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

521–530 of 884 posts

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

#521

Post by pc86 »

jacquesm wrote: post #517
JoshTriplett wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual by name, ever, whether to give them special exceptions or special permissions or special restrictions or anything else. (They also shouldn't target specific companies by sufficiently-specific-description-it-only-applies-to-one-or-two-companies, either.)

If course they can: laws frequently cite specific cases and specific abuses in their supporting documentation in order to point out the exact intent of the law.

Laws are not research papers, they don't need to cite sources.

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

#522

Post by lesam »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #498
game_the0ry wrote: post #482

The only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.

[flagged]

I appreciate that it’s a joke made to make a point, but I would prefer that the state keep prisoners safe from being raped in prison, regardless of what crime they committed.

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

#523

Post by peyton »

game_the0ry wrote: post #482

The only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.

From FAA.gov:

> We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation.

https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities

Maybe the people responsible are the people who say they’re responsible?

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

#524

Post by therealcamino »

roody15 wrote: post #419

Interesting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The fix was to reconfigure the 737 Max with 2 sensors (instead of one) and include an manual shutoff Guess what happened? Boeing didn’t fix anything.. instead they cried to congress that the fix is too expensive and they cannot get it done. So what happens is cong…

You are confusing two different issues. The article you reference is from December 2022. The MAX 8 had already returned to service two years prior, with the required fixes to the MCAS system, in 2020.

This law had to do with a deadline for certifying the MAX 7 without completely redesigning some of the systems.

I'm not a Boeing defender here -- these issues are incredibly concerning.

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

#525

Post by jacquesm »

pc86 wrote: post #521
jacquesm wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If course they can: laws frequently cite specific cases and specific abuses in their supporting documentation in order to point out the exact intent of the law.

Laws are not research papers, they don't need to cite sources.

The fact that they do not need to is true, but the typical law rests on a body of data and some of that data will be supplied with the bill depending on what the material is about.

This is because most laws are created with specific goals and purposes in mind, they're not born finished and ready to be voted on derived from first principles, they usually exist to address something quite specific.

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

#526

Post by pc86 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #337
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.

Yes, it's actually an FAA approved document for each aircraft type called the Mimimum Equipment List (MEL). It defines which non-critical equipment is permitted to be inoperative and not prevent dispatch of the aircraft. Commercial aviation would come to a halt if every aircraft had to be in 100% perfect condition for every flight. There are many systems that have redundant backups or are not essential for safe fligh…

There's a joke about asking skydivers why they'd jump out of a perfectly good airplane and the punch line is that there is no such thing as a perfectly good airplane.

Every single plane has things that are broken, things that are inoperative, things that behave slightly out of tolerance. This is true for commercial aircraft the whole way down to single engine trainers. 172s are notorious for having fuel gauges that are basically only good for telling you how many fuel tanks you have and not anything related to quantity of fuel on the plane.

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

#527

Post by methodical »

Boeing may think they fly above it all (get it?) but I can assure you despite my largely unwavering confidence in the air travel industry, I will not travel on a Boeing aircraft in the near future. I will see to it that I fly Airbus or not at all, which I'm perfectly fine with should it spare my life. This type of large-scale and continued negligence can only be defined as a company that thinks they're too big to fail. I would rather see the US's airplane manufacturing capabilities decrease than allow such heinous acts of negligence to continue. Shame on Boeing. You'd have thought that the previous 787 and MCAS problems would've straightened them up, but you'd of course be wrong. Let them bleed; dry if need be. This is no way to operate in such an important industry with deadly consequences.

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

#528

Post by bcrosby95 »

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.

A death every 100 million miles driven in the US. That's pretty safe.

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

#529

Post by pc86 »

xfitm3 wrote: post #422
rootusrootus wrote: post #97

One troubling aspect of this is that it appears Alaska had reason to believe something was wrong with this plane but basically ignored it. They were getting pressurization warnings on prior flights, but the only action they took was restricting the plane from flying ETOPS routes. They're the dominant carrier in my area, so these sorts of screwups make me nervous. I can't easily avoid using them without a fair amount…

Alaskan Airlines is notorious for taking maintenance shortcuts, this is likely not an inherent problem with the airframe but rather this operators SOP. Alaskan Airline flight 261 is one example. > The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and eventual failure of a critical flight control system during flight. Source: ht…

Do you have any examples that aren't from a quarter century ago?

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

#530

Post by mulmen »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #492
game_the0ry wrote: post #482

The only remedy at this point is to hold executives financially and morally culpable. Anyone opposed to seeing the entire C-suite and board of directors having their bonuses clawed back and sent to jail? I'm not. Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.

Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Might want to think through the game-theoretic consequences a bit further. For example, instead of ranting and howling about prisons and guillotines, you could point to some successful examples of other companies or orgs that have operated in a similar fashion. That might provide more productive grounds for further discus…

> Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run.

Is it your assertion that Boeing is currently operated by competent people? They're getting crushed by SpaceX at rockets. How much more of this incompetence will it take before someone does the same to them with airliners? Relying on being "too big to fail" isn't a viable long term strategy. It only lowers the barrier to entry for competitors.

Post reply on HN