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

171–180 of 407 posts

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

#171

Post by magduf »

village-idiot wrote: post #93
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.

I’m okay flying on the older 737s. Those are proven enough that we know what they’ll do; the biggest risk for those older planes is the safety culture for the airline, not Boeing. Any of their newer stuff? No way.

I have no doubt the older 737s are safe, but they're still crappy planes to fly on as a passenger. Given similar cost, I'll pick an Airbus instead. It's like taking a road trip in a 1967 Mustang vs. and car from 2015. Even if you don't have any incidents, the 1967 car is going to be a pretty lousy experience as far as passenger comfort, noise, and ride quality.

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

#172

Post by darkpuma »

magduf wrote: post #169
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 non-MAX 737s are still shitty planes to fly on. It's an ancient airframe: it's cramped, it's noisy, it just sucks. And it's a fuel hog too (which is why they made the MAX version). The competing aircraft are all much newer and nicer. The only reason anyone was buying the MAX was 1) because they had already bought into Boeing and the 737 and it's cheaper to just get a 737MAX which doesn't require any pilot retrain…

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that whether a plane is cramped or not is largely up to the airline not the manufacturer, since it's the airline who actually makes the decision about how many seats to cram in, and what sort of seats to use.

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

#173

Post by rossdavidh »

nocturnial wrote: post #61
MobileVet wrote: post #13

Good. Hold them accountable and make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. Although a ‘same plane’ cert was a good goal, they should have made sure it was truly accurate instead of bending the case to make it so. This may be as close to an ‘open and shut’ case for corporate gross negligence as we will find in quite a while (at least I hope so). I would hate to see them go under but it should be clear tha…

And how are they going to be held accountable? They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company. Maybe not everyone signed, but then it's about how much they can pay their lawyers.

Really, all you need is for the CEO and perhaps the board of directors to lose their jobs. Sure, they'd get golden parachutes and it wouldn't seem sufficient, but people in positions of power don't like losing their position. If you did that, it would be sufficient to make the next CEO (and board) think twice about doing something similar.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening.

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

#174

Post by darkpuma »

ddalex wrote: post #77
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, risks are insignificant. It's extremely irrational to be scared to fly on Boeing.

LOL what? It's at least 4 orders of magnitude more risky to fly 737 MAX compared to Airbus A320 (counting deaths per 100k takeoffs). 4 orders of magnitude are not irrational.

That's a relative measure, it could still be the case that the absolute risk is still quite low for each individual. It could very well be the case that the risk per individual is low enough to not cause serious rational concern, while the risk for the entire fleet is high enough to justify grounding it. In much the same way that golfing during a rain storm almost certainly will not get you killed, but if it became a trendy thing to do the number of people being struck by lightning would be significantly higher.

To put a finer point on it, I believe a 737-MAX is still safer than general aviation, which I think most rational people aren't scared of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation#Safety

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

#175

Post by tgb »

thinkloop wrote: post #111
s_dev wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying -- even accounting for all the 737 Max crashes is still statistically by far the safest form of travel per unit of distance travelled -- the 737 Max is a blip just like 9/11.

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…

Planes fly at well above 0.5 mach, so doubling their speed requires a pretty substantial change, not merely spending more on fuel.

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

#176

Post by SomeHacker44 »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #90
SomeHacker44 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate... and even then not for at least 3-4 years of commercial service under that condition. It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.

> I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate then you will never be able to fly one. It cannot get its own type certificate.

First off, sure it could go through certification de novo to get its own type certificate. Does not mean Boeing will do that (it is antithetical to their purpose with the aircraft).

I am happy not flying on it as a 737-typed aircraft.

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

#177

Post by erentz »

bilbo0s wrote: post #67
ulfw wrote: post #43

Good. Which it should have done and should from now on do for all 'self-certified' Boeing airplanes.

It still kills me that they let Boeing 'self-certify' their own airplanes. I had a diagnostic medical imaging startup. You can't even imagine the pain the FDA inflicted on our bottom line before they would give an OK on anything. But the FAA is out there just taking the word of some company's engineers that "Yeah. We're good."? I guess I just thought that all of the regulation, was like it was in the healthcare field…

You appear to me making a mistake thinking your particular experience with your medical imaging device is normal. A lot of very dodgy medical devices such as cobalt hips and fallopian tube implants and surgical meshes have been approved with terrible oversight from the FDA causing unbelievable harm to people. The FDA is definitely far too lax (maybe fairer to say captured by industry) in a lot of areas they are supposed to regulate.

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

#178

Post by tssva »

magduf wrote: post #171
village-idiot wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m okay flying on the older 737s. Those are proven enough that we know what they’ll do; the biggest risk for those older planes is the safety culture for the airline, not Boeing. Any of their newer stuff? No way.

I have no doubt the older 737s are safe, but they're still crappy planes to fly on as a passenger. Given similar cost, I'll pick an Airbus instead. It's like taking a road trip in a 1967 Mustang vs. and car from 2015. Even if you don't have any incidents, the 1967 car is going to be a pretty lousy experience as far as passenger comfort, noise, and ride quality.

I ridden on some pretty uncomfortable Airbus planes. Passenger comfort has more to do with airline choices regarding types and number of seats than model of aircraft.

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

#179

Post by ReptileMan »

atonse wrote: post #152
retSava wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Boing executives and their friends and families also fly on their planes.

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

#180

Post by SomeHacker44 »

dotancohen wrote: post #149
SomeHacker44 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As simion314 said, a new type rating likely means it has to be certified from the ground up. It also means pilots need a full training regimen, a new type rating and will allow/require Boeing to fully train pilots in all of its systems and failure modes. All in all IF what others are saying that the plane is not inherently unsafe but does fly differently, this will mean pilots will at least be properly familiar and t…

A new type rating will mean that the plane gets the worst of two worlds. Instead of saving a type rating yet delivering a paritally-modern aircraft, Boeing is requiring a type rating yet delivering a paritally-legacy aircraft. I'm not sure where the quirks bit comes in. Sure, all planes have their quirks but obviously taildraggers don't intentionally squat their props _closer_ to the pavement on landing. There's no d…

I agree that a new type rating is not a good thing for Boeing or its customers. But it may be the best and right thing for pilots and passengers, which is what the Governments of the world should care about.

Secondly, landing a taildragger on its wheels does involve a distinct “push the nose forward” on touchdown to keep the plane on the ground. Takes a bit of practice to get used to it. Even more fun is landing on just one wheel in a strong crosswind. Consider that if you don’t push the nose forward the tail will naturally sink (as it is still going down when the main gear hits the ground). This will increase the angle of attack causing the plane to take off again. Hence why we land on the wheels this way. (Or do a three point landing...)

Post reply on HN