5 ms·

Certianlly not just a single flaw. They found and fixed multiple other flaws while checking though everything for re-certification. In my opinion, the 737Max i

by phire 6y ago

Certianlly not just a single flaw. They found and fixed multiple other flaws while checking though everything for re-certification. In my opinion, the 737Max is probably one of the safest planes right now, simply because of the amount of scrutiny it's been though.

phkahler 6y ago
Well the engine placement hasn't been changed and that was the underlying problem that lead to everything else.
- _fat_santa 6y ago
  To be a bit more nuanced, it's not that the engine placement was the problem, rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes. The engine is the start of the problems
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    The fundamental problem is a lack of effective redundancy for bad sensors. They haven't fixed that. Software alone will not fix it. They've just implemented superficial procedures that don't address the real safety issue.
  - msbarnett 6y ago
    > rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes No, this is a persistent and pernicious myth on HN – that the MCAS was some sort of “737 Emulator” intended to allow the plane’s customers to avoid pilot training. In reality, during testing it was discovered that the engines’ new position caused the stick forces to invert in some situations during flight. “The stick forces invert” means that it becomes easier to pull into an aerodynamic stall than push away from it. This fails a Fundamental Airworthiness Requirement that all commercial aircraft are required to conform with for certification. Boeing’s “solution” was MCAS – using the stabilizer trim to automatically push the plane’s nose down as it approaches a stall (and therefore putting additional force on the stick that keeps it at all times easier to push away from the stall than pull into it). The pilot training thing was just that they concealed the existence of MCAS from pilots out of fear that it would prompt calls for additional training. tl;dr the problem was that the engine aerodynamics made the plane fundamentally uncertifiable without a software hack.
kqr 6y ago
Unless, of course, it was fixed and scrutinised by organisations which still have the same systemic flaws as the first time around. Until the sociotechnical systems that do the work change, they will keep overlooking problems and making similar mistakes, from a high-level perspective.
- jonas21 6y ago
  Do you mean the same regulatory organizations that have reduced the US airline fatality rate by 50x over the last 50 years to the point where it's now over 100x safer per mile to fly than to drive? I mean the FAA certainly has some flaws, but it's important to keep things in perspective.
  - kqr 6y ago
    Don't get me wrong. If I'm going to trust anyone to learn from their mistakes, passenger aviation are the ones. I'm just saying that when it comes to complex systems, it's not evident that someone who said "I've looked at it and it checks out", the thing fails, and then the same someone said, "Okay, now I've really looked at it and it checks out again" that it's now safe. There's more nuance to it than that. Whether or not that nuance has been taken in consideration by the FAA this time I really am not in a position to say.
  - atharris 6y ago
    A caveat here is that the modern FAA is very different than the FAA of even 20 years ago. In response to decades of stagnant funding, 'the beast' is fundamentally unable to fill the same regulatory role it was intended to do - to all of our detriment [0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...
  - alavesto 6y ago
    I think the passenger miles statistic is baloney (calculated by multiplying the number of passengers by the number of miles travelled), and I'm a bit sick of seeing it trumpeted everywhere to claim flying is vastly safer than driving. The collective risk of everyone on board the plane is meaningless to calculating risk to your personal safety. At least for me, the fatality rate per journey, per hour of travel, or at the very least per mile I myself am travelling, is far more relevant. According to one source, flying is actually three times deadlier per journey than driving (fun fact, this is the metric aviation industry insurance companies use), but about four times safer per hour travelled. So flying certainly can be safer than driving in the right context, but these crazy "100x safer than driving" stats are kinda useless and take a lot of "creativity" for airlines to arrive at. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp..., citing Beck, L. F.; Dellinger, A. M.; O'neil, M. E. (2007). "Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences"
londons_explore 6y ago
I mean it still only adheres to safety standards of the 70's by using a loophole in the regulations...
pera 6y ago
Boeing whistle-blower says proposed 737 Max fixes aren't enough. 179 points by bookofjoe 50 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411
akimball 6y ago
It is methodologically unsound. The airframe is unstable. The fixes are software and training, human factors engineering, and hence don't address the underlying problem which is one of physics. I am sure that the measures taken will reduce the rate of crashes, but doubt that they will eliminate them, as you can't exclude effects without first excluding causes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by phire 6y ago

phkahler 6y ago

Well the engine placement hasn't been changed and that was the underlying problem that lead to everything else.

