28 ms·
Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air
- thumbsup-_- 3y agoAgain the Boeing version of "Sales people running an engineering shop".
- rpowers 3y agoThis feels like disabling unit tests in order to get tests to pass. I've yet to see this strategy not blow up later.
- epmatsw 3y agoAnd where the workaround is "have the humans not forget to do something" no less...
- radicaldreamer 3y agoIt's truly insane to put a human in the loop for something like this... its like saying don't forget to turn the oven off after 5 minutes or it might explode (ovens go through extensive compliance testing to make sure they don't cause fires even in adverse conditions).
- hypothesis 3y agoIt does look insane, but at this point I trust pilots more than I trust Boeing-designed automated system not to kill humans.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoPerhaps MBAs shouldn't be allowed to manage aircraft production. Like Boeing before the merger with McDonnell Douglas.
- catchnear4321 3y agoif this had anything to do with passing a test, it would look significantly different. the point is to make tests not fail. you can’t fail the test you don’t take. the logic is completely sound. it’s just also removed from reality. which might make it seem a bit mad.
- StreetChief 3y agothe whole point of the exemption they are requesting is to avoid "taking a test."
- jbverschoor 3y agoSprinkle a few slashes or dashes before some lines, problem solved.
- catchnear4321 3y agoyou know if the test is being skipped… might be cleaner to just delete it.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago"McDonald-Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money." Such a travesty that a once great engineering company is now a bean-counting corner-cutting garbage culture. They just never learn.
- bandyaboot 3y agoIs the “McDonald-Douglas” misspelling a joke or a mistake? Curious if this is an existing joke that I haven’t seen until now, because it kind of works.
- sufficer 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas
- marcellus23 3y agoThat doesn't answer GP's question.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago> That doesn't answer GP's question. No, but it's helpful for people like me, who didn't remember the correct spelling.
- SkyMarshal 3y agoHeh, a mistake, maybe a Freudian slip, but I'll leave it uncorrected for the lols.
- ht85 3y agoThe McDonald-Douglas Fast Engineering company. I'm flyin' it!
- asylteltine 3y agoEven if unintentional, it’s funny because that’s how MD operated. Sure it’s a plane. Is it good? No.
- iforgotpassword 3y agoGuess they're worried the public is already forgetting the previous MAX crashes so they're preparing for the next "PR campaign".
- geophile 3y agoThey're going to rename the planes to HBO.
- el-dude-arino 3y agoThe devil cult of Jack Welch rears it's ugly head again...
- hn8305823 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch > In 1963, under Welch’s management of the facility, an explosion at a factory blew off the roof, and he was almost fired for that episode. Checks out
- nytesky 3y agoYeah Gelles holds up Boeing as the poster child of Welch’s legacy. A place where engineers ruled, and then accountants… https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/books/review/the-man-who-broke-capitalism-david-gelles.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/books/review/the-man-who-...
- radicaldreamer 3y agoBoeing was one of the most innovative companies and took major risks to move the state of air travel forward (747 etc.) and that basically came to a standstill after the spreadsheet and finance people took over.
- sofixa 3y ago> took major risks to move the state of air travel forward (747 etc.) That's a very bad example. Boeing failed with the 2707 supersonic transporter because federal funding was cut, and assuming that they'll be left behind by the obvious future of supersonic passenger transportation with the Concorde and the Tu-144, decided to make a plane filling other niches that were going to be left. Like cargo, which wasn't going to need the speed, but needed capacity. The 747 was a dual use cargo and passenger design.
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoYeah. Welchian management is garbage from a product perspective - that's just about the most obvious thing in the universe - but the real crap of this is, over the lifetime of the business, it's also garbage from a finance perspective. Go ahead and take a tour of the companies that went whole-hog on Welchian initiatives. Assuming you can find one that still exists, show me one that's unequivocally making money today. Welchian management is just another spin on the old "restaurant fire" mafia scheme: bank up debt on assets before selling the plumbing and torching the place. Like the mob, it makes a handful of cash for some random top guy, and absolutely wrecks everything else, forever. It's hard to not take stories like this personally, having spent time inside the Boeing mothership. The power of this organization to destroy value rivals that of a small-ish military occupation; the ability of Boeing to do anything meaningful in an engineering context is pretty obviously at an end[1]. It's a testament to past cleverness - and to the knowledge and dedication of line workers, maintenance, and aircrew - that any legacy Boeing product ever works, at all, ever. And that's why we're now fixing deficiencies like this in goddamn flight checklists. Because it's all that's left. [1] Whatever innovation leaks from the company today is wholly from acquisitions, and those always have all cash choked from their lifeless corpses within five or ten years. Even DoD procurement has put a big red flag on the Boeing RFPs that come in, although that's also related to their increasing inability to estimate costs better than RANDINT.
