Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

121–130 of 131 posts

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

#121
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…

[flagged]

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

#122
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…

The #1 rule of marketing is that people's actions rarely line up with what they say they're going to do.

Unfortunately. Enthusiast "want" a manual transmission car but almost none buy. Can't blame the makers.

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

#123
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're getting from Point A to Point B for a pittance. What more should they expect?

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

#124
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…

Toyota had the largest recall in history for the unintended acceleration debacle. Yes, lots of people were saying they'd never set foot in a toyota again. Now people don't even remember it.

Wasn’t even an actual problem it seems just caved to pressure from lawyers

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

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SC wasn't really involved in this. The fuselage came from Spirit in Kansas, and final assembly happened in Renton.

Does it matter? As a customer of the plane (and traveller) I'd like QA to be top notch and I would expect it to be final inspection at assembly stage.

I'm just correcting the false statements (probably an honest mistake) in the comment that said "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"

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

#126
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're getting from Point A to Point B for a pittance. What more should they expect?

They deserve to know upfront how big the seat is, how big of a bag they can bring, and how much extra bags cost. On top of that, it can be useful if bag sizes and measurement have some standardization across the industry. Nothing major here or hard to provide.

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fau…

You would probably have gotten a better response by explaining this before posting vague, dismissive comments around the subject. If your post in response to the first question was the one that's like 6 responses deep in the argument here it would have been a pretty good contribution to the discussion.

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

#129
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're getting from Point A to Point B for a pittance. What more should they expect?

They deserve to know upfront how big the seat is, how big of a bag they can bring, and how much extra bags cost. On top of that, it can be useful if bag sizes and measurement have some standardization across the industry. Nothing major here or hard to provide.

Honestly, I think a lot is pretty well documented. But people don't have a good sense of what an inch more or less related to the seat actually means and don't necessarily know how picky a given airline is going to be on the size and weight of carry-ons. I expect that the carryon I routinely take on United might be an issue with budget European carriers.

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

#130

I only fly airbus. If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going.

I was just going to say this. Post-MD management disasters like the 737 NG Ducommun scandal that barely anyone knows about and nothing was done to rectify poor quality "approved" structural parts and mishandled assembly line installation doesn't win confidence in the flying inventory.
Post reply on HN