[HN Gopher] Boeing Needs an Act of Congress or Something Worse t...
___________________________________________________________________
Boeing Needs an Act of Congress or Something Worse to Get Max 7 and
10 Flying
Author : hnburnsy
Score : 82 points
Date : 2022-11-01 18:29 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (crankyflier.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (crankyflier.com)
| olliej wrote:
| Sure am glad that they saved all the money /s
|
| Also I still don't understand why the executive board of Boeing
| aren't in jail (I mean I "know", in the sense that they're rich
| and so the laws don't apply to them, I just don't understand why
| that still works even in such blatant cases of deliberate mass
| murder)
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| Friends don't put friends in jail.
| cde-v wrote:
| Just peacefully protest about it, that generally solves all
| problems.
| inetknght wrote:
| I recognize your sarcasm but many might not. Sarcasm doesn't
| fit well on the internet in general and is against HN rules
| ;)
| rafaelturk wrote:
| It's never too late to reverse a bad decision - Max series is and
| remains a low bar airplane; we all know why: Marketing took over
| engineering. Accept the problem, scrap it and move on.
| stickfigure wrote:
| You make it sound like trading in a car rather than retraining
| thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel.
|
| Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some
| professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an
| opinion on this.
| anonym29 wrote:
| Yeah, forget about this guy's right to freedom of expression,
| let's go after his right to even hold an opinion! /s
| roody15 wrote:
| Retraining pilots and mechanics is what is needed. The idea
| of keeping the same jet but slapping on larger more fuel
| efficient engines was and remains disastrous. To fit the
| larger engines they had to shift the placement to the front
| changing the aerodynamics of the plane. Adding a couple
| sensors to constantly correct the pitch for this hacked
| together designed is an embarrassment to Boeing.
|
| The 737max should either be scrapped or limited to cargo only
| (at best).
| not-my-account wrote:
| Well, I mean... if Boeing is so corrupt and/or incompetent to
| let TWO of their airplanes full of people crash because of
| bad engineering / bad ops, perhaps we can have an opinion on
| the matter?
|
| If retraining those pilots, mechanics, and other support
| personnel are required, then why not do it? Sure, it will be
| expensive, but if the costs are human lives, c'est la vie.
| constantcrying wrote:
| If you have written software for planes you should know that
| it is near impossible to fuck up this bad. It is hard to fuck
| up at level D like that, it is near impossible to fuck up
| this way at A(or was it classified at B?).
|
| The amount of people who have to have went "this doesn't seem
| too important, I don't need to check this" is unfathomable.
| That such an error was not caught speaks of a deep rot in the
| entire organization, from management down to the guys writing
| the software.
| theYipster wrote:
| I am a CEO and recognized thought leader in the aviation
| industry and I say your position is nonsense.
|
| If you truly work in aviation, then you should consider
| finding another career. Our industry needs less people with
| your type of thinking.
| [deleted]
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Well certainly the people killed by these planes are also
| entitled to an opinion, but I guess there's survivorship bias
| in play in the market of opinions.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other
| support personnel.
|
| That ship has largely already sailed after the 737 Max
| crashes.
| kodah wrote:
| Regular people boarded the Max 8 and regular people will have
| board the Max 7 and Max 10. Unless of course, only aviation
| industry professionals fly on the Max 7 and 10s.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in
| some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to
| an opinion on this.
|
| Unless the proposal is to only use the aircraft for flying
| cargo, this is absolute nonsense.
|
| As soon as the public is allowed to board the aircraft for
| regular flights, then *OF COURSE* the public is entitled to
| an opinion about how safe aircraft should be. To even suggest
| otherwise is, frankly, nonsense.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Maybe cargo but over seas? I mean if an airplane crashes it
| crashes on someone else's land, unless Boing is buying land
| to build like a flying railroad or something then everyone
| that lives close enough to an air route has a say on what
| they fly above them.
| gambiting wrote:
| Last time I checked, there's remarkably few airports in
| international waters. Most big airports that are cargo
| hubs are(unsurprisingly) next to major cities.
| throw7 wrote:
| Boeing's plane fell out of the sky not once, twice. Everyone
| is entitled to an opinion on this.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Sure but that's not super interesting. Everyone's opinion
| will be "Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation
| experts please fix this."
