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

Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 247 posts

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#171

Post by techslave »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #122
tigershark wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my back of the envelope calculations at the time of the second crash they had worse safety than a car. Did you run the actual numbers?

I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads - if I thought pilots were only as safe as an average driver I'd be worried.

even if that were true (statistically it isn’t), unlike with a plane roads aren’t so tightly controlled and other drivers are barely competent. head-ons happen all too frequently and i’m sure one of the victims is ... a safe driver.

driving isn’t unsafe because of your own (self-assessed) skill, it’s unsafe because of that other 50%.

no matter how safe of a driver you are, you should be worried.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#172

Post by zajd »

phire wrote: post #131
tigershark wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here on hn, on the other hand, there are plenty of people that say that they don’t see any problem in flying on the max once it is again in service. From my point of view I’ll happily let them be the guinea pigs while I’ll avoid at all costs to fly on that death machine.

As long as they give pilots proper training, I'd actually rather fly on the recertified MAX than certain other Boeing planes. They have gone though the whole plane with a fine toothed comb, Identifying any other potential problems. It will probably be the safest Boeing in the sky. This whole MAX situation has made me very nervous about flying on the 787 (built in the same era) or the 737 NG (while it lacks MCAS, some…

> They have gone though the whole plane with a fine toothed comb, Identifying any other potential problems. It will probably be the safest Boeing in the sky.

More like they've done the bare minimum to get the planes back in the air. The entire point of the plane is to avoid having to certify a new frame ie avoid doing exactly what you're implying they've done.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#173

Post by silvestrov »

wayoutthere wrote: post #163
jeffnappi wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to defend Boeing or the folks in these messages in any way, but as I understand it MCAS initially was making use of multiple sensors. It was changed at one point to only use 1[1]. It would be important to know the timing of these messages relative to the development. Another _unverified_ thing I heard was that initially MCAS would only be able to issue a single nose down command, and was later modified to be able…

From what I understand, the decision to change it from using 2 sensors to 1 sensor was specifically because if the system used 2 sensors it was considered a safety system requiring simulator training for the failure scenarios. IMO Boeing should be required to separate the military and civilian parts of the company and allow the military side to build civilian aircraft based on existing civilian models. I honestly thi…

What’s worse is that we will lose trust in FAA as they still allow for a single non-redundant sensor.

At this point FAA should require minimum 2 sensors for something like MCAS which can crash they plane. This should be without regard to any prior certification of the planes.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#174

Post by shadowgovt »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #21
Pxtl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Talk as much crap as you want in person, but what goes in email and web messages and pull-requests and code comments must be immaculate.

Why? I’ve ragged on my employers in DMs, and will often express very blunt concerns about quality/risks in emails or PRs. Providing my opinions in such channels is part of what I’m paid to do. If my employer doesn’t heed my advice, manages to majorly mess something up, and my comments come back to haunt them, why is that my problem?

They can come back to haunt them, come back to haunt you, and come back to haunt people you like at your company who get caught in the blast radius if your words are misinterpreted. Because when written material is disclosed and published, the person who made the original on-a-record statement doesn't usually get to testify as to what they meant, and your words will be interpreted by a litigious party hostile to the interests of your company, and sometimes by the public (after having their expectations primed by the litigious party hostile to the interests of your company).

If you believe that your "ragging on your employers" can stand that level of scrutiny, then by all means, commit them to writing.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#175

Post by shadowgovt »

CheesecakeFred wrote: post #78
elliekelly wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why is that my problem? This kind of attitude is the problem. You’re supposed to be working together toward the same goal. As a team. A team of “not my problem” people who are working only towards their own individual goals (or worse, CYA) is the most toxic team that can exist.

I think you missed the point, "will often express very blunt concerns about quality/risks in emails or PRs" means he straight up communicates any issue without sugar-coating. Which is what you want from a conscious employee. If despite that someone higher up in the decision chain ignores the issue (in the case of safety risks, that is criminal negligence), to continue to fight this battle is pointless and would only…

I think there's a fine line between communicating without sugar-coating and speaking past one's own local knowledge of a problem that a lot of engineers don't recognize.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#176

Post by selimthegrim »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #67

With that pustule breaking up, releasing more and more of that really evil, stinking and ugly slime I start to wonder if that plane goes into service ever again. Maybe the FAA will yield to poltical pressure. But I can't imagine any other certification agency accepting responsibility for any accident occurring on their watch now that more and more about the ugly, incompetent, fraudulent and outright evil engineering…

It’s like a 49 state emissions car or a Mexican market auto. Maybe the Third World will take it.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#177

Post by jcranmer »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #99
fooker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'proven track record' is pretty much non existent at this point.

> Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure Read the whole sentence. Boeing does have a proven track record of serious failures, negligence, coverups... If you were inclined to speculate, you could speculate that this comment is in reference to some sort of serious issue that eventually made it into the production model. How…

The greatest irony of all is that this quote doesn't impugn the quality of the 737 MAX in the slightest. It's entirely about the simulator--which isn't implicated in the MAX disaster since the pilots were not being retrained for it (i.e., using the simulator).

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#178

Post by chopin »

rusk wrote: post #138
chopin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not thinking about this with every keystroke even if you know this. I certainly don't.

I absolutely do. If I'm typing it I'm checking myself just as if I were speaking across an open plan office. The only way you'll ever know what I actually really think about something controversial is if you ask me face to face, or maybe, on a phone call.

> If I'm typing it I'm checking myself just as if I were speaking across an open plan office.

I do this, too. I would call this good manners. But that's wildly different from being aware that the contents might be used in discovery or being published out-of-context. Especially the latter provokes the Richelieu citation.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#179

Post by aguyfromnb »

rurp wrote: post #37

Wow, this article is full of amazing quotes. I highly recommend reading the entire thing. My favorite one I haven't seen posted yet > "I still haven't been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year," one employee says in 2018, referring to an exchange of information with the FAA. Utterly unbelievable, yet also totally unsurprising given everything else that's come out about Boeing recently.

>Utterly unbelievable, yet also totally unsurprising given everything else that's come out about Boeing recently.

What amazes me is that the same thing is happening with Tesla, but HN hardly bats an eye, because Silicon Valley:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-push-to-build-a-self-dri...

Engineers speaking up and getting fired or resigning. What's worse is that, as opposed to having a choice to fly on a 737 MAX, driving on autopilot on public roads puts other people at risk.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#180

Post by rusk »

chopin wrote: post #178
rusk wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely do. If I'm typing it I'm checking myself just as if I were speaking across an open plan office. The only way you'll ever know what I actually really think about something controversial is if you ask me face to face, or maybe, on a phone call.

> If I'm typing it I'm checking myself just as if I were speaking across an open plan office. I do this , too. I would call this good manners. But that's wildly different from being aware that the contents might be used in discovery or being published out-of-context. Especially the latter provokes the Richelieu citation.

what?
Post reply on HN