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

FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 354 posts

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#91

Post by karthikb »

rosege wrote: post #71
mantap wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced. The pressure on Boeing to fix this ASAP is immense. That is not a good environment for writing safety critical software. Especially if they are doing a "broader software redesign". I don't believe that software quality can be enforced from the outside.

Yes, having to use your employee car parking for these jets is not a good look that I'd imagine they are keen to have going on for long. https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/boeing-has-so-many-ground...

Interesting tidbit in the video. At 1:43 you see a MAX in Jet Airways livery - an airline that ceased operations and terminated all flights about 1 month after the grounding began.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#92

Post by blackflame7000 »

pvg wrote: post #53
blackflame7000 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original 737 had a terrible safety record at first because of a rudder hard-over flaw. It then went on to become the most used in history

That doesn't sound right. The 737 went into service in the late 60s. There were two confirmed fatal accidents involving rudder hardover in the 90s.

By Original I meant the NG version

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#93

Post by blackflame7000 »

bigiain wrote: post #72
blackflame7000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but having to overcome an engine problem isn't boeings problem its the manufacturers.

That depends a bit on the "engine problem". This is, to my layman's understanding, could be considered an "engine problem" because how the newer more fuel efficient engines with their bigger bypass fans don't fit under the wings of the 737. That's not an engine manufacturers problem. (It makes more sense to classify it as an airframe design compromise problem, but it's about those big fat geared turbofans not working…

Why are you talking about the 737 when the response was to the design of the 777x which is the largest boeing not the smallest so talking about the engines under the wing doesnt make sense in the context.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#94

Post by mevile »

333c wrote: post #26
ngcc_hk wrote: post #9

Not going to trust that model, like dc10 (?). May work not engineer. But as customer, only get 1 life. Not as software beta tester.

How can you practically avoid a model of plane, other than avoiding all airlines that operate them?

Delta Airlines doesn't own any 737 Max aircraft. If you're a US passenger, if you just fly Delta you'll never fly in a max.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#95

Post by joering2 »

kahirsch wrote: post #86

When the Boeing CEO had his press conference in April, he said "we've confirmed that the MCAS system as originally designed did meet our design and safety analysis criteria and our certification criteria."[1] I yelled at the screen "you know that means the criteria are flawed , right? If the procedures didn't catch this mistake, that means there are other mistakes that weren't caught!" A flabbergasted reporter then a…

Meanwhile he claims 737 will be their safest plane ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE4tX0eIDEQ

Edit: unsure if this video is correct, but the MCAS system is classical "solution" to how in software a junior programmer would patch their software by adding more complexity to the code without realizing what that changes would further affect. It felt like they gave up on some solid solution and just decided to added a sensor who would overwrite pilot manuver.

A similar situation would be downgrading a size of tires on a new model of a car (to be competitve with other auto makers that lower the price) and simply adding software blockage that you cannot turn wheels as violent as you could before because on thin thread that would lead to a car tipover.

The whole video - if correct, paints a grim picture of profits above PAXes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#96

Post by michaco33 »

markbnj wrote: post #83
Xcelerate wrote: post #7

I made a post about three months ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19578201 ) that my main fear with the 737 Max was that they rushed the plane into production and more mistakes were made than with just the MCAS system. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. I doubt Boeing will ever convince me that enough "patches" have been made to make the plane safe to fly on.

If after all of this the much more knowledgeable pilots are willing to get on the thing and fly it, I'd be comfortable getting in the back.

Not all pilots have the choice.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#98

Post by petschge »

chrisseaton wrote: post #38
caf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upgrades to the 737 do have a particularly constrained design space, though (due to the oft-mentioned very low ground clearance).

Why can’t they change the ground clearance and remove the constraint?

A longer landing gear to get the plane higher off the ground doesn't fit into the existing gear well in the wings. So you would have to redesign the wings. This required making sure that the loading on the main body stays the same. By now you are doing more than 50% the design work of a new airplane and you definitely can not keep the type rating. And if you need a new type rating anyway, you would redesign the cockpit, probably to be similar to the glass cockpits in the 777s.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#99

Post by cmurf »

th0ma5 wrote: post #51
rjvehn wrote: post #27

There are a myriad of issues that put the planes at risk, but I think that the fact that when the control system (MCAS) is engaged causes it to ignore feedback is the biggest issue of all. "But with the MCAS activated, said Fehrm, those breakout switches wouldn’t work. MCAS assumes the yoke is already aggressively pulled back and won’t allow further pullback to counter its action, which is to hold the nose down. Fehr…

To be fair, ignoring user input could have potentially have saved Air France 447... I mean I actually can't think of an automated fool proof system that would've fixed 447, but incorrect input was a major factor.

I'd say the improper input was the most direct factor, as it was responsible for the stall condition all the way into the ocean.

But there are multiple major factors leading up to that, including the lack of high altitude training in direct law, and that the simulator didn't exactly simulate high altitude stalls, and that the stall warning stopped when the angle of attack was beyond the sensor limit. All of these things are major and the final report really sank a lot of blame on Airbus and Air France as well as pilot startle effect basically stopping their brains from working the problem. The senior pilot who arrived didn't have that, and quickly figured out the source of the problem but by then it was too late, not enough altitude to recover.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#100

Post by jbigelow76 »

jussij wrote: post #41

The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time around and as such I suspect they will be checking every aspect of the plane in very fine detail. That could spell more trouble for Boeing.

The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time...

Because I'll just check with the next air transit regulatory body right?

Post reply on HN