| parminya wrote:
| "Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts
| please fix this."
|
| "Also, lawmakers, ensure the aviation experts fix this."
|
| "Having regard to our advisors, we, the US lawmakers,
| have concluded that one criterion according to which
| aviation experts should judge their fix is that planes
| should have a doobywhacky in them, because aviation
| experts have assured us that a doobywhacky is important.
| But we will give them two years to get their plane
| certified without the doobywhacky on a legacy basis,
| since it seems like a good faith effort should be able to
| get legacy planes certified within two years."
|
| "Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at
| the FAA would like to know some information about your
| planes."
|
| "Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at
| the FAA need to know some information about your planes;
| what you have said is not good enough and you've left
| many questions unanswered."
|
| "Oh, hi, US lawmaker, we, the lobbyists at Boeing thought
| you might like to know how bad it would be for you if the
| law isn't changed, yeah, we know everyone thought a good
| faith effort should be able to get legacy planes
| certified within two years, but you know how complicated
| planes can be."
|
| And at this point, I think there are two possible
| replies: "Everyone believed it should have been possible,
| and there are clearly problems at Boeing's end, so they
| need to wear their mistakes; it's not like they're left
| with nothing and it's widely agreed that 737 MAX
| represents an end-of-line design so the cost is not
| excessive" or "The two years was written into the law to
| get these particular models out without conforming to the
| law; if they can be approved under the strictest
| application of the old rules, does it hurt if the
| approval is made just before the two year deadline, or
| just after it? In either case, it's flying according to
| the legacy certification. So we'll just extend the period
| a little."
|
| I certainly think a case can be built either way, but
| knowledge of aviation is really only a minor part of the
| decision making process facing lawmakers right now.
| mindslight wrote:
| This whole saga, including this article, has been about
| the tension between Boeing's business/political shortcuts
| and what aviation experts seem to think is prudent.
| echelon wrote:
| > > Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry
| in some professional capacity, I don't think you're
| entitled to an opinion on this.
|
| "You don't share my opinion, [and you lack credentials,] so
| kindly don't speak" is becoming an increasingly common
| debate stratagem.
|
| It would be so much gentler if it were phrased as,
| "Industry professionals have spent a lot of time thinking
| about this. I'm not sure your conclusions capture the
| complexities and nuances of the situation, but I understand
| your points".
| nimbius wrote:
| Just the fact that Irkut (Russian) and Comac (Chinese) have
| competitor aircraft not only taking orders but in the skies
| should be enough to get most of the octogenarians in congress to
| give Americas flagship aircraft manufacturer a green light to
| sell whatever it wants during a global recession.
|
| it does nothing however to ameliorate the fact that most of the
| original 737 buyers who were grounded have moved on to Airbus or
| variant Boeings with a less haunted track record.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Why? That's what sanctions are for.
| kashunstva wrote:
| > to give Americas flagship aircraft manufacturer a green light
| to sell whatever it wants during a global recession.
|
| Irrespective of Boeing's egregious safety lapses? I think not.
| greesil wrote:
| There was a pretty good documentary recently on how Boeing got to
| where it is now.
|
| https://www.netflix.com/us/title/81272421
| goldcd wrote:
| It's excellent. Had only been vaguely following the details,
| but more you learn the angrier you get.
| bombcar wrote:
| I'm not sure "bolt on some new thing and this will work just fine
| we swear" is the way to go with the MAX 10 after what happened to
| the MAX 8.
| andrewia wrote:
| But in this case the "new thing" is a warning system that is
| found in almost all modern planes. It's not new to Boeing or
| its pilots, is an industry standard, and doesn't require novel
| engineering practices. It sounds like Boeing painted itself
| into a corner once again (this time with the Southwest orders),
| and doesn't want to eat the engineering/certification cost to
| get out "the right way" by implementing this system in its
| existing avionics. Boeing should feel the consequences of its
| actions, including lost profits, and play by the rules.
| spoonjim wrote:
| I still won't fly a Boeing MAX. Literally refused to do a
| business meeting in person and just did it over Zoom because the
| only sensible flight was on a MAX.
