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

251–260 of 884 posts

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

#251

Post by JumpCrisscross »

intunderflow wrote: post #118
yakkomajuri wrote: post #113

I certainly know nothing about planes yet from the reading I've done on the 737 Max I'm a bit uneasy that these planes are still flying. I usually subscribe to the mentality that something that had a significant issue that was fixed is overly scrutinized and thus becomes safe but in this case it seems like the decision-making involved in the making of this plane from the start was flawed, such that I'm not sure patch…

The FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US, the only thing that could kill the Max off would be if another big regulator such as EASA refused to let the Max into their airspace.

> FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US

What are you basing this on?

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

#252

Post by mertd »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #236
thfuran wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's not like driving is especially safe. It's just that traffic deaths are so routine that they're not generally widely reported, while pretty much every major issue with an airplane gets national attention. In the US, traffic deaths amount to the equivalent of a fully loaded 747 lost with all hands every couple days.

Whether it’s true or not, I feel like I control my fate when driving a lot more than when flying. I can take precautions (defensive driving, avoiding bad conditions, etc.) but have little to no control once I board a plane.

I only feel like I control slightly more than 50% of the situation with defensive driving. There's very little you can do for example if someone decides to rear end you.

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

#253

Post by einpoklum »

I realize it might not be fair to ask right at this moment, but:

How come Boeing hasn't produced a clean-sheet-design replacement for the 737, despite its extreme age? I mean, since its design, the 747, 757 and 767 have come and gone, variants and all, no production continuing. Why the endless adaptations of this old thing:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Boeing_7...

?

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

#254

Post by hinkley »

ls612 wrote: post #81
mrandish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft. Prior to new models released in the last ~10yrs-ish, Boeing made the safest planes in the sky (as measured by passenger miles). Many of those planes are still flying and still doing great. For me the interesting question is what changed in Boeing's design, testing and/or manufacturing processes which is apparently resulting in worse safety performance…

After the unfortunate incident in Japan this week, the Boeing 787, a plane designed in the 2000s and flying since 2013, is now the only passenger airliner without a hull loss. So they are clearly capable of producing modern safe airliners post merger.

There was an engineer who got fired for worrying publicly about the fire safety of the carbon fiber hulls during the 787 leadup.

It turned out I worked in the same building he had, and I found his old office. Word is after he left they locked it up, like a crime scene. I think they were worried his whistleblowing would turn to leaks and I guess they thought his office would have some sort of evidence? It was an interior office so no big loss real estate wise, but that was a super weird chapter.

He was painted as an aluminum bigot but I always wondered.

I used to talk to a coworker about how Mitsubishi - which built the 787 wings (something Boeing has never done before) - had introduced a regional jet and would be coming after a Boeing’s lunch. He was not worried. I’m a little shocked he’s been right so far. In fact that particular division of MHI seems to be defunct as of last February, which is news to me, so I suppose he was right. Maybe the 787 experience was as unpleasant for them as it was for Boeing.

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

#255

Post by delusional »

ethbr1 wrote: post #152
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been any push to break up Boeing?

The problem with breaking up Boeing is Airbus. Nowadays, to realistically restore competiveness in an industry, you'd have to coordinate a worldwide breakup of similarly-integrated competitors.

Is the argument here that it's more economically viable to run a plane building company whose planes accidentally falls out of the sky? Naively, it would seem to me to be a bad business decision to design aero planes that can't fly, but what do I know.

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

#256

Post by Symbiote »

nerdjon wrote: post #228
ugiox wrote: post #151

How to avoid the 737 Max? Fly only airlines that don’t have it. Luckily there are still a few around in Europe. Since the two fatal crashes I have avoided doing flights with 737s.

I have made the decision that unless I absolutely can’t avoid it I am avoiding Boeing for the near future entirely. But a 737 max is full no go for me no matter what the situation is. I will do multiple stops before stepping foot on one. Personally I fly exclusively JetBlue in the US and they use Airbus almost exclusively. They have a few of whatever that other brand is. No Boeing.

Embraer, the Brazilian-made aircraft. They're being replaced with Airbus A220s, which was called a Bombardier CSeries before Airbus bought Bombardier's airliner division.

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

#258

Post by lostlogin »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #115
physhster wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Famous last words.

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?"

‘Satisfaction of search’ is very much a thing. In my field (I’m a radiographer), finding an abnormally is a classic reason to miss another one nearby.

To quote a cardiologist I worked with, ‘keep scanning, you can have ticks and lice’.

https://radiopaedia.org/articles/satisfaction-of-search-erro...

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

#259

Post by shriek »

thfuran wrote: post #215
csours wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like this are always alarming until you learn the base rate. Unfortunately, I cannot find a quick reference for this, but many many flights take off with some anomaly noted in the technical log book.

And it's not like driving is especially safe. It's just that traffic deaths are so routine that they're not generally widely reported, while pretty much every major issue with an airplane gets national attention. In the US, traffic deaths amount to the equivalent of a fully loaded 747 lost with all hands every couple days.

Because the chance of you dying when something goes wrong in an aircraft at high altitude is significantly higher (almost 100%) than you dying in a car crash. There's still a chance of you getting ambulance on road accidents but you're plummeting to your death on major aircraft malfunction.

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

#260

Post by WJW »

avidphantasm wrote: post #149
bsimpson wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a corporation can be "punished" to become a co-op, what incentive does that give the employees?

Most workers are already hopelessly alienated and don’t give an eff…

I think GP meant that they might give more of a fuck (in the wrong direction) if sabotaging "just this one bolt" means this they can own a significant chunk of stock in the company they are part of.

According to a quick search Boeing has a market cap of ~150 billion and 150k employees, so if you manage to hide that it was you who installed the bolt wrong then assuming the company gets distributed roughly equally among employees then that's a quick 1 million payday. How certain are you that "hopelessly alienated" employees wouldn't sell out a few hundred anonymous passengers for a million bucks?

Post reply on HN