3 ms·

We're not going to solve this problem in a HN forum. Planes have a ton of hours put on them before a passenger ever steps onboard. This is a heavily regulated

We're not going to solve this problem in a HN forum. Planes have a ton of hours put on them before a passenger ever steps onboard. This is a heavily regulated industry; and a lot of trust is placed in Boeing and the FAA to only build and certify safe planes. People make mistakes and that is why so many people are involved using best practices in the development of complex systems such as these.

chx 8y ago
The FAA burned all the trust and goodwill it gathered in the last 20-30 years -- depending who you ask -- within an extremely short time frame: on March 12 between 7am and 10am Pacific or so. It was pretty impressive. It was crystal clear the EASA is offering a face saving opportuntity to them by using the member states to do airspace bans but not suspending the planes of their respective airlines. Then, a few hours after that, when the FAA decided to continue the wave the "I am with stupid" flag they did the unthinkable and declared the 737 MAX not airworthy contradicting the FAA. This has never happened before. At this point the trust in FAA is gone and it is seen as a political and corporate puppet.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pbourke 8y ago
  It was reported a day or two ago that Trump had a phone call with the CEO of Boeing, with the result being continued operation. Then, Trump makes the announcement today about the grounding, seemingly to try to take some credit for it. It’s insane. There must be some despondent folks at the FAA right now. Years of trust squandered.
  - chx 8y ago
    > There must be some despondent folks at the FAA right now. Years of trust squandered. Can you imagine the real workers, now some idiot Trump named to be deputy director and currently is the acting FAA director wiped out so much of their work... oh dear. Even if they had been 100% sure the plane is sound, just to keep the larger status quo they should've acted in accordance with the EASA.
  - rad_gruchalski 8y ago
    Is it possible the US have grounded them because Canada banned them in their airspace?
    - chx 8y ago
      If the FAA didn't cave in immediately from the EASA issuing "do not operate the airplane" then it certainly wouldn't from Transport Canada. These two do not quite carry the same weight, you know? 150M passengers enplaned and deplaned in Canada in 2017 as per https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310025301 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=231002... and https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Air_transport_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... says this number was 1043 million in the EU. According to https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-traffic-data-us-airlines-and-foreign-airlines-us-flights https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-traffic-data-us-airlines-a... even the USA is below that nunber with 965M.
      - rad_gruchalski 8y ago
        Thank you for a detailed answer.
Theodores 8y ago
The Space Shuttle had a tonne of hours put on it before we learned of the O-ring problem catastrophically. Everyone was trying their hardest and did their best, everything was built to spec but there were organisational and communication problems. The message that the dreaded O-rings weren't good for a cold weather launch was not heard or understood. No malice was involved but, when you have a schedule and deadlines with lots of large organisation hubris these things happen. In only the broadest strokes is the current Boeing situation analogous to the sad fate of the Space Shuttle, however, just because a lot of testing has gone on and just because there is a lot of regulation does not mean that the layman appreciation of the situation is wrong. The layman understanding can be big picture rather than bogged down by intricacy of details.
- girmad 8y ago
  > The Vertical Pitch Indicator is reading on some MAX 8's 10-20 degrees higher than what the aircraft actually is pitched at. Seems like not everything was built to spec
- sesteel 8y ago
  These calls always seem easy in the aftermath, when you have the benefit of hindsight. In both of these cases, billions of dollars are on the line, but the truth is, there is always some risk. There is, as we've all heard, a greater risk of us dying in our car than any type of air catastrophe. Yet we still drive. How many flights have these planes taken? I can almost guarantee that Boeing did not build this sensor; the sensor has a spec sheet, its operational capability was verified in a laboratory and the FAA approved it. If the problem was not recoverable, they would have grounded the planes after the first accident; it appeared to be a training issue. Anyway, we can only make decisions with the information we have; it was the satellite data that suggested there was a link. It was then that the direction was clear and the call was made; this system is too dangerous as it is. Making decisions based on fear is a fools errand. It is how you spend trillions of dollars waging wars combating terrorism when the risk of a terror related death is the US is lower than getting struck by lightening.
  - hyeonwho4 8y ago

