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

Is my plane a 737 MAX?

ismyplanea737max.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 579 posts

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#221

Post by JumpCrisscross »

flashback2199 wrote: post #186
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only reason nobody was injured this time was nobody was sitting in the seats next to the door plug This was a serious fuck-up. But it remains that there was at risk no more than one, maybe two, fatalities. That isn’t enough to justify the claim that “safety is getting worse.”

In a brand new plane? Yes it is.

> In a brand new plane?

Statistically, there is no difference between a new plane and one that's been flying for 18 years [1].

Given dying because an installer fucked up feels mighty similar to dying because a maintenance tech fucked up, I don't see a rational reason to over-penalise fabrication errors to the extent that it overrules millions of successful flight miles. (Design mistakes are categorially different.)

[1] http://awg.aero/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/analysisofimpact....

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#222

Post by _jal »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #187
eastbound wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It’s just that people want to vote with their feet, and inflict damage to Boeing for abhorrent behavior. I mean not even every army general in every country has killed as many as Boeing.

> people want to vote with their feet, and inflict damage to Boeing for abhorrent behavior People want to express outrage. That’s understandable. Most flight revenue is from frequent travellers, and they understand the business enough to know histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency. A couple people who fly twice a year swapping airlines isn’t going to move the needle. And I doubt a material fraction of them are…

> their histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency

You seem to entirely miss the possibility that this has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone, and that people simply don't want to stress out about dying during their flight.

You can call it irrational if you like, that feeling of superiority and a few bucks will get you a snack. The brain worm is there, I know I'll be thinking about it next time I book tickets.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#223

Post by j-a-a-p »

jmward01 wrote: post #40

Aviation is safe. An issue happened and appropriate steps have immediately happened and in the end an already incredibly safe industry will be even safer. If a car has an issue we don't blink and we loose nearly 40k people a year in the US alone, but a plane has an issue and we panic. Yes, panic. This is not rational or helpful and is a huge reason why aviation is so antiquated. You want flying cars? Stop panicking a…

About statistics, another nice app based on the same ideas and fears is the Am I Going Down app. It lets you know how often you need to take the trip before you crash and die.

[1] https://www.fearofflying.app/

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#224

Post by hardcopy »

omikun wrote: post #146
jmward01 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a big statement. Since 2019 there have been 32 fatalities connected to commercial aircraft. Most of those were iv very small aircraft like seaplanes and helicopters. 32 deaths in 4 years compared to ~40k/year in cars. We need to keep things in perspective.

To keep things in perspective we should compare fatalities per person trips or person miles. Total deaths doesn't mean as much when a lot more people travel by car.

eh. To a certain extent you should compare based on distance traveled, maybe. But total miles driven in the USA are quite high compared to other countries. Lots of driving simply doesn't need to happen, but occurs because we induce it by the way we design the places where we build.

I don't really care how safe driving is per mile, I care if I'm going to be dead at the end of the year.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#225

Post by codegeek »

jmward01 wrote: post #40

Aviation is safe. An issue happened and appropriate steps have immediately happened and in the end an already incredibly safe industry will be even safer. If a car has an issue we don't blink and we loose nearly 40k people a year in the US alone, but a plane has an issue and we panic. Yes, panic. This is not rational or helpful and is a huge reason why aviation is so antiquated. You want flying cars? Stop panicking a…

Yes, Aviation is safe. However, specifically the 737 MAX model is not. Too many incidents since 2019 killing hundreds of people. No Thanks. I will rather go back home than fly a 737 MAX.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#226

Post by StreetChief »

jmward01 wrote: post #185
anonymousab wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is nearly impossible to bring innovation to market because of panic and fear. No, it's because of greed and managerial and executive rot. They could innovate as much as they want, nearly as fast as they want, and still be safe - as they and other airliners have done in the past! - but then they wouldn't save the "max" amount of money doing it. How dreadful. Boeing's failures are all Boeing's fault alone. They ri…

The industry is littered with defunct companies that couldn't financially afford to spend ten+ years bringing a new design to market. It took nearly 14 years to bring the 787 to market, what company can afford a timeline like that? This is more the norm than the exception. Innovation is massively stifled in aviation. > That is more of an argument for stricter requirements around automobiles and that entire industry t…

Boeing is obviously in decline. 2 maxs crashed in the last few years, now this, boeing recommended other airlines examine their max 9s and found several loose bolts[1]. So the airlines had to absorb the cost of inspection and maintenance due to poor boeing integration. Maybe, instead of paying boeing to fail, we just... let them fail? Or the government should privatize and fire the managers who are cutting safety costs for profit.

[1]https://www.npr.org/2024/01/08/1223517098/door-plug-boeing-7...

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#227

Post by inglor_cz »

jmward01 wrote: post #185
anonymousab wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is nearly impossible to bring innovation to market because of panic and fear. No, it's because of greed and managerial and executive rot. They could innovate as much as they want, nearly as fast as they want, and still be safe - as they and other airliners have done in the past! - but then they wouldn't save the "max" amount of money doing it. How dreadful. Boeing's failures are all Boeing's fault alone. They ri…

The industry is littered with defunct companies that couldn't financially afford to spend ten+ years bringing a new design to market. It took nearly 14 years to bring the 787 to market, what company can afford a timeline like that? This is more the norm than the exception. Innovation is massively stifled in aviation. > That is more of an argument for stricter requirements around automobiles and that entire industry t…

" Innovation is massively stifled in aviation."

Flying is also a pretty mature technology by now. We've done it for more than 100 years and the physics is well understood. Massive leaps in capabilities are unlikely, much like no one will develop a pistol with a 2 mile range or a coffee machine that produces an espresso in a blink of an eye.

What you can do is add more sensors and software, but the increasing complexity may not be worth it.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#228

Post by codegeek »

m_a_g wrote: post #93

People think I'm overreacting, but I don't care. I'm not stepping on a 737 Max in the next three years.

You are not alone. I am literally going to ask the flight attendants before boarding if this is a 737 MAX. If they cant answer or the answer is yes, I will not step on that plane.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#230

Post by vikramkr »

baryphonic wrote: post #191
vikramkr wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines aren't safe just because. Weakening FAA regulation, critical issues with flight controller shortages/exhaustion, culture changes at Boeing related to safety, etc all threaten to undo that safety record. The system is not working as it should and statistics don't magically maintain themselves at previous levels.

What's the evidence for weakening FAA regulation? EDIT: I'm getting downvoted, but I really am curious. It's extremely uncommon for government bureaucracy to roll back regulations, and as far as I can tell from some Googling, the FAA has not done so. So what regulations are being weakened?

Cozy relationships between the FAA and manufacturers, executive orders requiring them to 'collaborate' with manufacturers, evidence suggesting retaliation against whistleblowers, etc. there were significant investigations after the the MCAS tragedy. And they lost a lot of credibility as leaders in regulation when they waited to ground the max after the crashes while others took the lead.

Edit: Replying to the edit - oh come on HN dont downvote their question it's a reasonable question, my original response didn't link any articles.

The regulation doesn't specifically have to get rolled back. In this case a large part of weakening regulations is shifting to allowing the manufacturer (Boeing) to regulate themselves and allowing (or forcing) ties between regulator and manufacturer to get too close.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/boeing-faa.ht...

Post reply on HN