Live data from Hacker News

737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

nytimes.com

131–133 of 133 posts

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#131

Does anyone else here feel aeroplane software should be mandated as being open source? Boeing would have never even dreamed of releasing the 737-Max software in the state it was in and the more eyes you have on things like this the better.

Yes, I feel this way. Public skies, public code.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree. The failure(s) weren’t in the old stuff, they were in the poor and ultimately unsafe cover-up (for lack of a better word) of the new. The CG change from the new engines specifically, being masked by new software, MCAS. The only old part culpable is the legacy 737 limit of 2 AoA sensors (with only 1 used for MCAS input (a new thing)).

If they had used the new technology available in other jets -- the pilots wouldn't have been sifting through paper manuals to find the problem. The would have an actual display. And if they weren't trying so hard to purposely avoid modernizing the cockpit, the issue would have been avoided altogether.

The problem was the MCAS. That's new technology.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#133
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? I think the way you criticize the article is about as faulty as the article itself. This piece is about detailing how the 737 is an outdated design that got patched and patched till it more or less broke. The processing power is just /one/ aspect and is given as a point of reference, like the 1968 photo. I am no expert in aviation, but I…

> This piece is about detailing how the 737 is an outdated design that got patched and patched till it more or less broke. The processing power is just /one/ aspect and is given as a point of reference, like the 1968 photo. I address that in my post and I do not fault the author for pointing out design issues. My issue is with the implication that processing power is an issue. > Nowhere in the article does the author…

>If you're developing a new system, you might as well throw in some faster hardware.

From my experience, this is not how the development of transportation systems work. They throw in faster hardware if they need it, as it is insanely expensive to do so. And I still believe glass cockpits and fly-by-wire need more computing power.

Post reply on HN