Its interesting how an unknown source making unverifiable claims on a site which is basically a rumor mill gets so much attention.
“I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
91–100 of 313 posts
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#92I lived in Seattle for 7 years and got to know some Boeing project managers. The stories they told are very similar to this one. Apparently the life of a Boeing PM or Engineer is endless meetings, I asked one of my friends why this was the case. His response? A good chunk of the managers at Boeing won’t use email.
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#93Everything I learn about Boeing smells of the traditional failings of “national hero” type industries, where national pride and government incentives effectively isolate a company from any sense of responsibility; economic, moral, or otherwise.
Can’t help but wonder if Airbus is any different, and if so, why?
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Original MCAS system used only 1 AOA sensor and switched back and forth between the two after every flight. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea??? Let's make it 10x more difficult to detect that there is a problem.
I was wondering the same. What is the logic behind this setup? That basically means that it is no better than having one sensor. Because if any one of them breaks, you have broken sensor active on next or following flight. Also I recall there was something said about Lion Air crash that the crew on the day before experienced some flight control problems which was not communicated to the crew involved in crash? Did th…
I've heard it suggested [1, 2] the original design for MCAS could only make a small adjustment a single time, which the pilots could easily overcome with the stick, classifying it a less safety-critical component as it couldn't possibly crash the plane.
Later, the MCAS ended up adjusting the trim multiple times, by an amount the pilots couldn't override with the stick. Thus it should have been safety level DAL-A (loss of plane) [3] - but the safety analysis and MCAS design weren't updated to reflect that.
And the FAA, in what with hindsight seems like a ridiculously naive move, allowed Boeing to self-certify their own faulty safety analysis.
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19419454 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B#Software_level
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#95"I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period and I can absolutely guarantee this happened." was in response to this comment: "I would be very surprised if in a few years from today a bunch of engineers don't testify that ample of warning was given to management about this. " Reddit doesn't make it easy to find what they replied to.
> "I would be very surprised if in a few years from today a bunch of engineers don't testify that ample of warning was given to management about this. " I love this mentality that "managers" are the only people responsible, and that the people actually putting the thing together are not. It's the same with the bank scandals, or the VW scandal, or the Facebook scams; it's all the executive team! We were just peons fol…
> I love this mentality that "managers" are the only people responsible
Well, the managers are the dudes who are getting paid for being responsible. The 'peons' are correct.
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
What worries me is that the mechanics of MAD may be approaching their end. With increasing space technology, perimeter defense against ICBMs have become feasible (albeit still very expensive). Thinking this forward a couple of decades, I think that defense may become cheaper than offense, even with multiple warheads per ICBM. In a way that's good, as nuclear annihilation might be averted, on ther other hand it could…
Hypersonic cruise missiles are an "interesting" development to the equation as well. Much harder to shoot down but also more sneaky so harder to have the mutually assured part.
Still probably impossible to fire enough sneaky missiles to disable enough ICBM silos. I think they are an interesting development, but I don't think they are meant as first strike weapons against another major nuclear, at least not without excepting a full lobby back.
They are terrifying against a state without a "nuclear umbrella". A few of these sneaky nukes could take out any ability to strike back conventionally. (Thinking of Sweden. Not that it longer could strike back anyway since about 1992.)
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was wondering the same. What is the logic behind this setup? That basically means that it is no better than having one sensor. Because if any one of them breaks, you have broken sensor active on next or following flight. Also I recall there was something said about Lion Air crash that the crew on the day before experienced some flight control problems which was not communicated to the crew involved in crash? Did th…
It's worse than having one sensor, the chance that one of two breaks is larger than that just a single one breaks. And by alternating you ensure that the broken sensor will be used.
A broken AofA sensor has other consequences, such as the differing pressure altitude and airspeed on the left and right panels, so I would guess that it is expected that the problem would be found and fixed after the flight it occurred on (though this did not happen in the Lion Air case.)
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I wonder what'll happen if the United States ever has to fight a war against an opponent whose industrial base is not 150 years behind it. Then again, I've heard Russian military equipment is in just as sorry a state. No idea what the Chinese military is like, but I'd imagine the real money is in selling to Americans rather than killing them. We're in this interesting place where it's entirely possible that…
"SpaceX has ballistic missiles with a CEP significantly smaller than a drone ship" It goes quite slowly compared to a real ICBM and relies on GPS that will be jammed in a real war.
Don't you think they could easily replace the GPS with some other navigation module?
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it may be that brilliant engineers still exist somewhere, but I suspect they're less likely to go into aerospace than in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Heck or even the 40s. Immediately after the war aerospace was red hot - there were countless countries and companies putting out new jet designs - both commercial and military. The competition and pace was intense and there was quite some cachet and public interest in a…
No, there's more to it than that. Firstly, from 1903-1968 aerospace was in a period of exponentially improving performance (range, speed, altitude) comparable to Moore's Law. But from the mid-60s onwards the rapid improvements stopped, as developments hit hard limits imposed by material science and thermodynamics: it's hard to get a material much stronger than carbon fibre or titanium alloy, it's ridiculously hard to…
Hmm, aren't we agreeing here? :)
As a brilliant star with a newly minted engineering degree I might go into aerospace pre-1968 to play with blank sheet developments, X planes and XB-70, Concorde, Harrier, SR-71, 707 etc etc. Much the same with at engine makers - Merlin to Olympus and Pegasus. An absurdly long list, often with remarkably small teams. I might not want to take my 2019 vintage degree into a world of incremental improvements at one of the few global giants. Even if those improvements are of enormous significance over the years. It doesn't feel earth shaking any more, Farnborough isn't showing astounding free PR every year, just steady incremental progress (mostly). No more flying bedsteads.
Same goes with the laptop analogy actually - the fun was probably in the earlier years than now with new model every year with an extra few percent on the numbers, or slimmer. Green fields are usually more fun, and when they succeed, more satisfying; even with the odd Osbourne effect or total failure.
Were I that newly minted genius, I'm not sure where I would park myself today. Space X for some, perhaps. Probably not Boeing or BAe. I'm sure there's plenty of good (enough) engineers at all of them still. Working as one of thousands. That's not so alluring.
> 1010 Boeing 707s delivered, there have been 173 hull losses in accidents
Never knew that. That is frankly amazing.
Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”
#100"I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period and I can absolutely guarantee this happened." was in response to this comment: "I would be very surprised if in a few years from today a bunch of engineers don't testify that ample of warning was given to management about this. " Reddit doesn't make it easy to find what they replied to.
You can thank their redesign.
Try using "old.reddit.com" while it last. And stop using reddit once that gets taken down.
Reddit was once a great site. Now it's a corporatized, censored mess that sold its soul for short-term cashout in their 2020 IPO.