Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

leehamnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#51

Post by noncoml »

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.

The problem is not the missing extra angle of attack sensor, but incompetence at every step.

If I understood correctly, MCAS trimmed it so much that the pilots were unable to bring it back manually.

This sounds like Boeing engineers didn’t even put a limit on the maximum trimming that MCAS can do, not even to the maximum theoretical limit for the plane/engines.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#52

Post by ohazi »

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…

While you're right that the engine will not overpower mechanical braking, I think the bigger problem is that modern hybrid and electric cars have been moving to brake-by-wire so that they can balance mechanical braking with energy recovery.

The result of Toyota's firmware audits were terrifying [1], and I think it's still reasonable to be concerned about potential issues here. If the brake-by-wire system were to have firmware issues, your point would be moot.

The thought that Boeing probably needs a similar audit to shine light on some dark corners and encourage them to clean up their act also seems quite reasonable.

[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_...

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#53

Post by patrickg_zill »

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…

I believe the saying is "FAA regulations are written in blood" in that new regulation is written after people die from a design defect or other discovered problem in the wake of a crash.

Thus there is a discrepancy between your perspective / opinion and the typical way that the NTSB and FAA operate: this is precisely the time to address any issues.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#54

Post by jdsully »

tus87 wrote: post #10
kyrra wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. They still have a backlog of 4600 planes to deliver. And they aren't laying anyone off. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710477435/boeing-to-slow-prod...

Then why are they slowing production? Interesting how the article doesn't explain that. > had a common link of a malfunctioning flight-control software called MCAS. My understanding is the software was fine, it was faulty sensors with no redundancy and poor feedback displays to pilots.

If the planes aren't allowed to fly, then they won't have any place to put them. Boeing Field is pretty small.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#55

Post by cryptonector »

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…

All it takes to destroy a great reputation is one massive moral screwup. That's what happened here. And all over a relatively minor technical and economic issue: whether to require additional training. (Also there is the issue that two sensors is not enough redundancy, and using only one of them is a result of that lack of redundancy.)

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#56

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

The Monday Morning Quarterback is always the MVP.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#57

Post by lisper »

diminoten wrote: post #42
lisper wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's incredibly dangerous to propose changes to the FAA

That is an incredibly ironic thing to say, because these deaths are a result of changes to the FAA, specifically, the delegation of the FAA's regulatory authority to the company being regulated. That this would not end well was easily foreseeable because it's such a blatant conflict of interest.

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#58

Post by XMPPwocky »

rootusrootus wrote: post #46
wtvanhest wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this written into law, or is it "well, you at least need a ferry certificate for anything built in the US, because what're you going to do, push it onto a barge?"

Re: Boeing MAX production cut signals long grounding

#59

Post by cryptonector »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #27

This plane is dead. People just haven’t accepted it yet.

I think that would be unfortunate. I don't think it should die over this. The issues are eminently fixable. But a number of executives may have to exit Boeing, and the FAA, in order for the plane to not die, and all the issues must be fixed of course.
Post reply on HN