Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post Reply
User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 34534
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Svartalf » Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:25 pm

voluntary slaying, maybe not full murder as there is no straight intent, but putting those difficult to use jets in insufficiently and improperly trained hands was willfully subjecting all people aboard to major risk of death, hence voluntary killing if said risk came to reality.

and arguing that the sales people and the command chain above them did not know about the risk is no excuse, it means they did not even take the pains to know what they were selling, and is, in a way, even worse, since they did not even care about how safe their product was, in a business where safety should be the foremost point of interest.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Woodbutcher
Stray Cat
Stray Cat
Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:54 pm
About me: Still crazy after all these years.
Location: Northern Muskeg, The Great White North
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Woodbutcher » Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 pm

Built-in obsolescence. You sell more when they don't last very long. Duh!
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.-Red Green
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 62354
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by JimC » Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:14 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:51 pm
JimC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:31 pm
Fighter planes need to be right on the performance edge, and any resulting instability being cured via software is an acceptable trade-off given their intended use, plus ejector seats as has already been noted. Surely large passenger jets need to put inherent safety much higher on the priorities list...
The point is about the need for software to operate complex aircraft, a point the article suggests is indicative of bad design.

Again, an aircraft engineer could add some clarity.
What is bad design for a passenger jet (in the sense of inherent instability being compensated by software) might be good design for a fighter jet, given the large difference in intended function.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 12334
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Scot Dutchy » Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:31 pm

That is exactly it Jim. With Boeing controlling the FAA anything is possible.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11639
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Sean Hayden » Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:38 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:06 pm
Sean Hayden wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:00 pm
What, are you saying this jet can't glide Scot!?

You're making things up.
Glide? Without power they just fall as do all modern passenger planes. Planes glide into landing because of air upthrust. The Russians built a massive plane based on this principle.
No power; there is only one way down.
No, they don't just fall. They glide, some very far in fact.
shut up

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11639
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Sean Hayden » Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:43 pm

JimC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:14 pm
Sean Hayden wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:51 pm
JimC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:31 pm
Fighter planes need to be right on the performance edge, and any resulting instability being cured via software is an acceptable trade-off given their intended use, plus ejector seats as has already been noted. Surely large passenger jets need to put inherent safety much higher on the priorities list...
The point is about the need for software to operate complex aircraft, a point the article suggests is indicative of bad design.

Again, an aircraft engineer could add some clarity.
What is bad design for a passenger jet (in the sense of inherent instability being compensated by software) might be good design for a fighter jet, given the large difference in intended function.
Whatever. It is only in certain circumstances when the software may be useful. The F16 example clearly shows simply using software to aid flight is not indicitive of bad design.

The fact the software isn't even required here only makes your case weaker.
shut up

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:38 am

Sean Hayden wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:38 pm
No, they don't just fall. They glide, some very far in fact.
You're correct (you already knew that). ;)
[M]ost airplanes can fly for a surprisingly long distance with no engine at all, thanks to something called glide ratio. Due to careful aeronautical engineering, a Boeing 747 can glide for two miles for every 1,000 feet they are above the ground, which is usually more than enough time to get everyone safely to the ground.

[source]

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 62354
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by JimC » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:16 am

Sean Hayden wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:43 pm
JimC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:14 pm
Sean Hayden wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:51 pm
JimC wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:31 pm
Fighter planes need to be right on the performance edge, and any resulting instability being cured via software is an acceptable trade-off given their intended use, plus ejector seats as has already been noted. Surely large passenger jets need to put inherent safety much higher on the priorities list...
The point is about the need for software to operate complex aircraft, a point the article suggests is indicative of bad design.

Again, an aircraft engineer could add some clarity.
What is bad design for a passenger jet (in the sense of inherent instability being compensated by software) might be good design for a fighter jet, given the large difference in intended function.
Whatever. It is only in certain circumstances when the software may be useful. The F16 example clearly shows simply using software to aid flight is not indicitive of bad design.

The fact the software isn't even required here only makes your case weaker.
From Tero's earlier quote:
The problem is that an airplane is a big, complicated network of interconnected parts. To get the engine under the 737 wing, engineers had to mount the engine nacelle higher and more forward on the plane. But moving the engine nacelle (and a related change to the nose of the plane) changed the aerodynamics of the plane, such that the plane did not handle properly at a high angle of attack.* That, in turn, led to the creation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It fixed the angle-of-attack problem in most situations, but it created new problems in other situations when it made it difficult for pilots to directly control the plane without being overridden by the MCAS.
Clearly, the software is required.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11639
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Sean Hayden » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:35 am

You're basing that on a single line in an article written by a journalist who may not have even intended to mean that.

If you look for other sources you'll find the system was installed to help pilots avoid a stall in certain situations. Furthermore, US pilots that encountered problems with the system were able to recover control after disabling it.

These facts are what lead me to say the system is not required.
shut up

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 50775
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:46 am

The problem was that Boeing didn't provide adequate warning/training that the new system needed turning off in some cases. It's also working on a software update to the system to decrease the likelihood of this happening again in the future. That, along with two deadly crashes, implies quite strongly that their software was fucked. I hope they get the shit sued out of them.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11639
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Sean Hayden » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:11 am

I'd like to know how they deal with these issues. Who does the risk analysis? Can they put a meaningful figure on every system in their planes regarding the likely loss of life over the lifetime of the plane, or probably more like the fleet? What constitutes a red flag when running the numbers?

If something like that is possible, and it's accurate, then you've got the problem of someone making a conscious decision to say x number of deaths is okay over the fleet's lifetime, and if we factor bug fixes then ten years out the loss of life for this fleet drops y for the remaining lifetime....

I guess I'd just like to know if it was a conscious decision.
shut up

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28838
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:46 pm

The gizmo in the corner is the artificial horizon, I think the black number is air speed...?...


simpler model where the air speed is right next to it
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28838
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Tero » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:37 pm

Big dial on left is full speed range and the black box has two digits for speed and a third rotating number, for current speed of 278-279. Years ago a plane sank in the Atlantic when the "tubes" measuring altitude I think failed. Speed is somewhow measured from air flow?
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed for air speed. Ground speed is measured by GPS.
Image
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 12334
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Scot Dutchy » Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:28 pm

Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing software 'engaged repeatedly'
Software may have re-engaged without human intervention before crash, say sources

Boeing’s anti-stall software on a doomed Ethiopian Airlines jet re-engaged up to four times after the crew initially turned it off due to suspect data from an airflow sensor, two people familiar with the matter have said.

It was not immediately clear whether the crew had chosen to redeploy the system, which pushes the nose of the Boeing 737 Max downwards, but one person with knowledge of the situation said investigators were studying the possibility that the software had kicked in again without human intervention.

A Boeing spokeswoman declined to comment. Ethiopian investigators were not immediately available for comment.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28838
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Boeing faces safety questions over 737 Max 8 jets

Post by Tero » Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:47 pm

Pilots unable to control plane with MCAS off
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/03/pil ... eport.html
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Woodbutcher and 3 guests