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

FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#41

Post by estearum »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #39
estearum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The issue" at Boeing is obscene levels of financialization which, of course, has not been "solved."

[flagged]

No it's actually bad when financialization reaches such a degree that planes fall out of the sky.

You as an oncologist: "cells have been dividing for thousands of years and are better off for it. the word is meaningless. I would hate to be a single-celled organism." lmao

Great insight! Therefore there's no such thing as pathological cell division or pathological financialization. Or maybe it's just if someone is super super super smart, they get so smart they somehow lose the ability to distinguish between productive and pathological financialization, and then they get to make asinine comments on HN.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#42

Post by jrockway »

kube-system wrote: post #24
bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

The #1 rule of marketing is that people's actions rarely line up with what they say they're going to do.

Sort by price ascending and pick the first result.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#43

Post by rcxdude »

estearum wrote: post #32
bobthebob wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain exactly why this is bad?

[flagged]

I would assume the poster is asking for a more detailed explanation of the implied connection between this and the plane crashes.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#44

Post by estearum »

rcxdude wrote: post #43
estearum wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I would assume the poster is asking for a more detailed explanation of the implied connection between this and the plane crashes.

Well that is profoundly lazy.

Here, put it into your favorite LLM: "Is there a suspected or established relationship between Boeing's self-certification and the 737 MAX crashes?"

That will almost certainly link to the thousands of pages of Congressional, OIG, FAA testimony, investigation, and reporting.

Does GP think Boeing's self-certification authority was revoked after the accidents just for funsies? By random chance?

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#45

Post by wahern »

tzs wrote: post #37

> The U.S. government on Friday said Boeing can once again issue airworthiness certificates for its bestselling 737 Max aircraft and 787 Dreamliners, an authority that was stripped from the manufacturer after fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 of the 737 Max. I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read an "airworthiness certificate" is not a certificate that the aircraft design is good and safe. That would be a type…

Doesn't directly answer your question, but the CNBC article appears to be correct. See https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthin...

> The FAA stopped allowing Boeing to issue airworthiness certificates for 737 MAX airplanes in 2019 during their return to service following the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes, and for Boeing 787 airplanes in 2022 because of production quality issues.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#46

Post by akerl_ »

estearum wrote: post #44
rcxdude wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the poster is asking for a more detailed explanation of the implied connection between this and the plane crashes.

Well that is profoundly lazy. Here, put it into your favorite LLM: "Is there a suspected or established relationship between Boeing's self-certification and the 737 MAX crashes?" That will almost certainly link to the thousands of pages of Congressional, OIG, FAA testimony, investigation, and reporting. Does GP think Boeing's self-certification authority was revoked after the accidents just for funsies? By random cha…

As has been noted in several of the comments, the crashes were a result of a faulty design, not aircraft failing to meet the design.

The self-certification here wasn’t part of the chain of events that led to the crashes; it appears to have been related to other issues the FAA uncovered as a side effect of their investigation.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#47

Post by estearum »

akerl_ wrote: post #46
estearum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that is profoundly lazy. Here, put it into your favorite LLM: "Is there a suspected or established relationship between Boeing's self-certification and the 737 MAX crashes?" That will almost certainly link to the thousands of pages of Congressional, OIG, FAA testimony, investigation, and reporting. Does GP think Boeing's self-certification authority was revoked after the accidents just for funsies? By random cha…

As has been noted in several of the comments, the crashes were a result of a faulty design, not aircraft failing to meet the design. The self-certification here wasn’t part of the chain of events that led to the crashes; it appears to have been related to other issues the FAA uncovered as a side effect of their investigation.

As has been noted in the actual reports, the crashes (as is true of all crashes) were the result of a specific chain of failures across several functions and organizations.

One component of that chain of failures is the self-certification process. If the FAA had the resource and mandate to actually understand each aircraft design change, then it's very likely (not guaranteed, but very likely) that the MCAS design having a single point of failure on the AoA sensor would have been flagged as problematic by FAA.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#48

Post by akerl_ »

estearum wrote: post #47
akerl_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As has been noted in several of the comments, the crashes were a result of a faulty design, not aircraft failing to meet the design. The self-certification here wasn’t part of the chain of events that led to the crashes; it appears to have been related to other issues the FAA uncovered as a side effect of their investigation.

As has been noted in the actual reports, the crashes (as is true of all crashes) were the result of a specific chain of failures across several functions and organizations. One component of that chain of failures is the self-certification process. If the FAA had the resource and mandate to actually understand each aircraft design change, then it's very likely (not guaranteed, but very likely) that the MCAS design hav…

Design changes are not part of the self certification process, they’re part of the type certification process, which has always been handled by the FAA.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#50

Post by jbm »

jrockway wrote: post #42
kube-system wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The #1 rule of marketing is that people's actions rarely line up with what they say they're going to do.

Sort by price ascending and pick the first result.

I live in Calgary. Both major airlines cost the same. There is no difference in sorting. Both airlines use the 737.

I lived in Tokyo. I used to spend more to avoid getting accosted at the US border. A lot more.

You can't call it choice when your vendors all offer the same product for the same price.

Post reply on HN