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

101–110 of 347 posts

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

#101

Post by neverartful »

robbiep wrote: post #23
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…

You’re missing the point of why MCAS was implemented in the first place - for type certification & to avoid retraining. Essentially it was an emulation layer to make what is effectively a new plane behave like an old plane. And now 300+ people are dead.

You nailed it. I'd bet my last dollar that there were engineers at Boeing who objected (possibly not loudly enough) to the idea.

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

#102

Post by msbarnett »

treis wrote: post #89
makomk wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The took the necessary steps and it was working until they went off script. Whether or not their hand was force because the script stopped working remains to be seen. IMHO, there's little to do except to wait for the full report to come out. The speculation about the crash was wildly wrong and the preliminary report coming out didn't really stop that.

> The took the necessary steps and it was working until they went off script. Whether or not their hand was force because the script stopped working remains to be seen

The script required them to manually crank in the stabilizer, which wasn't possible. The script was manifestly not "working". That doesn't "remain to be seen" -- it's in the transcript of the cockpit

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

#103

Post by nawtacawp »

cyberferret wrote: post #92
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 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.

If I recall, this boiled down to the FAA not having engineers who could properly test these systems.

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

#104

Post by effingwewt »

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

Except if your computer has a failed driver it won't kill you, why are you all over these posts so adamantly defending Boeing? OP had a valid comparison via car and plane, yours was simply asinine.

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

#105

Post by nawtacawp »

windexh8er wrote: post #100
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…

> 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 / executi…

> Investors are assuming the stock is on sale and this only impacts Boring for, what, a few weeks?

Reminds me of the Equifax breach. Stock tumbles then recovers. Overall, it validates that breaches are not a liability; therefore, additional resources to address future problems could be seen as a moot point.

Same with Boeing. If there is no impact to the company, then why change the business model?

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

#106

Post by b_tterc_p »

xiphias2 wrote: post #10
zaroth wrote: post #4

This is Boeing’s first volley as MCAS is now definitely and undeniably fatally flawed. I am fairly confident that by the time we are done with this, a system called MCAS never flies again. Even if it means the entire MAX is shelved.

The problem for me is not with the error that happened but by the response of the CEO for the accident. People who fly on new planes can't be bullsh*tted that easily, as they read news all the time. The Boeing CEO has no idea how much he is in the center of attention for his clients right now.

> The Boeing CEO has no idea how much he is in the center of attention for his clients right now.

Do you really think this?

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

#107

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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 fact that the recovery procedure doesn't work proves that the FAA should pull the MAX8 type certificate. It isn't the same aircraft.

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

#108

Post by treis »

msbarnett wrote: post #102
treis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The took the necessary steps and it was working until they went off script. Whether or not their hand was force because the script stopped working remains to be seen. IMHO, there's little to do except to wait for the full report to come out. The speculation about the crash was wildly wrong and the preliminary report coming out didn't really stop that.

> The took the necessary steps and it was working until they went off script. Whether or not their hand was force because the script stopped working remains to be seen The script required them to manually crank in the stabilizer, which wasn't possible. The script was manifestly not "working". That doesn't "remain to be seen" -- it's in the transcript of the cockpit

Yes, people are speculating this and like the previous speculation they're probably wrong.

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

#109

Post by nikofeyn »

cm2187 wrote: post #31
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.

i didn't take it as them claiming anything. it seemed them just asking a question out of curiosity.

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

#110

Post by BurningFrog »

cyberferret wrote: post #92
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 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.

It's called Regulatory Capture, and it happens to all regulatory agencies sooner or later.

They become primarily concerned with the interests of the companies they're regulating, rather than the public interest they're in theory tasked with working for.

Unfortunately, that is just how a regulated society works.

Post reply on HN