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

121–130 of 173 posts

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

#121

Post by Retric »

mulmen wrote: post #116
Retric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying we’re going to focus on X is different from saying well half ass X. “we are confident” It they don’t think it’s necessary that means they don’t think it’s important or needs to be executed well.

If you read the full sentence Boeing says they don’t believe existing regulations require an engineered solution but Boeing is pursuing one anyway. Since Boeing doesn’t believe this is required by regulations it suggests to me Boeing believes it is necessary for safe operation. If anything this reads to me like Boeing saying the regulations are too permissive. In other words Boeing isn’t trying to cheat this time.

They say regulations “ensure safe operation” which means they aren’t using an engendering solution over their safety concerns.

Reading between the lines external pressure seems to be their justification. As “we are confident” but they aren’t going to do X.

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

#122

Post by noughtme »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #120
noughtme wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.

I'm curious how much it was saved in money and/or weight that it made sense to someone to make the cowling out of "plastic" :) Sometimes it feels like the decision process at Boeing is: - How big of a problem $this can be? - Disaster like - Go for it.

Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive.

Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess is adding a trivial timed shutoff would have triggered an elaborate FAA approval and certification process. That’s probably where the savings were.

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

#123

Post by lqet »

jfoster wrote: post #64

I love flying on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It is the most comfortable plane I've flown on in terms of how the air quality feels, and it has had 0 hull losses & 0 fatalities; almost as good a safety record as you could hope for as a passenger. I think there are many who agree with me about Dreamliners being the most comfortable planes to fly on. I hope never to fly on another Boeing 737, because of all the accidents…

> I love flying on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Then you really shouldn't watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

TLDW: Critical Dreamliner fuselage parts didn't fit together because workers at the subcontractor (Ducommun) traced a template with magic marker onto the material and cut and drilled the part by hand. Officially, the parts were manufactured by high precision CNC machinery with extremely small tolerances. At Boeing, if drill holes didn't match up in parts A and B, workers were told to just put the parts together and re-drill the hole in part B through the hole in part A, or hammer the parts into place. Internal Boeing investigators who found out and documented the issues were threatened to be sued if they spoke up. They were later fired, after the US government allegedly leaked their identities to Boeing.

Here, a Boeing employee speaks about the work culture in the manufacturing plant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os&t=1466s

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #121
mulmen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the full sentence Boeing says they don’t believe existing regulations require an engineered solution but Boeing is pursuing one anyway. Since Boeing doesn’t believe this is required by regulations it suggests to me Boeing believes it is necessary for safe operation. If anything this reads to me like Boeing saying the regulations are too permissive. In other words Boeing isn’t trying to cheat this time.

They say regulations “ensure safe operation” which means they aren’t using an engendering solution over their safety concerns. Reading between the lines external pressure seems to be their justification. As “we are confident” but they aren’t going to do X.

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by mulmen »

Retric wrote: post #121
mulmen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the full sentence Boeing says they don’t believe existing regulations require an engineered solution but Boeing is pursuing one anyway. Since Boeing doesn’t believe this is required by regulations it suggests to me Boeing believes it is necessary for safe operation. If anything this reads to me like Boeing saying the regulations are too permissive. In other words Boeing isn’t trying to cheat this time.

They say regulations “ensure safe operation” which means they aren’t using an engendering solution over their safety concerns. Reading between the lines external pressure seems to be their justification. As “we are confident” but they aren’t going to do X.

> They say regulations “ensure safe operation”

Boeing’s statement doesn’t say that.

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

#126

Post by jen20 »

nottorp wrote: post #79
perryizgr8 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more modern designs would bring to the table How would we know unless they do it? Before iphone was launched someone could have made the same point about Nokia's smartphones. They were heavily updated designs of their massively popular Symbian phones. We simply didn't know what was possible until someone put in the work and innovated and came up with an entirely new design.

> We simply didn't know what was possible I'm sure a few PalmOS owners wondered why they don't make the scroll bars fingerable and add a cell phone ;) But points to Apple for figuring out you don't need a stylus to write either and you can scroll from anywhere. And for, you know, building a device. I thought of a primitive form of it but it never occured to me to do it.

A PalmOS cell phone - the Treo - was featured in the original iPhone keynote. I had two, the first (600) was OK. The second (650) was abject garbage - it would crash just sitting waiting for calls.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

froh wrote: post #111
hooby wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engines got a lot larger over time, more fuel efficient, more reliable, etc. On a 737 those engines cannot be placed in an ideal position, because that would mean they'd clip into the ground. The engines are being put above and I think in front of (might be wrong there) where they should be for maximal flight stability. The original 737 was self-correcting - meaning that if for example the aircraft stalled, the resul…

ELI5! thanks so much! so the crashes were because the new software was confusing to the pilots and did something unintuitive? and now they want to do another change to how the airplane behaves (interacts with) the pilot?

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by hooby »

froh wrote: post #111
hooby wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engines got a lot larger over time, more fuel efficient, more reliable, etc. On a 737 those engines cannot be placed in an ideal position, because that would mean they'd clip into the ground. The engines are being put above and I think in front of (might be wrong there) where they should be for maximal flight stability. The original 737 was self-correcting - meaning that if for example the aircraft stalled, the resul…

ELI5! thanks so much! so the crashes were because the new software was confusing to the pilots and did something unintuitive? and now they want to do another change to how the airplane behaves (interacts with) the pilot?

Afaik, the crashes were caused by the software mistakenly believing the plane was in a stall due to a single faulty sensor and pulling down the nose - while the pilots had absolutely no clue what was going on (because they never were told the software could do this), and had no way to disable/counteract the software.

I believe the updated software now uses both sensors and only acts if both sensors agree (which is actually standard for such systems and should have been done right from the start) - and can be disabled by the pilots, who are now aware of it's function.

But please don't trust my word... I'm no aviation export by a long stretch.

For a more qualified take on this, done by an actual pilot and pilot trainer, I recommend checking out "Mentour Pilot" on Youtube. He's got a number of videos on the 737 Max and the reported problems at Boeing.

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

#129

Post by fallingknife »

hooby wrote: post #87
ZaoLahma wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it troublesome? As someone with very limited knowledge in aircraft development, I'm genuinely curious about what more modern designs would bring to the table compared to the modern 737s, which I assume are heavily updated versions of the original 1960s design?

Engines got a lot larger over time, more fuel efficient, more reliable, etc. On a 737 those engines cannot be placed in an ideal position, because that would mean they'd clip into the ground. The engines are being put above and I think in front of (might be wrong there) where they should be for maximal flight stability. The original 737 was self-correcting - meaning that if for example the aircraft stalled, the resul…

How hard is it to do a complete recertification. Given that these planes cost over $100 million each it seems like that probably wouldn't be a huge cost compared to the revenue that a new model of plane would generate.

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

#130

Post by hooby »

fallingknife wrote: post #129
hooby wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engines got a lot larger over time, more fuel efficient, more reliable, etc. On a 737 those engines cannot be placed in an ideal position, because that would mean they'd clip into the ground. The engines are being put above and I think in front of (might be wrong there) where they should be for maximal flight stability. The original 737 was self-correcting - meaning that if for example the aircraft stalled, the resul…

How hard is it to do a complete recertification. Given that these planes cost over $100 million each it seems like that probably wouldn't be a huge cost compared to the revenue that a new model of plane would generate.

It's not just the plane that needs recertification.

All the pilots will need to get a type-rating on the new plane type as well, before they are allowed to fly it.

Post reply on HN