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

91–100 of 131 posts

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

#91

Post by jimbob45 »

jordanb wrote: post #57
tzs wrote: post #37

> The U.S. government on Friday said Boeing can once again issue airworthiness certificates for its bestselling 737 Max aircraft and 787 Dreamliners, an authority that was stripped from the manufacturer after fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 of the 737 Max. I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read an "airworthiness certificate" is not a certificate that the aircraft design is good and safe. That would be a type…

The issue was actually the door plug scandal. It showed that Boeing's QC was compromised in their factory and they were not able to properly certify that the aircraft were being built as designed . As an aside this a long talked-about problem with the South Carolina factory, that the place does not follow aerospace standards and practices. The door plug failure was the highest profile QC miss out of that factory.

Noob here, would that not also have potentially been found during routine maintenance inspections?

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

#92

Post by odiroot »

MatmaRex wrote: post #84
bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

In Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy. In other places, like the US, they may not be practical to avoid.

There's more and better reasons than MAX to avoid Ryanair.

Sadly Polish national airlines (among others) also went hard on 737MAX8 so it's not only the budget ones.

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

#93

Post by dataflow »

MatmaRex wrote: post #84
bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

In Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy. In other places, like the US, they may not be practical to avoid.

> In Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy.

Eh?

- https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AEA1517

- https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/LOT279

- https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ICE613

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

#94

Post by bombcar »

jimbob45 wrote: post #91
jordanb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue was actually the door plug scandal. It showed that Boeing's QC was compromised in their factory and they were not able to properly certify that the aircraft were being built as designed . As an aside this a long talked-about problem with the South Carolina factory, that the place does not follow aerospace standards and practices. The door plug failure was the highest profile QC miss out of that factory.

Noob here, would that not also have potentially been found during routine maintenance inspections?

It was such a way that you had to disassemble the entire thing to see it wasn't assembled correctly - routine maintenance is looking for wear items, not usually "they didn't put any bolts in".

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

#95

Post by bombcar »

scottlamb wrote: post #36
bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working. Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible? If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avo…

If you really, really want to avoid an aircraft type, you book with an airline that simply doesn't fly them.

Sure, there's a tiny chance they put a chartered jet in for your flight, but that's exceedingly rare.

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

#96

Post by dingaling »

Alupis wrote: post #87
scottlamb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working. Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible? If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avo…

In 2013 there were approximately 24,000 737 flights per day[1] - likely more today. If narrowed to just the MAX variants, it's still thousands per day. Two, albeit high profile, crashes out of all the daily MAX volume is simply not something to worry about - let alone influence your booking choices. [1] - https://chinaerospace.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs.com/18.1%20%E6...

You're applying everyday casual risk analysis to the highly-regulated environment of commercial air transport, where the MAX crashes absolutely were out of the norm and well beyond accepted levels.

Bear in mind when the crashes occurred there were fewer than 100 MAX in service.

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

#97

Post by ulfw »

MatmaRex wrote: post #84
bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

In Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy. In other places, like the US, they may not be practical to avoid.

Honestly no Ryan Air is the right decision for oh so many reasons, but yes the horrible 737-Max is top on the list

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

#98

Post by atoav »

bobthebob wrote: post #15
greatgib wrote: post #2

Totally insane. Repeating the same errors as in the past and hoping for a better outcome... Only corruption can explain that...

Can you explain exactly why this is bad?

There has been a history of problems with that exact airframe where people died. People dying is usually considered bad.

Now root cause of the issue that airframe had before was that Boeing was given the leeway to certify it themselves with too little oversight by the FAA. In short: the airframe of the Boeing 737 MAX is so far away from the originally certified 737 airframe it is ridiculous to consider them the same airplane. The adjustments Boeing made via softeare to deal with the physical changes (like putting the much bigger engines forward so they have enough clearance under the wings without having to certifying this as a new airframe) was the cause of the incidents. A truly independent FAA would have never even remotely accepted that.

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

#99

Post by gmerc »

Alupis wrote: post #87
scottlamb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working. Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible? If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avo…

In 2013 there were approximately 24,000 737 flights per day[1] - likely more today. If narrowed to just the MAX variants, it's still thousands per day. Two, albeit high profile, crashes out of all the daily MAX volume is simply not something to worry about - let alone influence your booking choices. [1] - https://chinaerospace.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs.com/18.1%20%E6...

Until you are on the plane. Sorry, but reasonably people and countries expect zero crashes and any single crash is worth worrying about because shareholder money should not trump a single human life.

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

#100

Post by archagon »

jfaat wrote: post #85
archagon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there is. Just fly carriers that use an Airbus fleet. It’s honestly pretty trivial.

In the US (parent mentioned US specifically) I think that's just Frontier now that Spirit is gone. I mean technically that's doable sure but idk if I would say trivial it's really limited on routes and the experience is terrible from what I understand.

In my experience JetBlue and American Airlines usually fly Airbus.
Post reply on HN