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

541–550 of 579 posts

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#541

Post by shiroiuma »

andy_ppp wrote: post #382
diggan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it. Luckily the airlines I travel with only use Airbus, but if they were using 737 Max, I'd definitely book tickets that I can change at the last minute, and refuse to board if it turns out to be a 737 Max. Yes, that's probably illogical. And probably much of life is illogical. But…

And driving home is still more dangerous than getting on the flight.

For you, maybe. Not for me. The trains between my airport and my home have a pretty much perfect safety record.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#542

Post by shiroiuma »

dylan604 wrote: post #278
davely wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2010, an Airbus A380 engine exploded. The fact that it landed safely was a miracle. [1] In 2017, an Airbus A380 lost an engine (literally, fell off the plane). [2] In 2018, a cockpit windshield blew out in an Airbus A319. [3] Don't get me wrong, the culture at Boeing has changed (for the worse). The 737 Max is not without issues. It's horrific that hundreds have died due to both ignorance and deception on behalf o…

Not trying to move the goalposts, but how old were these Airbus planes at the time of their incidents? Were they months old off the assembly line, or were they several years in where slips in maintenance and inspections came into play?

Also importantly, did Airbus actively deceive people, causing these incidents? I don't think so.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#543

Post by shiroiuma »

kube-system wrote: post #339
ketchupdebugger wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my brand new Honda's door fell off when I'm on the highway, I'm not blaming the door manufacturer I'm blaming Honda

When Takata airbags failed across the industry, we blamed Takata, even if the manufacturers had to clean up the mess.

That's because the failure was entirely internal to the airbags. If the problem were with the installation of the airbags in the vehicles, then we'd have looked at the carmakers.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#544

Post by seru »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #301

If you are outraged and want to be more than performative about it, check if your electeds are on the Senate Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation [1] and/or House Aviation Subcommittees [2]. If not, the broader Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation [3] and/or House Transportation & Infrastructure Committees [4]. Call their office (D.C., preferably) or submit a comment noting the issue and your concerns a…

Subject: Concerns Regarding the FAA Exemption Request by Boeing for the 737 MAX Aircraft

[YOUR NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS]

[DATE]

[REPRESENTATIVE NAME] [REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE ADDRESS]

Dear [REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR] [REPRESENTATIVE LAST NAME],

I am reaching out to you as a concerned constituent from [CITY], [STATE], to address a pressing issue that has significant implications for the safety and reliability of our nation's aviation sector. My concerns center on the recent exemption request by Boeing for its 737 MAX aircraft, which is particularly alarming in light of the explosive decompression event that occurred last Friday.

The 737 MAX has a controversial history, marked by two catastrophic accidents that led to a global grounding of the fleet. Despite modifications and enhancements to address these issues, the recent exemption request by Boeing raises questions about the aircraft's safety standards. The exemption, if granted, could potentially allow Boeing to bypass certain regulatory requirements, which I fear might compromise passenger safety.

The incident last Friday, involving an explosive decompression event, is a stark reminder of the unforeseen risks inherent in aviation. This occurrence underscores the need for stringent safety measures and regulations that should not be compromised or waived. It is imperative that any exemptions to standard aviation safety procedures be scrutinized with utmost diligence to prevent any compromise on safety.

As my representative in Congress, I urge you to closely monitor this situation and take appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not grant exemptions that could endanger public safety. It is crucial that the FAA maintains its rigorous standards to safeguard the lives of passengers and crew.

Our priority must be the safety and well-being of everyone who flies. I trust that you will consider this matter with the seriousness it deserves and represent the concerns of your constituents in this crucial matter.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to your response and the actions you will take regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#545

Post by seru »

barryrandall wrote: post #479
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #301

If you are outraged and want to be more than performative about it, check if your electeds are on the Senate Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation [1] and/or House Aviation Subcommittees [2]. If not, the broader Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation [3] and/or House Transportation & Infrastructure Committees [4]. Call their office (D.C., preferably) or submit a comment noting the issue and your concerns a…

But cross-reference that with OpenSecrets to see if it's even worth pursuing. If they're in office, they're probably taking bribes from Boeing.

Take care - Poe's law applies to voting and civic engagement suppression tactics as well (of which this is a prime example.)

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#546

Post by hef19898 »

Fischgericht wrote: post #526
dawnerd wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What choice do they have? If they switch to Airbus they’re going to be waiting until at least 2030. They could buy used but that’s goes against why airlines are ordering new planes to begin with. And that’s not factoring in the maintenance cost in switching manufacturers. Thats why you’ll see airlines be a Boeing or Airbus only fleet.

I have seen this 2030 number posted a couple of times now. Is this validated information? Is it really such a long wait to get an airplane from Airbus?

Yes, their order book for the A320Neo is that full. As is Boeings for the 737 if I remember correctly. One can always pay more and hope someone else is cancelling so, this approach ain't working at scale so. And in the case of Airbus, that is based on a delivery rate of around 60 aircraft, single aisle only, per month already.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#547

Post by hef19898 »

dist-epoch wrote: post #231
diggan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it. Luckily the airlines I travel with only use Airbus, but if they were using 737 Max, I'd definitely book tickets that I can change at the last minute, and refuse to board if it turns out to be a 737 Max. Yes, that's probably illogical. And probably much of life is illogical. But…

The 737 is cursed. Not illogical to avoid it. There are plenty alternatives.

There are not plenty of alternatives, basically onoy one: A320Neo. The A220 is too small eith not enough range in most cases.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#548

Post by saintlunaire »

Is anyone else contacting airlines to state their reluctance to fly the Max? I’ve just had a surprising chat with Ryanair where the agent boldly claimed that my enquiry about it is “the first one this year”.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#549

Post by account42 »

cameldrv wrote: post #471
justinclift wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not dangerous enough to change your travel plans. They keep having new critical safety issues. :( That latest one only didn't end up with fatalities due to luck, it could just as easily have gone the other way.

Absolutely. There have been several airline explosive decompressions in the past 50 years. The fatal ones have each had one fatality, even with crazy damage to the plane (look up Aloha 243) If you figure this incident "should" have had one fatality, if you figure 100 passengers per flight, that's a 1/150,000,000 chance of dying. Your odds of death are way worse on the drive to the airport than from this.

> There have been several airline explosive decompressions in the past 50 years. The fatal ones have each had one fatality, even with crazy damage to the plane (look up Aloha 243)

Uhhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611

> Fatalities: 225

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#550

Post by account42 »

mulmen wrote: post #509
contravariant wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I would agree with them that making the recording much longer than it plausibly needs to be is not a good idea. Preventing life-or-death situations is about the only reason I'm in favour of recording anything at all. However evidently 2 hours of sound isn't long enough. Just because a plane keeps going for more a few hours doesn't mean the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant recording.

Sure, more time would be good for investigators. But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings. Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.

> But pilots have legitimate concerns about these recordings.

They have concerns. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion.

> Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.

Actually, they don't. Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical.

Post reply on HN