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

More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#401

Post by altairprime »

nsguy wrote: post #317
altairprime wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don’t think twice about hopping into a passenger vehicle. I think twice quite regularly about hopping into a Tesla, and after years of avoiding them solely for aesthetic dislike, I found that they also have been burying quality control issues rather than repairing them — just like Boeing! — and so I intend to continue avoiding riding in them whenever possible. > You don’t […] refuse to hop in an Uber driving th…

Isn't there independent data about accidents or deaths per driven mile per vehicle brand/type? I don't think Tesla is over-represented there? Even in that data there can be confounders... I would look at those vs. rumours about quality control. But hey, I rode a motorcycle for ~25 years which is definitely riskier than a Tesla. Being careful as a pedestrian makes perfect sense. I got these things drilled into me as a…

I mean, I also watch closely at any electric 3-ton and heavier vehicle — they’re all going to instakill me in my 1-ton vehicle! — but Tesla in my region has an especially high chance of being driven (or autopiloted) unsafely, so I take especial care; the Rivian drivers are totally chill so far. If I was in another region like one of my family is, I’d have to watch out for big trucks “accidentally” trying to sideswipe me so they can pretend they’re Nascar drivers and zoom off without a rear plate, but that doesn’t happen much here where I live. Local circumstances always vary from nationwide statistics.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#402

Post by EasyMark »

luuurker wrote: post #243
stouset wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One needs to look at the data to believe these planes are very safe. Even if one or two people had died on the Alaska incident (which—to be clear—would have been an avoidable tragedy for which Boeing would be responsible), flying on a major airline in the U.S. is still safer than any other form of transportation. You don’t think twice about hopping into a passenger vehicle. You don’t follow the latest NHTSA crash tes…

Planes in general are very safe compared to other forms of transportation, but we're not comparing the Boeing 737 Max to some Tesla or Ford. We are comparing it to other planes. While I'm likely to fly on a 737 in the future, it's perfectly fine to say "well, since there's an Airbus A320 Neo available, I'll fly on that instead". Why? Because while data doesn't show it, there's a list of fairly recent Boeing screw ups…

I'll continue to compare it to other modes of travel when making my decision. Currently it's safer than those, and most of these issues appear to be minor and fixable. I'm not worried. If I worried about anything it would be my commute to work, which I would stop tomorrow and demand to work from home or find another job if I was clutching at my pearls over travel safety

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#403

Post by EasyMark »

smugglerFlynn wrote: post #21
TylerE wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's irrational at this point. The entire program seems to have been grossly mismanaged, and that includes on the FAA side.

Let's say 15 year old Toyota arrives on your Uber, instead of a shiny new one - would you cancel and wait for another car? Keep in mind that riding in both cars is statistically vastly more dangerous than flying any modern Boeing, including 737, by a huge margin. Unless flying is the only mode of transportation you ever use, avoiding Boeing will not make your life safer, it will at most make you calmer.

There are some 20 year old Toyota recently recalled over Takata airbags that blow shrapnel in your face potentially leading to your death, but no one is reselling their toyotas, I'm not sure what the HN panic over Boeing airplanes is.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#404

Post by mmanfrin »

gruez wrote: post #49
m_a_g wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you including only US airlines for comparing a plane model's safety? That seems very convenient. And even worse you are using other planes data as well.

Because most readers of this site are American, and fly on airlines from the US. When assessing their risk, it makes sense to use US statistics.

Do you not fly internationally?

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#405

Post by kelnos »

sagarm wrote: post #254
stouset wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.

You've excluded the >300 deaths from the two 737 MAX crashes.

The poster upthread was specifically talking about deaths on airlines that operate in the US.

