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

U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 260 posts

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#71

Post by vkou »

Nacdor wrote: post #6

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. As far as I know they're not required to tell you…

> Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would.

You wouldn't, but the thing is - you don't get the option.

Your airline won't tell you which plane you'll be flying until boarding time. You then have the option of cancelling your flight without a refund, or flying.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#72

Post by khuey »

jonathanliu wrote: post #31
Nacdor wrote: post #6

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. As far as I know they're not required to tell you…

Even the non-MAX 737s have had issues recently. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/07/2...

Planes don't typically sit on the ground for several months without being used so this is a little more forgivable.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#73

Post by sgc »

jacquesm wrote: post #42
josemanuel wrote: post #2

I wonder what EASA will do..

Run their own evaluation and make their own set of recommendations. With some luck they will not be incompatible with each other.

My guess is their evaluation is somewhat in parallel and at least some communication existed before this proposal was made. Thus I expect their requirements to be largely compatible with this proposal.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#74

Post by AnimalMuppet »

zaroth wrote: post #3

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/19_035n-R3-8-3-20... > "To address the unsafe condition, the FAA proposes to require four design changes: (1) installing updated flight control software (with new control laws) for the FCC operational program software (OPS), (2) installing updated MDS display processing computer (DPC) software to generate an AOA disagree alert, (3) revising certain AFM flightcrew operating p…

> It seems that in an AOA DISAGREE situation, the flight is still permitted to take off.

That requires the AOA sensors to disagree while on the ground. Do they even report meaningful values while on the ground? (I mean, I suppose on takeoff roll they begin to do so...)

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#75

Post by Androider »

onde2rock wrote: post #38
zaroth wrote: post #3

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/19_035n-R3-8-3-20... > "To address the unsafe condition, the FAA proposes to require four design changes: (1) installing updated flight control software (with new control laws) for the FCC operational program software (OPS), (2) installing updated MDS display processing computer (DPC) software to generate an AOA disagree alert, (3) revising certain AFM flightcrew operating p…

Wow the report is very interesting ! In the paragraph about the mandatory AOA DISAGREE alert : > Some 737 MAX airplanes were delivered without this alert feature, by error. The FAA is useless ...

AFAIK the AOA disagree alert was an optional add-on sold by Boeing!

https://qz.com/1608362/boeing-says-it-didnt-deactivate-stand...

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#76

Post by joking »

random314 wrote: post #67
drstewart wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely love to see a log of food you've eaten over the past few weeks.

I can't see any calculations by which a typical diet over a few weeks is riskier than a 737 MAX. Have you built such a risk model?

If it was only over a few weeks probably not, but I’m pretty sure that your past few weeks diet is representative of your average diet during the last ten years, and that could be riskier than a 737 max flight.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#77

Post by simion314 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #69
simion314 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? The MAX has probably many differences because is larger so all the new stuff should be put under the microscope since you can't trust the previous tests, measurements or decisions, Boeing guys were proud on how they mind tricked the FAA guys so FAA should now re=review everything then you can be 1…

> Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? Yes. The FAA's proposal also involves physically re-routing some cables, which is (as far as I can tell) completely non-MCAS-related.

That seems to be related to a rule that FAA added after some other incident but the MAX was not forced to follow this new rule, it is not an issue that was discovered when scrutinizing the MAX.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#78

Post by TylerE »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #30
shajznnckfke wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though this model has big design flaws and a relatively bad safety record, the absolute level of risk is still pretty low. I knowingly expose myself to larger risks in my day-to-day life. So I won’t lose any sleep over booking a flight on this type of plane.

This is not a good argument. You can control this level of risk. Taking on any unnecessary risk when you don't have to is not a wise choice.

How are you getting to the airport? However the method, it's far more likely to injure you than flying on a 737 MAX.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#79

Post by kube-system »

yellow_postit wrote: post #12
Nacdor wrote: post #6

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. As far as I know they're not required to tell you…

Given the amount of additional scrutiny these models are getting I wouldn’t be surprised if in the long run of their lifetime they have a better safety record.

This has happened with other planes before, like the DC-10.

Re: U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes

#80

Post by ErikVandeWater »

Nacdor wrote: post #6

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. As far as I know they're not required to tell you…

The DC10 had a phenomenal safety record after the initial crashes. There is a tremendous amount of incentive to ensure the MAX doesn't crash within the first 5 years after being recertified. I would definitely take a MAX when it becomes available again.
Post reply on HN