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

Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#41

Post by droithomme »

ilaksh wrote: post #39
droithomme wrote: post #4

So this Forkner guy was the chief test pilot for the 737. He sends emails saying the MCAS is out of control. He also is the one that tells the FAA MCAS should not be included in flight materials, and he later emails them to remind them to remove it when they include it anyway. His attorney says he's a nice guy and was under pressure from others. Great. Indict him, bring him in, and have him testify under oath who the…

I don't think it said he was driving to have it removed. I think he reminded the FAA that it was not included even though it seemed substantial. In other words suggesting they should review that decision.

> In a Jan. 17, 2017 email, Forkner reminded an FAA official to delete information about MCAS from materials written for pilots transitioning to the 737 Max from an older model of the jet. In the email, Forkner said “recall we decided we weren’t going to cover” MCAS in the 737 Max’s flight crew manuals because the system only operated “way outside the normal operating envelope.”

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#42

Post by tyingq »

situational87 wrote: post #9

So the chief test pilot for the MAX project complained about this system making the plane uncontrollable and this was all swept under the rug? People need to be put in prison over this. This is negligent homicide.

He's joking over IM. He was, among other things, an instructor for the C17 in the USAF.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#43

Post by ctchocula »

toast0 wrote: post #31
domlebo70 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a finance expert, but I don't think the transaction costs would factor would they? You would own "units" in the fund, rather than the underlying security itself. The makeup of the unit however, would be dynamic

A fully realized s&p 500 ex-FOO fund for every company (or every combination of two or three companies) would probably not have sufficient demand to make it efficient. You would need to have some sort of clever accounting to make it work, although, while retail commissions are at zero, and fractional shares may become available, assembling your own index fund may be possible with only a significant time cost.

Maybe they could implement it with S&P 500 and tqking a short position to cancel out ownership of stock XYZ. This way they don't have the demand problem you alluded to. Then they can charge customers an additional fee for this customization, which would cover the cost of the short. I imagine some would pay this additional customization fee since it's a small price to feel morally consistent.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#44

Post by mantap »

awill wrote: post #27

Hang on a minute. From the article, 'Mark Forkner, the chief technical pilot for the 737 Max...' then later, 'Forkner told Gustavsson that MCAS was “running rampant in the sim on me,” referring to simulator tests of the aircraft. “Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious.”' So Boeing's chief technical pilot admits he sucks at flying???? then later,'Forkner is now a pilot at Southwest Airlines Co., the c…

He's joking. Self deprecating.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#45

Post by rpmcmurdo »

Pilot here...

This NYTimes article is a recommended read. The author discusses the role of pilots who lack good airmanship (pilot training outside the US relies much more on rote memorization versus learning to fly small planes and/or in the military).

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...

Boeing certainly messed up with the MCAS system design, but a perhaps bigger error was to over-estimate pilot skills and intuition. A good "stick and rudder" pilot would have cut out the automation promptly and likely recovered from the situation.

For example, one of the factors in the crashes was airspeed. The pilots left the throttle at takeoff power, and accelerated to such a high speed that it was not possible to counteract the nose down moment. Also, had they noted the airspeed, they would have immediately known that they were not at risk of stalling, and that they were dealing with an instrumentation/automation failure (in which case you cut out the automation and hand fly the plane).

This does not absolve Boeing. MCAS violated their "pilot first" design pattern. It should have simply activated the stick shaker and an audio alert (and redundant sensor inputs should have been in place to minimize false positives). That said, the way pilots are trained in countries where light aviation is not a thing is an issue to be dealt with.

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#46

Post by ulfw »

redis_mlc wrote: post #35
ulfw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole FAA needs to be shitcanned is what needs to happen. Their job is to test these planes. It's not like there's 100s of models coming out every year. The 737 is America's best selling and most used plane - bar none. And that one hasn't been tested by the FAA? They just believed Boeing and stamped their approval on it? Well...

> Their job is to test these planes. No the FAA certifies airplanes, which is largely a paperwork exercise. They do not have airline designers and test pilots sitting around.

They don't need to have test pilots "sit around". They fly planes. Like a test pilot does.

You can apply to be one here: https://www.avjobs.com/careers/index.asp?Job_Title=FAA+Fligh...

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#47

Post by jka »

hunterjrj wrote: post #15
zaphar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will fly again. I won't be surprised if it takes years and some modifications to the systems before then. It may in fact turn the 737 Max into an overall loss for Boeing due to lower sales and contractual fees owed to the airlines for the planes that have already been sold and re-certifying pilots to fly it But fixing the 737 is going to be strictly less money than developing a new model for Boeing. The ri…

> but the plane itself is salvageable. You're probably right. From an engineering perspective. Would you fly in a 737MAX post-fix? We have an engineering mindset here on HN and so I would expect many of us to answer "Yes". But ask this same question to the general public? How is Boeing going to repair the damage to both it's brand and this plane's reputation, and convince the general public to fly on this model?

It's possible Boeing would simply rename and rebrand the model, betting that many fliers wouldn't follow the change.

There seemed to be some evidence that they might take that approach based on a 737-MAX delivery to Ryanair earlier this year:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...

Re: Boeing Pilot’s 2016 Worry on ‘Egregious’ Max Roils Jet’s Future

#48

Post by eric4brs »

awill wrote: post #27

Hang on a minute. From the article, 'Mark Forkner, the chief technical pilot for the 737 Max...' then later, 'Forkner told Gustavsson that MCAS was “running rampant in the sim on me,” referring to simulator tests of the aircraft. “Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious.”' So Boeing's chief technical pilot admits he sucks at flying???? then later,'Forkner is now a pilot at Southwest Airlines Co., the c…

When MCAS was running rampant for Forkner, was it during a simulation of a failure of the angle of attack sensor that MCAS relied on? If so, then they basically predicted the failure that people are saying likely caused the crashes. If not, then perhaps there is another scenario where MCAS runs amok. Either way it's incredible.
Post reply on HN