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

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

boeing.mediaroom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 347 posts

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#121

Post by tmd83 »

windexh8er wrote: post #100
Stryder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you. This is some Challenger O-ring type of shitshow. Accidents are on…

> Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you. I wish this statement was held with as much as accountability as this comment implies. But have any of the major outlets been discussing potential prison sentences for Boeing or FAA employees / executi…

If the world was fair they should all (decision makers at Boeing and FAA both) be packed by the lot and send to stand trial in Ethiopia and Indonesia for 300+ murder, which is what I consider this to be.

If you don't have food in your belly and you steal you get jailed. You are not satisfied with your million dollar salary and your billion dollar company profit and don't care if people get killed, you get to have PR firm write how sorry and sincere you are. Justice seems truly blind so many times just not in the way the phrase was coined.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#122

Post by ocdtrekkie »

foobar1962 wrote: post #98
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Aside from this one issue, the plane is likely as safe or safer than every previous 737. With this much public attention, this issue will get resolved and then some. The end result will likely be the safest plane in the air.

No it’s not as safe as previous 737s. The new engine and its position on the wing has changed the whole balance of the aircraft. Like putting a very big engine in a small car: it’s a different car.

It's a different car, but still arguably a safer one. Every part in the 737 MAX is either the same or newer and improved over the previous 737 series. While they should have gone through far more scrutiny in the certification process, the 737 MAX, viewed holistically, is a newer, more modern aircraft that will be safer than older aircraft once the kinks are fixed.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#123

Post by eruci »

cabaalis wrote: post #120
eruci wrote: post #117

The root problem seems to be FAA not having qualified engineers to thoroughly test the planes Boeing makes. Boeing pays better, so it hires the best engineers. FAA pays less so it gets second-grade engineers. And we all pay by flying in unsafe planes.

Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the supposedly better engineers build more safe planes, relegating the poor dunces to only validating the designs from their intellectual superiors? In your hypothetical, they aren't paying more for safety dodgers.

Building a plane is a more challenging task than testing it.

As a developer, I can say the same about writing software. Yet, my software is not likely to kill people and comes with no warranties whatsoever.

In this scenario, we should make sure the test engineers are even more competent than design engineers. We can't rely on designers to thoroughly test what they build.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#124

Post by ams6110 »

pcurve wrote: post #88
781 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. The first accident was maybe understandable. We all know that shit happens. But Boeing has zero excuses for not immediately grounding the whole fleet after, and for putting out that useless recovery procedure which didn't work in this case. They let a deadly plane fly f…

I think lack or major crashes in recent years made them complacent and emboldened them to roll the dice. Then hit snake eyes. Then also may have looked down on the foreign pilots are the airline. Had this been a Southwest plane they may have grounded the plane.

I do think the complacency issue might be a component here. Humans tend to quickly accept recent history as "normal" and over time forget the lessons learned by past disasters.

"Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it"

It's been a couple of decades I think, maybe more, since an engineering screwup affected a passenger airliner like this. You could argue that the 787 LiIon battery thermal runaway thing was a red flag. That also resulted in an FAA grounding, but that was fairly easily remedied and nobody died.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#125

Post by BFLpL0QNek »

cabaalis wrote: post #120
eruci wrote: post #117

The root problem seems to be FAA not having qualified engineers to thoroughly test the planes Boeing makes. Boeing pays better, so it hires the best engineers. FAA pays less so it gets second-grade engineers. And we all pay by flying in unsafe planes.

Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the supposedly better engineers build more safe planes, relegating the poor dunces to only validating the designs from their intellectual superiors? In your hypothetical, they aren't paying more for safety dodgers.

Even smart engineers ultimately have a product manager who makes the call. Many times before I've been on projects where the team said we should not do something in a particular way only for a product manager or their superior to say no, we'll do this as it aligns with company goals or "we'll come back and fix it later".

Then you either have to put up and do it or you'll be strategically moved elsewhere or be managed out of the job.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#128

Post by treis »

msbarnett wrote: post #119
treis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the preliminary report contains data showing that electric trim was re-engaged.

Why are you dismissing the data the report contains indicating that the flight crew was unable to trim manually, that the column forces were incredibly high, and that the captain repeatedly indicated he could not maintain elevator trim without the co-pilot's aid, then? Your responses have been incredibly selective about which parts of the report you take as gospel and which you handwave away as "speculation". From wh…

>Why are you dismissing the data the report contains indicating that the flight crew was unable to trim manually, that the column forces were incredibly high

Where is that data in the report?

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#129

Post by jfptech »

Airbus had similar issues a while back. The software was forcing the nose of the plane down and the pilots had to fight with it to bring the plane out of a dive.

Is it absolutely necessary for the computer to be adjusting the angle of attack?

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-untold-story-of-qf72-wh...

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2...

*edited to cite sources

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#130

Post by objektif »

BurningFrog wrote: post #110
cyberferret wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. From documents I've seen (which I cannot find the links to now), it appears that the FAA let Boeing themselves do some of the certification work and sign offs. Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, so to speak.

It's called Regulatory Capture, and it happens to all regulatory agencies sooner or later. They become primarily concerned with the interests of the companies they're regulating, rather than the public interest they're in theory tasked with working for. Unfortunately, that is just how a regulated society works.

How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Have you researched regulatory agencies in EU? For example they just blocked a meeger between two massive train manufacturer. Your argument sounds like a weak libertarian talking point.
Post reply on HN