If penguins in the remote Southern Indian Ocean have high levels of toxins in them, then I really don't even wanna know the amount of toxins I have in my system.
I was wondering about this after a recent beach trip I took. I won't name where I was, but I noticed a considerable improvement in sand quality on the beaches in front of the nice hotels. It was a quality difference that went beyond normal beach cleanup. Perhaps the sand was sourced locally, and beach improvement surely pales in volume to construction use of sand, but still it was the first time I'd wondered about sand mining/theft.
Regions that depend on tourism spend a lot of money on their beach sand. Even San Diego, CA where tourism is probably not even top 10 of industries by revenue, they replenish the sand that gets eroded every few decades. The process just started on the northern beaches: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/long-awaited-sand-rep...
They ship it in by sea on huge barges that are quite something to watch.
> They ship it in by sea on huge barges that are quite something to watch.
Not shipped in, pumped in: The source is less than a mile offshore, overlying a reef that supported lots of marine life, much of which is now being picked over by seagulls.
The hope is that friction and inertia will prevail for a few years against wave action and gravity. But, the project has its nose in the trough provided by the national and state taxpayers, and local politicians go along.
> tourism spend a lot of money on their beach sand
Not a factor in Solana Beach, the Chamber of Commerce is utterly supine on public policy issues. Rather, it's the owners of houses on the bluff top, where prices start in the high 7 digits, who drive beach policy: they all have, or want to construct, concrete armored seawalls. Like these:
With an effectively unlimited legal budget to invent ways around the law and litigate against the Coastal Commission, and willingness to mob City Council meetings, incumbents keep their mouths shut. Local resistance has collapsed down to a few die-hards at environmentalist groups, e.g. https://sandiego.surfrider.org, fighting what amounts to a retreating action.
Due to a recent storm in San Diego, large swaths of Mission/Pacific Beach houses and the boardwalk were left with tons of sand all over them.
The city scoops up the sand off the boardwalk and loads it into trucks which take it a few miles away to Fiesta Island.
Why? Apparently it is contaminated badly enough by whatever is on the boardwalk, that they don't want to just push it back onto the beach (and back into the water).
Sargassum Seaweed is usually what washes up to shores and makes beaches ugly. Resorts in the Mexico and Caribbean regions get a lot of it ashore, but there are now industries that use the seaweed as a building material.
Sargablocks[1] are one of the companies that are turning sargassum into cheap building materials
Playa del Carmen replenishes its beaches every few years. If you go at the wrong time, the beaches are like 7 meters wide, come back six months later and they are 30 meters wide.
I wonder what the revenue of their customers looks like. They have to have a ton of revenue from other startups that themselves are in tenuous financial positions.
From the employee's perspective, it definitely sucks though. I went through a layoff this year and it took me a lot longer than I anticipated to get another job.
The airline that stands to lose the most with the downfall of Boeing is actually Southwest - whose fleet is entirely composed of 737s. Not MAX's yet, but that was at least the plan before more of these problems were exposed. I can't imagine how nervous the C-suite at Southwest is feeling.
Also - I wonder if Boeing even has the capability to build a new commercial airliner from scratch. The 787 was insanely expensive and had its own problems (remember the burning batteries?).
Most of tech was a ZIRP (zero interest rate phenomenon). And yes, that includes people that were higher up as well. Money was basically free for 15 years. It is not free anymore.
It will take some time for people to internalize this.
Of course it all changes if money becomes free again.
I think it's because the 8 & 9 variants were approved prior to the discovery of the nacelle issue. So the difference is approving a mitigation for an unknown issue in the case of the 8 & 9 vs. approving an exemption for a known issue with the 7 & 10. To me, that is a pretty big difference.
Yes, it sounds to me like that’s the issue too, but I disagree with it.
Either the mitigation is acceptable to make the plane safe to fly, or it’s not. “Well this one already existed before we knew about the issue, whereas this one is new” doesn’t actually change the risk calculus nor the effectiveness of the mitigation.
That's not how the FAA views it. There's no such thing as "safe to fly" or "not safe to fly." There are simply probabilities of accidents in different conditions. What constitutes an acceptable probability of accident is a judgment call.
