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

181–190 of 260 posts

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

#181

Post by esperent »

WalterBright wrote: post #159
zucker42 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you'd choose the safer plane if it's equally convenient. But if the absolute risk is low and there's no other plane at the same time, or the alternatives cost 2x as much, it's reasonable to be willing to fly on a more dangerous plane.

> safer airplane Every airplane is slightly different in its risks. Sort of like every car is also slightly different. The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky.

> The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky.

That's quite a jump of logic.

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

#182

Post by esperent »

shock wrote: post #101
TylerE wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> However the method, it's far more likely to injure you than flying on a 737 MAX. That depends. If you take a bus to go to the airport and it takes you an hour to get there, then your flight also lasts an hour (for simplicity's sake), you are almost 3 times more likely(on average) to die during the flight than you are during the bus ride [0]. In terms of number of journeys by plane and bus, for the same number of jo…

Deaths per billion:

                  |Journeys | Hours | KM

               Bus|  4.3    | 11.1  | 0.4

               Air|  117    | 30.8  | 0.05
That's really interesting. Per KM, air is way safer than bus, but per journey it's roughly the same degree in the other direction.

I'm having a hard time saying which one is safer from that data. However, both are very, very safe.

I would like to see "Air" replaced by "737 Max" though.

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

#183

Post by salawat »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
Nacdor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let... > 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane

There is a funny anecdote, likely apocryphal, but still worth retelling because of the implied wisdom: When talking about the soon to be released Chinese passenger jet one of the principals of the company was overheard saying that he would never allow his family to board one of these aircraft, that's how bad they were. Some party bigwig overheard this and addressed the man: "I know 100% certain that this is going to…

Hmmmm.

"This had better be the best thing ever, because since I heard that you expressed technical reservations you may be powerless to do anything about, and I have power over you, out of spite I'm going to put your entire family on a plane against your wishes, possibly regardless of your realistic capability to influence the outcome."

There is no implied wisdom there besides "best not be the family of a principal in China who made the mistake of being too open with his opinion in front of the wrong people"; even if you were going for the old adage of the Greek architects and bridge builders being expected to "stand beneath their bridges" with their family when they were tested.

You really lose the evocative power when you insert an authoritarian power with demonstrable disregard for human life into the equation. You lose the message in the quagmire of unsavory politics with a Western audience. Furthermore, you run the risk of unintended wisdom extraction, such as that sometimes, no matter how hard you want something to be good, you just can't marshal the people/knowledge/manpower to get it done well with what you have, within the time slotted. The capacity to recognize when this is the case is the entire reason for existence of the field of engineering in the first place, yet is also one of the least appreciated or safe aspects to actually express when you start making the outcome of an engineering project a matter of political import.other Other unintended nuggets of wisdom retractable from that parable includes "keep your Mouth in check around high-ranking Party members/Politburo/Das Kommisar."

Sometimes it's better to just be direct about it. My two cents anyway. Again though, I've been around enough tainted engineering projects to recognize the perversity in the gesture. If I were that Party member, I'd be pushing my principal on why they felt way and what problems needed to be overcome without resorting to abusing my position to instill fear. After all, I would have no interest in losing my best and brightest, if the real problem was subcontractors not meeting QC targets, and no one being willing to call it out or escalate which is all that happens when you start throwing weight around as originally expressed.

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

#184

Post by gorgoiler »

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…

People travel to places because it is tractable to get there in a reasonable amount of time.

In the 17th century, I would walk to my local knife sharpener. In the 21st century, I can take a train to Soho to visit a superior specialist.

Both trips take a few hours via two different modes of transport. The fact that one covers more distance is immaterial. They are comparable by the fact they can both be completed in an afternoon.

(Ironically, our modern era provides a third option: cycle to the local specialist. Cycling with a bag full of knives — even blunt ones — is way too risky.)

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

#185

Post by DoingIsLearning »

ralph84 wrote: post #168
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 depends on who’s flying it. No argument the aircraft design was faulty and Boeing is fully responsible for that, and even worse covering it up. However Lion Air pretty regularly crashes non-MAX 737s and the first officer on Ethiopian was extremely inexperienced and wouldn’t have been let anywhere near the front of a commercial airliner in the US. Your choice of airline will have a much bigger impact on risk than y…

Your 'However' subreptitiously implies that there are mitigating factors that _diminish_ Boeing's murderous lack of duty of care.

This is factually incorrect for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, where 157 people died.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 was extensively analysed and no pilot fault was found (irrespective of a junior 1st officer). [0]

That crew absolutely did their job and died trying to save 157 souls. I appreciate that it was probably not your intention but you should take stock and think about this before (even if subsconsciously) 'However'ing Boeing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#...

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

#186

Post by jobigoud »

throwaway29102 wrote: post #54
duck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine with a company of the size of Boeing you could find a larger group of folks that wouldn't allow their families to fly in any airplane.

What would you imagine the percentage is at companies whose primary business is producing airplanes?

I think he means we simply never heard about the employees that said the same thing about other planes because they didn't crash. These were highlighted after the fact.

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

#187

Post by salawat »

makomk wrote: post #56
Nacdor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let... > 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane

The interesting thing is that this didn't have anything to do with the quality of the plane at all - they were working on the simulator, and their messages were about how they wouldn't trust their family on planes trained using that simulator. As far as I know, the simulator in question was never used since the whole point of the whole mess was to ensure pilots trained on the existing 737 were allowed to fly the Max…

Actually, the entire point was to not release an accurate simulator, because to do so would invalidate the original marketing assertion that MAX was substantially different to fly, and would provide a trivially accessible platform from which to discover the flaws of MAX's implementation.

Largely the same as your point, but takes into account that Boeing's success was being predicated on no one looking at the MAX too hard for too long.

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

#188

Post by refurb »

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.

Sure it’s a good argument. Just because you have a choice doesn’t mean you should always choose the lower risk option no matter what.

For example, you might have the choice between driving to work (1 in 1M chance of death) or take a bus (1 in 10M chance of death).

If you can save 1hr on your commute, then choosing the higher risk option makes sense.

Same thing if you need to take a flight and the option is fly on a 737 Max for an hour (no the flights available) or take a 5 hr train ride.

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

#190

Post by numpad0 »

mathogre wrote: post #151

That's bullshit. The MAX aircraft are not the same as the earlier 737 line. These should be completely certified as new aircraft, and my guess is they would fail real certification. The required "design changes" are nothing. Not only would I not want to fly on one of the MAX aircraft, I wouldn't want to live underneath a procedure - departure, airway, approach - used by a MAX. Go for it. Let them fly. 'Boeing has bui…

I heard the rules are written in blood. My gut feeling tells you’re right, My rational thoughts as well, but it’s not written in blood I guess.
Post reply on HN