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

241–247 of 247 posts

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

#241

Post by michaelcampbell »

seibelj wrote: post #10
thaumasiotes wrote: post #3

Geez. > "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No." > Peter DeFazio, [D-Oregon], called newly released documents "incredibly damning" That's hard to argue with. You'd like to think this kind of thing would... leak. Who said conspiracies involving hundreds of people are impossible?

How many people in the government knew about the NSA spying on citizens before Snowden finally spilled the info? That was a massive effort involving many (thousands?) of people. Then when Snowden reveals it, his life is destroyed and he’s forced to live in exile. Sends a very strong warning to any other potential do-gooders considering telling the truth.

The NSA's secret boxes in the now famous AT&T closet were well known long before Snowden

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

#242

Post by _ph_ »

aguyfromnb wrote: post #239
_ph_ wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very fundamental difference. The Tesla autopilot is a mere driving assist system. Like with plain cruise control, the driver is still fully in charge and needs to pay enough attention to take over at any moment. All accidents happened because drivers were not paying attention at all. With the Boeing, the MCAS system put the 737 in a flight state which trained pilots couldn't recover from.

> The Tesla autopilot is a mere driving assist system. Yes, when you follow ambiguous instructions, which contradict things like, "Only waiting for regulatory approval!", or"1 million robotaxis this year!" or "Cars can drive by themselves coast-to-coast!"

The instructions given to the owner of a Tesla are not ambiguous. No where it is claimed that the Tesla drives itself without supervision.

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

#243

Post by robbiep »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #231
robbiep wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source and year of the quote I took from the guardian article I referenced. I’ve got no idea what you mean by ‘long before’, unless you somehow Switched what I was talking about - my point is exactly that the employees were discussing that they wouldn’t fly on it the year following the start of service. QED?

I feel like you haven’t read OP article, or the parent comments in this thread. The quotes I posted above are directly from the NPR article that this thread is commenting on. I wasn’t making any comments regarding Boeing’s culpability, I was specifically commenting on the quality of the OP article. As those quotes are presented in the NPR article, they lack sufficient context to communicate anything meaningful, and b…

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/b...

Sorry for the amp reference.

At least another paper using 2018 as the source year for that same quote.

How the hell this single quote can, ‘without context’ lack enough punch to convey anything meaningful is just wrong. Your attempt at being even-handed here seems totally misguided. If I met you on the street I would immediately assume you’re massively long Boeing. What’s the point? There are no redeeming features from the whole MAX story - every month another piece of disasterous news comes out about the practices of this company and the culture that allowed this to happen

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

#244

Post by tim333 »

asenk wrote: post #238
tim333 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more just dividing the historical statistics eg. >commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles and >390 motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicle miles dividing gives 19500x per mile. Though I do more miles by air. It's all a bit approximate.

1. You can't claim your risk of dying using a particular method of transportation is above another method just by looking at per mile death rates unless you travel a similar distance in both, or say it in a context of making a decision of using one or the other to travel from place to place (although to be precise the length of the trip depends somewhat on the used method). 2. The commercial airlines figure which you…

Well, yeah it's complicated. From the perspective of an all knowing god your chances of dying in some way are probably either 1 or 0 depending on what fate will bring so practical probability estimates are guesses based on limited information. Based on my limited information I'd be happy enough to fly the max. It'll probably be the world's most scrutinised aircraft by the time it flies again anyway.

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

#245

Post by adev_ »

>The monkeys will ruthlessly suppress any evidence

Yeah, I would even say that from the following part "are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate action in response."

The Monkey will fire the clown, while still being employed and probably not being hold responsible for the shit they have done.

Management liability at its best.

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

#246

Post by perl4ever »

tim333 wrote: post #244
asenk wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You can't claim your risk of dying using a particular method of transportation is above another method just by looking at per mile death rates unless you travel a similar distance in both, or say it in a context of making a decision of using one or the other to travel from place to place (although to be precise the length of the trip depends somewhat on the used method). 2. The commercial airlines figure which you…

Well, yeah it's complicated. From the perspective of an all knowing god your chances of dying in some way are probably either 1 or 0 depending on what fate will bring so practical probability estimates are guesses based on limited information. Based on my limited information I'd be happy enough to fly the max. It'll probably be the world's most scrutinised aircraft by the time it flies again anyway.

Guesses based on limited information need to include the information you do have, and not include information you don't have. If a probability doesn't reflect what you know and don't know, it's not valid, period, limited information in general not withstanding.

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

#247

Post by jdsully »

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 only two flight computers - either of which are capable of crashing the plane. With only two its not always possible to know which is incorrect.

Regardless of how much you go over it you can’t fix a fundamentally broken design.

Post reply on HN