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

No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#91

Post by magduf »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #74
mhandley wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the reason MCAS doesn't respect it is because MCAS is designed to activate in high AoA situations. You get into a high AoA situation because you're already pulling back hard on the yoke, likely in an attempt to avoid something bad happening such as avoiding a collision. If MCAS did cutout when the yoke was pulled back hard, it would disable itself at precisely the time it is actually needed. This design decision…

And the obvious solution is "tell pilots about it" which is going to piss off the public because a procedural change (training), a new UI to make it more obvious (like IIRC Southwest implemented) and a minor code fix (comparing the AOA sensors) will not satisfy everyone who's out for blood.

>will not satisfy everyone who's out for blood.

People are right to be out for blood. This mistake cost hundreds of lives, and was clearly a case of criminally negligent behavior.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#92

Post by magduf »

ironmagma wrote: post #52
ReptileMan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the…

They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind.

>They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind.

No, they don't.

They deserve for their executives and PEs to be behind bars, and for the company to go out of business. Let Airbus or the Chinese buy it and take it over. We've shown that we're completely unable to properly regulate companies like this where safety is so critical, so we need to let someone else take over that task. Foreign ownership of Boeing would put those regulators in charge, which would only be an improvement.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#93

Post by magduf »

salawat wrote: post #77
ReptileMan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the…

Doing the Right Thing would put them on schedule . This isn't some stupid race. This is making a machine that can safely be flown. The market doesn't need a risk profile that drops plane loads out of the bloody sky Because a company pushed their people into hiding things from their customers. I'm normally all for free market optimization when it makes sense, and all actors act in reasonably good faith concomitant wit…

>Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance.

>Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree.

You can't really break up a company like Boeing; they aren't even vertically integrated anyway. Just like a carmaker, they get their components from other companies. They don't even make their own engines (those come from Pratt & Whitney, GE, Rolls Royce, etc.) the way car companies do.

How we "get over" this is simple, though I don't see it happening in Trump's America any time soon: you prosecute Boeing executives and engineers (the PEs) for criminal negligence, and throw them in prison. The company goes under, and gets bought out by one of its competitors.

As for duopoly, that's currently the case, but China's aircraft manufacturer is working hard on getting their aircraft certified, so if that happens there will now be 3 big competitors in the market, which is generally the sign of a mature but competitive market. If Boeing gets bought out, it'd probably be 2. But I'd feel much safer with Airbus using Boeing's facilities to build Airbus-designed airplanes, which have been properly certified by European regulators.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#94

Post by magduf »

cmurf wrote: post #17
Waterluvian wrote: post #14

Do the non-American regulatory bodies have the power to effectively override anything the FAA decides is okay by simply saying, "these X remedies are also mandatory or the 737 MAX is banned from Canadian/EU/Chinese/etc. Airspace"? I imagine that effectively cripples the value of using the plane without those remedies.

Each country sets its own rules for their airspace, so they can do whatever they want. But most have historically deferred to the FAA, but then also Boeing and airlines, and all the regulatory bodies work with ICAO to try and be on the same page as much as possible. There may in fact be some obscure treaties and trade deals, among ICAO complexities, that complicate sovereignty on this issue.

>But most have historically deferred to the FAA

They did until the 737MAX had two crashes within a month. This changed everything: the FAA refused to ground this plane until literally every other ATC organization in the world stood up and restricted it from their airspace. The FAA only capitulated to save face after the plane was effectively banned from leaving US airspace.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#95

Post by jefftk »

et2o wrote: post #89
jefftk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Southwest and American did, but not United: Of the three US airlines that have Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 jets in their fleet, only two — American and Southwest — paid for these upgrades, the Times confirmed. A United Airlines spokesperson told the Times that its jets don’t include these upgrades because its pilots use other data to fly their planes.) https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/22/18277694/boeing-737-...

"use other data to fly their planes" What does this mean? Pure PR spin? Isn't MCAS a mandatory system?

