Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

Re:Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a ... by piadodjanho on Saturday June 01, 2019 @03:39PM (#20071130)

I have the impression that people are overlooking the sensors. They are suppose to be very, very, reliable. Two different planes got wrong reading from sensor in the same side, this seems to be a red flag for me. I wonder in what side of the sensor cable the problem is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a ... by tlb on Saturday June 01, 2019 @04:31PM (#20071510)

They’re not expected to be that reliable. They’re small vanes sticking out the side of the nose, vulnerable to bird strikes. The article mentions hundreds of reported failures over the years. The way to make the system reliable is redundancy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a ... by piadodjanho on Saturday June 01, 2019 @07:35PM (#20072474)

The article says it had 122 failure due bird strikes plus 85 unnamed problems in about 30 years of data.

Considering the number of flights, that does sounds reliable to me.

I still think two failures in the same sensor, in the same airplane, under the same condition, in less than one year did not happen by chance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions into 737 Max, Blind to a ... by chimpburger on Saturday June 01, 2019 @08:38PM (#20072715)

You have a very poor understanding of probability. At a mean failure rate of 0.66 per year, it is quite probable for 2 failures to be spaced 4.5 months apart.

[ Parent | on HN ]