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

#211

Post by guatepejor » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:54 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

These airplanes were not designed for third world lower IQ pilots. Boeing still has the thinking of the 80s and 90s when the pilot demographics (even in the third world) was quite different. The tasks of dumming down the controls and much more training is the new reality that Boeing must implement.

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

#212

Post by m0zg » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:56 AM UTC

guatepejor wrote: post #211

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

These airplanes were not designed for third world lower IQ pilots. Boeing still has the thinking of the 80s and 90s when the pilot demographics (even in the third world) was quite different. The tasks of dumming down the controls and much more training is the new reality that Boeing must implement.

> third world lower IQ pilots

Ewww. Not here, please.

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

#213

Post by pfortuny » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:57 AM UTC

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.

That is what it looks like. In some sense, you are not “contrlling” a 737MAX, you are flying a virtual machine emulating the 737 previous gen, whose host is a new generation.

Quite the feat, Boeing.

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

#214

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:58 AM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #200

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, a lot more than 346 people have died in previous versions of the 737 and in the Airbus A320. And speaking of the previous 737s, perhaps you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues Which is to say, early defects in construction which were later resolved is not actually wholly uncommon to just this aircraft line, and planes of that model are still literally flying around today.

I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be aware of those well-known facts about the 737. I'm also not sure why you'd reply to my comment when you clearly either haven't read it or have no interest in actually replying to the substance of it.

I get that you're rightfully upset at Boeing for trying to skip the proper regulatory testing processes. I am too. But you are not meaningfully contesting my point, that a fixed 737 MAX is a safer aircraft to be flying in.

What would you suggest? Mothballing the MAX line for a wholly new aircraft? Arguably the MAX has significant flight testing time in production, to which one defect was found and is being remedied. A new aircraft would have less testing comparatively, and as noted, older aircraft really aren't inherently safer, as the 737's history shows.

My point was that the MAX will likely be the safest choice to fly in, and I don't think you offered up any logical argument saying otherwise.

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

#215

Post by Simple_Guy » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:59 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

You can't admit fault or imply so. The legal department will veto it.

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

#216

Post by guatepejor » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:02 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #212

guatepejor wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These airplanes were not designed for third world lower IQ pilots. Boeing still has the thinking of the 80s and 90s when the pilot demographics (even in the third world) was quite different. The tasks of dumming down the controls and much more training is the new reality that Boeing must implement.

> third world lower IQ pilots Ewww. Not here, please.

Why no free speech here? This is not Goolag. Or is it?

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

#217

Post by dvdkhlng » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #199

cm2187 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all fairness this plane is only a danger to its crew (and to regular commuters). Even without the software fix, the probability that you get into a crash in one of the few times in a year when you make a leg in this plane is still infinitesimal. For the crew that spends the whole year in there, different story.

I assume that AoA sensor disagree would have been warned about still on the ground. Even if both fail, a new take off checklist will probably include comparing AoA information with analog instruments. If one sensor failure is 10E-5, two simultaneous should be 10E-10, multiplied with assumption of competence (say 99/100 will now know how to deal with it), which gives 10E-11 - 10E-12. I.e. I wouldn't worry about MCAS a…

> If one sensor failure is 10E-5, two simultaneous should be 10E-10.

That only holds if errors are statistically independent. See also Common Mode Failure [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cause_and_special_cause...

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

#218

Post by jayalpha » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:16 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…

"The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives."

There is always a trade off, your statement is too bold for a world of limited resources. We can use engineering to make the roads safer. Spent a trillion USD on road safety will save lives for sure. But maybe it is spend better on cancer R&D efforts?

The safest plane would be the most expensive and most uncompetitive since it needs unlimited resources and unlimited time for being designed.

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

#219

Post by rdiddly » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:18 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

Yeah in fact it narcissistically points out how much this hurts them, and how smart and heroic they are in their solving of the problem. Wow good thing they happened along to save the day, eh?

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

#220

Post by jayalpha » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:22 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…

"It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances?"

Very possible. The question is, should you use a plane with an unstable design in civilian air transport? AFAIK, a stealth bomber can't fly without the help of a computer to keep in in the air. But for a civilian aircraft this should be a very conscious decision and nothing that is hidden under band aid.