Live data from Hacker News

Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

philip.greenspun.com

61–70 of 194 posts

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#61

This video from "Mentour pilot" has been deleted (supposedly upon request from boeing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgBft-79U8 You can see it here (european version of youtube): https://vimeo.com/329558134 Or more info here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19627525

Vimeo is based in NYC USA, how is it "European version of YouTube"?

You're right. I was always of the opinion vimeo was european (it incorporated quite some european platforms like viva)

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#62
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly suggest everyone check out the video. It's...kind of shocking.

One thing I don't understand is that if the trim is stuck in a position that pushes the plane down, shouldn't the high speed (and therefore strong air flow) help to put the trim back in a neutral position rather than making it more difficult?

Nope, it is a jackscrew, and the aerodynamic load makes moving difficult, regardless of the direction.

See https://www.satcom.guru/2018/11/stabilizer-trim.html

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#63
post #40

How does it feel to enter a world where software is killing people ? Driven a new car lately ?

I'll be honest, I still prefer it to the world where lack of software kills people.

... I avoided running over that child I couldn't see in my rear-view because the infrared sensors picked him up as a mobile object intersecting my path and the backup warning screamed at me. I like not killing people, so I call that a win.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#64

It should be noted in the doomed Air France 447 flight, the plane activated the stall warning because of a high angle of attack that was leading to stall. (thanks pdx for the corrected info) At some point the system rejected the data and stopped the stall warning because the angle of attack was so severe that it considered the data erroneous. This is speculated to have caused the co-pilot to keep pulling back on the…

> everytime he let the nose of the plane come down the stick shaker activated again as the AoA was decreasing into the range that the airplane considered a real signal

That's true, but the pilot response was insanity. When the stick shaker comes on you push the nose down every time without question, unless perhaps you're at very low altitude and then you might be in an unrecoverable situation anyway... but you don't pull back :)

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#65
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philip Greenspun is a highly experienced pilot: https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/milestones

He doesn't seem to be an experienced owner of a home outdoor thermometer though. Or if he is, I need to know where he found one that goes to 452 degrees and why he even needs that much range. ;)

Digital thermometers usually have triple digits to be able to display numbers in the low 100's. I could see one of them failing in a weird way and displaying 452.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#66
post #18
post #8

With all due respect, this sounds too much like the kind of armchair quarterbacking that routinely appears on HN when avionics/politics/astronomy is mentioned, where a lone programmer feels competent enough to criticize an industry for missing "something obvious". I mean, this particular change might have saved the particular 737, but I'd rather hear it from someone who actually knows how 737s fly.

I agree that we frequently see this on HN in regards to aviation. However, I don;t think it applies to Greenspun. He's a knowledgeable and active pilot himself.

Lots of people are, that doesn't mean they aren't armchair quarterbacking. I know how to fly airplanes and helicopters, does that make me an expert on the flight dynamics of 737 MAX?

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#67
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philip Greenspun is a highly experienced pilot: https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/milestones

He doesn't seem to be an experienced owner of a home outdoor thermometer though. Or if he is, I need to know where he found one that goes to 452 degrees and why he even needs that much range. ;)

BBQ lid? Many have thermometers that go higher than this (say, 700F), and they're often outdoors.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#68
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philip Greenspun is a highly experienced pilot: https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/milestones

He doesn't seem to be an experienced owner of a home outdoor thermometer though. Or if he is, I need to know where he found one that goes to 452 degrees and why he even needs that much range. ;)

The thermometer sensor and circuitry might be perfectly ok, still the 452 number might be a single digit gone bonkers in the panel, so that data being transmitted (maybe also recorded?) is ok while the readout is plain wrong. A human acting according data being shown there might react very differently from someone reading the temperatures log. Sometimes software problems can be awfully subtle.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more an issue of Boeing essentially signing off on their own certification as functionally the same type when it is a very different plane. The AOA calculation is also much more complicated than the article explains. There is a speed element, engine power, etc.

AoA is just that: angle of attack ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack ) The sensor simply measures the angle of the airflow with respect to the airframe. In fact it is just a free-moving surface attached to the airframe.

I know what AoA is and yes, the calculation of AoA by itself is simple, but the corrective measure is not.

Classic 737s climb via trim, not constant stick inputs. This has changed slightly with the MAX but now you have automated AoA correction (involving trim). That's a nasty combination.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data

#70
I accidentally copypasted my one time login code into the amount of bill payment and my ebank didn't refuse the sixty seven million dollar payment (I caught it before sending it). Needless to say, I don't have and never had even one percent of that money.

My brother one time actually succeeded in wiring ten million euros instead of ten million forints. The exchange ratio is 1:320. Obviously the account didn't have 10M EUR on it.

I just entered 300 USD as a courier tip into the food order app I just tried for the first time because I expected it'll just do 3.00 for me. I caught it before sending it.

All of these are lacking this kind of defensive validation. I recognize the irony of not even knowing the terminus technicus for it despite I am a senior sw developer with decades of experience.

Post reply on HN