9 ms·

737Max is certainly tainted now. But will that last forever? And do non-HN-aviation-geek consumers really care enough to check the model of the plane they'll be

737Max is certainly tainted now. But will that last forever? And do non-HN-aviation-geek consumers really care enough to check the model of the plane they'll be flying on, let alone make a flight decision based on the model? Certainly another crash could be devastating to the model. But was the 737Max a poorly designed death trap rushed to production or a super safe airplane with a single fatal flaw? Time will tell...

phire 6y ago
Certianlly not just a single flaw. They found and fixed multiple other flaws while checking though everything for re-certification. In my opinion, the 737Max is probably one of the safest planes right now, simply because of the amount of scrutiny it's been though.
- phkahler 6y ago
  Well the engine placement hasn't been changed and that was the underlying problem that lead to everything else.
  - _fat_santa 6y ago
    To be a bit more nuanced, it's not that the engine placement was the problem, rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes. The engine is the start of the problems
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      The fundamental problem is a lack of effective redundancy for bad sensors. They haven't fixed that. Software alone will not fix it. They've just implemented superficial procedures that don't address the real safety issue.
    - msbarnett 6y ago
      > rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes No, this is a persistent and pernicious myth on HN – that the MCAS was some sort of “737 Emulator” intended to allow the plane’s customers to avoid pilot training. In reality, during testing it was discovered that the engines’ new position caused the stick forces to invert in some situations during flight. “The stick forces invert” means that it becomes easier to pull into an aerodynamic stall than push away from it. This fails a Fundamental Airworthiness Requirement that all commercial aircraft are required to conform with for certification. Boeing’s “solution” was MCAS – using the stabilizer trim to automatically push the plane’s nose down as it approaches a stall (and therefore putting additional force on the stick that keeps it at all times easier to push away from the stall than pull into it). The pilot training thing was just that they concealed the existence of MCAS from pilots out of fear that it would prompt calls for additional training. tl;dr the problem was that the engine aerodynamics made the plane fundamentally uncertifiable without a software hack.
- kqr 6y ago
  Unless, of course, it was fixed and scrutinised by organisations which still have the same systemic flaws as the first time around. Until the sociotechnical systems that do the work change, they will keep overlooking problems and making similar mistakes, from a high-level perspective.
  - jonas21 6y ago
    Do you mean the same regulatory organizations that have reduced the US airline fatality rate by 50x over the last 50 years to the point where it's now over 100x safer per mile to fly than to drive? I mean the FAA certainly has some flaws, but it's important to keep things in perspective.
    - kqr 6y ago
      Don't get me wrong. If I'm going to trust anyone to learn from their mistakes, passenger aviation are the ones. I'm just saying that when it comes to complex systems, it's not evident that someone who said "I've looked at it and it checks out", the thing fails, and then the same someone said, "Okay, now I've really looked at it and it checks out again" that it's now safe. There's more nuance to it than that. Whether or not that nuance has been taken in consideration by the FAA this time I really am not in a position to say.
    - atharris 6y ago
      A caveat here is that the modern FAA is very different than the FAA of even 20 years ago. In response to decades of stagnant funding, 'the beast' is fundamentally unable to fill the same regulatory role it was intended to do - to all of our detriment [0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...
    - alavesto 6y ago
      I think the passenger miles statistic is baloney (calculated by multiplying the number of passengers by the number of miles travelled), and I'm a bit sick of seeing it trumpeted everywhere to claim flying is vastly safer than driving. The collective risk of everyone on board the plane is meaningless to calculating risk to your personal safety. At least for me, the fatality rate per journey, per hour of travel, or at the very least per mile I myself am travelling, is far more relevant. According to one source, flying is actually three times deadlier per journey than driving (fun fact, this is the metric aviation industry insurance companies use), but about four times safer per hour travelled. So flying certainly can be safer than driving in the right context, but these crazy "100x safer than driving" stats are kinda useless and take a lot of "creativity" for airlines to arrive at. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp..., citing Beck, L. F.; Dellinger, A. M.; O'neil, M. E. (2007). "Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences"
- londons_explore 6y ago
  I mean it still only adheres to safety standards of the 70's by using a loophole in the regulations...
- pera 6y ago
  Boeing whistle-blower says proposed 737 Max fixes aren't enough. 179 points by bookofjoe 50 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411
- akimball 6y ago
  It is methodologically unsound. The airframe is unstable. The fixes are software and training, human factors engineering, and hence don't address the underlying problem which is one of physics. I am sure that the measures taken will reduce the rate of crashes, but doubt that they will eliminate them, as you can't exclude effects without first excluding causes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
addicted 6y ago
In my experience the non aviation geeks are also worried about 737 Max’s. That’s validated by the fact that the involved companies are referring to it as the 737-8 instead, which will not fool anyone who knows anything about aviation and is geared entirely towards ordinary people.
- throwaheyy 6y ago
  Referring to it as the 737-8 is consistent with their current branding lineup. See other numerous examples 747-8, 787-9 or 777-9. Similarly the 737-800 is widely just referred to as the 737-800 and not the 737 Next Generation 800.
- redler 6y ago
  There's already the 737-800. So you're saying companies flying the Max may have in their fleet both a 737-800 (aka the "738"), and what they're now calling a "737-8"?
- Aperocky 6y ago
  I do remember the flight app I used to use show me the aircraft make and model and even serial number. Hopefully they keep doing that.
bruceb 6y ago
This has gone beyond aviation enthusiasts. I think you will find a not insignificant number of regular people who are skittish about flying on a Max. Would love to know how many more clicks there are on flight details on booking websites once Max returns.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > I think you will find a not insignificant number of regular people who are skittish about flying on a Max. It won't be listed as one. https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-name-change-rebrand-2020-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-name-change-r...
LatteLazy 6y ago
How many people actually look at what plane they're meant to get when they compare times, dates and prices for their booking? Let alone what plane is actually at the boarding gate 6 months later...
- bruceb 6y ago
  Before very few. I absolutely would now. I bet more than a few traders looking for an edge are trying to find someone who works at Kayak to tell them how many more clicks there are in “see full flight details” before purchasing a flight there are now.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Thats great. But then when you get to the gate and there is a 737Max sat there waiting for you, do you board? Or do you accept that you won't get a refund and now need to buy another flight and just hope there is one today for an affordable price with a seat not on a 737Max?
    - mgkimsal 6y ago
      Was thinking similarly. I don't think there's any guarantee you'll get the particular plane model that is scheduled. Maintenance or other factors may mean model X is unavailable, and they substitute model Y instead. You've contracted to get from point A to point B via plane, that's typically it.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      Consumers aren't exactly helpless here. The worst-case scenario is the customer is unable to get another flight (for whatever reason) and 'has to' board the 737Max that one time. The customer can then choose not to book with that airline again. I'm already not a fan of AA, and with this news I can happily avoid this situation by simply not flying AA. Will I always feel this way? We'll see. I'm fine with letting other people be volunteer guinea pigs before I commit to something.
      - 6y ago
intricatedetail 6y ago
I always check that and choose carrier that uses plane I like.
ponker 6y ago
Not an aviation geek. You'd be surprised how nitpicky people will get when it comes to their family's safety. Between when the MAX problems came out and the fleet was grounded, I cancelled my family's vacation at substantial cost and inconvenience because the airline had 737Maxes in the fleet and I saw that my flight had been flown by Maxes previously.
sjg007 6y ago
Another crash will probably mean the end of Boeing as we know it.
throwaway201103 6y ago
DC-10s continued to fly after several notorious crashes. They are still flying today, though not in commercial passenger service.

