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

Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

dallasnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 307 posts

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#211

Post by jonodubs »

dpwm wrote: post #91
ehsankia wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be ironic if the lack of 737-MAX category for reports is why these reports never made it to the people who needed to see them, which caused the issue to go unnoticed.

1555013 is pretty damning in telling how the airlines treated the MAX as the same type as the 737-800: "I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold.My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate th…

wow i feel nervous enough having to drive someone else's car without having a quick look at the different setup.

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#212

Post by acqq »

mannykannot wrote: post #94
tuna-piano wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what that means though. As far as I am aware (totally a layperson), there have been potentially only 3 potential 737-MAX MCAS trim issue occurrences: 1. The Lion Air flight prior to the fatal lion air flight 2. The Lion air flight which crashed 3. The Ethiopian flight which crashed Of course I don't think any of those 3 are absolutely confirmed, but I do think it seems likely the three had MCAS trim related…

From the article's title, one might get the impression that pilots have been saying that MCAS is dangerous. What I was trying to do was distinguish between possible MCAS incidents and safety concerns, complaints about Boeing's nondisclosure of MCAS, and pitch-down incidents that had other causes (incidents of the last case seem to be related to the autopilot, rather than MCAS.) The latest crash certainly looks suspic…

> One would certainly hope that after this was revealed, all Max-8 pilots would be well prepared to recognize the situation and handle it

Far from certain, becaus Boeing is selling and the companies indeed treat it as "the same plane like old" even if it obviously isn't:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#213

Post by tziki »

privong wrote: post #145
dajohnson89 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 20 MAX-related issues out of ~850. How is that significant?

> So 20 MAX-related issues out of ~850. How is that significant? To build on what @ggm and @siwatanejo noted. The 737 debuted in 1967, so it is 52 years old now. The 737 MAX is 2 years old. In terms of number of issues per year since the aircraft was introduced the 737 is at ~15 incidents per year and the 737 MAX is at ~10/year. But as @ggm notes, it's important to look at when in the life cycle many of the non-MAX 7…

Note that 15 vs 10 incidents per year is also not accurate since there are far fewer 737 MAXs out there.

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#214

Post by chopin »

cjbprime wrote: post #174
tibbydudeza wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sec of Defense is an ex-Boeing man.

And on a less individual level, just the MAX order book alone is larger than the market cap of Apple. Boeing is the largest exporter in the US.

But how would it help to not grounding the plane in the US if it is grounded pretty much elsewhere? I am pretty sure orders will get canceled or at least postponed over this. And Boeing pretty sure cannot risk another incident.

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#215

Post by chopin »

therealmarv wrote: post #4

US media. Why do I need always a VPN from Europe? Beeing GDPR compliant is not rocket science. "Unfortunately, our site is unavailable to European Union visitors... blablabla". UPDATE: And this news website even detects if I use incognito mode: "To continue reading, please disable private/incognito mode, log in, or enroll as a member" omg

The site works fine in Firefox incognito mode and Javascript disabled (uMatrix).

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#216

Post by kiallmacinnes »

jsjohnst wrote: post #200
varenc wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow... I wonder how much of this could have been avoided if the 737-Max had just been given an entirely new model name like "738". I'd assume that when the 777's came out even pilots with experience on the 767 and other Boeing planes were still given ample training beforehand. The minor difference in the Max's model name disguises the seemingly large difference in their operation.

> if the 737-Max had just been given an entirely new model name like "738" That model name would’ve been worse. The 737-800 is very commonly abbreviated to 738 in the industry (739 being 737-900, 744 being the 747-400, etc).

That's just awful practice! It's got a name, use it!

(Yes, that sorta stuff annoys me ;) e.g. people talking about v2.04 of $project, when they really mean v0.204 - sure, I get it, but at some point the searchability for issues on the internet is going to be screwed!)

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#217

Post by close04 »

ansy wrote: post #151
privong wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So 20 MAX-related issues out of ~850. How is that significant? To build on what @ggm and @siwatanejo noted. The 737 debuted in 1967, so it is 52 years old now. The 737 MAX is 2 years old. In terms of number of issues per year since the aircraft was introduced the 737 is at ~15 incidents per year and the 737 MAX is at ~10/year. But as @ggm notes, it's important to look at when in the life cycle many of the non-MAX 7…

I’d look at incidents per flight hour. Some of those 737s have been in the air for decades. I suspect the numbers for the 737 MAX will stand out more on this analysis.

It’s also worth noting that the MAX should benefit from 5 decades of accumulated experience and regulation. So you’d expect far lower incidents.

The problem might not be with the plane per se but rather with Boeing rushing a bit and relying on the fact that “it basically the same plane but better so why would there be issues”.

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#218

Post by reacweb »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #100
iforgotpassword wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this shit doesn't sound any better: 1565207 At cruise flight, our Wi-Fi stopped working. I then saw that I was unable to access the Pilot Mobile app. Since I do not routinely copy the flight plan to iBook or acrobat (we are not required to do this), I was unable to access the flight plan. I've lost Wi-Fi before but not had this problem. Maybe it's a 737max thing. My First Officer had a copy on iBook and airdropp…

Boggles the mind on several levels: 1. That airlines would use consumer tablets without hard-copy backup as matter of procedure. I remember Air Canada announcing it and how it would save so much weight for both pilots and the airplane, and thinking... I print my Google Maps as a backup for roadtrips, I sure as heck would do it on a flight! 2. Perhaps I'm misjudging, but the tone and perspective of pilot makes me worr…

It is called "electronic flight bag" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag . I see it as a technical loophole that allows to gives handy tools to pilots and airlines with reduced hassles of certification processes.

Re: Boeing 737 Max pilots complained to feds for months about suspected safety flaw

#219

Post by Zarel »

manquer wrote: post #154
Zarel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how your comment addresses the core problem that risk/distance is not a reasonable metric if long-distance driving is less risky than short-distance driving, and you apply the short-distance driving risk to long-distance driving.

As a passenger on either it doesn't matter where the risk is concentrated . I am only interested in the outcome of how safe my journey is going to be. As a technology such differentiated metrics helps to understand aspects of flying which is why broken metrics are used by the industry in more focused forums.

But that's exactly my point. As a passenger, it matters if the calculation of how safe your journey is is wrong. And the calculation is wrong if it doesn't take into account how long the drive is.
Post reply on HN