9 ms·
Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7
- lnxg33k1 3y agoI honestly don’t even know anymore if I’m living in a cracked / badly modded version of the sims, how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding I quote the article: She noted the exemption Boeing had sought "involves an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passengers in window seats behind the wing."
- fbdab103 3y agoA $20 toaster has overheat detection technology. Presumably other planes are doing this already. I am not understanding how there is a novel engineering problem to solve that could not be incorporated into the release.
- spookie 3y agoEarly access for planes. The next step in commercial aviation. Feel the thrill of life threatening bugs!
- bpye 3y agoAt least early access games might give you a discount or some exclusive content.
- justinclift 3y agoIf they keep going as they are, then flying with Boeing might result in life insurance claims being invalidated. ;)
- lnxg33k1 3y agoBoeing: "For the real adrenaline junkies"
- NegativeLatency 3y agoIf it’s Boeing I’m not going.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jfim 3y agoThe worst thing that can happen with a toaster is that it catches on fire, while a plane can crash and kill hundreds of people. While that doesn't make Boeing any less responsible for engineering proper solutions instead of a compliance hack, there's a difference between the solution for a throwaway consumer device and one for a multi-million dollar airplane that has to operate in conditions with harsh vibration and wide operating temperature ranges, has to be serviceable for decades, and cannot fail in ways that render the plane inoperable.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoYeah, because an electrical appliance catching on fire is never deadly? What a bunch of hysterical hand-wringing. They just needed to a program a timer on the heater circuit and/or add sensors; the engines are already incredibly instrumented so this wouldn't be hard to do. "Cannot fail in ways that render the plane inoperable" is precisely why there should not be a system that if forgotten about by the pilots past ~10 minutes causes the destruction of the engine nacelle and thus both probable destruction of the engines and penetration of the body of the aircraft by parts of said engine when it ingests parts of the nacelle. You don't understand how serious that is. The nacelle of a jet engine is designed to contain a blade-off event where one or more blades - each of which has a massive amount of kinetic energy - completely break off from the turbine rotor at takeoff power levels. The level of corporate apologism in your comment is breathtaking.
- charles_f 3y agoFrom what I read elsewhere the problem is not entirely an engineering issue, but the fact that this creates new procedures to be followed by pilots, and relying on the pilots memory for these rare, but statistically significant occurrences is yet another risk on top of a plane that's already caveat-rich
- jojobas 3y agoWhile the probability for this flaw to manifest is probably on the order of magnitude of that of being hit by lightning while being eaten by a shark, I'm with you. Safety exemptions are there for a reason and this doesn't sound like a fitting example.
- Narkov 3y agoNot necessarily disagreeing with your assessment but I guess all these things are about statistical probabilities. If the chance of this happening is small enough and the possible "worst case" outcome is tolerable, it gets a tick.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- inamberclad 3y agoAnd the statistical requirements for failure causing injury or fatality to the passengers are on the order of 1 in 10 million to 1 in 1 billion. Forgetting to turn off a small switch within five minutes of exiting icing conditions will almost certainly happen more often than that.
- avalys 3y agoThe question is how often this failure will occur when the pilots fail to turn off the switch. Given that the 737 Max 8 and 9 are currrently flying with this defect and no damage has been reported, let alone failures, the actual likelihood of catastrophic failure is clearly low.
- salawat 3y agoUntil it isn't. And somehow I doubt it will be your plane where it happens.
- ars 3y ago> how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding It's because planes with this same issue are currently flying and it's an easily managed issue (i.e. don't use it when certain conditions happen). Boeing was hoping to add another model to the list of planes currently grandfathered in, but decided not to do that and instead fix it, and then back-port the fix to the currently flying planes.
- Mtinie 3y agoGrandfathering should not occur when the grandparents have quantifiable and qualifiable issues
- chippiewill 3y agoRisk is hypothetical and Boeing will have had to submit various documents to the FAA describing the possible outcomes and the likelihood of those happening. Risk can also be managed by pilots doing manual checks. Boeing got an exemption for the existing MAX-8 and MAX-9 planes with the same issue, and are allowed to continue shipping new planes of those with the issue. This isn't really that big of a deal IMO, planes fly with stuff broken all the time, it's why they have minimum equipment lists. Planes are enormously complex with thousands of systems onboard, it would be kind of surprising if everything worked all of the time. To not allow shipping MAX 7s with the same issue would be a bit odd, if it's serious enough the planes should either be grounded across the board, or at least not shipping new MAX 8s and MAX 9s.
