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

351–360 of 579 posts

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#351

Post by stouset »

dionidium wrote: post #311
legitster wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The trend is heading the wrong way. Contrary to this sentiment, air traffic safety continues to improve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_inciden... If anything, air travel is so safe now that non-fatal incidents such as this weeks' stand out more than they would have in previous decades. And in comparison, driving is getting much more dangerous (at least in the US). https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

You'll sometimes see this dismissed almost derisively as, "people think they're in control when they're driving, but lack agency while flying, so that's why they fear the latter more." But that's completely true! Not every driver on the road is at equal risk of a fatal accident. A significant percentage of all fatal accident involve speeding, reckless driving, and/or alcohol consumption, to say nothing of distraction…

Even "safe" drivers who aren't speeding, driving recklessly, or consuming alcohol are at greater risk of death and injury than on any major U.S. air carrier.

So you do have control, and can put yourself into a safer cohort of drivers, but the best you can do still falls wildly short of the state of aviation safety.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#352

Post by supportengineer »

codegeek wrote: post #228
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.

Look for "equipment type" when booking flights, and on your boarding pass

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#353

Post by kube-system »

nolok wrote: post #338
kube-system wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This submission isn't on the front page because of incidents 4-5 years ago. It is on the front page because of the news this week.

I really don't understand what you're getting at. I don't disagree with you. The difference between this website existing for MAX and not for others is the repetition of issues though, to the point that now more people have had enough. When the glass spills, the last drop might be the trigger for the glass finally spilling but it's the accumulation of water that's the issue, not just that one final drop.

The bottom line is that I think it is absolutely silly for people to try to make their own judgement about the safety of aircraft they get on based on news stories about different variants of models which have had issues that are already identified.

This is a relevant topic for regulators to address, with specificity to the actual offending parts, procedures, and processes in place. Avoiding all MAX variants is a very hamfisted attempt to address a very tiny difference in observed safety.

There are regional airlines flying much more sketchy things. Where's "isMyPlaneACessna208BeingFlownByANewPilotInPoorWeather.com"?

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#354

Post by [deleted] »

flashback2199 wrote: post #345
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seem to not know the meaning of suspect Suspicion doesn't mean baseless hypothesis, e.g. "Mars is an orange." The NTSB would never say (and has not said, as you've conceded) it "suspects" the "bolts were never screwed in." Were there a lack of marks where the bolts should have exerted clamping force, there would be basis for suspicion. That isn't proof . But it's more than a hypothesis.

I mean you can believe what you want but NTSB literally had a guy at a podium say into the mic last night that there is so far no evidence "the bolts were ever there", around the 17-18 minute mark if you have nothing better to do. Good luck with your investments.

[deleted]

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#355

Post by kube-system »

shermantanktop wrote: post #326
consumer451 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know for sure, but informed speculation indicates that this is likely the problem. See the replies to my link above. However, you are correct. Until the final NTSB report comes out, we don't know.

This type of delay is of strategic value to the status quo. "We need to wait until all the facts are in," "investigations take time," "We're still looking at root causes and it is premature to..." These statements may be factually true, but the time it takes allows people to be distracted by something else, passions to cool, and urgency to dissipate. It's no brainwave for Boeing or anyone else (e.g. the NTSB, on Boei…

Public opinion isn't a functional way to increase transportation safety anyway. All measurable increases in any form of transportation safety are due to regulatory reasons. The people who matter on this issue aren't going to forget.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#356

Post by JumpCrisscross »

flashback2199 wrote: post #345
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seem to not know the meaning of suspect Suspicion doesn't mean baseless hypothesis, e.g. "Mars is an orange." The NTSB would never say (and has not said, as you've conceded) it "suspects" the "bolts were never screwed in." Were there a lack of marks where the bolts should have exerted clamping force, there would be basis for suspicion. That isn't proof . But it's more than a hypothesis.

I mean you can believe what you want but NTSB literally had a guy at a podium say into the mic last night that there is so far no evidence "the bolts were ever there", around the 17-18 minute mark if you have nothing better to do. Good luck with your investments.