The FAA has many, many safety rules, but which ones apply to a particular situation depend on a number of factors. For example, if you're flying by yourself in a small airplane, you don't even need a pilot's license! (solo student)
In the world of aircraft certification, on one end you have experimental aircraft that untrained people designed and built and may be extremely dangerous. The FAA is relatively hands-off on this as long as you put EXPERIMENTAL in big letters on the side and don't charge anyone for a ride. When you start to get into heavier, faster planes, like people who buy MiGs, there are rules about where they can operate that are intended to protect the public on the ground, but not the pilots/passengers. On the other hand, a new Boeing commercial jet is subject to intense scrutiny in almost every aspect. Obviously you see an enormous difference in accident rates between commercial airliners and experimental homebuilts.
One other dimension of this is grandfathering. Once a design is set, can be very expensive to change it. You might like the 737 to have better redundancy in its hydraulic system, and if Boeing ever designs a replacement for it, they will have to put that in. However, if every regulation the FAA made applied to existing designs, either the FAA would have to keep the new regulations to an absolute minimum, which would harm safety going forward, or Boeing would have to redesign their planes every year, or maybe even send all of the old planes to the scrapyard!
This is not economically feasible, so the FAA only grounds aircraft for very serious safety issues. Parts are allowed to have tolerances in service that they aren't allowed to coming off the production line. Similarly, old design aircraft are allowed to have features that a new design aircraft wouldn't.
What this allows the FAA to do though is to improve safety incrementally as new designs are created. Since it's so much cheaper to put in a new feature in a new design, it's economically feasible to provide safety for progressively more unlikely failure scenarios for these aircraft. Gradually, the old aircraft are retired, and safety gets progressively better.
The 737MAX notwithstanding (and you could make a strong argument that Boeing abused the grandfathering rules with that aircraft), the progressive and dramatic improvements in airline safety over the past 100 years is a testament to the wisdom of this approach.
> There's no such thing as "safe to fly" or "not safe to fly."
Except the type certificate issued by the FAA for a given aircraft is by definition the FAA saying that the type meets all applicable standards and is safe to fly. So is the granting of exceptions to any applicable requirements.
The FAA doesn’t say “eh maybe, it’s a judgement call” to an aircraft manufacturer when telling them whether or not the plane can board passengers. They may include various factors, probabilities, and judgement calls in their own determination of if the type gets certified or not, but ultimately there _is_ a determination made: either it can fly in a given context, or it cannot.
If the argument is “we learn and get better over time, and just because we approved something yesterday doesn’t mean we approve it today”, I fully agree with that, but within reason. And while I don’t agree with this mitigation being an acceptable exception, I also don’t think it’s “insane” or incredulous for Boeing to ask for it, given that the FAA already approved the same thing previously.
Even whether an aircraft should be issued a type certificate is a judgment call. The regulations are not perfectly precise, and there is always going going be a certain amount of back and forth on interpretation and waivers and alternate means of compliance etc.
Even given that a type certificate has been issued, whether or not it is legal to fly depends on the circumstances of the flight. Just as an example, under part 91 (private flying), complying with manufacturer's service bulletins is optional, but under part 135 (charter) or part 121 (airline), it's generally mandatory.
Therefore, is the FAA saying it's safe to fly a plane that doesn't hasn't completed its manufacturer service bulletins? No. They're saying the acceptable level of risk under part 91 is higher.
Should there be an expiration date on grandfathering of airliner type certificates? Should manufacturers be required to update designs for new production airliners after, let's say, 30 years? The original Boeing 737 entered service in 1968 so even working at a slow pace with minimal resources they could have redesigned and recertified it multiple times in that period.
Personally I think so. Type certifications should expire after some reasonable time, and require a full re-certification under current rules and with current design review practices. I think this would also have other benefits, by discouraging improvements to e.g. fuel economy or pilot procedures slightly less, since the cost of re-certification is inevitable rather than something that can be avoided.
Grandfathering aircraft that exist indefinitely makes sense to me, but I don't see why designs should be grandfathered indefinitely for new builds, when we have learned a lot and increased our expectations significantly in the intervening years.
For that matter there are still plenty of DC-3s in active service, and those are all over 80 years old at this point. Not nearly as big a deal as it might sound - the biggest wear item on a commercial plane is actually cabin pressurization due to the long term fatigue characteristics of aluminum. DC=3s aren't pressurized.
I'm asking about changing policies for newly manufactured airliners, not specific airplanes that have already been built. No one has used a DC-3 for FAA Part 121 scheduled airline service in decades.
There are a number in regular commercial use (including passenger flights) in Canada which is a very similar regulatory regime. There are multiple US operators of the Basler turboprop conversion.
Excellent post overall, but I'd point out that almost all of the imported warbirds are in fact flying as experimentals, since obviously they are not FAA certified.