- credit_guy 3y agoThis idea is so stupid that I don't really know how I can follow the HN guidelines to try to find a charitable interpretation. Guys from Boeing, here's a free piece of advice: don't. Just don't.
- sokoloff 3y agoNormally when I read a comment like the above on an internet forum, it's blowing some issue way out of proportion. In this case, I think it's a fair comment. Today I learned that my refrigerator has a more complex anti-icing control that the engine inlet on the 737 Max (by virtue of having a $10 snap switch in the circuit).
- bombcar 3y agoIt wasn't clear to me if Boeing was asking for a exception such as "allow the planes to fly, but beat the pilots about turning the 'melt engine' feature off until we can design and build out a fix for this" or a "let's never fix it and pretend it won't happen". The first almost is reasonable, the second is kinda batshit.
- gruez 3y agoThe article suggests the first >Boeing would have until mid-2026 to design, test and certify a permanent fix for the engine anti-ice system defect that would then be retrofitted to all MAXs.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bombcar 3y agoThat's much more reasonable, more like whatever it's called when you can mark a system as known inoperational but still fly the plane.
- 3y ago
- chx 3y ago> to break and fall off. fall off I heard that before. [Senator Collins:] Well, I’m not saying it wasn’t safe, it’s just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones. [Interviewer:] Why? [Senator Collins:] Well, some of them are built so the front doesn’t fall off at all.
- bcrl 3y agoroflmao You missed the perfect oppourtunity for the obligatory link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- chx 3y agoI didn't feel the need with this crowd :) I did it on Twitter tho: https://twitter.com/chx/status/1743343104906686673 https://twitter.com/chx/status/1743343104906686673
- mjhay 3y ago> In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the breakup of the engine nacelle is “extremely improbable” and that an exemption will not reduce safety. Yeah, I'm not sure I'd trust Boeing's judgement on the probability of catastrophic events at this point...
- hn8305823 3y ago> He said the pilot procedure the FAA approved as an interim solution — urging pilots to make sure to turn off the system when icing conditions dissipate to avoid overheating that within five minutes could seriously damage the structure of the nacelle — is inadequate given the serious potential danger. This is insane What are the chances that even a very well trained and experienced major US airline crew would forget to turn of the engine anti-ice within 5 minutes of non-icing conditions? Greater than zero for sure.
- StephenSmith 3y agoHow obvious is it that the plane has entered non-icing conditions?
- sokoloff 3y agoIt's obvious enough. They have a total-air-temp displayed on the FMC and a TAT above 10°C OR not in visible moisture OR SAT* below -40°C is a good enough proxy for "not in icing conditions". The problem isn't knowing whether or not you're in possible icing conditions if you think to ask the question, but rather reliably remembering to evaluate it every single time you enter and exit possible icing conditions. * SAT - static air temp (air temp before the ram rise).
- wkat4242 3y agoThat's not obvious. Something with critical damage potential shouldn't be hidden in a reading in an obscure display page where a value has to be evaluated by several rules. It should be a caution light or something at least.
- sokoloff 3y agoI'm not advocating that Boeing is proposing a sensible path here; I think they're not. But ATPs don't have any trouble evaluating "am I in potential icing conditions?" as they've been doing it for one to many thousands of hours previously.
- philip1209 3y agoI have mixed feelings about unions overall. But, pilots' unions seem to be an important "check and balance" to maintain safety in a capitalist aviation world. Pilots are not machines, and can't be expected to have a 0% error rate.
- psunavy03 3y agoAs a former aviator who is likewise union-agnostic, ALPA is absolutely the exception. The pilot in command has absolute authority under the Federal Aviation Regulations to take whatever actions are needed for safety of flight. He or she absolutely needs to have a union standing behind them in order to be able to tell non-aviator managers to pound sand when they want to compromise flight safety in the name of saving a buck or two. Otherwise stand by for: - "You don't really NEED that much fuel reserve, it's expensive." - "You can fly with one of those redundant components failed, stop whining." - "You don't NEED those inconvenient crew rest requirements. Stop whining, pound some coffee, and fly tired." - "We don't NEED to do all this expensive maintenance." - "We don't NEED all these expensive boomer pilots with 10,000 hours of experience and combat time over Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan. Fire them, hire the rookie from the regionals, and pay them $50,000 a year. Pilots are just bus drivers anyway."
