31–40 of 164 posts
> Boeing hasn’t announced what the second software problem is. LNA is told it is the interface between the MCAS upgrade and the Flight Control System, but specifics are lacking.
> LNA interprets these combined events as indicative the MAX will be ground well past the Paris Air Show in June.
Like the Toyota unintended acceleration issue we need third parties to look at the flight control software and engineering decisions taken for the MAX line and give a an independent report. Certainly not the FAA who delegated their oversight to Boeing. 346 people died because of their ineptitude.
> 346 people died because of their ineptitude. This might be too hot of a take for HackerNews, but... look at how many people the FAA has kept safe over the past 30 years. I'm pretty sure the number of people who travel without dying is very, very high. I don't disagree that their might have been some ineptitude (I'm sure you could find that anywhere for anything since it's opinion driven), but to say the FAA is all…
And yes the numbers are not the only relevant issue. It is the manner in which the original certification was done, the failure to act swiftly after the first crash, and the inordinate delay in acting even after the second crash which together seem to paint the picture of an organization which puts the interest of the manufacturer above passenger safety.
Not only a longer grounding, but some airlines are canceling orders and many passengers don't want to fly in them. The 737 Max could become the Edsel of airplanes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
History suggests that people will forget this very quickly. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing 'rebrand' the plane as 737-8, but it probably won't be necessary.
Like the Toyota unintended acceleration issue we need third parties to look at the flight control software and engineering decisions taken for the MAX line and give a an independent report. Certainly not the FAA who delegated their oversight to Boeing. 346 people died because of their ineptitude.
I agree, we need someone like Michael Barr to comb thru supposedly clean safety certified Ada codebase (in reality most likely full of C++ garbage).
Not only a longer grounding, but some airlines are canceling orders and many passengers don't want to fly in them. The 737 Max could become the Edsel of airplanes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
Like the Toyota unintended acceleration issue we need third parties to look at the flight control software and engineering decisions taken for the MAX line and give a an independent report. Certainly not the FAA who delegated their oversight to Boeing. 346 people died because of their ineptitude.
Toyota never had an “unintended acceleration issue”—that was purely human error. A Toyota engine can’t overpower its brakes, unless there was gross negligence in the care of the brakes, i.e., they were totally inoperative. Just to make sure we’re clear on the braking thing: if you were to accelerate a Toyota sedan (any of them) to 70mph, then stomp on the brakes while holding the accelerator to the floor, the car wil…
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15125313/its-all-your...
Like the Toyota unintended acceleration issue we need third parties to look at the flight control software and engineering decisions taken for the MAX line and give a an independent report. Certainly not the FAA who delegated their oversight to Boeing. 346 people died because of their ineptitude.
At best, stricter regulations may have resulted in a different design to comply with US regulations. The FAA is not a global organization, they don’t have oversight over any of the crashed aircraft. So, it’s tricky to place blame on US regulators for foreign crashes.
Even larger, well-resourced geopolitical entities like the EU rely heavily on the FAA to do its job for Boeing aircraft, much as the FAA relies on the EASA to do its job for Airbus aircraft. It's not pure rubber stamping, but it's close enough that things like this can pretty easily happen if a manufacturer's home agency falls asleep at the switch.
An example of the FAA's influence: Airworthiness regulations are so closely coordinated that special numbering is used by Canada, Europe, and Japan to match the numbering of FAA airworthiness regulations for easy cross-referencing. The FAA is also delegated air traffic control responsibility for much of the world's international airspace by the ICAO.
It is basically impossible to fly a commercial aircraft on Earth without being under the – possibly very heavy – influence of US civil aviation authorities, and it would take a great many resources and serious, concerted political will by many countries to change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three angle of attack sensors seems unnecessary to me. They simply need to make MCAS pay attention to both (2) and cut out if one disagrees with the other.
How would it know which one is the malfunctioning one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
History suggests that people will forget this very quickly. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing 'rebrand' the plane as 737-8, but it probably won't be necessary.
737-8 already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#737...
Like the Toyota unintended acceleration issue we need third parties to look at the flight control software and engineering decisions taken for the MAX line and give a an independent report. Certainly not the FAA who delegated their oversight to Boeing. 346 people died because of their ineptitude.
I agree, we need someone like Michael Barr to comb thru supposedly clean safety certified Ada codebase (in reality most likely full of C++ garbage).