_fat_santa 6y ago
To be a bit more nuanced, it's not that the engine placement was the problem, rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes. The engine is the start of the problems
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The fundamental problem is a lack of effective redundancy for bad sensors. They haven't fixed that. Software alone will not fix it. They've just implemented superficial procedures that don't address the real safety issue.
- msbarnett 6y ago
  > rather it was that Boeing made software adjustments to make the plane fly like a regular 737 without training the pilots in these changes No, this is a persistent and pernicious myth on HN – that the MCAS was some sort of “737 Emulator” intended to allow the plane’s customers to avoid pilot training. In reality, during testing it was discovered that the engines’ new position caused the stick forces to invert in some situations during flight. “The stick forces invert” means that it becomes easier to pull into an aerodynamic stall than push away from it. This fails a Fundamental Airworthiness Requirement that all commercial aircraft are required to conform with for certification. Boeing’s “solution” was MCAS – using the stabilizer trim to automatically push the plane’s nose down as it approaches a stall (and therefore putting additional force on the stick that keeps it at all times easier to push away from the stall than pull into it). The pilot training thing was just that they concealed the existence of MCAS from pilots out of fear that it would prompt calls for additional training. tl;dr the problem was that the engine aerodynamics made the plane fundamentally uncertifiable without a software hack.

kqr 6y ago

Unless, of course, it was fixed and scrutinised by organisations which still have the same systemic flaws as the first time around. Until the sociotechnical systems that do the work change, they will keep overlooking problems and making similar mistakes, from a high-level perspective.

jonas21 6y ago
Do you mean the same regulatory organizations that have reduced the US airline fatality rate by 50x over the last 50 years to the point where it's now over 100x safer per mile to fly than to drive? I mean the FAA certainly has some flaws, but it's important to keep things in perspective.
- kqr 6y ago
  Don't get me wrong. If I'm going to trust anyone to learn from their mistakes, passenger aviation are the ones. I'm just saying that when it comes to complex systems, it's not evident that someone who said "I've looked at it and it checks out", the thing fails, and then the same someone said, "Okay, now I've really looked at it and it checks out again" that it's now safe. There's more nuance to it than that. Whether or not that nuance has been taken in consideration by the FAA this time I really am not in a position to say.
- atharris 6y ago
  A caveat here is that the modern FAA is very different than the FAA of even 20 years ago. In response to decades of stagnant funding, 'the beast' is fundamentally unable to fill the same regulatory role it was intended to do - to all of our detriment [0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...
- alavesto 6y ago
  I think the passenger miles statistic is baloney (calculated by multiplying the number of passengers by the number of miles travelled), and I'm a bit sick of seeing it trumpeted everywhere to claim flying is vastly safer than driving. The collective risk of everyone on board the plane is meaningless to calculating risk to your personal safety. At least for me, the fatality rate per journey, per hour of travel, or at the very least per mile I myself am travelling, is far more relevant. According to one source, flying is actually three times deadlier per journey than driving (fun fact, this is the metric aviation industry insurance companies use), but about four times safer per hour travelled. So flying certainly can be safer than driving in the right context, but these crazy "100x safer than driving" stats are kinda useless and take a lot of "creativity" for airlines to arrive at. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comp..., citing Beck, L. F.; Dellinger, A. M.; O'neil, M. E. (2007). "Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences"

londons_explore 6y ago

I mean it still only adheres to safety standards of the 70's by using a loophole in the regulations...

pera 6y ago

Boeing whistle-blower says proposed 737 Max fixes aren't enough. 179 points by bookofjoe 50 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543411

akimball 6y ago

It is methodologically unsound. The airframe is unstable. The fixes are software and training, human factors engineering, and hence don't address the underlying problem which is one of physics. I am sure that the measures taken will reduce the rate of crashes, but doubt that they will eliminate them, as you can't exclude effects without first excluding causes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]