- lowbloodsugar 3y ago>We don't NEED all these expensive boomer pilots with 10,000 hours of experience and combat time over Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan. Genuinely curious: what aspect of flying an F18 in a hostile environment with a goal of destroying things while trying to stay alive is useful for flying a 400-passenger airliner? You might say "well, the trying-to-stay-alive portion is relevant", but that involves things like high-g turns which airliners are not so good at, and ultimately ejecting is the final option, also not so good with 400 passengers on board. "It's a jet engine!" Ok? So? Does that mean I can't drive an EV if I qualified on gasoline? Does that mean I am qualified to drive an 18 wheeler because I've previously driven a Ferrari? (No, it does not). It seems to me that F18 flight hours contributing towards Boeing 787 pilot certification is a jobs program for military pilots. Not saying that's not a good idea: we need (for now) a strong human air force.
- janice1999 3y agoI hope one day engineering students will study the MAX 7 and learn from the Boeing culture that has killed at least 346 people so far. So many issues (and related cover-ups) stem from the massive compromises made so Boeing could quickly launch a flawed modified plane instead of a new design because Airbus scared their management.
- pengaru 3y agoSame, and I wonder if it'll share a chapter with Tesla's prematurely shipped autonomous features, related deaths, and the dishonest messaging surrounding it. Considering the MCAS[0] failures were largely software defects in an autonomous system, seems plausible to me... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...
- brandonagr2 3y agoWhat are you talking about, Tesla doesn't ship any autonomous features. Driver assist features do not make a car autonomous. Tesla has always plainly said you must monitor the car at all times autopilot is engaged, the exact same way that turning on cruise control in any other car doesn't make the car autonomous even though the car is managing the speed.
- pengaru 3y ago> What are you talking about, Tesla doesn't ship any autonomous features. Driver assist features do not make a car autonomous. Tesla has always plainly said you must monitor the car at all times autopilot is engaged, the exact same way that turning on cruise control in any other car doesn't make the car autonomous even though the car is managing the speed. What are you talking about? What Tesla markets and sells falls into SAE Autonomous Ground Vehicle classifications, just not level 5. Nothing I wrote spoke to anything Tesla sells being L5 (or any particular level at all). Edit: On the topic of MCAS, it strikes me as a system akin to around an SAE L2/L3, overriding pilot inputs to prevent a perceived crash/stall risk. This AIUI is well within the autonomy space Teslas operate...
- IlikeMadison 3y agoif it's Boeing, I ain't flying.
- thedrexster 3y agoYou missed the chance at "going" :/
- abadpoli 3y agoI have to disagree with all of the comments in this thread saying this is “insane”. The FAA approved a mitigation for an issue in MAX 8 and 9 planes. The MAX 7 has the same issue, so Boeing is asking for the same mitigation to be approved. If the FAA thinks it’s acceptable for the 8 and 9, I don’t see why asking for the same for the 7 is bad. On the other hand, if the FAA doesn’t think this is acceptable for the 7, then I don’t see why it would be acceptable for the 8 and 9. Either it’s an acceptable mitigation and all 3 should play by the same rules, or it’s not and all MAXes should be grounded (FWIW, the mitigation seems ridiculous to me and I’m leaning towards the latter).
- Zetobal 3y agoIt's insane that you think only the number changes and the planes are otherwise the same. Ofc I want different rules for different airplanes...
- abadpoli 3y agoYoure being disingenuous if thats how you interpreted my comment. Of course there are changes, and as someone who does significant research on plane variants, I know that more than most. But it doesn’t take a genius to see that in this particular case, there is no evidence (at least none provided in the article, nor none that I’m aware of) that the 7 is different from the 8 or 9 in regards to how the engine icing system works (or doesn’t, in this case).
- nerpderp82 3y agoJust because 7 is similar to 8 and 9 doesn't mean it has to get the same treatment. This isn't algebra or logic. By induction, having allowed it for 8 means that the FAA has to allow it for all plans from here on out? 1, 2, infinity. Boeing should fix their shit. Not melting the nacelle is a simple feedback loop. Humans shouldn't be running that loop.
