U.S. FAA proposes requiring key Boeing 737 MAX design changes • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by manquer » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 6:55 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #95

throwaway29102 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t try to fix the DC-10’s design problem (outward-opening doors causing explosive decompression) with a software fix. Also, the aircraft never regained the trust of the flying public, relegating it to freighter duty. That doesn’t seem like a desirable outcome for Boeing or the MAX’s buyers.

For sure, the horses have already left the barn as far as reputation is concerned. But even freighter duty is infinitely better than what they currently -- over-sized paperweights. Although I'm sure low-cost carriers or developing nations will gladly fly them at the right price.

It may have been turn out different if the pandemic had not happened.

The way international market is today, 737 MAX is probably making money more now on the tarmac for the airlines than their other aircraft. Boeing is going to be forced to pay the airlines for this grounding pandemic or not.

Global travel is also going to be weak next few years, even if vaccine becomes available next few months , the economy will take a lot longer to recover and it will be a while for the current capacity even without MAX to be used, not to mention all the new orders being delivered.

Of course it will depend on each airline, their financial health, leasing agreement and demand, and of course Boeing settlement terms etc

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

#172

Post by ponker » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 6:59 AM UTC

apendleton wrote: post #158

caconym_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes a lot more sense to look at risk per time, because it's basically the same thing as risk per trip, and that's what I really care about. If you tell me I can fly to Mars in a few days on a brachistochrone torchship and it's safer per mile than any other mode of transport, you may be right, and a few days cooped up in a cramped cabin might be a small price to pay for such an exotic vacation destination…

This seems like a mode of comparison that's disconnected from actual utility. The distance comparison lets me consider a scenario like "I live in Washington, DC. I want to go to New York. I can choose to either get there by plane or car, and I want to know which is safer." This seems like a real, sensible thing to contemplate. The time comparison is "I live in Washington, DC and want to go... to wherever it is that h…

This assumes that people decide the destination before deciding the mode of transport. In my experience this isn't true, specifically with the 737 MAX. I had a 4-night trip booked with my family to Seattle from San Francisco on a 737 MAX and cancelled it when all that shit went down. Rather than driving that weekend to Seattle we drove to Yosemite because I wasn't going to drive 12 hours to Seattle. In terms of total travel time (time to drive to airport, check in, and fly) the travel time was about the same to Yosemite as to Seattle but the mileage was obviously much less.

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

#173

Post by manquer » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:07 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #93

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…

It would depend on the airline. Southwest Airlines, definitely. Some third world airline where their pilots come through pilot mills and take the controls at less than 500 hours? No way. But that is true with any airplane, not just the Max. Statistically Southwest Airlines should have had a crash, yet it was Ethiopian and Lion Air that did. Given the maintenance and pilots history of Lion Air, a crash wasn’t unexpect…

Southwest and other airlines got lucky.

Lion Air pilots were aware of the issue, and did the follow the checklist, however their airspeed was too fast and physical resistance when cutoff switch was triggered was too high they were forced to switch it back on, and MCAS went kicked back in and they didn't have time. I am not sure how much Southwest 's pilot or anyone not trained in this specific scenario could have done much better.

Sullenberger the pilot who landed on the Hudson in his testimony pretty much said the same thing after spending time on the simulators with this scenario. It is easy for crews to run out of time solving this issue, the U.S. simulator training did not include the scenario in the real world it is just as likely for a U.S. pilot to have crashed.

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

#174

Post by manquer » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:13 AM UTC

throwaway29102 wrote: post #60

armitron wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't either and none of my friends & family would. In fact, I don't see how the they can even take the chance of flying this plane without a complete structural redesign. Another crash and they are finished for good. This spells doom for boeing. If some airlines tried to hide or change the type of aircraft you have booked, then you can be sure there will be others that won't (and make it a selling point).

Boeing owns enough of the US legislature through bribery or in-district employment to never, ever, ever have to worry about bankruptcy or any other adverse market impact. Will they be allowed to teeter on the edge of insolvency? Sure. Fall over? Not when taxpayer money is free and infinite.

It may not be straightforward bankruptcy.

A new buyer could take them private as part of bankruptcy to reduce the liabilities because of current company, while retaining the employees keeping government happy, or they could be broken up into different companies, defence division could split / bought by another defence contractor perhaps, there are many options in these conditions which does not immediately impact politician concerns.

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

#175

Post by comex » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:15 AM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #155

tw04 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Something tells me their competitors (who aren't flying 737 Max) are going to advertise that they don't and the ones who are refusing to tell you what plane you're flying on are going to lose a ton of business. Delta is already a dominant player, making a move like you've…

> Delta is already a dominant player Slightly off-topic, but... They get additional bonus points from me for stringent enforcement of mask wearing policy. If you don't wear a mask you don't board the plane. If you take it off during taxiing or during the flight and refuse to wear it they kick you off the plane and ban you from flying with them. If I would have to fly any US carrier I would chose theme whenever possib…

> Edited to add: They kick you off while still on the ground.

This clarification brought a smile to my face.

