Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

161–170 of 188 posts

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

#161
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…

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…

> have no such expectations of going faster than anything before

They have many other unprecedented expectations, such a fuel usage and safety.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The MD11 in question is a defunct design from 38 years ago. We are building better planes now.

UPS is as old as the plane in question and has only had three fatal accidents in that time with millions of flight hours, most of them on retired airliner frames.

Yes, Boeing had a monumental fuck up with the MAX redesign. However, their last blank page design was the 787 and is seen as completely revolutionary in terms of materials and efficiency. Let’s talk about that plane. It burns 20% less fuel than the planes it was designed to replace, and has a number of incredibly impressive engineering feats purely for passenger comfort- pressurization altitude and window size being the most impressive. It doesn’t sound impressive, but the design ask is: make a lighter plane, with bigger holes in the structure, that can withstand more pressure, and use a material and process that has never been used before. The only fatal incident on the 787 is still under investigation, but is almost certainly pilot error or suicide. Other plane and engine safety technology have allowed ETOPS making it possible to use efficient twin engine jets operate overwater flights that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago.

Jets today are quieter (by such a huge margin that it isn’t legal to operate the original 707 engines at most western airports), more efficient and safer than ever.

In the era that the SR-71 existed in, it was actually pretty common for planes to crash due to design defects (DC-10, Comet, 707, and more). The 737 MAX defect was so shocking because it has been 50+ years since that was common.

The SR71 is a simpler plane in many ways than a modern airliner. The composite technology to build a 787 didn't even exist at that time, and the engine alone on the 787 is far more impressive engineering and material science than the SR71. And there are two companies that figured out how to make them without a blank check from the CIA. The 787 produces more than double the thrust of the SR-71, and most passengers barely are aware of the miracle they are participating.

The SR-71 is an undeniably cool project. I have seen several up close, sat in the cockpit and they are literally awe inspiring. What we build today are airliners that are seemingly boring but built and designed with technology and materials that Skunkworks couldn’t have even attempted.

We aren’t building things like the SR-71 anymore because we are building things that are far better and more complex. We have Lockheed producing the F-22 and F-35, multiple companies reusing space launch rockets, etc. the real problem is that we have lost our sense of wonder at just how impressive modern aerospace engineering is.

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

#163

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 can hire people (or companies) who can give them that guidance, yes.

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> out of an abundance of caution I’m sorry, but this phrase has worn out its welcome.

How? I'm not particularly attached to it, but it seems to continue to be a commonly used expression and this is the first time I've seen someone raise an objection to its use.

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

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 in light of MCAS every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on operating Boeing aircraft.

And the worst thing is I don't think even after mcas things have substantially improved there. I've seen more spin and damage control than actual safety focus. They could have launched a huge company program and management reorganization to really turn this mindset around.

I think the biggest issue that Boeing is too big to fail. They'll never fall because the government needs them for all their warplanes.

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

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article does not? And the DC-10 was not decommissioned. It is, in fact, still in service.

They may have meant grounded, not decommissioned. DC-10s were grounded alongside the MD-11s. https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/us-faa-broadens-md-11-gr...

Close. I meant decommissioned from the UPS fleet, nearly 25 years ago. MD11 was considered a more modern and flexible replacement.

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

#167

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…

If my elevator manufacturer sent me a note about my elevator wire, but says I have to not do anything, because it is probably nothing my number 1 question would be:

Why did you need to tell me about the wire then?

The answer is an attempt to transfer the liability to me. The liability for a thing they think could happen, but didn't tell me about.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> out of an abundance of caution I’m sorry, but this phrase has worn out its welcome.

Care to say why?

Seems like a perfectly fine phrase to me.

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

#169

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…

There were no passengers on the accident aircraft.

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There were no passengers on the accident aircraft.

That was in a general case, but in this specific case to satisfy you we can postulate that those on the ground would like to be able to get through their day without having their trajectories intersect with disintegrating aircraft or parts thereof.
Post reply on HN