In my opinion, the 737Max is probably one of the safest planes right now, simply because of the amount of scrutiny it's been though.
179 points by bookofjoe 50 days ago
Until the sociotechnical systems that do the work change, they will keep overlooking problems and making similar mistakes, from a high-level perspective.
I mean the FAA certainly has some flaws, but it's important to keep things in perspective.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp..., citing Beck, L. F.; Dellinger, A. M.; O'neil, M. E. (2007). "Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences"
When the question is of how to travel between cities or states, why do you find the relative safety of low speed non-highway driving to be relevant?
So maybe per total hour from door to door is the relevant metric: you tend to make decisions based on comparable travel times, whatever the reason for travel or mode eventually selected.
I'm just saying that when it comes to complex systems, it's not evident that someone who said "I've looked at it and it checks out", the thing fails, and then the same someone said, "Okay, now I've really looked at it and it checks out again" that it's now safe. There's more nuance to it than that.
Whether or not that nuance has been taken in consideration by the FAA this time I really am not in a position to say.
As a layman, per-mile normalizing of the safety statistics feels wrong to me, given the speed and distance disparities between car and air travel (for many trips, the two modes aren't really substitutes).
IOW, 100x safer per mile doesn't look as good when contemplating a plane trip 200x longer than your daily commute.
I'm not sure what would be best, but either time-based or per-flight normalization seem like they would be an improvement. Or perhaps per-person (eg. x people fly per year, y have been in an accident).
The engine is the start of the problems
No, this is a persistent and pernicious myth on HN – that the MCAS was some sort of “737 Emulator” intended to allow the plane’s customers to avoid pilot training.
In reality, during testing it was discovered that the engines’ new position caused the stick forces to invert in some situations during flight. “The stick forces invert” means that it becomes easier to pull into an aerodynamic stall than push away from it.
This fails a Fundamental Airworthiness Requirement that all commercial aircraft are required to conform with for certification.
Boeing’s “solution” was MCAS – using the stabilizer trim to automatically push the plane’s nose down as it approaches a stall (and therefore putting additional force on the stick that keeps it at all times easier to push away from the stall than pull into it).
The pilot training thing was just that they concealed the existence of MCAS from pilots out of fear that it would prompt calls for additional training.
tl;dr the problem was that the engine aerodynamics made the plane fundamentally uncertifiable without a software hack.
That’s validated by the fact that the involved companies are referring to it as the 737-8 instead, which will not fool anyone who knows anything about aviation and is geared entirely towards ordinary people.
Similarly the 737-800 is widely just referred to as the 737-800 and not the 737 Next Generation 800.
Would love to know how many more clicks there are on flight details on booking websites once Max returns.
It won't be listed as one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-name-change-r...
I bet more than a few traders looking for an edge are trying to find someone who works at Kayak to tell them how many more clicks there are in “see full flight details” before purchasing a flight there are now.
Will I always feel this way? We'll see. I'm fine with letting other people be volunteer guinea pigs before I commit to something.
Whether it is or not, best not bring attention to the fact you might be flying on a Max.
If not then what?
I can see the 737 being pushed to infrequent routes with minimal competition. If you want to fly from Fairbanks to Springfield, it's the 737 or nothing and you either fly now or wait 4 days for the next flight (or pay 8000usd for a 19h, 4 leg super combo...).
Certainly another crash could be devastating to the model.
But was the 737Max a poorly designed death trap rushed to production or a super safe airplane with a single fatal flaw?
Time will tell...