Yes, they both have an experimental airworthiness certificate, but when the FAA issues an experimental certificate, it comes with operating limitations (technically part of the airworthiness cert). The operating limitations you get depend on the specifics of the aircraft.
The more dangerous the plane is to people on the ground, the more severe the limitations. For example for the really dangerous ones, they'll give you a limitation of "Flight over a densely populated area or in a congested airway is prohibited."
When you discover a potential safety issue on an already certified type, you do have a process to declare it and have to provide a justification or solution for it. Even if it was overlooked during certification, you can’t just ignore it.
It doesn't change the risk (benefit) side of the cost/benefit equation, but it does change the cost side.
To illustrate why this matters, imagine a more extreme situation, where it was somehow discovered that a similar flaw existed in all Boeing and Airbus jets. If a single new jet were being developed that had a similar risk, it could be enough to prevent certification, but we wouldn't stop all air travel because of it - the cost would be too high.
Grounding just MAX jets obviously wouldn't have that degree of impact, but the cost to airlines and to passengers would still be significant.
The 8s and 9s have the exact same issue and the FAA already approved the exact mitigation in those aircraft. Having different fixes for the same issue is more deviance, not less.
This is exactly how normalization of deviance leads to death.
The MAX8 does not have a fix, it has a complicated checklist of workarounds for dynamic behaviors that should be automated.
Then the next level of failure you're inducing is that ' 8 = 7 '.
The combined systems of the MAX8 are not and do not equal the combined systems of the MAX7. You have re-asses the mitigation on every airframe that differs or you end up with a field of people splattered everywhere. If Boeing actually does the reassessment as they should, it will be about as intensive as actually removing the issue and reducing the workload of the pilot in the first place.
That's why a lot of people are pissy about this, as Boeing is trying to say they did it once and that work transfers to a new system perfectly. Didn't work so well with the other MAX8's that splattered themselves.
Pretty sure two wrongs don't make a right.
The unsafe planes should definitely be grounded but that would be expensive.
Just because we screwed up before, and exempted planes, doesn't mean we should knowingly continue to ignore danger.
There’s no “two wrongs” here, per the FAA. There was one wrong (the issue) and then that issue is mitigated by a procedure (the issue is righted, at least partially).
Even if you disagree with this mitigation, every time a new MAX 8 rolls off the production line and enters service, the problem grows larger. Why is this okay, but not with the same for a MAX 7?
Again: either the mitigation is effective enough for MAX variants, or it’s not. I see no reason the two variants should be treated differently here.
>Again: either the mitigation is effective enough for MAX variants, or it’s not
No it is not. Here, you are doing just the normalization of deviance I'm talking about.
An airplane is parts, and an airplane is a system. Just because you use part X in system 1 doesn't mean a mitigation strategy for part X works the same in system 2. For example system 2 (or the MAX 7 in this case) could also have an addition dysfunction in cold weather that by itself is low risk, but when coupled with this procedure now represent a significantly higher risk of loss of aircraft event.
This is the the kind of problem that shows up in new/changed systems when accepting risk from previous systems at their previously measured outcomes.
The more I learn about stuff like this, which happens in many other places at either the same or different levels of government, the more I believe that democracy in the United States is effectively a sham.
Honestly if you're moving just for a job, you're a sucker.
You need to be moving so that you can be in a city you want to be in, you get offered at least 50% more money in nominal terms probably 20% in real terms, or you're making a crazy career jump.
The employer <-> employee relationship is just way too skewed in favor of the employer.
They will cut you loose immediately if situations change. There's no reason for workers to be loyal to employers as a result. So why move for one?
Yup. I'm willing to move for love, family, friends, exciting city etc. But job? Unless you're significantly upgrading my economic class. But actually I did that already when I was 20 and not sure it was really worth it.
There seems to be a crazy amount of chemical waste all over the metro Denver area. I don't live in Lowry, but I play hockey maybe once every 1 to 2 months at Big Bear Ice Arena, which is in that neighborhood.
There's also the Rocky Flats nuclear site, the chemical plant in Lakewood, and also the wildlife "refuge" north of the city.
Seems somewhat ironic given Colorado's reputation for pristine natural beauty.
the 40s and 50s were unkind to the american west and to denver, in particular. a lot of the natural beauty is actually west of denver in the places that couldnt be exploited by rockwell, lockheed, and other participants in that military/industrial complex.
i also wonder how much of the environmental focus that denver-boulder is known for is something of a reaction to that exploitation.
