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

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

boeing.mediaroom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 347 posts

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#31

Post by cm2187 »

bambax wrote: post #15

It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…

Are you claiming that the fact that without MCAS, the plane being fundamentally dangerous is a good thing? I am not sure that "MCAS saved lives because that plane is begging to crash otherwise" a big selling point for Boeing.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#32

Post by ams6110 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #2

,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.'' Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?

I see this playing out in a couple of possible ways. One is that it ends up like the DC-10. Public confidence is lost, even though the problem is fixed. The aircraft end up going into freighter service.

The other is that they make a convincing case that the problem is resolved. I don't know if that's possible given today's default hate for big corporations, we'll see. They've done it before with the 737 and the rudder problem it had in the 1990s or so. That problem led to a few fatal crashes, but I'm not sure it ever got the attention that this story is getting. The news cycle was different then.

I would absolutely fly on one once the problem is corrected.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#33

Post by raincom »

bruceb wrote: post #11

Any PR pro worth their rate would have him and senior management very publicly flying only on 737 Max flights when they comeback online. Assurances alone are going to mean a very rocky road back for this plane.

I think they should fly on 737 Max flights piloted by Ethiopian or Lion Air Pilots. Not some Boeing/South West pilots.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#34

Post by dylan604 »

781 wrote: post #20
bruceb wrote: post #11

Any PR pro worth their rate would have him and senior management very publicly flying only on 737 Max flights when they comeback online. Assurances alone are going to mean a very rocky road back for this plane.

They did that. Doesn't prove a thing. https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-ab...

You think they did that with pilots specifically trained in MCAS functionality, or with pilots from some small country halfway around the world where they were specifically told it was the same as any ol' 737?

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#35

Post by SilasX »

xiphias2 wrote: post #2

,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.'' Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?

He could put his safety where his mouth is and vow to only fly on the MAX for the next two years. That would be a much stronger vote of confidence than whatever words his PR firm came up with.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#37

Post by nutjob2 »

bambax wrote: post #15

It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…

MCAS is an example of where ugly hacks take lives, not save them. If the plane was properly engineered hundreds of people would be alive, it's not a choice between MCAS and a dangerous plane.

Simply put, commercial imperatives overtook solid engineering practices.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#39

Post by nutjob2 »

SilasX wrote: post #35
xiphias2 wrote: post #2

,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.'' Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?

He could put his safety where his mouth is and vow to only fly on the MAX for the next two years. That would be a much stronger vote of confidence than whatever words his PR firm came up with.

Yes, and tobacco company CEOs smoke. Does that give you the confidence to do the same?

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#40

Post by acqq »

msbarnett wrote: post #29
bambax wrote: post #15

It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…

> It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Regulations are that "(1) The stick force vs. g curve must have a positive slope at any speed up to and including VFC/MFC; and......(a lot of other text)......During the approach to the stall, the longitudinal control pull force should increase continuously as speed is reduced from the trimmed speed to the onset of stall warning." The Max's…

> The Max's aerodynamics are such that as you approach a stall angle, at a certain point the force inverts and the aircraft "pitches nose up" reducing force against the stick close to the stall angle.

Which anybody who claims that MAX is safe without MCAS is ignoring: without properly working MCAS the plane effectively starts to misbehave exactly when it shouldn't (when it's harder to save it).

Unfortunately, with improperly working MCAS, the way it was designed (non redundant single sensor which is blindly trusted by MCAS and which is in effect stronger than the pilots fighting against it) there were already two crashes.

Post reply on HN