phire 6y ago

Certianlly not just a single flaw. They found and fixed multiple other flaws while checking though everything for re-certification. In my opinion, the 737Max is probably one of the safest planes right now, simply because of the amount of scrutiny it's been though.

phkahler 6y ago
Well the engine placement hasn't been changed and that was the underlying problem that lead to everything else.
- _fat_santa 6y ago
  To be a bit more nuanced, it's not that the engine placement was the problem, rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes. The engine is the start of the problems
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    The fundamental problem is a lack of effective redundancy for bad sensors. They haven't fixed that. Software alone will not fix it. They've just implemented superficial procedures that don't address the real safety issue.
  - msbarnett 6y ago
    > rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes No, this is a persistent and pernicious myth on HN – that the MCAS was some sort of “737 Emulator” intended to allow the plane’s customers to avoid pilot training. In reality, during testing it was discovered that the engines’ new position caused the stick forces to invert in some situations during flight. “The stick forces invert” means that it becomes easier to pull into an aerodynamic stall than push away from it. This fails a Fundamental Airworthiness Requirement that all commercial aircraft are required to conform with for certification. Boeing’s “solution” was MCAS – using the stabilizer trim to automatically push the plane’s nose down as it approaches a stall (and therefore putting additional force on the stick that keeps it at all times easier to push away from the stall than pull into it). The pilot training thing was just that they concealed the existence of MCAS from pilots out of fear that it would prompt calls for additional training. tl;dr the problem was that the engine aerodynamics made the plane fundamentally uncertifiable without a software hack.
kqr 6y ago
Unless, of course, it was fixed and scrutinised by organisations which still have the same systemic flaws as the first time around. Until the sociotechnical systems that do the work change, they will keep overlooking problems and making similar mistakes, from a high-level perspective.
- jonas21 6y ago
  Do you mean the same regulatory organizations that have reduced the US airline fatality rate by 50x over the last 50 years to the point where it's now over 100x safer per mile to fly than to drive? I mean the FAA certainly has some flaws, but it's important to keep things in perspective.
  - kqr 6y ago
    Don't get me wrong. If I'm going to trust anyone to learn from their mistakes, passenger aviation are the ones. I'm just saying that when it comes to complex systems, it's not evident that someone who said "I've looked at it and it checks out", the thing fails, and then the same someone said, "Okay, now I've really looked at it and it checks out again" that it's now safe. There's more nuance to it than that. Whether or not that nuance has been taken in consideration by the FAA this time I really am not in a position to say.
  - atharris 6y ago
    A caveat here is that the modern FAA is very different than the FAA of even 20 years ago. In response to decades of stagnant funding, 'the beast' is fundamentally unable to fill the same regulatory role it was intended to do - to all of our detriment [0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...
  - alavesto 6y ago
    I think the passenger miles statistic is baloney (calculated by multiplying the number of passengers by the number of miles travelled), and I'm a bit sick of seeing it trumpeted everywhere to claim flying is vastly safer than driving. The collective risk of everyone on board the plane is meaningless to calculating risk to your personal safety. At least for me, the fatality rate per journey, per hour of travel, or at the very least per mile I myself am travelling, is far more relevant. According to one source, flying is actually three times deadlier per journey than driving (fun fact, this is the metric aviation industry insurance companies use), but about four times safer per hour travelled. So flying certainly can be safer than driving in the right context, but these crazy "100x safer than driving" stats are kinda useless and take a lot of "creativity" for airlines to arrive at. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp..., citing Beck, L. F.; Dellinger, A. M.; O'neil, M. E. (2007). "Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences"
londons_explore 6y ago
I mean it still only adheres to safety standards of the 70's by using a loophole in the regulations...
pera 6y ago
Boeing whistle-blower says proposed 737 Max fixes aren't enough. 179 points by bookofjoe 50 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411
akimball 6y ago
It is methodologically unsound. The airframe is unstable. The fixes are software and training, human factors engineering, and hence don't address the underlying problem which is one of physics. I am sure that the measures taken will reduce the rate of crashes, but doubt that they will eliminate them, as you can't exclude effects without first excluding causes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

