8 ms·
New Software Flaw Could Further Delay Boeing’s 737 Max
- pseingatl 7y agoBoarded a plane last night. Looked like a 737. Breathed a sigh of relief when I saw it was an Embraer.
- jimktrains2 7y agoThere are multiple styles of 737, most without the systems or problems from which the 737-Max 8 suffer.
- osivertsson 7y agoHow will Boeing and the regulatory bodies handle problems their extensive review finds with the MAX that may also exist on the NG?
- jimktrains2 7y agoHopefully well? However, the what-if game is generally bad to play, especially when we can't even ball-park frequency. There are always many what-ifs that can be made. However, even when we know frequencies, we often still ignore them. What if an accident happens on the way to the airport, which is far more likely, and far more likely to be fatal, than flying on even a 737-MAX 8? What I think is more probable than any issue with the MAXs translating to the NGs is: what-if other (recent) FAA certified planes, by any manufacturer, have undisclosed problems or systems? There's obviously a systematic flaw in how the FAA conducts certifications, so this worries me more than finding a fatal and fundamental flaw on aircraft that have been in near constant use for 20-25 years old at this point, as are many/most of the the NGs have.
- ahartmetz 7y agoThe rudder hard-over in '90s 737 should be fixed now, no problem :> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues I'd call that one even more scandalous but the media didn't seem to report it much at the time.
- marcosdumay 7y agoAirplanes were much more dangerous back then, and those 3 accidents happened over a much larger number of flights (orders of magnitude larger) than the 2 Max ones.
- ulfw 7y agoHow does an Embraer look the same as a 737? Very different profile inside and out. The seat config alone should have been very obvious.
- tjpnz 7y agoAt what point will Boeing decide to just scrap them all? Are they relying on the flying public being oblivious to what plane they're getting on? I know I wouldn't board a Max regardless.
- sanxiyn 7y agoNot happening. We are talking about many billions of dollars of capital investment, even if we only count already built aircraft.
- rossdavidh 7y agoWhen a major regulator (probably not the FAA, maybe European) finally announces, "we are never certifying this plane model".
- rasz 7y agoNo way government allows it to be scrapped. Worst case scenario they will be refitted for cargo duty, or 'purchased' by army/navy at a reverse discount to prop Boeing up.
- ardy42 7y ago> or 'purchased' by army/navy at a reverse discount to prop Boeing up. What use would the military even have for such a plane? The only thing I can think of is ferrying personnel out to deployments, but I understand 737s are fairly short range planes and better, cheaper charter flights are probably available.
- kayfox 7y agoThe US military has a hundred or so 737 derivatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Other_variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Other_variants
- beefield 7y agoThis is more and more starting to smell a bit like this is the first time in a while when somebody is actually looking whether a plane fulfills the regulations. Just wonder if FAA & co should actually audit some other models as well with same level of scrutiny? And by all means not just Boeing.
- amiga_500 7y agoJust American manufacturers as a priority as this is clearly where the revolving door is.
- ulfw 7y agoIf they'd ever audit (and let alone certify without outsourcing it to the very manufacturer) the 787, it won't be pretty for Boeing.
- jsjohnst 7y agoBeing the 787 was a new type rating at the time of its release and its release happened before many of the major cutbacks in the FAA, I’m not sure that’s a fair statement. Do you have a source to back that up?
- ulfw 7y agoTo back what up? That Boeing self-certified on the 787 too? The whole “Boeing verifies itself and creates shoddy products” came out in 2013 already. Nothing ever improved since. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-hearing/boeing-faa-defend-approval-of-787-dreamliner-idUSBRE95B0P720130612 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-hearing/boeing-faa...
- Waterluvian 7y agoHow many new planes are designed each year that the FAA needed to abdicate this responsibility? Aren't planes hard and basically there's only a few new major models in a year?
