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

Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#61

Post by crdoconnor »

CrazyStat wrote: post #44
crdoconnor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's approach with its 737MAX competitor, has, ironically been the exact opposite of this. Their fear wasn't getting the price low enough to satisfy shareholders but not getting the airline approved by US and European regulators. I was dubious before the crashes but after Boeing's reaction to the crashes I'm fairly sure I'd feel safer on their planes than Boeing's.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service. If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, i…

I'm inferring that you believe that the regulators were wrong to ground it.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#62

Post by panarky »

dehrmann wrote: post #3

That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…

The "Max problem" is not the specific engineering defect that happened to manifest with the 737 Max.

Instead, the "Max problem" is the set of organizational, cultural and managerial issues that cut corners, misled regulators and prioritized profits over safety.

MCAS defects are not the problem, they're a symptom of the problem.

And these messages about the 777X are more symptoms of the same problem.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#63

Post by neuro_image3 »

CrazyStat wrote: post #44
crdoconnor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's approach with its 737MAX competitor, has, ironically been the exact opposite of this. Their fear wasn't getting the price low enough to satisfy shareholders but not getting the airline approved by US and European regulators. I was dubious before the crashes but after Boeing's reaction to the crashes I'm fairly sure I'd feel safer on their planes than Boeing's.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service. If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, i…

'If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, it's a fraction of a percent chance.'

This works out to around 0.2% (1 in 2000) which is spectacularly poor odds for modern aviation where the typical risk of a crash on a single commercial airliner is around 1 in 5 million (less than 1 in 100 000 for 10 flights per year over 50 years - so basically 50 times less safe).

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#64

Post by ironmagma »

notatoad wrote: post #49
Brave-Steak wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a wrong characterization, imo. The problem with the MAX isn't necessarily the MCAS, but the culture and business/engineering processes that allowed MCAS to go all the way to production and allowed the company to convince their customers not to implement pilot training. There are multiple levels of failure beyond just MCAS being a thing, and the emails might suggest that (some of?) these systemic is…

the problem with the max is that it has a tendency to crash. everything else is just a cause or symptom of that problem. If the 777X isn't going to crash, then it doesn't share the same problem. when planes operate properly, nobody cares what business or engineering practices allowed that.

Why are the causes of that problem not really problems in themselves? Crashing could have multiple different causes; crashing is just a symptom.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#65

Post by dTal »

stopads wrote: post #26
dehrmann wrote: post #3

That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…

MCAS is the dumb bandaid they invented to save money on pilot retraining. Turns out that bandaid was so poorly built it killed people. In the 777x It's not exact same software system, but the exact same "cheapest option on the menu every time" mindset that seems to be pervading Boeing and causing lots of problems.

>MCAS is the dumb bandaid they invented to save money on pilot retraining.

No, the MCAS is to make the plane certifiable, full stop. It's less "handling characteristics of the previous model" and more "handling characteristics permissible on commercial aircraft".

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#66

Post by ouid »

jonplackett wrote: post #34
Pfhreak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sensors and correction are a symptom of the issue at Boeing, which is an aggressive pursuit of profit over safety.

That's not the same as being the same issue. Issue implies something more specific.

> Issue implies something more specific.

Why? No it doesn't.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#67

Post by CrazyStat »

crdoconnor wrote: post #61
CrazyStat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service. If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, i…

I'm inferring that you believe that the regulators were wrong to ground it.

That's not what I was trying to say. I think grounding it was entirely reasonable. Boeing failed to uphold the aviation safety standards that we have chosen to expect and enforce, and there should be consequences for that. Those consequences can very reasonably include grounding the plane until we're satisfied that the problems have been fixed.

At the same time, I think we should recognize that our safety standards are extremely high. There's nothing wrong with that. But a plane can fail to meet our extremely high standards and still be very safe. In a parallel universe where we decide to accept a somewhat lower standard of safety, deciding not to ground the 737 Max would also be a reasonable decision.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#68

Post by Traster »

jonplackett wrote: post #60
mxscho wrote: post #57

Boeing is the stock with the biggest weight within the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Trump often uses this index as a public measure of his personal success. Is it too much to assume that the government would try to figure out some rescue operations (whatever they may look like) to save Boeing financially in case that this is required? One reason for the trade dispute with the EU is Airbus.

Not just for that reason - Boeing are pretty important for the military for all sorts of reasons. They would never let them go bankrupt.

Well, they don't need to go bankrupt to tank the DJIA. Having said that, Trump would cite the Eurostoxx 50 if he felt it made him look good. It's more a case of selecting data that makes him look good than actually being committed to one understanding of success.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#69

Post by CrazyStat »

neuro_image3 wrote: post #63
CrazyStat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service. If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, i…

'If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, it's a fraction of a percent chance.' This works out to around 0.2% (1 in 2000) which is spectacularly poor odds for modern aviation where the typical risk of a crash on a single commercial airliner is around 1 in 5 million (less than 1 in 100 000 for 10 flights per year over 50 years - so basically 50 times less safe).

Your math seems a little off there, or maybe just a typo--I get slightly under 1 in 10,000--but you are correct that the 737 Max crash rate (~1 in 250000) is much worse than other contemporary airliners. In fact the only modern airliner with a worse crash rate was the Concorde.

I'm not trying to defend the 737 Max or Boeing, I'm just trying to point out that even a plane which is dramatically worse than any other active airliner is still, in absolute terms, very very safe. Our safety standards are incredibly high and we are absolutely justified in enforcing those standards, but people shouldn't be scared to fly on the 737 Max when it comes back into service.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#70

Post by notatoad »

ironmagma wrote: post #64
notatoad wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with the max is that it has a tendency to crash. everything else is just a cause or symptom of that problem. If the 777X isn't going to crash, then it doesn't share the same problem. when planes operate properly, nobody cares what business or engineering practices allowed that.

Why are the causes of that problem not really problems in themselves? Crashing could have multiple different causes; crashing is just a symptom.

They are problems for the people working on solving the crashing. They aren't problems for anybody else.

for passengers, airlines, and anybody other than Boeing, the only problem is the crashing.

Post reply on HN