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

FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 884 posts

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#591

Post by delfinom »

roody15 wrote: post #419

Interesting timeline. Following the two fatal crashes involving the MCAS system and the 737 Max … The FAA gave Boeing until Dec of 2022 to implement a fix. The fix was to reconfigure the 737 Max with 2 sensors (instead of one) and include an manual shutoff Guess what happened? Boeing didn’t fix anything.. instead they cried to congress that the fix is too expensive and they cannot get it done. So what happens is cong…

>(inverted corporate democracy perhaps?)

The word you are looking for is oligarchy.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#592

Post by Dalewyn »

WalterBright wrote: post #574
jnsaff2 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All jet airliners are aerodynamically unstable and use active controls to "paper over" that. This is flatly wrong. The only aerodynamically unstable planes are experimental and some fighter jets. No passenger plane can be certified if it can't be proven that it is aerodynamically stable. EDIT: don't take my word, here is a short explanation by a 777 pilot: https://youtu.be/EuVlbVr_jrs?feature=shared&t=129

> This is flatly wrong. Look up dutch roll, the active yaw damper that suppresses it, and the FAA requirement that all of them have a yaw damper installed. Besides, the MAX is not unstable. All it was supposed to do was just nudge the nose down a bit to match the profile of the previous 737 jets.

>All jet airliners are aerodynamically unstable

>Besides, the MAX is not unstable.

You might want to address your seeming hypocrisy there.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#593

Post by cedilla »

vc8f6vVV wrote: post #541
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone runs a red light at speed and t-bones you on your left you're dead no matter how defensively you drive. The illusion of control doesn't change your odds much.

It does change odds. So when considering defensive driving the rule "flying is safer" may not hold.

Flying is safer by several orders of magnitude. Especially in the US.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#594

Post by sircastor »

phpisthebest wrote: post #580
bobthepanda wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA gets authorized by Congress. Congress is actually the one with the constitutional power to legislate, so can override executive agencies like the grandparent describes.

[flagged]

I think you could make the argument that such regulation falls under the commerce clause as interstate commerce.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#595

Post by panarky »

dahdum wrote: post #109
panarky wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> safest airliner ever built ... very low production numbers If one model has 5 million flight hours and zero crashes, and another model has 500 million flight hours and 50 crashes, is it possible to say which model is safer?

I’ll take the one with 50 crashes any time. That’s 50 times something went catastrophically wrong and 50 times measures were taken to fix the underlying problems. A brand new plane will undoubtedly have brand new problems.

The point is that commercial aviation is so extraordinarily safe, that mechanical failures that result in fatalities are too rare to determine if a model with 5 million flight hours is more or less safe than another model with 500 million flight hours.

Zero fatalities does not mean the aircraft is statistically safer unless it has an order of magnitude more flight hours.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#596

Post by bobthepanda »

phpisthebest wrote: post #580
bobthepanda wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA gets authorized by Congress. Congress is actually the one with the constitutional power to legislate, so can override executive agencies like the grandparent describes.

[flagged]

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar....

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

> The Constitution gives Congress substantial power to establish federal government offices. As an initial matter, the Constitution vests the legislative power in Congress.1 Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers.2 The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise of its more specific authorities.3 The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices.4 Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives.5 The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.6

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#597

Post by [deleted] »

pc86 wrote: post #521
jacquesm wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If course they can: laws frequently cite specific cases and specific abuses in their supporting documentation in order to point out the exact intent of the law.

Laws are not research papers, they don't need to cite sources.

[deleted]

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#598

Post by 7thaccount »

ajcp wrote: post #516
g9yuayon wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine works in Boeing as a data scientist. His team has 10 people. Two of them can write code for analytics and models. The other 8 "manage projects", whatever that means. They spend their days creating processes, managing tickets, enforcing specific formats of tickets and stories and what not. Yet, none of the eight knew how to write product specs nor could be bothered with basic things like understanding…

I feel like this is especially pervasive in the data and ML fields. Perhaps just to many formally cloistered academic PhDs are cashing in on the corporate rush to data and ML "everything", but have no actual ability to execute or even code. I went to a large "AI" conference this year and was surprised to see some talks being given by the "VP of ML" at the company I work at. I'd never heard of him or the position befo…

This doesn't surprise me at all lol. Someone higher up maybe wanted an AI bullet point on the accomplishments/goals and just made it happen on paper-only.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#599

Post by bmitc »

mattmaroon wrote: post #375
laweijfmvo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it’s true or not, I feel like I control my fate when driving a lot more than when flying. I can take precautions (defensive driving, avoiding bad conditions, etc.) but have little to no control once I board a plane.

It is true that you control your fate more when driving. Once the door shuts on the plane you have little ability to do anything other than get yourself arrested. That’s part of WHY air travel is safer.

I like to consider what is safer when something goes wromg. Are there statistics that track this across different modes of travel?

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#600

Post by pi-e-sigma »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #495
jacquesm wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless it is to add more limitations based on past (bad) performance and then only to document the reason the law exists, never to provide exemptions.

> Any kind of law that mentions a company by name should be automatically rejected, unless No "unless". No law should target a specific company or individual by name, ever, whether to give them special exceptions or special permissions or special restrictions or anything else. (They also shouldn't target specific companies by sufficiently-specific-description-it-only-applies-to-one-or-two-companies, either.)

US Congress has been passing acts concerning specific people or institutions, directly referenced by their name since its inception. It's called private laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress#Public_law,_pr...
Post reply on HN