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

Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 280 posts

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#211

Post by blinky1456 »

isatty wrote: post #206
obituary_latte wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct link to image bypassing imgur’s awful interface: https://i.imgur.com/WJuhjlO_d.jpg?maxwidth=1640&shape=thumb&...

Thank you, forcing everyone onto a landing and wasting loads of data just rendering the garbage page is the worst UX on the planet.

I disagree, It is a free image hosting platform for sharing images. There is nothing wrong with linking to it.

If you upload or want to share what is on the platform, they would prefer if you link it that way, as is their right.

It is a business after all. And If people want to hotlink directly to an image they should pay up and host it themselves.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#212

Post by laythea »

Sounds to me like the main failure here is that Boeing went too far with optimising cost, in the sense that MCAS was not properly designed.

I'm certain correctly designed software can safely control critical functions, otherwise failure in a large category of aircraft systems would result in many more MCAS unrelated accidents.

This particular MCAS control philosophy seems to be a flawed control system. With reference to the the graph (link provided by obituary_latte):

https://i.imgur.com/WJuhjlO_d.jpg?maxwidth=1640&shape=thumb&...

With only one sensor being "looked at" at any time, and with the system not having the sense to know to stop commanding pitch down after 26 times with attempted pilot overrides, it would seem almost beyond belief that any competent team of on-the-ground engineers (as per Boeing) would not see that the system is flawed.

Would be interesting to see if this was the case, and how the likely good engineering decision was overridden by the commercial aspect.

With increased tech, comes increased scope for this kind of cost optimisation, and we must be careful in many more industries. Eg Automotive self driving cars.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#213

Post by apcherry »

burfog wrote: post #164
nopzor wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i haven’t looked at the fars in quite a few years, but i’m pretty sure there would be stuff in there that references stuff like pitch stability (which is how i’d define the “hardware problem”), is that not the case? i’m afk atm. i still maintain my macro point, either way. making the airframe on a pax airliner aerodynamically stable during normal takeoff and landing operations seems like basic “good engineering” to m…

I'm not so sure that it is good engineering to be inherently stable during normal takeoff and landing operations. Modern fighter planes are inherently unstable because this is required for better maneuverability. Passenger planes can certainly benefit from that too. Consider gusty crosswinds during a landing. With an inherently unstable aircraft, there is greater capability to compensate. You can have a computer stab…

A common fallacy I'm afraid - modern fighter planes are unstable for improved supersonic performance - reduced drag. So relaxed stability may benefit civil aircraft in terms of fuel efficiency. There is an argument that inherently unstable aircraft makes the manoeuvrability worse or harder. What many forget is that issue with manoeuvrability is actually at the end of the manoeuvre. The handling qualities aim is to point the nose in a new direction and an unstable aircraft makes the design challenge harder to stop the aircraft at the position required.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#214

Post by Merrill »

kejaed wrote: post #27

I really see this as a failure of the Systems Engineering process. With so many people unaware of the impacts of the changes, it’s up to the systems types to have the big picture view and make sure these sorts of things are taken into account. Especially if as the article says a failure of the AOA sensor on the system would be Hazardous (looks like it was Catastrophic when paired with MCAS in retrospect), that would…

Systems Engineering -- The art of working on the overall design while not overlooking any detail that later turns out to have been important.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#215

Post by dhimes »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #158
GoToRO wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

engineers overseeing this work There the thing: nobody wants to pay engineers on par with managers. Maybe one can not manage something he/she can not understand.

> There the thing: nobody wants to pay engineers on par with managers I used to think like that but I learned in time that the core issue is that engineers rarely know how to present their job in terms of monetary benefit during salary negotiations. i.e. as an automation engineer I led an initiative that saved a previous employer more than 60k€ yearly using automation and optimizing other validation workflows. as pri…

engineers rarely know how to present their job in terms of monetary benefit

The point is, they shouldn't have to. The managers should be handling that fairly. Otherwise, it's an adversarial game where only one team knows how to play.

