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

Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

perell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 234 posts

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#161

Post by OnlineGladiator »

anon1m0us wrote: post #156
pytester wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't have to be on any pitch decks for safety to be downplayed. Its presence or absence on pitch decks is quite irrelevant. You can tell how seriously they took human lives by their default reaction a plane crash. It's always "pilot error": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...

Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.

If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong.

So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#162

Post by didbdidnd »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #161
anon1m0us wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.

If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong. So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on…

I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is.

Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided.

Could be a fiefdom for all I care.

But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”.

But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#163

Post by salawat »

largbae wrote: post #82
privateSFacct wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also relied on a the pilot as a critical control - which is why there was no real automated backup or redundancy. Not unreasonable, doing stab trim cutout is a memory item for most operating manuals - pilots were already the circuit breaker for other stab trim issues. Automation working - great. Maintenance failures? Provide error messages (which occured here). Maintenance issues not resolved and automation misbeh…

s/This accident/These accidents/ As you'll find in this article below, Boeing specifically removed the yoke-back function, which is the natural pilot input to nose up the plane. They also specifically for the MAX removed the separate switch for automatic stab trim assistance, so you have to turn off the motorized function entirely to turn off automated inputs including MCAS. The Lion Air crew could be heard on the ra…

One more thing, the flight computer was eventually found to be a single point of failure after being subjected to testing that should have been done in the first place.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/newly...

Another regulatory no-no that wasn't brought up until the certified aircraft had been out in the wild long enough to kill people.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#164

Post by [deleted] »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #161
anon1m0us wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.

If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong. So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on…

[deleted]

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#165

Post by stjohnswarts »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #52
azinman2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the interview infamous? Did you mean famous?

I suppose its infamous amongst sales and marketing folks.

I would point out that there are very few sales and marketing folks reading hackernews vs engineers and scientists and coders.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#166

Post by lumost »

hannasanarion wrote: post #151
lumost wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do companies with high employee ownership typically outperform those that do not?

How do you define "performing"? Profits for shareholders? Employee satisfaction? Safety record? Market share? It is clear that companies that prioritize profits and market domination do so at the expense of their employees, customers, and safety.

I was thinking that companies with high employee ownership may outperform those with low employee ownership financially over a longer time horizon. In the Boeing example they clearly underperformed on most financial metrics as well as for their customers and employees.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#167

Post by privateSFacct »

largbae wrote: post #82
privateSFacct wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also relied on a the pilot as a critical control - which is why there was no real automated backup or redundancy. Not unreasonable, doing stab trim cutout is a memory item for most operating manuals - pilots were already the circuit breaker for other stab trim issues. Automation working - great. Maintenance failures? Provide error messages (which occured here). Maintenance issues not resolved and automation misbeh…

s/This accident/These accidents/ As you'll find in this article below, Boeing specifically removed the yoke-back function, which is the natural pilot input to nose up the plane. They also specifically for the MAX removed the separate switch for automatic stab trim assistance, so you have to turn off the motorized function entirely to turn off automated inputs including MCAS. The Lion Air crew could be heard on the ra…

Stab trim cutout has been the response item for a long time. Before the stab trim was turned on again the plane was climbing.

"unstoppable MCAS"

* Leave stab trim cut

* Hold electric trim up

* Control airspeed

* etc...

AoA senor is not a single point of failure. The 737 is not a fully automatic / flight protected plane. ie, the plane will continue flying with very little sensor input at all - you can even dispatch with problems with a surprising amount of equipment under the MEL.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#168

Post by pytester »

throwaway66920 wrote: post #129
pytester wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Boeing hadn't subscribed to the view that pilots were an inconvenient expense to be slowly dispensed with with ever more "sophisticated" automation like MCAS they also wouldn't be in this situation. It's uncomfortable to think about but a management fashion that silicon valley helped promulgate killed those 600 people.

Boeing didn’t create the MCAS system because they thought it was a superior design or a labor saving mechanism. They did it to compensate for bad design of the physical plane.

And if the pilots had been trained to turn it off at the right time it would have been safe. They weren't (the plane was advertised as requiring no new training), and boeing made MCAS deliberately hard to turn off.

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#169

Post by ilaksh »

My own personal (fanciful) beliefs:

- at least two executives including the CEO should get life in prison

- at least two people from the FAA should join them

- Boeing should be dismantled and become at least two separate companies.

- The FAA should also be rebuilt from the ground up.

- Create a new type of corporate tax that helps ensure the FAA has a more adequate budget.

- New law that ensures that CEO and some other upper-level decision makers need to have senior engineering experience. (Ideally there would be no executives at all, just engineers, but that's too unrealistic even for my fantasy here).

Re: Boeing Engineers Lost Control of the Company

#170

Post by privateSFacct »

salawat wrote: post #163
largbae wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/This accident/These accidents/ As you'll find in this article below, Boeing specifically removed the yoke-back function, which is the natural pilot input to nose up the plane. They also specifically for the MAX removed the separate switch for automatic stab trim assistance, so you have to turn off the motorized function entirely to turn off automated inputs including MCAS. The Lion Air crew could be heard on the ra…

One more thing, the flight computer was eventually found to be a single point of failure after being subjected to testing that should have been done in the first place. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/newly... Another regulatory no-no that wasn't brought up until the certified aircraft had been out in the wild long enough to kill people.

Is this the five independent bit flips in worst possible order and combination from cosmic rays failure?

First -> if this is your worst failure mode (ie, worse than pilot error, mechanical fatigue and failure, engine failures, fueling issues, crazy passengers etc) then you have a plane and overall safety system that is incredible.

Second -> this wild set of events again does not crash the plane - though it would put the pilots in a bad spot similar to the existing MCAS issues.

Post reply on HN