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

Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 173 posts

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#81

Post by KolmogorovComp »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #63
ZaoLahma wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it troublesome? As someone with very limited knowledge in aircraft development, I'm genuinely curious about what more modern designs would bring to the table compared to the modern 737s, which I assume are heavily updated versions of the original 1960s design?

> more modern designs would bring to the table How would we know unless they do it? Before iphone was launched someone could have made the same point about Nokia's smartphones. They were heavily updated designs of their massively popular Symbian phones. We simply didn't know what was possible until someone put in the work and innovated and came up with an entirely new design.

> How would we know unless they do it?

We know it because the Airbus 320NEO which is based on a late 80s design, does not have all the cons the 737 has, and was the reason Boeing scrambled to make the 737Max.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#82

Post by jfim »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #31
jfim wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst thing that can happen with a toaster is that it catches on fire, while a plane can crash and kill hundreds of people. While that doesn't make Boeing any less responsible for engineering proper solutions instead of a compliance hack, there's a difference between the solution for a throwaway consumer device and one for a multi-million dollar airplane that has to operate in conditions with harsh vibration and…

Yeah, because an electrical appliance catching on fire is never deadly? What a bunch of hysterical hand-wringing. They just needed to a program a timer on the heater circuit and/or add sensors; the engines are already incredibly instrumented so this wouldn't be hard to do. "Cannot fail in ways that render the plane inoperable" is precisely why there should not be a system that if forgotten about by the pilots past ~1…

My comment talks about how the solution space for a toaster and a plane are completely different.

A simple thermal fuse to prevent catastrophic failure of a toaster is an example of a solution that works for a toaster. It's cheap. If the toaster handle gets stuck, the fuse heats up, trips, and the toaster is inoperable but there is no fire. The customer can replace the toaster or the thermal fuse.

That solution doesn't work for a plane, because if the fuse trips mid flight and the anti icing system doesn't work until the plane lands and maintenance replaces the thermal fuse, the plane is screwed if it encounters icing conditions during the same flight.

A timer doesn't work in this case, since from what I recall keeping the anti-icing system on is okay as long as the plane is in icing conditions. It can only overheat if the anti-icing is kept on outside of icing conditions for a few minutes.

Realistically, the system should work the same way it works on other planes; if it's forgotten, then it could waste energy but shouldn't cause the engine to fail. It's only because the engine inlet is made of composite materials instead of metal that this is a problem, but this is a problem of Boeing's own making.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#83

Post by justinclift »

bpye wrote: post #15
spookie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early access for planes. The next step in commercial aviation. Feel the thrill of life threatening bugs!

At least early access games might give you a discount or some exclusive content.

If they keep going as they are, then flying with Boeing might result in life insurance claims being invalidated. ;)

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#84

Post by CaptainZapp »

ZaoLahma wrote: post #61
kalleboo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overall shape of it That's the problem. It was designed for 60s-style boarding via air-stairs on the ground (rather than modern jetways from the terminal) so it's too low down. This requires doing funky things to fit modern, large, energy-efficient engines, starting with those weird flat-bottom cowlings and ending in moving the engines back and changing their angle, which changes the flight characteristics of the p…

Huh, I see. So keeping it around for so long was mostly for avoiding expensive R&D and pilot re-training, and not so much for the 737 being the perfect platform to keep iterating on. Interesting.

A major factor was that Airbus launched the A320 NEO and die hard, lifelong Boeing customers showed interest and even ordered the Airbus offering.

Designing a completely new plane (which was considered for quite some time) would have taken far too long and Airbus would gave eaten Boeing's lunch in this important segment.

So, Boeing McGivered a solution and updated a 60s airframe for modern use.

To not having to recertify the plane they came up with a software hack, which they initially didn't even document and which far exceeded the capability of its original design.

This[0] is a fantastic read which will leave you with a "how the fuck could they ever do that"? feeling and makes you wonder why nobody went to jail for that

[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-lo...

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#85

Post by switch007 »

jfoster wrote: post #64

I love flying on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It is the most comfortable plane I've flown on in terms of how the air quality feels, and it has had 0 hull losses & 0 fatalities; almost as good a safety record as you could hope for as a passenger. I think there are many who agree with me about Dreamliners being the most comfortable planes to fly on. I hope never to fly on another Boeing 737, because of all the accidents…

> I think there are many who agree with me about Dreamliners being the most comfortable planes to fly on

I’ve read a lot of complaints across many airlines about economy being very cramped as airlines chose to pack people in like sardines

Though business class generally gets good reviews

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#86

Post by mrjin »

jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

Whether Boeing has confidence no longer matters, what matters is whether we have confidence and the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#87

Post by hooby »

ZaoLahma wrote: post #43
Animats wrote: post #35

The trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.

Why is it troublesome? As someone with very limited knowledge in aircraft development, I'm genuinely curious about what more modern designs would bring to the table compared to the modern 737s, which I assume are heavily updated versions of the original 1960s design?

Engines got a lot larger over time, more fuel efficient, more reliable, etc.

On a 737 those engines cannot be placed in an ideal position, because that would mean they'd clip into the ground.

The engines are being put above and I think in front of (might be wrong there) where they should be for maximal flight stability.

The original 737 was self-correcting - meaning that if for example the aircraft stalled, the resulting forces would cause the nose to dip down, pulling the plane out of the stall automatically.

The newer versions no longer have that inherent self-correcting ability - and instead use computer software to take over controls and pull the nose down, in case of a stall.

A new airplane design could be made to accommodate much larger, modern engines, while also having the stability and inherent self-correcting ability of the original 737.

But that would require changes to the overall shape and form of the plane - which will require complete recertification. By sticking to the old design, they avoid that.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#88

Post by noughtme »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #71
jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

What I don't understand is why the 737-Max 7 is having problems with the anti-icing system for the engines. What "improvements" did they make to the engines that turned it into a problem?

Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#89

Post by panick21_ »

bestouff wrote: post #37
Animats wrote: post #35

The trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.

Didn't Boing already lose to Airbus ?

Well, yes Airbus has more market share. More orders and more deliveries. But Boeing is still very competitive in the profitable wide-body market.

So Airbus is bugger but its not like Boeing is going bust or something.

Re: Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

#90

Post by SilverBirch »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #2

I honestly don’t even know anymore if I’m living in a cracked / badly modded version of the sims, how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding I quote the article: She noted the exemption Boeing had sought "involves an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passeng…

I know the broader context is that Boeing has some fundamentally broken culture with regards to safety. Setting that aside I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a system were you can say "Hey, we have this problem, it has this impact, it occurs in the following situations. We'll fix it, but in the meantime we want an exemption to keep flying and we'll restrict the use to the following situations where the issue cannot occur." As long as that process is rigorous, it's not actually a problem. The broader problem is Boeing can't be trusted.

It's like when you go to the doctor and say "My knee hurts the day after I play basket ball" - you know what he's going to tell you - stop playing basketball. Sometimes you can be safe by just... not doing a particular thing.

Post reply on HN