71–80 of 205 posts
Does it matter? Nobody with any sense or care for their fellow human being should be flying now.
It’s not clear that’s true. Flying doesn’t appear to be causing covid to spread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the plane is aerodynamically flawed by design. I'll never step foot on one.
Aerospace controls engineer here - while the airframe might not be passively stable (as is common for civilian aircraft), dynamically unstable aircraft have been stabilized with control software since the 70s [0]. If you've flown on an MD-11, you've flown on an 'aerodynamically flawed' aircraft. Most real systems are dynamically unstable without some kind of controller (implying software) in the loop. [0] https://en.…
I’m at a point where I just opt for carriers with Airbus fleets. I do not trust modern day American corporations nor the oversight bodies. There are too many financial incentives to cut corners.
For years after AF447 I was nervous flying airbus. In reality, it's extremely unlikely that you'll die flying. (I'd be nervous flying a Max too, but it's not rational.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For years after AF447 I was nervous flying airbus. In reality, it's extremely unlikely that you'll die flying. (I'd be nervous flying a Max too, but it's not rational.)
The difference with AF447 was that the aircraft at no point was defective, it was purely confusion on part of the flight crew and the issue with two pilots "in control" which the Captain absolutely should have dealt with.
Obviously the subsequent decisions were what ultimately led to the disaster.
People make mistakes. Systems (human and technological) fail. The holes in the Swiss cheese sometimes line up just enough to permit a tragedy, as issues with training and maintenance lined up with an inexcusable design flaw to allow one crash and then bureaucratic inertia and incompetence (and perhaps even a little racism) allowed a second. The reason modern commercial air travel is so absurdly, unimaginably safe is that we always, always make sure we understand these events when they lead to tragedy or even just near misses.
This has happened before. If you think aircraft automation vs. pilot is a new problem, take a look at Airbus' history. The pre-MAX 737 (arguably the safest commercial aircraft in widespread use) shipped with a flaw in its rudder actuator design that took four crashes and a half-dozen near misses to finally figure out. I'd happily board one (MAX or otherwise) tomorrow, knowing that among the myriad of things that might kill me, rudder actuator failure or MCAS won't be found. Because we fix these things when we figure them out. And not just the part. The process that allowed the part to fail so tragically as well.
Remember the DC-10? Even a cursory read of its history puts the MCAS affair to shame, and it ultimately killed not only hundreds of passengers but the reputation and brand of the legendary Douglas Aircraft. Know what else? Still flying. Pilots love them, although they call them MD-10s now and they're rarely used for passenger service. There's a good chance your next package from Amazon will fly on one to get to you. And when the pilots board one they can be pretty certain that even if the plane kills them, it won't be with a cargo bay door failure. Because we fixed that.
What do people propose? Shut down Boeing? Let Airbus have a monopoly on commercial air vehicles? That's won't serve safety. Start buying our aircraft from Tupolev? Might want to check their record first.
Want carriers to just scrap their 737 MAX tails? Right now? That's the same thing as just declaring bankruptcy. The investment in a commercial aircraft takes years of steady use to pay off, and no one in the industry is in a financial position to take that hit. Once the aircraft are deemed safe (and, trust me, the MCAS problem will be solved), they should be flown. If you really want to save a lot of lives, lobby to hold the automobile or pharmaceutical industries to even a fraction of the standards we require of commercial air travel carriers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the engine placement hasn't been changed and that was the underlying problem that lead to everything else.
To be a bit more nuanced, it's not that the engine placement was the problem, rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes. The engine is the start of the problems
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For years after AF447 I was nervous flying airbus. In reality, it's extremely unlikely that you'll die flying. (I'd be nervous flying a Max too, but it's not rational.)
The difference with AF447 was that the aircraft at no point was defective, it was purely confusion on part of the flight crew and the issue with two pilots "in control" which the Captain absolutely should have dealt with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Pitot_tu...
But that's not what made me nervous about Airbus. Rather, that's when I learned that Airbuses are flown by side-sticks that aren't mechanically linked while Boeings are flown by yokes which are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Side-sti...
The idea that two pilots can provide conflicting inputs without realizing it bothers me from a design standpoint.
What's the alternative? There was a flaw in the aircraft design, a dreadful one. Some fundamental structural issues and conflicts of interest at the FCC (that the NTSB has been complaining about for roughly its entire existence) were again highlighted. Boeing executives turned out to be as subject to lying to themselves when making difficult decisions as the rest of humanity. Other nation's certification processes tu…
Not once, but TWICE, software taking readings from faulty sensors caused the airplane to nosedive into the ground, killing every single person on board, with the pilots powerless to take over.
It happened once, Boeing and the U.S. government reassured everyone that it wasn't going to happen again, then it happened again.
When nations around the world began to issue emergency orders to ground the 737 MAX, the U.S. was the last to do so.
The leaked emails from Boeing indicate clearly that this was not a freak accident, but a product of a corporate culture of irresponsibility and recklessness at Boeing reaching mind-boggling proportions. [0] Here are some quotes from said emails:
"This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."
"We'll probably have to go to other regulators around the world to Jedi-mind trick them into accepting the FSB findings, but that shouldn't be too hard."
"Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't."
"I still haven't been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year."
> What do people propose? Shut down Boeing?
No. What I propose is what I'm doing; I don't fly on Boeing planes anymore. If I see a flight change to a Boeing plane, I call the airline and demand to be switched to a different flight. It worked once, and I plan to keep doing it.
> Want carriers to just scrap their 737 MAX tails? Right now? That's the same thing as just declaring bankruptcy. The investment in a commercial aircraft takes years of steady use to pay off, and no one in the industry is in a financial position to take that hit.
I don't care what carriers have to do. At this point, I would consider it justice to see Boeing go bankrupt. And I really don't care if every airline that runs Boeing planes goes bankrupt. Companies come and go. Money is made and lost. But human lives cannot be returned and corruption like this can't be allowed to continue.
But that won't happen. What will happen is that the government will continue to bail out all the above, indefinitely. But if enough customers begin showing concern over Boeing, the airlines will purchase their planes less and less, and we can expect things to get better, either with Boeing's demise or its reform.
----
[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/outrageous-messages-from-boe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the engine placement hasn't been changed and that was the underlying problem that lead to everything else.
To be a bit more nuanced, it's not that the engine placement was the problem, rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes. The engine is the start of the problems
No, this is a persistent and pernicious myth on HN – that the MCAS was some sort of “737 Emulator” intended to allow the plane’s customers to avoid pilot training.
In reality, during testing it was discovered that the engines’ new position caused the stick forces to invert in some situations during flight. “The stick forces invert” means that it becomes easier to pull into an aerodynamic stall than push away from it.
This fails a Fundamental Airworthiness Requirement that all commercial aircraft are required to conform with for certification.
Boeing’s “solution” was MCAS – using the stabilizer trim to automatically push the plane’s nose down as it approaches a stall (and therefore putting additional force on the stick that keeps it at all times easier to push away from the stall than pull into it).
The pilot training thing was just that they concealed the existence of MCAS from pilots out of fear that it would prompt calls for additional training.
tl;dr the problem was that the engine aerodynamics made the plane fundamentally uncertifiable without a software hack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference with AF447 was that the aircraft at no point was defective, it was purely confusion on part of the flight crew and the issue with two pilots "in control" which the Captain absolutely should have dealt with.
The pitot tubes had iced-over and it wasn't the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Pitot_tu... But that's not what made me nervous about Airbus. Rather, that's when I learned that Airbuses are flown by side-sticks that aren't mechanically linked while Boeings are flown by yokes which are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Side-sti... The idea that two pilots can provide…