4 ms·

Let's be clear about what is happening here. This is simply a 'not on my watch' and 'CYA' philosophy that is what society has become today with so many news hun

by gist 8y ago

Let's be clear about what is happening here. This is simply a 'not on my watch' and 'CYA' philosophy that is what society has become today with so many news hungry sources and social media. Anyone in a position of power is so worried about getting blamed by irrational people for a bad outcome that they will simply make a choice to prevent that from happening at any cost. This doesn't mean that it's the wrong choice. But the fact is all anyone has to think is 'wow if this happens a third time I will get blamed'. [1] The old 'abundance of caution'. The fact is at what point do you do this? What about an extreme. Like every time there is any crash just ground every single plane until the extensive investigation is done? [1] And it should be irrelevant what has happened in other countries as far as grounding as well. Assumes they have concluded something and have more facts which of course they don't. Edit: I love when people who comment on HN based on what they read feel that they know more about the actual risk than the people (per my reply to a comment) at Boeing.

mason55 8y ago
> The fact is at what point do you do this? What about an extreme. Like every time there is any crash just ground every single plane until the extensive investigation is done? Not sure why you jumped to the end there, as if asking "at what point do you do this?" is a ridiculous conversation to have. I think it's a reasonable question to ask. It seems like for most people the answer is somewhere between "ground all planes any time there's an accident" and "ground a new model that has has two accidents in six months". Most of the world operates in shades of gray and nuance. Having the discussions about where the borders of nuance lie and why is valuable.
- irq11 8y ago
  It’s a reasonable question, but any comment that even remotely appears to “side with” Boeing is now downvote-bait. There isn’t much room for reasonable discussion on this thread.
ddebernardy 8y ago
> This is simply a 'not on my watch' and 'CYA' philosophy that is what society has become today with so many news hungry sources and social media. Please... go fly some 737 Max 8 planes to wherever you feel like it. As a consumer, I simply do not want to, nor do I want the burden to worry about whether I actually am going to do so when I book a flight.
- gist 8y ago
  I think it's reasonable to assume that Boeing has a great deal more to lose than anyone else in the decision chain. The idea that they would bet the company if they felt there was a safety problem is extreme. If there is another crash or two they are toast. Certainly any rational business decision maker would take that into consideration as far as grounding or not an entire fleet. Given that, it's actually amazing that they don't just err on the side of caution in the off chance there is another crash even if that crash has zero to do with the plane or any defect (since it would not be known right away if that was the case). Lastly as someone in another comment made the other day not flying a 737 Max 8 means potentially flying an older plane or some other circumstance that in theory is more risky (even driving).
Mizza 8y ago
I don't feel this way at all. The more we learn, the more it seems like Boeing misrepresented the extent of the changes they made inbetween the 737 and 737MAX8/9 models in order to avoid recertification, then undereducated the pilots about those changes. As a consumer who has flown on these plans many times, I'm glad they have been grounded until a fix can be deployed.
- gist 8y ago
  > The more we learn, the more it seems like Boeing misrepresented the extent of the changes Based on what? News stories that have come out? Is that the highly accurate source?
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    Based on the physical fact that the engines are different, mounted in a different place, and generate different thrust vectors.
    - ssambros 8y ago
      Engines are also very different between 737 Original and Classic, so having different thrust vectors between generations is not happening for the first time.
      - gist 8y ago
        And exactly my point. The parent comment stated a fact that could be true or not be true. And it's almost certainly something they read and therefore interpreted as significant an important fact. And that was what I was saying. All the info you read regardless of whether it is quoting an expert or not [1] comes 2nd hand and with nominal validity vs. people at Boeing being in a position (by the fact they employ and have access to actual experts) much better able to assess the danger. Of course I don't know if what you are saying is correct but that doesn't matter for the point I am making but thanks for making it just the same! [1] Which assumes the expert is even being quoted correctly which as anyone knows is not always the case.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
I really don't understand this argument at all. 350 lives have been lost. That means something. This isn't reactionary. There's something wrong and people need to look into it. For now, stop flying those planes.
peteradio 8y ago
This is not that extreme scenario so what is even the point of bringing up? 2 brand new planes crashed under similar circumstances. It makes no sense to wait til the conclusion of the investigation to ground. That has perverse incentives to hurry an important investigation.
barkingcat 8y ago
It's easy to talk in the theoretical but when planes have crashed loosing all hands and in similar circumstances pausing and taking a look at the data is the best course of action. Planes are grounded precisely because there is no information. If we had information, then there wouldn't be a grounding (because we can rule out design flaws, etc). When you are driving in a snow whiteout do you not slow down or even pull over? Or are you one of those people who would drive at the regular high way speed limit while not knowing what's in front of you?
erokar 8y ago
Actually the opposite is the case. The aircrafts should have been grounded world-wide Sunday based on the available information and flight path, to err on the side of caution. The U.S./FAA now look like idiots and are trying to save face.