- abadpoli 3y ago
- radicaldreamer 3y agoThis plane is a lemon and the US Gov is in cahoots with Boeing to keep it flying
- soumlaut2 3y agoIs this why Nikki Haley is getting a push? (:
- teeray 3y agoI feel like if you made a plane that has killed anyone recently through your fault, your company should enter a period of “time out” where you get zero exemptions from anything.
- napierzaza 3y ago[dead]
- readthenotes1 3y agoWhat could go wrong? "Boeing said..." Why bother asking proven liars anything?
- StreetChief 3y agoSeriously!!!!!! Their history proves they are unreliable cost cutting fools.
- JJMcJ 3y agoAmazing how Boeing has thrown away a century of good reputation in the last five years.
- barryrandall 3y agoMap Boeing facility locations, political district boundaries, and bribes (exchanges of cash for the explicit purpose of achieving a specific political outcome), and it looks a lot less amazing. Boeing is structured to be immune to any sort of oversight, consequence, or inconvenience. This may have harmed their reputation, but they've reshaped the world so that their reputation doesn't matter.
- solarpunk 3y agoBoeing really wants to cut corners, and it's gonna take a really long time to fully bite them in the ass, because of their effective monopoly on US produced jets.
- Podgajski 3y agoWe are literally at the end of American civilization. Now the enshitification (Cory Doctow) of the world is reaching airplanes. At first, they were really good to the users. Now they don’t care about the users, only care about the shareholders.
- t3rmi 3y agoRecently my wife has been checking every flight we taking to ensure that its not Boeing. I initially thought she was overreacting but based on what I’m seeing from Boeing here I have to thank her for her diligence.
- snowwrestler 3y agoWait until she hears about the Air France 447 crash, you’ll be taking buses everywhere.
- tgv 3y agoThey acted on it. Wikipedia writes: "On 12 August 2009, Airbus issued three mandatory service bulletins, requiring that all A330 and A340 aircraft be fitted with two Goodrich 0851HL pitot tubes and one Thales model C16195BA pitot (or, alternatively, three of the Goodrich pitot tubes); Thales model C16195AA pitot tubes were no longer to be used."
- snowwrestler 3y agoThe pitot tubes were not the root cause of that crash.
- tigershark 3y agoYes, they were. They got stuck with ice and they disagreed in the air speed sent. Because of this the autopilot was disabled and the flight controls were switched in alternate law 2. The pilot that was flying failed to realise that this meant that his inputs had a much bigger effect compared to normal flight and he panicked and he also failed to relinquish control to the much more experienced pilot (on that model) multiple times. How are the pitot tubes not the root cause?
- snowwrestler 3y agoMalfunctioning pitot tubes do not cause an otherwise fine airplane to depart controlled flight. The root cause was human factors.
- avalys 3y agoWhat's not clear from the article is how likely this failure mode actually is to occur, even if the pilots happen to forget to disable the anti-ice. The fact that this issue is present in the existing 737 Max variants, and none appear to have actually experienced a structural failure, suggests the probability is low. It is easy for a bunch of keyboard warriors here on HN to insist that only zero risk is acceptable. In the real world, everything is a continuum and without knowing quantifiably where on the risk continuum this issue is, any discussion is meaningless.
- troupo 3y agoIn a large enough dataset any edge case will occur with 100% certainty. There are ~100 000 flights per day worldwide. I'd say the conditions described occur all the time
- avalys 3y agoThis is also a trivially true statement and meaningless for real-world decision-making. In a large enough dataset and given enough time, a meteor will eventually hit a plane in-flight and destroy it. Should regulation require the airplanes carry anti-meteor armor? Your qualitative judgement that these conditions described occur all the time actually suggests it's not a big deal, because the currently-flying Max 8 and Max 9 variants have the same issue, and none have experienced a structural failure. The scenario here is that, if the pilots forget to turn off anti-ice, the nacelle will eventually overheat, weaken, and possibly fail. But clearly that is not guaranteed to happen, or happen immediately. What I'm saying is that actual decision-making here depends on what the statistics of this possible failure actually are, given that the pilots forget to turn off the anti-ice.
