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

Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#131

Post by jacquesm »

palmotea wrote: post #125
jacquesm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.

> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well. Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need…

They certainly have a responsibility towards their passengers that goes beyond their relationship with Boeing. Passengers trust airlines with their lives, with Boeing they have 'just' a business relationship.

Airlines have every reason to be skeptical of their supplier even if they do not have the engineering competence to second guess them. They could for instance look through their past communications with the manufacturer and see for themselves which advisories they agree with because for instance they are obviously not safety critical, this would then allow them hire specialists to evaluate the remainder for a second opinion.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#132

Post by InitialLastName »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #85
ksaj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do mention that the DC10 (this plane's predecessor) was decommissioned for similar issues.

The DC-10 and MD-11 are both McDonnell Douglas. They merged into Boeing, but instead of Boeing’s safety and innovation oriented culture, McDonnell‘s finance bros won with their cost and corner cutting measures. Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood.

> Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood.

Please, what fool subjects their own blood to the absence of regulation? If you've got blood on your hands, much better for it to be a customer that has already paid you.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#133

Post by mmooss »

anal_reactor wrote: post #49
mmooss wrote: post #19

Some are forgetting how risk in technology works: No technology is designed or operated without flaws; that's an absurd approach and impossible to implement. To reduce negative outcomes, we use risk management: assessing the likely lifetime cost of the flaw, and taking cost-effective measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. As a familiar example, redundant mass storage drives are much more cost-effective t…

Sure, but the problem is, Boeing is a company that has a proven record of lying about the flaws of their products. There's a huge difference between "shit, nobody thought this part would crack in this way" and "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".

> "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".

The fundamental reality is, we can always spend more to prevent another death; and we must draw the line somewhere.

People don't like it, but your latter example is the risk management I'm talking about, and it's unavoidable. Nobody can make airplanes that have no risk of killing people - the only answer would be no airplanes at all (which would result in more automobile deaths, more deaths because life-saving resources are unavailable, etc.). The calculation of cost per death prevented is a real one, and is done by manufacturers of planes, cars, etc.

The problem with your wording is the criteria of paying damages, rather than the industry-standard value for human life. Again, that is awful to think about but there's no way around it.

Edit: And I'm not saying, at all, that Boeing made the right decision here. I don't know enough to say, and Boeing's safety reputation is poor.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#134

Post by jjk166 »

rabidonrails wrote: post #9
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #8

The headline is missing an important bit. Boeing knew of the flaw, and sent a letter to airlines about it. In 2011.

Well yes but Boeing also said it "would not result in a safety of flight condition." There's a lot of gray going on here.

Which may have been a very reasonable conclusion based on what they knew of the issue. The letter sent out reported a split of the bearing race. A split bearing race won't prevent it from supporting the load. It's easily possible that Boeing's simulation of an aircraft operating with a split bearing race was fine.

The NTSB investigation found that for this crash, not only did the bearing race crack, but also that the bearing lugs, which hold the bearing in place, were fractured. I don't have access to the original text of the letter Boeing sent out, but based on the NTSB report, it sounds like only the issue with the bearing race was previously identified. The two may very well be related, but that doesn't mean that the lug fractures are an expected result of the race failure - perhaps some contributing factor made the lugs more susceptible than predicted. It also remains possible that the bearing damage is a red herring; the aircraft was nearing the end of its service life and had known structural issues in other parts of the pylon. The fact is that for more than a decade after the bearing race issue was reported, it didn't result in a safety of flight condition.

The insinuation that Boeing was deliberately trying to hide or downplay a known issue is simply unwarranted. It would be irresponsible for the NSTB not to mention a known issue that could have potentially been relevant, it's not evidence the issue was improperly handled.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#135

Post by mmooss »

The_President wrote: post #99
mmooss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that as a valid comparison. SR-71s could operate with a much higher level of risk than commercial passenger planes. IIRC, SR-71s leaked fuel on the ground, and their wings dragged on the ground without special attachments. Pilots needed special pressure suits, etc. I also expect that they were much less complex than an aircraft that provides a comfortable, pressurized cabin; the high level of safety menti…

The U-2 is the plane that drags the wings on dolly wheels.

Oops, thanks.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#136

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

snowwrestler wrote: post #127
expedition32 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was replaced because the USSR managed to shoot one down. Spy satellites are as of yet off limits.

I think you might be misremembering the shoot-down of a U2 plane, which was also a U.S. spy plane operating around the same time.

> was

U2 is still in operation.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#137

Post by mmooss »

jacquesm wrote: post #56
mmooss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that as a valid comparison. SR-71s could operate with a much higher level of risk than commercial passenger planes. IIRC, SR-71s leaked fuel on the ground, and their wings dragged on the ground without special attachments. Pilots needed special pressure suits, etc. I also expect that they were much less complex than an aircraft that provides a comfortable, pressurized cabin; the high level of safety menti…

The SR-71 is pressurized. Not to sea level pressure, obviously, but it wasn't exactly unpressurized either. The main reason the crew wore pressure suits is for heat retention and oxygen delivery.

Interesting; I wonder why the bothered to pressurize it. It would seem to add a more complexity to many things - every seal, seam, etc - plus the pressurization system. Maybe some equipment ran better with more pressure.

Even commercial passenger flights are not pressurized to sea level; I think it's something like 8,000 ft. IIRC, Boeing's 787 was designed to be pressurized a bit more which, from on-the-ground experience acclimatizing to altitude, I think could make a noticeable difference.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#138

Post by mmooss »

jacquesm wrote: post #131
palmotea wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well. Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need…

They certainly have a responsibility towards their passengers that goes beyond their relationship with Boeing. Passengers trust airlines with their lives, with Boeing they have 'just' a business relationship. Airlines have every reason to be skeptical of their supplier even if they do not have the engineering competence to second guess them. They could for instance look through their past communications with the manu…

Agreed. Among multiple organizations that large and complex, the buck can be passed infinitely. There's the lowly worker who installed the flawed part - the safest target, of course - who can pass it to the worker who made it, who can pass it to engineer, to their manager, back to the engineer who the manager relied on after all, the CAD software developer, to the materials supplier, to the machine tool manufacturer, the HVAC contractor who made the manufacturing facility too humid ...

For almost any act, we rely on other people. That doesn't absolve us of our personal responsibility.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#139

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

palmotea wrote: post #125
jacquesm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.

> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well. Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need…

perhaps it would behoove a company that routinely has the safety of millions of people a year in their hands to consult 3rd party experts to ensure that those people aren't maimed or killed.

But I'm just some guy with no incentive to endanger human life if I think it will save money so what do I know

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#140

Post by jjk166 »

mmooss wrote: post #133
anal_reactor wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the problem is, Boeing is a company that has a proven record of lying about the flaws of their products. There's a huge difference between "shit, nobody thought this part would crack in this way" and "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".

> "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place". The fundamental reality is, we can always spend more to prevent another death; and we must draw the line somewhere. People don't like it, but your latter example is the risk management I'm talking about, and it's unavoidable. Nobody can make airplanes that…

There is some nuance to risk management here. Yes, no one can make something that has genuinely zero risk, but we can and must eliminate particular known risks. A fix being too expensive is not a valid excuse. There are plenty of things we don't do because there is no economical way to do them safely.
Post reply on HN