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

721–730 of 884 posts

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

#721

Post by mannykannot »

mulmen wrote: post #548
shriek wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the chance of you dying when something goes wrong in an aircraft at high altitude is significantly higher (almost 100%) than you dying in a car crash. There's still a chance of you getting ambulance on road accidents but you're plummeting to your death on major aircraft malfunction.

> Because the chance of you dying when something goes wrong in an aircraft at high altitude is significantly higher (almost 100%) than you dying in a car crash. It isn't though. Airliners have suffered in-flight engine explosions and decompressions multiple times since 2001 without fatalities. The last time a structural failure of an aircraft resulted in a crash was in 2000 and it was a design that entered service in…

> The last time a structural failure of an aircraft resulted in a crash was in 2000 and it was a design that entered service in 1959.

While I agree with your point, if the scope is scheduled airline flights in the USA, AA flight 587 crashed on 2001-11-12; globally, Egypt Air 804 on 2016-05-19. There have also been a few close calls, such as Qantas 32 on 2010-11-04, and collisions can also occur, such as that between BAL flight 2937 and DHL slight 611 on 2002-07-01, and Gol Transportes Aéreos flight 1907 with a business jet on 2006-09-29. And, given the topic is things going catastrophically wrong at altitude, there is AF447 on 2009-06-01.

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

#722

Post by Eduard »

InTheArena wrote: post #680

Almost all of this can be laid specifically to the moment when Boeing passed over Alan Mullally for its next CEO in favor of a bean counter. Mullaly went to Ford and rescued that company. If Boeings board were serious about a true turnover here, they need to try and find Mullally And get him on the board right now. At this point the best outcome that I see is a BCA sale to Lockheed. That’s a high order, Elon tried to…

> It’s not that much worse than airbus was at after their A320 flew into a forest and they hid the flight data recorders,...

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q

Doesn't read like "they" = Airbus hid the recorders.

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

#723

Post by habinero »

xvector wrote: post #633
coddingtonbear wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I can sympathize with the story, this particular aircraft had been in their hands just a couple months. Its first commercial flight was just a couple weeks back. Maintenance isn't the issue here, clearly.

> Maintenance isn't the issue here, clearly. It is. Maintenance was aware of the pressurization warnings on this plane. They did nothing.

No, they logged it. Logging is not nothing.

Planes are incredibly complex and have little problems like that all the time. It's not a safety issue.

This was a brand new aircraft, this is almost certainly a manufacturing defect of some kind.

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

#724

Post by TylerE »

Someone1234 wrote: post #682
TylerE wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not at all accurate. The MAX has two AoA sensors from day one.

We're talking about what the MCAS used for input. The aircraft has two AoA sensors and three computers. MCAS used 1 and 1 because it was believed to be non-safety-critical system. Here is a direct quote from Wikipedia's MCAS article: > Though there are two sensors on the MAX only one of them is used at a time to trigger MCAS activation on the 737 MAX. Any fault in this sensor, perhaps due to physical damage, creates…

So what you're saying is that I'm right, it in fact had 2 AoA sensors from day one.

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

#725

Post by habinero »

intunderflow wrote: post #118
yakkomajuri wrote: post #113

I certainly know nothing about planes yet from the reading I've done on the 737 Max I'm a bit uneasy that these planes are still flying. I usually subscribe to the mentality that something that had a significant issue that was fixed is overly scrutinized and thus becomes safe but in this case it seems like the decision-making involved in the making of this plane from the start was flawed, such that I'm not sure patch…

The FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US, the only thing that could kill the Max off would be if another big regulator such as EASA refused to let the Max into their airspace.

No, that's absolutely not true. They can and have grounded entire aircraft lines.

There's literally no reason to ban the aircraft.

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

#726

Post by askvictor »

tavavex wrote: post #661
askvictor wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can be attributed to the carbon fibre?

The plane faring better in the collision than expected and, allegedly, not burning through quickly and buying the passengers more time to evacuate.

My naive assuming would have been that carbon fibre would burn easier than aluminium

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

#727

Post by wkat4242 »

tayo42 wrote: post #706
PaulHoule wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is quieter for folks on the ground too. And it doesn’t get grounded when the temperature is too high nearly as much as the 737. If people realized you could get widebody comfort in a regional jet they’d quit flying on legacy airlines.

Is it more expensive? Where do you search for these flights?

In my case it was not more expensive, no. But I was flying in Europe. Not sure about the US.

They just use them for the quieter flights where they have trouble filling up a 737.

I was dreading it because the last time I flew on an airliner this size it was a 717 and it was horrible. Very noisy in particular (I was seated right beside the engine I have to say). The Embraer was really delightful and it has under-wing engines.

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

#728

Post by marcosdumay »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #675
marcosdumay wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that too. From Wikipedia: > in April 2020 Boeing terminated the joint venture deal due to impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on aviation and market uncertainty. Embraer alleges that the financial impact of the Boeing 737 MAX groundings contributed to the demise of the deal So, the deal was broken before both governments had time to decide if they allowed it. (I do remember some of Embraer clients ca…

Didn't it look like Brazilian government was almost 100% gonna have it called off because of the "hit" to national reputation? (losing one of their largest and most internationally famous powerhouses)

It didn't look that way to me. But then, I'm not good at guessing this.

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

#729

Post by ryanwaggoner »

ls612 wrote: post #456
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for that? This lists a number of others: https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-types-zero-hull-losses/

Huh I never realized the 717 had no crashes either that’s even more impressive considering the era it was designed in tbh. The others on that list look like subtypes (ie the 747-8; there have been numerous 747 crashes).

A380?

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

#730

Post by talldatethrow »

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…

I hate to turn this into a political comment, but your comment about it being depressing struck a nerve with me.

Many conservatives and people worried about the border have been feeling this depression pretty hard the last few years, if not 20+ years. Add in the crime problem with no cash bail, and honestly a few friends and I have felt something is really wrong for several years on a pretty deep sad level.

Interesting that something slighlt convoluted like a plane retrofit was what brought about it in you.

Post reply on HN