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

241–250 of 365 posts

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

#241

Post by avar »

mschuster91 wrote: post #129
Theodores wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The bottom of the engines are a mere 40cm of so above the ground when the plane is on the runway Jeez. How are pilots supposed to land that thing in heavy wind scenarios? One wind blow at the wrong moment and it will make ground contact.

When airplanes land their longitudinal axis isn't parallel to the ground. If it is they've got bigger problems than engine clearance.

The 737 MAX engine clearance from the ground isn't very unusual. E.g. the A320neo is below 56 cm[1].

1. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/9350/is-the-gro...

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

#242

Post by Retric »

kharms wrote: post #189
oppositelock wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA and Boeing need to investigate this, but you can't make such statistical inferences, since you simply don't have enough data points. There could be no more crashes for the next few years with those 350 planes. The FAA and NTSB are very good at what they do, one of the very few examples of government services that work well together with industry, give them some time.

We have some idea of a crash rate for safe airplanes. Something like: P(Crash|Miles Flow & Hull Age) If we assume this airplane is safe, we can apply that probability to it and then ask P(2 Crashes|N Miles & 350 New Planes). You would then have a probability for this just being bad luck, and compare that against your prior that this is a safe plane. I haven’t done the math, but my gut says it would point to grounding…

Depends on your assumptions, but safe aircraft will crash making the first data point meaningless as you are choosing it at the starting point. Second, you are not just running one trial on one design but many trails on many designs.

I suggest you try the math as the odds are reasonably high.

This changes if you start talking about crashes since the first commercial flight, but those are again different numbers.

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

#243

Post by avar »

stevehawk wrote: post #77
BurningFrog wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Malaysian Airlines would say that's always a possibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 2 Boeing 777-200ERs down within three months of each other (one was shot down by Russia and the other is speculation)

We still don't know why MH370 went down, and when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine some other airlines had already diverted flight paths away from that area due to the conflict.

I don't think you could say Malaysia Airlines was at fault for MH17, but it's hardly a good example of a null hypothesis. Since e.g. if BA was operating the same flight at the time it wouldn't have been anywhere near Ukraine.

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

#244

Post by dingaling »

sandworm101 wrote: post #4
Areading314 wrote: post #3

Does anyone actually know or suspect what's wrong with these planes? Hardware issue? Software issue?

All three. It also has to do with pilot training. The general idea is that there is an auto-trim system meant to stop the plane from stalling. But when it gets bad data from a faulty sensor it tries to crash the aircraft (short version). Pilots, all pilots, are trained to recognize this and override the system, but this aircraft requires them to do some things slightly differently. Specifically, they have to shut dow…

One amelioration would have beem a simple "MCAS ACTIVE" announcement every time it activated. That would have eliminated a lot of checklisting and guesswork in moments of high stress.

"What the hell is happening?"

"MCAS ACTIVE"

"Flip the cutouts!"

Why that wasn't mandated by the FAA I have no idea. Instead the pilots are expected to systematically analyse the options whilst trying to stay airborne.

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

#245

Post by mosburger »

throw0101a wrote: post #209
ratsmack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"News" today is a "for profit" enterprise and they will take advantage crises and public outrage to bolster their bottom lines when the opportunity arises... it's nothing personal, it's just the nature of the beast.

> "News" today is a "for profit" enterprise [...] Hasn't news always been for-profit? If not: which news organizations (newspapers, magazines, wire services) have been run on a non-profit basis? The only recent change (IMHO) has been higher time-to-market pressures (minutes versus hours/days).

BBC News, France 24, Al Jazeera, NPR..?

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

#246

Post by dmix »

joshe wrote: post #191
odorousrex wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try the fact that the fuel efficiency saves the airline lots of $$$ on fuel, but yet they haven't reduced fares any. Go figure.

Nope, airfares bounce around and have been going down for the last 8 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETG01 Partly as fuel prices go down: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eaB3

That's a very useful website. Nice work St Louis Fed.

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

#247

Post by dukoid »

sfilargi wrote: post #146

I 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…

When I see cockpit videos, the pilots tell each other what they do / run checklists together... Does the MCAS do the same, i.e. announce "stall risk detected, increasing stabilizer trim by 2.5 degree to xx degree"?

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

#248

Post by lgleason »

The FAA has always been very pro-active about grounding planes that are unsafe. The airlines operating these aircraft do not benefit by continuing to fly them if they are un-safe. Between the cost of the loss, public image etc. it would not make economic sense.

Given the trade tensions the US has with both China and the EU and the fact that both are offering competing products (Airbus more so), this sounds like more of a political move. In the case of the EU, the WTO ruled that Airbus was illegally subsidized by the government that has now banned a Boeing aircraft while it has the green light to fly in the US.

As swampy as the US government is, the EU has it's fair share of payoffs etc.. I expect this to further heat up the trade war.

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

#249

Post by KorematsuFred »

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?

Someone needs to pay for this and I think it should be boeing and not FAA.

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

#250

Post by KorematsuFred »

oppositelock wrote: post #137
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…

The FAA and Boeing need to investigate this, but you can't make such statistical inferences, since you simply don't have enough data points. There could be no more crashes for the next few years with those 350 planes. The FAA and NTSB are very good at what they do, one of the very few examples of government services that work well together with industry, give them some time.

Better safe than sorry. For example if a plane crashes in the first flight should we just ignore it because it is statistically insignificant ? 2/350 seems like a fairly good number to ground the plane and do an investigation. In general this is good for aviation industry because next time Boeing will not cut corners as it has so far.
Post reply on HN