4 ms·

I 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 exemp

I 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 ago
A $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 ago
  Early access for planes. The next step in commercial aviation. Feel the thrill of life threatening bugs!
  - bpye 3y ago
    At least early access games might give you a discount or some exclusive content.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      If they keep going as they are, then flying with Boeing might result in life insurance claims being invalidated. ;)
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    Boeing: "For the real adrenaline junkies"
    - NegativeLatency 3y ago
      If it’s Boeing I’m not going.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jfim 3y ago
  The 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 ago
    Yeah, 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.
    - avalys 3y ago
      There’s no indication that the catastrophic failure you’re speculating about here is actually likely to occur - and plenty of evidence that it’s not.
      - juanani 3y ago
        [dead]
      - Mtinie 3y ago
        Is it a scenario, even if unlikely?
- charles_f 3y ago
  From 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 ago
While 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Until 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 ago
  Grandfathering should not occur when the grandparents have quantifiable and qualifiable issues
chippiewill 3y ago
Risk 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Afaik they also thought that MCAS was so safe that the pilots didn’t even have to know about its existence
  - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
    The 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 ago
As 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.

fbdab103 3y ago

A $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 ago
Early access for planes. The next step in commercial aviation. Feel the thrill of life threatening bugs!
- bpye 3y ago
  At least early access games might give you a discount or some exclusive content.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    If they keep going as they are, then flying with Boeing might result in life insurance claims being invalidated. ;)
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  Boeing: "For the real adrenaline junkies"
  - NegativeLatency 3y ago
    If it’s Boeing I’m not going.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jfim 3y ago
The 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 ago
  Yeah, 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.
  - avalys 3y ago
    There’s no indication that the catastrophic failure you’re speculating about here is actually likely to occur - and plenty of evidence that it’s not.
    - juanani 3y ago
      [dead]
    - Mtinie 3y ago
      Is it a scenario, even if unlikely?
charles_f 3y ago
From 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 ago

While 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 ago

Not 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 ago
And 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Until 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 ago
Grandfathering should not occur when the grandparents have quantifiable and qualifiable issues

chippiewill 3y ago

Risk 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 ago

I 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 ago
Afaik they also thought that MCAS was so safe that the pilots didn’t even have to know about its existence
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  The 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 ago

As 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.