- SilverBirch 3y agoI know the broader context is that Boeing has some fundamentally broken culture with regards to safety. Setting that aside I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a system were you can say "Hey, we have this problem, it has this impact, it occurs in the following situations. We'll fix it, but in the meantime we want an exemption to keep flying and we'll restrict the use to the following situations where the issue cannot occur." As long as that process is rigorous, it's not actually a problem. The broader problem is Boeing can't be trusted. It's like when you go to the doctor and say "My knee hurts the day after I play basket ball" - you know what he's going to tell you - stop playing basketball. Sometimes you can be safe by just... not doing a particular thing.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoAfaik they also thought that MCAS was so safe that the pilots didn’t even have to know about its existence
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y agoThe pilots must've been absolutely pissed discovering that the stick wasn't following their commands, and Boeing gaslighting by denying MCAS existed. That there even exists a condition where the stick/steering can ignore direct commands given is insane to me.
- wbsun 3y agoAs some comments mentioned that the culture in Boeing has been broken for a long time. How to fix it? I heard about a solution: set up a policy that every executive and board member must take their "safe" airplane once a week.
- hrunt 3y agoI don't understand. Is Boeing using a different anti-ice system on the engines for the MAX 7 compared to the other MAX variants? They use the same engines, no? Why would the MAX 7 need a safety exemption for a system that should be identical across the 4 variants?
- dharmab 3y agoThe AD applies to all 737s using that same engine: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17197/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17... However, the MAX 8 and MAX 9 had already been certified and delivered before this AD was published, while the MAX 7 had delays in certification.
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago[dead]
- jsnell 3y agoThe MAX 8 and 9 have the same issue[0], and have a temporary exemption with guidance to the pilots on when not to use the deicing. I think the idea is that this is an issue that can be managed, and the cost of grounding hundreds of planes for such an issue is substantially higher than the cost of delaying deliveries for a plane with no existing fleet. That different cost also leads to a different tradeoff for the two cases. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17197/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17...
- rkagerer 3y agoI hear what you're saying, but "because we have so many of these planes out there" isn't a rationale that gives me a lot of confidence for justifying a waiver. In the grand scheme of things I'd rather see them stop building shitty planes.
- 3y ago
- jsjohnst 3y ago> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?
- mulmen 3y agoSounds like they are learning their lesson. Fix the actual problem instead of relying on regulatory capture. This is all a sad, ugly mess. A glimmer of hope does give me a warm fuzzy feeling actually.
- jacquesm 3y agoThis time. But only because the spotlight is on them.
- mulmen 3y agoSure. It’s not a cause for total forgiveness and trust but it is the first step in the right direction in a long time. There’s plenty of reasons to criticize Boeing. This is the first news in a long time that isn’t.
- ngcc_hk 3y agoRegulatory capture … At least they do not handle the people involved, the media or anybody who raise there is a problem … there is still some hope in non-chinese system.
- anon-sre-srm 3y agoThe DOJ acted as Boeing's PR firm in the Jamaica 737 NG crash of N977AN. Obama's DOJ made intentional false statements to media that the NTSB supposedly concluded that faulty bear straps and other structural components weren't a factor when the NTSB hadn't reached any conclusions. It came out later.. > "I'm expecting a gold watch from Boeing at the end of my presidency, because I know that I'm on the list of top salesmen at Boeing," Obama deadpanned in 2013. https://www.wprl.org/npr-news/2024-01-19/cozy-relationship-between-boeing-and-the-u-s-draws-scrutiny-amid-737-max-9-mess https://www.wprl.org/npr-news/2024-01-19/cozy-relationship-b...
- hakdbha 3y ago[dead]
- ngcc_hk 3y agoThis is the less serious topic and as quoted below one should be more concern about https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17197/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17... which affects all 737. Anyone can quite how boring due with this. Just not to use it?
- anon-sre-srm 3y agoThere were over 20 serious issues affecting 737 NG and MAX models post MAX crashes, but they received exactly zero media coverage. Former 737 Boeing manufacturing manager Ed Pierson raised the alarm vigorously but no one listened.
- Anon_Is_Truth 3y agoHow many more lives do we need to lose to 737 MAX airplanes before they're permanently grounded?
- temptemptemp111 3y ago[dead]
- Animats 3y agoThe trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.
