6 ms·

I have to disagree with all of the comments in this thread saying this is “insane”. The FAA approved a mitigation for an issue in MAX 8 and 9 planes. The MAX 7

I have to disagree with all of the comments in this thread saying this is “insane”. The FAA approved a mitigation for an issue in MAX 8 and 9 planes. The MAX 7 has the same issue, so Boeing is asking for the same mitigation to be approved. If the FAA thinks it’s acceptable for the 8 and 9, I don’t see why asking for the same for the 7 is bad. On the other hand, if the FAA doesn’t think this is acceptable for the 7, then I don’t see why it would be acceptable for the 8 and 9. Either it’s an acceptable mitigation and all 3 should play by the same rules, or it’s not and all MAXes should be grounded (FWIW, the mitigation seems ridiculous to me and I’m leaning towards the latter).

Zetobal 3y ago
It's insane that you think only the number changes and the planes are otherwise the same. Ofc I want different rules for different airplanes...
- abadpoli 3y ago
  Youre being disingenuous if thats how you interpreted my comment. Of course there are changes, and as someone who does significant research on plane variants, I know that more than most. But it doesn’t take a genius to see that in this particular case, there is no evidence (at least none provided in the article, nor none that I’m aware of) that the 7 is different from the 8 or 9 in regards to how the engine icing system works (or doesn’t, in this case).
  - nerpderp82 3y ago
    Just because 7 is similar to 8 and 9 doesn't mean it has to get the same treatment. This isn't algebra or logic. By induction, having allowed it for 8 means that the FAA has to allow it for all plans from here on out? 1, 2, infinity. Boeing should fix their shit. Not melting the nacelle is a simple feedback loop. Humans shouldn't be running that loop.
    - abadpoli 3y ago
      > allowed it for 8 means that the FAA has to allow it for all plans from here on out? 1, 2, infinity. If the plane’s issue is the exact same issue and the mitigation is the same mitigation that’s already been approved by the FAA as effective, yes, and this is currently how things work. See the MEL. If mitigation X is approved for situation Y, then it is approved for all situations of Y (within the same context). You don’t have to go to the FAA to get a new approval to take off every time Y happens, you just do X and you’re approved.
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > the mitigation is the same mitigation that’s already been approved by the FAA as effective That's basically the argument Boeing is making. However, there is a counter argument that the FAA could make (though I don't know if they are): in order to limit the risk exposure now that this issue has been discovered, the same mitigation should not be allowed on any new variants not already in service, even though it is allowed for the ones already in service, because taking variants out of service is a much bigger deal than not allowing new ones into service.
        abadpoli 3y ago
        I could see this being an argument, basically saying “we’re okay with the size of the problem now but don’t want to make the problem bigger by allowing more planes to fly with this issue”. But if that was the argument, then that would also mean that we shouldn’t allow any newly built 8s and 9s to enter service, and I don’t see that happening.
        pdonis 3y ago
        > if that was the argument, then that would also mean that we shouldn’t allow any newly built 8s and 9s to enter service, and I don’t see that happening Yes, that's a fair point, although doing that would require some sort of modification of the existing certification of 8s and 9s, and I'm not sure how that would work. If those certifications were simply revoked, all 8s and 9s already in service would be grounded until the issue was fixed. But if they are simply left alone, new 8s and 9s can come into service since those variants are certified. An Airworthiness Directive, which is what is currently issued by the FAA for 8s and 9s, by itself doesn't prevent new units from coming into service.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    > Youre being disingenuous if thats how you interpreted my comment. Or they misunderstood your comment, or they skimmed it badly, or you wrote it badly.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  Yeah... https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/3MkqOT8tgB https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/3MkqOT8tgB
gr1zzlybe4r 3y ago
I think it's because the 8 & 9 variants were approved prior to the discovery of the nacelle issue. So the difference is approving a mitigation for an unknown issue in the case of the 8 & 9 vs. approving an exemption for a known issue with the 7 & 10. To me, that is a pretty big difference.
- abadpoli 3y ago
  Yes, it sounds to me like that’s the issue too, but I disagree with it. Either the mitigation is acceptable to make the plane safe to fly, or it’s not. “Well this one already existed before we knew about the issue, whereas this one is new” doesn’t actually change the risk calculus nor the effectiveness of the mitigation.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    So normalization of deviance is acceptable here?