> NTSB literally had a guy at a podium say into the mic last night that there is so far no evidence "the bolts were ever there"

Where are you getting this? Crookshanks said the NTSB had "not yet recovered the four bolts" and "have not determined if they existed there" [1].

Your source, for which I'm genuinely curious, is categorically false in suggesting the NTSB "suspects" the bolts were never there, or that Crookshanks said "there is so far no evidence 'the bolts were ever there'". (The latter being particularly reprehensible, given it involves materially misquoting an aircraft investigator.)

> Good luck with your investments

Wat.

[1] https://airwaysmag.com/ntsb-as1282-exams-all-12-door-plug-st...

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#357

Post by stouset »

not-my-account wrote: post #188
legitster wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The trend is heading the wrong way. Contrary to this sentiment, air traffic safety continues to improve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_inciden... If anything, air travel is so safe now that non-fatal incidents such as this weeks' stand out more than they would have in previous decades. And in comparison, driving is getting much more dangerous (at least in the US). https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? What's wrong with pointing that out and being concerned?

> But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again.

We aren't. There were fatal issues with one system (MCAS) on one line of planes. This was addressed, and since then there have been zero fatalities (or injuries) caused by design and/or engineering issues by this manufacturer. Their safety record is not substantially different from that of Airbus (who have their own design issues, IMO, such as non-linked pilot controls which has also contributed toward hull loss and passenger deaths). The MCAS issue was, to be clear, completely inexcusable and both regulator and management heads should have rolled over this. I am not happy with our anemic response to this incident.

And yes, one or two people could have potentially died due to this latest incident. It should be investigated and fixed. Beyond that there are wider aspects of the MBA-ification of Boeing that ought to (and I hope but don't expect will) drive regulatory and business change in this country.

But the fact remains that once the issues with MCAS were resolved, Boeing-designed and -assembled airframes have resumed a track record of safety that eclipses that of any other transportation industry. Again, we can, should, and are expecting that every issue is a learning moment to improve the practices of the industry as a whole.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#358

Post by jacobgorm »

thegrim33 wrote: post #350

I'll preface this by saying I'm for sure not denying there's problems to be fixed with this plane. There for sure are. But man, people in threads like these seem so out of touch with reality. You know that you have an incomplete picture of reality right? You're on US-based websites and consume US-based media, both of which amplify every bad thing related to Boeing, but don't amplify the same types of issues for other…

I'm in Europe, but I can't recall any Airbus planes falling apart in recent history. Could you provide an example?

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#359

Post by jjav »

thegrim33 wrote: post #350

I'll preface this by saying I'm for sure not denying there's problems to be fixed with this plane. There for sure are. But man, people in threads like these seem so out of touch with reality. You know that you have an incomplete picture of reality right? You're on US-based websites and consume US-based media, both of which amplify every bad thing related to Boeing, but don't amplify the same types of issues for other…

> You likely risk your life more every time you get in a car than getting in one of these planes.

This statistic always comes up, but there is a big picture missing in it.

In a plane, you are a completely powerless passenger. There is absolutely nothing you can do to improve your odds, everything is in the hands of multiple third parties.

If you go drive your own car, there is a huge amount of influence you can do to improve your odds. Maintain the car well, it's yours so you can. Make the decision to only drive if you are alert (not sleepy, not drunk, not under emotional stress), it's a decision you control. Become a better driver through training (car control, accident avoidance - these trainings exist even if they are unfortunately not required), another aspect which is under your control.

Humans work best when they have a fighting chance. With driving there is a lot you can proactively do, in a plane there is exactly nothing you can do.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#360

Post by soraminazuki »

gruez wrote: post #54
alpb wrote: post #26

Are you less safe on a 737 MAX than driving to the airport in a car? Genuinely curious, I’m trying to understand if this whole saga is statistically significant.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38918665 I didn't bother calculating the rate for driving to the airport, but eyeballing the figures for cars, it's probably as about as dangerous if you assume that the 737 Max were 10x more dangerous than average flying. Cars are still more dangerous than planes on a per-mile basis, but at the same time you're also traveling less miles on the car trip compared to the flight…

Per mile is a ridiculous metric when comparing two totally different modes of transportation. Think about how many car trips a single flight represents.
Post reply on HN