Hacker News Reader

Comment by liability | Hacker News Reader

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

View on HN

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty.

There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that there is such a thing. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

I'd be curious to hear from anyone who's a pilot (I know there are a few of them here).

What are the interactions between an automated system and the pilot?

Specifically, can a plane quickly switch from flyable to out of control?

There's a huge number of unknowns here, but I thought most pilot assistance systems were designed to be disengaged if needed.

These forums have several threads about the recent crashes and grounding with some experienced pilots discussing. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

Here's a pilot describing the new MCAS system on the 737 Max, and what a pilot would feel:

https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus?t=220

You have the wrong standard of proof. Boeing and the FAA should be erroring on the side of caution, not hiding behind innocent until proven guilty.

And in case it's not totally clear, the caution should be for the passengers, not shareholders.

> "its AOA sensor was known to be faulty."

The plane was what, two months old? It should have been non-lethal even if a troop of rabid baboons was hired to maintain it.

I don't think that's actually rational, in the sense of minimizing loss of life. If you ground all these planes worldwide, what's going to happen? Either people will take older planes, which are in worse condition, or they'll take smaller planes / alternative routes, which are more dangerous, or they'll take cars, which are much more deadly.

Grounding the planes only guarantees saving lives if people stay at home instead, which isn't going to happen. If Boeing legitimately believes these planes are still no riskier than older ones (and it sounds like they do and that they have a reason for that belief), they're saving lives by keeping them in the air.

That's not remotely true. The fatality rate from air travel is so low that taking alternative jets will be much safer. The new plane's selling point is efficiency so it's used on long haul routes which nobody is going to drive.

Risk on taking “alternative old plane” is super low and “Boeing 737 max” is super high, so who are you trying to lie to?

If my routine maintenance breaks the steering wheel linkage in my car, does the resultant crash mean that the manufacturer did not build enough safety into the vehicle to protect it from steering errors induced by negligent mechanics?

> If my routine maintenance breaks the steering wheel linkage in my car, does the resultant crash mean that the manufacturer did not build enough safety into the vehicle to protect it from steering errors induced by negligent mechanics?

If it happens repeatedly, then probably yes.

We have some data from real-time tracking that the "vertical speed was unstable after take off" [1]. And that both crashes are similar in that regard, and both accidents could be explained by a problem with the newly deployed MCAS software system.

Clearly, there are no answers yet. There is no known cause for this recent crash yet. But there is some evidence. And that scant evidence might be coincidence, but it also has well-informed people concerned.

[1] https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1104668693613764609

under what scenario is it okay for a complete failure and the death of over a hundred people because of a single faulty sensor on a brand new airplane?

"Six similarities between ET302 and JT610" plane crashes [1].

[1] https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/03/11/six-similarit...

Grounding the fleet causes disruptions, cancelled and delayed flights, etc. The direct costs may be paid by the airline, but it's not free from the passenger perspective either. People who have places to be also have "priceless" lives.

I cannot seriously believe they are rolling the dice for the second time.

Dumber things have happened. Boeing executives and FAA administrators may feel sincerely committed to their decision to approve MCAS without retraining and that they're doing everybody a service by keeping cool heads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com