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoYour analogy doesn't make sense because there is no feasible way to protect a plane from a meteor hit (if it ever happens). So it's either take your chances or don't fly at all. The failure mode we are discussing absolutely can be prevented, it's just a matter of some extra cost.
- ShakataGaNai 3y agoBoing is working really hard to write that old marketing limerick [1] for a new era: > If it's Boeing, I ain't going. [1] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/23039-if-it-aint-boeing-i-aint-going-boeing-707-story https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/23039-if-it-aint-boeing-i...
- baby 3y agoCan the US just buy airplanes from Airbus at this point?
- panick21_ 3y agoNot sure if you are joking or not. But since its not funny I assume not. Switching from one airplane to another isn't like switching from a Honda to a Toyota car. It requires lots of training and thus cost. Southwest as the prim example has many 100s of pilots trained on a 737, they have a huge maintenance network that is trained for the 737. They don't fly any Airbus at all, thus they have 0 experience in their whole operation. Switching would a monumental task. It was reported that Southwest took a serious look at A220 program, but has since doubled down on 737 for the next couple decades. Many airlines have switched to higher amounts of Airbus and Airbus has made inroads into the US market. But partly now Airbus has so many orders for 737 Max sized planes that if you order one, your gone have to wait for a long time. So, maybe you still rather get that 737MAX instead. For a while the market was more like 50/50, now we are trending towards a 40/60 market, or potentially even more. And that doesn't take into account that Boeing lowering prices quite to get some of these contracts.
- rsynnott 3y agoLots of US airlines do (and lots of European airlines buy from Boeing; Ryanair even has a special 737 variant…)
- rconti 3y agoUS airlines already can.
- StreetChief 3y agonot all boeings are bad, in fact, most are fantastically reliable, except for the newer versions with incredibly cheap design, that places extraordinary demands on pilots and their knowledge. There is a welchian management culture that is cutting costs to the bone.
- cromka 3y agohint: JetBlue
- jvans 3y agoCalhoun should conditionally agree to the following for FAA approval: If this event occurs within 10 years of launch he: * forfeits 10x the compensation he received from boeing including capital gains to the families * spends 3-5 years in prison for wrongful death Let's see how confident he is when he has skin in the game
- jetrink 3y agoThe Babylonians had similar ideas. Code of Hammurabi, Law 229: If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
- jvans 3y agoThere has to be some accountability, otherwise capitalism just turns into a game of socializing externalities and personalizing profits. Calhoun makes the decision, reaps the profits regardless of outcome. If things go wrong boeing pays (maybe) and hundreds of people die
- gnulinux 3y agoHow is lawfully prosecuting a private company that makes profits off of a vehicle is the same thing as killing someone? Would you agree with literally any punishment against Boeing for cheaping out on their design?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jms703 3y agoSurely this can't be as simple as automating the icing system along with announcements to the pilot to keep them aware?
- thrillgore 3y agoIf anyone from Expedia is reading, please add a filter so I can search for "Airbus flights only." Thanks.
- oska 3y agoYou can manually filter out airlines that have substantial 737 fleets. (Wikipedia usually has good information on the makeup of each airline's fleets.)
- exabrial 3y agoA lot of armchair commenters need to realize that commercial planes accept commands; it's up to the pilot to prevent putting the the airplane into an unsafe state. This is actually an important safety feature in itself... being able to override all systems to prevent a catastrophe has happened many times in flight history. For instance, if you need to dodge an incoming collision, you could care less if you might exceed the g-load-rating of the airframe. You might crack something, but it might safe quite a few lives; vs a guaranteed death if you stay on the collision course and can't turn fast enough. Your experience with technology is consumer safety systems. These are designed so safety systems can't be overriden: the tech is protecting you from yourself. If you think this is "bad", you really ought to watch the startup sequence of a large commercial airliner. There are lots of things depend on the crew to do the right thing and it literally happens thousands of times a day, every single day, with an accident record that is far better than consumer safety systems.
- hughesjj 3y agoI have no issues with there being manual overrides. I have issues with Boeing cheaping out on design and then whining to ignore safety rules so they don't have to fix their bad design.
- metabagel 3y agoI feel like you didn't read the article, since your comment doesn't address anything from the article itself. In this particular case, the engine anti-ice system needs to be turned off within 5 minutes of icing conditions going away. The pilots union has said they are concerned about this. There needs to be a better system than that. > The problem is there’s no alert or indication to the crew that the system needs to be turned off. They just have to remember to do it.