    - abadpoli 3y ago
      Please explain how this is “normalization of deviance” any more than allowing newly-built 8s and 9s to fly is.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Please explain how it's not! And exception is a deviance that must be tracked and taken care of adding mental load to the list of things a pilot has to do. The normalization is pushing this deviance into a new system that isn't complete and therefore has no refit requirement over a large base of aircraft.
        TylerE 3y ago
        The 8s and 9s have the exact same issue and the FAA already approved the exact mitigation in those aircraft. Having different fixes for the same issue is more deviance, not less.
NooneAtAll3 3y ago
so you're saying, everyone complaining here about "remembering to check the condition every 5 minutes" needs to complain about THIS ALREADY HAPPENING ON FLYING PLANES??
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  If it's true, I absolutely think so!
- StreetChief 3y ago
  From another comment, it seems (not surprisingly) the MAX 8 and 9 have metal housings, and is different from the 7, which has fiber housings. Maybe the reason they need this exemption in the first place, is cheaping out on the housing.
kmeisthax 3y ago
How about "it's an acceptable mitigation, but we want Boeing to suffer so we'll delay their new planes while letting the existing ones fly?" That seems to be the tact the FAA is taking and I think it's reasonable to take actions that deliberately punish Boeing and Boeing alone. That being said, I'm also on the "this mitigation is ridiculous" camp. They can't even have a humidity sensor that turns the de-icer on and off?
- sdwr 3y ago
  The word is "tack", referring to changing directions / setting a course on a sailboat.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
wannacboatmovie 3y ago
It makes you wonder if the aviation experts posting here, many of whom could not find their own ass without JavaScript automation, could understand a world where you have complex machinery (such as an airplane) controlled only by a trained operator (such as a pilot). It's for the same reason they don't allow just anyone to drive forklifts. It defies how we made it through the first hundred years of commercial aviation with pilots having to deal with more complex tasks than an "up/down" switch.
- parl_match 3y ago
  Hi! Please refer to this chart that shows the accidents/incident rates over time and their incredible trend towards zero! https://i.imgur.com/PVaPAdX.png https://i.imgur.com/PVaPAdX.png That didn't happen just by itself!
  - wannacboatmovie 3y ago
    It has more to do with the introduction of Crew Resource Management than anything else, many airlines still fly 30 year old aircraft without fancy automation. Recall AF447 where the over-reliance on automation caused a tragedy when it failed and of course the MCAS debacle where the automation was directly implicated. There is room for a more nuanced answer here.
    - parl_match 3y ago
      > many airlines still fly 30 year old aircraft without fancy automation Those planes have been retrofitted over time or are in significantly decreasing use for passenger aircraft. Over reliance on automation is an issue, to be sure, but in the macro sense, it is one part of a significant downtrend in fatalities.
    - NooneAtAll3 3y ago
      are you sure that X years ago airlines didn't fly 30 year old aircraft as well? only those planes were 30 y/o *at the time*?
- 3y ago
rthkljlkrj 3y ago
[dead]
htk 3y ago
Thank you for actually adding information, differently from most of the other replies.
JonChesterfield 3y ago
If "push a button within five minutes of ice disappearing or die" is a design feature of the 8 or 9 I wouldn't want to fly in those either.
- k1w1 3y ago
  Ha, it is probably best if you don't fly at all since there are already many things in aviation that work just like this. The most obvious example is the button to enable the anti-ice systems. If you don't push that button upon encountering icing conditions then you die. Of course you don't really die in either of these cases. At least not right away. Lots of other things have to go badly first. This is why aviation relies on checklists. There are myriad things that must be turned on and off in each phase of flight, and checklists ensure that pilots don't forget.
  - StreetChief 3y ago
    We owe pilots thanks, they really do take care of us when we fly.
ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
"An" issue? Is it THE SAME issue?
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
asylteltine 3y ago
The FAA also didn’t think smoke alarms were important. Or radar systems. Or collision avoidance. I can go on and on… they didn’t care until at least 300 people die at once. The FAA doesn’t care about critical understaffing of towers and won’t until a fucking mid air collision happens again.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Zetobal 3y ago

