Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#41

Post by nikofeyn » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:44 AM UTC

voodooranger wrote: post #25

liability wrote: post #3

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty. There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that…

under what scenario is it okay for a complete failure and the death of over a hundred people because of a single faulty sensor on a brand new airplane?

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#42

Post by dvdkhlng » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:45 AM UTC

voodooranger wrote: post #25

liability wrote: post #3

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty. There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that…

"Six similarities between ET302 and JT610" plane crashes [1].

[1] https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/03/11/six-similarit...

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#43

Post by BinaryIdiot » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:46 AM UTC

Axsuul wrote: post #35

On people eschewing their 737 MAX flights, I would argue it's probably even safer to be on a 737 MAX these next few days since every airline and their pilots will be on edge with that particular model.

If it's a routine maintenance issue then yes but if they're trying to find a design defect then you may not be safer at all. I don't blame people for avoiding them for the time being.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#44

Post by ralph84 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #39

Seems like anti-stall software shouldn't be killing more people than actual stalls. When was the last major airline downed by a pilot error stall anyway?

The pilots of both Air France 447 and Colgan Air 3407 managed to stall perfectly serviceable aircraft in 2009, killing 277 combined.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#45

Post by patrickxb » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #17

anonymouslambda wrote: post #9

Singapore just grounded all their 737 Max flights. Aeromexico and GOL grounded their 737 Max planes today. Soon we’ll (U.S.) be the only country left flying these.

Today was the first time I ever checked the type of plane on a flight.

Me too. Seems like https://seatguru.com is the best site for figuring out the type of plane for a flight.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#46

Post by geofft » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:49 AM UTC

liability wrote: post #30

voodooranger wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty. There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that…

You have the wrong standard of proof. Boeing and the FAA should be erroring on the side of caution, not hiding behind innocent until proven guilty . And in case it's not totally clear, the caution should be for the passengers, not shareholders. > "its AOA sensor was known to be faulty." The plane was what, two months old? It should have been non-lethal even if a troop of rabid baboons was hired to maintain it.

I don't think that's actually rational, in the sense of minimizing loss of life. If you ground all these planes worldwide, what's going to happen? Either people will take older planes, which are in worse condition, or they'll take smaller planes / alternative routes, which are more dangerous, or they'll take cars, which are much more deadly.

Grounding the planes only guarantees saving lives if people stay at home instead, which isn't going to happen. If Boeing legitimately believes these planes are still no riskier than older ones (and it sounds like they do and that they have a reason for that belief), they're saving lives by keeping them in the air.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#47

Post by dvdkhlng » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:49 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #39

Seems like anti-stall software shouldn't be killing more people than actual stalls. When was the last major airline downed by a pilot error stall anyway?

In german we even have a word for this: Verschlimmbessern [1]

Making something worse in an attempt to make it better. As an engineer I'm often concerned about committing such a fallacy.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verschlimmbessern

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#48

Post by nostromo » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:52 AM UTC

ralph84 wrote: post #44

nostromo wrote: post #39

Seems like anti-stall software shouldn't be killing more people than actual stalls. When was the last major airline downed by a pilot error stall anyway?

The pilots of both Air France 447 and Colgan Air 3407 managed to stall perfectly serviceable aircraft in 2009, killing 277 combined.

Exactly my point -- we've just seen 346 people killed by (presumably) an anti-stall system -- when it's been a decade since we've had the problem this system is meant to prevent.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#49

Post by pmart123 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:52 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #39

Seems like anti-stall software shouldn't be killing more people than actual stalls. When was the last major airline downed by a pilot error stall anyway?

Anecdotally, I was speaking to a friend who has a pilot's license, and his thought was that a well-trained pilot should know how to adjust due to the failure, but the system seemed counter-intuitive. I think it does at the very least beg the question of whether this feature has already caused more problems than it would have likely prevented. Would commercial pilots have to report when a plane stalls/would the airline keep track of such data?

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#50

Post by pmart123 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 3:54 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #48

ralph84 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilots of both Air France 447 and Colgan Air 3407 managed to stall perfectly serviceable aircraft in 2009, killing 277 combined.

Exactly my point -- we've just seen 346 people killed by (presumably) an anti-stall system -- when it's been a decade since we've had the problem this system is meant to prevent.

Yeah, it is tough to assess without knowing the likeliness of a stall, and the likeliness a stall causes a crash. Otherwise, we run into the problem of having such a small sample size.