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago>A lot of armchair commenters need to realize that commercial planes accept commands; it's up to the pilot to prevent putting the the airplane into an unsafe state. Looks like one more armchair commenter has yet to learn about the Airbus flight law system; it's not possible to put the aircraft into an unsafe state in Normal Law. AFAIK, Boeing has nothing comparable.
- Lev1a 3y agoTitle: > Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air I bet they do and the FAA should rightly tell them to fuck off if they're not willing to go through the formal procedure to get their proven-dangerous planes back into commercial aviation.
- andy_ppp 3y agoBoeing should sack all their management and promote engineers to any needed management positions. This idea after the last set of issues is ridiculous and it'll be the same non-technical people who think it's magical thinking that keeps aircraft in the sky.
- StreetChief 3y agothis unfortunately requires management to fire themselves, which seems unlikely to happen. I guess maybe the government could step in somehow, or at some point.
- iamawacko 3y agoThe McDonnell Douglas merger was the biggest mistake Boeing has ever made.
- siva7 3y agoIt's quite funny how we still teach THERAC-25 to students about how deadly engineering issues can get yet Boeing seems to be a much better and modern candidate to teach about bad engineering/management practices affecting safety (MCAS).
- janice1999 3y agoI also nominate the "Toyota Unintended Acceleration" issue. A lecturer friend of mine likes to reference these slides from the trial: https://www.safetyresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/BarrSlides_FINAL_SCRUBBED.pdf https://www.safetyresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Ba...
- jiggawatts 3y agoToyota kept going on and on about how their software code wasn’t faulty, but analysts showed that it was so incredibly riddled with bugs that unintended acceleration was not only “in there”, but was hiding under a layer of literally(!) thousands of other critical bugs. Did Toyota change their safety culture as a result? Hah… no.
- firebaze 3y agoCan you please provide some links? As far as I know there are no credible references. Also, my whole family drives Toyotas for at least 40+ years, so I both have a real interest to know if that occurs, and I also have some anecdotal evidence it doesn't occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration#Sudden_acceleration_in_Toyota_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration...
- jiggawatts 3y agoCheck out page 40 onwards: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_... The code quality can be best described as criminally negligent, unsafe, spaghetti garbage with incorrect concurrency sprinkled on top for laughs.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- refracture 3y agoI just can't see how anybody would want to give Boeing the benefit of the doubt at this point.
- carbine 3y agoI still do my best to avoid flying on the MAX 8. V low confidence in Boeing after that debacle. They introduced MCAS to compensate for the fact that they didn't want to spend on redesigning an aerodynamically stable plane that could accommodate the new, larger engines. When MCAS led to crashes, they dialled it back, increasing the power of the pilot relative to the computer. That's not a solve. In either case, the aircraft has an additional point of failure that properly designed aeroplanes do not have. The 788 is great but the 787 MAX, not so much. Needless to say this new story does not inspire further confidence.
- peterlada 3y agoBoeing cannot make things that fly no more. So now as a lawyer run entity will try to redefine the concept of flying to, riffing on Douglas Adams line on, constantly falling and mostly missing hitting the ground.
- worik 3y agoIs Elon Musk now running Boeing?
- rpmisms 3y agoNo, he has a much better safety record.
- techie128 3y agoWhat the actual f*ck is wrong with Boeing's management? After the MAX fiasco that left several hundreds dead, I would have expected the new management to be more cautious about safety issues. As a consumer, I feel the need to vote with my wallet and feet. I feel it is time to boycott flying on Boeing's unsafe planes. Unfortunately, due to consolidation and lack of competition there are very few choices left for us.
- johnsanders 3y agoAnybody who says newspapers and other "legacy media" are obsolete isn't aware of journalists like Dominic Gates.
- Havoc 3y agoReally starting to feel like Boeing have a massive & pervasive culture problem rather than a specific technical issues problem. Which is terrifying...
- sreejithr 3y agoI'm scared of flying on any Boeing from now on. Jeez, these guys are sloppy and looking for shortcuts.
- k12sosse 3y agoIf you haven't seen it yet, Charlie Victor Romeo is a great work
- alkonaut 3y agoThere is some shitty engineering there for sure, but I still fly any 737 (MAX or not) so long as relevant authorities find it safe enough. It's usually not possible to switch airlines/planes anyway. If the trip is by MAX or not at all, the trip happens. Not really an argument of any kind, but these posts always get littered with people who are quick to say they won't fly plane X again etc. Just one vote the other way.
