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

111–120 of 131 posts

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

#111

Post by inigyou »

he0001 wrote: post #110
bombcar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you really, really want to avoid an aircraft type, you book with an airline that simply doesn't fly them. How do you do that? And which companies does not have these today?

About half of airlines prefer Airbus planes, and it's pretty rare to have a mix of Boeing and Airbus AIUI.

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

#112

Post by inigyou »

freeone3000 wrote: post #10
shevy-java wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... )

You can and should say the word “kill”.

Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Exterminate. Exterminate. Humans must die. Humans must die. Exterminate. Exterminate. Exterminate. Exterminate.

Am I doing it right?

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

#113

Post by inigyou »

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…

There is nothing qualitatively different about your cancer cells and your regular cells. That's why it's so hard to treat cancer. Yes I am concerned the genes that modulate cell division are not working as well as previously and I agree this is a concern. I would not be shocked to discover that it's true. But this is not a new thing. Cells that divide have been able to divide since the dawn of time. If your concern is that a cell will excessively divide, then say that, instead of a buzz word like "cancer"

I have no idea where you came across that word, but when I see it used, there's generally a lot of handwaving and some vague implication that it's bad. The only consistencies I've observed in attempts to define it is that cell division = cancer or "uncontrollable replication" = cancer, and the speaker is generally uncomfortable with cellular natural selection as a driving force behind evolution.

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

#114

Post by inigyou »

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…

In 1602 a capital market was where a group of 20 people would pool their money to start a new company to build a ship and go to India and steal some resources and then they would be paid out of those resources in proportion to the money they put in. Is that how they work today?

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

#116

Post by 15155 »

he0001 wrote: post #110
bombcar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you really, really want to avoid an aircraft type, you book with an airline that simply doesn't fly them. How do you do that? And which companies does not have these today?

> How do you do that?

By choosing to spend your money elsewhere.

> And which companies does not have these today?

- JetBlue, Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines, Volaris, Breeze Airways

- easyJet, Wizz Air, Vueling, ITA Airways, IndiGo, AirAsia, Cebu Pacific, Air Arabia

- Middle East Airlines, Tunisair, flynas

All of the above have no Boeing aircraft in their fleet at all.

Emirates doesn't fly the 737, but does fly Boeing aircraft.

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

#117

Post by 15155 »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #77
shevy-java wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> coming from a position of regulatory strength

Power is defined by the ability to force people to do things they don't want to do - not things that they might have done anyway eventually or that they can feasibly see might benefit them.

In this specific case, the EU gave Apple a golden bridge to retreat over by deprecating the 30-pin cable. If Apple did it themselves, people would have been pissed that they had to buy yet another charger. "Europe is the bad guy, not Apple."

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

#118

Post by estearum »

geonineties wrote: post #88
estearum wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I perused that document. It says quite a bit on how the FAA needs to work on type certificates, but seems limited to that. It says nothing on airworthiness certificates. I'm assuming you know this, but the reason people say there's a hard difference on this is because they really are two different topics covering two different things. For the uninitiated, and simplified. For a particular aircraft you are about to boa…

Right, but the crux of OIG's finding is that there isn't a hard difference between the two.

The plane was not built to the spec that FAA type-certified. But at the same time it wasn't clearly out of certification either.

There were significant changes made to MCAS since the the type certification. However, there was no clear delineation of what types of post-certification changes would require another FAA type certification.

The permeability of the two types of certifications and the amount of design changes that can happen between them is the entire problem OIG is pointing out.

> FAA essentially accepted proofs / was pressured to accept assertions from Boeing that the type was actually safe

No, the document says Boeing's ODA team was pressured to accept assertions from Boeing's management. The Boeing ODA team is employed by Boeing. They are given de facto self-certification authority either by actually self-certifying (in the airworthiness case), or by choosing what it flags to FAA for external certification (in the design/type case).

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

#119

Post by amomchilov »

niffydroid wrote: post #103
armada651 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But independents would need to be embedded into the company every step of the way, it would get to be point they would look exactly like Boeing employees. But what does happen is audits where the work is checked

Different incentives.
Post reply on HN