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

More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#351

Post by CodeWriter23 »

kelnos wrote: post #346
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you man up and do the whistleblower thing. And you do it having established a written record with HR. The choice between keeping my job vs maiming / killing strangers due to my own negligence is a no-brainer for me.

I'm glad you have the financial stability to be able to take that (IMO admirable) principled stance, but I think it's unreasonable to expect that's the case for everyone, or even most people.

I'm glad you're ok with killing and injuring others so you don't have to face the discomfort of finding another job.

I've quit jobs on principle twice. No safety net, no savings. Just a belief I would be better off without that job. Turns out, I was right.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#352

Post by stouset »

luuurker wrote: post #243
stouset wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One needs to look at the data to believe these planes are very safe. Even if one or two people had died on the Alaska incident (which—to be clear—would have been an avoidable tragedy for which Boeing would be responsible), flying on a major airline in the U.S. is still safer than any other form of transportation. You don’t think twice about hopping into a passenger vehicle. You don’t follow the latest NHTSA crash tes…

Planes in general are very safe compared to other forms of transportation, but we're not comparing the Boeing 737 Max to some Tesla or Ford. We are comparing it to other planes. While I'm likely to fly on a 737 in the future, it's perfectly fine to say "well, since there's an Airbus A320 Neo available, I'll fly on that instead". Why? Because while data doesn't show it, there's a list of fairly recent Boeing screw ups…

> Planes in general are very safe compared to other forms of transportation, but we're not comparing the Boeing 737 Max to some Tesla or Ford. We are comparing it to other planes.

We are discussing a comment that stated "I'd be scared to fly on any new generation Boeing."

That fear is irrational, full stop.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#353

Post by luuurker »

rootusrootus wrote: post #330
luuurker wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planes in general are very safe compared to other forms of transportation, but we're not comparing the Boeing 737 Max to some Tesla or Ford. We are comparing it to other planes. While I'm likely to fly on a 737 in the future, it's perfectly fine to say "well, since there's an Airbus A320 Neo available, I'll fly on that instead". Why? Because while data doesn't show it, there's a list of fairly recent Boeing screw ups…

> While I'm likely to fly on a 737 in the future The 737 is arguably the safest airliner ever produced. You are specifically talking about a specific line of 737, the 737MAX.

Yes, I was talking about the Max, thanks for pointing that out. It's too late to update my reply now though.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#354

Post by gruez »

kelnos wrote: post #338
gruez wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> domestic flyers in the U.S. deserve something better than a 1967 design. Or maybe the market has spoken. Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper, they're happy to fly on 1967 design planes to save a buck.

The market has spoken only in the sense that air travel used to be prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people, and now it isn't. For many trips, there are no reasonable alternatives to air travel. If you live in New York and really want to treat your kids to a trip to Disney World in Florida, you can drive, and can take a train/bus, but you'll be burning a significant amount of your precious time off wor…

>The interesting thing is that I don't believe air travel is all that much cheaper now than it was in, say, 2010, when things were quite a bit more comfortable. Maybe not as comfortable as pre-deregulation, but certainly better than today, with more comfortable seats and more leg room.

Actually according to the BLS since Jan 2010, the CPI has went up 42% whereas airline fares have dropped 7.5%. That means adjusted for inflation airline fares have actually dropped 35%. I would say that arguably counts as "that much cheaper". Whether that's worth the decrease in legroom (unknown amount of inches) is another matter.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETG01

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#355

Post by galleywest200 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #202
BenoitP wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read that he was the token engineer in the see of accountants, MBAs and consultants. Cultural change goes much deeper than changing the CEO. Boeing might not be salvageable on the cheap side. Decapitating the company at levels 1-4 may not even be enough. It may require acknowledging that changing the flight envelope and software-patching it was a mistake. This is a major can of worms on itself. This means a plan…

> I've read that he was the token engineer in the see of accountants, MBAs and consultants The myth that engineers make better leaders may have originated with Andy Grove. In truth, there is no evidence for the claim. Jack Welch was as much an engineer as an asshole.

It is not about them being better leaders, but the engineer (hopefully) considering the efficacy of their design over bean counting.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#356

Post by Karrot_Kream »

kelnos wrote: post #338
gruez wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> domestic flyers in the U.S. deserve something better than a 1967 design. Or maybe the market has spoken. Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper, they're happy to fly on 1967 design planes to save a buck.

The market has spoken only in the sense that air travel used to be prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people, and now it isn't. For many trips, there are no reasonable alternatives to air travel. If you live in New York and really want to treat your kids to a trip to Disney World in Florida, you can drive, and can take a train/bus, but you'll be burning a significant amount of your precious time off wor…

+1 on everything you said.

