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

Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#161

Post by txcwpalpha »

justsid wrote: post #158
txcwpalpha wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first passenger flight of the A320 was said to have been brought down by a software issue* and was effectively grounded by its launch being delayed. It isn't exactly the same situation, but its close enough to draw some parallels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 * - official reports blamed the pilot, but the pilot blamed the new software in the plane. Airbus was also accused of tampering…

It should be noted that for the Air Show, the Airbus had most of it’s software safety features disabled and on top of that, the pilots flying the plane actually didn’t know the airport they were performing at. The latter is a major red flag. In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground). Disabled safety features stopped the plane from correcting a…

>In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground)

>to compare that crash with the recent MAX crashes is just not right

>More comparable would be something like Qantas Flight 72, where the autopilot did in fact result in an uncommanded pitch down

These seem like very unnecessary distinctions. "In the end", the plane had software that was supposed to do one thing but failed to do that, resulting in the plane crashing. These are very apt and natural comparisons.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#162

Post by PaulHoule »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #161
justsid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that for the Air Show, the Airbus had most of it’s software safety features disabled and on top of that, the pilots flying the plane actually didn’t know the airport they were performing at. The latter is a major red flag. In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground). Disabled safety features stopped the plane from correcting a…

>In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground) >to compare that crash with the recent MAX crashes is just not right >More comparable would be something like Qantas Flight 72, where the autopilot did in fact result in an uncommanded pitch down These seem like very unnecessary distinctions. "In the end", the plane had software that was supposed to d…

What the pilots did was incredibly dangerous. There's some limit to what software can protect you from.

For instance there was this crash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Airways_Germany_Flight_888T

which practically seemed like the people involved were trying to make it crash.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#163

Post by skybrian »

imtyler wrote: post #155
skybrian wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an acceptable rate of mortality for everything. In some cases it's very low, but not zero. You can't leave the house without taking a risk, and there are risks at home, too.

Sure, but that's not what I've taken issue with. Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.

I already understand that you think I'm wrong to make this comparison, but I still don't understand why. Why does it matter that airplanes and cars have many differences (of course they do)? If you die in a crash, you're just as dead.

The reason I'm talking about car safety is that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.

So I can understand not wanting to encourage airlines you don't like. I also understand wanting to encourage airlines to be safer, because improving safety is a good thing to do.

But that's different from not flying in a certain kind of airplane because you think you might die, while meanwhile taking other risks that are much worse. That's just inconsistent. We're all inconsistent sometimes, but it seems weird to object so strongly to someone pointing it out.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#164

Post by justsid »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #161
justsid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that for the Air Show, the Airbus had most of it’s software safety features disabled and on top of that, the pilots flying the plane actually didn’t know the airport they were performing at. The latter is a major red flag. In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground). Disabled safety features stopped the plane from correcting a…

>In the end, software didn’t bring down that flight (as in, the software didn’t pitch the plane down into the ground) >to compare that crash with the recent MAX crashes is just not right >More comparable would be something like Qantas Flight 72, where the autopilot did in fact result in an uncommanded pitch down These seem like very unnecessary distinctions. "In the end", the plane had software that was supposed to d…

> These seem like very unnecessary distinctions. "In the end", the plane had software that was supposed to do one thing but failed to do that, resulting in the plane crashing. These are very apt and natural comparisons.

What exactly was the software supposed to do in this instance? They were flying at 30 feet, with idle engines and suddenly demanded full power while pitching up. It takes a good 8 seconds to spool up a jet engine, that's a lot of time to continue travelling forward. At the same time, due to their low speed, climbing steeply away from the ground just isn't possible because it would stall the plane.

It's a shitty situation, but physically the software can't do anything here. I guess you could make a case that the software shouldn't have allowed the plane to even get into such a dangerous flight envelope. But there are a lot of aural warnings from the GPWS (ground proximity warning system) to tell the pilots to climb away from the ground. But if you disable those warnings, can you really blame the software?

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#165

Post by imtyler »

skybrian wrote: post #163
imtyler wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's not what I've taken issue with. Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.

