4 ms·

Isn't the Boeing incident a symptom of poor engineering practices? Spaceships by all accounts seem to have similar if not higher levels of computer-controlled o

Isn't the Boeing incident a symptom of poor engineering practices? Spaceships by all accounts seem to have similar if not higher levels of computer-controlled overrides to actually make the damn thing fly past Earth's atmosphere. The difference of course being that spaceship software is rigorously tested whereas Boeing was very lax in their implementation so they could rush the plane out the door. I don't see a problem with the idea of delegating aspects of flight to the computer - just fix the software engineering practices that lead to this tragedy. Please. :)

xiphias2 7y ago
No, there was no technical reason to design 737 MAX as it was designed, only regulatory reason. Regulations should help safety, not hinder it.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  Boeing was trying to build a new plane to fit the technical specs of a previously approved plane to save some cash. Boeing's practice of cutting corners is why 300+ people are dead
  - xiphias2 7y ago
    I agree, I was trying to write the same thing. The body should be redesigned for the bigger engine.
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      The regulatory failure was that the FAA let them get away with it, rather than the regulations themselves.
      - GiuseppaAcciaio 7y ago
        It's an interesting conundrum, because ultimately the FAA doesn't have more engineering expertise than Boeing so all they can do is force Boeing to prove that they have done their due diligence in confirming that the 737MAX can be operated under the same type rating as the 737NG. I'm guessing the next step for FAA and EASA will be to revise the process under which this approval was granted to Boeing.
  - hedora 7y ago
    The regulatory framework created the incentives and design constraints that led them to cut the corners, and also (partially) tied the FAA’s hands. At least part of the blame lands on the authors of the regulations that led to this. Clearly Boeing gets lots of blame too. As with most engineering screwups of this magnitude, multiple organizational failures contributed.
simion314 7y ago
There is a more important issue that is ignored in many comments here, the FAA supervision, what if are dozens of rushed system in this plane, how can you trust that MCAS is the only system with faulty software or design?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I think you've hit on the exact reason a lot of the flying public will be sitting out most of the 737 MAX flights when they return to service.
PaulHoule 7y ago
It has been a long slog to convince people that fly-by-wire systems can be trusted. Airbus has worked a long time to get the bugs out. (including some accidents, however failures in hydraulic control systems have caused accidents too) In a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, "flight envelope protection" is deeply integrated into the control system. It is something that pilots are trained about; when the system is in a degraded mode because of a sensor failure, it tells the pilot, and pilots are trained how to deal with that. Fly-by-wire brings large benefits such as a reduction in weight, lower assembly costs, lower maintenance cost, and better comfort because fly-by-wire can counteract turbulence. These are passed on to the consumer in the end. To avoid any investment in engineering or pilot training, Boeing bolted a half-baked "flight envelope protection" system on when moving the engines caused a change in the flight envelope. Too bad they didn't tell the pilots... I wouldn't say that the 737 MAX should never fly again but the plane should get a new type certificate and pilots should be retrained. As a passenger one thing you can do is fly Jetblue because they don't have any 737s in their fleet. Also ask airlines about the A220 and E195-2 airliners. These are smaller than the 737 but feel larger from a passenger perspective and also have lower seat*mile cost. Try them out, you'll be impressed!

xiphias2 7y ago

No, there was no technical reason to design 737 MAX as it was designed, only regulatory reason. Regulations should help safety, not hinder it.

notfromhere 7y ago
Boeing was trying to build a new plane to fit the technical specs of a previously approved plane to save some cash. Boeing's practice of cutting corners is why 300+ people are dead
- xiphias2 7y ago
  I agree, I was trying to write the same thing. The body should be redesigned for the bigger engine.
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    The regulatory failure was that the FAA let them get away with it, rather than the regulations themselves.
    - GiuseppaAcciaio 7y ago
      It's an interesting conundrum, because ultimately the FAA doesn't have more engineering expertise than Boeing so all they can do is force Boeing to prove that they have done their due diligence in confirming that the 737MAX can be operated under the same type rating as the 737NG. I'm guessing the next step for FAA and EASA will be to revise the process under which this approval was granted to Boeing.
- hedora 7y ago
  The regulatory framework created the incentives and design constraints that led them to cut the corners, and also (partially) tied the FAA’s hands. At least part of the blame lands on the authors of the regulations that led to this. Clearly Boeing gets lots of blame too. As with most engineering screwups of this magnitude, multiple organizational failures contributed.

simion314 7y ago

There is a more important issue that is ignored in many comments here, the FAA supervision, what if are dozens of rushed system in this plane, how can you trust that MCAS is the only system with faulty software or design?

bilbo0s 7y ago
I think you've hit on the exact reason a lot of the flying public will be sitting out most of the 737 MAX flights when they return to service.

PaulHoule 7y ago

It has been a long slog to convince people that fly-by-wire systems can be trusted. Airbus has worked a long time to get the bugs out. (including some accidents, however failures in hydraulic control systems have caused accidents too) In a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, "flight envelope protection" is deeply integrated into the control system. It is something that pilots are trained about; when the system is in a degraded mode because of a sensor failure, it tells the pilot, and pilots are trained how to deal with that. Fly-by-wire brings large benefits such as a reduction in weight, lower assembly costs, lower maintenance cost, and better comfort because fly-by-wire can counteract turbulence. These are passed on to the consumer in the end. To avoid any investment in engineering or pilot training, Boeing bolted a half-baked "flight envelope protection" system on when moving the engines caused a change in the flight envelope. Too bad they didn't tell the pilots... I wouldn't say that the 737 MAX should never fly again but the plane should get a new type certificate and pilots should be retrained. As a passenger one thing you can do is fly Jetblue because they don't have any 737s in their fleet. Also ask airlines about the A220 and E195-2 airliners. These are smaller than the 737 but feel larger from a passenger perspective and also have lower seat*mile cost. Try them out, you'll be impressed!