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

741–750 of 884 posts

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

#741

Post by trogdor »

habinero wrote: post #718
mulmen wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Is it your assertion that Boeing is currently operated by competent people? They're getting crushed by SpaceX at rockets. How much more of this incompetence will it take before someone does the same to them with airliners? Relying on being "too big to fail" isn't a viable long term strategy. It only lowers the barrier t…

The aviation side of Boeing doesn't do rockets. That's a completely separate org which is part of the ULA consortium. SpaceX has (ok, had) good PR, but they don't do anything others couldn't do. And they'd be bankrupt without NASA.

>they'd be bankrupt without NASA

Most companies would be bankrupt without their customers. A $5 billion government contract isn’t something that can be dismissed as the recipient ‘being kept solvent by Uncle Sam.’

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

#742

Post by dcow »

habinero wrote: post #717
kegoakwpfk wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn’t build a website with a single point of failure, yet the argument here is it’s okay to engineer things badly because of the success rate of requests is high. For air travel impacting human lives. I think it speaks to current generation of leaders avoiding thought, consideration, foresight, insight, and just using any statistic that can justify a decision. It’s a decline and one that also explains the exci…

This statement makes no sense. It has never been safer to fly, precisely because aviation is so dedicated to root cause analysis. A whole door exploded out of a plane and 1. The plane did not suffer structural damage and could land safely 2. Nobody died because seat belts are mandatory 3. The crew is drilled over and over on what to do 4. The plane has extensive monitoring and logging so RCA is easier 5. The US funds…

You’re arguing past the GP. Just because it’s never been safer to fly doesn't mean we should relax any part of the rigid and high bar the aviation industry holds itself to. You’re both right…

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

#743

Post by vladms »

ixs wrote: post #731
TylerE wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Airplanes are literally hundreds of times less likely to kill you per mile than cars. There has not been a single US airline fatality since 2009.

Southwest 1380 would like a word with you. Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 was a Boeing 737-700 that experienced an uncontained engine failure[a] in the left CFM56-7B engine after departing from New York–LaGuardia Airport en route to Dallas Love Field on April 17, 2018. […] One passenger was partially ejected from the aircraft and sustained fatal injuries[…] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_13…

Based on this https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-ca... between 2009 and 2021 there were indeed 2. I think that the point stands, it is very impressive and safe.

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

#744

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bluelu wrote: post #281
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US What are you basing this on?

Common sense

> common sense

How do you think we would judge someone using common sense to work out a problem in computing? Because saying the FAA is existentially deferential to Boeing is a "series of tubes" analog.

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

#745

Post by JumpCrisscross »

philwelch wrote: post #655
mattmaroon wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, no we didn’t. We spent less as a percentage of GDP. But total spending barely shrank by the late 90’s. We hadn’t even started to shift spending away from piloted jets by then either. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/mili...

If you change the endpoints on that graph to 1985 and 2000, the drop in spending in the 1990’s is a lot clearer. 325 billion to 287 billion is a sizable decrease—about 11%—, especially in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. It only looks small compared to the post-9/11 increase in spending, and a larger share of that spending was operations rather than procurement.

Also real, versus nominal, dollars.

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

#747

Post by talldatethrow »

vladms wrote: post #739
talldatethrow wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Interesti…

Feeling sad and depressed can be a medical condition rather than a reality issue. There are many numerically things (can't check everything) that are not much worse than 20 years ago (and some even better), but people seem more and more upset. It's like they just spend time online/on TV and WANT to find reasons to feel bad. Or that they expect that because things CAN be good they will be good tomorrow without any eff…

I'm in California since 1989. Things are definitely different and IMO worse than before.

If I had to guess, previously the crime was in obvious rough areas. Now it seems it's expanding to everywhere.

But even if crime/illegal border crossings were down... Just because we were unaware of it 20 years ago and are now aware doesn't really make people feel better about it.

"Hey, you know how you were wondering why wages are stagnant, yet housing prices are still rising? Turns out there were millions of people entering illegally every year and you just weren't aware of it previously! Better turn off the news or you'll feel worse about that $3k 2bdroom."

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

#748

Post by perryizgr8 »

Guvante wrote: post #614
peyton wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From FAA.gov: > We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation. https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities Maybe the people responsible are the people who say they’re responsible?

So if the FAA works with Boeing to fix a safety issue and Congress overrides FAA on the implementation we should blame the FAA. Why?

Because the FAA is "responsible for the safety of civil aviation." They don't get to say that, and accept tax monies for that, and then throw up their hands when someone else tries to block them from doing their job. The director (or whoever heads the agency) should have resigned, alongwith the entire rest of the management. Instead of being content with letting someone else take the blame when the next accident claims 100s of lives.

Imagine if you were tasked with making sure that your app's customer's data were safe. Your boss goes against your recommendation and does something you know will put sensitive data in the hands of hackers. What would you do?

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

#749

Post by heyoni »

yongjik wrote: post #712
nimbius wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worth noting for no particular reason China had a baby formula scandal in 2008 that led to the death of four infants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal The Intermediate People's Court in Shijiazhuang sentenced a farmer, Zhang Yujun, and a senior manager, Geng Jinping, to death in 2009. five more people received life sentences and the main company behind it went bankrupt. this was for four infant…

I'm sure sometimes China's legal system works, but we should also consider frequent cases when it does not, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision (2011) 40 people died in train collision, and then: > On orders from the authorities, the rescue effort concluded less than a day following the accident, and the damaged train cars were seen being broken apart by backhoes and buried nearby. The Railway…

Or one of the infants that died drinking the tainted milk belonged to someone powerful.

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

#750

Post by doubloon »

nimbius wrote: post #645
throwaway67743 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Executives are personally liable for loss of life, regardless of the law it is morally contemptible to hide behind a corporation. Until people go to jail for manslaughter this will not change.

worth noting for no particular reason China had a baby formula scandal in 2008 that led to the death of four infants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal The Intermediate People's Court in Shijiazhuang sentenced a farmer, Zhang Yujun, and a senior manager, Geng Jinping, to death in 2009. five more people received life sentences and the main company behind it went bankrupt. this was for four infant…

this is wrong. China cracked down on milk whistleblowers and severely repressed and harassed them, they stopped anyone from discussing the problem on the internet. Parents of the children who were harmed basically were told to shut up by the government.
Post reply on HN