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

141–150 of 173 posts

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

#141

Post by tracker1 »

dmix wrote: post #101
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.

> This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919 Maybe that's a good thing. It will be a lesson to the US to not prop up a shitty monopolies for decades just because it's currently the only local option and losing dominance in the short term is oh-so-scary to techocrats who want to orchestrate everything. They should have encouraged and enabled the domestic development of competitors to Boeing - a…

Boeing strategies for domestic upstarts range from interesting to terrifying... Mostly burying them in decades of IP litigation until they are bankrupt.

The auto industry has nothing on Boeing.

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

#142

Post by AceyMan »

pixelfarmer wrote: post #119
sugarkjube wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 737 is a 60 year old design with a stellar safety record It isn't. Or at least the max isn't. It's a big change from the original 737, a change that makes the type IMHO unairworthy beyond repair. But that is not even the biggest issue, its the fact that boeing thinks they should withold essential information (such as the existence of an MCAS) from the pilots, who ultimaltely bear the responsibility of the safet…

It was pressure from airlines to not have to retrain pilots, because that costs them money and whatnot. And in almost all cases when it comes to Boeing, the 737, and further issues, these airlines are also involved.

At this stage of the game, I seriously have to ask: is retaining the type rating actually a money-saver for the carriers?

I mean, airlines obtain new types all the time and pilots get trained to fly them. If it were so onerous, selling new aircraft would be practically impossible. (Yes, I know many Airbus share a type classification.)

It feels like there's an historical truth that's now no longer the case, especially when you consider all the associated compromises and, now, the resulting safety & engineering concerns.

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

#143

Post by ExoticPearTree »

noughtme wrote: post #122
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was thinking about weight, but the cowlings are pretty small compared to other parts of the plane where composite materials are used. So i'm not sure a single digit saving in pounds of fuel per hour or flight was a good tradeoff considering the risks associated with the alternative they went with.

But, like someone else said this here, I would love someone with knowledge about this to chime in.

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

#144

Post by salawat »

avalys wrote: post #33
inamberclad wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question is how often this failure will occur when the pilots fail to turn off the switch. Given that the 737 Max 8 and 9 are currrently flying with this defect and no damage has been reported, let alone failures, the actual likelihood of catastrophic failure is clearly low.

Until it isn't. And somehow I doubt it will be your plane where it happens.

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

#145

Post by filleduchaos »

hooby wrote: post #130
fallingknife wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And this is why focusing exclusively on Boeing in the 737 MAX controversy is, IMO, quite short-sighted.

It's not just Boeing's greed. Pretty much the entire industry has been happy to look the other way and enable their nonsense for years, since it meant they wouldn't need to invest extra in training their pilots.

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

#146

Post by filleduchaos »

jMyles wrote: post #136
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.

Sure they have - they very family under discussion. Just because they have attempted to foist a polite fiction that it is a 737 variant doesn't mean that it actually is. It's a new single-aisle transport with several serious problems.

It is a 737 variant, though. That's precisely where the several serious problems come from.

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

#147

Post by legobmw99 »

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…

Wasn’t this anti-stall software exactly what caused those two fatal crashes a few years back?

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

#148

Post by nottorp »

jen20 wrote: post #126
nottorp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I know about the Treo, but I never got one. If i remember the first reviews correctly, it was a cell phone bolted onto palmos but totally separate somehow. It didn't 'smell good'.

I've had quite a few non phone PalmOS devices though. I think I'm still keeping a non functional Sony Clie [1] in my nostalgia stash. And maybe a Zire Z22, but I may have thrown that away.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_CLI%C3%89_NR_Series

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

#149

Post by cityofdelusion »

AceyMan wrote: post #142
pixelfarmer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was pressure from airlines to not have to retrain pilots, because that costs them money and whatnot. And in almost all cases when it comes to Boeing, the 737, and further issues, these airlines are also involved.

At this stage of the game, I seriously have to ask: is retaining the type rating actually a money-saver for the carriers? I mean, airlines obtain new types all the time and pilots get trained to fly them. If it were so onerous, selling new aircraft would be practically impossible. (Yes, I know many Airbus share a type classification.) It feels like there's an historical truth that's now no longer the case, especially…

Yes. Generally speaking, you want your pilots as proficient as possible on a single type. They will need many hundreds of hours on the new type before they are considered seasoned. A lot of disasters in the last 30 years have been amplified by pilots with low hours on the type they were flying. It takes a lot of training to memorize checklists, switches, levers, time to get muscle memory for various emergency situations. It’s a lot of time in the simulators. Lots of airlines also fly only one type, so they are majorly impacted by needing training for their entire pilot crew. It’s their own fault for choosing that but still. Combine this with the fact that airlines are razor thin margins and always seem a couple bad quarters away from bankruptcy and you get what we have today.

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

#150

Post by dmazzoni »

hooby wrote: post #130
fallingknife wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly, and that means that airlines like Southwest wouldn't even consider it.

One of the ways that low-cost regional airlines save money is by standardizing on a single aircraft. For Southwest, that's the 737. Every single pilot, inspector and mechanic in their entire organization only needs to be certified on a single airplane, they only need to have one parts supplier, only one set of tools, etc. - it's enormous cost savings.

Post reply on HN