Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#191

Post by BurningFrog » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:49 AM UTC

objektif wrote: post #177

BurningFrog wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not something I've dreamed up personally. Economists have done a lot of work in this area (Public Choice Theory) in the last 60 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice Of course, my post above is sharpened and overgeneralized to fit in an online forum. There are more nuances. A current example in the news is Facebook asking congress to be regulated. Thi…

It sounds like you are dreaming of it tough. To make such a strong statement. It is like saying all corporations end up like Theranos or Enron eventually. Economists do a lot of research and disagree with each other violently. So I will not take your links as any proof that regulatory capture is an inevitable end. Yes it is concerning that it happens but there is absolutely no reason to believe it is the fate of all.

Economists don't disagree on most things, but people who don't like to adjust their beliefs according to Economic science often like to think that.

To be fair, Public Choice theory is certainly on the more controversial half of the subfields.

And of course you shouldn't blindly take some random post on this forum as complete proof of how the world works. That would be a foolish gullibility. Then again, completely rejecting it isn't the wisest thing either. At least that's my view :)

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#192

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:53 AM UTC

kaveh_h wrote: post #172

Don’t put the blame squarely on Boeing. It’s clear FAA lacks the expertise to regulate this kind safety issues. It’s not easy for them to have it either since the innovators are always a step ahead but it’s clear they need to shape up. I don’t have any knowledge of the process for verification of new airplane models, but one thought as software developer would perhaps be for FAA to become more digital in their effort…

There is more than enough blame to go around.

Boeing fucked up. FAA fucked up. Boeing management fucked up after Lion. Boeing mgmt fucked up after EA. They should resign in disgrace, not issue self-serving press releases.

Shame!

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#193

Post by dingo_bat » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:54 AM UTC

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #149

supernova87a wrote: post #143

This has been a 50 year problem in the making, and whether it's for better or worse should be more carefully studied. Because here's my understanding of the history: Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects. You would se…

Can you provide evidence the FAA lacks sufficient expertise?

The existence of 737 max is not enough?

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#194

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:54 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

[deleted]

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#195

Post by jimktrains2 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:09 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #34

781 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did that. Doesn't prove a thing. https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-ab...

You think they did that with pilots specifically trained in MCAS functionality, or with pilots from some small country halfway around the world where they were specifically told it was the same as any ol' 737?

The Ethiopian pilots knew and applied the mcas-related procedures.

Also, Ethiopian airways is quite old and had a good safety record.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#196

Post by Latteland » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

Yeah, this is better than their initial "what, me worry" response. They should just own up to their screw up. They will owe giant fines and be sued. Their reputation is what is more important long term. Own up to the change.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#197

Post by dingaling » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

jfptech wrote: post #129

Airbus had similar issues a while back. The software was forcing the nose of the plane down and the pilots had to fight with it to bring the plane out of a dive. Is it absolutely necessary for the computer to be adjusting the angle of attack? https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-untold-story-of-qf72-wh... https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2... *edited to cite sources

Issues?

"The occurrence was the only known example where this design limitation led to a pitch-down command in over 28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft"

The common-platform A330/40 had been in service for 15 years before this event. It really was a freak failure of one computer unit which went haywire and which led to a design change to mitigate it. That was 11 years ago.

It is deceptive to claim it's anything like the 737 Max issue.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#198

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #160

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a different car, but still arguably a safer one. Every part in the 737 MAX is either the same or newer and improved over the previous 737 series. While they should have gone through far more scrutiny in the certification process, the 737 MAX, viewed holistically, is a newer, more modern aircraft that will be safer than older aircraft once the kinks are fixed.

Every time you change part of a system, even if you claim you're "improving" it, you introduce risk. That is my holistic view of this aircraft: the 737's record is not meaningless but it is also far from the whole picture for the MAX. Any new system introduces the potential for defects that were not present on previous models, and for unanticipated integration issues with existing systems. Add in the facts that Boein…

Historically, a lot more than 346 people have died in previous versions of the 737 and in the Airbus A320.

And speaking of the previous 737s, perhaps you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

Which is to say, early defects in construction which were later resolved is not actually wholly uncommon to just this aircraft line, and planes of that model are still literally flying around today.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#199

Post by m_mueller » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #53

ams6110 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this playing out in a couple of possible ways. One is that it ends up like the DC-10. Public confidence is lost, even though the problem is fixed. The aircraft end up going into freighter service. The other is that they make a convincing case that the problem is resolved. I don't know if that's possible given today's default hate for big corporations, we'll see. They've done it before with the 737 and the rudde…

In all fairness this plane is only a danger to its crew (and to regular commuters). Even without the software fix, the probability that you get into a crash in one of the few times in a year when you make a leg in this plane is still infinitesimal. For the crew that spends the whole year in there, different story.

I assume that AoA sensor disagree would have been warned about still on the ground. Even if both fail, a new take off checklist will probably include comparing AoA information with analog instruments. If one sensor failure is 10E-5, two simultaneous should be 10E-10, multiplied with assumption of competence (say 99/100 will now know how to deal with it), which gives 10E-11 - 10E-12. I.e. I wouldn't worry about MCAS anymore after every plane has been updated.

What I would worry about is departure stalls, as MCAS doesn't seem to solve these. I wonder whether there isn't another 10E-5 to 10E-6 risk in there and people have just been lucky so far. Another MAX8 crash involving a stall would kill this plane I think, as it would prove much more that it's inherently unsafe.

Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

#200

Post by caconym_ » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:24 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #198

caconym_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time you change part of a system, even if you claim you're "improving" it, you introduce risk. That is my holistic view of this aircraft: the 737's record is not meaningless but it is also far from the whole picture for the MAX. Any new system introduces the potential for defects that were not present on previous models, and for unanticipated integration issues with existing systems. Add in the facts that Boein…

Historically, a lot more than 346 people have died in previous versions of the 737 and in the Airbus A320. And speaking of the previous 737s, perhaps you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues Which is to say, early defects in construction which were later resolved is not actually wholly uncommon to just this aircraft line, and planes of that model are still literally flying around today.

I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be aware of those well-known facts about the 737.

I'm also not sure why you'd reply to my comment when you clearly either haven't read it or have no interest in actually replying to the substance of it.