Hacker News Reader

Comment by oliveshell | Hacker News Reader

I think this 737 MAX issue resonates with the HN crowd because, along with the emotional factors, it’s a high-stakes technical problem.

The two fatal crashes were caused by an interplay of hardware, software design, and human factors, and studying things like this is fascinating to those of us who are interested in building systems so that catastrophes don’t happen.

View on HN

It's a high stakes technical problem that is caused by not addressing technical debt - something that the many of the HN readership sees on a daily basis in other domains.

MCAS was created as a way to compensate for instability caused by strapping large engines onto an aircraft not originally designed for it, as opposed to doing a redesign.

Also there's the "sales/business people made the problem worse" angle as well that developers just love.

But there's also risk in designing a whole new plane, which had been Boeing's original plan. I'm not convinced MCAS is the wrong engineering decision. And who's to say a new plane wouldn't have a similar type of pilot assist system... the trend is in that direction.

Ok but the implicit assumption here is that a new design would not itself include all sorts of engineering trade offs between systems, maintenance, and pilot training, when in fact it would. The 787 was a ground-up new design and yet holds the distinction of the most recent previous instance of a full model grounding, over battery issues.

Iterating on a proven airframe has a lot of advantages for aircraft design and it is common in the industry.

I think it resonates with the HN crowd because many of us are on the 737-800 when we are on the nerd bird and many other Southwest flights.

> along with the emotional factors,

It's also entertainment in the same sense as catastrophe movies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com