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

E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 365 posts

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#161

Post by sokoloff »

sfilargi wrote: post #146

I urge people to read the discussion by pilots regarding the 737 MAX. https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-7... It all comes down to this: "There are far too many aerodynamic bandaids that are permitted to pass the current standards. Not just this particular airplane, but a whole bunch of airframes. If the basic aerodynamics won't pass without the pushers, pullers and now AOA induced changes to…

Almost every (or perhaps every?) swept wing jet has active/positive anti-stall systems, at least a shaker and often a pusher.

The wings need to be swept for efficient travel much over Mach 0.6 and these aero aids are needed for swept wings.

At this point, pushers and shakers are well-accepted fixes for aero that is not inherently recoverable.

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#162

Post by organsnyder »

moate wrote: post #124
organsnyder wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely airlines purchase insurance to hedge against this sort of thing?

IANAL, but I would not want to deal with the headache of underwriting whatever plan you're thinking about. Who would they be buying this insurance from? What specifically could it be protecting against? Seems much more likely that they'd need to seek restitution against the producer of the planes through civil court channels. "You sold me a faulty plane/didn't explain what your product did well enough and now you nee…

Insurance for loss-of-use is quite common (edit: in other industries—no idea for aviation), though it's normally (AFAIK) for natural disasters and other random occurrences. I wonder how the purchasing contracts between Boeing and the carriers are structured—perhaps they have a warranty that would do something similar.

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#164

Post by easytiger »

sfilargi wrote: post #146

I urge people to read the discussion by pilots regarding the 737 MAX. https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-7... It all comes down to this: "There are far too many aerodynamic bandaids that are permitted to pass the current standards. Not just this particular airplane, but a whole bunch of airframes. If the basic aerodynamics won't pass without the pushers, pullers and now AOA induced changes to…

All in the name of band aid environmental pandering.

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#165

Post by YinglingLight »

xucheng wrote: post #121

EASA has just banned 737 MAX jets throughout Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-release...

It's a shame there's so much money involved in this (billions), the passengers on that particular Ethiopian flight so shady (russian mob + exotic meat CEO), that rational discourse is guaranteed to take a backburner to politics.

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#166

Post by shaki-dora »

lostlogin wrote: post #123
bengotow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somewhat true, but to be fair there are only a few countries the US and it’s allies don’t do business with - as long as you don’t land in Iran or North Korea you’d be in pretty good shape.

Not so sure about that. The US Government lists 13 places as “Do not travel” and 15 as “reconsider travel”. Looking at the list, it doesn’t seem unreasonable advice. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...

A travel advisory is something completely different than economic sanctions.

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#167

Post by noer »

cal5k wrote: post #147
mrdodge wrote: post #134

How good are Boeing's software engineers? They don't seem to pay very well.

The 777 is the second-safest aircraft in the world, next to the Airbus A340. The 787 is on track to demonstrate a similar safety record (in terms of fatal incidents). So overall, they seem to be quite good.

FWIW, the 787 entire fleet was grounded by the FAA in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#168

Post by odorousrex »

easytiger wrote: post #164
sfilargi wrote: post #146

I urge people to read the discussion by pilots regarding the 737 MAX. https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/120514-ethiopian-7... It all comes down to this: "There are far too many aerodynamic bandaids that are permitted to pass the current standards. Not just this particular airplane, but a whole bunch of airframes. If the basic aerodynamics won't pass without the pushers, pullers and now AOA induced changes to…

All in the name of band aid environmental pandering.

Try the fact that the fuel efficiency saves the airline lots of $$$ on fuel, but yet they haven't reduced fares any.

Go figure.

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#169

Post by kps »

DannyBee wrote: post #50
linuxftw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The MCAS system in the new 737-MAX's only have 2 AoA sensors That's pretty damning if true.

This is what i was told (it was something like "they have 2 flight computers, and 1 AoA sensor hooked up to each"). The reddit thread linked from elsewhere says the same thing. The preliminary report on the Lion air crash ( http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/pre/2018/20... ) says they replaced and tested the AoA sensor 2 days prior. They repeatedly refer to the AoA sensor using only singular nouns every…

From photos, there is (at least) one on each side.

https://s3media.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/201... https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5be287c7b73c2846bb4...

Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets

#170

Post by dreamcompiler »

tivert wrote: post #97
jsty wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although if you'd realised it was a 737 MAX, you might already be clutching a medicinal gin & tonic ...

> Although if you'd realised it was a 737 MAX, you might already be clutching a medicinal gin & tonic ... I wouldn't, haven't all the problems so far have been during takeoff? So once you're cruising you're safe from them?

The MCAS problem cannot occur when flaps are deployed, and it happens when flaps are initially retracted. So if it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to.
Post reply on HN