chx 8y ago

The FAA burned all the trust and goodwill it gathered in the last 20-30 years -- depending who you ask -- within an extremely short time frame: on March 12 between 7am and 10am Pacific or so. It was pretty impressive. It was crystal clear the EASA is offering a face saving opportuntity to them by using the member states to do airspace bans but not suspending the planes of their respective airlines. Then, a few hours after that, when the FAA decided to continue the wave the "I am with stupid" flag they did the unthinkable and declared the 737 MAX not airworthy contradicting the FAA. This has never happened before. At this point the trust in FAA is gone and it is seen as a political and corporate puppet.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pbourke 8y ago
It was reported a day or two ago that Trump had a phone call with the CEO of Boeing, with the result being continued operation. Then, Trump makes the announcement today about the grounding, seemingly to try to take some credit for it. It’s insane. There must be some despondent folks at the FAA right now. Years of trust squandered.
- chx 8y ago
  > There must be some despondent folks at the FAA right now. Years of trust squandered. Can you imagine the real workers, now some idiot Trump named to be deputy director and currently is the acting FAA director wiped out so much of their work... oh dear. Even if they had been 100% sure the plane is sound, just to keep the larger status quo they should've acted in accordance with the EASA.
- rad_gruchalski 8y ago
  Is it possible the US have grounded them because Canada banned them in their airspace?
  - chx 8y ago
    If the FAA didn't cave in immediately from the EASA issuing "do not operate the airplane" then it certainly wouldn't from Transport Canada. These two do not quite carry the same weight, you know? 150M passengers enplaned and deplaned in Canada in 2017 as per https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310025301 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=231002... and https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Air_transport_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... says this number was 1043 million in the EU. According to https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-traffic-data-us-airlines-and-foreign-airlines-us-flights https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-traffic-data-us-airlines-a... even the USA is below that nunber with 965M.
    - rad_gruchalski 8y ago
      Thank you for a detailed answer.

Theodores 8y ago

The Space Shuttle had a tonne of hours put on it before we learned of the O-ring problem catastrophically. Everyone was trying their hardest and did their best, everything was built to spec but there were organisational and communication problems. The message that the dreaded O-rings weren't good for a cold weather launch was not heard or understood. No malice was involved but, when you have a schedule and deadlines with lots of large organisation hubris these things happen. In only the broadest strokes is the current Boeing situation analogous to the sad fate of the Space Shuttle, however, just because a lot of testing has gone on and just because there is a lot of regulation does not mean that the layman appreciation of the situation is wrong. The layman understanding can be big picture rather than bogged down by intricacy of details.

girmad 8y ago
> The Vertical Pitch Indicator is reading on some MAX 8's 10-20 degrees higher than what the aircraft actually is pitched at. Seems like not everything was built to spec
sesteel 8y ago
These calls always seem easy in the aftermath, when you have the benefit of hindsight. In both of these cases, billions of dollars are on the line, but the truth is, there is always some risk. There is, as we've all heard, a greater risk of us dying in our car than any type of air catastrophe. Yet we still drive. How many flights have these planes taken? I can almost guarantee that Boeing did not build this sensor; the sensor has a spec sheet, its operational capability was verified in a laboratory and the FAA approved it. If the problem was not recoverable, they would have grounded the planes after the first accident; it appeared to be a training issue. Anyway, we can only make decisions with the information we have; it was the satellite data that suggested there was a link. It was then that the direction was clear and the call was made; this system is too dangerous as it is. Making decisions based on fear is a fools errand. It is how you spend trillions of dollars waging wars combating terrorism when the risk of a terror related death is the US is lower than getting struck by lightening.
- hyeonwho4 8y ago