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

Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#231

Post by AmericanChopper »

robbiep wrote: post #222
AmericanChopper wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case the NPR article (which doesn’t mention a date) is just factually incorrect. > Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of the 737 Max long before the plane was approved to fly passengers. > "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No." If that quote was from 2018, then it’s from a year after FAA approval, not…

The source and year of the quote I took from the guardian article I referenced. I’ve got no idea what you mean by ‘long before’, unless you somehow Switched what I was talking about - my point is exactly that the employees were discussing that they wouldn’t fly on it the year following the start of service. QED?

I feel like you haven’t read OP article, or the parent comments in this thread. The quotes I posted above are directly from the NPR article that this thread is commenting on.

I wasn’t making any comments regarding Boeing’s culpability, I was specifically commenting on the quality of the OP article. As those quotes are presented in the NPR article, they lack sufficient context to communicate anything meaningful, and based on what you’ve posted, appear to be reported in a factually incorrect manner (they directly contradict the guardian reporting, so at least one of them must be incorrect).

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#232

Post by fingerlocks »

perl4ever wrote: post #229
thaumasiotes wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conceptualize it as a three-point scale of trust: 1: I will fly with you. 2: I will fly with you without even wearing shoes. (Realistically, I can't imagine why shoes would make a difference.) 3: I would let my family fly with you. If you say you wouldn't put your family in a Max, then your trust in the Max is not at level 3. Logically, this is a very weak constraint; it only shows that trust However, vernacular lang…

This is missing the forest for the trees. The context is a passenger aircraft whose normal job is to transport families, so "level 3" is all that matters.

No, the context is internal communications between employees during the design and construction phase of the aircraft.

Imagine if your conversations of various bugs for a software project that you were building were released after the fact, what do you think they would sound like out of context?

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#233

Post by perl4ever »

fingerlocks wrote: post #232
perl4ever wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is missing the forest for the trees. The context is a passenger aircraft whose normal job is to transport families, so "level 3" is all that matters.

No, the context is internal communications between employees during the design and construction phase of the aircraft. Imagine if your conversations of various bugs for a software project that you were building were released after the fact, what do you think they would sound like out of context?

I generally try not to write things at work that could look bad to the NY Times, but my point was just that it's overanalyzing to distinguish between levels of confidence here. In context, if the crashes hadn't happened, maybe it wasn't all that significant. But at least momentarily, it must have seemed important to the writer. It is true that often at work I'm concerned about something, and it's because I'm confused so when I'm reassured I realize my earlier comments are inapplicable.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#234

Post by salawat »

bradstewart wrote: post #204
zajd wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have gone though the whole plane with a fine toothed comb, Identifying any other potential problems. It will probably be the safest Boeing in the sky. More like they've done the bare minimum to get the planes back in the air. The entire point of the plane is to avoid having to certify a new frame ie avoid doing exactly what you're implying they've done.

They wanted to avoid a new type certification which would force all existing 737 pilots to be retrained and certificated on this aircraft. They can go through the whole plane with a fine toothed comb and still end up with a common type.

They've already recommended simulator time as a requirement to fly it. The shared type cert to avoid retraining is kind of moot.

The sad thing is this could be seen as a successful (in the Pyrrhic sense) business move by Boeing in that they were given an impossible goal, secured sufficient sales to airlines, and show all indications of being on the road to getting away with it if there are still sufficient people out there who are still willing to fly on one afterward.

Just gotta be willing to crack a few eggs, and cash in on that goodwill on occasion, yet the business churns on regardless.

It's a bit sickening to be honest. To be faced with what we're finding, and to show all indications of just moving on with business as usual.

It makes it hard to take anything seriously anymore. Cripes, I used to hang aerospace over my teams as a "you could be in a situation where I'd reject this work wholesale because you haven't convinced me you've thought it through, and I don't feel like killing people down the road."

Now the tables have turned... Even there, in what I thought was the last bastion of "it absolutely must be provably right", it seems that wasn't ever the case, or if it was, the rot has set in so badly as to leave it unrecognizable.

Leaves me feeling like a Diogenes, searching desperately for someone who isn't cutting irresponsible corners, and is dedicated to not just achieving the mission, but caring about how they do it.

Sorry, bit of a tangent there... But jeez. I figured it'd be bad. Not this bad though.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#235

Post by mlyle »

a1369209993 wrote: post #218
smcl wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing were dangerously incompetent w.r.t the 777 MAX, but I have to disagree here - this isn't about putting down whistleblowing or dissenting opinions. What they're saying is they are gonna slap some people on the wrist and issue company wide memo saying something to the effect of "Please don't say stupid embarrassing stuff like this in the company chat or over email". However we are in agreement that this isn't a…

> slap some people on the wrist and issue company wide memo saying something to the effect of "Please don't say stupid embarrassing stuff like this in the company chat or over email". While that's on the low end of the range of severity I'd expect, I can't help but point out that that is , in fact, punitive action and would , in fact, discourage (albeit probably not prevent) any warnings about the next unsafe design.

The actions need to really be understood in context.

If people were joking around and using hyperbole to exaggerate the extent of what they saw as problems, and did this often-- as some engineering cultures do-- a slap on the wrist is justified. That kind of banter creates noise that obscures real concerns about lack of safety.

