[HN Gopher] FAA grounds 171 Boeing planes after mid-air blowout
___________________________________________________________________
FAA grounds 171 Boeing planes after mid-air blowout
Author : intunderflow
Score : 167 points
Date : 2024-01-06 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| intunderflow wrote:
| At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft.
|
| I would not be surprised though if Boeing's sales drop if the US
| government brings in tariffs or etc to try and force companies to
| buy their flying coffins.
| asylteltine wrote:
| The A380 is the best plane ever made in the entirety of human
| history. It's a damn shame it's not used more. I'm hoping new
| fuel efficient engines make it viable again because there
| simply is NOTHING like first class on an A380.
| thecosmicfrog wrote:
| It's interesting how so many people sounded the death knell
| on the A380 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Production of new
| A380s even ceased around this time. Now it seems demand for
| that size of aircraft is only increasing (at least for
| specific hub and spoke models).
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| A380s were scheduled to end production in 2021 even before
| COVID.
|
| Airbus may have mistimed the A380 versus industry trends -
| though this is certainly up to debate and is still up in
| the air.
|
| The first A380 deliveries were back in 2007, so the also
| had to eat the impact of the 09 financial crisis.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| What makes it the best? I've flown on it, and it seems nice
| enough, though it isn't the most comfortable airliner I've
| flown on. It's certainly the biggest! But there are only
| what, 250 or so that were put into service? It's hard to have
| a strong opinion about a plane in such a small niche.
| CaptainZapp wrote:
| If the engineering of this plane wouldn't have been that
| great disaster would have loomed.[0]
|
| No question about that.
|
| [0] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/a-matter-of-
| millimeters-...
| algesten wrote:
| For me the A380 is the most comfortable. I'm slightly
| scared of flying, and turbulence making the entire plane
| jump around makes it that much worse. I'm only speculating,
| but I think it might be the sheer bulk of the A380 making
| it the smoothest rides I've ever been on.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Flying the A380 doesn't even feel like flying. Even the
| takeoff roll is sedate.
| cm2187 wrote:
| It will inevitably come back in some form in the long term as
| air traffic keeps increasing. It's much harder to build a new
| runway and a new terminal in busy airports (ask Heathrow)
| than to add a floor to a plane.
| makestuff wrote:
| Turns out when you care about R&D and not just profits you can
| build safe/reliable aircraft.
|
| With how thin the airline industry is right now post covid
| though we knew stuff was going to start happening. FAA is short
| staffed, airline maintenance had a ton of people retire during
| covid, etc. Here is to hoping things will change before more
| people lose their lives.
| mrandish wrote:
| > At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe
| aircraft.
|
| Prior to new models released in the last ~10yrs-ish, Boeing
| made the safest planes in the sky (as measured by passenger
| miles). Many of those planes are still flying and still doing
| great.
|
| For me the interesting question is what changed in Boeing's
| design, testing and/or manufacturing processes which is
| apparently resulting in worse safety performance.
| sp332 wrote:
| Some corporate history
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21304277
| intunderflow wrote:
| I've heard that when they merged with McDonnell Douglas their
| new (McDonnell) management pushed out the good engineering
| culture and dropped their quality standards in a chase for
| more profit, leading to engineering experiencing the dead sea
| effect.
| jdksmdbtbdnmsm wrote:
| in other words: capitalism, the system we've designed our
| whole society around
| crisdux wrote:
| No, this isn't a well-functioning capitalist system.
| Competition is a core principle of capitalism. What
| occurred in the aerospace industry represents a
| government-sanctioned monopoly.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| In the last 20 years nearly every industry has seen major
| consolidation between just a few large companies.
|
| Is any part of the capitalist system "well functioning"
| anymore?
| jdksmdbtbdnmsm wrote:
| > _Competition is a core principle of capitalism_
|
| Capitalism is literally defined by the ability to invest
| capital to accumulate more of it by way of profit. The
| logical end of this process is straightforwardly
| monopoly.
| onpointed wrote:
| And if the world/environment/context of the business
| didn't change then the monopolies might last, but because
| there is change there is room to innovate and outcompete
| the monopolies.
| malfist wrote:
| Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism
| halJordan wrote:
| Monopolies are broken by capitalism just as much as
| they're created by capitalism. The whole "end-stage
| capitalism" schtick is wrong because a free market will
| lead to the ossification and then breakdown of a
| monopolist. You just have to finish spring semester of
| Econ101 to find out how.
| camillomiller wrote:
| It's always so funny to read this kind of answer when
| someone points out the evident flaws of capitalism! "Hey,
| wait a minute, this is not how capitalism is supposed to
| work, so you can't say it's capitalism". Too bad that
| capitalism isn't one monolithic thing and this is
| ABSOLUTELY how loosely regulated American capitalism
| works. It's a form of capitalism where human life is an
| optimization problem that sits on the way to profits.