- bestouff 3y agoDidn't Boing already lose to Airbus ?
- Semitangent 3y ago"Boing" because of the little jump it makes after crashing?
- panick21_ 3y agoWell, yes Airbus has more market share. More orders and more deliveries. But Boeing is still very competitive in the profitable wide-body market. So Airbus is bugger but its not like Boeing is going bust or something.
- charrondev 3y agoThey’ve definitely lost market share, but even if you would prefer to buy Airbus they now have a backlog of ~9,000 aircraft to deliver. For reference in 2022 they shipped 661 aircraft and 735 in 2023. I’m assuming they are increasing manufacturing capacity but that doesn’t change the fact that their backlog extends into the next decade.
- ZaoLahma 3y agoWhy is it troublesome? As someone with very limited knowledge in aircraft development, I'm genuinely curious about what more modern designs would bring to the table compared to the modern 737s, which I assume are heavily updated versions of the original 1960s design?
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jfoster 3y agoI love flying on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It is the most comfortable plane I've flown on in terms of how the air quality feels, and it has had 0 hull losses & 0 fatalities; almost as good a safety record as you could hope for as a passenger. I think there are many who agree with me about Dreamliners being the most comfortable planes to fly on. I hope never to fly on another Boeing 737, because of all the accidents and safety drama that has been happening & is ongoing. It's become vogue to hate Boeing as a result, but I still prefer the 787 over any other plane. I am guessing that entirely different teams were responsible for what's been happening with each model, but I'm surprised that Boeing's culture has led to two quite different results with these two types of planes. Can anyone explain that?
- fcsp 3y agoCurrently reading "Flying Blind", which was recommended on another recent Boeing thread. Not done yet, but I think it boils down to - Boeing had a pretty strong engineering driven culture for a long time - In the 90s, McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money and McDD management took over, which was a mostly Jack Welch inspired bunch of value extraction types - Engineering culture started decaying, drastic cost cutting, outsourcing and value extraction started taking place, with Boeing spending up to 80% of free cash on stock buybacks instead of investments - Dreamliner program started in the early 2000s, 737 MAX several years later I think it boils down to the erosion of the company not having progressed as far when the Dreamliner was being designed
- jfoster 3y agoInteresting. I didn't realize that 737 MAX started after Dreamliner. That would seem to be a possible explanation.
- fcsp 3y agoAlso, maybe to add to that, the Dreamliner was a new design, of which apparently even considering some setbacks along the way Boeing was still capable of at that point in time. For the 737 Max, they were very late and had to react to Airbus much better neo offering, and didn't have the time and/or money and/or capabilities to develop a new airplane, so a lot of in the end deadly compromises had to be made to somehow bypass training and security certification as much as possible using the old airframe at low cost.
- nottorp 3y agoTranslation: they've been told they won't get it and are trying to save face. Or maybe they've been allowed to save face.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoInterested to know if the Boeing CEO and board members ever board this plane
- popcalc 3y agoC-suite only flies Gulfstream.
- mmusson 3y agoThe 737 design is like an axe that had its head and handle changed a few times. Is it still the same axe?
- danielbln 3y agoThe plane of Theseus.
- ogogmad 3y agoRyanair is happy to buy the Boeing 737-MAX planes that other airlines are thinking of ditching: https://skift.com/2024/01/29/ryanair-ceo-says-uniteds-boeing-737-max-comments-were-stupid/ https://skift.com/2024/01/29/ryanair-ceo-says-uniteds-boeing... Interestingly, Airbus's orders are filled up to 2030. I suppose if an airline wants something sooner, they'll either get Boeing or they're not going [to get one].
- s_dev 3y agoO'Leary hasn't been the CEO of Ryanair for some time though he is a leader and can represent the company, this is a tad pedantic but worth pointing out. It's been Eddie Wilson since. Michael says a lot of things that get him news coverage of Ryanair. He does have a track recording of going against the zeitgeist to profit e.g. he bought a lot of planes after 9/11 knowing that air traffic would bounce back while planes were cheap to purchase. That said; he's also urged Boeing to take the safety issues more seriously as well: https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-safety-ryanair-rues-minor-issues-with-new-boeing-aircraft-13045961 https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-safety-ryanair-rues-minor-... So I wouldn't see this as an endorsement that Boeing are 100% okay and this is all media spin. There are issues at Boeing and they need to be addressed -- according to the industries big supporters of Boeing.