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

321–330 of 354 posts

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

#321

Post by [deleted] »

BorRagnarok wrote: post #189
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 still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't. Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company.…

[deleted]

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

#322

Post by maxwell_smart »

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…

I don't know a whole lot about this, but I seem to remember that there was one design decision, that, while not wrong, was different from the generation before, and that is that the airplane yokes were not mechanically coupled to one another. If they were mechanically coupled, the experienced pilot could have felt the other pilot pulling back on the controls, but what was happening was that the two pilots were pulling the controls in different directions AND the plane was averaging the control inputs and giving no feedback to the pilots that what each was doing was wildly inconsistent or contradictory.

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

#323

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

navigatesol wrote: post #255
BorRagnarok wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't. Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company.…

> because if people could see what happened they would never fly one of those things again. They might not anyway. As it is, people are irrationally afraid of flying. Plane crashes are a fetishized "nightmare scenario". Multiple crashes linked to the same plane (or company) will, likely, have terrible business consequences.

Well we can hope, can't we? As long as no exec at all is going to go to jail for this, I say let Boeing die. It's the least we can still do for those 300+ victims and their families.

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

#324

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

tomp wrote: post #269
BorRagnarok wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't. Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company.…

> There are enough businesses that happily create planes without putting profit before people. Are there? Besides Boeing and Airbus, which other company makes safe (or not, in case of Boeing) passenger planes? AFAIK it's a duopoly.

Maybe there will be others that are happy to give it a go. Maybe it's best to have a monopoly, and forever get rid of rushing planes to market to beat the competition. Maybe in aviation, that would be a good thing, who knows.

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

#325

Post by hrktb »

bumby wrote: post #247
hrktb wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not doubting you, but has there been evidence of bribes in the case of the 737-MAX? I'm genuinely curious. It may be mismanagement or incompetence, but I don't know if it gets to the degree of malice. Here's how I see it working: FAA is obligated to provide oversight. FAA is also not given resources to do due diligence themselves (e.g., one inspector may be responsible for multiple airframes, meaning there is no poss…

I am far less knowledgeble on the subject than you I think, but the FAA just not having resources should end in them not accepting any new missions and keeping a backlog of pending investigations for the next centuries.

The reason it doesn’t work like that is because of pressure on them to keep up wih the requests, and keep the businesses running. That pressure can’t be just their professional guilt, there is I think enough ways the industry affects them so they can’t just refuse to lower standards or accept to delegate part of their work.

That pressure, is what I call bribes. Be it preferencial treatment, exchange of favors, or straight up money going to decision makers to make sure the FAA doesn’t hurt plane makers.

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

#326

Post by bumby »

hrktb wrote: post #325
bumby wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not doubting you, but has there been evidence of bribes in the case of the 737-MAX? I'm genuinely curious. It may be mismanagement or incompetence, but I don't know if it gets to the degree of malice. Here's how I see it working: FAA is obligated to provide oversight. FAA is also not given resources to do due diligence themselves (e.g., one inspector may be responsible for multiple airframes, meaning there is no poss…

I am far less knowledgeble on the subject than you I think, but the FAA just not having resources should end in them not accepting any new missions and keeping a backlog of pending investigations for the next centuries. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because of pressure on them to keep up wih the requests, and keep the businesses running. That pressure can’t be just their professional guilt, there is I think…

I think you're right. The lack of resources is a leadership issue.

The system is likely biased toward people who don't stop work. Any single decision may have a low probability of catastrophe but if you roll the dice enough times it'll catch up to you. But until it does, those types of managers will get promoted because they "get things done" (i.e. they don't stop for due diligence)

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

#327

Post by jussij »

foldr wrote: post #249
jussij wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Airbus does average the inputs if both pilots are making inputs at the same time. Do you have a url/link/pdf that describes this behaviour?

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsdesk/docume... "When both sticks are moved simultaneously, the system adds the signals of both pilots algebraically."

Thanks for the link. It is a very interesting read.

In particular it also says this:

To avoid both signals being added by the system, a priority P/B is provided on each stick. By pressing this button, a pilot may cancel the inputs of the other pilot.

From this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

As pilot flying, Bonin took control of the aircraft via the side stick priority button and said, "I have the controls."

Which again suggests at least in this case, Bonin was the only one flying the aircraft.

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

#328

Post by CydeWeys »

hirowan wrote: post #208
CydeWeys wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What supporting infrastructure would have to change? Jetways are compatible across a wide variety of planes. Yes, you can't use the same jetway on an A380 as a 737 (the A380 is just way too big), but you certainly can use the same jetway on a 737 as on an A320, and many other planes besides. The reason they didn't want to do a clean sheet redesign of the 737 was to avoid pilot recertification, not because of ground i…

I can assure you you can use the same jetway on a 737 that you can use on an A380.

You sure? The A380 is so much larger (especially in width) that it can't fit into the narrower gate spacing typically seen for smaller planes. Sure, maybe one in isolation could service an A380, but ten in a row in typical airport spacing can't service ten A380s.

Separately, there's the issue that the A380 is so large that you need multiple jetways (at least one for each level) to efficiently load and unload everyone. Maybe you could slowly unload an A380 by debarking everyone off the lower level and forcing everyone on the upper level to walk down the plane's internal staircase, but this is extremely sub-optimal. In practice airlines don't do this; they use specialized gates set up for the A380's special needs.

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

#329

Post by lysp »

BorRagnarok wrote: post #189
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 still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't. Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company.…

> I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner

I don't think the main issue is outsourcing the engineering work out.

The bigger thing is they were outsourcing their management and reporting to Boeing as well. That meant rather than independent overview, Boeing managers were able to pressure shortcuts and cost cutting and could threaten engineers jobs who didn't toe the line.

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

#330

Post by cmurf »

tremon wrote: post #300
cmurf wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 757 and 767 do not have identical airframes, they share a type certificate. The Airbus 320 and 340 do not have identical airframes, they share a type certificate. I think you do not understand type certification. The 737 MAX airframe is substantially more like a 737 NG airframe, than a 757 is to a 767. Etc. It sounds like you have a problem with how airplanes are type certified, not a problem with the airframe.

Rather, I have a problem with airplanes falling out of the sky because pilots don't understand what they're flying, and airplane manufacturers trying to obfuscate their machinery. The details of how and why are secondary to that.

I think literally everyone has a problem with airplanes falling out of the sky. Anyone saying otherwise is perhaps a comedian. So I still have to insist you work harder to refine your complaint. The complaint is legitimate, but it's also ordinary. To contribute to the conversation you have to bring something a little bit more than just the ordinary.

Indeed, it might very well be questionable that the 757 and 767 have the same type rating. But then, even though they have the same type rating they do still have difference training. Is iPad difference training really adequate? Who evaluated this? Were there contrary opinions?

Post reply on HN