| inetknght wrote:
| Even if you could book a flight without use of a MAX... good
| luck staying off of a MAX if your booked flight has mechanical
| trouble and the airline moves you to a different flight.
| technofiend wrote:
| The booking tool my company gives us to book flights shows
| equipment for each flight. I avoid the MAX as well, even if
| it's inconvenient. Not to the point of cancelling travel as you
| have, but only because I haven't yet had to as there are many
| options for my particular pair of airports. Reputational loss
| is something companies manage as a risk and in this case IMHO
| Boeing should take the loss on a redesign to regain reputation
| and trust in their product. Because if they don't people like
| you and me will continue to avoid some of their airframes.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Even if multiple independent sources deem the MAX safe after
| modifications, I will won't want to fly on one. Part of me
| wants to punish Boeing, even if the impact is minuscule in the
| grand scheme of things.
| pcurve wrote:
| Dumb question. Can they just move back the engine and make the
| landing gears longer by making them retractable?
| kashunstva wrote:
| > make the landing gears longer by making them retractable?
|
| The entire 737 series is already comprised of retractable gear
| aircraft.
| andrewia wrote:
| I'm assuming they meant "extendable". In which case the
| longest MAX model already did this, but it was avoided by
| other models due to engineering cost.
| https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71500/why-
| wasnt...
| andrewia wrote:
| https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71500/why-wasnt...
|
| TL;DR that adds engineering complexity and/or would trigger
| redesigns of other components. The MAX 8 was supposed to be an
| economical refresh - a stopgap until the Y1/"New Midsize
| Airplane" was ready. (The sales/economic failure of the Y1 "787
| Dreamliner" means the Y1 project is paused while Boeing waits
| for next generation technology to become available.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project )
| theYipster wrote:
| The economic troubles of the 787 have nothing to do with the
| technology applied. It's due to how Boeing managed the
| program.
|
| The A350 employs the same technology and is an economic
| success.
| esaym wrote:
| No, the wheels fold inward and fit into holes in the
| underbelly: https://i.imgur.com/6OjnKrl.jpg You can't just
| "make it longer". And moving engines greatly effects the CG.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I understand (and agree with) all of the "fuck Boeing!" sentiment
| here, but look at this situation from a purely logical
| perspective:
|
| Every 737 flying today, including the two already-certified MAX
| variants, does not have EICAS. If it's such a massive safety
| concern, then why are they still allowed to fly? Of course, it's
| not a massive safety concern. EICAS is great, and requiring it in
| future aircraft is a good thing, but aircraft without it are
| still safe.
|
| The additional two years given from the law passing until the
| requirement would go into effect were basically to allow the MAX
| 7 and 10 to be certified without EICAS. And in all practical
| likelihood, Congress will give Boeing an extension to allow them
| to be certified without EICAS in 2023. There's really no reason
| not to, aside from "fuck Boeing."
| elromulous wrote:
| It should come as no surprise that Boeing is simply motivated by
| money at every turn and nothing else. No individual is ever held
| personally liable in the US for cases like these (vs e.g diesel
| gate in Europe). And the fines against the company are a joke at
| best.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > It should come as no surprise that Boeing is simply motivated
| by money at every turn and nothing else.
|
| That's just a normal company.
| 317070 wrote:
| If I understand OP well, normal companies are fortunately
| still bounded by laws on criminal negligence. People working
| for most companies also avoid that the situation gets so bad
| that they risk becoming personally liable.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > normal companies are fortunately still bounded by laws on
| criminal negligence
|
| ...because it's bad for money to break them. Money is still
| the motivation.
| parminya wrote:
| So why not just reinterpret the original comment so it
| survives, and take it to highlight the difference between
| a rule-of-law legal system that punishes rich companies
| who break the law until it has motivated law-following
| behavior, and a corrupt legal system that does not punish
| rich companies who break the law enough to motivate law-
| following behavior. I don't think the balance between
| Europe and the US has always been in Europe's favor, so
| it's not like there's no capacity to improve.
| noahtallen wrote:
| It's the fatal flaw of capitalism: any time X is actually more
| important than making money, companies (especially public ones)
| cannot focus on X above all else. (A great example is health
| companies, where human health and well-being is the most
| important variable, but often conflicts with making money.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-01 23:03 UTC)