351–360 of 365 posts
I guess it is natural for governments to promote local industries but the cynical me thinks that corporations have captured our government so they don’t act in the public interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> That would mean Southwest strongly believes the lack of "AOA DISAGREE" caused the crashes No, that only means that they believe this will improve pilot's situational awareness. You don't need that feature to override uncommanded trim. Until the FAA says the aircraft is unsafe, your opinion of these airlines is misplaced. They went beyond what's legally required and added an additional safety feature. Southwest excl…
What’s the non-monetary harm in grounding until more is known? They are a small percentage of their fleet.
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.
. Maybe this turns out to be true but right now you can't make decisions based on that.
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…
I'd rather wait for formal investigations (e.g. NTSB-style) before jumping to any conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Swept wings are necessary to cruise efficiently beyond ~300mph at high altitude Layman here, but 737, 747, etc. don't have swept wings, right? So they all cruise inefficiently... but are in fact stable... which is the opposite of what you wrote earlier? Sorry, I'm just really confused.
You're picturing a fighter jet or something with severely swept wings. Do an image search - 737s, 747s, et al do indeed have gently swept back wings. They don't stick straight out at 90 degrees like aircraft from the piston era.
Completely disregard public safety to just protect the financial interests of a single private company, when this is systematically carried out by a tax funded bureau which was actually created to safeguard the safety of the public, how this is is not corruption? How this is not the text book definition of corruption at the highest level?
Will FAA fight so hard to ignore public concerns and safety if the aircraft were built by other countries?
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 Boeing Max 8 entered service in May 2017. Assuming a linear deployment rate, the 350 planes in service have seen an average life of 10 months. Assume 4 flights/day, that's 420,000 flights so far. 2 have gone down. A best estimate of the likelihood that a plane goes down (MLE), p = X/n = 2/420,000 = 1/210,000 ~ Binomial(n=420,000, p=P(crash)). According to the Economist [1] the likelihood your plane goes down gene…
Meaningless and misleading comparison at best.
According to numbers released by Boeing [1] itself, the original 737 designed back in 1967 had a hull loss of 1.75 per million flights, the 737 NG designed in the late 1990s to early 2000s had a hull loss rate of 0.27 per million flights. So Boeing 737 had a 7X less likelihood to crash as the results of 30 years of improvements. 25X difference is going to send the highly unsafe 737 MAX design back to the WWII level. Now think again whether WWII era aircrafts with similar crash likelihood should be allowed to carry passengers in huge volume in 2019.
You number proves one thing and one thing only - FAA has the legal and moral obligations to ground all those highly dangerous 737 MAX immediately.
[1] http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen a number of people pointing at this likely being more an issue with untrained pilots than the plane itself. EI, the flight crew on the crashed planes may have had considerably less experience than the minimum requirements most major airlines and all US airlines set for flying these planes.
This seems like corporate PR blaming "3rd world pilots" and am not sure it's such a smart move. If your plane requires substantially different handling & the interface does not accommodate it, it seems to me the problem is not the pilot. It seems more likely that the plane suffers from some elemental design problems that were insufficiently patched over to pass inspection in order to protect the already invested capi…
They are just blaming the victims, trying to let those already killed pilots to take responibility for their faulty designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 777 is the second-safest aircraft in the world, next to the Airbus A340. The 787 is on track to demonstrate a similar safety record (in terms of fatal incidents). So overall, they seem to be quite good.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19375141
Maybe Google is overpaying their engineers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously stability has to be achieved through fly by wire tech. Doing it through natural aerodynamic stability is a waste of resources of insane proportions as such airframes induce more drag and burn more fuel. If this sounds too scary for people in a forum of software developers it only puts a shame on our profession, from ourselves.
The software itself isn't necessarily the issue, though- it's also all the sensors and actuators involved. Suppose, for instance, that an aircraft needs more yaw stability. There's all sorts of design choices that could be made, but consider either A: a larger vertical stabilizer or B: automatic application of the rudder to damp oscillations. The vertical stabilizer here is essentially a bit of metal. We know very, v…