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

291–300 of 347 posts

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

#291

Post by snarfy »

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.

They were going to lose customers to Airbus, who had a longer range plane. The solution was to retrofit larger engines on the 737. But they were too large and collided with the ground. They moved the engines to the front of the wing for ground clearance. This made the plane unstable and tend to tilt upwards, so they came up with MCAS to work around the instability.

The plane is not airworthy.

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

#292

Post by saiya-jin »

markdown wrote: post #279
pauljurczak wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, it is full of bullshit corporate PR and crisis management. This story has just begun. FAA and Boeing hopefully will be held responsible. I don't hold my breath to see criminal charges for Boeing management, but this time, I wouldn't be completely surprised, if it happens.

> I don't hold my breath to see criminal charges for Boeing management, but this time, I wouldn't be completely surprised, if it happens. I'd be very surprised if it did happen. "Lucky" for Boeing, it was mostly brown people in a third world country that died. Had it instead been two American planes that went down, Boeing and their executives would be in significantly deeper shit.

I don't get the downvotes, the real world out there is still very much racist in many aspects and places, and lives are not treated as equal but depending on nationality, color and situation. Things are improving, but it will take a lot more time to actually arrive there, even if we consider only western democracies.

Back to the topic - I am not surprised by this kind of empty bullshit talks from CEO, what else to expect from massive PR team? Each word was carefully considered together with big team of lawyers too. For me the outcomes are clear:

- be very suspicious about anything coming from Boeing, their reputation is properly damaged (Airbus doesn't get a free pass, but their products didn't kill 300 people recently and they didn't try to shift blame everywhere else but themselves although things are crystal clear now)

- FAA lost any credibility, period. Globally no other national agency should trust its evaluations, since its obviously susceptible to external pressures and failed at its core mission, directly in the media spotlights, globally, just few weeks ago. Gaining back the trust would be a lengthy process of measurable changes that led to their failure to act, and monitoring the results of this for quite some time.

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

#293

Post by VBprogrammer »

jayalpha wrote: post #220
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…

If you don't want to fly in a aircraft which requires a computer to fly then avoid anything Airbus and almost all other modern passenger jets. The 737 is literally as close to that ideal as you'll find in service today. If an EMP goes off your are still in trouble though, the engines have FADEC, so they'll probably shut down.

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

#294

Post by gthtjtkt »

ams6110 wrote: post #32
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 rudde…

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

The problem is Boeing, not the MCAS system.

I don't think Boeing can be fixed.

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

#295

Post by gruez »

tmd83 wrote: post #121
windexh8er wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If the world was fair they should all (decision makers at Boeing and FAA both) be packed by the lot and send to stand trial in Ethiopia and Indonesia for 300+ murder, which is what I consider this to be. If you don't have food in your belly and you steal you get jailed. You are not satisfied with your million dollar salary and your billion dollar company profit and don't care if people get killed, you get to have PR…

>If the world was fair they should all (decision makers at Boeing and FAA both) be packed by the lot and send to stand trial in Ethiopia and Indonesia for 300+ murder

And they're totally going go get a fair trial and not some sort of kangaroo court to appease the locals?

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

#296

Post by saiya-jin »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #214
caconym_ wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> MAX will likely be the safest choice to fly in

Hell no, I'll take Airbus or any other manufacturer over this crapware any day, even if I have to pay extra for the tickets. Boeing lost any trust in how they handled this, for very, very long time.

This topic is currently way beyond pure engineering issue, most human beings including me consider morality as quite an important aspect for example.

Unless I hear about some significant and measurable shift in the way company thinks and operates regarding to safety (nothing in the PR stuff discussed here), its a shady company with profits-above-safety mentality. No, thank you I can vote with my money

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

#297

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#298

Post by belorn »

woofcat wrote: post #286
pauljurczak wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their responsibilities lie with their shareholders This is the "shareholder value" theory, modern economists successfully brainwashed the population with. It became popular during the 1980s, "greed is good" times. It's just an ideology disguised as a science. The purpose and structure of modern corporation hasn't changed in the last hundred years or so. In 1950s and 1960s the public good, among others, role of corp…

Sure, however BA is part of the S&P500. I would wager almost every American who has retirement savings owns a chunk of BA. As well as most people in the Western world. As much as we would love to having Boeing stock plummet, it will impact most people even if they're not aware that they own it.

Does not the majority have index fonds, which mean that a drop for BA is rather minor overall and stock money released from people selling BA stocks will then be invested in other companies on the market?

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

#299

Post by [deleted] »

msbarnett wrote: post #141
kayfox wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report does not actually indicate which "manually" the pilots meant, with the switches or with the trim wheel. When the question came up they went and turned the electric trim system back on and appeared to test it (only trimmed 0.2 units). Honestly if I had just turned the thing back on I would have trimmed it all the way to where I want it.

>The report does not actually indicate which "manually" the pilots meant, with the switches or with the trim wheel. This isn't consistent with any coherent reading of the transcript: > At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. They've already hit the stab cutout at this point. Now maybe…

[deleted]

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

#300

Post by EngineerDude »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #243
EngineerDude wrote: post #208

As a few posters mentioned, an interesting question is why the plane needs MCAS in the first place. I read somewhere that the max 8 got new engines which were bigger than engines on previous 737 series, and that makes the plane nose up. Any kid who ever made a model plane understands the idea of CG - if it pitches up you change something, maybe move the wings back. Is it possible that an industry leader shipped a pla…

You're partway there. The design isn't inherently unstable under normal conditions, it just becomes unstable under slightly different extreme conditions than the previous 737. Rather than training pilots on this difference, Boeing tried to emulate the old behaviour in software.

OK, so maybe it’s unfair to say that MCAS (as a concept) is a hack, since it could be seen as a good-faith effort to provide a predictable aircraft?
Post reply on HN