Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25368
Credit: 48,562,670
RAC: 24,931
United States
Message 2002902 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 20:59:36 UTC - in response to Message 2002886.  

Now here is a damning comparison, complete with some carefully forthright wording:


YouTube: Boeing Max 8 and the Cirrus Vision jet story - Prof Simon

The US aircraft builder 'Cirrus' had a problem with its Angle of Attack sensors... This is is the story of how the USA smallest Jet company, did the right thing and how Boeing did the wrong thing.
Well, since the video shows two entirely different designs for AoA sensors and does not in any way address why the sensors fail, about all this really says is Boeing is a big enough company to bully the FAA. The question remains, did Boeing also bully every other country's flight certification people?
ID: 2002902 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 12927
Credit: 35,209,011
RAC: 22,957
United Kingdom
Message 2002909 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 21:57:23 UTC - in response to Message 2002902.  

Now here is a damning comparison, complete with some carefully forthright wording:


YouTube: Boeing Max 8 and the Cirrus Vision jet story - Prof Simon

The US aircraft builder 'Cirrus' had a problem with its Angle of Attack sensors... This is is the story of how the USA smallest Jet company, did the right thing and how Boeing did the wrong thing.
Well, since the video shows two entirely different designs for AoA sensors and does not in any way address why the sensors fail, about all this really says is Boeing is a big enough company to bully the FAA. The question remains, did Boeing also bully every other country's flight certification people?

Up until the second 737Max crash, just about every country accepted the FAA's decisions and for Airbus they accept the EASA decisions. It's just too expensive and time consuming to do otherwise.

This time it looks, from here, that the FAA followed the rest of the world in grounding the 737Max, after being told to by Trump.
ID: 2002909 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20842
Credit: 2,881,705
RAC: 1,208
Ireland
Message 2003014 - Posted: 17 Jul 2019, 15:29:00 UTC

Comments from the workers at Boeing's South Carolina plant says it all.
"They are built to sell not fly".
Of those asked the question: Will you fly on one?
2/3 said no.
ID: 2003014 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 2340
Credit: 12,205,943
RAC: 179
United States
Message 2003034 - Posted: 17 Jul 2019, 17:44:26 UTC - in response to Message 2003014.  

The workers just as guilty as management for criminal neglect with that post.
...
ID: 2003034 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9842
Credit: 7,392,440
RAC: 150
United Kingdom
Message 2003956 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 14:27:02 UTC - in response to Message 2000726.  

A few years ago Boeing were using members of the 8x86 family supported by DSPs from various manufacturers with some particular functions being handled by a Motorola chip. I guess they may have moved away from these in recent years, but probably stick with the i86 family. In addition there are quite a number of FPGA type chips in use.

One small snippet on the web for what the Flight Control Computer CPU is... It is an Intel 80286.

That is mentioned in the Wikipedia list of what is being 'fixed' for the Boeing 737 Max.


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2003956 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9842
Credit: 7,392,440
RAC: 150
United Kingdom
Message 2003958 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 14:32:59 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jul 2019, 14:33:48 UTC

Is this an indication of what I assume to be the callously cold cruel calculations of the 'Boeing Bean-counters'?


Families 'cheated of Boeing crash compensation'

Relatives of people killed in the Boeing 737 Max crash in Indonesia last year have been cheated out of compensation, their lawyers say.

... many families were persuaded to sign forms preventing them from taking legal action.

BBC Panorama has discovered that other relatives signed similar agreements after two other crashes, stopping them from suing Boeing in the US courts...

... Within weeks, relatives were offered compensation by insurance lawyers. To access the money, families had to sign agreements that would prevent them from taking legal action against Boeing or the airline, Lion Air...

... They will get compensation of just under £74,000 ($92,000) each...




How cheap is that?!

No wonder safety and good design was seen to be 'too expensive'?

