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

Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 137 posts

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#41

Post by x1ph0z »

WWLink wrote: post #38
hkmurakami wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mirrors my experience in automotive regarding the sentiment for hardware vs software.

I think that's often the case in any company that doesn't sell software as a product/service. I know automotive companies are really terrible at it. That said, I'm not sure what level of engineering they do anyway. It seems like at best they design the chassis and maybe the engine. Everything else appears to be contracted out to some other firm. Is that the case?

Not sure about other car companies but my last job was at GM where I worked on their android auto platform. GM had before outsourced their development, but found the quality to be lacking so they have started to move software development in-house.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#42

Post by baddox »

p1necone wrote: post #33
perl4ever wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders by definition are not short term investors. Short term investors own bonds, short term ones to be specific. So it makes no sense that shareholders are scapegoated for everything. Even if someone trades in and out of Boeing stock in a millisecond, the existence of someone to sell to depends on people having an indefinitely long view of the company.

Why do large publicly owned companies optimize for maximizing the next quarters results at the expense of everything else then? Perfectly rational investors with infinite lifespans might do what you say, but in reality most people are fickle, short sighted and don't actually do much thinking.

How do you even define “optimize for maximizing the next quarters results at the expense of everything else”? Obviously big companies don’t literally do this. I’m pretty sure every big public tech company is currently spending money on products that will not be released before the end of the next quarter.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#43

Post by andrepd »

ljm wrote: post #35
BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels crazy to me to see 'make training profitable'. A) Not everything has to bring you a profit, jeez. B) You know how you profit from training? By actually providing solid training to pilots who then fly your planes skillfully and don't crash and don't have any trouble landing. You not only get money from customers paying you for those pilots to fly them, you also save money by not getting sued into oblivion for…

It feels crazy to me that there's no proper accountability for it. "Let's make training profitable" + every other decision on the software side = 346 dead people. Those deaths weren't an accident, they were a result of Boeing's desire for perpetual growth at any cost, and to try and beat Airbus at their game. No one except the families of the victims will suffer from that. But go ahead and carry a bag of weed and be…

Sadly it's not a feature of Boeing, but a feature of unchecked capitalism.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#44

Post by ljm »

andrepd wrote: post #43
ljm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels crazy to me that there's no proper accountability for it. "Let's make training profitable" + every other decision on the software side = 346 dead people. Those deaths weren't an accident, they were a result of Boeing's desire for perpetual growth at any cost, and to try and beat Airbus at their game. No one except the families of the victims will suffer from that. But go ahead and carry a bag of weed and be…

Sadly it's not a feature of Boeing, but a feature of unchecked capitalism.

I think all of us here remember the setup for the Wall Street crash in 1929. That was influenced heavily by unchecked capitalism, along with the pressure of WW1 going on in Europe and other world events.

One of the responses was to restrict capitalism (it became fettered vs. unfettered at the point). And it was a good one, one that has seemingly been forgotten or ignored.

Unfettered capitalism, through history, is a net loss for society. But the more we deregulate and seek profit at any cost, the more we re-align with that old view.

In this instance, Boeing seems to be ok with the death of ~350 people.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#45

Post by throwaway3563 »

petilon wrote: post #13
MaupitiBlue wrote: post #7

I'm sorry, but what does squeezing jobs have to do with: 1. Drive MCAS with only one AOA sensor. 2. Don't tell MCAS to look for (or even think about) bad AOA data or AOA disagreements. 3. Equip airplane with two AOA sensors as usual, but make the AOA disagree warning light a "value added option" that customers have to pay extra for. 4. Don't actually bother to tell pilots that they don't have AOA disagree warning lig…

You missed the big one that even made MCAS necessary: 0. Reposition the engine forward on the wing such that the airframe is inherently unstable and needs software for stabilization.

What I’ve learned from these 737 discussions: Anyone who uses the term “inherently unstable” is an armchair aerospace engineer. It’s such a vague weasely term.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#46

Post by ragerino »

BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #23
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #5

I hate the "everything must be a profit center" MBA attitude. Boeing is a profitable company because they make machines that fly people from place to place safely and efficiently. Part of that is having training, support, service, replacement parts, sales, manufacturing, IT, R&D, and all the other things required to make things fly. It's easy to sit in a conference room and say "gee, IT hasn't made any money, instead…

It feels crazy to me to see 'make training profitable'. A) Not everything has to bring you a profit, jeez. B) You know how you profit from training? By actually providing solid training to pilots who then fly your planes skillfully and don't crash and don't have any trouble landing. You not only get money from customers paying you for those pilots to fly them, you also save money by not getting sued into oblivion for…

I think what they meant was making training less costly for their customers. It's a lost opportunity, when pilots train instead of sitting behind the wheel/stick flying goods or customers around the world.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#48

Post by petilon »

sokoloff wrote: post #26
petilon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the big one that even made MCAS necessary: 0. Reposition the engine forward on the wing such that the airframe is inherently unstable and needs software for stabilization.

The airframe is not unstable. It exhibits positive longitudinal aerodynamic stability. It’s positively but insufficiently stable to meet certification requirements, which is what required them to add MCAS. MCAS is nowhere near fast enough to compensate if the Max were actually unstable.

> insufficiently stable to meet certification requirements

Sounds like unstable to me. "I am not fat, I am just insufficiently thin".

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#49

Post by codys »

baddox wrote: post #42
p1necone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do large publicly owned companies optimize for maximizing the next quarters results at the expense of everything else then? Perfectly rational investors with infinite lifespans might do what you say, but in reality most people are fickle, short sighted and don't actually do much thinking.

How do you even define “optimize for maximizing the next quarters results at the expense of everything else”? Obviously big companies don’t literally do this. I’m pretty sure every big public tech company is currently spending money on products that will not be released before the end of the next quarter.

Big companies make decisions all the time that harm long term prospects (sometimes in ways that are difficult to measure) in favor of obvious short term gains.

As an example, when I worked for IBM, they furloughed the entire Systems technology group (essentially the folks working on things that aren't pure software or contracting) for a week.

This was done purely to reduce the payroll for the STG so that it's income would look better on the quarterly earnings.

Neither the inability to get anything done for 2 weeks (furlough was staggered so only approx half of folks were out each week) nor any of the follow on effects on project or work force was not enough to impede this type of roughshod pursuit of quarterly accounting numbers.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#50

Post by petilon »

throwaway3563 wrote: post #45
petilon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the big one that even made MCAS necessary: 0. Reposition the engine forward on the wing such that the airframe is inherently unstable and needs software for stabilization.

What I’ve learned from these 737 discussions: Anyone who uses the term “inherently unstable” is an armchair aerospace engineer. It’s such a vague weasely term.

Would you prefer "insufficiently stable" instead? The kinds of mistakes Boeing made are so basic that even laypersons can immediately understand it. Like not having redundant sensors.

Like fixing a hardware problem using software. See this video about the plane's tendency to pitch up at low speed and full thrust. That's "insufficiently stable"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5sboD2oO8

Post reply on HN