1602
Boeing whistleblower found dead in US
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
1602 points (99.2% liked)
News
23627 readers
2479 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'll never fly in a Boeing again after hearing this. Unless the ceo gets arrested 🤔
Kayak lets you search via plane model fyi
thanks for the info about kayak, very appreciated!!
me same, i would never again willingly book a flight with a boeing airplane.
in my mind that B. company got the status of a criminal organization >20 years ago when they afaik refused to fix a problem with sensors and the computer overriding pilot control which crashed the plane just after takeoff while pilot could not do anything against it. back then however the discussions were about computers overriding pilot control, not about a company intentionally risking lives.
Now they seem to me to still refuse to fix the problems and instead rename planes so that one cannot avoid their deathtraps unless not at all flying with their aircrafts. so i choose to only book flights with aviation companies that do not have B. planes at all. I decided to in future rather use a car or boat instead, if only B. planes are available.
i would not be surprised if the current "technical event" would be the actual same cause that "forced the nose down" over 20years ago, to me it sounds exactly like the same until now, it might just luckily have happened by chance high enough in the air so that the "nose forced down by computer" problem could somehow be solved with enough time where they had only seconds in that crash two decades ago.
Erm. Are you talking about something OTHER than the changed 737-MAX design and the MCAS system? Because those two related crashes happened in late 2018 and early 2019 - 5-6 years ago. Got a link to the >20 years ago incident you are talking about?
The only crash I know of thats similar to what they're talking about happened in an airbus plane, and during landing not takeoff. The pilots tried to pull up on their side sticks to avoid crashing, but the plane ignored the input because it would have overcorrected and caused the plane to stall. As a result they crashed onto the runway.
That isn't to say Boeing doesn't have a history with such things. Look into United Airlines 811 in 1989. Improper design caused a massive chunk of the fuselage to be ripped out in flight, throwing 9 people into the ocean and causing a rapid decompression. Initial investigations said the cause was human error, but the family of one of the victims researched it themselves and found out that wasn't the case.
Can't find an airbus crash on landing with that description - do you have a year, place, or flight number?
And of course, Boeing and Airbus also have had bad design decisions - just think of the A400-M...
Iberia flight 1456
Thanks. Reading up on that however, reads like not so much a negligent design, but a lesson learned from a new scenario that hadn't caused an issue before.
PS: I cringed hard at the use of "male" in the description of the pilot & copilot on the wikipedia page - seems some incel wrote that...
I would've assumed it should have been designed to dampen the input to a point where it isn't dangerous, instead of ignoring it entirely. There could be a reason they didn't do that which I'm not seeing, but that seems like a good idea at first glance.
I agree but we both have the luxury of hindsight. I think it's really difficult to always anticipate all failure scenarios in advance. I am saying that as someone who just discovered had a "bug" in his software discovered that caused a buffer overflow because I didn't anticipate a buffer as small as 32 Kilobytes in a data link that was designed for 32 Megabits per second :)
Not the person you responded to, but they may be talking about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which I believe the FAA grounded (I could be misremembering the John Oliver points about it) after several incidents within the first few months of release.
Wikipedia says the dreamliner had it's first flight only in 2009, so hardly 20+ years ago... I think previous poster was just confusing the very recent 737-MAX accidents with some historical ones.
what i meant was decades ago, not the "recent" crashes of 2018..
i tried to find it but didn't yet. there are way more plane crashes than i thought i would have to go through..
looking at "new technology" introduced (as it was quite new) i stumbled over this article and remembered that the "three computers voting" (while the pilot may only take place in that voting - as a minority ...) was part of the discussions back then (which is not written in that article however, but i found one piece, yay!):
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950605&slug=2124705
i feel like i could remember something wrong like it maybe was not a takeoff but possibly a go-around where the crash happened... not sure i won't yet give up searching, but i have to stop for now..
edit: i am not saying it was a 777, i just found a piece of my 20year old puzzle...
went through lots of plane accidents to find the one i think to remember, but had to stop as i do not want to increase fear of flying. however i stumbled about this one, Airbus A320 Air France flight 296 on 26th of June, 1988 which was sort of related as some "security" mechs seemed to have prevented crash prevention there and fired discussions. but this one was earlier and it was not boeing (and it looks like no one tried to cover things). however since it was during an airshow, not a commercial flight, i now figured out that the one i remember could have been a testflight, cargo flight or something else like a flight show as well... not sure if i "can" find it, the little i remember.
good call on kayak.
just tried it out by excluding MAX models of aircraft and it worked. unfortunately, that severely limits options, but hey, it's possible.
I just looked at a regular domestic Air Canada flight from Pearson to YVR...... $1500 fucking dollars to catch an Airbus over a Boeing. Seems like the demand to not be on a Boeing plane is driving plane tickets into the stratosphere.
That's just air Canada.
Their new motto: 'We're not happy till you're not happy'