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

211–220 of 354 posts

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

#211

Post by PaulHoule »

ulfw wrote: post #207

If only the FAA wasn't corrupt and did their job of testing, verifying and CERTIFYING the 787 and 737max in the first place rather than outsourcing it to the VERY MANUFACTURER Boeing. I don't know where y'all went to school, but I was never able to self-grade my year-end exams. Absolutely unthinkable banana republic behaviour and not a single head rolled (except for the about 350 poor dead souls who had to pay for th…

The 787 and 737max represent two different things.

The 787 is an advanced and innovative plane. It blazes the way in terms of seat-mile cost, comfort, fuel consimptoon, etc.

The 737max is a half-baked response to the re-engined a320 and also the somewhat smaller planes like the a220 and e195-2 that beat the 737 in cost per mile and noise as well as being more comfortable. (Think of the Japanese cars that were small on the outside and big on the inside compared to 1970s American cars)

The 737max tried to innovate as little as possible, and that is where it got into trouble.

I think Boeing still thinks that it can get the FAA to avoid a simulator training requirement but they won't and by trying they will delay the recertification at the expense of airlines, shareholders, etc.

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

#212

Post by foldr »

cyberferret wrote: post #75
th0ma5 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Basic rudimentary 'stick and rudder' flying skills was a big factor in AF447's crash. All old school pilots know that when you aircraft is in a nose high stall condition, you never keep pulling back on the stick, but instead push it forwards to lower the nose and get the wings flying again. The fact that the co-pilot in question kept holding the stick to the back stops was the main reason that the aircraft wallowed i…

>The fact that the co-pilot in question kept holding the stick to the back stops was the main reason that the aircraft wallowed into the sea. Weirdly, he did let go of the stick for a brief few seconds, which was the only time during the harrowing descent that the aircraft started to behave normally, but then he pulled it back and held it back right up until impact.

This description isn't consistent with what's in the accident report. Where are you sourcing it from?

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

#213

Post by foldr »

jussij wrote: post #142
dingaling wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wa…

>because it also failed to tell that other pilot he was being ignored.

It didn't fail to tell him. That's what the dual input alarm is for.

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

#214

Post by foldr »

ricardobeat wrote: post #181
jacquesgt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue may have been that the plane had slowed down so much that the stall warning stopped (it disengages below a certain airspeed apparently). When he stopped pulling up, the plane sped up and the stall warning started again. Pull up again, plane slows down, stall warning stops.

I wonder if something about this system was changed after that incident - why not keep sounding the stall alarm if the plane ends up outside the flight/sensor envelope? Can’t you assume that it didn’t magically cross the stall zone back into normal flight?

No, because an equally (probably more) likely scenario is that the relevant sensors are giving bad readings.

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

#215

Post by foldr »

skgoa wrote: post #183
halter73 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the cockpit voice recording included a comment from one of the co-pilots about how pulling back on the yoke couldn't cause a stall. The assumption was that the Airbus's fly-by-wire system would prevent it and ensure the aircraft still climbed as long as the pilot held back on the stick. The co-pilot apparently didn't realize that the sensor issue that disabled the autopilot also disabled the stall prevention. A…

The copilot pulling the yoke back continued to do so, long after the other, much more experienced, copilot had formally assumed control and had attempted to bring the nose back down by pushing the yoke forward. Ultimately the inexperienced copilot fighting against his more experienced superior was what doomed the airplane. Both the senior copilot and the captain immediately identified the problem and attempted to tak…

>The copilot pulling the yoke back continued to do so, long after the other, much more experienced, copilot had formally assumed control and had attempted to bring the nose back down by pushing the yoke forward.

At least according to the official accident report, neither of the pilots at the controls consistently made nose down stick inputs.

