5 ms·
I'd choose to fly on a 737 Max over any other plane, personally. Because no other plane in operation has ever received the amount of scrutiny the Max has.
by 0xy 6y ago
I'd choose to fly on a 737 Max over any other plane, personally. Because no other plane in operation has ever received the amount of scrutiny the Max has.
- J-dawg 6y agoI don't like seeing comments like this downvoted, especially with zero comments responding to it. It seems a totally legitimate viewpoint, even if it's one that many of us disagree with. Downvoting just to signal disagreement is against the guidelines, isn't it?
- Daho0n 6y agoReddit have the same rule and see how that is going. No one should be able to downvote. Only upvotes are needed.
- germanier 6y agoIt isn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
- J-dawg 6y agoOk, now that I've checked, I'm the one who broke the guidelines by commenting on downvoting. Sorry!
- rob74 6y agoI applaud your faith in Boeing and the authorities, but the article we are commenting on gives some pretty believable arguments that the scrutiny may not have been in fact enough...
- forgingahead 6y ago"Received a lot of scrutiny" != "Is actually safe/problems all fixed because of said scrutiny".
- 0xy 6y agoAviation is like software. "Safe" just means redundancies and failsafes. No plane is 100% safe because no plane has experienced all possible edge cases. Usually when a plane encounters a mechanical failure or experiences an incident (whether that be a crash or something less serious), it's because the plane was operating in a case that had never been considered or encountered before. So no, I don't think every conceivable problem has been worked out because that's an impossibility. Unknown unknowns of aviation prevent that from ever occurring. However, this plane in particular has had multiple independent regulators and thousands of independent pilots involved in the process to clear it. Additionally, pilots will receive new Max-specific training on the MCAS software so they'll be more aware of it and its operating modes from now on. I would fly on a 737 Max and I'd have no problem taking family with me. You're more likely to be in a car accident by a substantial margin.
- kqr 6y agoSafe does not mean redundancies and failsafes. Back in the days, when we had much simpler systems, and the primary type of safety problem was component failure. Then yes, safety was about redundancies and failsafes. That is actually fairly easy: bring me a list of all components and I can come up with reasonable redundancy schemes for them. Modern systems (including the operation of commercial airliners) are generally already built with reliable and redundant components. Safety problems tend to arise in the interaction between subsystems. That is a problem that can't be redundancied away. That is also why it's close to impossible to work out every conceivable problem, as you say. The number of components is comparatively small compared to the number of ways in which subsystems interact. Especially considering some of those subsystems are in fact humans.
- simion314 6y ago>Because no other plane in operation has ever received the amount of scrutiny the Max From this article(reality might be different) it seems to me that only MCAS related stuff was investigated and issues like the ones reported were dismissed that are not related so we should assume that other investigations were already done for those issues and nothing major was found.
- thereare5lights 6y agoWe have no idea if the scrutiny resulted in the plane actually being safe or if the agencies rubber stamped it yet again.
- 0xy 6y agoIt was tested by thousands of independent pilots, though. That doesn't mean it's "safe" but then you haven't defined what "safe" means to you. To me "safe" means extremely unlikely to encounter any incidents, not impossible.
- thereare5lights 6y agoWe have the same definition. My issue is that the FAA already rubber stamped this once. They've lost any credibility they have with regards to this plane. As the other agencies I have no idea if they're susceptible to the same influence that caused the FAA to rubber stamp this the first time around.
- randomNumber7 6y agoNice. And because of people like you boeing gets away with what they did...
- randomNumber7 6y agoPS: I want to add why i think they shouldn't. Using a single sensor to control a plane is a mistake, which not even an undergraduate engineer would do. There is no way this was just accidentally badly designed. They made this on purpose to change lives for $$
- FabHK 6y agoNo. Initially, MACS was conceived with insufficient control authority to endanger the plane. It was therefore classified as insufficiently critical to necessitate redundancy. Later, the scope of MCAS was extended, but the assumptions weren't revisited. Furthermore, pilots were assumed to quickly identify and fix a "runaway horizontal stabiliser trim condition", providing the necessary backstop in case of system failure. It's absurd to say that they made this on purpose to save some money. The aircraft already has two AoA sensors, but only one was used for MCAS. How is that saving money? Rather, it was a convoluted concatenation of circumstances, pressure, occasional lapse in competence that gave rise to the problem.
- randomNumber7 6y agoIf they would have used both sensors the plane would have needed recertification, because redundant systems are safety critical. Therefore they only used one sensor and declared the system non saftey critical.
- FabHK 6y agoInteresting. Do you have a source for that claim?
- u678u 6y agoYou should see some of the taxis at the rank here at Newark airport, they're much more dangerous than the Max.