Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by cjbprime » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

mveety wrote: post #25

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…

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.

MCAS only operates with flaps up, though, so it's actually irrelevant during most departure stalls at low altitude.

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

#92

Post by cyberferret » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:26 AM UTC

781 wrote: post #5

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?

Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. The first accident was maybe understandable. We all know that shit happens. But Boeing has zero excuses for not immediately grounding the whole fleet after, and for putting out that useless recovery procedure which didn't work in this case. They let a deadly plane fly f…

> The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this.

From documents I've seen (which I cannot find the links to now), it appears that the FAA let Boeing themselves do some of the certification work and sign offs.

Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, so to speak.

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

#93

Post by cjbprime » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:28 AM UTC

gpm wrote: post #84

Aloha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a hardware issue. Lack of redundancy in sensors. Lack of knobs to turn MCAS off without turning off the electric motors that are apparently necessary to control the plane in challenging circumstances (which a hardware failure can put you in). It's also a training issue, especially with the first flight pilots not being informed about this system. Maybe it can be worked around via software changes and human tr…

Every MAX already had two AoA vanes, MCAS just wasn't hooked up to both in software.

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

#94

Post by esoterica » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:28 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #34

781 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Which small country? Ethiopia has 104 million people and Indonesia has 264 million.

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

#95

Post by neverartful » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

tmd83 wrote: post #45

"We regret the impact the grounding has had on our airline customers and their passengers." - I really hated this. As if they did the grounding for safety reason and regrets the cost. As if the passengers and clamoring for flying in 737-MAX. There's obviously a lot of concern and outrage. But I wonder if Boeing's share price would have been higher than last year if the two crashes were in first world countries specia…

I had the same reaction. Comes off as being quite callous.

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

#96

Post by treis » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #40

msbarnett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 im…

>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).

MCAS is there to prevent stalls at high thrust and AoA. It's also disabled when flaps are down. Meaning that it's turned off for take offs and landings where you'd most expect high thrust and AoA as well as the worst times to stall. It's hard to square that with MCAS being necessary for safe operation.

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

#97

Post by dingo_bat » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

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…

The desired mode of operation for a plane is to keep flying, without crashing. MCAS did not save anybody. By that logic steering wheels are also saving billions of people because without a steering your car would veer off the road.

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

#98

Post by foobar1962 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #79

Aloha wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it’s not as safe as previous 737s. The new engine and its position on the wing has changed the whole balance of the aircraft.

Like putting a very big engine in a small car: it’s a different car.

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

#99

Post by gpm » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #93

gpm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a hardware issue. Lack of redundancy in sensors. Lack of knobs to turn MCAS off without turning off the electric motors that are apparently necessary to control the plane in challenging circumstances (which a hardware failure can put you in). It's also a training issue, especially with the first flight pilots not being informed about this system. Maybe it can be worked around via software changes and human tr…

Every MAX already had two AoA vanes, MCAS just wasn't hooked up to both in software.

Yes, two. The standard for critical systems is 3.

Two isn't good for much, if they give different readings you don't know which to believe. Either that kills you like in real life, or it kills you because of the stall problem it was invented to fix.

Edit: And yes, you could do something more sensible than what they did, but that doesn't "fix" the issue, it merely mitigates it to some extent.

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

#100

Post by windexh8er » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

Stryder wrote: post #24

781 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. The first accident was maybe understandable. We all know that shit happens. But Boeing has zero excuses for not immediately grounding the whole fleet after, and for putting out that useless recovery procedure which didn't work in this case. They let a deadly plane fly f…

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…

> 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.

I wish this statement was held with as much as accountability as this comment implies. But have any of the major outlets been discussing potential prison sentences for Boeing or FAA employees / executives or potentially even board members? If you want accountability in today's age it seems the pressure needs to be applied at the point where financial decisions are held with more precedent than safety of life.

Boeing stock was up today on the glimmer of hope that the "software fix was working". Investors are assuming the stock is on sale and this only impacts Boeing for, what, a few weeks? I said something similar in another comment but I think Volkswagen is going to do more jail time and have more brand detriment than Boeing or the FAA will. Egregious doesn't begin to describe the misdirection of conversation. Why is the focus not yet on who will be sentenced for death over profits?