Heads should roll at Boeing

[omaniphil]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/avi ... -developer

I'm no aviation expert nor a software developer but this guy seems to have a pretty convincing explanation action of all that went wrong with the 737 MAX planes. If only half of what he said is true, nobody in the aviation design or avionics software departments should ever work in aviation again.

[Mattjd]

They used 1 sensor, and claimed there was no new training required but there clearly was. The entire is a corporate issue. The competing company came out with a new plane and Boeing had to make something to compete, there was issues so they solved(tried to) it with software(not uncommon).

[iamsmu]

Wow. That was an excellent article. I can't wait to get a self driving car that won't let me steer because it trusts a single fallible sensor more than my own lying eyes.

This is one of those mistakes after which you really should find a new career. If 346 people died because you suck at what you do, find a new job. Have some shame. . . . I've taken sites down due to my own bugs. I felt terrible. But I never killed anyone. I wouldn't have pushed the code if the stakes were that high. If someone died because of my code, I'm not sure I could live with it, not if the design flaws were this glaring.

[Savs]

If only half of what he said is true, nobody in the aviation design or avionics software departments should ever work in aviation again.

I think management should get a chunk, if not most, of the blame. I thought the author was pretty up front about not just blaming the programmers and engineers. I read the article as a criticism of capitalism in addition to a criticism of the engineering.

[mgil]

If only half of what he said is true, nobody in the aviation design or avionics software departments should ever work in aviation again.

I think management should get a chunk, if not most, of the blame. I thought the author was pretty up front about not just blaming the programmers and engineers. I read the article as a criticism of capitalism in addition to a criticism of the engineering.

This article is similar to others I’ve read that make note of the costs to build a clean sheet plane and why Boeing decided against it.

[JonA]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/avi ... -developer

I'm no aviation expert nor a software developer but this guy seems to have a pretty convincing explanation action of all that went wrong with the 737 MAX planes. If only half of what he said is true, nobody in the aviation design or avionics software departments should ever work in aviation again.

It does sound pretty convincing. I wonder where he gets his information though?

[Testiclaw]

Don't forget that the software update to allow the 737 to read multiple sensor data was delayed because of the government shutdown.

https://www.theroot.com/boeing-737-max- ... 1833338076

Just in case anybody thinks government shutdowns don't impact people...

[KyleSchuant]

"The 737 Max saga teaches us not only about the limits of technology and the risks of complexity, it teaches us about our real priorities. Today, safety doesn’t come first—money comes first, and safety’s only utility in that regard is in helping to keep the money coming. The problem is getting worse because our devices are increasingly dominated by something that’s all too easy to manipulate: software."

Yet another excuse I have for being a crusty old guy who believes in nice simple stuff like barbells!

[quark]

If only half of what he said is true, nobody in the aviation design or avionics software departments should ever work in aviation again.

I think management should get a chunk, if not most, of the blame. I thought the author was pretty up front about not just blaming the programmers and engineers. I read the article as a criticism of capitalism in addition to a criticism of the engineering.

I'd say a criticism of unregulated, laissez faire capitalism rather than just capitalism. With a government committed to deregulation, there may not be a difference. As you may recall, the US was the last country to halt flights, after every other country banned the airplane.

It's clearly a management issue, including because the 737 isn't their only problem:

"Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet
Workers at a 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina have complained of defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/busi ... blems.html

[cwd]

I'm sure many people inside knew this was a bad idea, and told management. Someone in management decided to take the risk, to make the money.

The problem is that the responsible manager is probably a clever sociopath, and will have a clueless middle manager and some loser engineers all set up to be the fall-guys. As described in the "losers/clueless/sociopath" model of corporate culture.

Re: capitalism, I'd rather ride on a 737 max than an Ilyushin IL-96. Even Boeing executives and Trump officials care more about passenger safety than the Soviets did. Besides capitalism and communism, I can't think of an economic system that has ever built an airplane.

[Savs]

I'd say a criticism of unregulated, laissez faire capitalism rather than just capitalism. With a government committed to deregulation, there may not be a difference.

Yes, thank you.

Re: capitalism, I'd rather ride on a 737 max than an Ilyushin IL-96.

A false choice?

Besides capitalism and communism, I can't think of an economic system that has ever built an airplane.

Nuance is lacking. Besides that, you can just google this, right? Airbus is one example. Sweden amd France also build airplanes.

[mgil]

@cwd, with digital records, things may be different with regards to liability.

I’m just thinking about how GM was being cheap with an ignition switch and how that ended up killing people and getting a lot of managers in trouble. That might be similar here when it all sorts out.

[cwd]

Nuance is lacking. Besides that, you can just google this, right? Airbus is one example. Sweden and France also build airplanes.

I know this, of course. I'm just quibbling about the definition of "capitalist". Sweden and France are capitalist, by my favorite definition.

Free markets, rule of law, and private ownership of the economy are the great enablers of human progress (along with science and good municipal plumbing), and I am constantly irritated when people label every example of human greed as "capitalism" as if Adam Smith invented greed.

