FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#341

Post by pas » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 8:41 AM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #290

pas wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem was that because it was an unknown component its failure mode was not known, which created/exacerbated the panic. There is a simple procedure, which is already part of the standard memory checklists. What to do in case of runaway trim. The pilots must/should be able to notice the trim wheels spinning, they then can disable trim motors and fall back to manually cranking them. The problem is, panic makes a…

Well also the fact that the stabilizer can get trimmed far enough that the aerodynamic load on the rear stabilizer exceeds the pilots ability to move it manually. In that case the only real solution early in take off would be to re-enable the trim system so you could use the trim motors. The other solution to that situation is to nose down to release some of the pressure on the stabilizer so they can be manually cran…

I wasn't aware, and seemed quite ridiculous that there was not enough torque to rotate the screw, but looking at it, the angel of the helical threading is pretty steep.

https://www.netairspace.com/photos/N37474/United_Airlines/Bo...

And it turns out this can/happens even with the electronic motorized way, and there is a maneuver to work around the load. But it got removed from the manual...

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/619326-boeing-advice-aerodyn...

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#342

Post by BorRagnarok » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 8:45 AM UTC

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #287

hwestiii wrote: post #234

This all points up the glaring conflicts of interest in the corporate business environment. Most of us think that Boeing is the business of building airplanes, but as a publicly traded company, its real business is making money for its shareholders, and aerospace is just a vehicle toward that end. The Boeing CEO's steadfast refusal to take responsibility for these two crashes are nothing more than CYA designed to lim…

This is only the beginning of a question. It's not obvious how the responsibility for those deaths should be allocated. What's the tolerance threshold for airline fatalities?

In Boeing's eyes that tolerance is above 300 deaths for about a year of flying a single model, obviously. So for about $20B profit each year, that's about 15 dead men, woman and children for every billion in profit. That's probably how Boeing execs calculate it, if they even care.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#343

Post by BorRagnarok » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 8:54 AM UTC

jussij wrote: post #139

dplgk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely they'll rename the plane at this point.

I could see how in the day of the internet that move might backfire rather badly. The new plane might quickly turn into a internet meme.

Let's hope they do so we can meme it to death. It shouldn't fly any more mile anyway, just out of respect for the victims. It's like trying to recertify the Hindenburg at this point.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#344

Post by laythea » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

BorRagnarok wrote: post #337

laythea wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what would be unearthed should they also choose to look at Boeing's other planes in such similar scrutiny.

Me too. I know the 787 is choke full of design and construction errors as well, but am curious about the others. We'll have to wait on any model to start falling out of the sky regularly to get an answer though. Because as long as it doesn't fail they're sure as hell not going to check. That's how you design planes at Boeing see? You half ass a plane, and then let the public beta test it.

Is this why third world state airlines seem to be first in line to test the new models (Ethiopia etc). They get an extra good deal on them. Makes me sick really, that this is the world we are in.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#345

Post by BorRagnarok » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 9:58 AM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #241

cmiles74 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer that Boeing be put out of business, rather than "learning a lot from this process". I think that the word "unfortunate" is too conservative to cover this situation. A corporation is not a person and punishment isn't always the answer, but we are looking at a lot of deaths and this new issue sounds like it could have caused even more. If the FAA had missed this one we could have been looking at another…

Boeing is never going to be "put out of business." They are too important to the US economy and US national defense for that to ever happen. What could happen (but still unlikely) is that those within the company who made the decisions that led to the deaths of 300 people could be held to account in a court of law.

> What could happen (but still unlikely) is that those within the company who made the decisions that led to the deaths of 300 people could be held to account in a court of law.

Sorry, I laughed. That will never happen. Boeing may go under, but those rich bastards will always be able to stay out of jail. Name me one exec of a plane manufacturing company that has gone to jail over a crash. There aren't any.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#346

Post by foldr » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 11:21 AM UTC

jussij wrote: post #327

foldr wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsdesk/docume... "When both sticks are moved simultaneously, the system adds the signals of both pilots algebraically."

Thanks for the link. It is a very interesting read. In particular it also says this: To avoid both signals being added by the system, a priority P/B is provided on each stick. By pressing this button, a pilot may cancel the inputs of the other pilot. From this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 As pilot flying, Bonin took control of the aircraft via the side stick priority button and said, "I h…

Yes, indeed, I have not found any reliable source for the claim that both pilots were making significant stick inputs simultaneously for any extended period of time.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#347

Post by alexis_fr » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #323

navigatesol wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because if people could see what happened they would never fly one of those things again. They might not anyway. As it is, people are irrationally afraid of flying. Plane crashes are a fetishized "nightmare scenario". Multiple crashes linked to the same plane (or company) will, likely, have terrible business consequences.

Well we can hope, can't we? As long as no exec at all is going to go to jail for this, I say let Boeing die. It's the least we can still do for those 300+ victims and their families.

« Let them die, or at least never use them for passenger travel anymore » is what they said for McDonnell Douglas (DC-9, DC-10 and MD-11 must represent half of Air Crash Investigation episodes), the company lost a lot of value.

So Boeing bought it.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#348

Post by toss1 » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

Rescis wrote: post #320

toss1 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the cause and effect backwards. I have had the opportunity to observe a very wide variety of businesses in several industries and have noticed the same thing as multiple studies - a high degree of sociopathy among execs. My conjecture is that this is both because aggressive sociopathy will help people rise among the ranks, and also because the structure of business will tend to actively select for those trai…

Im curious about the study that shows the causation of lowered compassion with higher income?

Here's a couple articles referencing some of the studies

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/06/10/2016/wealth-c...

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#349

Post by ordu » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

ddalex wrote: post #333

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Suppose Bob fires a gun into a crowded area and happens not to hit anyone. I didn't hurt anyone! It's my right as a consequentialist!" Bob still goes to prison. Beyond that, engineering is about using a principled approach, by definition. Throwing something together ad-hoc and finding that it happens to work, is not what is meant by 'engineering'.

I think your analogy misses the point that a core scope of engineering is reducing cost. Firing a weapon in a crowded area is not a scope of anybody, bar terrorists. If Bob would be a humanitarian terrorist, him firing the gun in a crowded area and not hitting anyone would be a great outcome for him, even if he didn't hit anybody just by chance.

> a core scope of engineering is reducing cost.

A core scope of engineering is to make technologies to make life of people better without killing them. To reduce cost is a one of instrumental goals helping business to do more than it might have done without it.

To risk someone's life is a very bad idea, even if it increases profits.

Re: FAA Finds New Risk on 737 Max, Orders Boeing to Make Changes

#350

Post by firethief » Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #176

firethief wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since the emergency system is not used normally, it's easy to overlook a critical problem. This is a such an important antipattern when robustness is a goal.

Totally agree. Done it myself more times than I care to admit. One small quibble, if I may. Originally "antipattern" used to mean something that looks like a good design pattern, but will actually bite you in the end if you used it as intended. This is not so much an anti-pattern as it is an unfortunate reality (you have to maintain compatibility with external interfaces for the length of the project). How much bit r…

I was thinking of set-it-and-forget-it backup systems as the antipattern, as opposed to e.g. designs that regularly force the "backup" system into active use under controlled circumstances. The battery connector represents sort of a backup of the backup though, so it may not be a good example of what I was thinking of.