| WalterBright wrote:
| And Soviet built airliners are known for their safety?
| vkou wrote:
| Is there any kind of alternative that could be found, or
| have we reached the end of history, with our only two
| options being 2023 capitalism versus 1960s Soviet state
| capitalism?
| tpm wrote:
| Any system where management incentives are not aligned
| with end-user incentives. So all of them really.
| halJordan wrote:
| Ah yes, the same capitalism that was around for the
| building of this industry that was incredibly safe up
| until it wasnt? Or was it safe because it was heavily
| regulated back then but the heavy regulations today we
| ignore because "capitalism"? You cant just throw these
| single word thought-terminators out there. When an actual
| cartoon is doing better than you it's time to
| recalibrate. "Think Mark! Think!"
| neilv wrote:
| Is there an opposite of the Dead Sea Effect?
|
| (I'm not talking about self-congratulatory conceits, like
| "raising the bar" and "fire fast", since the companies that
| first come to mind as saying those things tend to produce a
| large quantity of often poor quality, in very visible ways.
| Do we have concepts or terms lately for a place where most
| everyone does great work, and people who don't rise to that
| don't remain there?)
| cf1241290841 wrote:
| There is a book recommendation in the other thread
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38894227
|
| The McDonnell Douglas merger is also worth mentioning in this
| context.
| hinkley wrote:
| I've heard it argued that the US government coerced that
| merger.
| ls612 wrote:
| After the unfortunate incident in Japan this week, the Boeing
| 787, a plane designed in the 2000s and flying since 2013, is
| now the only passenger airliner without a hull loss. So they
| are clearly capable of producing modern safe airliners post
| merger.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Producing, what about "designing safe aircraft post-
| merger"?
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| Do you have a source for that? This lists a number of
| others: https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-types-zero-hull-
| losses/
| ls612 wrote:
| Huh I never realized the 717 had no crashes either that's
| even more impressive considering the era it was designed
| in tbh. The others on that list look like subtypes (ie
| the 747-8; there have been numerous 747 crashes).
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I don't feel like hull loss without context is a meaningful
| metric of anything. At the end of the day they are
| airplanes flown by pilots. You could have a less safe
| design flown by highly competent pilots and never lose a
| plane, or an incredibly sophisticated, technically advanced
| aircraft where the pilot makes a decision resulting the
| destruction of the aircraft.
| hinkley wrote:
| There was an engineer who got fired for worrying publicly
| about the fire safety of the carbon fiber hulls during the
| 787 leadup.
|
| It turned out I worked in the same building he had, and I
| found his old office. Word is after he left they locked it
| up, like a crime scene. I think they were worried his
| whistleblowing would turn to leaks and I guess they thought
| his office would have some sort of evidence? It was an
| interior office so no big loss real estate wise, but that
| was a super weird chapter.
|
| He was painted as an aluminum bigot but I always wondered.
|
| I used to talk to a coworker about how Mitsubishi - which
| built the 787 wings (something Boeing has never done
| before) - had introduced a regional jet and would be coming
| after a Boeing's lunch. He was not worried. I'm a little
| shocked he's been right so far. In fact that particular
| division of MHI seems to be defunct as of last February,
| which is news to me, so I suppose he was right. Maybe the
| 787 experience was as unpleasant for them as it was for
| Boeing.
| ls612 wrote:
| From the looks of it the composite fuselage of the A350
| did its job splendidly, it held out against the fire long
| enough for everyone to evacuate, only flashing over after
| >20 minutes.
| majormajor wrote:
| > It turned out I worked in the same building he had, and
| I found his old office. Word is after he left they locked
| it up, like a crime scene. I think they were worried his
| whistleblowing would turn to leaks and I guess they
| thought his office would have some sort of evidence? It
| was an interior office so no big loss real estate wise,
| but that was a super weird chapter.
|
| If they were worried about a lawsuit from him they might
| want to preserve everything in case it was subpoenaed
| regardless of guilt or innocent - possibly _especially_
| if they thought his claims were wrong.
| hinkley wrote:
| I believe I was the only one who found it weird or
| noteworthy. But it was locked for years.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Word is after he left they locked it up, like a crime
| scene. I think they were worried his whistleblowing would
| turn to leaks and I guess they thought his office would
| have some sort of evidence?
|
| If Boeing did clear it out, they'd be open to charges of
| doing a coverup. The smart thing to do is lock it up as
| is.
