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

141–150 of 354 posts

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

#141

Post by jonknee »

jussij wrote: post #37
333c wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Just visit a flight tracking website before booking. In addition I'm sure airlines not flying the MAX will be using that fact as a marketing tool (i.e. we only fly Airbus etc) so you could limit your bookings with just those airlines. As an example of this, here in Australia I know one of the carriers is planning to fly the Max some time next year. If they go ahead with that plan, I will be making sure not to book wi…

But in the real world if a flight is $1 cheaper people will choose it regardless of the equipment. Airlines have vastly different safety records and it doesn't seem to change bookings (Allegiant is thriving despite ignoring maintenance).

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

#142

Post by jussij »

dingaling wrote: post #137
jussij wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't the flight control was averaging the pilot inputs. From this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Human_fa... In April 2012 in The Daily Telegraph, British journalist Nick Ross published a comparison of Airbus and Boeing flight controls; unlike the control yoke used on Boeing flight decks, the Airbus side stick controls give little visual feedback and no sensory or tactile feedback to the…

> That suggest there was only ever one pilot flying "Pilot flying" is a human-factors title, not a software function-lock. It just indicates who has control responsibility at that moment but it is not enforced by technical means. It is intended to eliminate ambiguity in crew functions; the PF can be a newbie copilot even if the commander of the aircraft is a 30-year-service Captain who would become the PNF at that po…

I was responding to the claim the flight control was averaging the two pilot inputs, because if that was the case then two pilots would have been flying the plane.

Might point was I doubt that this was in fact happening and there was only ever one pilot in charge.

> the Air France flight where the computer was receiving inputs from two pilots.

The link and quotes I posted suggest that was not happening.

The system was just ignoring the other pilot (and that was the designed fault) because it also failed to tell that other pilot he was being ignored.

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

#143

Post by computerex »

brentm wrote: post #55
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.

I think overall we should consider this process a very positive thing, FAA and Boeing (and Airbus as well) are all going to learn a lot from this process which will make air travel safer in the future. It's unfortunate that it took two tragedies to get us here but if you look at the history of aviation improvements this isn't the first and it won't be the last time.

This isn't some previously undiscovered issue in aviation. This is plain and simple Boeing prioritizing cost savings over human lives. It is as simple as that. There are no technical takeaways to be had from the two tragedies that took place. The only takeaway is that Boeing betrayed everyone but their pockets.

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

#144

Post by aivisol »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #119
chrisbolt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the European Aviation Safety Agency?

So the FAA says "this is fucked" and and the EASA says "they're all good bro"[1], who do you side with? [1] feel free to flip flop regulatory agencies if you so desire.

It is like with two AoA sensors: if they disagree, there is the problem.

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

#145

Post by cromka »

dahart wrote: post #87
gbrown wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking because I legitimately don't know: was the FAA failure here more attributable to the agency, or the funding (and therefore manpower*expertise) available to it?

Many articles about the 737 Max crashes have been talking about how it’s largely a systemic failure of the process due to the US culture of deregulation. That would make this both attributable to the agency and to the funding in a way that is complex and hard to separate. As I understand it, the agency has been allowing airplane manufacturers to essentially do their own testing more and more over time, despite the ob…

Came here with the same thought. It's not just the culture at Boeing. We see this everyday in US on different levels of administration. This country is simply owned by corporations and while deregulation was great for the progress which built it, it's not ok anymore.

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

#146

Post by lispm »

lkrubner wrote: post #124
iClaudiusX wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root problem is the culture at Boeing and the FAA has shifted from safety first to profit first. The investigative reporting from The Seattle Times[0] indicates that safety engineers were pressured to avoid delays to rush out a competitor to the A320. Furthermore, their safety analysis was based on flawed assumptions to meet an artificial constraint of not requiring pilot simulator training in order to appease th…

Fukushima? That doesn't belong on the list. There is some limit to any engineering decision. Complaining about MCAS is totally reasonable, but it would be unreasonable to argue "The Air Max is not safe because if I hit it with enough Stingray missiles it won't fly anymore." Like, yeah? No kidding? Fukushima was designed to survive the earthquake, and it did, it just wasn't designed to survive the earthquake and also…

> Fukushima was designed to survive the earthquake, and it did

untrue

It was designed to survive both a tsunami and an earthquake. Tsunamis often are caused by earthquakes.

That Fukushima survived the Earthquake is a myth. The plants had an emergency shutdown and there was very little time for a damage assessment, which would have taken weeks or months.

Whether the plant would ever have been restarted after the earthquake is unknown. It could have been a full loss, like several reactors in Japan, which will never be restarted.

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

#147

Post by mrpippy »

cmurf wrote: post #122
teh_infallible wrote: post #97

I hate the fact that all discussion focuses on the software and ignores the airframe.

What's the problem with the airframe? What's the problem with the larger engine nacelle causing a different pitching moment? I've yet to read either of those violate any portion of FAR 25. There is still an open question whether the MAX should have or will have a separate type certificate from other 737's, thereby requiring pilots of a type rating to fly the MAX, thereby requiring full disclosure and training on all…

I wish I had a more authoritative source, but this matches my understanding: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19512161

As a side note, it’s really unfortunate that we won’t get an NTSB-level (both in detail and widespread respect for the organization) report on what went wrong and how it happened. I’m not sure the Ethiopian and Indonesian authorities will really (be able to) dig into MCAS and all the details of its development as deeply as we’d like. I expect that some of the reporters covering this story will write books (Dominic Gates and Jon Ostrower in particular), and those will be the most authoritative accounts.

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

#148

Post by snovv_crash »

snowwindwaves wrote: post #130
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.

For anyone writing software controlling machines it is pretty much the status quo. It has to be darn near perfect, updating it later if it is even possible will be expensive and inconvenient As much as it is a shitty environment if you have 6 months to fix it and all of the company resources you can think of to ask for that is lots of time.

Having 6 months to fix it would have been fine.

Instead what they've had is 2 weeks to fix it for 6 months, which is a very different kettle of fish.

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

#149

Post by afthonos »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #131
lkrubner wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima? That doesn't belong on the list. There is some limit to any engineering decision. Complaining about MCAS is totally reasonable, but it would be unreasonable to argue "The Air Max is not safe because if I hit it with enough Stingray missiles it won't fly anymore." Like, yeah? No kidding? Fukushima was designed to survive the earthquake, and it did, it just wasn't designed to survive the earthquake and also…

But it could have been quite easily by simply siting the backup generators above ground. That was a stupid design error. Tsunamis are not unknown in Japan after all.

I refrain from using “simply” or “just” unless I am the person expected to design or fix the problem. Ahead of time. Saying after a disaster caused by the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan[0] that the solution was “simply” to do some coincidentally simple-sounding thing is not credible.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_t...

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

#150

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

lkrubner wrote: post #124
iClaudiusX wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root problem is the culture at Boeing and the FAA has shifted from safety first to profit first. The investigative reporting from The Seattle Times[0] indicates that safety engineers were pressured to avoid delays to rush out a competitor to the A320. Furthermore, their safety analysis was based on flawed assumptions to meet an artificial constraint of not requiring pilot simulator training in order to appease th…

Fukushima? That doesn't belong on the list. There is some limit to any engineering decision. Complaining about MCAS is totally reasonable, but it would be unreasonable to argue "The Air Max is not safe because if I hit it with enough Stingray missiles it won't fly anymore." Like, yeah? No kidding? Fukushima was designed to survive the earthquake, and it did, it just wasn't designed to survive the earthquake and also…

There were enough reports over the years that were buried which alerted about the earthquake and tsunami risk.
Post reply on HN