5 ms·

That says more about "the bear", and the overbearing nature of the compliance process, then it does about the wisdom or foolishness of relying on an aging hard

That says more about "the bear", and the overbearing nature of the compliance process, then it does about the wisdom or foolishness of relying on an aging hardware platform like the floppy more generally. Most industries don't deal with that. Maybe if this process had actually proved sufficient to prevent the 737 Max woes, we would pay it more respect?

ashtonkem 6y ago
Arguably the 737 Max disaster was caused by an attempt to side step the regulatory process and get a new plane certified when it shouldn’t have. If the FAA hadn’t been so captured by Boeing, those two planes wouldn’t have crashed. All in all I can’t understand how one can look at the state of the airline manufacturing in the past 50 years and decide that less regulation is needed. Except for the MAX 8, phenomenal gains in airline safety have been gained over this time period, throwing all that away so that it’s easier to upgrade some old hardware seems incredibly foolish.
- numpad0 6y ago
  > how one can look at the state of the airline manufacturing in the past 50 years and decide that less regulation is needed Less regulation = rich founder kids gets lambos + utter destruction of society = good :thumbsup:
ceejayoz 6y ago
> Maybe if this process had actually proved sufficient to prevent the 737 Max woes, we would pay it more respect? A better measure is passenger deaths per kilometer. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatalities_per_revenue_passenger_kilometre_in_air_transport_since_1970.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatalities_per_reven... It's been on a steady, large decline since the 1970s. Even with the 737 MAX crashes, it's an incredibly safe way to travel. In the last ten years, one passenger has died on a US carrier due to an aircraft issue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380)
- virtue3 6y ago
  just want to call out - The engine literally exploded, and they made it home via the rest of the plane OK (minus the unfortunate passenger). In the past this would have cut hydrolics (this happened with a DC10 rear engine exploding) and then losing control. Major props to the pilots and boeing (all SW planes are 737s I believe).
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Yes, Southwest only flies 737s in order to simplify their maintenance logistics and to ensure that every pilot they have can fly every plane.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  The 737 Max grounding cost about $18 billion so far (according tot he Google infobox which knows everything and is never wrong.) The high-end estimates of the value of a statistical human life tend to run about $4-8 million, depending who you ask. The FAA grounding of the Max has 2250 has thus cost enough money to save 2,250-4,500 statistical lives, had the money been spent more wisely elsewhere. How does your "better" passenger-deaths-per-km measure account for these deaths? (And what is it superior to, exactly?)
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    You can't point to the grounding of the 737 Max 8 as a reliable indicator of the cost of regulation because: 1. Arguably this is the cost of regulations not being followed properly 2. This is an extra-ordinary circumstance that is costing much more than a regular plane would cost to get certified and fly (see point 1) 3. You are drastically underestimating the cost to the industry both in terms of reduced customer confidence, hull losses (~$100mil an airplane), and increased insurance premiums if we were to continue flying the Max 8. But honestly, I'm having a really hard time understanding what your point is. Are you asserting that we should just fly the Max 8 and not worry about it? Are you asserting that airplanes aren't safer now? What are you getting at?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
virtue3 6y ago
You are severely underestimating how few air disasters we've had lately. The DC10 had an abysmal track record. Airplane engines literally flying off the plane during takeoff because the airlines got to do whatever they wanted for servicing it instead of the recommended method because maintenance time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 Boeing and Airbus and CRJ/Bombadier/NowAirbus have done a -really- friggin good job in the past 2 decades. Why the hell would they need to upgrade something as non-essential as a floppy system? To What? Why does it matter if it works? Introducing uncertainty to a system to just make it "new" is spoken like a web dev and not like an aerospace engineer (and I'm a web dev). In node land you get blasted if you don't stay current (because something will rely on something newer and you'll get upgrade hell'd at once instead of piecemeal). There are no new versions of GQL that people need to upgrade to. Nor is their version of node going off LTS in 2 years.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Arguably the 737 Max disaster was caused by an attempt to side step the regulatory process and get a new plane certified when it shouldn’t have. If the FAA hadn’t been so captured by Boeing, those two planes wouldn’t have crashed. All in all I can’t understand how one can look at the state of the airline manufacturing in the past 50 years and decide that less regulation is needed. Except for the MAX 8, phenomenal gains in airline safety have been gained over this time period, throwing all that away so that it’s easier to upgrade some old hardware seems incredibly foolish.

numpad0 6y ago
> how one can look at the state of the airline manufacturing in the past 50 years and decide that less regulation is needed Less regulation = rich founder kids gets lambos + utter destruction of society = good :thumbsup:

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Maybe if this process had actually proved sufficient to prevent the 737 Max woes, we would pay it more respect? A better measure is passenger deaths per kilometer. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatalities_per_revenue_passenger_kilometre_in_air_transport_since_1970.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatalities_per_reven... It's been on a steady, large decline since the 1970s. Even with the 737 MAX crashes, it's an incredibly safe way to travel. In the last ten years, one passenger has died on a US carrier due to an aircraft issue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380)

virtue3 6y ago
just want to call out - The engine literally exploded, and they made it home via the rest of the plane OK (minus the unfortunate passenger). In the past this would have cut hydrolics (this happened with a DC10 rear engine exploding) and then losing control. Major props to the pilots and boeing (all SW planes are 737s I believe).
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Yes, Southwest only flies 737s in order to simplify their maintenance logistics and to ensure that every pilot they have can fly every plane.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
The 737 Max grounding cost about $18 billion so far (according tot he Google infobox which knows everything and is never wrong.) The high-end estimates of the value of a statistical human life tend to run about $4-8 million, depending who you ask. The FAA grounding of the Max has 2250 has thus cost enough money to save 2,250-4,500 statistical lives, had the money been spent more wisely elsewhere. How does your "better" passenger-deaths-per-km measure account for these deaths? (And what is it superior to, exactly?)
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You can't point to the grounding of the 737 Max 8 as a reliable indicator of the cost of regulation because: 1. Arguably this is the cost of regulations not being followed properly 2. This is an extra-ordinary circumstance that is costing much more than a regular plane would cost to get certified and fly (see point 1) 3. You are drastically underestimating the cost to the industry both in terms of reduced customer confidence, hull losses (~$100mil an airplane), and increased insurance premiums if we were to continue flying the Max 8. But honestly, I'm having a really hard time understanding what your point is. Are you asserting that we should just fly the Max 8 and not worry about it? Are you asserting that airplanes aren't safer now? What are you getting at?
- ceejayoz 6y ago

virtue3 6y ago

You are severely underestimating how few air disasters we've had lately. The DC10 had an abysmal track record. Airplane engines literally flying off the plane during takeoff because the airlines got to do whatever they wanted for servicing it instead of the recommended method because maintenance time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 Boeing and Airbus and CRJ/Bombadier/NowAirbus have done a -really- friggin good job in the past 2 decades. Why the hell would they need to upgrade something as non-essential as a floppy system? To What? Why does it matter if it works? Introducing uncertainty to a system to just make it "new" is spoken like a web dev and not like an aerospace engineer (and I'm a web dev). In node land you get blasted if you don't stay current (because something will rely on something newer and you'll get upgrade hell'd at once instead of piecemeal). There are no new versions of GQL that people need to upgrade to. Nor is their version of node going off LTS in 2 years.