“I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period” • Hacker News Board

Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”

#311

Post by navigatesol » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

okmokmz wrote: post #193

navigatesol wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 mean... that's literally their job. Hence why they get higher pay and more responsibility. The dictionary definition of manager includes "a person RESPONSIBLE for controlling or administering all or part of a company or similar organization". My job description, on the other hand, is simply to aid in implementing and developing the technologies I'm told to by my manager. If they tell me to implement something that…

>My job description, on the other hand, is simply to aid in implementing and developing the technologies I'm told to by my manager.

Boy, good thing that's what your job description says, it completely absolves you of any accountability in the real world!

"Not my job" is such a great attitude, and is precisely the reason why these huge scandals are able to persist. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”

#312

Post by CRConrad » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 6:09 AM UTC

JudgeWapner wrote: post #266

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > it's avionics are old > They're brand new. Where do you think they get them for brand new planes ? I have some industry experience- there are still new planes that get large, ugly beige Honeywell units in them that're slow and clunky while there are much better avionics packages available. The Honeywell packages are generally pretty newly built, but are still really old . The Raspberry Pi Foundation still sells t…

I don't see how anything is wrong with "large, ugly beige" electronics. 737's fly everyday just fine. What benefits are they going to get from sleek, thin Jony Ive-inspired UX? Are they going to get to destinations faster? Are they going to have a smoother ride? What product requirements could possibly change that would necessitate upgrading the avionics? All these high-tech upgrades have downsides. Fiber optic is ve…

Your original claim wasn't "how anything is wrong with" the electronics, but whether they were old or not. You're moving the goalposts.

Re: “I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period”

#313

Post by pas » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 11:28 AM UTC

foldr wrote: post #306

pas wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIAK the procedure is to not increase thrust, quite the opposite (disable the autothrust thingie), get the nose below the "horizon" (which is of course wind dependent), gain airspeed, and then start to increase thrust (which will automatically start to up the nose a bit), then climb back to whatever altitude you should be at.

I don't mean to say that increasing thrust is the standard stall recovery procedure in most aircraft, or that all stalls could be recovered from merely by increasing thrust. But if one could only manipulate thrust, one would increase thrust to recover from a stall, not decrease it.

Ah, yes, of course, theoretically if you can just increase thrust arbitrarily, that always solves the issue. (Again, of course, this might mean the whole plane becomes a rocket because the wings already fell off, so you might need some thrust vectoring too.)