I already understand that you think I'm wrong to make this comparison, but I still don't understand why. Why does it matter that airplanes and cars have many differences (of course they do)? If you die in a crash, you're just as dead. The reason I'm talking about car safety is that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems…

The comparison isn't wrong, it's nonsensical.

It's like comparing the mortality rate of heart surgery to that of psychotherapy because they're both performed by doctors.

If I died from talking to a therapist then, yes, I would see that as a major problem. The mortality rate of brain surgery wouldn't factor in to my decision making in this regard, because it's unrelated.

If I died on a Boeing aircraft with an inherently dangerous design flaw that makes it relatively more dangerous than other planes then, yes, I would see that as a problem.

The sad fact that driving is more dangerous does not mitigate that... because it's unrelated.

I think you're arguing that the relationship between activities doesn't matter, but when it comes to expectations, I'd argue it's the only thing that matters.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#166

Post by tkxxx7 »

skybrian wrote: post #163
imtyler wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's not what I've taken issue with. Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.

I already understand that you think I'm wrong to make this comparison, but I still don't understand why. Why does it matter that airplanes and cars have many differences (of course they do)? If you die in a crash, you're just as dead. The reason I'm talking about car safety is that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems…

> And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.

They are completely different playing fields. In a plane your life is in the hands of a pilot or two and a computer. On the road, the risk is amplified by every other driver.

Also, skies aren't nearly as full of traffic as roads.

There is no 'acceptable baseline' that reaches across fields that isn't zero. I think this is the main point here. I doubt anyone today would consider the number of deaths we experience on the road to be an acceptable risk, either.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#167

Post by bronson »

skybrian wrote: post #163
imtyler wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's not what I've taken issue with. Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.

I already understand that you think I'm wrong to make this comparison, but I still don't understand why. Why does it matter that airplanes and cars have many differences (of course they do)? If you die in a crash, you're just as dead. The reason I'm talking about car safety is that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems…

> that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.

For cars.

I'm very glad the FAA and airlines don't think the way you do about risk. They have their own standards. And it's perfectly consistent.

I sometime commute by skateboard, but I am NOT ok with my airlines or car companies using this choice as some sort of "acceptable risk baseline" for me.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#168

Post by bronson »

reneherse wrote: post #22

Just yesterday I wondered when Boeing would do this and what the name would be. The new name is about as humdrum and forgettable as you can get, which is exactly what Boeing hopes will become of the memory of all that has transpired with the MAX. Fortunately the plane has some distinctive and memorable exterior features: A sawtoothed trailing edge on the engine nacelles and bidirectional winglets.

The split scimitar winglets on 700s and 800s can be hard to tell apart from the MAX8's AT winglets (the AT is more raked). You're right about the giant sawtoothed LEAP engines being distinctive. Also MAX8s have a sharp rear tailcone that protrudes past the base of the tail.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#169

Post by ulfw »

chongli wrote: post #135
ulfw wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much agree with that in terms of the old 777-200(ER) and 777-300(ER). The upcoming 777-8 and -9 don't fill me with confidence though.

Yes and that's the point. As a lay person it's not my business to determine which Boeing aircraft are safe and which aren't. Boeing's conduct has dealt tremendous damage to their reputation for safety and this casts a shadow over the entire fleet. They have to do a lot of work to rebuild that reputation and restore the public trust.

Boeing is the red wine of the aircraft industry.

The older the better.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#170

Post by MaxBarraclough »

vikramkr wrote: post #9
matwood wrote: post #7

Regardless of the name change they are still grounded. Given all the scrutiny, when they finally do fly again they will likely be one of safest planes in the sky.

On what basis? They're trying to fix a fundamental aerodynamic design failure with a software patch. The entire physical design if the airplane is flawed, and they arent rebuilding the entire fleet, just pushing another software patch.

A downside of there being so many threads on this fiasco is that many of the same points get made each time.

I'll post the usual counterpoint: this isn't a new. The F-16 for instance is also famously unstable, and cannot be flown without computer assistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...

Post reply on HN