Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by wahern » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #291

jacquesm wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don't want to address it because it isn't true. There are plenty of corporations that would not put lives on the line balanced against their bottom line. Yes, there are quite a few that do, it just does not extend to all of them, and I'd wager the larger the company the further insulated the management is and so the more likely for stuff like that to occur. But to categorically say this about any corporat…

These corporations are young and still have an autocratic leader that is forcing them to work against their natural value... as they age they will age like all the other corporations and come to value short term gain above everything else. This construct human beings have made has proven again and again that in the long term there is no outcome but degeneration to short term profit seeking that is what we currently d…

The emphasis on short-term shareholder value is a relatively recent trend in business culture and specifically American business culture. It's not intrinsic to the concept of the firm. However, it has become deeply entrenched not only in our business culture but also our political culture, so it would be quite difficult to extirpate.

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

#302

Post by CydeWeys » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

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…

> Consider if planes doubled their speed overnight (which they can, it's just a matter of gas/costs)

No, they really cannot. Jetliners can't even increase their speed by 20%, because that puts them through the sound barrier, which they can't handle. Planes must specifically be designed to handle that, like the Concorde or fighter jets. All planes currently used for civilian aviation cannot handle it.

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

#303

Post by nutjob2 » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

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.

If they have made agreements with victims that means they have been held accountable. Unless they've been represented poorly, these people likely are better off to the tune of well over a million dollars each. Of course they are also dead.

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

#304

Post by CydeWeys » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

esoterica wrote: post #181

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…

What additional miles? The hypothetical was twice the speed, not twice the distance. If you double the distance and keep the same number of crashes, then of course planes are twice as safe. Why would you suggest otherwise?

The risk would surely increase with doubled speed, no? The Concorde was unsafe because of all the design constraints imposed by being able to go that fast.

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

#305

Post by FabHK » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #238

CaptainZapp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel confident that Boeing would accept the cost of grounding the fleet the next time something serious-but-not-yet-crashing shows up. They wouldn't even ground the fleet if death and destruction occurs. Like they didn't do after the Lion Air crash. Even after the Ethiopian plane they tried hell and high water, including a call to the president, to not have the plane grounded. It's clear that to Boeing, their…

> It's clear that to Boeing, their numbers are more important than lives. Isn't it the case by design for any corporation?

No, of course not. Corporations must act within the law, and even the notion of shareholder value maximisation above all is contingent (based on specific economic theory), not necessary.

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

#306

Post by badpun » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

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-…

> It's clear that to Boeing, their numbers are more important than lives.

BTW (I'm not folowing this very closely) is there already, or will there be a criminal investigation?

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

#307

Post by wahern » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

bdamm wrote: post #233

simongr3dal wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe they just fly Learjet.

GP has a point. Flying on Boeing airplanes is something basically everyone does. Even if the executives themselves don't, they have parents, children, aunts, uncles, best men, grand-children, friends, children of friends, lawyers, and government contacts who do. It's not like they're sitting by the gate sucking the blood of passengers. They're still delivering the safest method of transportation around, not only by d…

> They're still delivering the safest method of transportation around, not only by distance, but also by time.

It's safe by distance and time because most accidents will occur on take-off or landing. For example, the two recent MAX incidents. It's the nature of flying, not the technology per se, that makes it relatively safe as compared to other modes of transportation. Once you're cruising at altitude the components have already passed maximum load, and you usually have lots of time to remediate issues when they do occur. You get distance & time largely for free rather than as a consequence of engineering.

If you look at risk for just the distance and time spent on take-off and landing, flying is roughly comparable with driving. Of course, the machines are vastly more complex so it's still a testament to the amazing technology and safety standards. But at the same time there's so much more that could be done, not only from an engineering standpoint but especially from a process standpoint.

One might even be able to make the case that Toyota has better quality control and safety engineering processes than Boeing. I mean, many of the most critical components in a plane, such as the engines, aren't even designed or manufactured by Boeing. I think Boeing executives know this and have increasingly tried to offload performance and safety engineering burdens to suppliers, maximizing Boeings profits. Engine manufacturers and other suppliers have begun to take notice, I think. And for areas where Boeing can't offload the burden, they've faltered.

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

#308

Post by FabHK » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #287

atoav wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. IMO it highly depends whether a company’s goal is short or long term gain. If you have a hard time competing and every day is a fight anyways, why would you act in a way that is sustainable in the long term? If you listened to the NYT’s the Daily podcast where they interview a former Boeing quality manager/whistleblower this is clearly the picture that is painted here: Managment doesn’t give a shit i…

> IMO it highly depends whether a company’s goal is short or long term gain. It has been the case, recently, that a company that is traded publicly cannot have a long term goal - any such goal is held in place solely by the ephemeral existence of an autocratic executive and will dissipate once they are removed or retire, instead corporations seek constantly to maximize short term gain since incentive systems like sto…

> a company that is traded publicly cannot have a long term goal

You think Apple or Berkshire Hathaway have no long term goals? Why make such sweeping statements that are easily shown to be wrong, when you can make a more nuanced and possibly true statement easily?

> Most of the companies that have had long term clout or tried to invest in long term research have been acquired and butchered by venture capitalists for a quick payday.

See, this might well be true and point to a real problem.

Though I think the notion that public markets are dumb and impatient and private markets are wise and long-term is a caricature itself.

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

#309

Post by CydeWeys » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

3JPLW wrote: post #277

adrr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out 300 Boeing Max delivered since it was release in 2016, there has been 2 full hull losses with full loss of life. I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling. Tesla gets shit on for autopilot and it’s killed 4 people but has 100s of thousand of cars on the road with autopilot.

> I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling That's just crazy talk. If it's more dangerous than a car I'll eat my hat. According to NYT/Flightaware, there were ~8600 737Max flights per week. Let's call it 8000, and limit our analysis to the past year. Let's also make the very low assumption there are only 100 passengers on each. 8000 * 100 * 50 is very conservative 40 million passenger tri…

Air travel should be much safer than driving. That it barely is in the case of the 737 MAX is itself a huge indictment.

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

#310

Post by 3JPLW » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #309

3JPLW wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling That's just crazy talk. If it's more dangerous than a car I'll eat my hat. According to NYT/Flightaware, there were ~8600 737Max flights per week. Let's call it 8000, and limit our analysis to the past year. Let's also make the very low assumption there are only 100 passengers on each. 8000 * 100 * 50 is very conservative 40 million passenger tri…

Air travel should be much safer than driving. That it barely is in the case of the 737 MAX is itself a huge indictment.

Absolutely 100% agreed. I started with that assumption and figured that even with very conservative numbers I'd be well below the number of driving fatalities. I did that calculation as I wrote that comment and didn't retroactively edit my initial reactions or change any numbers to fit my bias.

I'd love to see someone figure out the real numbers here.