Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#141

Post by salawat » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #105

nabdab wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn’t like they are making decisions with the intent of compromising safety. That really is actually exactly what they did and are doing. When you don’t do tests because you are confident something will pass, that doesn’t change that you aren’t testing, and you are compromising quality on the basis of productivity. Here Boeing decided to go against the safe practice because that would have classified the plane a…

On the other hand, making X behave like Y, where Y is something pilots are very used to, is safer.

MD-11 and now MAX raise questions on the execution of that. Pilots have to understand the how and why the different thing can fly like the old thing so that when something goes wrong and that invariant is inevitably violated, they aren't caught off guard.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#142

Post by lumost » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #87

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just different CEO's? How about fundamentally different CEO's?

The point is that it would be a lot harder for "Engineers to Lose Control of the Comapany" if engineers had a vote more powerful than the bankers, billionaires, and equity funds who own all the stock.

Do companies with high employee ownership typically outperform those that do not?

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#143

Post by salawat » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

mltony wrote: post #85

> The new engines were too big to fit in their traditional spot under the wings. To combat the problem, Boeing mounted them forward on the wings. Moving the engine position forward shifted the plane’s center of gravity, which altered the aerodynamics of the aircraft. The position of the new engines pulled the 737 tail down, pushed its nose up, and put it at risk of stalling. Can someone explain to me how this is poss…

Basically, the new engine nacelle shape and placement contribute extra lift at high AoA. The additional lift in front of the CoG creates a pitching moment that drops the tail, and lifts the nose.

Think of it like attaching an extra conditional lifting surface to the wing. In normal, low AoA flight, no pressure differential is created. At high AoA though, that extra lift works through the lever arm of the nacelle assembly.

Control feelwise, this would result in a slackening of control force needed to yield more degrees AoAby the plane after a certain point. That's a regulatory no-no.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#144

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #141

WalterBright wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, making X behave like Y, where Y is something pilots are very used to, is safer.

MD-11 and now MAX raise questions on the execution of that. Pilots have to understand the how and why the different thing can fly like the old thing so that when something goes wrong and that invariant is inevitably violated, they aren't caught off guard.

Since the advent of powered flight controls, they've been shaped to give desired handling characteristics. For example, in the 70's control forces were lightened considerably to accommodate female pilots, though many were concerned this would lead to overcontrolling the airplane by the male pilots.

Human factors design is nowhere near easy or settled science, not in iphone design nor in flight controls design.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#145

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

rjsw wrote: post #112

spaceandshit wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love seeing these false statements on HN, where most users have no idea what the aerospace industry is like.

The Boeing people that I work with are not allowed to travel.

Not allowed to? How does that work? Boeing thinks they control what people do on their vacation time?

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#146

Post by salawat » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

alumowa wrote: post #91

mltony wrote: post #85

> The new engines were too big to fit in their traditional spot under the wings. To combat the problem, Boeing mounted them forward on the wings. Moving the engine position forward shifted the plane’s center of gravity, which altered the aerodynamics of the aircraft. The position of the new engines pulled the 737 tail down, pushed its nose up, and put it at risk of stalling. Can someone explain to me how this is poss…

Layman here. What I picture in my head is due to the engines being placed higher and more forward on the wing, it will want to rotate nose up when thrust is being produced.

This is correct, and normal behavior actually. That's already accomodated for in modern designs.

What isn't is the extra lift at high-AoA and longer lever arm for the lift force to operate through. MCAS was meant to counter that, and arguably would have been a perfectly reasonable fix if they'd have designed it to the proper degree of redundancy, and actually told pilots how it worked and that it existed.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#147

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #45

jquery wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any nationalized airplane manufacturers with a better safety record than Boeing?

Nationalization isn't the only type of worker control. What if Boeing's CEO was elected by people who work for the company, instead of by rich board members with profit interest and no expertise? (making this kind of worker-democracy corporate governance the norm is a long-term goal of the Sanders plan)

> What if Boeing's CEO was elected by people who work for the company, instead of by rich board members with profit interest and no expertise?

And how are you (or Sanders) going to make that happen? By taking away the ability to appoint the CEO from the board members, and/or taking away the ability to appoint the board from the stockholders. But that's a big chunk of what ownership of a company means. How is this not a nationalization, even if it's called by another name?

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#148

Post by salawat » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

leetrout wrote: post #92

mltony wrote: post #85

> The new engines were too big to fit in their traditional spot under the wings. To combat the problem, Boeing mounted them forward on the wings. Moving the engine position forward shifted the plane’s center of gravity, which altered the aerodynamics of the aircraft. The position of the new engines pulled the 737 tail down, pushed its nose up, and put it at risk of stalling. Can someone explain to me how this is poss…

My armchair physics example would be a balance seesaw and let’s say the left side is the “front”. If you attached a rocket motor (or jet engine) in front of the the CG point would the the thrust push the left side of the seesaw up or down? I believe the issue is precisely this - the engines were moved (and they are bigger so more powerful perhaps?) forward and the thrust probably pushes the nose up.

Seesaw isn't the best model really. A seesaw with a turbine engine strapped to it, (besides making a godawful mess and maybe just maybe making the HOA angry enough to worth the trouble of setting up) wouldn't do much since it's a fixed structure and not interacting in any way remotely consistent with a body in motion through a fluid.

Boat might be a better model, or even better, use your hand hanging out the window of a moving car.

If you taped a couple of projections under your hand, and slowly increase the Angle of Attack of your hand to get a feel for what the old design would do.

Then do the same thing but with those protrusions up in front of your hand.

You should notice that it becomes harder in the second arrangement to counter the tendency of your hand to continue pitching up after a point. Assuming your weird mini-not turbine construction stays together in the airstream.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#149

Post by ScottBurson » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:40 PM UTC

cellu_cc wrote: post #9

While I appreciate the amount of effort the author put into writing this, Matt Stoller’s analysis of the Boeing situation remains the best I’ve found so far: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-coming-boeing-bailout

This paper, linked to from that page, also has some very interesting material in it, particularly on the use of RONA (Return On Net Assets) as a metric: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/02/04/2014130646...

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#150

Post by salawat » Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #142

hannasanarion wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that it would be a lot harder for "Engineers to Lose Control of the Comapany" if engineers had a vote more powerful than the bankers, billionaires, and equity funds who own all the stock.

Do companies with high employee ownership typically outperform those that do not?

What's your definition of performing?

The P/E may be great, but 386 souls lost, billions in lawsuits and expenses due to groundings, and a scandal the likes of which we haven't seen in decades does not strike me as performing well.

Maybe it doesn't warrant as extreme a measure of nationalizing the company and disrupting it's operations, but clearly, there should have been more capability for pushback against unrealistic sales objectives by the people actually responsible for designing and building the dang thing.