Whether or not that's a useful distinction to make is up for grabs (I expect the point was to talk about flights that most Americans are likely to take -- and by extension most Europeans, since I believe EU airline safety records are similar), but excluding those deaths is fair based on the specifics cited.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#406

Post by wahnfrieden »

dylan604 wrote: post #366
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you're ok with killing and injuring others so you don't have to face the discomfort of finding another job. I've quit jobs on principle twice. No safety net, no savings. Just a belief I would be better off without that job. Turns out, I was right.

Great, so you can be a Boeing employee that tried to raise the issue on multiple occasions, you have the documentation to prove that, you rage quite, and then attempt to blow the whistle, but the planes crash anyways. What a pathetic human you are for taking so long to grow a pair. You should grow up and realize not everyone is the same. So you've rage quit twice out of "principles". Great. What changed at the compan…

More likely you need mass worker movements, and work toward forming them (wildcat or otherwise) not some simple 3 steps for solving executive malice and greed with processes handed to you by the state and your boss

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#407

Post by nradov »

paulmd wrote: post #387
kccqzy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound likely. They can wait for existing planes to age out and then buy a competitor's planes. For many reasons including fuel efficiency, when an airline retires a plane they are not going to replace it with the exact same plane. So some levels of pilot retraining is expected.

Type certification is a thing that exists, and the whole reason the 737 max is designed in this particular wonky way is so that it can grandfather into the type certification from the existing 737 family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate Having to mix and match pilots across the fleet is less efficient, what if you have a 737 pilot but the only aircraft available is an airbus? So, many airlines (eg so…

Type certificates for commercial airliners should expire after 30 years. After that date, allow any existing aircraft to continue operating but don't allow manufacturing of any new ones. The manufacturer should have to recertify and prove that the design fully complies with all current rules.

The original Boeing 737 design only took 4 years so that would give them plenty of time to work through any necessary design changes. And if pilots need to obtain a new type rating then so be it.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#408

Post by chx »

PaulHoule wrote: post #372
kelnos wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously 2011 Boeing couldn't see into the future, but I do wonder if standing firm against Southwest -- even if they went and bought Airbus -- would still have been better for the company in the long run. Wikipedia says Southwest has the fourth-largest fleet in the world (today, dunno about in 2011); while that's a lot, that's still only 800-some planes; did Boeing really let an airline with a 7%-or-so share of the…

American airlines don't buy new planes. Third-world airplanes buy new airplanes and once they've taken depreciation for them they sell them to American airlines. Even if they quit making new 737s, Southwest could be still flying old 737s 40 years from now. It's tempting to say that some of the worst airports in the US (say Newark) are "third-world" but the truth is that a bad airport in the third world is often a lot…

Not sure what you mean by American airlines not buying new planes. In 2011:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-12-13-Boeing-737-MAX-Logs-...

-- Southwest orders 150 737 MAX airplanes and 58 Next-Generation 737s

-- Southwest becomes launch customer; scheduled to take first 737 MAX delivery

-- Largest firm order in Boeing history

Since then, they operate 223 of the 737 MAX (16% of deliveries) and have 495 on order, which is about 10% of total orders. At a single airline. United has 159 and has 388 on order. Then comes Ryanair with 136 delivered and 374 ordered. These are not third world airlines.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#409

Post by kelnos »

mmanfrin wrote: post #404
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most readers of this site are American, and fly on airlines from the US. When assessing their risk, it makes sense to use US statistics.

Do you not fly internationally?

Most Americans don't! I'm sure HN commenters from the US fly internationally more often than the average American, but still.

And the poster upthread talked about airlines operating in the US, not just US airlines. That would include, e.g. airlines from EU countries that fly to the US, and even have some domestic hops here.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#410

Post by kelnos »

Symbiote wrote: post #120
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most readers of this site are American, and fly on airlines from the US. When assessing their risk, it makes sense to use US statistics.

The plurality are American, but not necessarily the majority. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567986

I think it's safe to say that the commenter's observations about airlines operating in the US mostly apply to airlines operating in Europe, for example. That should push us well over 50%.
Post reply on HN