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mechhacker 7y agoThis is unfortunate. I am amazed that along every step of the way, Boeing appears to be shooting itself in the foot. Having worked in this industry (although not on airplane software), this seems to be a big management and cultural problem with Boeing. It was apparent in other programs and the decisions that the higher ups made.
- amiga_500 7y agoAnd the regulator. Is the cultural problem due to American culture? Profit as god.
- ulfw 7y agoWhich regulator in the US regulates still? Maybe the FDA, but even there I have doubts. The USDA is a rubber stamping under-funded organisation as has the FAA become. Part of the culture there.
- tyfon 7y agoWhy are they even bothering with the MAX? Do they really think that people will willingly board a MAX plane again when travelling? I'm certainly not going to do that.
- mechhacker 7y agoBecause they have hundreds of new airplanes sitting on the ground, as well as a tooled up production line as well as the innumerable companies involved in the supply chain. The 737 Max issues have been causing layoffs at supplier companies that were heavily reliant on the Max as a source of income.
- tyfon 7y agoYeah but nobody is going to get on that thing. The moment someone tries to use that model again there will be headlines like "XX Airlines puts death plane back in the sky" etc. It's a waste of money trying to get it back on track.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago> Yeah but nobody is going to get on that thing People absolutely will. Boeing is literally too big to fail and people don't care enough either. If someone can have a 50 Euro flight from Berlin to London they won't mind if it's a reintroduced 737 MAX.
- dkarras 7y agoWe'll see about that. Why would airlines accept to operate these planes at a significant loss after the loss they incurred with this whole fiasco to begin with? I personally wouldn't board this plane until it had a spotless record a decade in the air even if they paid me for it. And I'm someone who loves flying so no specific phobia involved.
- kalleboo 7y ago
- threatripper 7y agoThere seems to be no information on what the problem actually is. This seems a bit odd since Boeing themselves reported it and they should know all the details. Is it related to the blank screen problem that was discussed a few days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21991087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21991087 Is this reporting with such limited details some kind of damage control along the lines of "we cannot wait longer and must inform the shareholders now" and "we cannot tell the public all the information because it would damage our reputation"? With the little details we know now we can assume that it is 1) "nothing big" as in an assertion that caught an unexpected new version number and the program simply needs an one-line-patch to update the version check or 2) they detected a problem that turns out to be "unfixable with current hardware" like a weird kind of race condition where the communications can get stuck sometimes but it's hard to reproduce, doesn't happen in the lab and nobody really understands what's going on or 3) "something entirely different".
- tyingq 7y ago"Is it related to the blank screen problem that was discussed a few days ago?" That's a "NG" specific issue, and not applicable to the MAX. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/3948342a978cc27b862584dd005c1a60/$FILE/2019-25-17.pdf http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/... (PDF)
- osivertsson 7y ago> The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it’s receiving valid data [...] when the system is initially starting up. > software reviews have occurred in a special simulator used by engineers on the ground. > The problem came to light when the latest version of the software was loaded onto an actual aircraft My stomach hurts reading this! I get no confidence at all and I am scared more problems will be found or more accidents occur. Just guessing... Someone at Boeing testing the new shiny software on a real airplane decided to mess with a sensor (AoA?) to simulate it being stuck or something and to make sure this would be properly handled. It did not work. How on earth can problems like this be found this late?
- 7y ago
- Havoc 7y agoAll of Boeing's self-certification rights should be scrapped. Clearly Boeing's internal safety culture isn't in a state where it can be trusted. Mistakes happen & planes fall out of the sky, but this seems like a rather pervasive culture issue.
- imglorp 7y agoPrivileges, not rights. The rest of us with smaller pockets probably wouldn't be allowed to self certify our aircraft.
- o-__-o 7y agoSure we can. If you built an airplane you can self certify it passes applicable regs. It’s a different story if you or I are wrong about our certification because we don’t have the deep pockets to prevent litigation that a multi-billion dollar company has. You can build a lightweight craft (see FAR 103), self certify as such and fly without ever talking to the FAA. Your lightweight craft could be 100lbs over the limit and no one would know until it crashed and the NTSB got involved. Your lightweight craft could also be a Cessna. You are guaranteed to get into more trouble when the FAA finds out you are grossly violating the law.. especially if loss of life is involved, see Boeing as an example.