Legalized murder?...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2003958 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 13020
Credit: 141,758,398
RAC: 156,604
United Kingdom
Message 2003967 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 15:21:00 UTC

How convenient that Boeing had such forms readily available for them to sign.
ID: 2003967 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 17550
Credit: 395,397,326
RAC: 103,665
United Kingdom
Message 2003973 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 20:11:46 UTC - in response to Message 2003956.  

WOW - a 286. Little surprise then that it is getting overloaded....
Talk of input lags and the like makes me want to ask what the processor cycle(loop) time is (not the CPU clock frequency).

There is a lot of re-engineering required to increase the clock frequency and not upset the cycle loop timing which is going to be pretty critical on that processor- it's not just a case of twiddling the clock, tweaking the voltages, but the memory (RAM, ROM etc) will, at least need to be reviewed, and probably replaced - and that might mean a new board - which is what I guess Boeing were trying to avoid doing by sticking with the old FCC hardware.

There are a lot of lessons to be gained from this episode - not the least "think of the consequences before not after".
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2003973 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4764
Credit: 29,561
RAC: 18
Sweden
Message 2003976 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 20:50:25 UTC - in response to Message 2003956.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2019, 21:00:44 UTC

One small snippet on the web for what the Flight Control Computer CPU is... It is an Intel 80286.
That is mentioned in the Wikipedia list of what is being 'fixed' for the Boeing 737 Max.
I can't see any mentioning of Intel 80286 in that link.
However I find this link.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/boeings-software-fix-for-the-737-max-problem-overwhelms-the-planes-computer.html
The 737 uses only one FCC at a time and the Speed Trim System (STS), of which MCAS is a part, runs only on one of that Flight Computer's two internal processors.
The processors in question are said to be Intel 80286 type CPUs. The original Intel version of that CPU, sold between 1982 and 1991, had a maximum clockrate of 4, 6 or 8 MHz. It was later manufactured by a number of other firms, including by AMD and aeronautics company Harris, with a clockrate of 20 and 25 MHz. It is likely that the Boeing 737 FCC uses these or similar types.
These old processors are very reliable and error free. But they have less than 1/1000nds of the computing capacity of a modern cell phone. According to Lemme one CPU in the flight computer runs up to 11 different processes. All need to receive the input of external sensors, run through their algorithms, and signal a command to the relevant actuators that control the moveable flight surfaces of the plane. That the FAA pilot "encountered delays in executing a crucial step" caused by the computer points to a capacity overload.
Computer overload... Sounds like Apollo 11 LEM program error "1202"...

Boeing's latest announced time frame for bringing the grounded 737 MAX planes back into the air is "mid December". In view of this new problem one is inclined to ask "which year?"
ID: 2003976 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 17550
Credit: 395,397,326
RAC: 103,665
United Kingdom
Message 2003980 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:09:55 UTC

I can't see any mentioning of Intel 80286 in that link.

About half way down, in the middle of the section titled "Flight control data processing issue"
Although the test pilot ultimately recovered control, the system was slow to respond to the proper runaway stabilizer checklist steps, due to an 80286[353] microprocessor being overwhelmed with data


Actually the next part of the same section is pretty damming:
The FAA characterized the slow responsiveness as "catastrophic", whereas Boeing initially classified it as "major". The solution appears to consist in rerouting data across multiple chips.

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2003980 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4764
Credit: 29,561
RAC: 18
Sweden
Message 2003982 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:25:12 UTC - in response to Message 2003980.  

Oh. There it is:) Thanks.
With a link to this article.
https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=8649
ID: 2003982 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25368
Credit: 48,562,670
RAC: 24,931
United States
Message 2003984 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:29:09 UTC - in response to Message 2003973.  

WOW - a 286. Little surprise then that it is getting overloaded....
...
There are a lot of lessons to be gained from this episode - not the least "think of the consequences before not after".

