651–660 of 773 posts
Is Boeing an example of 'too big' to fail? ie one of the reasons it's not out of business due to the multiple failures over the Max is it's just too important to the US economy?
The Europeans would, if it truly came down to the wire, pay quite a lot to keep Boeing afloat, even though they own its main competitor, such is the danger of a monopoly on large commercial aircraft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better metric IMHO is "crashes involving at least one fatality" per flight. For large aircraft the fatalities are often everyone on board or nearly so. So people care about "what is the probability that the flight I'm getting on has a fatal accident?" This is largely independent of number of passengers or miles flown.
I don't get it, is your point that the "deaths per 100M passenger miles" is underestimating the likelihood of death? Doesn't the metric already normalize for number of passengers on a plane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect even at its worst, software development could learn a lot from aircraft QA. Especially since most shops have pretty much tossed professional career QA out the window.
I agree. I’m regularly critical of Boeing Defense (particularly space contracts where I’m a huge Boeing skeptic), but I think people are pretty off base if they think Boeing is just completely incompetent. Airliner safety is insanely good. Just vast seas of competence, but when there’s a super rare failure, the incorrect impression people get is that Boeing (or Airbus) is just full of incompetency. Almost nothing tha…
And there's good reasons for that. Spaceflight actually is regulated pretty strictly (partially, because any spaceworthy rocket is effectively a missile), and space pilots and tourists both sign up for such missions fully knowing that they will have a very significant chance of dying one way or another - there simply hasn't been enough human spaceflight activity to work out and understand all the failure modes, unlike with other forms of transportation.
Humans, unlike birds, aren't naturally wired to travel by air... they need to be able to trust their lives to a significantly higher degree to someone else behaving like they should, because unlike in a car they have zero control (or the illusion of control) in an aircraft.
Additionally, the inherent security risk of an airliner is very high: what is a widebody airplane at its core? Hundreds of tons of weight, a decent portion of which is fuel, propelled at near-supersonic speed, and only two people in control of it. Anything goes bonkers and you can get thousands of people killed and injured (see 9/11).
In contrast, cars, even trucks, have way less capability to cause damage simply because they weigh so much less. The only thing that comes close is railways, and hell I don't get what the US is doing there, there's barely any regulation compared to European standards (see the videos I linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725988).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like the installer did their job poorly and the QA rubber stamped it without checking. Are the QAs required to make photos to prove that they did their job? Like those food delivery people. Alternative is wrong bolts, or sabotage. But more possible - one lazy QA ghosting.
I would doubt one lazy QA, more likely a over worked and time short QA in a company culture that does not allow them to speak up when they need additional support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya but your sample size is way too small to measure the death rate. Aircraft deaths are rare, but flying is too. The two MAX 8s that fell from the sky were 100% Boeing's fault and could have happened in the US. If 5% of airline traffic is in the US you can renormalize those hundreds of dead and you get dozens dead.
We know US pilots have been warning about the same issues that led to the deathly crashes later but were ignored. The thing is, one part of US commercial aviation being so safe is a lot of pilots responsible for the jet airliners are ex-military. Someone mentioned Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, yup, captain Tammie Jo Shults was one of the first Navy female fighter pilots. Miracle on the Hudson? Sully Sullenberger wa…
Not surprising given that pilot training is really really expensive. Airlines love former military pilots because they are a significantly lower financial risk for them. Put them into type rating and off they go, it's rare that one ends up as a dud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In lots of ways, the "learning" there would just be "capitalism". It's inherently short-sighted unless forced to do otherwise by legislation. Cutting small corners pays off A LOT until the hammer falls, so there's a massive advantage to doing it / you need to do it if competition is doing it, or you eventually shut down as they take all your business. It's inherently a race to the bottom. Sometimes that's a net gain,…
All major economic systems of all major national economies over the last century have perverse incentives. It’s not a capitalist thing. Other systems had incentives such as, get it running by such and such date or have yourself and relatives sent to inhospitable place. So people rushed flawed designs into production. That said, upper management at Boeing needs a shake-up. People need to get fired. They need to do wha…
They have, but post-Thatcher neoliberal capitalism has taken the existing perverse incentives and made them exponentially worse. We're on a course heading straight to feudalism, just with fancy titles with legal rights replaced by economic might.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine the quality of the manufacturing and QA / final inspection to have that kind of issue.
I expect even at its worst, software development could learn a lot from aircraft QA. Especially since most shops have pretty much tossed professional career QA out the window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very interesting video that shows a clear picture of how the plug is held in place. Some interesting spots in the video, 8:44 shows how the upper two locking bolts lock the roller pins into the upper door tracks, and 10:00 show the lower two locking bolts onto the sliding hinge posts. 13:10 shows how the door blew cleanly off, with very little damage to the roller pins and lower hinge posts. Some comments say the sam…
The 4 bolts are there to restrain vertical motion of the door which I presume would not involve large forces. They are meant to keep the door on the 4 cylindrical posts and 12 stop pads and it is those posts and pads that take the pressure differential forces on the door and keep it from blowing out. They are way beefier than the bolts and I believe they are still intact on the accident plane.
what if the springs on the lower hinges (that are supposed to keep an upward pressure on the door, supporting its weight) are weaker than necessary or somehow failed and went unnoticed... would that put too much burden on the bolts and other fastening mechanisms and cause them to fail in turn over time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very interesting video that shows a clear picture of how the plug is held in place. Some interesting spots in the video, 8:44 shows how the upper two locking bolts lock the roller pins into the upper door tracks, and 10:00 show the lower two locking bolts onto the sliding hinge posts. 13:10 shows how the door blew cleanly off, with very little damage to the roller pins and lower hinge posts. Some comments say the sam…
Most of the pressure of the door should be supported by the stop pads, rather than the bolts. The force on the bolts should generally be from vibrations, not from pressure differential pushing the door out.
or if some other mechanism like the springs on hinges below grew weaker over time .. would that in turn put too much weight on the bolts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem was software that prioritized input from a fauly external sensor, over pilot control, and literally crashed planes directly into the ground. At a certain step in the sequence it was not physically possible for a pilot to pull hard enough on the control element to counteract the software. Could they have disabled the system? Only if they could figure out the specific software trying to crash the plane. Is…
Pilots should (are supposed to) disable the auto-trim if it's doing something uncommanded/unexpected. Runaway trim can happen for reasons other than faulty software. MCAS was a new factor and they should have been told about it, I don't dispute that at all.