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

791–800 of 884 posts

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

#791

Post by bmitc »

TylerE wrote: post #772
bmitc wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airplanes are inherently much, much less reliable than cars and only reach reliability through however many millions or billions of dollars worth of redundant systems and maintenance intervals and however many man-hours. That means that when you get on an airplane, you are extremely reliant on those systems and processes having been followed. We are seeing more and more that these systems and processes have been brea…

Plane Operated by a US Airline != Plane Manufactured in the US

Yes. And? I didn't conflate those two.

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

#792

Post by db48x »

wkat4242 wrote: post #727
tayo42 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Here in the US basically all the regional airlines use them. Horizon Airlines is one that I know of specifically, and Wikipedia lists Sky West, Envoy Air, Mesa Airlines, Republic Airways, JetBlue, etc, etc. Many of them contract for the more well–known airlines like Delta, US Airways, and so on, so you could end up on an Embraer even if you don’t seek it out.

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

#793

Post by nodamage »

bmitc wrote: post #764
vladms wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wikipedia says 51. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_... The numbers would go up quite a bit if it included private and military. The numbers you linked to seem to have a very tight definition of which flights were considered, as the Wikipedia list showcases several more in-flight deaths involving air carrier class airplanes than just two.

I don't understand how you arrived at the number 51. Did you just tally up all the incidents in that list that occurred after 2009?

That list includes a bunch of incidents that are not really relevant for assessing risk level when flying on a commercial airline:

- Someone committing suicide by getting sucked into a plane engine while the plane was on the ground.

- Someone sneaking onto a runway and getting struck by a plane that was landing.

- Another person stealing a plane and intentionally crashing it into the ground.

- The Kobe Bryant helicopter crash.

Looking through the list I would conclude the parent comment was correct. The only incidents with passenger fatalities on US airlines since 2009 were Southwest 1380 and PenAir 3296.

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

#794

Post by [deleted] »

nodamage wrote: post #793
bmitc wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says 51. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_... The numbers would go up quite a bit if it included private and military. The numbers you linked to seem to have a very tight definition of which flights were considered, as the Wikipedia list showcases several more in-flight deaths involving air carrier class airplanes than just two.

I don't understand how you arrived at the number 51. Did you just tally up all the incidents in that list that occurred after 2009? That list includes a bunch of incidents that are not really relevant for assessing risk level when flying on a commercial airline: - Someone committing suicide by getting sucked into a plane engine while the plane was on the ground. - Someone sneaking onto a runway and getting struck by…

[deleted]

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

#795

Post by bmitc »

nodamage wrote: post #793
bmitc wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says 51. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_... The numbers would go up quite a bit if it included private and military. The numbers you linked to seem to have a very tight definition of which flights were considered, as the Wikipedia list showcases several more in-flight deaths involving air carrier class airplanes than just two.

I don't understand how you arrived at the number 51. Did you just tally up all the incidents in that list that occurred after 2009? That list includes a bunch of incidents that are not really relevant for assessing risk level when flying on a commercial airline: - Someone committing suicide by getting sucked into a plane engine while the plane was on the ground. - Someone sneaking onto a runway and getting struck by…

It's definitely more than two.

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

#796

Post by nodamage »

bmitc wrote: post #795
nodamage wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you arrived at the number 51. Did you just tally up all the incidents in that list that occurred after 2009? That list includes a bunch of incidents that are not really relevant for assessing risk level when flying on a commercial airline: - Someone committing suicide by getting sucked into a plane engine while the plane was on the ground. - Someone sneaking onto a runway and getting struck by…

It's definitely more than two.

Can you specify which other incidents on that list you think are relevant?

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

#797

Post by tpm »

vkou wrote: post #475
WalterBright wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Soviet built airliners are known for their safety?

Is there any kind of alternative that could be found, or have we reached the end of history, with our only two options being 2023 capitalism versus 1960s Soviet state capitalism?

A working alternative has not been found yet. Even the Soviet system was not sustainable.

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

#798

Post by [deleted] »

TylerE wrote: post #724
Someone1234 wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#799

Post by [deleted] »

b112 wrote: post #786
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.

Airplanes are literally hundreds of times less likely to kill you per mile than cars A weird metric. I'd prefer travel time, not per mile. Still far safer.

[deleted]

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

#800

Post by camkego »

b112 wrote: post #786
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.

Airplanes are literally hundreds of times less likely to kill you per mile than cars A weird metric. I'd prefer travel time, not per mile. Still far safer.

An old article from 1998 says the risk of death per hour of travel for air vs car is about the same.

https://observer.com/1998/03/driving-versus-flying-the-debat...

But, I disagree with the article, I think the debate is hardly settled.

Post reply on HN