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

#176

Post by tsimionescu » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:19 AM UTC

apendleton wrote: post #158

caconym_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes a lot more sense to look at risk per time, because it's basically the same thing as risk per trip, and that's what I really care about. If you tell me I can fly to Mars in a few days on a brachistochrone torchship and it's safer per mile than any other mode of transport, you may be right, and a few days cooped up in a cramped cabin might be a small price to pay for such an exotic vacation destination…

This seems like a mode of comparison that's disconnected from actual utility. The distance comparison lets me consider a scenario like "I live in Washington, DC. I want to go to New York. I can choose to either get there by plane or car, and I want to know which is safer." This seems like a real, sensible thing to contemplate. The time comparison is "I live in Washington, DC and want to go... to wherever it is that h…

I think there are actually two modes of deciding this, and the two different calculations make sense for each mode.

Sometimes you need to be in a specific city - say, a work trip, or public event, or life event etc. Then, the question you want to ask is "which vehicle will take me there in the safest manner", and plane will likely win (assuming large distance).

Other times, you are deciding on a vacation destination. Here you often have a more-or-less fixed time budget, but a flexible destination, and the question can become "what is the safest trip I can take that will last between, say, 5-10h?" ( I could get to NY by plane, or to Vienna by train, or to the Golden Sands by car in roughly that time). In this case, trains and other mass transports besides planes may well win out in safety.

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

#177

Post by taneq » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:26 AM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #145

curryst wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Measuring the risk of travel in terms of hours seems largely pointless, unless I'm missing something. It equates an hour bus ride with an hour plane ride, which are not interchangeable, so it makes sense that the associated risks are also not interchangeable. You could account for the additional time it takes to go on a bus to adjust for the longer duration of risk, but at that point it seems like you're just approxi…

I think it makes a lot more sense to look at risk per time, because it's basically the same thing as risk per trip, and that's what I really care about. If you tell me I can fly to Mars in a few days on a brachistochrone torchship and it's safer per mile than any other mode of transport, you may be right, and a few days cooped up in a cramped cabin might be a small price to pay for such an exotic vacation destination…

This approach really only makes sense if you're traveling for fun. If you need to get to a particular place then risk per time is absolutely not the same as risk per trip, because the distance you need to travel is fixed.

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

#178

Post by addicted » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:37 AM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #20

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…

I would. I get it that Boeing messed up the first time, but this was always a failure that was preventable with proper pilot instruction and awareness. Even if they didn't fix the software I couldn't imagine a 737MAX pilot not being aware of this. People still drive Tesla's using autopilot and they drive head on into barriers on the highway or under trailers and decapitate people.

This is a failure because Boeing cut corners through their design process because they prioritized the following over safety: 1) Bringing it into the market as soon as possible so they had an answer for the neo 2) Ensuring that it flew similar to other 737s so that airlines would pick them instead of the Airbus due to not requiring pilot training.

The MCAS/AoA issue is the most easily manifested issue that led to 2 crashes. There’s almost certainly other issues that may also exist with this plane that we don’t know about yet because they’re slightly less likely than the MCAS issue. And it’s possible that some of those other issues may also lead to fatalities.

The fundamental problem with the 737Max wasn’t the MCAS or the AOA sensors but the design process which greatly devalued safety. I’m not sure how possible it is to make up for that with after the fact testing.

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

#179

Post by redis_mlc » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:40 AM UTC

TaupeRanger wrote: post #88

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.

Nutrition epidemiology is a largely failed endeavor, so there's not much to be learned from someone's diet unless they're eating lots of trans fats or refined sugar on a regular basis.

The average American is eating about 5 pounds of HFCS weekly, since fat in processed food has been replaced with corn syrup, which is subsidized by the US govt.

That is why nobody is fat in fotos from the 1960's, but most people are obese in fotos today.

Coincidentally, this affects air crew. The standard airman is supposed to weigh 170 pounds (next time you're at the airport, note how thin the pilots in uniform look.) If you weigh much more, you will be examined further before medical license issuance, including clinical sleep apnea testing.

In addition, some pilots have faced medical review (ie. grounding) after drinking large caffeinated drinks (2L Coke or Mountain Dew, or a Slurpee) that caused cardiac events (erratic heartbeat, etc.) The FAA requires an explanation when a pilot stands down from a flight, so this is a serious matter - it's hard to prove why you were sick yesterday but ready to fly today.

So you can basically lose your career over a Red Bull if it makes you cancel a flight.

Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

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

#180

Post by iso947 » Tue, Aug 04, 2020, 7:41 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #93

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…

It would depend on the airline. Southwest Airlines, definitely. Some third world airline where their pilots come through pilot mills and take the controls at less than 500 hours? No way. But that is true with any airplane, not just the Max. Statistically Southwest Airlines should have had a crash, yet it was Ethiopian and Lion Air that did. Given the maintenance and pilots history of Lion Air, a crash wasn’t unexpect…

Ethiopian is one of the safest airlines in the world, far more so than some tinpot US airline backed by the FAA which covered up Boeing flaws for commercial purposes and still refused to ground the max until every other country had.