addicted 6y ago

In my experience the non aviation geeks are also worried about 737 Max’s. That’s validated by the fact that the involved companies are referring to it as the 737-8 instead, which will not fool anyone who knows anything about aviation and is geared entirely towards ordinary people.

throwaheyy 6y ago
Referring to it as the 737-8 is consistent with their current branding lineup. See other numerous examples 747-8, 787-9 or 777-9. Similarly the 737-800 is widely just referred to as the 737-800 and not the 737 Next Generation 800.
redler 6y ago
There's already the 737-800. So you're saying companies flying the Max may have in their fleet both a 737-800 (aka the "738"), and what they're now calling a "737-8"?
Aperocky 6y ago
I do remember the flight app I used to use show me the aircraft make and model and even serial number. Hopefully they keep doing that.

bruceb 6y ago

This has gone beyond aviation enthusiasts. I think you will find a not insignificant number of regular people who are skittish about flying on a Max. Would love to know how many more clicks there are on flight details on booking websites once Max returns.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> I think you will find a not insignificant number of regular people who are skittish about flying on a Max. It won't be listed as one. https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-name-change-rebrand-2020-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-name-change-r...

LatteLazy 6y ago

How many people actually look at what plane they're meant to get when they compare times, dates and prices for their booking? Let alone what plane is actually at the boarding gate 6 months later...

bruceb 6y ago
Before very few. I absolutely would now. I bet more than a few traders looking for an edge are trying to find someone who works at Kayak to tell them how many more clicks there are in “see full flight details” before purchasing a flight there are now.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Thats great. But then when you get to the gate and there is a 737Max sat there waiting for you, do you board? Or do you accept that you won't get a refund and now need to buy another flight and just hope there is one today for an affordable price with a seat not on a 737Max?
  - mgkimsal 6y ago
    Was thinking similarly. I don't think there's any guarantee you'll get the particular plane model that is scheduled. Maintenance or other factors may mean model X is unavailable, and they substitute model Y instead. You've contracted to get from point A to point B via plane, that's typically it.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    Consumers aren't exactly helpless here. The worst-case scenario is the customer is unable to get another flight (for whatever reason) and 'has to' board the 737Max that one time. The customer can then choose not to book with that airline again. I'm already not a fan of AA, and with this news I can happily avoid this situation by simply not flying AA. Will I always feel this way? We'll see. I'm fine with letting other people be volunteer guinea pigs before I commit to something.
    - 6y ago

intricatedetail 6y ago

I always check that and choose carrier that uses plane I like.

ponker 6y ago

Not an aviation geek. You'd be surprised how nitpicky people will get when it comes to their family's safety. Between when the MAX problems came out and the fleet was grounded, I cancelled my family's vacation at substantial cost and inconvenience because the airline had 737Maxes in the fleet and I saw that my flight had been flown by Maxes previously.

sjg007 6y ago

Another crash will probably mean the end of Boeing as we know it.

throwaway201103 6y ago

DC-10s continued to fly after several notorious crashes. They are still flying today, though not in commercial passenger service.