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

FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 884 posts

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#231

Post by alibarber »

Zigurd wrote: post #207
alibarber wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a plug door in this case. There was no door - this was a kind of blanker for a space where there could have been a door. A bit like when you buy a car model that doesn’t have all the options installed, there’s a space for the button or switch for the option in the dashboard or whatever but it’s filled in with a fixed bit of plastic - it saves them from having to produce multiple different versions of dashbo…

Are you sure of that? I've read that it is the same or very similar to an emergency exit, except that the interior is covered by an interior panel. It would be uncovered and equipped as an emergency exit in cases where very tight seating would bring the number of passengers above a threshold requiring more emergency exits. And down the rabbit hole I go wondering if this non-equipped exit is new for 737 MAX planes bec…

I’m fairly sure of it based on the reports but of course we need to wait for the actual investigation.

I think it is indeed new for these Max planes and the airline purchased this one in this configuration that would not require it (fewer seats), and adding a functioning exit in (including life rafts and slides) would simply cost a lot more (and weigh more) than just blanking it out with a piece of metal. Not to mention extra maintenance and testing of said exit.

The airline may have the desire to buy a model with fewer seats because it’s cheaper and weighs less, but might also have a requirement for fewer cabin crew members too.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#232

Post by marcosdumay »

Miraste wrote: post #146
belter wrote: post #91

Ways in which you can experience an unexpected cabin decompression to the next world...Or join the mile-high never-come-back club, on a Boeing 737 MAX... 1- Loose bolts: "Boeing Urges Airlines to Check for Loose Bolt in newer 737 MAX Aircraft" - https://www.european-views.com/2023/12/boeing-urges-airlines... 2- Leave the anti-icing system on for more than 5 min after non-icing conditions: "Boeing still hasn't fixed t…

Two of those are manufacturing mistakes, and it seems likely the door one is as well. Not that that helps the passengers, but they're not systemic design flaws. That anti-icing system is deranged, though. They effectively installed a timed detonator on the engines and want a safety exemption for it.

> but they're not systemic design flaws.

Hum, yes, instead Boeing seems to have systemic manufacturing flaws. Do we have a reason to believe those are contained into the Max line?

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#233

Post by eqvinox »

Miraste wrote: post #172
olig15 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah you’re right. They’re not design flaws, just manufacturing issues, so sign me up for the first flight when the max flies again… People falling out the sky because the wing falls off because someone forgot to bolt it on aren’t going to care if it’s a design issue or a manufacturing issue. Boeing is doing both, so the blame lies with them either way.

I absolutely agree. I meant it as a comparison to issues like the infamous MCAS, which was wrong on purpose on all 737 Max 8s everywhere. There isn't a change in outcome between the flaws, but I think the difference between a mistake and a known issue that was left in while the company tried to change regulations to allow it, all for a tiny cut to the BOM, is worth noting.

Question is, why were these things manufactured wrong. It's well possible that Boeing's engineering documents are poor or misleading, triggering human error during manufacturing.

This is of course pure speculation and it might equally well be some single manufacturer pressuring ("optimizing") their employees (or even machines) past the point of reliability.

Either way I'm not gonna fault anyone for refusing to fly on a 737 MAX. At some point you gotta make a call and shift your assumption from "isolated engineering/manufacturing mishap" to "corporate screwed the entire product top to bottom".

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#234

Post by wredue »

rootusrootus wrote: post #97

One troubling aspect of this is that it appears Alaska had reason to believe something was wrong with this plane but basically ignored it. They were getting pressurization warnings on prior flights, but the only action they took was restricting the plane from flying ETOPS routes. They're the dominant carrier in my area, so these sorts of screwups make me nervous. I can't easily avoid using them without a fair amount…

[flagged]

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#235

Post by derefr »

mastax wrote: post #174
Miraste wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two of those are manufacturing mistakes, and it seems likely the door one is as well. Not that that helps the passengers, but they're not systemic design flaws. That anti-icing system is deranged, though. They effectively installed a timed detonator on the engines and want a safety exemption for it.

A manufacturing mistake which makes it into service is a failure of QA and testing systems design. (At least above a certain threshold which varies depending on the industry etc. etc.)

Depends. You can’t do e.g. crystallographical analysis of metals inside an engine if the engine is already put together. You have to trust your vendor that they built the engine correctly and checked the materials themselves. Or at most send auditors to the vendor.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#236

Post by laweijfmvo »

thfuran wrote: post #215
csours wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like this are always alarming until you learn the base rate. Unfortunately, I cannot find a quick reference for this, but many many flights take off with some anomaly noted in the technical log book.

And it's not like driving is especially safe. It's just that traffic deaths are so routine that they're not generally widely reported, while pretty much every major issue with an airplane gets national attention. In the US, traffic deaths amount to the equivalent of a fully loaded 747 lost with all hands every couple days.

Whether it’s true or not, I feel like I control my fate when driving a lot more than when flying. I can take precautions (defensive driving, avoiding bad conditions, etc.) but have little to no control once I board a plane.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#237

Post by bruceb »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #212
belter wrote: post #91

Ways in which you can experience an unexpected cabin decompression to the next world...Or join the mile-high never-come-back club, on a Boeing 737 MAX... 1- Loose bolts: "Boeing Urges Airlines to Check for Loose Bolt in newer 737 MAX Aircraft" - https://www.european-views.com/2023/12/boeing-urges-airlines... 2- Leave the anti-icing system on for more than 5 min after non-icing conditions: "Boeing still hasn't fixed t…

Honestly a website for this wouldn’t be a bad idea. In future flights if I’m going to look if there is a 737 max I’m gonna change my flight .

after the crashes a few years ago Southwest allowed passengers to switch to other planes at no charge: https://www.newsweek.com/southwest-waiving-fare-differences-...

Wonder if that will happen again.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#238

Post by hinkley »

cf1241290841 wrote: post #53
mrandish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft. Prior to new models released in the last ~10yrs-ish, Boeing made the safest planes in the sky (as measured by passenger miles). Many of those planes are still flying and still doing great. For me the interesting question is what changed in Boeing's design, testing and/or manufacturing processes which is apparently resulting in worse safety performance…

There is a book recommendation in the other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38894227 The McDonnell Douglas merger is also worth mentioning in this context.

I’ve heard it argued that the US government coerced that merger.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#239

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

squiffsquiff wrote: post #209
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOL was borgified by Time Warner management post acquisition the same way Boeing was by MD.

You make it sound like AOL was cool before the Time-Warner merger and people didn't joke about e.g. the free trial CD's

They were a successful online service before the internet. Yes. They were just as cool as Compuserve and Prodigy.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#240

Post by JumpCrisscross »

akira2501 wrote: post #145
AdrianB1 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is correct. However MDD was manufacturing key military products (F-15, F-18) and it was doing bad financially, going bankrupt and jeopardizing the fighter plane production and maintenance was a "national security" problem that forced the Boeing acquisition of MDD.

Weird how you can be a "key manufacturer" yet "go bankrupt." Perhaps they should have just been auctioned off and other investors given an opportunity to create new lines of business out of the incompetent mess they had become. Taking the mess and wholesale buying it into another company and then keeping the management that created the problem in the first place is astronomically dumb.

> Weird how you can be a "key manufacturer" yet "go bankrupt."

We massively drew down defence spending at the end of the Cold War.

Post reply on HN