• plz1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I knew that was the Boeing 737 Max “issue” without clicking the link. When safety is an add-on cost, capitalism/profit margins negates safety.

      • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        From Fight Club:

        A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.

      • maporita@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree. But automation has made air travel safer by an order of magnitude. The problem with the 737 Max debacle was trying to use automation as a band aid to avoid costly recirtification and pilot training. They didn’t inform pilots about the new pitch control system and they didn’t train them on how to deal with runaway trim. Oh and relying on a single sensor to detect ACA was also a bad move. So, many mistakes … for which a lot of people died.

        Notwithstanding that, every day hundreds of planes rely on automation to help keep passengers safe.

        • bisq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The other issue is the only had one of those angle of attack sensors and should’ve had more redundancy

          • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’d think aerospace engineers would have it down to reflex that things need to be fail safe. It’s ironic a system designed to make the plane safer actually crashed the plane. That one should get an award for world’s worst engineering.

            Like any accident it wasn’t just one thing. The maker implemented a safety system that was not fault tolerant, then the airline neglected to train pilots how to deal with a failure of that system. In fact that particular airline didn’t even know the system had been added to their planes. Bad engineering, communication, and training still happens in the industry, but really it’s pretty amazing how safe these machines are overall.

            Pilot error is still the cause of a majority of accidents. A big problem is bad pilots that don’t pass regular exams can slip through the system because of management deficiencies. Like pilots it happens in the medical industry where bad doctors or nurses just get passed on from one hospital to the next. Employers fail to do proper checks on previous job performance.

            • bisq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              100%. A failure at every possible level. Shame on Boeing for outsourcing the design of the 737-Max. I believe it was contracted to India?

              I’m going to give the pilots a mild pass since I’ve read they’re instructed to ignore their gut and trust the instruments since their instruments are “always right” and their gut can be wrong.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Pretty sure I read while this was new that the design changes were considered minor enough that recertification wasn’t required. So I’d put that on Boeing, too. It’s obvious that airlines aren’t going to recertify on functionally equivalent design, and also obvious that these weren’t equivalent designs.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            From my understanding of the situation, it did have two sensors but it would act if only one of them said the angle was too high. One of the fixes they added was that it warns the pilot instead of engaging if the two don’t agree.

    • const_void@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t Boeing using outsourced software engineers that were being paid $9/hr for that system?