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

831–840 of 884 posts

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

#831

Post by jessriedel »

knowledge-clay wrote: post #199
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?…

> What's the back of the envelope on whether the 737 Max is more dangerous than driving? Driving is an absurdly dangerous mode of transportation, so it’s probably not the best comparison.

It's the one most Americans use everyday, so it tells us about the risks that most people find accessible for the benefit they get.

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

#832

Post by jessriedel »

lostlogin wrote: post #301
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?…

You can’t compare like that. If you drive into a tree and get maimed, it’s different to someone else driving you into a tree and maiming you. When you’re welfare is in someone else’s hands, they need to better than you would.

I wasn't drawing an equivalence, moral or otherwise

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

#833

Post by knowledge-clay »

jessriedel wrote: post #831
knowledge-clay wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the back of the envelope on whether the 737 Max is more dangerous than driving? Driving is an absurdly dangerous mode of transportation, so it’s probably not the best comparison.

It's the one most Americans use everyday, so it tells us about the risks that most people find accessible for the benefit they get.

Perhaps on an individual level, but on a policy level, it makes sense that the safety standards for flying are higher for flying than for driving.

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

#834

Post by CamperBob2 »

mulmen wrote: post #829
CamperBob2 wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then perhaps you meant to reply to a different subthread. I'm merely addressing the upstream poster's childish argument. ("Let the guillotine come out, I want to see heads roll.")

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

#835

Post by b112 »

TylerE wrote: post #816
b112 wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when trying to compare different things (car, train, plane, space ship, etc), they all travel at different speeds, by different methods, with different categories. An example? Travel to the moon would be the safest thing ever, even if 50% of the ships exploded, because of how far it is. I bet travel to Mars would the safest thing ever, based upon miles, even if 99% of the ships exploded. Things break based up…

What, no? Earth to the moon is 200,000 miles away. Call it a half million for a round trip. Airliner passenger deaths are 1 per several billion miles.

Yes, but your response does not invalidate the premise.

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

#836

Post by CamperBob2 »

pkulak wrote: post #758
habinero wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement makes no sense. It has never been safer to fly, precisely because aviation is so dedicated to root cause analysis. A whole door exploded out of a plane and 1. The plane did not suffer structural damage and could land safely 2. Nobody died because seat belts are mandatory 3. The crew is drilled over and over on what to do 4. The plane has extensive monitoring and logging so RCA is easier 5. The US funds…

Yeah, not to be totally insensitive, but 45,000 Americans died on our roads last year and basically no one has even a single fuck to give about it. For some reason all we ever complain about is the only safe transportation system we have.

People most certainly do give a fuck. The ones who are trying to fix it -- and the only ones who have a shot at it -- are held to impossible standards, far beyond what we hold humans to. A handful of accidents, even when they're not actually at fault, is enough to get an entire autonomous driving project shut down.

What we're hearing in this thread, from people who have clearly never done much of anything, is that passenger aviation needs to work exactly the same way. "If it can't be perfect, heads must roll. Surely that will fix it."

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

#837

Post by Zigurd »

mastax wrote: post #224
Zigurd wrote: post #124

How even does a "plug" door blow out like that? That's a seemingly very robust design where cabin pressure holds the door in place passively, in addition to the latches holding it in place.

In /r/Aviation they were talking like it gets installed from the outside.

It looks that way. It's not the same as the doors you see on some safety cards where, if you are in an exit row, you should remove the door inward and place it on the exit row seats. It looks like it is meant to be lifted up and outward, assisted by springs. When it is not configured as an emergency exit, it is supposed to be bolted in place. Hmmm. Bolted in place.

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

#838

Post by thfuran »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #807
mcmoor wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that private aviation and private driving have comparable accident rate, which makes sense. Now I wonder how's the rate of both public transportation.

According to this chart https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics... buses and trains have 0.02 to 0.04 deaths per 100,000,000 miles travelled. This compares to 0.01 deaths in the commercial aviation. So pretty much on par, but if you switched to deaths per hours of travel, which is IMHO better statistic, assuming that a average plane flights say 10 times faster than a bus/train (800km/h vs 80km/h…

Why is comparing per hour better? The utility of a transport system is in its ability to move things, not in its ability to consume time.

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

#839

Post by flaminHotSpeedo »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #679
sdh9 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best part is that Boeing had EICAS, the engine indicating and crew alerting system, in the early 80s with the introduction of the 757/767. In the mid-90s, when they updated the 737 to the Next Generation, they opted to stay with the six-pack recall light system that every 737 pilot hates. Same in the Max. Too expensive to change and would likely require a new type rating. The A320 was such a technological leap fo…

I can't imagine EICAS is that expensive, the P-8 has it. Requiring a new type rating seems far more likely given that's how we got MCAS.

The type rating is the big factor, and that's largely driven by desire and/or pressure from customers.

IMO type ratings, and particularly the categorization of types, needs an overhaul. The current type rating system is, IMO, the primary indirect factor leading to the max accidents (customers demanded the impossible - more efficient engines with a 37 type rating) as well as countless other design decisions that seem silly from the outside.

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

#840

Post by jessriedel »

knowledge-clay wrote: post #833
jessriedel wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the one most Americans use everyday, so it tells us about the risks that most people find accessible for the benefit they get.

Perhaps on an individual level, but on a policy level, it makes sense that the safety standards for flying are higher for flying than for driving.

I sort of agree. There is some cost-safety trade-off curve, and it's almost certainly true that you can get more safety for less cost/hassle on airplanes (or any large-group travel) than private cars. So in that sense, yes, the optimal amount of safety will be higher for planes.

However, I think we should still respect individual preferences for safety in the sense that public transit should try and make the trade-offs individuals would make according to their values. In practice that means trying to estimate the value individuals put on safety through their revealed preferences, with cars being a key example. Although there are some choices the FAA makes here that a smart, on some other choices I think they impose hassles on passengers that aren't remotely justified by the safety benefit, e.g., mandatory seat belt use.

Post reply on HN