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

FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 131 posts

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#71

Post by estearum »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #59
estearum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's actually bad when financialization reaches such a degree that planes fall out of the sky. You as an oncologist: "cells have been dividing for thousands of years and are better off for it. the word is meaningless. I would hate to be a single-celled organism." lmao Great insight! Therefore there's no such thing as pathological cell division or pathological financialization. Or maybe it's just if someone is supe…

Cancer is a disease that attacks living organisms, similar to how collectivism attacks living societies. "Financialization" is a 7 syllable word with no definition. There is nothing about how Boeing builds & sells planes today that is qualitatively different than how they did it 50 years ago. Yes I am familiar with the concern that engineers hold less sway than previously and I agree this is a concern. I would not be…

I said "cell division," not cancer.

Financialization, in this context, refers to the process by which financial results, especially those legible to capital markets, exert pressure on the upstream industrial/corporate processes and inputs that produce those financial results.

"Excessive" or "obscene" or "pathological" financialization is when that feedback loop or reverse pressure ends up producing negative impacts on industrial/corporate processes, often in pursuit of shorter term positive effects on the financial results.

The exact mechanisms of this have been extremely well-documented in the numerous reports created in the wake of the 737 MAX failures.

Could you try leveling a substantive response now instead of a chain of strawmen and associative "the vibes of the speaker are generally off" type dismissals?

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#72

Post by estearum »

bobthebob wrote: post #65
estearum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that is profoundly lazy. Here, put it into your favorite LLM: "Is there a suspected or established relationship between Boeing's self-certification and the 737 MAX crashes?" That will almost certainly link to the thousands of pages of Congressional, OIG, FAA testimony, investigation, and reporting. Does GP think Boeing's self-certification authority was revoked after the accidents just for funsies? By random cha…

I think using an LLM to confidently reply to online commenters is more profound, but I digress

Not sure if you just gave up halfway through the 4-sentence long comment, but I was actually suggesting that you use it to go find the thousands of pages of high-quality source information.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#73

Post by estearum »

rcxdude wrote: post #62
estearum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that is profoundly lazy. Here, put it into your favorite LLM: "Is there a suspected or established relationship between Boeing's self-certification and the 737 MAX crashes?" That will almost certainly link to the thousands of pages of Congressional, OIG, FAA testimony, investigation, and reporting. Does GP think Boeing's self-certification authority was revoked after the accidents just for funsies? By random cha…

I did, in fact, spend a bit of time trying to look this up, because as pointed out by other comments, it was not entirely clear what relationship this revocation (which is about inspecting built aircraft vs the design) had to do with the crashes (which were primarily the result of a faulty design). I didn't find a particularly illuminating summary other than maybe the investigation also turned up some other problems.…

https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%20Certificat...

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#74

Post by estearum »

bobthebob wrote: post #61
estearum wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Lazy Reddit style comments, do you ever contribute? I look down the chain of these comments and looks like others had no problem

No what you see down the chain of comments are people confidently repeating the exact pattern that the OIG report on this failure actually blames for it.

They keep insisting there's some binary distinction between type certification and production certification. The entire crux of OIG's diagnosis is that this is actually a much more permeable and fluid process, and the permeability of it is exactly what allowed a faulty MCAS design to make it to production.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#75

Post by appreciatorBus »

estearum wrote: post #71
appreciatorBus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer is a disease that attacks living organisms, similar to how collectivism attacks living societies. "Financialization" is a 7 syllable word with no definition. There is nothing about how Boeing builds & sells planes today that is qualitatively different than how they did it 50 years ago. Yes I am familiar with the concern that engineers hold less sway than previously and I agree this is a concern. I would not be…

I said "cell division," not cancer. Financialization, in this context, refers to the process by which financial results , especially those legible to capital markets, exert pressure on the upstream industrial/corporate processes and inputs that produce those financial results. "Excessive" or "obscene" or "pathological" financialization is when that feedback loop or reverse pressure ends up producing negative impacts…

Capital markets have existed for hundreds of years. They are not doing anything today that they were not doing in 1602.

I am familiar with the 737 MAX critique and I'm very comfortable saying that Boeing was sloppy and cut corners. I just don't think the decisions they faced and failed on are new. 300 years ago someone built someone a ship and cheaped out in some way and it sank. Call it cheating/lying/scamming if you like, but the word "financialization" does not help anyone understand what's going on.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#76

Post by estearum »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #75
estearum wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "cell division," not cancer. Financialization, in this context, refers to the process by which financial results , especially those legible to capital markets, exert pressure on the upstream industrial/corporate processes and inputs that produce those financial results. "Excessive" or "obscene" or "pathological" financialization is when that feedback loop or reverse pressure ends up producing negative impacts…

Capital markets have existed for hundreds of years. They are not doing anything today that they were not doing in 1602. I am familiar with the 737 MAX critique and I'm very comfortable saying that Boeing was sloppy and cut corners. I just don't think the decisions they faced and failed on are new. 300 years ago someone built someone a ship and cheaped out in some way and it sank. Call it cheating/lying/scamming if yo…

No actually there was a pretty specific transition in American business culture to shareholder primacy in the 70s-80s with measurable behavior changes across corporate America, including executive incentive structures.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#77

Post by Octoth0rpe »

shevy-java wrote: post #9
bob001 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see if the EU shows some backbone or not.

The EU is like a tiger - without teeth, fur or claws. I think the only thing that works here is total boycott of airplanes that constantly unalive people through mass crashes. (Wikipedia really gathers useful data here in a simple-to-read manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident... )

> The EU is like a tiger - without teeth, fur or claws.

EU regs forced apple to move to type-c. They appear to be moving towards either requiring replaceable batteries, or requiring a higher quality batter (larger % of original charge after 1000 cycles). Those both seem valuable to consumers, and coming from a position of regulatory strength.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#78

Post by armada651 »

bobthebob wrote: post #16
cebert wrote: post #5

This is absolutely frightening.

Why?

Having airworthiness certification done by an independent organization not beholden to Boeing's shareholders makes much more sense to me. Giving the authority to Boeing to do its own airworthiness certification feels like the fox guarding the hen house.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#79

Post by Dylan16807 »

ghaff wrote: post #35
pudgywalsh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers are indeed very concerned... that they be able to purchase £49 tickets on RyanAir.

And then they complain about seat sizes and baggage dimensions.

People want to get what they're promised in a reasonable fashion. If the prices are hiding something like nonstandard seats or unreasonable baggage procedures, then that's a legitimate problem, not something they should shut up about because they should have known.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#80

Post by Dylan16807 »

estearum wrote: post #68
aaronmdjones wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The addition of MCAS to the 737 MAX received type approval by the FAA in response to Boeing's documentation, not in response to anything Boeing approved or issued. No aircraft manufacturer has ever been allowed to issue a type certificate. The self-certification process (airworthiness certificates) is the manufacturer (rather than the regulator's inspectors) stating "this one specific aircraft with serial number ____…

No, an early, low-risk version of MCAS was proposed and given type approval by FAA. Then the MCAS design was changed iteratively and continuously without prompting another type approval process. Thenceforth, Boeing's ODA self-certification process was the only statutorily required step that could have caught that the post-type approval changes actually increased the risk significantly. You should read the OIG report.…

Now this comment is a great answer to the "why" up above! As opposed to implying the question itself is stupid.
Post reply on HN