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

Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

avherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 240 posts

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#201

Post by amarant »

epolanski wrote: post #39
amarant wrote: post #25

It kinda bothers me that airlines are still placing orders for new Boeing airplanes. Taking delivery of old orders is one thing, since they can't really back out of those, but placing new orders implies that some level of trust remains for this company, and I just don't see how that makes any sense at all?

1) Even if the max had hiccups, plenty of them, it is an absolutely safe airplane by any measure. 2) Your fleet may mostly be formed by Boeing airplanes, having all of those move to Airbus airplanes is also a safety issue. Pilots have to re-learn and even forget things they accrued and evolved to react instantly for decades. At some point you need to weigh the odds of increasing human error vs relatively safer Airbus…

Everything is relative, and compared to other airplane models, the 737max has absurdly high rate of fatality flights. The only commercial model in history with a higher rate of fatal crashes, as far as I can tell, was the Concorde. And we don't use those anymore.

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#203

Post by somenameforme »

krisoft wrote: post #198
somenameforme wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pretty quickly shifted the goal posts there didn't you? That's for all flight vessels, not just Boeing's 737 class. You're also misreading your stats (that's per sector, not per million), but in either case I'm more interested in fatality rates. Your site gives a hull loss rate of 1 per 4.94 million flights for jets. For vehicles, the average person makes two trips a day over a total of 29.2 miles. [1] So we can…

> You pretty quickly shifted the goal posts there didn't you? No my dude. You said "These numbers are always pretty BSy because the big dangers in flight are take-off and landing." That is a statement about these kind of statistics in general, not in specific to Boeings. But sure. How many accidents had Boeing during take-off or landing? > You're also misreading your stats (that's per sector, not per million) Negativ…

The post I was responding to was speaking precisely about "the least safe Boeing plane in service." The fact that airplanes are, trip for trip, much safer than planes is something I did not appreciate at the time when making my post. I expected most planes to be safer than vehicles, but Boeings falling well below average. The fact that vehicles are substantially safer than any plane, trip for trip, is far beyond what I expected. And it's going to make Boeing's look like death traps by comparison.

Imagine we're comparing a long flight thousands of miles around the world to a short little domestic flight between a couple of relatively nearby cities. Which flight do you expect to get the latest, most stable, and secure plane? Most of everybody would expect it to be the international flight. In reality, it's the short little domestic flight. The reason is that with planes a trip that goes on for thousands of miles is, in general, almost exactly as dangerous as the briefest of trips imaginable. Take off, landing, and pressurization are where basically all the risk (and wear and tear) come into play. So your little plane going on a hundred mile voyage is going to be exposed to far greater risks than the one traveling thousands of miles. It's why the stats, as typically offered - deaths/mile, are extremely disingenuous. And they serve very little purpose other than to mislead those who don't know better, which is the overwhelming majority of people.

As for the exact numbers, reread your own source, and include the entire quote. You're having a failure where you keep misreading something the same way. Keep in mind you quoted 1.19 for 2019-2023.

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#204

Post by Ringz »

JWlrCk9PkipFTDq wrote: post #43
kcplate wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it’s worse than it looks? The video was kind of a dramatic let down to be honest. I preferred the mystery.

It looks a bit more intense in real footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgfkGiHhxs

This should be the top comment.

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#205

Post by giantg2 »

dotancohen wrote: post #151
exabrial wrote: post #107

What the news about Boeing has done is make me pay more attention to commercial aviation in general. The number of aviation incidents is actually pretty crazy, and no, Boeing is not at the center of them despite what the media would have you believe. What is amazing though is the actual injury and fatality rate is really low due to well trained crews and measured responses by air controllers.

The word that you are looking for is resilience I believe. Commercial and GA aircraft are highly resilient, and the procedures built around that industry are highly resilient as well.

Assuming one follows the procedures... Boeing...

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#206

Post by giantg2 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #45
notfried wrote: post #10

This is what a Dutch Roll looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmjam1evDD4

This seems to really under-sell the severity; the real-world example someone else linked is much more dramatic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgfkGiHhxs

Wow that's an intense example.

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#207

Post by krisoft »

somenameforme wrote: post #203
krisoft wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You pretty quickly shifted the goal posts there didn't you? No my dude. You said "These numbers are always pretty BSy because the big dangers in flight are take-off and landing." That is a statement about these kind of statistics in general, not in specific to Boeings. But sure. How many accidents had Boeing during take-off or landing? > You're also misreading your stats (that's per sector, not per million) Negativ…

The post I was responding to was speaking precisely about "the least safe Boeing plane in service." The fact that airplanes are, trip for trip, much safer than planes is something I did not appreciate at the time when making my post. I expected most planes to be safer than vehicles, but Boeings falling well below average. The fact that vehicles are substantially safer than any plane, trip for trip, is far beyond what…

> You're having a failure where you keep misreading something the same way.

And you are having a failure where you are not quoting what you think I'm misreading. Look at the table. First column labeled "ACCIDENT TYPE". Second row first column "All accident rate (accidents per one million flights)". Last column labeled "5-YEAR AVERAGE (2019-2023)" The data in second row last column "1.19 (1 accident every 0.88 million flights)".

Go ahead and tell me where do you see "per sector" in any of that?

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#208

Post by wyldfire »

MeImCounting wrote: post #124
wyldfire wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> barrel rolls are generally safe even for large planes since it's a stable 1G maneuver Maybe "safe" here means that merely the stress of the maneuver itself wouldn't destroy the craft? But surely the loss of lift is likely to put it at significant risk, as in your example.

You dont lose lift in a barrel roll, you merely change the direction that lift is being generated.

Ah, good point ;)

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#209

Post by brandall10 »

ttymck wrote: post #101
brandall10 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just flew a Max from Denver to Mexico City a couple days back. It was mostly uneventful, but as we were preparing to land the aircraft banked hard to the left and began to experience something akin to this...like it hit a sudden pocket of turbulence at the apex of the turn and began to pogo around. It was minor and far from inducing damage to the vehicle, but in that moment remembered where I was while clenching my b…

Do you fly to Mexico city often? The altitude makes landings unusually eventful.

This is my third time and I'm familiar with altitude weirdness having lived in Denver for several years, that rollercoaster effect.

The other parts of the descent were smooth until specifically hitting its maximum bank, then it suddenly got squirrelly and then stopped as the plane began to flatten. It's as if the degree of bank was beyond the plane's limits.

I've flown hundreds of times and can't recall ever experiencing something quite like this.

EDIT: I just realized my original comment was written incorrectly. The plane didn't expectedly bank, it's that this started happening at the top of a hard bank.

Re: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 Max Experienced Dutch Roll

#210

Post by simplyluke »

Havoc wrote: post #18

Thing is this could just keep going. There’s no telling how many bad apples Boeing put out there

Consider that it’s also now true that “normal” incidents among the 100k+ daily commercial flights are now newsworthy if they involve a Boeing plane, when they wouldn’t have been a couple of years ago.

You’re still far safer in any commercial flight than walking the dog in your neighborhood.

Post reply on HN