I think "other data" means "not those particular two optional lights that let you know when there are angle of attack issues". But yeah, I think it's spin.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#96

Post by salawat »

magduf wrote: post #93
salawat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing the Right Thing would put them on schedule . This isn't some stupid race. This is making a machine that can safely be flown. The market doesn't need a risk profile that drops plane loads out of the bloody sky Because a company pushed their people into hiding things from their customers. I'm normally all for free market optimization when it makes sense, and all actors act in reasonably good faith concomitant wit…

>Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance. >Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree. You can't really break up…

The criminal investigations would single out the employees, undeniably, but I'm not sure that would necessarily set up the right incentives, seeing as the next act of malfeasance would just be more likely to come with more CYA attached, and chilling effects on new, innovative research could be disincentivized.

In my estimation, a culture change is critical. There cannot be an attitude that sees airworthyness certification as something to be gotten around. There cannot be a tolerance for short cuts. The project isn't done until it is done. A baby takes 9 months as it were.

Perhaps review the practice of type certificate grandfathering? Seems like if anything, any new plane, even if based on an old design should still have it's own type, even if most of the data is the same as the old one.

Prove negligence as the facts allow, keep a thumb on Boeing until ample evidence of cultural improvement has taken place, and possibly tune up the regulatory framework to make sales oriented pitches like "no-retraining required" less likely? Or at least define some degree of modification that legally requires pilot/operator retraining?

Then just let the legal system resolve the remaining civil suits?

I don't think the entire company needs to be rendered no more, but a line in the sand was crossed, so I believe regulatory escalation is in this case both warranted and justified.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#97

Post by ReptileMan »

magduf wrote: post #83
ReptileMan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the…

They deserve to go out of business, and for their executives to go to prison (along with whatever PE signed off on this atrocity). As for airline expansion, Airbus can certainly pick up the slack and double their production capacity in short order. All they have to do is buy up the facilities from a now-defunct airplane manufacturer in the Seattle area. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of recently-unemployed engineers, t…

Whatever. That is beyond the point. The point is that this is rational strategy from boeing given the circumstances and not mind boggling. Feel free to condemn their actions, but they are not the action of a crazy or stupid person.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#98

Post by ReptileMan »

salawat wrote: post #77
ReptileMan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the…

Doing the Right Thing would put them on schedule . This isn't some stupid race. This is making a machine that can safely be flown. The market doesn't need a risk profile that drops plane loads out of the bloody sky Because a company pushed their people into hiding things from their customers. I'm normally all for free market optimization when it makes sense, and all actors act in reasonably good faith concomitant wit…

Once again - is the strategy boeing doing rational for them? Yes. So it's not mind boggling. We can call it dishonest, showing disregard, careless, whatever... but the fact that boeing are trying desperately to save the type certifications is not somehow beyond grasp of the human mind.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#99

Post by magduf »

salawat wrote: post #96
magduf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance. >Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree. You can't really break up…

The criminal investigations would single out the employees, undeniably, but I'm not sure that would necessarily set up the right incentives, seeing as the next act of malfeasance would just be more likely to come with more CYA attached, and chilling effects on new, innovative research could be disincentivized. In my estimation, a culture change is critical. There cannot be an attitude that sees airworthyness certific…

>I don't think the entire company needs to be rendered no more

If foreign airlines all cancel their orders for 737MAX planes, they could very well be forced into bankruptcy.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#100

Post by magduf »

ReptileMan wrote: post #97
magduf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They deserve to go out of business, and for their executives to go to prison (along with whatever PE signed off on this atrocity). As for airline expansion, Airbus can certainly pick up the slack and double their production capacity in short order. All they have to do is buy up the facilities from a now-defunct airplane manufacturer in the Seattle area. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of recently-unemployed engineers, t…

Whatever. That is beyond the point. The point is that this is rational strategy from boeing given the circumstances and not mind boggling. Feel free to condemn their actions, but they are not the action of a crazy or stupid person.

Not stupid or crazy, but definitely evil. Why are you defending their evil actions? There is no valid excuse for this kind of negligence. Are you so morally deficient that you would have done the same in their shoes? Stock price is never worth murdering hundreds of people.
Post reply on HN