Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#21

Post by trhway » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

hunterjrj wrote: post #15

zaphar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will fly again. I won't be surprised if it takes years and some modifications to the systems before then. It may in fact turn the 737 Max into an overall loss for Boeing due to lower sales and contractual fees owed to the airlines for the planes that have already been sold and re-certifying pilots to fly it But fixing the 737 is going to be strictly less money than developing a new model for Boeing. The ri…

> but the plane itself is salvageable. You're probably right. From an engineering perspective. Would you fly in a 737MAX post-fix? We have an engineering mindset here on HN and so I would expect many of us to answer "Yes". But ask this same question to the general public? How is Boeing going to repair the damage to both it's brand and this plane's reputation, and convince the general public to fly on this model?

the insurers would probably play a significant role here - if insurance rates jump then the plane's profitability and thus airlines' usage of it may be affected.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#22

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

AlphaSite wrote: post #19

hunterjrj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the plane itself is salvageable. You're probably right. From an engineering perspective. Would you fly in a 737MAX post-fix? We have an engineering mindset here on HN and so I would expect many of us to answer "Yes". But ask this same question to the general public? How is Boeing going to repair the damage to both it's brand and this plane's reputation, and convince the general public to fly on this model?

One one hand this is probably the most scrutinised plane of this generation, on the other hand its the wrong sort of attention... If they can convince people that the scrutiny is an asset, then maybe it will still be viable.

More scrutiny doesn't help the fact that it's a shitty iteration on a decades out-of-date design, though. A modern airplane that's received less scrutiny is nevertheless still likely to be safer.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#23

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #3

Americans don't understand how lucky they are, to live in a system where less than a thousand civilian deaths is enough to so severely damage one of the country's most powerful corporations, with very close ties to the military.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The 737 MAX was yanked by aviation authorities worldwide, not just in the US. The US didn't even do it first.

Are you saying you want to go back to 1940s-era standards of aviation safety, where planes regularly crash out of the sky killing all aboard, and we should just accept it even though we know we can do much better?

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#24

Post by ulfw » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

hunterjrj wrote: post #15

zaphar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will fly again. I won't be surprised if it takes years and some modifications to the systems before then. It may in fact turn the 737 Max into an overall loss for Boeing due to lower sales and contractual fees owed to the airlines for the planes that have already been sold and re-certifying pilots to fly it But fixing the 737 is going to be strictly less money than developing a new model for Boeing. The ri…

> but the plane itself is salvageable. You're probably right. From an engineering perspective. Would you fly in a 737MAX post-fix? We have an engineering mindset here on HN and so I would expect many of us to answer "Yes". But ask this same question to the general public? How is Boeing going to repair the damage to both it's brand and this plane's reputation, and convince the general public to fly on this model?

I wouldn't. That's because I DO have an engineering mindset. A bad platform with tons of hacks to make it work and a severe bug/wrong design hack that has been 'fixed' doesn't imply there isn't more of those we're just not aware of.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#25

Post by ulfw » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

situational87 wrote: post #9

So the chief test pilot for the MAX project complained about this system making the plane uncontrollable and this was all swept under the rug? People need to be put in prison over this. This is negligent homicide.

The whole FAA needs to be shitcanned is what needs to happen.

Their job is to test these planes. It's not like there's 100s of models coming out every year. The 737 is America's best selling and most used plane - bar none.

And that one hasn't been tested by the FAA? They just believed Boeing and stamped their approval on it?

Well...

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#26

Post by Angostura » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

situational87 wrote: post #9

So the chief test pilot for the MAX project complained about this system making the plane uncontrollable and this was all swept under the rug? People need to be put in prison over this. This is negligent homicide.

I suppose we dont know what the reaction was do we? Afterall, if Boeing took his complaints seriously and redesigned aspects of the plane, that would be one thing. If he was complaining about the version that subsequently crashed, that would be another.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#27

Post by awill » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

Hang on a minute.

From the article,

'Mark Forkner, the chief technical pilot for the 737 Max...'

then later, 'Forkner told Gustavsson that MCAS was “running rampant in the sim on me,” referring to simulator tests of the aircraft. “Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious.”'

So Boeing's chief technical pilot admits he sucks at flying????

then later,'Forkner is now a pilot at Southwest Airlines Co., the carrier said in a statement.'

Am I missing something? Is this a joke?

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#28

Post by wethebestcoder » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

awill wrote: post #27

Hang on a minute. From the article, 'Mark Forkner, the chief technical pilot for the 737 Max...' then later, 'Forkner told Gustavsson that MCAS was “running rampant in the sim on me,” referring to simulator tests of the aircraft. “Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious.”' So Boeing's chief technical pilot admits he sucks at flying???? then later,'Forkner is now a pilot at Southwest Airlines Co., the c…

I suck at coding but I'm way above average. I've seen what people do. So I suck but most developers I've worked with suck a lot worse.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#29

Post by domlebo70 » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #17

throwaway981211 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what’s the point of your comment. As an American I’m also lucky that my country isn’t facing the issues innocent people in Syria, Iraq, etc face being caught in a civil war. I’m lucky we have vaccines, clean water, contracts, courts, cops, etc etc. None of that excuses Boeing’s gross negligence and lack of accountability. I’ve dumped them from my portfolio although I still - unfortunately - have exposure…

There should be an S&P500-N fund where you can select up to N specific companies you want to exclude, and they give you a dynamic ticker which tracks that sub-set. I wonder if it’s technically feasible without absurd transaction costs, to either explicitly or effectively net out specific company exposure from an S&P500 basket. Even just a calculator which could tell you, for every share of SPY of you want to not have…

Not a finance expert, but I don't think the transaction costs would factor would they? You would own "units" in the fund, rather than the underlying security itself. The makeup of the unit however, would be dynamic

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#30

Post by javagram » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #8

zaphar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will fly again. I won't be surprised if it takes years and some modifications to the systems before then. It may in fact turn the 737 Max into an overall loss for Boeing due to lower sales and contractual fees owed to the airlines for the planes that have already been sold and re-certifying pilots to fly it But fixing the 737 is going to be strictly less money than developing a new model for Boeing. The ri…

What happens if a 737 MAX crashes? Boeing was confident in their planes when they were falling from the skies, how much more confident are they going to be when they re-introduce it into service? They(Boeing and FAA) weren't even looking into it, they were %100 sure that the plane is fine. How the public is suppsed to know that this time is different? Okay, they may change the name but if a crash happens the media wi…

> They(Boeing and FAA) weren't even looking into it, they were %100 sure that the plane is fine.

Weren’t they looking into it after the first crash already? They had issued the emergency directive with instructions for how to shut down the MCAS system, which turned out to not help in the case of the second crash, but there was already a fix to the software in development after the first crash since the issues with the system were reported at the time.