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

261–270 of 354 posts

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

#261

Post by simion314 »

shaki-dora wrote: post #223
simion314 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using statistics wrong here, FAA process changed , Boeing entered a panic mode so their process changed too, applying statistics from the past where processes were different(FAA did its job and Boeing was no cutting corners) is incorrect. We need new statistics, and this are the stats for the recent Boeing plane where the MAX crashed 2 times, first crash was blamed on the pilots and no serious urgent investig…

No, I'm using statistics exactly as intended. Last year was much safer than any year in the 20th century, and so will this year be. You have some ideas about how everything used to be better in the past, and you're trying to hold onto them in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There isn't some sudden increase in the pressure to earn money that wasn't there in, say, 2008. And while the 737 Max process…

Maybe you want to state it more clearly, like in math so I can have a better idea what you are talking about. I think I missunderstood you anyway, because I was thinking at airplane crashes statistics and not at the entire world industry.

In statistics you need some basic things to be true, like you need true random independent events, or sometimes a theorem apply only if the distribution of the events is known to have some properties.

What I understood you were implying (I was wrong, sorry) and other comments too, is that if we look at Boeing crashes (not MAX) for latest N years (but we exclude older incidents) then we can conclude things about the future statistics of the MAX.

About the rest of the industry I agree that most things got better. But for example in car industry there was a lot of competition and a lot of regulation bout safety and pollution that forced the companies to be better, if you had only 2 car making companies and have them self approve then we may get in the same situation as with the MAX.

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

#262

Post by linuxftw »

navigatesol wrote: post #250
linuxftw wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. The real motivation is always making money for the executives and board-members. Bonuses are paid for revenue, not for not killing folks.

> You're right. The real motivation is always making money for the executives and board-members. What sort of mindset must one have to assume that once a person becomes a "manager" or "executive" they are suddenly immoral or evil? Such an odd worldview. I guarantee no one at Boeing make the conscious effort to kill hundreds of people for a bonus. Mistakes happen. People of all standing are corrupt. We fix the issues…

I don't need an armchair assessment of my worldview, thanks.

It's well known that large US companies offer perverse incentives for their executives. As long as they don't do anything super illegal, there's often no recourse. I mean, recent history is replete with examples of executives optimizing-for-bonus.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

BorRagnarok wrote: post #254
brentm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think overall we should consider this process a very positive thing, FAA and Boeing (and Airbus as well) are all going to learn a lot from this process which will make air travel safer in the future. It's unfortunate that it took two tragedies to get us here but if you look at the history of aviation improvements this isn't the first and it won't be the last time.

> FAA and Boeing (and Airbus as well) are all going to learn a lot from this process which will make air travel safer in the future Yeah, right. Until they start cutting corners again for economic reasons. There's absolutely no change in any of those organizations driven by this incident or by an increase in standards or by safety, there are no new regulations, it's all a dog and pony show driven by money and saving…

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by laythea »

timeisapear wrote: post #260
hwestiii wrote: post #234

This all points up the glaring conflicts of interest in the corporate business environment. Most of us think that Boeing is the business of building airplanes, but as a publicly traded company, its real business is making money for its shareholders, and aerospace is just a vehicle toward that end. The Boeing CEO's steadfast refusal to take responsibility for these two crashes are nothing more than CYA designed to lim…

I'm not sure I buy the risk/market trade-off. You could replace Boeing with any car manufacturer that still has publicly traded shareholder needs.

The car industry is not as advanced as the aviation industry. It will come a time, where the level of complexity of a car means that in order to build and test it properly, it will be a ever-increasing easy business decision to take shortcuts.

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

#265

Post by bluntfang »

navigatesol wrote: post #250
linuxftw wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. The real motivation is always making money for the executives and board-members. Bonuses are paid for revenue, not for not killing folks.

> You're right. The real motivation is always making money for the executives and board-members. What sort of mindset must one have to assume that once a person becomes a "manager" or "executive" they are suddenly immoral or evil? Such an odd worldview. I guarantee no one at Boeing make the conscious effort to kill hundreds of people for a bonus. Mistakes happen. People of all standing are corrupt. We fix the issues…

>What sort of mindset must one have to assume that once a person becomes a "manager" or "executive" they are suddenly immoral or evil? Such an odd worldview.

Becoming an executive at a publicly traded company is a joyous and public acceptance of capitalism. Capitalism is objectively bad, given the state of the world.

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

#266

Post by 83 »

moftz wrote: post #228
BorRagnarok wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't. Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company.…

It's not footage but that angle of attack is absolutely nuts. I don't think my brain would have been able to process that kind of image out my window if I was a passenger on that plane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIunpQQpzs0

I think you mean angle of descent. Angle of attack is the angle of airflow with respect to the wing.

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

#267

Post by laythea »

jussij wrote: post #41

The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time around and as such I suspect they will be checking every aspect of the plane in very fine detail. That could spell more trouble for Boeing.

I wonder what would be unearthed should they also choose to look at Boeing's other planes in such similar scrutiny.

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

#268

Post by linuxftw »

bluntfang wrote: post #265
navigatesol wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're right. The real motivation is always making money for the executives and board-members. What sort of mindset must one have to assume that once a person becomes a "manager" or "executive" they are suddenly immoral or evil? Such an odd worldview. I guarantee no one at Boeing make the conscious effort to kill hundreds of people for a bonus. Mistakes happen. People of all standing are corrupt. We fix the issues…

>What sort of mindset must one have to assume that once a person becomes a "manager" or "executive" they are suddenly immoral or evil? Such an odd worldview. Becoming an executive at a publicly traded company is a joyous and public acceptance of capitalism. Capitalism is objectively bad, given the state of the world.

Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange among willing parties and cannot be objectively bad.

If Boeing can put out faulty products that kill people will no recourse, that's not capitalism, that's the government allowing these criminals to continue operating unchecked.

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

#269

Post by tomp »

BorRagnarok wrote: post #189
jussij wrote: post #41

The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time around and as such I suspect they will be checking every aspect of the plane in very fine detail. That could spell more trouble for Boeing.

I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't. Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company.…

> There are enough businesses that happily create planes without putting profit before people.

Are there? Besides Boeing and Airbus, which other company makes safe (or not, in case of Boeing) passenger planes? AFAIK it's a duopoly.

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

#270

Post by magduf »

avar wrote: post #201
VBprogrammer wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly; another 9/11 situation is impossible now. They just need to keep doing screenings of passengers and their carry-ons to make sure no one can bring obvious weapons on board; anything else is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. If someone tries to hijack the plane using razor blades or whatever, the passengers will literally murder them.
Post reply on HN