Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#41

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 3:50 PM UTC

tboyd47 wrote: post #35

laydn wrote: post #4

So the findings in this Senate report are just going to be ignored? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-... ) To quote: ""Boeing “inappropriately coached” some FAA test pilots to reach a desired outcome during the re-certification tests, and some were even performed on simulators that weren’t equipped to re-create the same conditions as the crashes. ""

Congressional hearings rarely make a difference on policy. They are bully pulpits used to inform or persuade the public at large. Your question is more appropriately directed at us, air travel consumers. Are we still going to board Boeing planes, knowing what we now know?

I would have no hesitancy to fly on a 737-Max operated by any of the US-majors.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#42

Post by agency » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #34

laydn wrote: post #4

So the findings in this Senate report are just going to be ignored? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-... ) To quote: ""Boeing “inappropriately coached” some FAA test pilots to reach a desired outcome during the re-certification tests, and some were even performed on simulators that weren’t equipped to re-create the same conditions as the crashes. ""

Edit: I was incorrect But not only the FAA recertified the plane and the MCAS cutoff seems to be more robust regardless > So the findings in this Senate report are just going to be ignored? They certainly are relevant for litigations and judgements against Boeing relating to the accidents.

Did you even look at the link? The Senate report in question concerns the recertifications.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#43

Post by heavenlyblue » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

edoceo wrote: post #40

rib3ye wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe it was some engineer making the point that the data wasn’t accurate or reliable in the first place.

What if both were true? And designers and engineers worked together to clean the UI from possibly wrong and noisy information in the results brief? Teamwork makes the dream-work.

The data was wrong all along but the management didn’t want to remove it until they finally realised that it’s creating a negative revenue pressure.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#44

Post by raverbashing » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

agency wrote: post #42

raverbashing wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I was incorrect But not only the FAA recertified the plane and the MCAS cutoff seems to be more robust regardless > So the findings in this Senate report are just going to be ignored? They certainly are relevant for litigations and judgements against Boeing relating to the accidents.

Did you even look at the link? The Senate report in question concerns the recertifications.

You're right, my bad. I had understood it differently from reading this elsewhere

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#45

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #22

laydn wrote: post #4

So the findings in this Senate report are just going to be ignored? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-... ) To quote: ""Boeing “inappropriately coached” some FAA test pilots to reach a desired outcome during the re-certification tests, and some were even performed on simulators that weren’t equipped to re-create the same conditions as the crashes. ""

I would have preferred Boeing to be required to redo the test, and be dinged by the airlines for the delay, just to make it clear that this sort of nonsense is not tolerated. The fact is, however, that everyone going into the test was aware of what the issue was, so it could only give information about best-case response times (which is not useless information, at least if done on suitable simulators.) For a while, e…

I still don't understand why the pilots of ETH302 weren't primed about this issue. I seem to recall it being common knowledge within the aviation community that there was a likely trim system fault that downed LNI610. With that backdrop, I'd expect anyone sitting in the front seats of a 737-Max to be aware of the recent crash of the type and reasonably fresh on the systems procedures/memory items to remedy.

It's certainly true today, but I suspect it was also true on 2019-03-10 and being primed wasn't enough.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#46

Post by tyingq » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

rawgabbit wrote: post #38

powvans wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can avoid the airlines that fly the Max altogether. Unfortunately it looks like Delta is the only major US airline that does not own any. Spirit and JetBlue also do not have any. United, American, and Southwest all operate the Max. I would avoid those airlines for routes that could be serviced by the Max.

How to ID a MAX. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-identify-boeing-737-max-l...

