Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 407 posts

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#151

Post by xvf22 »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #143
xvf22 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing has a lot of work to do to restore their image and I will avoid the MAX where possible. They seem to have been on a mission to cut back on expenses without the necessary review and supervision which is worrying. I'd prefer they start caring a bit more about "the box" again. [0] [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-09/former-bo...

It can be hard to avoid since carriers reasonably often change what aircrafts they use after the tickets are sold. Norwegian Air Shuttle has been in a lot of trouble over that when they sold tickets promising Dreamliner but instead leased in a much older airplane to fly that trip. (well they have done it multiple times on different trips)

Ya, I've had the same experience a few times and you're right they can sub things on short notice but I'll try to avoid where possible.

Air Canada is getting a bunch of A220s which from all reports seem like a much nicer plane to fly on.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#152

Post by atonse »

retSava wrote: post #115
radcon wrote: post #40

Is anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this? A lot of people say "It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software" , but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could affect every plane they make.

The MCAS will likely be fixed in a way that makes it reliable and dependable. Boeing wouldn't dare anything else since there are a lot of eyes on them and how they handle this now. What worries me is not the MCAS (now), but what else might be lurking under the surface that Boeing pretends is not a problem. I don't feel confident that Boeing would accept the cost of grounding the fleet the next time something serious-…

Unless you start putting Boeing executives in jail, there is literally ZERO incentive for them not to repeat all this. In fact, the CEO and senior executives have probably already received their massive bonuses for the MAX sales. It's not like they're going to be asked to return those bonuses now with all this fiasco.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#154

Post by ks1723 »

robjan wrote: post #114
ubermonkey wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're absolutely right. The approach on the MAX is horrifying. But airplane tech moves kind of slowly, no? Non-MAX 737s can't really change, and so are as safe today as they were 6 month or 6 years ago. The MAX debacle makes me SUPER SUPER leery of any new airframe, though.

The problem with the MAX was that it's a new revision of an ancient airframe. A completely new design would go through way more testing than did the MAX.

I am not so sure about this since i read this Insider view: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/bdfqm4/the_real_rea...

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#155

Post by tzs »

foldr wrote: post #116
danharaj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without MCAS a MAX has flight characteristics that would not pass FAA certification.

I don't believe that's true. What's your source?

There are specific regulations on how the stick force must change in response to various flight conditions. Without MCAS the stick force curve of the 737-MAX does not satisfy those regulations.

Do an HN search on "MCAS stick force curve" (without the quotes)[1] and you can find some discussion of this with cites to and quotes from specific sections of the regulations.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=MCAS%20stick%20force%20curve&s...

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#156

Post by thinkloop »

LamboJ wrote: post #147
thinkloop wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unit of distance is not the correct measure to use for safety because it skews heavily towards speed. The fastest means of transport will almost always look the safest. Consider if planes doubled their speed overnight (which they can, it's just a matter of gas/costs) and crashes remained the same - did they instantly become twice as safe? Definitely not, there is still the fixed risks of takeoff, landing, and being i…

While you raise some good points about the "fixed risk costs" of flying not scaling by distance, deaths per hour isn't a much better metric. The use case for most people is to travel a specific distance. e.g. "I need to get from A to B" so should I fly or drive there. It's usually not, "I need to move around for an hour" should I take the bus or a plane.

What you want is the distance but that's not the risk you're being exposed to. As soon as you enter a plane you are being exposed to risk, like a radioactive element, regardless if the plane travels fast, slow or even in circles. Only when you get off the plane does your exposure to this risk change. The distance you traveled in the meantime had no direct effect. The fact that cars or buses take much longer to arrive means you have to factor in the additional hours of exposure to their risks, so it still makes a material difference how far you need to go, but the more direct relationship is the amount of exposure to the radioactivity.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#157

Post by foldr »

tzs wrote: post #155
foldr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that's true. What's your source?

There are specific regulations on how the stick force must change in response to various flight conditions. Without MCAS the stick force curve of the 737-MAX does not satisfy those regulations. Do an HN search on "MCAS stick force curve" (without the quotes)[1] and you can find some discussion of this with cites to and quotes from specific sections of the regulations. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=MCAS%20stick%20…

There is no source in those comments for the claim that the 737-MAX would not satisfy these regulations without MCAS.

Note that the actual regulations are a tad more complex than the incomplete sentence quoted: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5tAhOC4KC8MC&pg=PA200&lp...

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#158

Post by gsich »

radcon wrote: post #40

Is anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this? A lot of people say "It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software" , but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could affect every plane they make.

Reminds me of Niki Lauda, someone posted this yesterday:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Lauda's_v...

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#159

Post by raverbashing »

ulfw wrote: post #63
wycy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be extremely hesitant to ever fly on a 737 MAX again because, even when MCAS is fixed, software is being used to fix a fundamental physics problem. I'd fly on other Boeing planes without worry, though.

The fix for the 787s Lithium battery problems wasn't a whole lot better. Remember those exploding left and right and the 787 fleet grounded? The fix wasn't to reengineer the large amount of electrical systems, lack of bleed air or use of different batteries. The fix was to put them in a stronger container with a hole in it so they can vent outside when they inevitably blow up again. That has worked well. So far. Kind…

I'm with Boeing in this fix. The problem is not with the "the large amount of electrical systems, lack of bleed air". This is how things evolved.

The main issue IIRC was manufacturing defects in some batteries that caused internal short circuits.

> The fix was to put them in a stronger container with a hole in it so they can vent outside

And this is an acceptable fix (beyond better QA/manufacturing practices of the battery). If the batteries fail the fault should be contained.

The article you linked explains the changes Boeing implemented.

Yes, batteries failed. The battery failure was contained correctly. Besides improving the reliability of the battery (which was addressed with some changes) that's what Boeing should have done (and did).

They're not going back to NiCa or Lead batteries

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#160

Post by gingabriska »

radcon wrote: post #40

Is anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this? A lot of people say "It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software" , but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could affect every plane they make.

It could be possible that it's mostly developer pay, we all know big old companies don't pay software developers much and now most talented ones are either working for companies who pay a lot like Google and FB or startups which offer lot of equity and recognition.
Post reply on HN