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

FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 884 posts

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#181

Post by throwaheyy »

agubelu wrote: post #156

A bit off-topic, but I found it curious that Ryanair refuses to call their Max fleet "737 Max-8", instead they go for "737-8200" in both their safety cards and cabin briefings. I wonder if this is common and if other airlines do the same after the reputational damage from the crashes and groundings.

They call it that because their plane is in fact not a 737 Max 8.

Ryanair’s aircraft is a different variant, made only for them, the Max 200 which is the same size as a Max 8 but has the extra exits for up to 200 pax.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#182

Post by aeternum »

belter wrote: post #91

Ways in which you can experience an unexpected cabin decompression to the next world...Or join the mile-high never-come-back club, on a Boeing 737 MAX... 1- Loose bolts: "Boeing Urges Airlines to Check for Loose Bolt in newer 737 MAX Aircraft" - https://www.european-views.com/2023/12/boeing-urges-airlines... 2- Leave the anti-icing system on for more than 5 min after non-icing conditions: "Boeing still hasn't fixed t…

Wasn't there also the whole runaway trim issue leading to un-commanded climb and stall?

Supposedly fixed with software when the root cause was retrofitting engines too large for the airframe leading to pitch instability under high thrust.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#183

Post by malfist »

tiahura wrote: post #158
hypothesis wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that this was the only door he forgot to lock? There is clearly a pattern here with Boeing QA, doors, bolts, etc

Based on n=1, I’m hesitant to speculate much and so I don’t have any opinion on whether there will be more. I always don’t see how scrapping the 9 makes sense even if he forgot to do all of them.

When will you be happy to extrapolate? When the next incident has bodies? Or will that be another n=1 event?

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#185

Post by db48x »

matrix_overload wrote: post #148
gamepsys wrote: post #23

Boeing is what happens when an engineering focused company gets taken over by MBAs. When it happens to a webtech company we call it enshitification. When it happens to a transportation company lives are actually at risk. Sadly Boeing is important enough to DC that they seem to be allowed to casually risk American lives.

MBAs can only pull this off when there is no competition and they are in bed with the regulators. You can very easily get Boeing back on track by splitting them into multiple competing businesses, but we all know this won't happen.

They’re already broken up. They consider themselves to be a system integrator. They design the planes, hire contractors to build most of the parts, and then assemble the parts. The fact that this gives Boeing most of the risk and the contractors most of the profit doesn’t seem to bother them.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#186

Post by hotpotamus »

whycome wrote: post #162
CamperBob2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like sneaking a bomb on board for safety purposes. "I mean, what are the odds that there are TWO bombs on this plane?"

I wish we had an updated remake of Airplane! that uses this line. THere's so much room for good political satire but it seems like it's not being made.

I believe the above is actually a paraphrase of Jim Jefferies’s bit about the difference between Australian and American airport security actually.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#187

Post by hnarn »

brewdad wrote: post #121
HumblyTossed wrote: post #7

The plane that had the issue was new, so I guess they want to make sure it wasn't an issue with other planes off the line maybe? Sure is a good thing nobody was sitting in that seat.

Another good reason to keep that seat belt fastened even when the sign is off.

The light only means that having it fastened is mandatory. There are many reasons to keep it on during the entire flight, the most common of which is turbulence.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#188

Post by ygvamjq2ol »

I flew a United MAX 9 last night, I was sitting in the window seat of a visible (Not plugged) emergency exit door. Landed a little while after this incident was reported. About an hour and a half before landing at SFO the pilot announced a hurried “Flight attendants check in” with no follow up announcement to the passengers. It was probably because of the turbulence we had been experiencing a few minutes before, but I wonder if the cockpit was giving flight attendants a heads up in case any passengers got word.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#189

Post by _cenw »

klysm wrote: post #122

Boeing 737 Max is quite the case study in how to ruin a company via merger

Boeing made the 737 NG until 2019. It also allegedly had issues with the contractor Ducommun making the airframe, including "hammering alignment holes into place". But it wasn't nearly as problematic of a plane.

The Max is a desperate attempt to compete with the A320 neo ("new engine option"). It is the aviation efficiency gain equivalent of a die shrink, except these engines get bigger, and while Airbus had space to spare under the wing of the A320 ceo, the 737 NG did not. So they angled it, changing flight characteristics. Thus, MCAS, because the entire point of keeping the 737 - a 55 year old design - alive is pilots not having to do an entirely new type certificate. Because given availability (not a given, the only reason Ryanair went with Boeing) and staff type certificates not playing a role, Airbus is the clear winner on every metric.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#190

Post by o11c »

panarky wrote: post #98
rootusrootus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 737 You mean 737MAX. The 737 and 737NG have been around for decades (almost 60 years for the 737, almost 30 for the 737NG). IIRC the 737NG has a reasonable case for being the safest airliner ever built. There are some designs that have no fatalities, but they also have very low production numbers to go with it.

> safest airliner ever built ... very low production numbers If one model has 5 million flight hours and zero crashes, and another model has 500 million flight hours and 50 crashes, is it possible to say which model is safer?

The point in the outer comment was that the 737NG has both many flight hours and ... if I skimmed Wikipedia correctly, only 1 mechanically-attributed fatality.

For reference, the most-produced passenger/cargo aircraft:

  16K Douglas DC-3 (1935)
  11K Boeing 737 family:
    1K Original (1967)
    2K Classic (1984)
    7K NG (1998)
    1K MAX (2016)
  11K Airbus A320 family (1988)
Different sources give oddly different numbers (more than I would expect for ordered vs built vs delivered; I didn't investigate deeply), but nothing else is above 2K. Note that plenty of small or military planes beat these numbers.
Post reply on HN