Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 173 posts

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#11

Post by mulmen »

jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

Sounds like they are learning their lesson. Fix the actual problem instead of relying on regulatory capture.

This is all a sad, ugly mess. A glimmer of hope does give me a warm fuzzy feeling actually.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#12

Post by [deleted] »

Narkov wrote: post #9
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #2

I honestly don’t even know anymore if I’m living in a cracked / badly modded version of the sims, how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding I quote the article: She noted the exemption Boeing had sought "involves an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passeng…

Not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment but I guess all these things are about statistical probabilities. If the chance of this happening is small enough and the possible "worst case" outcome is tolerable, it gets a tick.

[deleted]

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#13

Post by [deleted] »

fbdab103 wrote: post #4
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #2

I honestly don’t even know anymore if I’m living in a cracked / badly modded version of the sims, how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding I quote the article: She noted the exemption Boeing had sought "involves an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passeng…

A $20 toaster has overheat detection technology. Presumably other planes are doing this already. I am not understanding how there is a novel engineering problem to solve that could not be incorporated into the release.

[deleted]

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#14

Post by hypothesis »

jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

Did I hear you say MCAS?

It’s interesting that FAA avoided naked corruption case with pushing this through, but they were unable to simply reject exemption either. Somehow, external pressure was required to avoid worst case.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#15

Post by bpye »

spookie wrote: post #6
fbdab103 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $20 toaster has overheat detection technology. Presumably other planes are doing this already. I am not understanding how there is a novel engineering problem to solve that could not be incorporated into the release.

Early access for planes. The next step in commercial aviation. Feel the thrill of life threatening bugs!

At least early access games might give you a discount or some exclusive content.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#16

Post by lnxg33k1 »

spookie wrote: post #6
fbdab103 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $20 toaster has overheat detection technology. Presumably other planes are doing this already. I am not understanding how there is a novel engineering problem to solve that could not be incorporated into the release.

Early access for planes. The next step in commercial aviation. Feel the thrill of life threatening bugs!

Boeing: "For the real adrenaline junkies"

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#17

Post by hayst4ck »

jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

I agree with the way you read it entirely. They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. They disavowed responsibility and said "we are complying with public pressure against our will".

In other words, they don't understand what they did wrong, but people more powerful than them are forcing them to change. "We are being coerced into expending unnecessary resources."

They think it is an engineering problem that can be solved by engineers and not a management problem that must be solved with a change of culture, namely a change to managements inability to take responsibility for the current state of Boeing.

When this inevitably fails because the core problem (culture) is not acknowledged or addressed, the engineers will be blamed, and management will continue to avoid responsibility.

The people most at fault for the state of Beoing will probably cash out with enough money to get spoon-fed caviar for the rest of their life while their progeny will never have to work a day in their life.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#18

Post by inamberclad »

Narkov wrote: post #9
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #2

I honestly don’t even know anymore if I’m living in a cracked / badly modded version of the sims, how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding I quote the article: She noted the exemption Boeing had sought "involves an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passeng…

Not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment but I guess all these things are about statistical probabilities. If the chance of this happening is small enough and the possible "worst case" outcome is tolerable, it gets a tick.

And the statistical requirements for failure causing injury or fatality to the passengers are on the order of 1 in 10 million to 1 in 1 billion. Forgetting to turn off a small switch within five minutes of exiting icing conditions will almost certainly happen more often than that.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#19

Post by jfim »

fbdab103 wrote: post #4
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #2

I honestly don’t even know anymore if I’m living in a cracked / badly modded version of the sims, how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding I quote the article: She noted the exemption Boeing had sought "involves an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passeng…

A $20 toaster has overheat detection technology. Presumably other planes are doing this already. I am not understanding how there is a novel engineering problem to solve that could not be incorporated into the release.

The worst thing that can happen with a toaster is that it catches on fire, while a plane can crash and kill hundreds of people.

While that doesn't make Boeing any less responsible for engineering proper solutions instead of a compliance hack, there's a difference between the solution for a throwaway consumer device and one for a multi-million dollar airplane that has to operate in conditions with harsh vibration and wide operating temperature ranges, has to be serviceable for decades, and cannot fail in ways that render the plane inoperable.

Post reply on HN