[JonA]

Again, not to harp on it, but this is the author's bio:

About the Author
Gregory Travis is a writer, a software executive, a pilot, and an aircraft owner. In 1977, at the age of 13, he wrote Note, one of the first social media platforms, and he has logged more than 2,000 hours of flying time, ranging from gliders to a Boeing 757 (as a full-motion simulator).

He could very well be right. Probably _is_ right, but he doesn't seem like he has any insider knowledge of the crashes, or of the software involved, or of the 737 in general. (Well, he did fly a 757 flight simulator).

(Especially since calling Note "one of the first social media platforms" is a bit of a stretch...)

[quark]

Re: capitalism, I'd rather ride on a 737 max than an Ilyushin IL-96. Even Boeing executives and Trump officials care more about passenger safety than the Soviets did. Besides capitalism and communism, I can't think of an economic system that has ever built an airplane.

China was the first to ground the 737-max, with Indonesia and Mongolia following close behind. Russia and the US grounded the plane at approximately the same time, a couple of days later and, at least in the case of the US, only after intense publicity and pressure.

Capitalism v. other economic systems is not really the question anymore. The better question is what type of capitalist system you have. Capitalism requires rules and regulations to function. At a bare minimum you need contract law and some enforcement mechanism. In reality, you need a whole lot more. The issue this days is how much and how it's structured.

[Savs]

Free markets, rule of law, and private ownership of the economy are the great enablers of human progress (along with science and good municipal plumbing), and I am constantly irritated when people label every example of human greed as "capitalism" as if Adam Smith invented greed.

In my view, the problem with many of your posts is you frequently state opinion, or arguable positions, as facts. I also think you have a strong tendency to join a team, even though you're not religious. So, speaking of irritation, I am often annoyed after reading some of your posts. It's not a big deal, we'd be friends in real life. It's just that I sometimes strongly disagree with your assertions and the way you state them as facts.

I'd probably be more annoyed, but I finally figured out how to delete U2 on my phone. U2's Songs of Innocence would autoplay upon startup every damn time I plug the phone into my car, and adding insult to injury that shitty album artwork would show on the car's LCD. My god, I hate U2. Today and tomorrow and the rest of my days will be good days.

[iamsmu]

[Mattjd]

I'm not an aerospace engineer, I dont see a problem with utilizing software to fix another issue. The entire field of digital signal processing it devoted that. Instead of making electronic controllers and filters out of operational amplifiers (which require a circuit designer, manufacturing etc. and redesigning if there is an issue) you can instead digitally sample the signal and apply DSP techniques to get the same results. It works. To me, what they did seems reasonable. By what they did of course I mean fixing a hardware (structural in this case) with software. THIS LITERALLY SOUNDS JUST LIKE APPLYING A DIGITAL CONTROLLER. They have problems with the aircraft responding a certain way due to its build so they made a controller to offset that. That is literally the entire premise of control theory. You have a system (the plane) you want a desired response, it doesn't do that, so you throw on a controller in front, which receives the error (desired vs actual... i.e. the sensor in this case) to precondition the signal such that the output is what you want. Makes sense, to me.

The bad part is how they had 1 sensor (wut?), informed the customer that no new training was needed (this is arguably my biggest issue), buggy software that couldn't be manually overridden (people aren't perfect, but I would bet it was due to corporate wanting to get the shit out fast and being loose on the testing). Actually my biggest issue is how they forced this shit out for use due to the competing company having a new plane and corporate NEEDING something new and fresh to keep up.

[Hanley]

you can instead digitally sample the signal and apply DSP techniques to get the same results.

This is analogous in your head?

###

EDIT: I think the main point of this article is that slapping a control system on fundamentally bad mechanical design/execution is precisely the problem. And that - in a meta-sense - the whole process of control-design is completely fucked (ie programmers with minimal domain knowledge handed a steaming pile of engineering shit).

[Mattjd]

you can instead digitally sample the signal and apply DSP techniques to get the same results.

This is analogous in your head?

###

I think the main point of this article is that trying to control your way out of fundamentally bad mechanical design/execution is precisely the problem.

you're completely missing the entire controls aspect of that paragraph. Yes, what they did, to me, sounds like they made a digital controller. In this case,they have a desired angle of attack, and the actual angle of attack. They use the sensor to get actual angle of attack and then the digital controller conditions the signal such that the system produces the desired angle of attack.

This sounds fine.

Whats wrong, to me, is that the entire job was presumably (right assumed imo) rushed and corners cut. They wanted a new product to compete with competition. My questions are

1.) why was there only 1 sensor
2.) why was the software buggy enough such that the pilots couldn't override it
3.) why did boeing claim no new training was needed when it clearly was.


Yes having computers compensate to for issues is design is completely valid. I think you're missing the point. The controller could be analog circuits or a microprocessor. Either way it is valid. Let's say I as an EE design a circuit, the circuit doesnt quite respond how I want. It does whats its supposed to but its slow or overshoots the target before settling at the correct result. I apply control theory to precondition the signal so that my circuit works and I don't have to redesign the entire thing. Having a computer be the controller is better because you can just reprogram the computer. If I built an analog contoller, then I would have to design and have a whole new circuit fabricated.