Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

Post by Mtinie » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 7:03 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #22

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…

> how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding It's because planes with this same issue are currently flying and it's an easily managed issue (i.e. don't use it when certain conditions happen). Boeing was hoping to add another model to the list of planes currently grandfathered in, but decided not to do that and instead fix it, and then back-port the fix to the currently flying planes.

Post by anon-sre-srm » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 7:05 AM UTC

rkagerer wrote: post #44

jsnell wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MAX 8 and 9 have the same issue[0], and have a temporary exemption with guidance to the pilots on when not to use the deicing. I think the idea is that this is an issue that can be managed, and the cost of grounding hundreds of planes for such an issue is substantially higher than the cost of delaying deliveries for a plane with no existing fleet. That different cost also leads to a different tradeoff for the two…

I hear what you're saying, but "because we have so many of these planes out there" isn't a rationale that gives me a lot of confidence for justifying a waiver. In the grand scheme of things I'd rather see them stop building shitty planes.

Post by kalleboo » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 7:11 AM UTC

ZaoLahma wrote: post #54

consp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heavily updated versions of the original 1960s design Isn't that the cause of many problems?

And this is what I'm curious about. I can't imagine much of the original design would be left in the aircraft except for the overall shape of it. I'm guessing (remember now, basically zero aircraft development knowledge) that most tech has been updated to modern equivalents. Engines, controls, computers, ...? So what would be changed in a complete overhaul of the aircraft?

Post by ramesh31 » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 7:11 AM UTC

anon-sre-srm wrote: post #42

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?

They will try to MacGyver some shit together last minute. The irony is the 707 replaced then De Havilland Comet 4, which is much like the 737 MAX today. The difference being Boeing is a strategic defense contractor that is "too big to fail". There are enormous pressures on the FAA to let Boeing slide with a stern warning again.

Post by vegardx » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 7:14 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #35

The trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.