It's insane that you think only the number changes and the planes are otherwise the same. Ofc I want different rules for different airplanes...

abadpoli 3y ago
Youre being disingenuous if thats how you interpreted my comment. Of course there are changes, and as someone who does significant research on plane variants, I know that more than most. But it doesn’t take a genius to see that in this particular case, there is no evidence (at least none provided in the article, nor none that I’m aware of) that the 7 is different from the 8 or 9 in regards to how the engine icing system works (or doesn’t, in this case).
- nerpderp82 3y ago
  Just because 7 is similar to 8 and 9 doesn't mean it has to get the same treatment. This isn't algebra or logic. By induction, having allowed it for 8 means that the FAA has to allow it for all plans from here on out? 1, 2, infinity. Boeing should fix their shit. Not melting the nacelle is a simple feedback loop. Humans shouldn't be running that loop.
  - abadpoli 3y ago
    > allowed it for 8 means that the FAA has to allow it for all plans from here on out? 1, 2, infinity. If the plane’s issue is the exact same issue and the mitigation is the same mitigation that’s already been approved by the FAA as effective, yes, and this is currently how things work. See the MEL. If mitigation X is approved for situation Y, then it is approved for all situations of Y (within the same context). You don’t have to go to the FAA to get a new approval to take off every time Y happens, you just do X and you’re approved.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > the mitigation is the same mitigation that’s already been approved by the FAA as effective That's basically the argument Boeing is making. However, there is a counter argument that the FAA could make (though I don't know if they are): in order to limit the risk exposure now that this issue has been discovered, the same mitigation should not be allowed on any new variants not already in service, even though it is allowed for the ones already in service, because taking variants out of service is a much bigger deal than not allowing new ones into service.
      - abadpoli 3y ago
        I could see this being an argument, basically saying “we’re okay with the size of the problem now but don’t want to make the problem bigger by allowing more planes to fly with this issue”. But if that was the argument, then that would also mean that we shouldn’t allow any newly built 8s and 9s to enter service, and I don’t see that happening.
        pdonis 3y ago
        > if that was the argument, then that would also mean that we shouldn’t allow any newly built 8s and 9s to enter service, and I don’t see that happening Yes, that's a fair point, although doing that would require some sort of modification of the existing certification of 8s and 9s, and I'm not sure how that would work. If those certifications were simply revoked, all 8s and 9s already in service would be grounded until the issue was fixed. But if they are simply left alone, new 8s and 9s can come into service since those variants are certified. An Airworthiness Directive, which is what is currently issued by the FAA for 8s and 9s, by itself doesn't prevent new units from coming into service.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > Youre being disingenuous if thats how you interpreted my comment. Or they misunderstood your comment, or they skimmed it badly, or you wrote it badly.
Zetobal 3y ago
Yeah... https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/3MkqOT8tgB https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/3MkqOT8tgB

gr1zzlybe4r 3y ago

I think it's because the 8 & 9 variants were approved prior to the discovery of the nacelle issue. So the difference is approving a mitigation for an unknown issue in the case of the 8 & 9 vs. approving an exemption for a known issue with the 7 & 10. To me, that is a pretty big difference.

abadpoli 3y ago
Yes, it sounds to me like that’s the issue too, but I disagree with it. Either the mitigation is acceptable to make the plane safe to fly, or it’s not. “Well this one already existed before we knew about the issue, whereas this one is new” doesn’t actually change the risk calculus nor the effectiveness of the mitigation.
- pixl97 3y ago
  So normalization of deviance is acceptable here?
  - abadpoli 3y ago
    Please explain how this is “normalization of deviance” any more than allowing newly-built 8s and 9s to fly is.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Please explain how it's not! And exception is a deviance that must be tracked and taken care of adding mental load to the list of things a pilot has to do. The normalization is pushing this deviance into a new system that isn't complete and therefore has no refit requirement over a large base of aircraft.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        The 8s and 9s have the exact same issue and the FAA already approved the exact mitigation in those aircraft. Having different fixes for the same issue is more deviance, not less.

