What are your thoughts on what’s going on? Was it really an engineering issue? Can anyone shed some 💡? Also what’s Boeing’s TC? Are engineers in Seattle?
What are your thoughts on what’s going on? Was it really an engineering issue? Can anyone shed some 💡? Also what’s Boeing’s TC? Are engineers in Seattle?
- New DukeOfSWIt was 100% engineering issue caused by greed of Boeing to compete with Airbus. They didn’t care if people could and did die
- VMware / EngrandomizerMr Oracle. The WHOLE industry works like that. You apply a serial number and feature X is enabled. Software development has costs to companies and they need their money back for their investment. Tesla is betting that you will buy the upgrade after your purchase and decides to swallow the hw cost of the feature and fit all models with it in advance.
- Amazon GibHut"Are engineers in Seattle?" Implying did they outsource critical engineering work to India? (Spoiler: they did)
- This is not a software or outsourcing issue. It was a management call to create the MAX version of the existing airframe to compete with Airbus A320 neo while not making comprehensive changes to the aircraft that would require pilot retraining and certification .
Greedy management --- > bad hardware engineering --- > software band aid to cover hw issues --- > creating single point of failures by charging extra for redundant safety equipment
- If it’s related to creating fuselages or some body part, or some IT related stuff, or supporting products being sold in India. That’s the whole scope of work there as of now. Some R&D stuff is there but nothing like in production or affecting any existing project.
Everything else is ITAR controlled, and done in the US, by US citizens. They do hire and offshore the work for Jeppesen, which is what you should google!May 131
- It’s poor system design and greed. The MCAS module took a decision based on input from only one angle of attack sensor. Any engineer worth their salt would know that you can’t take such a system critical decision based on only one input.
The greed is though that they had the software which would take inputs from both the angle of attack sensors on either side of the plane and would corroborate their readings before taking a decision, but the airlines had to pay extra for this.
Seriously fuck you to the people who designed this system and took these decisions. It cost more than 500 peoples lives. Fuck you.
- Riot Games ifbx7474moreI understand the righteous frustration about the outcomes. But to blame the outcome on the people that did the design (like the engineers) vs. the organization that allows and perhaps pressures what is shipped based on financial incentives is not always fair. Granted no aerospace or mechanical engineering experience here, but from what I know usually decisions that end up going badly are made by non engineers about 10 levels up with no actual context. All that said, JFC what a disaster.May 102
- Cisco ()()moreWhere it’s going guys
Why you target different companies which is not related to the main post,
Tesla : driver has a decision to take control, all the accidents happened because they believed too much and slept and not concentrating on windshield warning.
Boeing: no passenger/pilot has control on this shit, and you get that features if you pay extra money. This is shit.
- Capital One BlervinAirbus has three angle-of-attack sensors, so if one of them fails, there are still two sensors to go by. Boeing planes have two, but despite that, the MAX's MCAS system was designed to take input from just one of them, causing a single point of failure. The alert for when the AOA sensors were in disagreement was agreed to be an optional add-on by Boeing and the FAA. Ridiculous design.
- Engineers can only give recommendations, its ultimately upper management/LT who makes the final decision. People are forgetting that engineers don’t have authority to override management decisions.
I don’t even work on this program (I work on 777 and 777X) but to blame all the fault on engineers is grossly incorrect.
- Well, airbus A320 had enough space under the wing to start a new line with more efficient larger engine (A320 neo) with minimal redesign. The 737 didn’t have the space to do the same thing so a good engineering decision would have been to design a plane from scratch with bigger engine.
Unfortunately, they decided to force through and to put larger engines on the existing 737 (roughly). But to do that, they had to move the engine forward which basically change the Cg. The Cg is supposed to be in the middle of the wing but instead it’s shifted forward which makes the plane unstable. It would have been a massive red flag to have this kind of thing on a early design.
Tbh, i was working for Airbus when they made this decision and at the time we thought it was a mistake. It was 8 or 10 years ago. I guarantee you plenty of people know!
- Certification (QA) was taken on by Boeing instead of the FAA, at the approval of the FAA. Oversight was lax.
Hey, at least they have QA. Those days at Microsoft are gone. Why do you think we have Windows recalls and QFEs with critical fixes more than ever?
Now, back to Boeing. As a result of larger more powerful engines, and charges to placement on the wings, MCAS was developed. Only a 737 MAX issue. MCAS had a single point of failure because they were only taking a reading from a single AOA sensor. Boeing customers had to pay to get the extra software feature that would take measurements from both AOA sensors, and alert the pilots if there was a discrepancy between the two. That feature will now be standard equipment with the MCAS software update, plus it won’t activate repeatedly...like it did in two crashes.
Having MCAS only use a single AOA sensor, so it had a single point of failure, was not a missed feature. No way that it was missed. There are so many redundant systems on an airplane. This had no redundancy, unless you paid for that extra feature. No way that was an oversight.
How do I know this? Friends on different sections of the 737 flight line.
- Microsoft gGpp32Boeing believed that the cockpit warning light was standard. The engineers realized later that it would only work when customers purchased a different optional indicator which you mentioned. Boeing sat on this internal report for a year till 700 souls were lost. They then again lied to FAA. This is all over the news since 5th May.
