If it turns out to be gross negligence by Boeing, I wouldnt like to be the US taxpayer when this blows up and goes to court. Because the US gvt is not going to let Boeing go bankrupt, so guess who's gonna pay in the end b/c Boeing tried to save a few bucks.
E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
211–220 of 365 posts
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
-
Actually, "de facto" is in contrast to "de jure", meaning "in law" or more generally "officially". If they leave the planes in the air, then whatever the offical reason, they are de facto asserting that there is no (significant) problem. (Grounding them on the other hand could just be considered a excess of caution, so at most it asserts "We aren't sure there isn't a problem.".[0])
0: Which action, if either, is definitive might differ if the stakes weren't inconvenience vs death, or if the FAA openly didn't care.
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#213Does anyone actually know or suspect what's wrong with these planes? Hardware issue? Software issue?
Let me also enter the impopular Null Theory: Maybe there is nothing in particular wrong with these planes, and they were just hit with two random accidents.
Crashes are useful data because they surface otherwise unknown or poorly understood failure modes. In that sense it is like a zero day vulnerability. It suggests that all aircraft of this type have an unpatched issue. And the best way to think about the problem is with thorough technical analysis of the issue itself.
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
It's meta-derailing; instead of directly attempting to derail, you just post something along the lines of "Well this won't be investigated properly because others put forth ${original derailing argument}". Of course, usually no "others [ever] put forth".
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#215At 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?
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…
True randomness does not preclude clusters of events. In fact that's the nature of random events.
Not saying I think these are completely random. But since we don't even know the cause of the Ethopian crash yet, who's to say? The causes may very well be unrelated.
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#216Previous big thread on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365108 Other discussions at https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Boeing%20points%3E10&sort=byDa...
Here’s a few more from before this crash that I’ve bookmarked:
Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and Others (wsj.com) 398 points | 3 months ago | 211 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607
What the Lion Air Pilots May Have Needed to Do to Avoid a Crash (nytimes.com) 118 points | 3 months ago | 50 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18471464
How the pilots of Lion Air Flight 610 lost control (nytimes.com) 105 points | 75 days ago | 136 comments
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
The engines are larger than previous models and had to be moved forward, which causes it to (potentially) stall, so they implemented an anti-stalling mechanism called MCAS which relies on a particular sensor, which can malfunction potentially. They also didn't inform pilots that this system even existed which means they have trouble diagnosing the problem and will potentially only make it worse by trying other things…
Minor nitpick. It's not that the engines directly cause stalls(EDIT: of course if you pitch up too much you will stall at some point). Is that they can cause some unintended lift in some flight configurations. So MCAS is supposed to pitch down (by trimming) to keep the attitude under control Boeing's main argument is that the procedure for dealing with runaway trim is completely unchanged compared to other planes, so…
> Pilots will be jumping to the override switches at any sign of trouble.
This is a good point. And very concerning!
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#218When passengers starts wondering what model plane they are going to fly on then you know that you have lost the narrative. No wonder McDonald Douglas changed the DC-10 into the MD-11.
...which also crashed. It was bumping because it was too long and the pilots couldn’t feel when they touched down. I think it caused 2 crashes.
Which is a lot, considering DC-9 and DC-10 are known for all sorts of crashes, including losing the same door 4 times for the same reason, each time with deaths. Ah, and who doesn’t remember the Concorde crash. Provoked by bursting a tyre on a piece lost by a DC-10. The airplane that literally falls into pieces.
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#219I 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…
It's a bit more complicated than that even. The 737 was originally designed for a very different mission than it's being used for right now. If you find pictures of the original 737-200s they look very different from the MAX line of today. It was built in an era when it was assumed that 707 and soon after 747 class airliners would serve the hubs and then smaller 737s would serve the small regional airports. As such the 737 was designed with VERY low ground clearance such that it could offload without a ramp and generally be serviceable at these types of low infrastructure airports, hence the lack of wheel doors, the ovoid engine inlets and the generally low stance.
Fast forward to today where airport infrastructure is much more developed and these small/medium size airliners are being pressed into front line service including intercontinental routes. The aircraft has changed drastically to accommodate these changes through the years, enough that it may be time for a clean sheet design. They've changed just about everything on the air-frame from the fuel load/cabin length/wing to the avionics to make this all work.
Now, the other side of that coin is with systems. In theory this should be fine, but obviously isn't. It's hard to differentiate bandaids from regular systems and if either fails then safety is compromised. Obviously the amount of unnecessary systems should be minimized but as time goes on more systems WILL be added to gain the rewards of automation, which is a good thing. As such, we need to educate pilots on ALL of the systems, and rigorously test them before they enter service.
Additionally, if you do as the pilots want and achieve very high aerodynamic stability through the air-frame instead of stability control systems (fly by wire essentially) it reduces the aerodynamic efficiency of the airliner, particularly with current conventional designs.
Re: E.U.’s Biggest Economies Ban Boeing Max 8 Jets
#220Earlier 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…
True randomness does not preclude clusters of events. In fact that's the nature of random events. Not saying I think these are completely random. But since we don't even know the cause of the Ethopian crash yet, who's to say? The causes may very well be unrelated.
The FAA is not an agency that should be assuming something is safe by default. It is an agency that should be assuming something is unsafe by default and demanding the manufacturer prove it is safe.
If it's random chance, Boeing should be able to prove it is random chance. Until then, the FAA should ground them.