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

Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 199 posts

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#111

Post by bradstewart »

uxp100 wrote: post #104
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised, if managament is broken to it's core, the situation is "Do this unethical thing or we'll find someone who will!" Computer Scientists aren't usually taught engineering ethics and definitely get fired all the time for arbitrary reasons.

Is that true that CS students don't take an ethics course? I have a 10 year old SE degree and I took 3, only 1 of which was engineering specific. (I took a philosophy ethics course, which really isn't that relevant to issues like these anyway, but also a course that was specific to ethical issues in computing.) OTOH, I'm skeptical those courses change behavior, and in this particular case others in comments are sayin…

I took one course that briefly touched on engineering ethics in my ECE program. Nothing even remotely resembling the ethics courses taken by the Mechanical/Civil/Structural guys.

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#112

Post by devit »

danso wrote: post #10

FWIW, the near-crash in the simulator was apparently not directly related to MCAS, but occurred when Boeing "simulated what would happen if gamma rays from space scrambled data in the plane’s flight-control computers." > In one scenario, the plane aggressively dove in a way that mimicked what happened in the crashes on the grounded jetliner, the people said. While such a failure had never occurred in the 737’s histor…

Is this an issue on non-MAX 737s as well?

If not, and thus the affected computer system has been added in the MAX, why not design it properly with 3+ redundant copies of the system given that it was designed in the 2010s when both engineering theory and technological resources are plentiful?

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#113

Post by trashface »

I believe the Max will never fly again, at least not outside the US. The FAA might approve the final "fixed" design based on political pressure, but what international regulator will do that? So then you have a plane design that only the US considers safe.

The flying public in the US will naturally start asking questions. I guess airlines could offer discounts for Max flights. Then we'll see what level of discount is sufficient to get people on a plane that historically had a strong predisposition to nose-dive.

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#114

Post by imglorp »

0xffff2 wrote: post #88
imglorp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big "disagree" alarm for the pilots and let them decide to keep either computer or go direct. Airbus has the concept of flight control laws, surfaced and changeable by the wet backups. http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

>go direct That's not really a thing in modern airliners. The computer is still heavily involved even when hand-flying the plane.

It is on the Airbus, one of the control laws, see link above. It's still FBW though, so one might argue that "mechanical backup" is really what you want.

As for "modern", the A320 had control laws in 1984 and the 777 in 1994.

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#115

Post by mzkply »

akersten wrote: post #2

These should not fly for a decade. They're rewriting the avionics from scratch. This should require a years-long process of testing, external auditing, and approvals. I'd even go so far as to say in flight, we should require competitor review. That's right, no trade secrets. If you want your Hello World up in the air, you better let your competitor vet the source code. This is an engineering boondoggle and an embarra…

Isn't there massive avionics commonality with all other modern Boeing AC? On the Airbus side, all types from A320 to A380 share a significant common core.

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#116

Post by mannykannot »

lisper wrote: post #97

This article is incoherent: > “It’s really complicated,” John Hansman, an aeronautics and astronautics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is not involved in the repair, said of revising aircraft software. “It totally makes sense why it’s taking longer.” But then... > While the fix became more complex and politically charged after the second accident -- the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet on…

The impression I got from the article is that they are bringing all (safety-critical?) control-system software up to 21st-century standards of redundancy.

It was not clear to me whether it would be possible, in theory, to fix MCAS alone, and if so, who decided that it was necessary to go beyond that - Boeing? The FAA? Other countries' regulators? The airlines? None of these entities want another round of "you didn't fix it right", though their perception of risk and tolerance of it may vary.

AFAIK from this article, none of the earlier generations of 737s will be so modified, even though their systems are presumably very similar, in all non-MCAS aspects, to what the MAX first flew with. That's quite arguably a rational choice, once you recognize that there is a cost - benefit tradeoff even in air-travel safety.

This is a sort of technical debt situation. Ironically, if Boeing had not tried so hard to game the regulations, MAXes could be flying today with less fault-tolerance than they will have when they return.

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#118

Post by MFLoon »

uxp100 wrote: post #104
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised, if managament is broken to it's core, the situation is "Do this unethical thing or we'll find someone who will!" Computer Scientists aren't usually taught engineering ethics and definitely get fired all the time for arbitrary reasons.

Is that true that CS students don't take an ethics course? I have a 10 year old SE degree and I took 3, only 1 of which was engineering specific. (I took a philosophy ethics course, which really isn't that relevant to issues like these anyway, but also a course that was specific to ethical issues in computing.) OTOH, I'm skeptical those courses change behavior, and in this particular case others in comments are sayin…

SE = structural engineering? That's cool, I'm glad your discipline is receiving some ethical training. I've never heard of any CS program including any sort of engineering or general ethics courses in their curricula.

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#119

Post by branchan »

danso wrote: post #10

FWIW, the near-crash in the simulator was apparently not directly related to MCAS, but occurred when Boeing "simulated what would happen if gamma rays from space scrambled data in the plane’s flight-control computers." > In one scenario, the plane aggressively dove in a way that mimicked what happened in the crashes on the grounded jetliner, the people said. While such a failure had never occurred in the 737’s histor…

I find it hard to believe that they are completely re-designing the avionics/flight computers because of this gamma ray incident. There must be another reason.

If it's seriously the main concern, wouldn't it be much easier to just encase the computer in several inches of lead shielding?

Re: Delays in Boeing Max Return Began with Near-Crash in Simulator

#120

Post by raisedbyninjas »

anticensor wrote: post #38
davidhyde wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, the MAX was only designed to beat the competition to market with the least amount of re-certification and re-training. That gamble (with Boeing's reputation, the FAA reputation and most importantly, people's lives) did not pay off. They won't get away with rushing though certification of a complete rewrite of their flight software. The world is watching now. Time to cut losses and junk the MAX entirely.

Slightly redesigning the wings and fitting 4 engines which are sized similarly to ones in 737-400, instead of 2 large engines might solve the problem.

The entire point of the Max was to use these two new large higher-efficiency engines.
Post reply on HN