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

601–610 of 884 posts

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

#601

Post by bmitc »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #247
laweijfmvo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When someone runs a red light at speed and t-bones you on your left you're dead no matter how defensively you drive. The illusion of control doesn't change your odds much.

Even then, that is a scenario that you can train to look for. I often look both ways before taking off on a green.

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

#602

Post by bobthepanda »

sircastor wrote: post #594
phpisthebest wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.

Flying between states is a pretty clear cut type of interstate commerce. There is also the bit about regulating transport for post.

It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.

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

#603

Post by bmitc »

mission_failed wrote: post #387
zitterbewegung wrote: post #34

This is sort of ironic because they asked to bypass some safety checks on the 737 max 7 recently. Note this is a different model. EDIT: The bypass is about the deicer. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...

It's not a safety check bypass. Boeing wants to make pilots responsible for turning off the deicer within 5 min of ice disappearing to prevent the flawed engines breaking apart in flight.

How does one even know if ice has disappeared in the vicinity of the engines?

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

#604

Post by Dah00n »

WJW wrote: post #260
avidphantasm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 amon…

Seems the fix is going to co-op straight away then.

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

#605

Post by rootusrootus »

thfuran wrote: post #554
bcrosby95 wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not compared to flying.

True, but it's not an apples-to-apple comparison. If you compare by miles, then flying wins by a lot. If you compare by hour, it's much closer (though I'm pretty sure flying still wins, yes).

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

#606

Post by rootusrootus »

bitcurious wrote: post #169
rootusrootus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The seat is still there, firmly attached to the plane. In all likelihood a passenger in that seat, if they were wearing their seat belt (as they should have, it wasn't at cruising altitude, and you should wear your seat belt anyway when seated), would have been severely frightened and annoyed, but probably uninjured. Maybe some hearing loss.

The seat is at the very least missing some fabric and cushioning. Winds that can do that to an airplane seat probably wouldn’t leave a human uninjured.

Agreed, I wouldn't be surprised to see some light injuries, but on the other hand that seat cover is velcro'd on at the top and comes right off for cleaning. Not much really holding it there.

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

#607

Post by dharmab »

bmitc wrote: post #589
therealcamino wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are all the differences between these MAX planes? Is this an intentional strategy by Boeing to confuse so that they can make all these loose arguments and skirt regulations?

Bigger number = longer plane. They start counting from 7 because the MAX 7 was the successor to the 737-700.

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

#608

Post by jdksmdbtbdnmsm »

crisdux wrote: post #559
jdksmdbtbdnmsm wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Competition is a core principle of capitalism Capitalism is literally defined by the ability to invest capital to accumulate more of it by way of profit. The logical end of this process is straightforwardly monopoly.

Capitalism is not only defined by the accumulation of capital, but also by competition. The interplay between market forces, competition, innovation, and regulation in capitalism works against the formation of monopolies. The aerospace industry is not a good example of capitalism. What we have with Boeing is basically a government sanctioned monopoly. It’s basically a weak form of nationalization, without the stigma.

>Capitalism is not only defined by the accumulation of capital, but also by competition

That's wrong. In reality, the mere theoretical potential for competition has always been more than enough to call it capitalism from any perspective. The facts are that actual competition is not a requirement.

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

#609

Post by rustymonday »

WalterBright wrote: post #565
VBprogrammer wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's worth relitigating MCAS here but your analysis here is very generous to Boeing and harsh to the pilots who where unwitting test pilots in Boeing's mistake.

In the LA crash, the crew restored normal trim 25 times, and never thought to turn off the trim. Turning off the trim is a "memory item", meaning the pilots should not need to consult a checklist for it. The switch is right there on the center console within easy reach. The FAA sent around an Emergency Airworthiness Directive reiterating the two step process before the EA crash: Boeing Emergency Airworthiness Directi…

Maybe I'd buy that if the exact same thing didn't happen 5 months later with Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Most of the blame has to be on Boeing.

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

#610

Post by ajcp »

7thaccount wrote: post #598
ajcp wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is especially pervasive in the data and ML fields. Perhaps just to many formally cloistered academic PhDs are cashing in on the corporate rush to data and ML "everything", but have no actual ability to execute or even code. I went to a large "AI" conference this year and was surprised to see some talks being given by the "VP of ML" at the company I work at. I'd never heard of him or the position befo…

This doesn't surprise me at all lol. Someone higher up maybe wanted an AI bullet point on the accomplishments/goals and just made it happen on paper-only.

Reminds me of the ol' adage: what's the difference between ML and AI? ML is written in Python, while AI is written in Power Point.
Post reply on HN