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

821–830 of 884 posts

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

#821

Post by cromka »

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…

Such an americentric take... as if Boeing only had to deal with FAA only. You completely forgot about other regulatory bodies. How was Boeing supposed to sway EU bodies, for example? Once you realize there's more of those, your conspiracy theory ends up in shambles.

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

#822

Post by cratermoon »

bombcar wrote: post #229
cratermoon wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhere in the suburbs south of Portland, possibly near Metzger.

NTSB will find it, they’re surprisingly thorough.

They certainly will. A friend and I were speculating whether or not someone will find it and report it before NTSB finds it. I also wondered if it would be in one large piece of several smaller ones. All I can say for sure is that it didn't land on someone's house or car, or we'd have heard by now.

I did find an article saying, "The door that blew off Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 shortly after takeoff from Portland Friday night is believed to be around Barnes Road near Hwy 217 and the Cedar Hills neighborhood" https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/ntsb-press-briefing-alaska-...>

Edit: and another article saying "radar data" gives them the approximate location. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/06/alaska-airlines-737-l...>

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

#823

Post by ric2b »

dahdum wrote: post #109
panarky wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I’ll take the one with 50 crashes any time. That’s 50 times something went catastrophically wrong and 50 times measures were taken to fix the underlying problems. A brand new plane will undoubtedly have brand new problems.

I think this is the wrong take, for the following reasons:

- There is no reason to assume that the learnings from the 50 crashes weren't also applied to the newer model. In fact you'd expect that they all were. - Faults in a new design are likely to be front-loaded, meaning most of the crashes would have happened earlier than later. Therefore the new model seems to be a much safer design if it flew 10% of the miles without even 10% of the crashes (actually 0%).

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

#824

Post by talldatethrow »

metabagel wrote: post #766
talldatethrow wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in California since 1989. Things are definitely different and IMO worse than before. If I had to guess, previously the crime was in obvious rough areas. Now it seems it's expanding to everywhere. But even if crime/illegal border crossings were down... Just because we were unaware of it 20 years ago and are now aware doesn't really make people feel better about it. "Hey, you know how you were wondering why wages a…

One has got nothing to do with the other. Illegal immigrants aren’t driving up housing costs. Standard of living is stagnant, because wealth doesn’t “trickle down” like Reagan promised us. It trickles up. You’re repeating right wing talking points.

How are immigrants not driving up housing costs? Aren't they using housing? Isn't housing driven by supply and demand?

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

#825

Post by cratermoon »

cellis wrote: post #317
bombcar wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NTSB will find it, they’re surprisingly thorough.

How would triangulation of that small of an item be done?

Apparently there's "radar data" indicating location. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/06/alaska-airlines-737-l...>

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

#826

Post by nvm0n2 »

xvector wrote: post #624
nvm0n2 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus? The death penalty would apply to them too, presumably.

Prison and even the death penalty should absolutely be considered for the bean-counting Boeing execs that deliberately drove safety into the ground for profit. The blood of innocents is on their hands, and yet they get to cheerfully cash in their stock options. Airbus execs seem fine[1], so they'd have nothing to fear here. [1]: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/a-matter-of-millimeters-...

Lol nothing to fear except the death penalty if employees you never heard of 5 reporting lines below you screw up badly enough?

Where do people come up with this stuff. If you want a mass exodus from airline management and sudden collapse of the entire industry that would be a fast way to do it.

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

#827

Post by CamperBob2 »

mulmen wrote: post #684
CamperBob2 wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it your assertion that Boeing is currently operated by competent people? Is it your assertion that they can't get any worse? Because this sounds like a good way to get worse. You know, they could be killing more than 0.5 people per ten billion passenger miles, right...?

> You know, they could be killing more than 0.5 people per ten billion passenger miles, right...? You know that current management's numbers are a lot worse than that right?

This latest debacle is obviously due to some schlub on the factory floor who was more interested in checking his Facebook than installing bolts. Guillotining the CEO won't help.

I wish I knew what would, believe me. I have to deal with the exact same problem, luckily in a factory where there is a lot less at stake.

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

#828

Post by jessriedel »

jacquesm wrote: post #213
jessriedel wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, thanks. So probably a factor of ~2 fewer miles, or twice the accident rate.

divide by the # of passengers...

Not really necessary. The two accidents killed everyone on board, and it was a typical load. The number I estimated is something like "fatal crash for everyone per mile". You could multiply by average of passengers on each flight and divide by the average number of passengers on the deadly flights to get a slightly more accurate risk, but not much would change.

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

#829

Post by mulmen »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #827
mulmen wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know, they could be killing more than 0.5 people per ten billion passenger miles, right...? You know that current management's numbers are a lot worse than that right?

This latest debacle is obviously due to some schlub on the factory floor who was more interested in checking his Facebook than installing bolts. Guillotining the CEO won't help. I wish I knew what would, believe me. I have to deal with the exact same problem, luckily in a factory where there is a lot less at stake.

I’m not advocating for guillotining anyone. That’s absurd.

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

#830

Post by jessriedel »

hnarn wrote: post #200
jessriedel wrote: post #179

What's the back of the envelope on whether the 737 Max is more dangerous than driving? 1,300 aircraft have been built since the first started flying in 2017, with two deadly crashes. I don't know how many miles those have accumulated, but presumably it's of order 4k miles per day per aircraft, and maybe 3 years (1000 days) of flying to date per aircraft on average, giving a very rough estimate of a few billion miles?…

Who cares? The age-old comparison against cars is just to illustrate that flying, on average, is safer than driving, which most people intuitively don’t “feel” to be true (or at least they didn’t back in the days). In this case we’re talking about a company that consistently makes mistakes and puts their passengers lives at risk due to negligence, whether “it’s still safer than driving” or not is completely irrelevan…

It helps me tell if I should personally care about this. (There are people in this talking about how they would never get on one of these planes, etc.) It also is informative for how much public attention its worth.
Post reply on HN