If they were genuinely concerned and are smacked for creating documentation of it, that is super bad.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#236

Post by tim333 »

perl4ever wrote: post #224
tim333 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those who would fly it. It's about figuring probabilities rather than gut feel. The odds of me dying riding a motorcycle which I do sometimes are like 10,000x those of dying in any airliner crash.

You seem to be confusing "known unknowns" with "unknown unknowns". I find this unaccountably irritating because everybody intuitively knows the difference, and that it's huge, except when they pretend to be "rational". What's the probability of something happening when the probability you are given is probably wrong?

I'm more just dividing the historical statistics eg.

>commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles

and

>390 motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicle miles

dividing gives 19500x per mile. Though I do more miles by air. It's all a bit approximate.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#237

Post by pbhjpbhj »

techslave wrote: post #171
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads - if I thought pilots were only as safe as an average driver I'd be worried.

even if that were true (statistically it isn’t), unlike with a plane roads aren’t so tightly controlled and other drivers are barely competent. head-ons happen all too frequently and i’m sure one of the victims is ... a safe driver. driving isn’t unsafe because of your own (self-assessed) skill, it’s unsafe because of that other 50%. no matter how safe of a driver you are, you should be worried.

I should write a treatise in every post :o)

I'm aware that people over-estimate their skill, I'd have been inclined to say "in the top 20%" otherwise, lol. Whilst my reaction time has slowed slightly, and my focus deteriorated a little with age (IMO), I've been driving cars for 25 years without an at fault collision (taxi driver hit me when I braked hard to avoid killing a dog -- we were sub 30mph otherwise I'd have chosen to hit the dog). Have avoided some accidents for sure. I also hold a full motorbike license, have driven minibuses and car&trailer pairs. I'm aged enough to have calmed down and having ridden motorbikes feel I've much more road awareness than the average driver.

Also, I considered head-ons, etc., where the injured party is not at fault - but whilst they increase the risk an experienced and competent drive can avoid some collisions, mitigate the harm of others, and will nonetheless reduce their chances of being in a collision from their side. If 50% of injured parties are the cause, and I can reduce that 50% by 50% then I've still reduced my chance of being injured by 25%.

Does anyone think that doesn't put me in the bottom 50% for risk?

Still, the point stands that I expect aeroplanes to be better maintained and have more redundant and fail-safe systems than a car; and expect pilots to be better trained and more competent (prevented from driving drugged/drunk/tired more than truck/car drivers, etc.) than the average car driver. So, aeroplanes only having the same per-mile safety as cars is [would be] terrible.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#238

Post by asenk »

tim333 wrote: post #236
perl4ever wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confusing "known unknowns" with "unknown unknowns". I find this unaccountably irritating because everybody intuitively knows the difference, and that it's huge, except when they pretend to be "rational". What's the probability of something happening when the probability you are given is probably wrong?

I'm more just dividing the historical statistics eg. >commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles and >390 motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicle miles dividing gives 19500x per mile. Though I do more miles by air. It's all a bit approximate.

1. You can't claim your risk of dying using a particular method of transportation is above another method just by looking at per mile death rates unless you travel a similar distance in both, or say it in a context of making a decision of using one or the other to travel from place to place (although to be precise the length of the trip depends somewhat on the used method).

2. The commercial airlines figure which you've used is not from using the particular method of transportation, 737 max, which the use of you are justifying with the comparison.

3. If you wear a helmet, don't ride drunk, don't speed and otherwise follow traffic rules it will make riding a motorcycle a lot safer than average.

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#239

Post by aguyfromnb »

_ph_ wrote: post #198
aguyfromnb wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Utterly unbelievable, yet also totally unsurprising given everything else that's come out about Boeing recently. What amazes me is that the same thing is happening with Tesla, but HN hardly bats an eye, because Silicon Valley: https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-push-to-build-a-self-dri... Engineers speaking up and getting fired or resigning. What's worse is that, as opposed to having a choice to fly on a 737 MAX,…

There is a very fundamental difference. The Tesla autopilot is a mere driving assist system. Like with plain cruise control, the driver is still fully in charge and needs to pay enough attention to take over at any moment. All accidents happened because drivers were not paying attention at all. With the Boeing, the MCAS system put the 737 in a flight state which trained pilots couldn't recover from.

>The Tesla autopilot is a mere driving assist system.

Yes, when you follow ambiguous instructions, which contradict things like, "Only waiting for regulatory approval!", or"1 million robotaxis this year!" or "Cars can drive by themselves coast-to-coast!"

Re: Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

#240

Post by asenk »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #219
robbiep wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, the quote you’re referring to was dated 2018. The 737 MAX started operations in May 2017. So the comment was after the plane was regularly flying, and people on the inside were STILL joking about its safety. (0) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/09/boeing-737-...

In that case the NPR article (which doesn’t mention a date) is just factually incorrect. > Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of the 737 Max long before the plane was approved to fly passengers. > "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No." If that quote was from 2018, then it’s from a year after FAA approval, not…

Most outlets say it's from 2018[1] and New York Times seems to have the original which points out that it's from 2018.[2]

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=Would+you+put+your+family+on... 2. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6653-internal-boeing...

Post reply on HN