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

No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#81

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #55
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One non-redundant sensor is completely within the regulations though. All the choices they made comply with regulations. You don’t have to like that, but it’s the truth. If your immediate thought it “well just add more regulations” I’m afraid you may not grasp how building things in regulated markets work. There is always something to skirt. Government can never be big enough.

One non-redundant sensor is completely within the regulations though Apaprently only when it's determined that the sensor is in the hazardous and not in the catastrophic category. While Boeing self certified it as hazardous I, for one, would think that two losses of brand new planes within month of each other is a pretty catastrophic event. I dealry hope that the Europeans and others are not as complacent to accept t…

How do you reckon my post is inexclusive to yours?

Despite HN not liking the truth about the situation, causes, and effects... Boeing was within all regulations at all times it seems.

Even their poor PR now, and anything short of scrapping the plane as the other thing many will accept, they’re working within the rules.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#82

Post by magduf »

rbanffy wrote: post #70
bgorman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core issue with Boeing is that they have captured the government. Boeing the largest defense contractor, and one of the biggest lobbyists. Boeing recently successfully blocked Bombardier from competing with the 737 by getting the US government to effectively ban the C-series aircraft. (Bombariders "solution" was to give Airbus a controlling interest in a joint venture to build the C-series). I don't think this is…

It is the unavoidable end state of poorly regulated capitalism. When a player achieves regulatory capture, there is no amount of market that can fix the issue.

Exactly. They have capitalism in Europe too, where the Airbus is made, but they don't have these problems because they have much more effective regulation.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#83

Post by magduf »

ReptileMan wrote: post #11
nxc18 wrote: post #5

Boeing's actions are absolutely mind boggling. All consumers want is _some_, _any_ evidence that they take passenger safety seriously. Pilots have to take less training to operate a proven deadly aircraft, with software patch on top, than I have to take to work in an office job... that's fucking insane. How can we make Boeing feel some pain for this? You know, actually enough for them to start taking this seriously.

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the…

They deserve to go out of business, and for their executives to go to prison (along with whatever PE signed off on this atrocity).

As for airline expansion, Airbus can certainly pick up the slack and double their production capacity in short order. All they have to do is buy up the facilities from a now-defunct airplane manufacturer in the Seattle area. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of recently-unemployed engineers, technicians, and other manufacturing personnel happy to take a job there too.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#84

Post by dotancohen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #61
dotancohen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually all western nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a 737 strike, as that was the largest plane flying when the regulations were written.

> Actually all western nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a 737 strike, as that was the largest plane flying when the regulations were written. The 737 was a smaller complement for the 707 and 727 when introduced, it was never the largest plane flying.

Thank you, I believe that you are correct.

In any case, the 1960's foreign body impact regulation has not been updated so far as I know, and at the time it was designed for the largest civilian passenger aircraft then flying. The 737 fits in, the 747 (introduced only two years later if I'm not mistaken) does not.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#85

Post by magduf »

chopin wrote: post #56
xmichael999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Boeing already participates or works in tandem with the FAA to write the rules, it is pretty sick they are trying to work around the rules. This is all about profit and they are doubling down, likely due to contract obligations with Southwest and others that this plane will not require a new type rating or any sim. time. Lets hope EASA actually reviews this rather than the FAA letting boeing self audit ..…

My hopes for the EASA are low. They will fear retaliation on Airbus. I am afraid we will have to hope for the big Asian players.

I'd like to see the EASA ban 737max flights over Europe permanently, by requiring them to have a new type rating for the aircraft, which Boeing won't do. They should also criminally prosecute Boeing executives, in absentia if necessary, and seize Boeing assets in Europe.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#86

Post by magduf »

sokoloff wrote: post #72
teh_infallible wrote: post #33

Is there anyone who would willingly get on one of these planes, regardless of software patches and extra training, when we know they have a compromised airframe, whose design prioritized cost over safety?

I would get on and/or put my family on a -MAX flown by a US or major European carrier, where the crew training and experience requirements match my sensibilities of what should be required for airline transport operations. That trip would no doubt be statistically safer than the flying we already do in single engine piston aircraft (itself an operation that prioritizes cost over the safety of flying a twin turboprop…

>That trip would no doubt be statistically safer than the flying we already do in single engine piston aircraft

Maybe, but it'd be statistically less safe than flying on a different model of aircraft, such as one from Airbus.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#87

Post by magduf »

noir_lord wrote: post #75
cmurf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each country sets its own rules for their airspace, so they can do whatever they want. But most have historically deferred to the FAA, but then also Boeing and airlines, and all the regulatory bodies work with ICAO to try and be on the same page as much as possible. There may in fact be some obscure treaties and trade deals, among ICAO complexities, that complicate sovereignty on this issue.

I think one of the long term implications of this message is that the European aviation authorities will defer less to the FAA and another bit of US 'soft' power is eroded. Seems to be a trend these days.

The US has really been shooting itself in the foot for a couple years now.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#88

Post by magduf »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #34
RandomBacon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it would still be more dangerous to drive to the airport than it would be to fly on a 737 Max.

True, but because the FAA has (historically) done an excellent job on airline safety, people expect zero risk from air travel. Everybody knows cars are dangerous (at least in principle, even if they think they personally will never be in a crash).

>True, but because the FAA has (historically) done an excellent job on airline safety

Historically, yes, but within the last decade or less it's all gone to pot.

Detroit used to be a great city with a booming economy. Not now.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#89

Post by et2o »

jefftk wrote: post #73
volkl48 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US airlines all purchased some/all of the "optional" safety features that would have made it obvious to the pilots that the system was malfunctioning.

Southwest and American did, but not United: Of the three US airlines that have Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 jets in their fleet, only two — American and Southwest — paid for these upgrades, the Times confirmed. A United Airlines spokesperson told the Times that its jets don’t include these upgrades because its pilots use other data to fly their planes.) https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/22/18277694/boeing-737-...

"use other data to fly their planes"

What does this mean? Pure PR spin? Isn't MCAS a mandatory system?

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#90

Post by magduf »

mark-r wrote: post #30

How is it that Boeing doesn't realize how f'ed up they are at this point? They need to bend over backwards to restore trust in this plane or they'll be bending over for a different reason.

They don't believe they're f'ed up because they have effective control of the American government and FAA in regards to this issue. The only way this is really going to hurt them is if foreign air regulators don't go along with the FAA in rubber-stamping whatever lame fix Boeing comes up with.
Post reply on HN