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

141–150 of 188 posts

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

#141

Post by cmurf »

autoexec wrote: post #12
rabidonrails wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A former air accident investigator who works as an aviation safety consultant said "It's extraordinary that Boeing concluded that a failure of this part would not have safety consequences," and said the report was "disturbing" Doesn't seem like gray to me. It seems a company who has a history of cutting corners and ignoring or downplaying safety problems did exactly that in this case too which resulted in the deaths…

Laws that limit liability promote “cost of doing business“ mentality as if lives are acceptable losses.

This is how you get mentally and morally weak bean counters running companies instead of engineers with a conscience. It’s an engineering company and yet it’s run like a bank that just so happens to have an engineering branch.

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

#142

Post by nradov »

ses1984 wrote: post #126
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…

Maybe the airline doesn’t but their insurance company should, if not directly than indirectly.

That's not how it works. Insurers don't have the resources or technical competence to second guess aircraft manufacturer maintenance guidelines.

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

#143

Post by ToucanLoucan »

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…

I would say no. UPS bought the planes from Boeing. Boeing built them, Boeing identified the flaw, Boeing notified it's customers, and said it wasn't an issue.

Frankly I put it squarely on Boeing.

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

#144

Post by 12_throw_away »

Reading the actual NTSB report [1], my first reaction is just my usual awe at the professionalism of the NTSB. They started with a 3000-ft-long debris field and in the end could say "here are the microscopic stress fractures in the left pylon aft mount bulkhead's wing clevis spherical bearing assembly's ball element's forward bearing race".

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20I...

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

#145

Post by roncesvalles »

ceejayoz wrote: post #79
hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. And you could pay for the MCAS to use both sensors which all US airlines did. Edit: I was misremembering. Both sensors were enabled on all planes and MCAS only used one at a time on all planes. What was disabled, unless paid for, was software which displayed to the pilots that the 2 sensors were disagreeing, which would immediately have alerted them to what may have been wrong. > According to Bjorn Fehrm, Ae…

It’s kinda darkly refreshing that purchases in the tens/hundreds of millions of dollars still try to nickel and dime you.

Such a terrible business decision considering the crashes and their impact on Boeing's reputation. If you think a feature will keep the product from catastrophic failure, it should be standard on every unit you sell.

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

#146

Post by tiahura »

12_throw_away wrote: post #144

Reading the actual NTSB report [1], my first reaction is just my usual awe at the professionalism of the NTSB. They started with a 3000-ft-long debris field and in the end could say "here are the microscopic stress fractures in the left pylon aft mount bulkhead's wing clevis spherical bearing assembly's ball element's forward bearing race". [1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20I...

To be fair, there were a few folks on x avh and the other typical sites who guessed the cause pretty quickly.

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

#147

Post by jacquesm »

mmooss wrote: post #137
jacquesm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 experi…

Running stuff in an unpressurized environment at that altitude brings another set of challenges.

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

#148

Post by vsgherzi »

mmooss wrote: post #18
vsgherzi wrote: post #13

Insane that we can have places like the skunk works create the sr71 and operate on shoe string budgets but the largest passenger plane company in the world can’t accurately assess risk on planes far under the former planes Mach 3 record

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…

Much less complex? I'm not sure about that for a plane that's expected to travel so fast. In terms of features I'm sure modern passenger planes have quite a bit more. I'm sure planes are absolutely safer now, the point I'm trying to make is the SR71 was thought to be almost impossible to make yet they were able to do it with an impressively small team and (rumored) budget. Yet so many years later we struggle to make reliable workhorse planes that have no such expectations of going faster than anything before. I don't think it's a stretch to say that we could and should be making much better planes.

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

#149

Post by ses1984 »

nradov wrote: post #142
ses1984 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the airline doesn’t but their insurance company should, if not directly than indirectly.

That's not how it works. Insurers don't have the resources or technical competence to second guess aircraft manufacturer maintenance guidelines.

When it’s your hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go find experts who have the competence needed to do a proper risk analysis.

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

#150

Post by vsgherzi »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #25
vsgherzi wrote: post #13

Insane that we can have places like the skunk works create the sr71 and operate on shoe string budgets but the largest passenger plane company in the world can’t accurately assess risk on planes far under the former planes Mach 3 record

Look up the hull loss numbers on the SR-71. More than a third of them were lost in incidents despite never making contact with the enemy. It was also insanely expensive to operate: $300k/hour in 1990 dollars, and there aren’t reliable numbers on development costs with all of the black budgets.

the point I was trying to make is that the creation of the sr71 was a physics defying problem and something considered nigh impossible. A passenger plane has much less complex expectations. Now don't take this to meant none at all, of course they have to operate 24/ 7 and have high reliability and safety. However, in a world where we can build the SR71 I don't see what we can't build the latter. We can and should be building better planes. I think that's pretty evident with this issue and the infamous software issue of the other boeing planes.
Post reply on HN