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

71–80 of 347 posts

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

#71

Post by subculture »

stirlo wrote: post #42
mveety wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with dealing with a departure stall is they’re extremely deadly, happen faster than a person can react to, and are in general unrecoverable all because of the lack of altitude. If it was the case that you could easily deal with a departure stall in the 737-MAX then they would have seen no need to implement MCAS.

Even if you could recover without MCAS Boeing still wouldn’t have released a version without it as the recovery procedure have needed new training. Let’s not forget MCAS only exists to protect Boeing’s profits by avoiding a new type certification.

And if Boeing had originally went with a new type certification, the plane they'd build wouldn't need MCAS. The MAX can't exist without something like MCAS, can it?

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

#72

Post by mmzdnp »

zaroth wrote: post #66
Aloha wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you just rename it I guess. Like, Fly-by-wire is not new, airbus has been flying this way for 30 years, and had some bad early accidents because of it. The name of the system doesnt matter very much, so I fail to understand how the name would ground the airplane forever

That’s not what I meant. I mean a background system pushing the nose down without any active control input from the pilot while autopilot is off. Versus Airbus which moderates pilot input to keep within the flight envelope, but I don’t think it steers without inputs when autopilot is off?

MCAS was designed to only activate in extreme flight conditions (e.g. AoA being abnormally high). The reason why they decided have MCAS activate even without autopilot can probably be traced to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447.

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

#73

Post by calecon323 »

zaroth wrote: post #66
Aloha wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you just rename it I guess. Like, Fly-by-wire is not new, airbus has been flying this way for 30 years, and had some bad early accidents because of it. The name of the system doesnt matter very much, so I fail to understand how the name would ground the airplane forever

That’s not what I meant. I mean a background system pushing the nose down without any active control input from the pilot while autopilot is off. Versus Airbus which moderates pilot input to keep within the flight envelope, but I don’t think it steers without inputs when autopilot is off?

The Airbus system certainly does override pilot commands. It doesn't matter if the autopilot is disengaged. There are situations even outside of normal law where the system will prevent the pilot from entering a stall.

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

#74

Post by peteradio »

zaroth wrote: post #16
peteradio wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an astronomical loss, I just don't see that happening.

I think $3B in R&D, half of that is the engines, but more importantly, time to market trying to compete with Airbus. They can reuse the engines. If the airframe can’t fly safely without MCAS (it’s getting a new type rating anyway at this point, right?) then I think perhaps it shouldn’t fly.

Yea somehow I don't think that's how they are crunching the numbers. Stock price is probably sitting on the assumption that those 5000 orders at cool 128M are going to go through. That would be considered 600B loss.

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

#75

Post by Analemma_ »

dylan604 wrote: post #30
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?

The main thing for me is that NOW pilots will be aware that there is a piece of software running in the background that might fight them. The first thing they will all learn is how to disable it so they can actually fly the airplane. That's even without a software fix. To me, it all comes down to to Boeing being able to self-certify their aircraft, and they knew they were sneaking the "fix" known as MCAS as a way to…

That’s what a bunch of people said after the first crash: “well, this was bad, but now that pilots know about MCAS it won’t happen again”

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

#76

Post by cobookman »

president wrote: post #12
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 don't think the general public will be swayed. All it takes is a few Boeing PR campaigns and some time and people will forget.

People have no clue what plane they are in.

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

#77

Post by makomk »

dylan604 wrote: post #30
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?

The main thing for me is that NOW pilots will be aware that there is a piece of software running in the background that might fight them. The first thing they will all learn is how to disable it so they can actually fly the airplane. That's even without a software fix. To me, it all comes down to to Boeing being able to self-certify their aircraft, and they knew they were sneaking the "fix" known as MCAS as a way to…

The reason this preliminary report is so damning is that it's evident that the pilots on flight 302 knew this - they realised what was happening, took the necessary steps to disable MCAS, and still couldn't stop the plane from crashing and killing everyone on board.

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

#78

Post by spwmoni »

Aloha wrote: post #57
DevX101 wrote: post #3

> We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX He just finished several paragraphs about how the plane and it's software was not safe ("erroneous activation of the MCAS function"), and then arrives at this conclusion? If my car erroneously responds to the pressure on the gas pedal it's not safe.

Would you throw out your computer because of a bad hardware driver? This is effectively a software issue, that will eventually be solved

If my computer had killed hundreds of people, yes, I would throw it out, even if the manufacturer promised to fix it.

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

#79

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Aloha wrote: post #54
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?

Am I the only one who would have no trouble flying on a 737 MAX?

No. Aside from this one issue, the plane is likely as safe or safer than every previous 737. With this much public attention, this issue will get resolved and then some. The end result will likely be the safest plane in the air.

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

#80

Post by Cyph0n »

drstewart wrote: post #28
Stryder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you. This is some Challenger O-ring type of shitshow. Accidents are on…

>The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. That's just unrealistic. Unless you want plane and car rides to cost as much as a trip to space, after all, since everything would need to be engineered to that level of quality.

Talk about a strawman, mate.
Post reply on HN