Live data from Hacker News

US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

bbc.com

341–344 of 344 posts

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All aviation accidents are reportable in most civilised countries, and the reports will be public. For an airliner (which these are) they'll invariably make the news. For little prop planes in GA nobody cares unless someone died. Take an example from Ireland, an island near me. A crew screwed up and typed the wrong temperature into the computer, which calculated take-off thrust based on higher density air than was re…

>A crew screwed up and typed the wrong temperature into the computer, which calculated take-off thrust based on higher density air than was reality May I ask, why does the plane not have an external temperature sensor able to automatically input this data?

On the model of plane they were flying that isn't possible. There was a firmware upgrade which compares the input temperature to the temperature detected by a probe on the engine feed and if they're too different rejects the input temperature (which subsequently means the plane acts as though you didn't input a temperature at all, disabling auto-throttle) but their airline had not yet applied this optional firmware upgrade.

The larger answer to your question is Raymond Chen's standard explanation on the The Old New Thing. By default no features are implemented so by default that's why your preferred feature isn't implemented.

The accident investigation was more interested in the other thing, given that for whatever reason the plane's acceleration is inadequate, why don't we realise and abort before V1? Humans turn out to be bad at this, so not much use asking the pilots. Airbus have built planes that measure their own acceleration and warn if it seems too low. So maybe that's the future.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#342
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you choose to categorize a death being caused by "defects" or "user error" is ultimately irrelevant. Any system that's prone by design to user error should be considered equally defective. Even with the two ambiguous incidents on Boeing 737, they are still far safer than the vehicles that people choose to ride everyday for pleasure. I will never ride a motorcycle myself, but would hate to see them banned nati…

If the brakes on your car failed one in every 100k engagements would you feel safe driving your car? Anyways news just in. Sanity prevailed. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47562727

My car is empirically more prone to fatal crashes than the Boeing 737 max. Are you in favor of the government banning you from driving your car?

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there won't. It's not a CEO's job to make kind of call because they're not expected to have that kind of insight into such technical safety matters. Their job is to run the company based off of what the experts tell them; the FAA is literally absolving companies of having to make the decision and shoulder the burden themselves.

Yes it is, the same way a CEO is responsible if the systems of the company are hacked and millions of emails and passwords are lost. They do what security experts tell them. Equifax for sure had lots of experts. Or Sony for that matter. There is a point when a court will decide that "you should have known" and the "expert" defense will not work. It's funny on HN, if it's security the CEO should go to jail for listeni…

Also, you seem to be replying under the impression that I'm talking about the Boeing CEO. I'm not. That comment was about CEOs of airlines not having to make the decision to ground or not to ground their fleet.

Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume it was the FO. Do you think the captain was just watching it all play out as the plane lost altitude?

You are aware of the MCAS being tied to the single sensor on the side of the active flight computer?

I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of disagreeing : to refresh the context of this thread, here's a recap of the thread root:

>> They had a 200 hour pilot flying in the right seat of the crashed airplane. Star Alliance or not, who in the hell defends a low-time student pilot flying right seat in an airliner?

Post reply on HN