Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FabHK 2655 days ago
If an airplane crashes because it's hit by a missile, or because there's a bomb aboard, or because a suicidal pilot flies it into a mountain, that is no reason to ground it.

Thus, more evidence is required to ground an airplane (that has, after all, gone through the certification process), than two crashes.
1 comments
chimpburger 2655 days ago
Two similar crashes within 5 months with an obvious candidate for the root cause https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-e...
link
FabHK 2655 days ago
I agree with the assessment that the MAX has a problem; I'm saying "oh, two crashes" by itself is not sufficient evidence for that conclusion.

As someone pointed out in this thread, there were three B767 hull losses between September and November 2001, but two of those were caused by 9/11 terrorists and don't tell you much about the airworthiness of the aircraft.

link
an_account_name 2655 days ago
It's kind of pedantry to bring up here, though, and distracts from the discussion.
link
FabHK 2655 days ago
FWIW, IMHO it's not pedantry, it's precisely the core of the discussion. The 737 MAX was deemed airworthy during certification, and deemed airworthy after Lion Air, and a further crash by itself does not change that. It is only the details and circumstances of the second crash that can provide evidence to challenge the conclusion of airworthiness. Just reflexively saying "crash, ground it all" is mistaken.
link
chimpburger 2654 days ago
It is pedantry because the details and circumstances of the second crash are indicative of the same root cause issue.
link
FabHK 2654 days ago
The point I'm trying to make all along is that it is precisely "those details and circumstances of the second crash" (that have emerged over the last few days) that make it so worrisome and warrant a grounding. It is not the fact of a second crash by itself.

The fundamental question is this: should the plane have been grounded immediately after the second crash? Many here seem to think that yes, obviously. I think that no, one unexplained crash of a certified plane does not warrant grounding. Once details and circumstances emerge that are indicative of some fundamental design flaw, or multiple unexplained crashes (as with the comet), of course ground it.

Is that a substantive disagreement, or "pedantry"?

link