Odd that it doesn't mention the sawtooth pattern on the rear of the engine cowling, or the flat bottom shape of the engine as you look into the intake, versus the normal round shape for non-max/leap engines. Either of those is easy to spot from far away.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#47

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

laydn wrote: post #4

So the findings in this Senate report are just going to be ignored? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-... ) To quote: ""Boeing “inappropriately coached” some FAA test pilots to reach a desired outcome during the re-certification tests, and some were even performed on simulators that weren’t equipped to re-create the same conditions as the crashes. ""

Yet another American institution/system that has failed. The FAA has demonstrated that they care about Boeing profits above passenger safety, and Congress has lost the ability to actually use their branch’s prerogatives to bring the executive to heel.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#48

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #45

mannykannot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have preferred Boeing to be required to redo the test, and be dinged by the airlines for the delay, just to make it clear that this sort of nonsense is not tolerated. The fact is, however, that everyone going into the test was aware of what the issue was, so it could only give information about best-case response times (which is not useless information, at least if done on suitable simulators.) For a while, e…

I still don't understand why the pilots of ETH302 weren't primed about this issue. I seem to recall it being common knowledge within the aviation community that there was a likely trim system fault that downed LNI610. With that backdrop, I'd expect anyone sitting in the front seats of a 737-Max to be aware of the recent crash of the type and reasonably fresh on the systems procedures/memory items to remedy. It's cert…

Boeing just didn’t care about them. The risk of having to re-certify pilots was considered greater than the risk to the passenger’s lives, at least from Boeing’s perspective.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#49

Post by tyingq » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

slumdev wrote: post #39

882661830 wrote: post #2

I’ve noticed both Google flights and Southwest both have removed the generation number from the plane description. Now it just lists 737, without -300/700/800/Max etc

You can look up the plane by its tail number. But you're still at the mercy of the airline. If they do an equipment swap, you're not entitled to change or cancel. You'd only have the option not to fly, forfeiting the cost of your ticket. As someone else in this thread said, just fly Delta (domestically).

Southwest doesn't have change fees, so long as you cancel at least 10 minutes before the scheduled flight time. Assuming they had all their aircraft flying, the MAX aircraft are about 5 percent of the fleet.

Re: Boeing 737 Max to Resume Flying U.S. Passengers Today

#50

Post by briandear » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

One of my best friends is a 20,000 hour 737 captain (and check pilot) at United and spent the past several weeks getting training on the new Max. He says the primary win for the new MCAS is that there is no longer a single point of failure (in the prior version the system only took data from a single AOA source even though there were two AOA indicators already on the airplane. At least on the United versions of the plane.) The new version uses both AOA sources. Additionally, the MCAS system now has limits on the amount of “correction” to prevent extreme compensation by the system. My friend is just a single anecdote, but I trust pilots highly experienced in type more than articles written by journalists who don’t actually fly or even bureaucrats who have never spent significant time with the airplane in real world conditions. If mainline airline pilots are confident in the system, so am I. Even with the old system, no US (or major European) airline ever had problems with the old system because European and US have far higher pilot experience requirements to fly in the bigger jets. For example, at United, you need at least 3000 hours before even being allowed in the right seat of a 737. For RJs, you have to have 1500 hours before being allowed in the right seat. That is a significantly higher standard than Ethiopian which has right seaters with less than 250 total flight hours. At Ethiopian or Lion Air 5000 hours is an “experienced” captain. At United that would be a rookie first officer. I don’t know anyone at Southwest, but they have very high entry level minimums as well. The first 737 Max had flaws, no question, but statistically, why didn’t any American carriers have any crashes despite flying an order of magnitude more hours in the airplane compared to Ethiopian or Lion Air? The US and European airlines are simply far more rigorous in training and pilot requirements as well as maintenance requirements. Fixing the Max is not addressing the bigger, far more significant issue of pilot training in non-US/Euro airlines. I have almost 1000 hours and am commercial and instrument rated but I am barely qualified to fly FedEx feeder Cessna 208s or perhaps right seat in a King Air. If I were outside the US/Canada/Europe, I could be flying 737s with 150 passengers.

We still have the significant issue of “fake pilots” [1] and all sorts of chicanery that has yet to be addressed. Despite flaws inherent in any government agency, the fact is the FAA has made American skies among the very safest in the world, at least according to the data. If US and Euro airlines start crashing, then we can revisit that theory.

[1] https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/680358-why-has-eu-never-ban...