Also, Boeing is now telling the pilots that the same "premium" system will not alert the pilots of sensor disagreement till about 400 feet above ground, contrary to previous belief that the system will prevent a take off under this circumstance.May 105
- Interesting to see all the non-airline/non-aviation industry employees give "credible" statements on what happened 🍿 shout-out to the one Boeing employee on this thread lol
- You’ve clearly never worked at Boeing. I Don’t agree with it, but most of the time management (along with finance) do ultimately do whatever they want, even if it is against recommendations by engineers. Just because your company operates a certain way means it’s the same for every company/industry.
I’ll say it again, I don’t agree with this practice. I believe decisions should be based off data and testing.May 95
- I certainly did. I don’t work on this program, but I wouldn’t turn a blind eye on my program (777, 777X).
If you read sources, the engineering team involved with this did bring up the issue but management still went along with their decision. Not sure if the eng. team knew that they would.
Maybe they should place more emphasis on business ethics.
- All the holier than though people. Everybody says “I would obviously be the person who does the right thing”, but statistically it ain’t so. And i’m not really trying to say people are so horrible, and they always make the wrong choice. It might just be that it’s only this clear in the hindsightMay 120
- I don’t ever want to get on one of those planes. Any idea how can u make sure you’re not on one of those (once they are allowed to fly again)when booking a flight?
- You can see the plane type before you book. Especially if you're booking from the airline website. If the airline changes plane type, they'll update the booking and you can request for a full refund or change without penalty.
If you made the booking on an OTA website, you can lookup the PNR on the airline website to see the plane type.
- Zulily amieThere’s time and place for cutting corners. When people’s life depends on your product, I think that’s the line.
- Uber kundokkkuWorst part is no media coverage or anything of that sort! They would have been happy to cover self driving car accidents or some Tesla stuffs! Meanwhile 700 families have lost their loved ones and their life will be broken and different after this incident ! It’s just not taken very seriously because it happened in Africa and other continents?
- Amazon fHsj42Boeing was still in denial after the second crash —- “complete confidence in the safety” of the 737 Max, and suggested remedy of software upgrades and increased training for pilots. Of course now we know the airplane is flawed and the MCAS software is a buggy hack to cover up real airplane engine related issue. It’s amazing BA stock is still in 350s.
- Spotify smrtrchildBoeing is a lot more than their passenger jets, they're a government aerospace contractor, and their former executive is the acting and soon to-be Secretary of Defense. They and Lockheed Martin and others basically have an aerospace oligarchy (see the United Launch Alliance), and get billions in overpriced Federal contracts. So long as the Military Industrial Complex thrives, so too will Boeing, even as people die...
- They threw out the traditional values and brought in more "modern mindset and methodology".
- The idiot eng. team who worked on this project are going to be the reason the industry is going to be forced to get licenses to practice.
- No. The root cause of the problem is that the new engines are too heavy for the airframe, changing its center of gravity.
The airplane therefore has to be flown differently, at a different angle of attack. This makes the aircraft more susceptible to stalls.
The sensors are an important dimension here, in terms of stall detection, but the reason the aircraft is more likely to stall is the heavy weight of the engines.
This is on Boeing senior management. Boeing needed a new airframe design to compete with Airbus, but instead rushed out a product that is structurally unsound
- Travelers / SalesPDkM54moreFor a major disaster like this to happen, a lot has to go wrong:
1) engine didn’t fit under wing
2) installed anyway with poor workaround
3) which fucked up the flight mechanics
4) bad mechanics corrected with buggy software (mcas)
5) product rushed to market
6) pilots not trained on the new flight mechanics / mcas / how to disable it
- Amazon QzDv36This happens when finance people try to manage engineers! Highly complex products.. hopefully new CEO will change the culture and make it an engineering driven company again 7 years of Nerny
- I mean... it’s like anything. You can blame the software as much as you want but the software can’t save a shitty hardware.
And I don’t blame engineering. Quite the opposite. I believe that engineering wouldn’t have decided to remotorize the 737. They would have started a new program from scratch.
Just another shitty executive decision!
- Google 4EVRThey were in a rush to get out a long range at a cheaper cost. So they kept increasing the engine size without changing the basic flight structure. So they had to move the engines closer to the plane to avoid them hitting the runway. This screwed up the aerodynamics and the plane would go nose high. To avoid that they introduced an auto correction which will push the nose down. All good till now. But only when the auto correction malfunctioned. This caused the planes to crash in normal scenes.
- New wrqR15This is a good analysis:
- Why implement MCAS instead of a warning telling the crew that the nose was pitching up too much? Is there any record of MCAS activating successfully and correcting a dangerous situation?
- Vox video presents it perfectly. It was just short sighted greed as a quick fix to keep up with Airbus. Must be really demoralizing for Boeing workers who had to live with the terrible decision of their leadership team.
And Boeing pay is ($$ out of $$$$$).
