Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

imgur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 368 posts

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#231

Post by stcredzero »

Retric wrote: post #193
stcredzero wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This generally results in people becoming hypersensitive to their boss’s disapproval. In 2019, there are lots of examples of people being quite sensitive to approval over social media. This differs by individual circumstance. However, in 2019 there are entire fields where people must ascribe to some form of group consensus, or basically become un-personed from it. Media work seems to be particularly sensitive to this…

Over 32,000 journalists are working full time in the US, social media focus on a minute fraction of them. Social media can be a near full time job. One many successful people simply don’t have time for. So sure many NYT reporters might post their wedding photos online, but deeper interactions are often limited to people focusing on such things.

Over 32,000 journalists are working full time in the US, social media focus on a minute fraction of them.

You're conflating two entirely different things here. Much of the dysfunction/groupthink occurs through things like legacy media journalists using social media.

The point is that networks and social media enables offline channels for groupthink, which then affects other media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2JII6TG4o

So sure many NYT reporters might post their wedding photos online

This of course, isn't an issue. (But mistakenly considered as such, it might as well be a strawman.) What is an issue are blue checkmark journalists engaging in toxic groupthink on Twitter. This also happens on email lists and industry insider forums.

(This isn't actually a new phenomenon. There are Vietnam era journalists who complained about how some correspondents never left bars in Saigon. The difference is that the groupthink can follow people around in their smartphone and come at them every waking hour.)

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#232

Post by CamperBob2 »

aabeshou wrote: post #65
marcinzm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing is a US military supplier and a strategic US asset in the airspace industry, the US government will ensure that they do not go under no matter how much damage they do (see car industry). Furthermore even if that wasn't the case the people who cause these issues have almost zero chance of facing personal liability. As a result, it's in the personal interest of the people running Boeing to cut corners and extrac…

This is an excess of capitalism: those with capital are given too much power, and their self interest ends up being entirely selfish at the expense of society at large. Capitalism needs regulation, and if the system ends up entrenching itself so that regulation becomes impossible (because of corruption, self-interest, short-term gains, etc), then it means the entire system of capitalism is faulty.

Regulation is exactly why the problem that you're complaining about exists. Only in the presence of regulation does a company become "too big to fail." That's not an attribute of market economics.

Note that I'm not making a value judgment about regulation in the general case, just pointing out that you've misidentified the problem in this particular case.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#233

Post by rb808 »

To me its interesting that they wouldn't redesign the part as it would be admission of causing previous crashes? Kinda scary that the lawyers rule USA at the end of the day.

Its easy to blame Boeing for faults like this but its a miracle that these things fly so reliably with so many moving parts and human involvement.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#234

Post by atomicbeanie »

pedrocr wrote: post #203
atomicbeanie wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many examples too. The concorde is one that has my current prize for being the most extreme example. One crash, retire them all. There was no reasonable way to operate that aircraft by modern safety standards. But it was certified in what, the 60's. One likely could have certified a barn door strapped to a Concorde engine in those days ;-)

The Concorde was not retired directly after the crash. It flew for three more years and was retired for financial reasons. The crash probably reduced the demand though and thus contributed.

I think that is inaccurate. One fleet was grounded quickly. The 30 million Kevlar tank linings were underestimated in cost I think dramatically. As for profit, I am not sure the aircraft was ever a profit center. Any reasonable observer saw Non-recoverable Engineering Expenses that the company any could never recover from as a result of having to mitigate a new safety requirement onto an old aircraft that was never designed with modern standards in mind.

I think it is a very good example of how old systems continue to operate while the public believes they are up to modern standards. We see it in civil engineering now too. A bridge collapses in Pennsylvania and the public is told that over 1/3 of US bridges are outside of their designed life span and more expensive to fix than replace with municipalities that cannot afford to do either. The Concord was old and had what we call Tech Debt. It could not be made modern. Risk is just negative opportunity cost. When it crashed that debt was realized and the company had to write it down. One thing for sure is correct in your statement. It is about money driving the decisions, not engineering.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#236

Post by acranox »

wolfd wrote: post #84
cat199 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why single out southwest specifically in this hypothetical scenario? If any airline seems 'people focused' I'd think it would be them..

