", but rather independent regulation by third-party companies, such as is the case in the kosher food certification industry, or the Underwriters Laboratories, or PCI compliance.
I think these positions are essentially the same, at least in the case of most consumer-facing regulation. The latter would cause a myriad of captive "independent regulatory" bodies to emerge to confuse consumers, complete with slick websites and easy to confuse names and logos (or outright fraudulent ones). It would be hard to sort through them, and no one will have the time to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More and more of this has been delegated to the manufacturers themselves. They simply assert to the FAA that the aircraft meets the type requirements. Boeing showed the FAA their test results, said that with MCAS the aircraft meets requirements, doesn't require extra training, and the FAA took their word for it. Authorities in most other countries trust the FAA, so they took their word for it too. That's an oversimpl…
More and more of this has been delegated to the manufacturers themselves. They simply assert to the FAA that the aircraft meets the type requirements. To assert this, but also change such a critical emergency procedure, which is made more critical by a decision motivated primarily by economics -- this just sounds bad. Basically, we've set up a situation where short term thinking is eventually, over many thousands of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes true.[1] You're misunderstanding that quote. It's talking about "authority" in the sense of software's authorization to move the trim tab, not the aerodynamic authority of the tailplane. The 737 has a 60 year old, very conventional elevator with a trim tab. The tab changes the resting angle of the overall elevator, and thus the "center point" of tailplane force on the airframe. Being out of trim means that the ai…
Your footnote is really appreciated. I think there is a lot of trauma in this world and coping is a daily struggle for many of us. My hat is off to you.
If we cannot argue in a marketplace of ideas, we are prevented from having hard but necessary conversations. We need to adhere to parameters of civility of course, but to me, a necessary freedom is the freedom to disagree/dispute. Some ideas are truly wrong and they need to be put through the crucible.
That said, I've always been told to always "address the ideas, not the person" (never attack someone's character) and to adopt a pose of "curiosity".
EASA and other nations' aviation regulators are also on the hook for not validating this certification as thoroughly as they could have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libertarians probably don't often advocate the strawman position of no regulation whatsoever, or the ill-defined yet ludicrous "self regulation", but rather independent regulation by third-party companies, such as is the case in the kosher food certification industry, or the Underwriters Laboratories, or PCI compliance.
> position of no regulation whatsoever, or the ill-defined yet ludicrous "self regulation", but rather independent regulation by third-party companies I think these positions are essentially the same, at least in the case of most consumer-facing regulation. The latter would cause a myriad of captive "independent regulatory" bodies to emerge to confuse consumers, complete with slick websites and easy to confuse names…
Meanwhile, evidently "nobody has the time" for knocking on enough congressmen's doors to override Big Business' billion-dollar lobbying efforts, and so here we are watching planes fall from the sky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your right, insurance markets have appeared for many things. I'm not sure why you think that's evidence against my argument. I cited an example where they did not, where the free market did not come up with a solution. Your argument amounts to an article of faith. "The free market solves all problems, because if we let it, it would find a way." The crux of your comment when given an example where there was no such so…
Just because the marketplace didn't do something 100 years ago doesn't mean that it never would. Obviously, there wasn't a need for such a thing, so what problem is being solved here? You just contrived some set of circumstances that you believe fits your hypothesis; in no way is this a reflection on the free market's capabilities.
If centuries is an acceptable time scale for obtaining a solution, then we're not really arguing about the same thing at all. I'm sure we could both come up with theoretical free market solutions to just about any issue. The problem is they don't always materialize, and it's not terribly difficult to see any number of issues in history that existed before widespread regulation that were not solved by the free market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Unfortunately, substituting regulations for good thinking has the potential to nonsensically stymie progress if done incorrectly.” Help me understand this statement. Are you suggesting that regulation in this instance would not help with safety?
Regulation is why Boeing felt the need to construct and jump through such elaborate hoops to avoid losing the 737's original certification. The better approach would have been to treat the Max as an entirety new aircraft model, and not try to fool pilots into thinking it was just another boring old 737 variant. But the regs are written to encourage the latter approach.
Model doesn't matter. It's possible to have two different models with the same type rating (Airbus A320 vs A340), and it's just as possible to have a derivative that requires a different type rating.
It would have been better for whom to treat the MAX as something different, requiring its own type rating? It's pretty clear it was overwhelmingly the airlines who wanted a new 737 in the existing 737 type rating.