- Ellie Mae oroU53I am an investor, and I am mad with the way the management is dealing with this stupid situation
- When I worked at NVIDIA there was something on our newest card that blew away ATI’s. It was number of shaders or something, but it was very critical. But the thing is it was something 100x or 1000x better. The marketing team knew we couldn’t make such a claim and have the public believe us so we just settled on claiming it was 10x more and waited for ATI to catch up with their marketing.
- Don’t know about outsourced code. But bad integration with the sensors and code that can’t reasonably reconcile bad sensor data is just an epic fail. However it was pieced together, it falls right onto Boeing’s feet.
I don’t know about you but I don’t want to fly on a plane that needs software to prevent the plane from pitching up into a stall because of shitty aeronautical design.
- Idiot no-nothing MBAs were the reason for the mess. They get to tell engineers what to do because in our culture we worship dummies who have swagger and know 'business.' I would love to see the internal language used to get buy-in on charging extra for f*cking safety features. What kind of disgusting team of people could rationalize that? Do you think they were hoping for impact?
- They would have used adjectives that demean engineers as (geeks) who don't know how to take calculated or mitigated risks. They're in the wrong profession if they bring their case-studies and knowledge of psychology of the buyer and pricing models where safety should be paramount and the most pessimistic person should head quality control.
- You know, Uncle Bob (Rob Martin) gave a talk not too long before the first Boeing incident and in of the things he said, is that it's time for us to take our profession seriously. Too much is riding "I guess it works". He said, if we don't take our job seriously, someone will force us to and we won't like it. I agree 100%
My father made a career of building various Line of business apps for various local companies and he said the same despite no more than trade school degree. Things are critical to people's well being even if they are not life critical.
- Just like everyone who knows words doesn't become an author or a playwright, not everyone who knows syntax, tools, and algorithms should become software engineers. That boat sailed long ago, but it needs to be called out when designing critical software. I don't care if Instagram crashes once a year or less, but I don't think that anyone with leetcode and FANG experience _automatically_ qualifies them to write control systems for nuclear reactors or "appliances" that carry humans.
- New puppetsockSo much misunderstanding and bs here. There are mistakes but none that was outright criminal. In this case could end up as the lack of training to pitch no new training required to be the cause of pilots fighting a system they didn't understand why it responded the way it did. The speed at which the plane was traveling was also way too fast at that moment. Been tracking every article out since the incident but nothing looks conclusive. Only thing that's conclusive is everyone trying to CYA all the way down to workers that try to put someone else behind them for the public bears to eat by justifying they're not part of the problem. We don't know anything yet. Let's wait for NTSB to complete their analysis.
- Don't you criticize the anger here! I knew someone who died on a MAX8. Don't imply like the pilots were flying kites until the previous day and got certified that morning. We've been around long enough to know exactly how this happened. Just like a software contract disrupted analysis that could have prevented 9/11. I'll be glad if I was wrong and we're confident that we got the complete and correct fix.
- Google OAoK43I can't believe that they don't have three sensors...
Compared to other industries, being in Tech. is literally a license to print money. And the situation is only going to get worse, since the easy money is all in tech.
In the meanwhile, China is going to build up its industries. Sigh.
- Engineering disasters are usually combinations of things that if they occurred by themselves, would be handled OK. It's when they manifest in unpredictable patterns do serious problems occur. I would venture to say that almost every engineering disaster is caused by this.
- Only a QA automation lackey would ever say Boeing “missed a test case”, to put it in plain enough terms for you. You’re just like every other automation tester: unable to see past the blinders you wear on your eyes to look at a bigger picture. Just an Excel spreadsheet with those test cases someone else came up with and told you to automate
- You need to fail every single sensor on purpose one by one and watch what the software does .. it has to be done....
- This is where you don't do that... You sell the best , period... Or you refuse to sell.. we MUST manage customer experience...
Uncle Bob says that if we can't get our management and customers on board with what needs to be done , were unprofessional.... He basically says this in the book "Clean Code". He's at least mostly right...
Somehow we have failed if we allowed "cheap" software to be built and sold.
- We've convinced ourselves that software developed by people in their spare time, with crowd-sourced/hacker testing, will take care of problems over the long term. Idiots don't understand that some industries cannot tolerate anything less than perfect when they first leave the doors. We sent people to the moon when computers were in their infancy. Now we put our best minds to help gossip on supercomputers in our hands.
- Uncle Bob is an old fart who thinks he is Confucius. One of his theses is that a software engineer must work 60 hours a week. Screw that. If you read carefully his books you can "Clear"ly see that the dude has ADHD. He confidently brought to the whole industry a system of stopgaps for his own shortcomings.
- Microsoft / EngdKWp30Karma biting Boeing in their proverbial arrogant ass yet again. Their management sounds horrible. Lost respect in the company after they tried to torpedo Bombardier’s C Series program, which was actually a modern clean sheet design and will likely be a substantial threat since Bombardier almost certainly had plans to enlarge the plane - now it’s in Airbus’s hands.
The 737 Max is just a cheap shortcut to avoid a costly clean sheet design. Iterating on a 50 year old plane design originally intended for short-haul regional flights. Shameful.