- ulfw 7y agoNo manufacturer should ever be allowed to self-certify. What kind of teacher lets his kids self-grade?
- mhb 7y agoWhat kind of educational institution lets its employees assess how well they impart knowledge to their students?
- sudosysgen 7y agoThat's why most countries have state exams :)
- holoduke 7y agoIs it me or is every single issue reported as something exceptional causing boeing to look like the biggest amateurs in the world. What will be next? Boeing migrated all the vital control systems to nodejs. Infiltrated npm packages caused unknown issues. Further delay required.
- ulfw 7y agoHappens when you outsource life-critical code to the lowest bidder, who doesn't even work on airplanes.
- dkarras 7y agoWill people even want to board these planes after it became clear how Boeing handled (botched) the development of this plane and how FAA insisted on keeping these planes up in the air (while stating they were perfectly safe as any other) until they absolutely couldn't (i.e. until other countries grounded it)? I wonder what the game plan is for getting these planes back in the air for carrying passengers. A small vocal minority will make a big stink about it and it will get amplified. Regular folk that don't know or care will join and it will become a huge shitfest when the day comes.
- threatripper 7y agoThere are also other regulators in Europe and China who will look into this a bit more in detail instead of just rubber-stamping anything that the FAA approved.
- rossdavidh 7y agoI think this is the real issue for Boeing. The FAA will, eventually, certify the 737MAX, but it is not clear to me that European (or other) regulators will feel compelled to follow suit. If the 737MAX can only fly domestic flights, I'm not sure it is economically viable (literally not sure).
- adwi 7y agoNo (n=1)
- osivertsson 7y agoPeople (not on HN etc.) will happily buy plane tickets on sale that happen to be flights on the 737 MAX once it is certified again. I still think the general public trusts the certification to be done right and that the plane will only be allowed to fly when experts agree it is safe. Which is why the stink from pilots and devs with experience from building similar systems is so important.
- wayoutthere 7y agoThe bigger issue are business travelers -- who contribute approx. 60% of an airline's profitability through higher ticket prices and more frequent travel. We want to get back to see our families, and we're not very price-sensitive because the company is paying. No way in hell I'm flying on a MAX any time soon.
- origami777 7y agoFor the sake of all of us I hope this plane never sees another flight.
- GenericsMotors 7y agoI'll never set foot on a MAX series out of principle. Not much else one can do as a consumer other than vote with one's wallet.
- ehvatum 7y agoI wonder what the Gantt charts would look like for redesigning the 737 MAX from scratch with new type certificate. First revenue flight if everything goes smoothly: 2065? There’s like a 20% chance Everett will be scoured to bedrock by a tsunami by then. So I can understand the reluctance to do the right thing.
- bdavis__ 7y agoUsing existing Boeing Standards and Processes? (how to install a rivet. how to anodize aluminum. how to verify software. 100 years of experience written into requirements and specifications of how to build a plane) Likely 10 years. Starting from scratch. 30 years.
- ilaksh 7y agoI am guessing that previously they did not take the testing nearly as seriously.
- mnm1 7y agoIt's incredible they are still pushing to fly this plane without changing the plane itself (engines etc.). This is, as most software issues, an issue of trust. After Boeing killed almost four hundred people with an airplane they knew was unsafe we're supposed to trust the latest software update? Again? That's what they said after the first crash. This is a prime example of software (these days sometimes called artificial "intelligence" or other nonsense) running amok and the dire consequences it can have.
- leoh 7y agoOpen source it. Just open source it all. This would restore so much faith and allow passionate researchers to improve safety.
- freepor 7y agoI will never fly on one of these air Yugos. I suspect there are quite a few like me.