191–200 of 365 posts
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.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETG01
Partly as fuel prices go down:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I gathered so far, it looks like airplane design was made with many compromises that made it complicated to pilot planes properly.
I agree, in my eyes it is debate between "the plane is not safe to fly by anyone" and "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" If the 737 MAX planes remain in the air in the USA, Boeing and US Govt are de facto saying "third world pilots clearly just don't understand how to fly our planes". If they ground the planes, they de facto admit there is an actual safety issue.
Here's the thing. The additional training is not strictly necessary. The same procedures pilots are already trained for in previous models should have saved the aircraft. Unless investigations turn up a new problem.
Of course, one could argue that, by disclosure changes to the system, that the pilots would be able to react faster. But that's not really for us to decide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing is issuing a software update in April. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=1...
A software update that was scheduled for distribution (iirc) in January, so already late. As a software practitioner, this scares the living shit out of me. Already late software, now pushed for a deadline-driven release... This can't end well.
It's also not the first plane to crash because of software reading bad data from bad sensors. Or the last.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds really stupid for Boeing if you put it that way. I can imagine it looks good on the marketing material, 'no pilot retraining required!', but as far as I understand from all the analysis so far, it's actually not that hard to disable the new MCAS system and prevent a crash. As a pilot you only need to know it is there, and what happens if it somehow fails. I would be surprised if they had sold even a single…
I also wonder about the engineers involved, what they think about the system and whether it was created expressly for getting around retraining, realizing late into the project that the changes to the in-flight behavior of the plane may have been too much.
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.
At the gym today, on all the TVs, the media talking heads were crucifying the FAA for being "unsafe" or playing fast and loose with passenger safety (for not grounding the planes). I've always held the FAA in high regard, and think they do a good job. Are they really being negligent here? Or is the media just looking for something to spark outrage? Can anyone with more specific knowledge of aircraft safety weigh in?
It’s mean, but I’m not surprised, given the money in the game, that Europe is acting up much faster than FAA for a Boeing airframe, and the opposite for an Airbus/DC airframe.
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.
Some companies can't compete, and many others just refuse to compete.
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.
EASA has just banned 737 MAX jets throughout Europe. https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-release...
The official directives seem to be these ones: https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2019_0051_E.pdf/EAD_2... and https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_SD_2019_01.pdf/SD_SD-201... In particular, ferry flights are allowed with certain limitations.
> "[...]do not operate the aeroplane, except that a single non-commercial ferry flight (up to three flight cycles) may be accomplished to return the aeroplane to a location where the expected corrective action(s) can be accomplished.".
Doesn't this just say the 737 MAX can be flown only to undergo future maintenance that'll resolve whatever the current issue is, unless another notice is posted clearing it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you say, most of the speculation seems to focus on MCAS in combination with faulty sensor data. While, as a layman, pilots being unfamiliar with MCAS seems like a reasonable explanation, doesn't this theory still require 2 planes in 6 months to have faulty AOA sensor data? That seems unusually high to me as well. I haven't really seen any comments on that.
It does not seem too surprising to me. Sensors fail all the time on planes. The AOA sensor seems like a particularly good candidate for failure given the design. I think most people don't realize just how much stuff can be broken on an airliner and it still deemed safe to fly. And it happens all the time.
Sure, airliners might fly all the time with a missing seat number or a broken overhead bin. They're big, complex machines. But if you're implying that it's routine to fly with broken sensors, then no. That's not true.