Engineers should be experts in engineering. Holding them at a disadvantage because they are not good at the other feels wrong.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#216

Post by dhimes »

Haga wrote: post #180
djsumdog wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing is that we'll probably see this plane fly again by the end of the year, because the millions of dollars in retrofits will still be cheaper than having to scrap all existing planes. We have no idea what other potentially lethal corners have been cut. What if they go back into service, after several months of retrofitting all of them at Boeing maintenance hangers, and then the following year there are two…

It will fly only to be voted down with customers feet. I know a lot of people who looked on the plane type for the first time during their holiday bookings. This plane is finished.

Is there a requirement to fly the plane advertised? In other words, if I book specifically a non-737 800 Max plane, and the airline switches, can I get my money back, or make them fly me on a different airline?

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#217

Post by dhimes »

tuna-piano wrote: post #121

How MCAS slipped through certification process was not the main issue (mistakes in complex products can happen). The main issue was Boeing not caring that MCAS was dangerous even after discovering it. After the Lion Air crash, it was very apparent to Boeing that MCAS was not safe. This whole article focuses on how MCAS slipped through development+certification - but really even after Boeing new the dangers of MCAS, t…

How MCAS slipped through certification process was not the main issue

I think it's a huge issue, but perhaps not criminal. The hiding/lying/etc is a criminal issue in my view.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#218

Post by LoSboccacc »

dhimes wrote: post #215
LoSboccacc wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There the thing: nobody wants to pay engineers on par with managers I used to think like that but I learned in time that the core issue is that engineers rarely know how to present their job in terms of monetary benefit during salary negotiations. i.e. as an automation engineer I led an initiative that saved a previous employer more than 60k€ yearly using automation and optimizing other validation workflows. as pri…

engineers rarely know how to present their job in terms of monetary benefit The point is, they shouldn't have to. The managers should be handling that fairly. Otherwise, it's an adversarial game where only one team knows how to play. Engineers should be experts in engineering. Holding them at a disadvantage because they are not good at the other feels wrong.

but even in such a scenario how a manager would know how to assign merit? they aren't expert in engineering either.

someone in between has to connect the dots, but there is no such figure and the incentives for doing that communication work are all on the engineers' side

addendum: I do however agree it sucks to have to compete with other fellows

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#219

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

blinky1456 wrote: post #211
isatty wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, forcing everyone onto a landing and wasting loads of data just rendering the garbage page is the worst UX on the planet.

I disagree, It is a free image hosting platform for sharing images. There is nothing wrong with linking to it. If you upload or want to share what is on the platform, they would prefer if you link it that way, as is their right. It is a business after all. And If people want to hotlink directly to an image they should pay up and host it themselves.

I don’t disagree that if people want to be able to hot-link images they should pay for the hosting themselves (It’s something I do myself - instead of replying on imgur I just pay to host the files on S3).

I just find it amusing that imgur was born out of being a better image host then the competition as linking to images on reddit at the time sucked, and now (IMO) has turned to “the dark side” and are doing the things that made the competition so crappy to start with.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t show ads but I’ve seen and reported countless bad ads on the site (forced redirects away from the site, unannounced “would you like to open the App Store” dialogs. APKs just auto downloading. Seemed at the time they or their ad network would accept any old crap of an advert (this was a quite a while ago, hopefully they are more choosing about the ads they run).

Also their UI is a pain in the arse (IMO) on mobile Safari it’s a pain in the arse to pinch and zoom (not that it will do any good as the image on mobile UI has been resized) and getting to the full sized image is another pain in the arse. For images like above it makes it impossible to read. They said look at the force applied but the wording on the scale is just a blur making the graph hard to understand.

It’s their site and they can do what they like with it. I just find it amusing that (IMO) they have become what they hated. At least they managed to include reddit style communities/comments before reddit started hosting images themselves.

Re: Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

#220

Post by jMyles »

dhimes wrote: post #216
Haga wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will fly only to be voted down with customers feet. I know a lot of people who looked on the plane type for the first time during their holiday bookings. This plane is finished.

Is there a requirement to fly the plane advertised? In other words, if I book specifically a non-737 800 Max plane, and the airline switches, can I get my money back, or make them fly me on a different airline?

Interesting question. I have never had this happen, and I think I'll be asking a lot of questions if it does.

It's not something an airline can do hastily, as different aircraft (well, at least those of differing type rating) require different crews to operate. So the airline will have to grab a totally different crew to match their replacement aircraft.

Post reply on HN