> Has it become much more costly to run an airline over the past decade? Maybe? I don't know. But if not, this doesn't seem to be "the market", at least not in the way a healthy market, with ample competition, would behave.

I think there's just a lot more competition among airliners post airline deregulation. The costs for most airliners is fixed (pilots, crew, aircraft, fuel, airport fees, A&Ps, etc) and so you're competing on small things like aircraft seat configuration, trim, routes, and prices.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#357

Post by kelnos »

iudqnolq wrote: post #54
stouset wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is irrational. Since November 2001, there has been one death aboard a major airline operating in the U.S.[1]. That was a Southwest flight where an entire engine self-destructed. It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. You might choose to include one more. An Asiana flight tumbled end over end after arriving short at SFO. Everyone survived the crash, but a passenger was killed when an eme…

346 people died in two similar crashes of two Boeing 747 Max planes. Boing and the FAA initially cast the blame on supposedly lower standards at the Indonesian and Ethiopian airlines operating the planes, but this was completely unsupported and incorrect speculation. Poor processes at Boeing and the FAA were in fact responsible. Unfortunately the incorrect narrative has persisted.

Sure, but there are really two questions:

1) Do we believe that the issues that caused those two crashes were not sufficiently dealt with, such that they might recur?

2) Do we believe that there are other issues that could cause catastrophic failures that could result in further deaths?

I feel pretty safe in saying "no" for #1. #2 is harder to answer. So far the new issues found are unlikely to cause further deaths, but maybe there are other problems lurking.

But even with the uncertainty around #2, I'm still safer (for example) flying from SFO to LAX on a Boeing plane than driving that route. But maybe that's not the best comparison: am I measurably safer on an Airbus plane than on a Boeing? Probably? But is that amount enough to be worth worrying about, logically, if I can get my irrational fears to shut up for a minute? Not sure I've looked at the data (assuming there is enough of it) to decide that.

> Boing and the FAA initially cast the blame on supposedly lower standards at the Indonesian and Ethiopian airlines operating the planes, but this was completely unsupported and incorrect speculation.

This bit feels like it doesn't tell the full story. IIRC there was a report about a third plane that (after at least the first crash, not sure if it was before or after the second) ran into the same issue with MCAS, but correctly followed the recovery procedure and was fine. Now, it could be that the recovery procedure is unreliable, and that third cockpit crew got lucky. But I don't recall what came of all that.

And on top of that, the two planes that crashed didn't have optional equipment (a disagree indicator, IIRC) that would have likely given the pilots extra and sufficient information to understand what was wrong and avoid a crash. My understanding is that all US airlines had already opted for that piece of equipment, and at this point presumably everyone has now opted for that piece of equipment. Given the issues, it should have never been optional (and maybe it no longer is). But GP is specifically pointing out the safety record of US-based carriers, so it should be notable that they seem to be better at identifying what bits of optional equipment are important enough to splurge on.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#358

Post by stouset »

hedora wrote: post #255
stouset wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.

If you choose criteria that arbitrarily exclude all fatal accidents after the fact, then anything can be said to be 100% safe.

I chose criteria that reflects the reality of passenger air travel for most of HN. You can note that every carrier in the U.S. who purchased a 737 MAX opted for a more expensive configuration that included a third AOA sensor. This ensured that the MCAS accidents would not have happened for anyone flying on a major carrier in the US.

I suspect this is also the case for most western European airlines, but I don't actually know. So I didn't include them.

The majority of HN's user base is not spending most of their air travel on carriers operating on shoestring budgets in Africa or Southeast Asia. They are not flying most of their miles on charters run by operators with fleets of ten planes that carry a dozen or two passengers at most. They are not flying on ancient de Havillands or Grummans. They are not passengers on cargo planes.

The majority of HN's user base is flying on comparatively well-funded carriers operating within jurisdictions that enforce strict controls around maintenance, pilot training, crew workload, and other wider operational considerations. This doesn't make flying risk-free, and it doesn't absolve Boeing of their responsibility in building reliable aircraft. But it does mean that the average HN commenter encounters significantly more danger crossing the street than they do when flying.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#360

Post by efitz »

fl7305 wrote: post #341
Simon_ORourke wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there - the man was such poison, that such top-down layoff should include any private chefs, baristas or garbage guys that dealt with him.

That's a bit too much. Wouldn't it be better to each year rank all the executives by their proximity to Jack Welch, and then fire the worst 10%?

I see what you did there.
Post reply on HN