by gist 8y ago

mason55 8y ago

> The fact is at what point do you do this? What about an extreme. Like every time there is any crash just ground every single plane until the extensive investigation is done? Not sure why you jumped to the end there, as if asking "at what point do you do this?" is a ridiculous conversation to have. I think it's a reasonable question to ask. It seems like for most people the answer is somewhere between "ground all planes any time there's an accident" and "ground a new model that has has two accidents in six months". Most of the world operates in shades of gray and nuance. Having the discussions about where the borders of nuance lie and why is valuable.

irq11 8y ago
It’s a reasonable question, but any comment that even remotely appears to “side with” Boeing is now downvote-bait. There isn’t much room for reasonable discussion on this thread.

ddebernardy 8y ago

> This is simply a 'not on my watch' and 'CYA' philosophy that is what society has become today with so many news hungry sources and social media. Please... go fly some 737 Max 8 planes to wherever you feel like it. As a consumer, I simply do not want to, nor do I want the burden to worry about whether I actually am going to do so when I book a flight.

gist 8y ago
I think it's reasonable to assume that Boeing has a great deal more to lose than anyone else in the decision chain. The idea that they would bet the company if they felt there was a safety problem is extreme. If there is another crash or two they are toast. Certainly any rational business decision maker would take that into consideration as far as grounding or not an entire fleet. Given that, it's actually amazing that they don't just err on the side of caution in the off chance there is another crash even if that crash has zero to do with the plane or any defect (since it would not be known right away if that was the case). Lastly as someone in another comment made the other day not flying a 737 Max 8 means potentially flying an older plane or some other circumstance that in theory is more risky (even driving).

Mizza 8y ago

I don't feel this way at all. The more we learn, the more it seems like Boeing misrepresented the extent of the changes they made inbetween the 737 and 737MAX8/9 models in order to avoid recertification, then undereducated the pilots about those changes. As a consumer who has flown on these plans many times, I'm glad they have been grounded until a fix can be deployed.

gist 8y ago
> The more we learn, the more it seems like Boeing misrepresented the extent of the changes Based on what? News stories that have come out? Is that the highly accurate source?
- blackflame7000 8y ago
  Based on the physical fact that the engines are different, mounted in a different place, and generate different thrust vectors.
  - ssambros 8y ago
    Engines are also very different between 737 Original and Classic, so having different thrust vectors between generations is not happening for the first time.
    - gist 8y ago
      And exactly my point. The parent comment stated a fact that could be true or not be true. And it's almost certainly something they read and therefore interpreted as significant an important fact. And that was what I was saying. All the info you read regardless of whether it is quoting an expert or not [1] comes 2nd hand and with nominal validity vs. people at Boeing being in a position (by the fact they employ and have access to actual experts) much better able to assess the danger. Of course I don't know if what you are saying is correct but that doesn't matter for the point I am making but thanks for making it just the same! [1] Which assumes the expert is even being quoted correctly which as anyone knows is not always the case.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

I really don't understand this argument at all. 350 lives have been lost. That means something. This isn't reactionary. There's something wrong and people need to look into it. For now, stop flying those planes.

peteradio 8y ago

This is not that extreme scenario so what is even the point of bringing up? 2 brand new planes crashed under similar circumstances. It makes no sense to wait til the conclusion of the investigation to ground. That has perverse incentives to hurry an important investigation.

barkingcat 8y ago

It's easy to talk in the theoretical but when planes have crashed loosing all hands and in similar circumstances pausing and taking a look at the data is the best course of action. Planes are grounded precisely because there is no information. If we had information, then there wouldn't be a grounding (because we can rule out design flaws, etc). When you are driving in a snow whiteout do you not slow down or even pull over? Or are you one of those people who would drive at the regular high way speed limit while not knowing what's in front of you?

erokar 8y ago

Actually the opposite is the case. The aircrafts should have been grounded world-wide Sunday based on the available information and flight path, to err on the side of caution. The U.S./FAA now look like idiots and are trying to save face.