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

#216

Post by cf141q5325 »

ulfw wrote: post #207

If only the FAA wasn't corrupt and did their job of testing, verifying and CERTIFYING the 787 and 737max in the first place rather than outsourcing it to the VERY MANUFACTURER Boeing. I don't know where y'all went to school, but I was never able to self-grade my year-end exams. Absolutely unthinkable banana republic behaviour and not a single head rolled (except for the about 350 poor dead souls who had to pay for th…

Sadly nothing new. Remember when the Air Force outsourced their fraud and abuse investigation database to Lockheed Martin? Which Lockheed then lost together with the backups?

https://www.govexec.com/defense/2016/06/computer-crash-wipes...

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

#217

Post by CaptainZapp »

notatoad wrote: post #54
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industry is pretty homogeneous and somewhat of a revolving door between the few OEMs. What are the odds that the code on this plane is orders of magnitude worse (in terms of code quality) than every other similar bit of code in the sky? Edit. I should have to say this but I'm not defending Boeing here. I'm saying it's not at al unforeseeable that the other planes, even ones by other manufacturers are just as bad.…

My instinct is that you're probably correct, and most planes are probably riddled with similar problems and would look bad if they came under the same scrutiny as the 737 Max is currently under. For example, I remember after the 787 was launched there was a few stories in the press about the batteries catching fire mid-flight, but it turned out the designers and engineers had accounted for that possibility and it was…

I remember after the 787 was launched there was a few stories in the press about the batteries catching fire mid-flight, but it turned out the designers and engineers had accounted for that possibility and it wasn't really a big deal.

It was a huge deal and the plane was grounded for three month due to those battery fires.

Originally the engineers did not account for battery fires and needed to refit a compartment to seal the batteries in case a fire occurs.

Luckily it was either on approach, or they could emergency land the plane when the problem occured.

A burning lithium battery in a flying plane is one of the worst imaginable scenarios you can encounter during a flight and is a fucking big deal.

Edited to add : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...

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

#218

Post by hrktb »

bumby wrote: post #210
ulfw wrote: post #207

If only the FAA wasn't corrupt and did their job of testing, verifying and CERTIFYING the 787 and 737max in the first place rather than outsourcing it to the VERY MANUFACTURER Boeing. I don't know where y'all went to school, but I was never able to self-grade my year-end exams. Absolutely unthinkable banana republic behaviour and not a single head rolled (except for the about 350 poor dead souls who had to pay for th…

I think Hanlon's Razor is a more likely answer to why the FAA failed

Did they take the ongoing multi-faceted bribes by incompetence, with no malice involved ?

Hanlon's Razor is useful in some scopes, but imagine applying it to banking, politics, corporate regulation or law enforcement. Depending on your position, not doing due diligent and acting ethically is malice.

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

#219

Post by ulfw »

PaulHoule wrote: post #211
ulfw wrote: post #207

If only the FAA wasn't corrupt and did their job of testing, verifying and CERTIFYING the 787 and 737max in the first place rather than outsourcing it to the VERY MANUFACTURER Boeing. I don't know where y'all went to school, but I was never able to self-grade my year-end exams. Absolutely unthinkable banana republic behaviour and not a single head rolled (except for the about 350 poor dead souls who had to pay for th…

The 787 and 737max represent two different things. The 787 is an advanced and innovative plane. It blazes the way in terms of seat-mile cost, comfort, fuel consimptoon, etc. The 737max is a half-baked response to the re-engined a320 and also the somewhat smaller planes like the a220 and e195-2 that beat the 737 in cost per mile and noise as well as being more comfortable. (Think of the Japanese cars that were small o…

Oh without a doubt you’re right. Doesn’t change the fact though that both got partially self “certified” by Boeing

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

#220

Post by kunday »

wnkrshm wrote: post #188
kunday wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. Compaq in 1980's is probably the best case for reverse engineering and building a robust system. In some cases it out performed IBM PC's. However, I have to admit, reverse engineering a home desktop is different from a airline software, considering that bugs can instantly kill people.

Also, if you rebuild a system in isolation, you have to reproduce all the bugs - since you do not know which of the bugs are load-bearing, i.e. other systems have been engineered to depend on the bugs, whether by accident or intentionally.

Absolutely correct. (cough) javascript at Microsoft.
Post reply on HN