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

FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 354 posts

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#201

Post by avar »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #184
blackflame7000 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flaw was allowing a single pilot in the cockpit and allowing the co-pilot to get locked out. But yes I do agree that in theory its possible to have a perfect aircraft and still crash due to some act of God. Nevertheless the context was with respect to making an aircraft with known flaws safer

You could hardly describe that as a flaw when the alternative was 9/11. It's a trade off on balance of probabilities. A suicidal copilot can still to this day crash any aircraft with only slightly more creativity. For example hitting the fuel cutoffs at 500ft after takeoff.

The alternative isn't a repeat of 9/11. You're assuming that passengers aren't a whole lot more motivated to overpower hijackers after 9/11 than before. One reason 9/11 could happen is that passengers generally assumed a hijacking was mostly a scary inconvenience, not a life-or-death situation.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#202

Post by easytiger »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #111
GiorgioG wrote: post #36

RIP 737Max. I don't see how the airlines can risk flying this PR nightmare again.

They'll do some rebranding and resume business as usual after the FAA approves their tweaks. Boeing will have lot of inventory ready to ship and there will no doubt also be some lucrative discounts for airlines currently staring very hard at competing offers from Airbus. Airlines will be flying these planes for decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/18/british-air...

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#203

Post by yots »

bigiain wrote: post #65
jussij wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just visit a flight tracking website before booking. In addition I'm sure airlines not flying the MAX will be using that fact as a marketing tool (i.e. we only fly Airbus etc) so you could limit your bookings with just those airlines. As an example of this, here in Australia I know one of the carriers is planning to fly the Max some time next year. If they go ahead with that plan, I will be making sure not to book wi…

From what I hear, at least one of the carriers here that _was_ intending to fly them this year, has cancelled all the maintenance courses for them... They aren't going to be flying them until 2025 apparently, so all the engineers booked on courses to do maintenance for the 747MAX8 are getting re-booked for Airbus courses...

I may not be interpreting this right, but does that imply they already have the planes, which will now stay in storage until 2025 waiting for all issues to be resolved?

If that's correct, aren't there possible risks for flying a plane that had such a long period of inactivity?

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#204

Post by retSava »

kahirsch wrote: post #86

When the Boeing CEO had his press conference in April, he said "we've confirmed that the MCAS system as originally designed did meet our design and safety analysis criteria and our certification criteria."[1] I yelled at the screen "you know that means the criteria are flawed , right? If the procedures didn't catch this mistake, that means there are other mistakes that weren't caught!" A flabbergasted reporter then a…

Admitting culpability more or less admits financial responsibility as well.

If Boeing would say "we're at fault", people would sue them (more than now) and have greater chance at winning those lawsuits, since Boeing already admitted to being at fault.

I can imagine Boeing, and the Boeing CEO, is trying very, very hard at walking a fine line of not admitting being at fault, but also saying that they are "taking responsibility" (since they have 300 souls, public opinion, and lawmakers against them). They have to convince people (those that matter, ie those stopping operation and sales) that the MAX and Boeing are safe.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#205

Post by johncolanduoni »

dandare wrote: post #175

As a web/game developer, one thing I never understood is the alleged complexity of these control systems. There is no image/voice recognition, no graphics engine, no rocket science. What are they even doing? Or is it all a big lie? Lines of code, from the internet[1]: Pacemaker: 100k Boeing 787: 5M Chevy Volt: 10M Modern car: 100M [1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/

I suggest disrupting the aeronautics industry by introducing development practices from web/game development. What could go wrong?

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#206

Post by sambe »

easytiger wrote: post #202
jillesvangurp wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll do some rebranding and resume business as usual after the FAA approves their tweaks. Boeing will have lot of inventory ready to ship and there will no doubt also be some lucrative discounts for airlines currently staring very hard at competing offers from Airbus. Airlines will be flying these planes for decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/18/british-air...

Yeah, this is pretty weird and a little scary. I wonder if they are using it as a negotiating tactic - get offered a super low price and then give that price to Airbus to match? Airbus have already enthusiastically said they will bid on this business.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#207

Post by ulfw »

If only the FAA wasn't corrupt and did their job of testing, verifying and CERTIFYING the 787 and 737max in the first place rather than outsourcing it to the VERY MANUFACTURER Boeing.

I don't know where y'all went to school, but I was never able to self-grade my year-end exams.

Absolutely unthinkable banana republic behaviour and not a single head rolled (except for the about 350 poor dead souls who had to pay for this corruption with their life).

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#208

Post by hirowan »

CydeWeys wrote: post #73
caf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could, but it would mean that a lot of the supporting infrastructure at airports would have to change, essentially negating much of the advantage from avoiding a new clean-sheet design. As long as it remains sufficiently 737-shaped airlines can keep flying it to all the place they've been flying 737s for decades.

What supporting infrastructure would have to change? Jetways are compatible across a wide variety of planes. Yes, you can't use the same jetway on an A380 as a 737 (the A380 is just way too big), but you certainly can use the same jetway on a 737 as on an A320, and many other planes besides. The reason they didn't want to do a clean sheet redesign of the 737 was to avoid pilot recertification, not because of ground i…

I can assure you you can use the same jetway on a 737 that you can use on an A380.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#209

Post by mikekchar »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #186
afthonos wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I think the background you shared shows one of the big problems in design: it's always easy to see the tsunami markers after the fact and say "the information was there all along". It's a lot harder to pick them out from a thousand information sources that are, a priori , just as compelling. Looking for those markers before design would have required looking at every bit of evidence at least as compelling as…

FWIW dreamcompiler said "simply siting the generators above ground". That doesn't mean it's easy to realise the need to do that action, it means it's not a _complex_ action in itself.

It's actually kind of interesting. After the disaster, the nuclear power plant near me moved it's backup generators literally on the top of a neighbouring hill -- it's about 100 meters above the entire complex. And they made another backup one on another hill. Once you know the problem, it's not hard to fix it. I admit to being a bit worried that now the generators are too far away from the power plant so that when an earthquake happens (we're 50 years overdue for a regular terrible earthquake) it will be disconnected. The irony will be lost if it happens, I'm sure...

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#210

Post by bumby »

ulfw wrote: post #207

If only the FAA wasn't corrupt and did their job of testing, verifying and CERTIFYING the 787 and 737max in the first place rather than outsourcing it to the VERY MANUFACTURER Boeing. I don't know where y'all went to school, but I was never able to self-grade my year-end exams. Absolutely unthinkable banana republic behaviour and not a single head rolled (except for the about 350 poor dead souls who had to pay for th…

I think Hanlon's Razor is a more likely answer to why the FAA failed
Post reply on HN