News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by notatoad on Wednesday June 26, 2019 @09:48PM (#20291078)
My instinct is that you're probably correct, and most planes are probably riddled with similar problems and would look bad if they came under the same scrutiny as the 737 Max is currently under. For example, I remember after the 787 was launched there was a few stories in the press about the batteries catching fire mid-flight, but it turned out the designers and engineers had accounted for that possibility and it wasn't really a big deal. They've improved the batteries, but it didn't actually hurt anybody.

However, the problem with the max seems to be that instead of designing for failure - assuming that critical systems might fail and the plane should recover gracefully from the failure of most internal systems - they seem to have designed for success, and made the assumption that no part of the plane will ever fail. And that's obviously not realistic, and we're seeing the consequences of it here.

Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by CaptainZapp on Thursday June 27, 2019 @07:26AM (#20293449)
I remember after the 787 was launched there was a few stories in the press about the batteries catching fire mid-flight, but it turned out the designers and engineers had accounted for that possibility and it wasn't really a big deal.

It was a huge deal and the plane was grounded for three month due to those battery fires.

Originally the engineers did not account for battery fires and needed to refit a compartment to seal the batteries in case a fire occurs.

Luckily it was either on approach, or they could emergency land the plane when the problem occured.

A burning lithium battery in a flying plane is one of the worst imaginable scenarios you can encounter during a flight and is a fucking big deal.

Edited to add : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...

Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by rsynnott on Thursday June 27, 2019 @09:06AM (#20294007)
> My instinct is that you're probably correct, and most planes are probably riddled with similar problems and would look bad if they came under the same scrutiny as the 737 Max is currently under.

0.5% of all 737 MAXes which exist have killed everyone on board. No other mass market production airliner in recent history has that sort of record, AFAIK.

Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by opencl on Thursday June 27, 2019 @03:40PM (#20297844)
The rate of fatal crashes is more than an order of magnitude higher than anything introduced in the past 30 years.

The Concorde is the only thing that's worse. The A310 is closer than anything else at 1.35 fatal crashes per million miles vs the 737 MAX's 3.08- and that one was also designed to share a common type rating with an existing design.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by AnimalMuppet on Thursday June 27, 2019 @01:09PM (#20296364)
Wikipedia says 393 have been produced, so more like 0.25%.
Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by BorRagnarok on Friday June 28, 2019 @04:37AM (#20302513)
2 out of 393 is roughly 0.5%
Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by AnimalMuppet on Saturday June 29, 2019 @05:27PM (#20314883)
<facepalm>
Re:FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes by vkou on Wednesday June 26, 2019 @11:31PM (#20291530)
> My instinct is that you're probably correct, and most planes are probably riddled with similar problems and would look bad if they came under the same scrutiny as the 737 Max is currently under.

The 737 MAX only looks bad because it's track record so far is that it's a death trap.