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

#331

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #223

hef19898 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know this is one of the rare few, read I can't recall one, occasions in which EASA didn't accept FAA certification. Usually it is cross- certification between the two. Things are getting interesting and not necessarily in a good way as cooperation is reduced. That it makes sense in this special case is only further proof.

Yes, it necessarily IS a good thing for cooperation to be reduced: the FAA has proven that it cannot be trusted at all for airplane certification. The EU needs to stop trusting the US for anything at all, and start doing more for itself. When the US elected Trump, that should have been the signal that the US could no longer be relied on. Of course, there were many signs and problems before (like when W. Bush was elec…

Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. The 737 MAX was type certified by the FAA on March 8, 2017. That seems like rather a stretch to blame the 737 MAX certification on Trump's election.

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

#332

Post by FabHK » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

bdamm wrote: post #239

randolando wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and not just a Boeing plane. The happenings around the MAX make me reluctant to fly on new aircraft in general. As I understand, parts of the certification process had been outsourced by the FAA to 3rd parties with monetary incentive to accelerate approvals and downplay safety critical issues. That just seems to be asking for trouble and a step backwards in vetting the safety of new aircraft designs.

There's a movement towards industry building standards around how to meet the general requirements that aircraft need to meet. However, that's a step back from the previous approach, where fundamental architecture concepts are needlessly cooked into the airframe regulations. As a simple example, under the previous approach, the law stated that light sport aircraft needed a reciprocating engine, and that reciprocating…

Isn't that issue (the move to performance-based certification) somewhat orthogonal to the issue "privatisation" of certification? How are they related?

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

#333

Post by vkou » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

guitarbill wrote: post #250

rossdavidh wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We like imagine a big conspiracy, or pressure from the top because of corporate greed. And sure, CEOs and the board called leaders for a reason, and ultimately they're responsible, not just for culture, but the whole operation. While I can't speak for the aviation industry, in my experience lower and middle management is just as much at fault, if not more. That's often where the real cowards sit, tyrannizing downward…

Upper management sets the cultural expectations. If they prioritize shipping over safety, the middle managers will follow the incentives.

Middle managers don't have the power to drive institutional change in a hierarchical organization. Cultures flows from whomever can fire your ass.

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

#334

Post by FabHK » Wed, May 22, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #92

nocturnial wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if they manage to dodge civil liability (which is unlikely), a number of nations could bring criminal charges for the deaths caused by the two crashes. In addition most major nations have the option to bring criminal charges against Boeing for endangering the lives of their citizens.

Cessna nearly went bankrupt due to liability lawsuits. The consequence was not safer planes, but fewer planes.

I think the right way to go here is (proactive) regulation and certification, not (reactive) law suits.

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

#335

Post by Konnstann » Wed, May 22, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #174

ddalex wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I become increasingly anxious of flying based on the size of the aircraft, not sure that I'm an outlier there. The smaller the aircraft the less stable the flight will be, which is what most people are afraid of while flying.

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

#336

Post by balls187 » Wed, May 22, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #330

PedroBatista wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more now, because now it's mainstream knowledge of how rotten the whole thing is. The more you scratch the more the Boeing-FAA relationship stinks. The way Boeing is dealing with this, they way FAA "trusts" Boeing. Deep down we know most of them don't care much about the people who fly on their planes, but damn seeing it how exactly that plays out is terrifying.

> Deep down we know most of them don't care much about the people who fly on their planes Do you think most Boeing employees only fly Airbus?

I'm unsure of what they do for leisure, but when I was an employee, the policy was to pick the cheapest flight that would allow you to arrive to your destination at a reasonable time, departing at a reasonable hour, regardless of the airline / airframe used.

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

#337

Post by nutjob2 » Wed, May 22, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #269

anoncake wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they don't. But Boeing not being trustworthy does not mean that Airbus isn't.

Just over a year ago Airbus paid a fine to Germany for bribery. So it appears they have their own corruption problems.

Yes, those were bribes that Airbus discovered in their sales department and reported to the authorities. The issue seemed to revolve around paying middlemen for introductions in certain countries.

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

#338

Post by hackinthebochs » Wed, May 22, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

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.

>I need to get from A to B

This kind of analysis assumes that the destination is independent of the mode of travel. We only consider going from NY to LA so often because plane travel makes it practical. But this doesn't map well to the general claim that "airplane is the safest way to travel". A per trip metric seems like a more accurate measure of this claim, but then bus is the safest.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp...

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

#339

Post by CydeWeys » Wed, May 22, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

3JPLW wrote: post #310

CydeWeys wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I was just emphasizing your point that you arrived at organically while doing the calculations. Definitely on the same page as you.

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

#340

Post by pcurve » Wed, May 22, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #232

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 not really worried. I prefer the A320 Neo because it's quieter and more comfortable, but the odds of dying due to an airplane accident are vanishingly small. Even if my chances of dying on a 737 MAX are much higher than dying on a tried and true A340, they are probably around the same as me dying from pancreatic cancer and I don't get my pancreas checked regularly.

Yeah. If I had a choice between flying between the two with all other things being equal I will fly on Neo. I might pay a small premium for it. Like a few more bucks just because it's more comfortable.