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

181–190 of 365 posts

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

#181

Post by jimmy1 »

ConceitedCode wrote: post #53
linuxftw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, if they've added so much automation that trained pilots cannot determination the proper course of action 100% of the time, the system is at fault. "You don't have to do anything, the plane will fly itself. Unless there's a catastrophic emergency. Then you better remember everything you haven't practiced from 18 months ago" seems like a failed implementation.

That's definitely a mischaracterization of what the airlines do. Anyone that has been in a cockpit of a plane knows that you fly by checklists. There's a checklist procedure for almost any scenario they will run into (of course not every). This exact issue was seen by other airlines and the pilots followed the checklist procedures to safely regain control of the plane as expected. In theory, these checklists are opti…

And yet it is precisely because Captain Sullenberger did not follow protocol, in the moment, that he was able to save the lives of everyone aboard flight 1549. It was only determined afterwards (obviously) that he made the right call.

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

#182

Post by vkou »

mrdodge wrote: post #152
cal5k wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those were produced pre-FAANG, Boeing probably paid comparatively better then. Do the smartest software engineers flock to Boeing in 2019? I think the relatively low pay and status of software engineers outside of the Bay Area is a huge risk to society. We are going to start seeing it show up in interesting places.

> Do the smartest software engineers flock to Boeing in 2019?

Many engineers don't get rewarded for 150 IQ smarts. They get rewarded for hustle. (Whether in a startup, or at FAANG, you can have an incredibly successful, and lucrative career, without being incredibly technically capable.)

When you're working on safety-critical aerospace code, Boeing doesn't, and probably shouldn't give two shits about your hustling skills.

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

#183

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #160
ratsmack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"News" today is a "for profit" enterprise and they will take advantage crises and public outrage to bolster their bottom lines when the opportunity arises... it's nothing personal, it's just the nature of the beast.

Its easier for everyone to just cover their ass and err on the side of caution. If another accident happens politicians would be held accountable. For the US its harder because they have a stake in Boeing and they don't want to damage them. Honestly why not ground a few hundred planes just to be safe? It doesn't bother the Netherlands or Singapore. There are other aircraft, nobody is running out.

> For the US its harder because they have a stake in Boeing and they don't want to damage them.

Those dastardly politicians and bureaucrats, how dare they consider the broader consequences of their actions. /s

Alternatively:

Those poor politicians and bureaucrats, how terrible that they be forced to consider the broader consequences of their actions for once. /s

I'm not going to lose any sleep over politicians having to deal with a complex trade-off for once.

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

#184

Post by iforgotpassword »

mrdodge wrote: post #152
cal5k wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those were produced pre-FAANG, Boeing probably paid comparatively better then. Do the smartest software engineers flock to Boeing in 2019? I think the relatively low pay and status of software engineers outside of the Bay Area is a huge risk to society. We are going to start seeing it show up in interesting places.

Would like to know why you're being down voted this much, I think you got a valid point there.

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

#185

Post by nraynaud »

oppositelock wrote: post #137
anoncoward111 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two crashes in 6 months and there's only 350 planes in existence is a pretty bad safety record that is probably on par with Tupolev. The US can tacitly blame "third world" pilots all they want, but with 300 people dead already, I think it's important for the FAA and Boeing to say exactly what is going on, especially since the planes are in use in the USA. There is a debate over if the plane's hardware, software, or p…

The FAA and Boeing need to investigate this, but you can't make such statistical inferences, since you simply don't have enough data points. There could be no more crashes for the next few years with those 350 planes. The FAA and NTSB are very good at what they do, one of the very few examples of government services that work well together with industry, give them some time.

You just can't have more data points, because flight travel is too safe.

And no, the FAA is not really that good, general aviation pilots die all the time from negligence and the FAA doesn't enforce the rules when pilots violate them (in particular low altitude flying).

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

#186

Post by outworlder »

dahdum wrote: post #128
Reason077 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to note is that both American and Southwest's 737 Max aircraft are configured differently to those flown by most other operators, with regards to the display of AOA indicators and the "AOA DISAGREE" warning light. These features are optional and the fact that they are not present on Lion Air's aircraft may have contributed to that crash. https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines...

That would mean Southwest strongly believes the lack of "AOA DISAGREE" caused the crashes, so they are safe to continue flying their fleet. If so, they should come out and say it. Right now, 737 Max Fleet is the deadliest plane per mile that is in the air [1], by a wide margin. Maybe it's an anomaly and the rate is much lower, but by the same reasoning, it could be worse. I'm not flying on one, and my opinion of Sout…

> That would mean Southwest strongly believes the lack of "AOA DISAGREE" caused the crashes

No, that only means that they believe this will improve pilot's situational awareness. You don't need that feature to override uncommanded trim.

Until the FAA says the aircraft is unsafe, your opinion of these airlines is misplaced. They went beyond what's legally required and added an additional safety feature.

Southwest exclusively flies 737s. They have one of the largest pilot corps for that type. The airline has good safety and maintenance records.

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

#187

Post by cerebellum42 »

YinglingLight wrote: post #165
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.

Your comment is the first I'm reading about it, all the news articles I've seen have been focused on the actual issues. So...

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

#188

Post by alexis_fr »

odorousrex wrote: post #168
easytiger wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reduced fuel is done with an upfront investment. Which always makes me wonder, since every penny of the investment money goes to researchers, facilities and material which themselves aren’t more economic in emissions than fuel itself, then does it really save on emissions...

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

#189

Post by kharms »

oppositelock wrote: post #137
anoncoward111 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two crashes in 6 months and there's only 350 planes in existence is a pretty bad safety record that is probably on par with Tupolev. The US can tacitly blame "third world" pilots all they want, but with 300 people dead already, I think it's important for the FAA and Boeing to say exactly what is going on, especially since the planes are in use in the USA. There is a debate over if the plane's hardware, software, or p…

The FAA and Boeing need to investigate this, but you can't make such statistical inferences, since you simply don't have enough data points. There could be no more crashes for the next few years with those 350 planes. The FAA and NTSB are very good at what they do, one of the very few examples of government services that work well together with industry, give them some time.

We have some idea of a crash rate for safe airplanes. Something like: P(Crash|Miles Flow & Hull Age)

If we assume this airplane is safe, we can apply that probability to it and then ask P(2 Crashes|N Miles & 350 New Planes).

You would then have a probability for this just being bad luck, and compare that against your prior that this is a safe plane.

I haven’t done the math, but my gut says it would point to grounding the plane.

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

#190

Post by JshWright »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #170
tivert wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It could also happen while resetting after a late missed approach.
Post reply on HN