| BoardsOfCanada wrote:
| Probably some upper-middle manager that needed to push
| something through to get a bonus.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| 787 program:
|
| - designed to outsource most manufacturing to the lowest
| bidder, many program management problems, overruns and delays
|
| - to bust unions new factory was created in South Carolina
| and this has very poor QC, there are rumors that a certain
| large middle eastern airline refuses to accept any planes
| assembled there
|
| 737 program:
|
| - they decided that they are not going to do a clean sheet
| 737NG and use the existing platform to put on new engines and
| do other modernization. They did it the cheap way and tried
| to paper over problems in software to make sure that their
| biggest customers would not need to send their pilots through
| extra training. Killed hundreds already.
| WalterBright wrote:
| It's safer to have a new airplane design behave like the
| old one. There have been many crashes due a pilot being
| stressed and automatically doing something that would have
| been right on a previous airplane he was familiar with, but
| which was wrong for the current airplane he is flying.
|
| All jet airliners are aerodynamically unstable and use
| active controls to "paper over" that. There is nothing
| inherently wrong with doing that.
|
| The MCAS problem was not due to its purpose. The problem
| was the software for it had too much authority, and did not
| shut off when the pilot countermanded it. A worse problem
| was the pilots did not follow emergency procedures for
| runaway trim.
|
| For reference, the emergency procedures are:
|
| 1. restore normal trim with the electric trim switches
| (which overrides MCAS)
|
| 2. turn off the trim via a switch on the console
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I don't think it's worth relitigating MCAS here but your
| analysis here is very generous to Boeing and harsh to the
| pilots who where unwitting test pilots in Boeing's
| mistake.
| pityJuke wrote:
| > there are rumors that a certain large middle eastern
| airline
|
| Thank god there are airlines with standards. I'm certainly
| glad my Middle Eastern long haul option for a particular
| cross-continent journey does not have any faulty Boeing
| models.
| mhalle wrote:
| I believe that the 737NG is not the problem aircraft. The
| new engines and the problematic MCAS are on the 737 MAX, a
| different model.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| Read this: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-coming-
| boeing-bailout
|
| One of the tenets of the article is that the breakdown of the
| once-impermeable wall between civilian and military divisions
| has resulted in disaster.
| callamdelaney wrote:
| The control stick on the airbus is pretty bad, the fact that
| neither pilot knows what inputs the other is giving makes them
| far inferior to the system in boeing aircraft, even with
| warnings.
| s5300 wrote:
| I'd at first read the plane was without passengers and just being
| flown somewhere... and I thought, great.
|
| Today I read that it was full of passengers, and the two people
| supposed to be in the two seats in the row the panel blew out
| happened to miss their flight.
|
| If that's true... what an interesting set of statistics coming
| together.
|
| Amount of people that sleep through flights Amount of panels that
| blow out of passenger planes Chance to be seated next to said
| panel
| whatshisface wrote:
| We are seeing the "inverted Swiss cheese" model of disaster
| avoidance: you are only safe if several independent, random
| events go your way.
| krisoft wrote:
| I mean, of course it is better that the seats were not
| occupied, but there is no reason to treat it as if those
| people for sure would have died if they were on the plane.
|
| It sounds like if they were on board and wearing seat belts
| they would have been fine. Possibly very shaken, but fine.
| panarky wrote:
| _> wearing seat belts_
|
| After the segment of fuselage fell to the earth, after the
| giant hole opened, after the kid's shirt was ripped away,
| passengers were standing up at their seats and in the
| aisle, and flight attendants had to plead with them to sit
| down and buckle up.
| efdee wrote:
| I'm just going to leave you with this frightening quote: "They
| said there was a kid in that row who had his shirt was sucked
| off him and out of the plane and his mother was holding onto
| him to make sure he didn't go with it."
|
| Shirt sucked off him. Mother was holding onto him. Oh hello, a
| thousand nightmares of my youth.
| bombcar wrote:
| I suppose after that you'll be either absolutely unafraid of
| planes or never go on one with a shirt again.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Wear your seat belt while in the seat.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The seat is still there, firmly attached to the plane. In all
| likelihood a passenger in that seat, if they were wearing their
| seat belt (as they should have, it wasn't at cruising altitude,
| and you should wear your seat belt anyway when seated), would
| have been severely frightened and annoyed, but probably
| uninjured. Maybe some hearing loss.
| bitcurious wrote:
| The seat is at the very least missing some fabric and
| cushioning. Winds that can do that to an airplane seat
| probably wouldn't leave a human uninjured.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| Although I'm not an aerospace engineer, Airplane seats only
| have a a simple lap-belt, are rarely adjusted to the proper
| tightness, and are designed to accommodate all body sizes. I
| could certainly imagine a lap-belt not being adequate to keep
| a small child from getting sucked out of the seat.
| nullorempty wrote:
| Clearly they need more exemptions.