NooneAtAll3 3y ago

so you're saying, everyone complaining here about "remembering to check the condition every 5 minutes" needs to complain about THIS ALREADY HAPPENING ON FLYING PLANES??

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
If it's true, I absolutely think so!
StreetChief 3y ago
From another comment, it seems (not surprisingly) the MAX 8 and 9 have metal housings, and is different from the 7, which has fiber housings. Maybe the reason they need this exemption in the first place, is cheaping out on the housing.

kmeisthax 3y ago

How about "it's an acceptable mitigation, but we want Boeing to suffer so we'll delay their new planes while letting the existing ones fly?" That seems to be the tact the FAA is taking and I think it's reasonable to take actions that deliberately punish Boeing and Boeing alone. That being said, I'm also on the "this mitigation is ridiculous" camp. They can't even have a humidity sensor that turns the de-icer on and off?

sdwr 3y ago
The word is "tack", referring to changing directions / setting a course on a sailboat.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wannacboatmovie 3y ago

It makes you wonder if the aviation experts posting here, many of whom could not find their own ass without JavaScript automation, could understand a world where you have complex machinery (such as an airplane) controlled only by a trained operator (such as a pilot). It's for the same reason they don't allow just anyone to drive forklifts. It defies how we made it through the first hundred years of commercial aviation with pilots having to deal with more complex tasks than an "up/down" switch.

parl_match 3y ago
Hi! Please refer to this chart that shows the accidents/incident rates over time and their incredible trend towards zero! https://i.imgur.com/PVaPAdX.png https://i.imgur.com/PVaPAdX.png That didn't happen just by itself!
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago
  It has more to do with the introduction of Crew Resource Management than anything else, many airlines still fly 30 year old aircraft without fancy automation. Recall AF447 where the over-reliance on automation caused a tragedy when it failed and of course the MCAS debacle where the automation was directly implicated. There is room for a more nuanced answer here.
  - parl_match 3y ago
    > many airlines still fly 30 year old aircraft without fancy automation Those planes have been retrofitted over time or are in significantly decreasing use for passenger aircraft. Over reliance on automation is an issue, to be sure, but in the macro sense, it is one part of a significant downtrend in fatalities.
  - NooneAtAll3 3y ago
    are you sure that X years ago airlines didn't fly 30 year old aircraft as well? only those planes were 30 y/o *at the time*?
3y ago

rthkljlkrj 3y ago

[dead]

htk 3y ago

Thank you for actually adding information, differently from most of the other replies.

JonChesterfield 3y ago

If "push a button within five minutes of ice disappearing or die" is a design feature of the 8 or 9 I wouldn't want to fly in those either.

k1w1 3y ago
Ha, it is probably best if you don't fly at all since there are already many things in aviation that work just like this. The most obvious example is the button to enable the anti-ice systems. If you don't push that button upon encountering icing conditions then you die. Of course you don't really die in either of these cases. At least not right away. Lots of other things have to go badly first. This is why aviation relies on checklists. There are myriad things that must be turned on and off in each phase of flight, and checklists ensure that pilots don't forget.
- StreetChief 3y ago
  We owe pilots thanks, they really do take care of us when we fly.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

"An" issue? Is it THE SAME issue?

idontpost 3y ago

[dead]

asylteltine 3y ago

The FAA also didn’t think smoke alarms were important. Or radar systems. Or collision avoidance. I can go on and on… they didn’t care until at least 300 people die at once. The FAA doesn’t care about critical understaffing of towers and won’t until a fucking mid air collision happens again.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]