Hacker News Reader

Comment by AprilArcus | Hacker News Reader

The MCAS problem also involved:

• developing MCAS in the first place as a scheme to deny pilots simulator time on the novel flight characteristics introduced by the changed engine size and position (as a matter of marketing policy)

• deliberately failing to document the MCAS system to avoid attracting regulatory attention

• designing the system such that it only received data from the current pilot seat's ipsilateral air speed sensor, instead of reading redundantly from both air speed sensors, creating a single point of failure

it was a case of engineering incompetence upon moral incompetence.

View on HN

Deny is a strong word. If Boeing's customers ask for a product that minimizes their staff retraining costs, is it simply Boeing at fault here? They found a clever way to shove a square peg into a round hole, which worked most of the time. Where it failed is when competing demands of "make it cheaper too" conflicted with the "minimize pilot training." The lowest cost trim was not designed to meet that demand.

Yes. Boeing customers ask for a lot of things and it's Boeing's legal obligation to only provide them safe airplanes, no matter what they ask for.

When you're in the aviation industry, you're not allowed to "minimize pilot training" and "make it cheaper" if it interferes with the safety of the airplane.

I'm not eliminating Boeing's culpability here, merely pointing out a systemic problem in the industry. Boeing is competing with other aircraft manufacturers. The airlines are competing with other airlines. The standards bodies are comprised of individuals that in large part either belong to a manufacturer, or a supplier or the airlines themselves, with a few seats reserved for academics and the public sector.

Boeing did not break any rules with the MCAS. The implementation was in accordance with existing aviation regulations, passed inspection and was safely implemented throughout most of the world.

Yes they did break rules. They misclassified it's failure as hazardous instead of catastrophic, and deliberately implemented a SPOF architecture that had to get refactored to include both sensors. Then they misrepresented it as requiring no additional training.

There was a lot done against regulations at a minimum, and damn well don in bad faith with respect to the public.

What's the proof that they broke any rules? Is the FAA charging them with a regulatory failure? None, and no. The NY Times has a nice expose on the matter [1].

Quote from TFA: Boeing did not submit a formal review of MCAS after the overhaul. It wasn't required by F.A.A. rules.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-f...

two planes fell out of the sky.

If you are to be believed, that they broke no regulation, rules, or laws, that's a damnation on the existing body of regulation, rules, and laws, not a defense of Boeing.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It's not a question of belief, but rather of fact. If Boeing had broken laws and regulations, they would be charged with a crime.

Also worth mentioning that the Air Alaska flight revealed more undocumented functions, with the cockpit door opening as a pressure relief.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com