Possibly chosen because it may be more fault tolerant in a higher cosmic ray environment such as high altitude flight.
ID: 2003984 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 17550
Credit: 395,397,326
RAC: 103,665
United Kingdom
Message 2003988 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:49:37 UTC

At the time of the design of the FCC it was not quite the cutting edge, and it "did the job pretty well". And indeed has done so for a good many years.
They would probably choose one of the hardened version over the retail or commercial versions - the penalty being lower clock speeds. The hardened versions of the newer chips are actually far more fault tolerant than the equivalent 286. (Some insiders suggest that the commercial/industrial versions of the current chips are more radiation resistant than the radiation hardened 286, but there is little proof either way.

Boeing's issue was they didn't want to have to design a new board for the FCC as that would need to be fully qualified to today's standards which are different to those the existing FCC was qualified. (Note "different", not tighter nor slacker, but different - in that some parts tighter and some are slacker, and some worded differently....)
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2003988 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4764
Credit: 29,561
RAC: 18
Sweden
Message 2003998 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 22:45:20 UTC

We have a word for that what Boeing are, "Dumsnål", Stupidly stingy.
Designing a new FCC or upgrade it with new hardware means that Boeing have to completely redo the certification.
Modifying the software is apparently not enough but Boeing thought so.
ID: 2003998 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25368
Credit: 48,562,670
RAC: 24,931
United States
Message 2004010 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 1:04:14 UTC - in response to Message 2003998.  

We have a word for that what Boeing are, "Dumsnål", Stupidly stingy.
Designing a new FCC or upgrade it with new hardware means that Boeing have to completely redo the certification.
Modifying the software is apparently not enough but Boeing thought so.
Its legal, remember a corporation is a fiduciary duty.
ID: 2004010 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 17550
Credit: 395,397,326
RAC: 103,665
United Kingdom
Message 2004011 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 1:15:07 UTC

While fiduciary duty is one of the requirements, there are others including obeying the rest of the law - and not causing death directly, indirectly, intentionally, or unintentionally is one of them. Failing to comply with the latter is, sadly, not unknown - lots quote Ford, but think about the various medical scandals, failures to comply with building codes etc. many of which have resulted in companies "having their pants sued off". Indeed I believe claiming fiduciary duty in not an accepted defence in law.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2004011 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4764
Credit: 29,561
RAC: 18
Sweden
Message 2004017 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 2:06:56 UTC

Fiduciary Duty?
I'll see my lawyer about this as soon as he graduates from Shyster law school.
ID: 2004017 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25368
Credit: 48,562,670
RAC: 24,931
United States
Message 2004028 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 4:27:29 UTC - in response to Message 2004011.  

Indeed I believe claiming fiduciary duty in not an accepted defence in law.
You either get sued by shareholders for spending too much money on safety or you get piddly administrative fines for not having enough safety and then perhaps get sued by the shareholders for not disclosing the risk. In every case you get sued by someone.
ID: 2004028 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9325
Credit: 24,548,867
RAC: 20,180
United States
Message 2004032 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 5:30:56 UTC - in response to Message 2004028.  

In every case you get sued by someone.

No, you can get sued by all parties.
The mad hatter's tea party perhaps?
ID: 2004032 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9842
Credit: 7,392,440
RAC: 150
United Kingdom
Message 2004112 - Posted: 24 Jul 2019, 20:13:32 UTC - in response to Message 2003958.  
Last modified: 24 Jul 2019, 20:15:40 UTC

Is this an indication of what I assume to be the callously cold cruel calculations of the 'Boeing Bean-counters'?

And now Marketing follows up the rear?


Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

Decision fuels speculation that troubled plane will be rebranded once it is given all clear to fly

A Boeing 737 Max due to be delivered to Ryanair has had the name Max dropped from the livery, further fuelling speculation that the manufacturer and airlines will seek to rebrand the troubled plane once it is given the all clear to fly again...




How cheap is that?!

And now with added legalized Marketing misrepresentation of what real people will be flying?...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2004112 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.