- batisteo 3y ago> The company’s share price rose significantly toward year-end based partly on that expectation. And partly due to the bombing of Gaza aided by Boeing JDAM systems, I guess.
- rawgabbit 3y agoLet’s fly fast and break engines and airplanes. Boeing management need to be behind bars for making such a ridiculous request. Uhhh. We didn’t have time to make a safe airplane. Can we have an exemption? This is egregious and wrong.
- michielt 3y agoI always wondered if you can buy a plane ticket where it shows the manufacturer/type of airplane that will be used for the flight. Anybody has some insight?
- class3shock 3y agoI do think it's important to recognize they are working on a fix for the issue, which is called out in the article. I also think it's important to recognize no one commenting in the article has seen the analysis, knows what is meant by "structural damage" or what went into Boeing saying a failure resulting from it is "extremely improbable". Could be it's a solid analysis, the structural damage they mention is no where approaching a concern, and they think it's extremely improbable for good reason. Or not, I just don't think we know. That being said, it is hard for me to look at this as something other than another example of poor company culture. You have a component that can be damaged when exposed to temperatures above a certain limit, for a certain length of time, connected to a heater that can heat it above that limit for longer than that time... And no systems to stop this? This strikes me as being due to someone without an engineering degree saying "We've always used this heating system, there's no need to go through an in depth new analysis or testing regime to validate it's use, that would cost lots of money!".
- olliej 3y agoWow “no nacelles have overheated or fallen off the max”. Really? Not even when a different single point of failure hidden “feature” flew a bunch into the ground killing all on board?
- hamuraijack 3y agoIsn't this the exact reason they got into this mess in the first place?
- callamdelaney 3y agoThe real issue here is regarding decision fatigue & resource management. It’s just another thing that a pilot may have to deal with which could distract from making important decisions in a potentially dangerous situation.
- neonlights84 3y agoWhen I was getting ready to graduate college with a degree in mechanical engineering (circa 2009), I must have applied to Boeing 50+ times. I was a huge fan of the company. Every application was flatly rejected, no explanation given. I moved on, and I'm glad I did. Boeing sucks. I feel like I dodged a bullet.
- crazygringo 3y ago> I must have applied to Boeing 50+ times What does that mean? Like you sent in a new application every other day? Why would you re-apply after getting rejected? Don't you need to get more experience on your resume? Job rejections virtually never get explanations. Even if you've interviewed in person, it's extremely unlikely. That's just how it is. Nothing specific to Boeing.
- ncgl 3y agoI interpreted it as applying to 50 different roles, which I think is normal if you really like the company.
- skittleson 3y agoSame, I've had colleagues do the same process to get a foot-in-the-door. It does work based on observation alone.
- crazygringo 3y agoOh, thanks. I've never seen that before for new college grads -- usually these big companies have a centralized hiring and interviewing and placement process for grads since that's so much more efficient.
- rcbdev 3y agoEspecially grad students tend to already have some work or research experience under their belt - meaning they don't necessary have to go through the meat grinder of "new grad" job listings.
- turquoisevar 3y agoJFC Boeing, read the damn room…
- alphaomegacode 3y agoI am definitely not a business expert but am I reading it correctly that Boeing has a -48% tax rate? https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BA:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJr9uE9seDAxUJpLAFHXyWAewQ3ecFegQIbRAg&window=1Y https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BA:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUKE...
- rramadass 3y ago> After emerging from icy conditions into drier air they have to make sure they turn off the engine anti-ice system, which heats the inner barrel of the engine pod so that ice doesn’t build up. > If they fail to do so, the system can quickly overheat the carbon composite material and damage the structural integrity of the engine pod. > The problem is there’s no alert or indication to the crew that the system needs to be turned off. They just have to remember to do it. > If they forget, or are distracted by other tasks, the overheating can begin to damage the structure after just five minutes. This is all you need to know to pass judgement on Boeing Management. Whatever happened to Boeing's "Engineering Excellence" ?
- ephaeton 3y ago> Whatever happened to Boeing's "Engineering Excellence" ? Suits.