I assume because they exclusively fly 737s and have a good number of MAX 8s

https://www.southwest.com/html/advisories/swa_travel_advisor...

> Southwest operates a fleet of more than 750 Boeing 737s, and the 34 737 MAX 8 aircraft account for less than five (5) percent of our daily flights.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#237

Post by Dahoon »

rb808 wrote: post #233

To me its interesting that they wouldn't redesign the part as it would be admission of causing previous crashes? Kinda scary that the lawyers rule USA at the end of the day. Its easy to blame Boeing for faults like this but its a miracle that these things fly so reliably with so many moving parts and human involvement.

>Kinda scary that the lawyers rule USA at the end of the day.

I'm not sure you thought that one through. Are you really surprised? Who else should it be? I'm sure no one would say the politicians.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#238

Post by why-el »

gameswithgo wrote: post #222
jfk13 wrote: post #9

Wow. The quote from Capt Ray Miller is particularly telling: “I have been told by my company . . . that the FAA and Boeing (were) aware of the problems with the spurious rudder inputs but considered them to be more of a nuisance problem than a flight safety issue. I was informed, that so far as everyone was concerned, the rudder hardovers were a problem but that the `industry' felt the losses would be in the acceptab…

I wonder what solutions there are to these liability/blame problems. I have seen a similar case in Australia, where a parking barrier was an extreme danger as it cross over a biking path, and was hard to see until the last minute. It caused a crash that took a mans leg, and the legal proceedings took years. During that time the barrier remained in place, still a danger, because removing it would have admitted fault.

What was the result of the litigation? From a money perspective, it seemed like "admitting fault" would be far more reasonable, and I think in this sense executives tend to exaggerate effects of "admitting fault", because, in the end, they are betting that legal proceedings would nullify its effects, but as we are learning now, it's not the case at all. Public memory might be short, but it regenerates at alarming speeds if you continue down this path.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#239

Post by outworlder »

agumonkey wrote: post #156

I forgot why there are no parachutes on planes ? weight ? I'd pay a premium to have my own emergency wingsuit..

> I forgot why there are no parachutes on planes ? weight ?

There are parachutes on planes, as in whole airframe parachutes. Just not airliners. See Cirrus aircraft.

However, even in a Cirrus, you can only open the parachute within very specific parameters (altitude, airspeed and so on). Exceed these, and your parachute is worthless.

For obvious reasons, a whole frame parachute in a 737 is a crazy proposition. It is ridiculously heavy. Also, the plane flies much higher and much faster, so even if you COULD fit one made of some form of unobtanium, it would likely be useful only under very specific scenarios.

The other option would be to provide individual parachutes. Much like life vests.

Ok great. Let's assume they are small and can be stowed under the seat. How long would it take for a non-trained individual to put one of these on properly? Do they even have enough space to do it? How would they exit the plane? Most airliners don't have cargo-bay style doors. Exiting through the side doors is a bad idea. Who would inspect and repack hundreds of parachutes per plane?

The plane would have to be under controlled flight and slow enough for this to even have a chance to save any passengers. If you are in a slow and controlled flight, what use is this? Just land somewhere.

For ethiopian and lion air, it all happened so fast after takeoff that it is unlikely the pilots even had time to run their checklists. And we want to don parachutes on 100+ people and have them jump from an out of control plane?

It just doesn't make sense from any angle.

Re: Rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s

#240

Post by Kavenerinds »

organsnyder wrote: post #199
Lorkki wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I believe the statistic of interest here is incidents per operating hour, not per flight?

Given that the Max crashes both happened shortly after takeoff, I'd be more interested in a per-flight statistic. But I'm not sure how the industry does it.

The industry/NTSB/FAA generally cares more about flight hours, but I agree with you. Both of these accidents happened shortly after takeoff. I am surprised that no accident has happened during landing.
Post reply on HN