US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max • Hacker News Board

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#211

Post by karmelapple » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #181

cm2187 wrote: post #113

I am still convinced there is a problem with the plane based on simple probabilities. These are brand new planes so they shouldn’t be in a phase where failures multiply, and maintenance should be irrelevant unless these planes were delivered faulty. It’s a very small fleet compared to other models. Two extremely rare crashes (plane crashes are rare in general) within months of each others, with the same model, same p…

Speaking as an engineer, we, sometimes, underestimate the relevance of a relatively minor system. We can't imagine all possible scenarios and that's why in every single decision with systems that are responsible for human lives there is a lot of people involved - because we rely on someone, at some point, imagining the scenario everyone else didn't. This reduces the odds of letting something important slip through, b…

Quick question, and this is meant sincerely and not flippantly: have you worked as an aviation or avionics engineer?

The focus on error conditions is truly impressive during the development of these systems. I’ve spent plenty of hours writing requirements, and writing and running tests, for cockpit software, and the sheer variety of error conditions tested is very high. Not that they’ll catch everything, but the idea that a single AOA sensor could cause the MCAS to fail seems like something that would have been analyzed and discussed by the engineers working on this.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#212

Post by urbanslug » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#213

Post by stingrae » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#214

Post by PhasmaFelis » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #206

How does the plane's safety record compare against that of motorcycles or sub-compact cars? Should we ban them as well, until they can attain safety parity? My girlfriend has two intercontinental flights coming up in the next month. Flights that are very important to her life goals and fulfillment. I would hate to see a wrench thrown into those plans, because of a risk that she already takes on every weekend when she…

There are about 350 of these planes flying, and they've been in general use for about two years. That implies 1/350 odds of a fatal crash per plane per year. I can't find similar statistics for motorcycles, but that's still wildly unacceptable.

And even if it weren't, you're arguing that problems can only be addressed one at a time in strict order of severity, in a nation of 326 million people. That's ridiculous.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#215

Post by aembleton » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #203

nickjj wrote: post #196

But if you bring your own water then you wouldn't have the privilege of spending $4 for a single bottled water[0] at an airport vendor. Sounds like the common ground there is profits come before anything else. [0]: You could also bring your own empty water bottle and ask one of the bartenders to fill it up which is what I usually do and then drop them a $1 tip.

Why not just use one of the many water bottle filling stations?

I've never seen many water bottle filling stations at airports. In some of them, such as Hamburg you have to ask at the bar as there are no water fountains.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#216

Post by jimmy1 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:18 PM UTC

Tsubasachan wrote: post #197

peteradio wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is with this argument? Why the hell is it "carry on business as usual until we nail down exact causes" why is it not OMG two goddamn planes (brand fucking new of the same type) fell out of the sky under similar circumstances better ground them until we nail down exact causes. Like the longer the fucking mystery goes on the longer these death bombs stay in the air? That is an idiotic argument.

There are always things going on in the background. Boeing is a major US company so the FAA may be more reluctant to ground them. For most countries "better safe than sorry" was an easy option. At the end of the day its airliners who are left holding the bag, but with some logistical wizardry everyone can still go on holiday. There was just no reason for China, Singapore, the UK and the EU not to ground these planes.…

> The airline industry has to deal with public perception.

Yes and I think that is what is at stake here as well. The airline industry at the end of the day is an industry. We forget that sometimes because it feels like a monopolistic or oligarlistic industry, but we are their customers, and if people start demanding that they not ride a 737 Max, and start to refuse to purchase routes that are serviced by a 737 Max, you'll see some changes really quick. I for one have told every loved one, and every person I know that travels frequently to not board these planes, and they agree as well. I additionally informed my boss and clients that if they need me to fly, it will absolutely under no circumstances be on a 737Max. I am 100% certain I am not alone in this.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#217

Post by jhayward » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #118

briandear wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane. Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying right seat in an airliner? In the US, that would be illegal as a first officer has a 1500 hour requirement along with significant multi-engine turbine training. That copilot wouldn’t even have enough hours for a commercial certificate, let alone ATP.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the captain of the flight was highly experienced with 8'000 hours of flight time.

We don't know which pilot was the flying pilot on this takeoff.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#218

Post by mywittyname » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

sparkling wrote: post #184

nutcracker46 wrote: post #54

This is a "fifth risk" scenario, where the FAA misjudges other countries' aviation authorities as mere America bashers. The Feds also misjudge their own threat environment, gambling that the rate of hull losses due to MCAS problems is low enough to fly through. The question, "What if we're wrong?" doesn't get asked. Instead, the FAA Administrator's boss tweets a complaint about aircraft being too complicated. No, the…

[The Trump FAA are clueless political hacks, not professional safety experts and airmen.] Surely you have the FAA employee turnover % numbers available since Trump took office?

Not to defend the parent comment, but the Director of the FAA was replaced with a Trump appointment about a year ago after completing a 5 year term.

The FAA went from being led by a Democrat, civilian, and life-long civil servant to Republican Air Force LtCol. I would be surprised if they had similar views on how best to lead the agency.

From the wikipedia article about our current FAA Director:

> Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association[5] in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an advocate for various companies.[2]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-swamp-earns-its-wings...

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#219

Post by lagadu » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

Axsuul wrote: post #57

Quite frankly I think it’s a bit sensationalist for people and the media to point fingers at the FAA for making “irresponsible decisions” and being beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record. The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2…

The FAA rates Ethiopa at category 1 which means they can fly to and from US soil. In other words, this crash could've happened on US soil under the watchful eyes of the FAA.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#220

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

karmelapple wrote: post #211

rbanffy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as an engineer, we, sometimes, underestimate the relevance of a relatively minor system. We can't imagine all possible scenarios and that's why in every single decision with systems that are responsible for human lives there is a lot of people involved - because we rely on someone, at some point, imagining the scenario everyone else didn't. This reduces the odds of letting something important slip through, b…

Quick question, and this is meant sincerely and not flippantly: have you worked as an aviation or avionics engineer? The focus on error conditions is truly impressive during the development of these systems. I’ve spent plenty of hours writing requirements, and writing and running tests, for cockpit software, and the sheer variety of error conditions tested is very high. Not that they’ll catch everything, but the idea…

No. I worked in other embedded control settings, but nothing as sensitive.

I understand what you say, that the AOA sensor malfunction or misread should never cause MCAS to fail and that any such situation (misread, malfunction, excessive actuator response, etc) should have been spotted sooner, by someone among the many people involved in its design, all the way from sensor to servo, well before any passengers were carried in the aircraft but everything indicates otherwise if we assume good faith. It's very likely all flaws will be identified and corrected, but reality has a way to stress those vanishingly small probabilities.

It's not impossible that a lot of very smart people who are dedicated to think about corner cases all day long will, eventually, let something important escape. We are all human and, in the end, everything is human error.