3 ms·

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.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        I would be ok with that if such a position included a mandatory rolling retrofit of the existing fleet the next time they come out of service for one of the big every-few-years inspections.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Just because 7 is similar to 8 and 9 doesn't mean it has to get the same treatment. Why not? As you appear to agree, it's the same problem for all of them, and the problem is a simple one that should never have reached this point in the first place. So all of them should be held to the same standard. If that means not certifying the 7, it should also mean revoking the certification of the 8 and 9 until the issue is fixed. > Boeing should fix their shit. Indeed. And since the same shit is on Max 8 and 9, they should fix those too now that the shit has been discovered, and be held to the same standard for all. I don't understand why you aren't arguing for that.
- 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

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.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      I would be ok with that if such a position included a mandatory rolling retrofit of the existing fleet the next time they come out of service for one of the big every-few-years inspections.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Just because 7 is similar to 8 and 9 doesn't mean it has to get the same treatment. Why not? As you appear to agree, it's the same problem for all of them, and the problem is a simple one that should never have reached this point in the first place. So all of them should be held to the same standard. If that means not certifying the 7, it should also mean revoking the certification of the 8 and 9 until the issue is fixed. > Boeing should fix their shit. Indeed. And since the same shit is on Max 8 and 9, they should fix those too now that the shit has been discovered, and be held to the same standard for all. I don't understand why you aren't arguing for that.
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