| agilob wrote:
| I bet they are lobbying for it right now
| intunderflow wrote:
| Already working on it as of yesterday:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358
| gamepsys wrote:
| Boeing is what happens when an engineering focused company gets
| taken over by MBAs. When it happens to a webtech company we call
| it enshitification. When it happens to a transportation company
| lives are actually at risk. Sadly Boeing is important enough to
| DC that they seem to be allowed to casually risk American lives.
| downrightmike wrote:
| And risk a multiple of those lives as long as they are foreign,
| remember the MAX failed several times around the world before
| getting grounded.
| LargeTomato wrote:
| Boeing is late stage MBA.
|
| Intel is mid-stage MBA.
|
| Google/Alphabet is early stage MBA.
| IceHegel wrote:
| This seems basically right and there is no known cure save
| bringing back a founder (Jobs & Apple).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Put Elon on the board so he can bust some balls.
| apantel wrote:
| Xoeing.
| apantel wrote:
| First new model: the X-wing.
| DanielHB wrote:
| Microsoft seems to be "coming back" by essentially becoming
| an umbrella company, much like how all food manufacturers
| consolidated and are basically a couple of mega umbrella
| companies
| blueridge wrote:
| Oh I like this framing.
| matrix_overload wrote:
| MBAs can only pull this off when there is no competition and
| they are in bed with the regulators. You can very easily get
| Boeing back on track by splitting them into multiple competing
| businesses, but we all know this won't happen.
| db48x wrote:
| They're already broken up. They consider themselves to be a
| system integrator. They design the planes, hire contractors
| to build most of the parts, and then assemble the parts. The
| fact that this gives Boeing most of the risk and the
| contractors most of the profit doesn't seem to bother them.
| matrix_overload wrote:
| Vertical integration is not competition. A decision maker
| at any level within the vertical of power is facing
| internal competition from political rivals, but no results-
| based competition from his peers in other companies. So
| this promotes political shenanigans, and applies negative
| selection pressure on the actual product quality.
| db48x wrote:
| This is some kind of vertical dis-integration. They
| literally sold their factories and tools to their
| contractors because owning land and buildings and
| machinery was dragging down their metrics! (Specifically
| assets to earnings or something along those lines.)
|
| But regardless of that, breaking up a large company
| because it has some problem doesn't fix the problem. It
| just makes all the smaller companies you created easier
| to purchase. Just look at AT&T. NorTel bought every
| single one of the baby bells within a decade of their
| creation, resulting in just as much of a monopoly except
| now in a foreign corporation.
| teeray wrote:
| There really needs to be a federally protected "no" from
| engineering to keep the MBAs from "optimizing" away things they
| don't understand.
| nharada wrote:
| Juan Browne's YouTube channel posts about basically every
| aviation accident, and as usual he somehow already has a video
| about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9EvHpf8jZg
| halJordan wrote:
| The chick's tiktok went viral immediately. And fast followers
| were already posting tiktoks with pictures of the actual plane,
| breakdowns of how door plugs are made, etc.
|
| You just have to go where the content is. Reuters has been
| sending journalists across the world for over 100 years. You
| just have to dl tiktok.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| Screw TikTok. It's a cesspool of shit, compounded by its
| idiotic aspect ratio.
| amelius wrote:
| This reminded me of this unrelated incident:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/17/philadelphi...
| politelemon wrote:
| Please merge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38893909
| glohbalrob wrote:
| is this international, or just domestic flights?
|
| im on a Mexico City to Vegas flight next week
| halJordan wrote:
| The article(!) says it is only some planes, and then its only a
| few hours of inspection before flying them again.
| alphanumeric0 wrote:
| I've been following this story for a bit. I'm traveling to Mexico
| soon and the last leg is on a 737 MAX 9. I'm looking into
| contacting Aeromexico to see about changing flights to a
| different airplane.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| I've been thinking the same thing.
|
| Boeing is doubling down on its disgraceful behavior with shit
| like this: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
| aerospace/boein...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Is that a good idea? I always feel like the _best_ time to fly
| a plane or airliner is after they 've had some incident that
| leads them to being under a microscope.
|
| That is, all the MAX 9s have been grounded, and I'm guessing
| they'll all be thoroughly inspected for this issue before they
| fly again. So if your concern is that you'll hit a repeat _of
| this same issue_ , that seems like the wrong concern.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| There's also the engine-nacelles-melting issue.
| falserum wrote:
| Boeing has bad month. There was also loose screws (not max
| though)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| When I searched for the engine nacelles issue, that appears
| to only apply to an earlier version (737 NG) of the 737,
| not the MAX.
|
| Which kinda proves my point - someone saying "I don't want
| to fly on a 737 MAX" may just get put on another plane that
| has different issues. I guess if you've completely lost
| faith in Boeing you can decide not to fly any of their
| planes, but that's going to make flying at all very
| difficult. And if you decide to drive instead you'd just be
| taking a more dangerous mode of transportation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-06 23:00 UTC)