- throwup238 3y ago> Whatever happened to Boeing's "Engineering Excellence" ? McDonnell Douglas happened [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas
- fmajid 3y agoAn uncle worked for McDonnell Douglas, then Boeing, on military planes (C-17). The tales of the culture of utter corruption on the military contractor side he told were chilling.
- lr1970 3y ago> > Whatever happened to Boeing's "Engineering Excellence" ? > McDonnell Douglas happened [1]. > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas More details are in the book "Flying Blind" [2]. It shows how Boeing's culture of Engineering Excellence was gradually replaced with MD's rotten parasitic culture through the process that is better described as "reverse acquisition". Formally Boeing acquired MD, but in reality MD took over Boeing. [2] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind-by-peter-robison/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind...
- latchkey 3y agoThis gets posted and hours later brand new Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 has a door sucked off the side of it. "The aircraft is a 737 Max 9 and received its certificate of airworthiness on October 25, 2023."
- StreetChief 3y agolooks like maybe the exemption for the max 9 (and 8?) were bad decisions. surreal.
- Sparkyte 3y agoJust fix the problem and recertify the plane. How hard is it? I mean you haven't sold a lot of them since a few turned into fireballs.
- rkagerer 3y agoThe 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure,” the filing states. That's your rationale? Have we forgotten when NASA management discounted concerns about O-rings in part because one hadn't catastrophically failed yet? (Until Challenger)
- anakaine 3y agoGiven Boeing's recent horrendous safety record with knowlingly allowing unsafe systems to fly, and the failures of such resulting in catastrophic crashes, the FAA would be out of their mind to consider the proposal.
- ryanisnan 3y agoI think the word for this is negligent. The FAA would be negligent, or worse, criminal, should they allow this.
- blackoil 3y agoSomeone else has also liked, but apt for this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- IceHegel 3y agoThis, along with the door blowout in the middle of an Alaska airlines flight and MCAS give me reason to believe the MAX was an ill-conceived project from the very beginning. Shareholders need to suck it up, and Boeing needs to start with a clean sheet of paper and design airplanes the same way their parents did. Enough coasting on re-engines.
- cameldrv 3y agoBad timing for Boeing, a 737MAX just had an explosive decompression. I bet they don't get their waiver now.
- snickell 3y agoFascinating timing for this article, as a Boeing 737 Max 9 just experienced a catastrophic depressurization (sounds like everyone was ok) today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/business/alaska-airlines-flight-portland-landing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/business/alaska-airlines-... I've heard Boeing folks suggest that the 1997 acquisition of McDonell-Douglas (who was having serious financial difficulties at the time) ironically resulted in the latter's MBA-heavy management taking over Boeing leadership. The result has been a less profitable company with a now poor and getting worse safety record: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing...
- 7thaccount 3y agoI also remember reading about the damage from that acquisition. I wonder if it would have eventually occurred anyway as that level of short-sighted thinking is so pervasive in industry now.
- sschueller 3y agoSo is the FAA going to ground these planes now or do what they did the last time? At least no one died yet this time around. For those who still do not understand what unchained captialism looks like. This is a taste of it. The phrase "the market will correct itself" may be true eventually but ignores the hundreds of people that have die before that happens.
- chmod775 3y agoI don't think airline manufacturers are a great example of unchained capitalism. They're a god-awful example actually, being heavily chained to nations and in many cases directly supported, protected, and owned by them. There's a reason high-level diplomats are involved in many aircraft sales and you'll see the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia or wherever announce preliminary sales numbers before even the manufacturer does. Airline manufacturers are essentially immune to free-market forces, because their respective governments would never let them fail. Not to mention that - unlike aviation - many other industries don't even have their own dedicated government agencies to regulate them. Also the airline industry as a whole also has a stellar safety record, Boeing's issues notwithstanding. That's not to say that your core thesis is necessarily wrong, but airline manufacturers aren't a great vehicle to argue that point.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- quickthrower2 3y agoIf you need the anti ice for more than 5 minutes then is it pan-pan time?
- DrNosferatu 3y agoOoops…
- LanzVonL 3y agoDoesn't the FAA basically work for Boeing because these two share revolving doors? I'm just not flying any more.
- brewdad 3y agoMeanwhile, less than 24 hours later… https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/faa-grounds-some-boeing-jets-for-inspections-after-panel-blows-out-on-flight-out-of-portland/283-8fa68fe2-7e75-40dc-a245-683c3451ab66 https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/faa-grounds-some-boei...