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

221–230 of 365 posts

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

#221

Post by abmackenzie »

ams6110 wrote: post #215
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…

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.

They may very well be unrelated, but shouldn't the FAA take precautions until that is known?

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

#222

Post by ams6110 »

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…

They have said it. At least, their airline pilots union has.

https://swaparesources.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf...

.. the MAX aircraft has 17,000 recordable parameters and Southwest has compiled and analyzed a tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest's continued confidence in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX. ... SWAPA also has pushed hard for Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor displays to be put on all our aircraft and those are now being implemented into the fleet. All of these tools, in addition to SWAPA Pilots having the most experience on 737s in the industry, give me no pause that not only are our aircraft safe, but you are the safest 737 operators in the sky.

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

#223

Post by 7952 »

jimmy1 wrote: post #181
ConceitedCode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many pilots in similar situations would have made the wrong decision. As a passenger you are not necessarily going to get someone of Sullenberger's quality. And it is possible that automation could help in this kind of situation. It could provide an estimate of glide distance. It could use spatial data to identify crash landing sites, avoid populated areas, and design an optimal landing profile. All in a fraction of a second. Of course this kind of failure is so unusual that it is probably not worth designing the automation to deal with it.

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

#224

Post by alexis_fr »

xcyyyy wrote: post #202
mrdodge wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

God forbid that FAANG engineers ever work on aerospace software...

Move fast and... wait.

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

#225

Post by bryondowd »

Theodores wrote: post #96
anaphor wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

The bottom of the engines are a mere 40cm of so above the ground when the plane is on the runway. Hence the tight fit and need to move the engines forward so they would fit. Then the auto-fix-the-stall software isn't something the pilots are told about. They didn't come up with a common sense solution, doing so would have costed many billions for a new airframe with longer legs for the landing gear. This is how I und…

Your link seems to indicate that the spec hadn't changed, that was just speculation that was disproved on inspecting the wreckage, and it turns out the design was basically bad in the first place, due to very tight safety margins and the poor understanding of engineering a ship at the time.

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

#226

Post by oldgradstudent »

jfk13 wrote: post #107
kawfey wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked article also mentions the plane was smoking, and fire was coming from the engines. This is new information to me that I think is being overlooked, because if MCAS was enabled erroneously, it's unlikely the plane would have caught fire. The Lion Air Max 8 wasn't reported to be smoking/on fire. If something else made the engine(s) catch fire and become inoperative, and the MCAS system enabled correctly due t…

Bear in mind that eyewitness reports of events like this are notoriously unreliable.[1,2] Yes, it may turn out that this incident bears no relation to the Lion Air one, but I think it's much too early to make any such assumption. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/23/weekinreview/ideas-trends... [2] https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&co...

Also, news reports about eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable.

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

#227

Post by freehunter »

alexis_fr wrote: post #196
eric_b wrote: post #109

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 could be an EU-USA economic war. We’ve seen the Being competition won over the A380, which had to be abandoned. Maybe any excuse to ground a Boeing airframe and incur costs to owners makes Airbus look better. It doesn’t have to be lobbying, it could be a natural inclination. 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 o…

1) The direct comparison to the A380 is the Boeing 747 which is being phased out as well. It's not a rivalry that put either of them out, just realities of modern air travel.

2) McDonnell Douglas (maker of the DC planes) is now owned by Boeing and was an American company.

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

#229

Post by runxel »

DannyBee wrote: post #172
runxel wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some acquaintance of mine told me – which I really can't believe given the seriousness of aviation security – that there is in fact just one sensor. If true than that's preposterous.

There are definitely at least 2. You can see them :)

Still seems like at least one to few, no?

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

#230

Post by praneshp »

dahdum wrote: post #103

American and Southwest Airlines are still flying the Max 8/9, and are refusing refunds (Southwest/American) and charging change fees (American) for customers concerned for their safety. I don't understand this logic. They are essentially risking their entire company over the safety of this plane. If something happens now they'll be driven to bankruptcy at record speed.

> and are refusing refunds (Southwest/American)

Is southwest refusing refunds? Not doubting you, just asking if there has been a story about it.

Post reply on HN