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

Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#101

Post by ericmay »

coryrc wrote: post #96
ericmay wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of issues in the American political system but the structure of the Senate is not one of those. It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists. If you are a small state like Vermont, you don’t want to just have California, New York, and Texas dictating all rules and laws for the country by sheer weight of their populat…

Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy. So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.

> Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy.

A Republic is a form of democracy. Having a Senate in the structure that we do is entirely consistent with democratic principles. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and counter to established definitions in the realm of political philosophy.

> So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.

Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters (I don't recall the exact losing number)?

Nevermind that the state of Vermont is a sovereign entity in our constitutional republic. To modify this existing arrangement you give opportunity for certain states to leave (pro-Russian viewpoints try break up the US - don't fall for them!) since they are deciding as sovereign entities whether or not to participate in the Republic. If you are upset about the 10th Amendment or whatever then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and inviting a Civil War or something similar. I say nah to that. We'll keep the existing system because it's pretty damn good.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#102

Post by dpark »

labcomputer wrote: post #99
dpark wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. NTSB seems to think it’s Boeing’s responsibility to redesign the cowl to prevent this. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

If you read your own link, they also think it’s the engine manufacturer’s (CFM’s) responsibility to work with Boeing to redesign the cowl, and recommend that the European Aviation Safety Agency require engine manufacturers to work collaboratively with airplane manufacturers for such cowl design in the future.

I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages.

That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#103

Post by celsoazevedo »

labcomputer wrote: post #100
celsoazevedo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to call out the parent comment for things that are not exactly caused by Boeing (eg: the engine failure), but I also think it's important to look at the why . In the case you're referring too, the focus was on poor training and failure to follow up on earlier incidents. It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail or forgetting to bolt a door.

> It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail Right, they designed the their system with two sensors, and if they disagree, the system gives misleading indications to the pilots! That’s so much better!

My understanding is that the Airbus equivalent (they don't really have the same thing) uses 3 pitot tubes/angle of attack sensors, not 2. More importantly, Airbus pilots know about the system, while Boeing only told airliners about MCAS after the Lion Air crash.

I'm not a pilot and I don't know that much about planes, but I've read/watched enough about crashes to know that these sensors fail way too often. To rely on only one already sounds like a bad idea, but it's irresponsible not to tell pilots and train them on how to deal with the new "feature".

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#104

Post by hugh-avherald »

tim333 wrote: post #48

There's probably going to be ongoing attempts to be less reliant on the US while Trump is going on about needing Greenland and the like. His last odd 'truth' about it was six hours ago https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1166240468099...

"Normally he was wont to be about twelve feet from nose to tail, but when he was very depressed, Trump's AI likeness could be anything up to eight hundred yards long."

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#105

Post by beering »

dpark wrote: post #102
labcomputer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read your own link, they also think it’s the engine manufacturer’s (CFM’s) responsibility to work with Boeing to redesign the cowl, and recommend that the European Aviation Safety Agency require engine manufacturers to work collaboratively with airplane manufacturers for such cowl design in the future.

I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages. That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.

Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#106

Post by Spooky23 »

tokai wrote: post #8
Quarrel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s... Which Switzerland then reluctantly agreed was allowed under the terms. As you say, totally being taken to the cleaners, and it is unclear how they escape in the short term. The more this happens though, the more deals like Italy's make senese, irrespective of the performance comparison of the two planes. If the US is going to be an unrelia…

I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.

Don’t think of them as companies in the normal sense. There’s no meaningful competition anymore and they have rolled everything up. They are essentially national industries now.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#107

Post by Spooky23 »

thuridas wrote: post #81
hgoel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean they need to lobby the US government to be less schizophrenic, I agree. Though I suspect the government would just decide to start more wars. If you mean they need to lobby the other governments, I don't think that'll work, the decreasing trust is associated with the US government's actions, not as related to the arms dealers' actions.

Can you lobby to make Trump become not Trump?

Yes.

He’s a simple creature. Just pay the man and/or his kids off. Remember the funny video comparing Oracle and Larry Ellison to a lawn mower? He is the same.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#108

Post by vkou »

ericmay wrote: post #97
vkou wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antifa and BLM have the political power of a mouse fart. Please don't compare them to the elephant in the room.

Politicians with similar far-left populist political leanings have won elections in various cities and states. I'm just pointing out that removing the Senate empowers more of these populist groups with destructive and authoritarian ideologies.

When they'll get a president with a subservient congress elected twice, and go on to drive the country into a burning dumpster, I will be willing to entertain the possibility that the existence of the Senate protects us from their destructive and authoritarian ideologies. (Despite it demonstrably failing to do so, twice.)

---

(I'm not even going to bother to ask how a movement for police accountability is a 'destructive and authoritarian ideology'. I guess making cops not murder people for no good reason, and then lying about is called 'authoritarian' by FOX, but how can any rational person repeat that?)

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#109

Post by dpark »

beering wrote: post #105
dpark wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages. That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.

Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.

My "interpretation of it" is explicitly in the document.

"Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require Boeing to determine the critical fan blade impact location(s) on the CFM56-7B engine fan case and redesign the fan cowl structure on all Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to ensure the structural integrity of the fan cowl after an FBO event. The NTSB also recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Recommendation A-19-17 are completed, the FAA require Boeing to install the redesigned fan cowl structure on new-production 737NG-series airplanes. The NTSB further recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Recommendation A-19-17 are completed, the FAA require operators of Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to retrofit their airplanes with the redesigned fan cowl structure."

Is your position that somewhere in this 193 page document, the NTSB buried a line that says "just kidding, Boeing is faultless here"?

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#110

Post by iancmceachern »

ksec wrote: post #56
iancmceachern wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are really only 2 choices. There is a third, Embrarer. They have most of the market in small regional jets in some cases, but those are in reality very different than say a 777 or 787. These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers. In short Boeing, Airbus and it's suppliers are basically what is left of all the old big aerospace manufacturers.

>There are really only 2 choices. For private jets there are Gulfstream, Bombardier, Textron, Dassault, and as you said Embraer. I think there was a recent new Entry, Honda from Japan.

For private jets, in order of most to least deliveries per year (number per year in parenthesis): Cessna (171) Gulfstream (158) Bombardier (157) Embraer (155) Cirrus (106) Dassult (37) Honda (12)

Which is nothing compared to: 737 (447) 767 (30) 777 (35) 787 (88)

Post reply on HN