Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#41

Post by shhehebehdh » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #14

tibbydudeza wrote: post #9

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…

I wonder if people making this comparison will appreciate the irony if someday it proves that the same situation applies here (I.e. user error).

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#42

Post by diminoten » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:54 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #25

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The problem is not that this is a big number of deaths in an absolute sense. The problem is that this is a big number of deaths to result from a chain of events that can ultimately be traced back to a strategic decision by Boeing to increase profits, and where an explicit component of that strategy was to cut corners on training. The whole point of MCAS was to avoid the overhead of having to obtain a new type certifi…

All deaths can be traced back to some kind of profit motive, but I don't see you protesting every hospital/doctor on the planet.

It's incredibly dangerous to propose changes to the FAA, given how much of an unqualified success they've had over the years at keeping flight safe. Don't let y our populist rage kill probably one of the best/most successful government institutions the US has ever created.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#43

Post by maxmunzel » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

jarym wrote: post #23

darkpuma wrote: post #20

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.

The reason there should be 3 is likely because the odds of 2 failing are not unlikely enough from a safety perspective. There’s no problem if one fails but what if both fail and both corroborate a bad reading? Certainly the cost of 3 such sensors would not be as high as the cost of another crash.

As far as i know you use three sensors, so you can automatically compensate for one failing/misreporting sensor without human intervention.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#44

Post by mrpippy » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #12

panarky wrote: post #3

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

I won’t fly one unless it has 3 angle of attack sensors. Since that can’t be easily found out, I’ll avoid them.

No 737 has 3 AoA vanes, and it’s extremely unlikely they’ll ever change the design to accommodate that. Every MAX will have an indicator to show if they disagree though.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#45

Post by darkpuma » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

leesalminen wrote: post #22

darkpuma wrote: post #20

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?

You don't.... That's why I said "and cut out if one disagrees with the other."

If they don't both give the same reading, MCAS turns off.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#46

Post by rootusrootus » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #28

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Was this aircraft even under FAA jurisdiction? I thought the FAA only had jurisdiction over airline flights to and from the US.

FAA absolutely has regulatory authority over plane manufacturers in the United States, regardless of where their aircraft are flying.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#47

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #18

tibbydudeza wrote: post #9

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…

Do you mean to argue that Boing and the FAA and / or any other regulatory bodies who approved the 737MAX should get a free pass due to their outstanding work over the past 30 years?

That doesn’t sound like an argument anyone would intentionally make.

They’ve done good work, great. But these two incidents represent a fall from grace, and both organisations should be pilloried for that incompetence especially because they have a history of high standards.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#48

Post by darkpuma » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

maxmunzel wrote: post #43

jarym wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason there should be 3 is likely because the odds of 2 failing are not unlikely enough from a safety perspective. There’s no problem if one fails but what if both fail and both corroborate a bad reading? Certainly the cost of 3 such sensors would not be as high as the cost of another crash.

As far as i know you use three sensors, so you can automatically compensate for one failing/misreporting sensor without human intervention.

You can't compensate because you don't know which one is wrong. However you can make MCAS inactive whenever the two sensors are disagreeing with each other.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#49

Post by trimbo » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #11

tibbydudeza wrote: post #9

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.

> The FAA is not a global organization, they don’t have oversight over any of the crashed aircraft.

The FAA has bilateral agreements with other countries and the EU for certification[1]. I read recently but can't quickly find in this that the FAA trusts EASA's certs for Airbus flying in the US.

The Ethiopian agency also trusts the FAA and EASA for this information[2]

So, it's not really tricky here, we can blame the FAA for the crash of a US manufactured plane in a foreign land (if the problem was the FAA's certification process).

[1] - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilatera...

[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20180215175924/http://www.ecaa.g...

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#50

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #14

tibbydudeza wrote: post #9

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…

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 will absolutely come to a complete halt in about the same distance as if you didn’t have your foot on the accelerator.

Are you saying the additional, let’s say, what?, 60kW of power being applied to the wheels will require no additional effort at the brake pedal to overcome.

Colour me unconvinced.

I’ve never tried to imitate a burnout at 70mph / I’m not convinced the circumstances are the same.