
New Software Flaw Could Further Delay Boeing’s 737 Max - osivertsson
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/new-software-flaw-identified-in-boeing-s-grounded-737-max-jet
======
beefield
This is more and more starting to smell a bit like this is the first time in a
while when somebody is actually looking whether a plane fulfills the
regulations. Just wonder if FAA & co should actually audit some other models
as well with same level of scrutiny? And by all means not just Boeing.

~~~
Waterluvian
How many new planes are designed each year that the FAA needed to abdicate
this responsibility?

Aren't planes hard and basically there's only a few new major models in a
year?

~~~
mannykannot
Two words: regulatory capture. I very much doubt that the career engineers and
administrators at the FAA chose to abdicate the responsibility, but there are
all sorts of ways that politicians and their appointees at the top can bring
this about without an explicit policy: reducing headcount and reassigning
staff, rewriting the low-level rules and guidelines, burying the staff in
paperwork and meetings... Boeing can also subvert the process by disputing
every point, administrative burying, and by concealing things (such as the
increase in MCAS' power to change the trim after the initial version was found
to be ineffective.)

------
dkarras
Will people even want to board these planes after it became clear how Boeing
handled (botched) the development of this plane and how FAA insisted on
keeping these planes up in the air (while stating they were perfectly safe as
any other) until they absolutely couldn't (i.e. until other countries grounded
it)?

I wonder what the game plan is for getting these planes back in the air for
carrying passengers. A small vocal minority will make a big stink about it and
it will get amplified. Regular folk that don't know or care will join and it
will become a huge shitfest when the day comes.

~~~
simias
Maybe I'm just a very clueless passenger but I admit that I never ever check
what kind of plane I'm in before I board it. I have a flight booked two weeks
from now and I have no idea what kind of plane it's going to be in. Aren't
most people the same? And if so, is the paranoia around the MAX big enough to
change people's habits in the long run?

~~~
ulfw
I check every plane. They're VERY different in terms of comfort. Maybe if you
fly US domestic it doesn't matter. But for international flights aircraft type
makes all the difference. (see e.g. Emirates horrible 777 vs it's very comfy
A380)

~~~
richardkmichael
I check as well. However, the airline can/will change the aircraft at their
discretion. Last time I didn't find out until I arrived at the gate. If you
don't want to fly on the changed aircraft, I'm not sure what recourse you have
at that point. Of course, ultimately you can not board, but there may be
penalties.

If you had carry-on only, it might not bother them much. If you checked
baggage, they need remove it, causing a delay. Although in principle, this
would be "just as if" you missed the boarding call, I suspect if you tell them
ahead of time (as in: "I'm not boarding this plane."), they'll try to persuade
you there will be penalties. I don't know.

There must be fine-print in the contract of carriage, since the ticket
("product") purchase indicates the aircraft.

Perhaps one could verify the aircraft before check-in. If you don't receive a
boarding pass, obviously there is no problem whatsoever, you just lose the
flight unless you've paid top-dollar for a refundable ticket.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> However, the airline can/will change the aircraft at their discretion

That’s very rare due to different seat configurations. That normally means a
flight was cancelled or something else went fundamentally wrong.

------
Havoc
All of Boeing's self-certification rights should be scrapped. Clearly Boeing's
internal safety culture isn't in a state where it can be trusted. Mistakes
happen & planes fall out of the sky, but this seems like a rather pervasive
culture issue.

~~~
ulfw
No manufacturer should ever be allowed to self-certify.

What kind of teacher lets his kids self-grade?

~~~
o-__-o
Well. The FAA in this case is not teaching Boeing how to make planes, so your
comparison is not exactly a good one. Maybe an example of another regulated
industry like NHTSA or OSHA?

I.e. I don’t see gold mining companies performing their own MSHA audits, but I
do see them building controls and processes to satisfy safety regulations

~~~
ulfw
A college or undergrad university doesn’t teach its students how to excel in a
GRE or GMAT. And yet you won’t ever get to self grade yourself on those. An
external (hopefully somewhat impartial) organisation does.

------
threatripper
There seems to be no information on what the problem actually is. This seems a
bit odd since Boeing themselves reported it and they should know all the
details.

Is it related to the blank screen problem that was discussed a few days ago?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21991087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21991087)

Is this reporting with such limited details some kind of damage control along
the lines of "we cannot wait longer and must inform the shareholders now" and
"we cannot tell the public all the information because it would damage our
reputation"?

With the little details we know now we can assume that it is 1) "nothing big"
as in an assertion that caught an unexpected new version number and the
program simply needs an one-line-patch to update the version check or 2) they
detected a problem that turns out to be "unfixable with current hardware" like
a weird kind of race condition where the communications can get stuck
sometimes but it's hard to reproduce, doesn't happen in the lab and nobody
really understands what's going on or 3) "something entirely different".

~~~
osivertsson
> The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it’s
> receiving valid data [...] when the system is initially starting up.

> software reviews have occurred in a special simulator used by engineers on
> the ground.

> The problem came to light when the latest version of the software was loaded
> onto an actual aircraft

My stomach hurts reading this! I get no confidence at all and I am scared more
problems will be found or more accidents occur.

Just guessing... Someone at Boeing testing the new shiny software on a real
airplane decided to mess with a sensor (AoA?) to simulate it being stuck or
something and to make sure this would be properly handled. It did not work.

How on earth can problems like this be found this late?

~~~
rbanffy
I would imagine the simulators will be updated to better reflect the
conditions that trigger the error on actual hardware, but it's hard to build
and iterate a perfect simulation of complicated stacks like a modern jetliner.

~~~
osivertsson
In a system like this the software organization should be super-confident that
no matter what failures occur they will handle them gracefully. They should be
this confident before even entering the sim.

Getting there is hard and you should be using both models you can prove
correct and hands-on "vulnerability" testing. And to make it feasible you
should keep your "stack" as simple as possible.

To me your comment reads like developing a system like this in a trial-and-
error way until you get a pass from the sim would be OK. It is most definitely
not OK.

~~~
rbanffy
Of course you don't start from a crude simulation, but when the sim diverges
from real hardware behavior, you need to find the reason and update the sim to
reflect real world.

------
mechhacker
This is unfortunate.

I am amazed that along every step of the way, Boeing appears to be shooting
itself in the foot.

Having worked in this industry (although not on airplane software), this seems
to be a big management and cultural problem with Boeing. It was apparent in
other programs and the decisions that the higher ups made.

~~~
amiga_500
And the regulator. Is the cultural problem due to American culture? Profit as
god.

~~~
ulfw
Which regulator in the US regulates still? Maybe the FDA, but even there I
have doubts.

The USDA is a rubber stamping under-funded organisation as has the FAA become.
Part of the culture there.

------
holoduke
Is it me or is every single issue reported as something exceptional causing
boeing to look like the biggest amateurs in the world. What will be next?
Boeing migrated all the vital control systems to nodejs. Infiltrated npm
packages caused unknown issues. Further delay required.

~~~
ulfw
Happens when you outsource life-critical code to the lowest bidder, who
doesn't even work on airplanes.

------
ehvatum
I wonder what the Gantt charts would look like for redesigning the 737 MAX
from scratch with new type certificate.

First revenue flight if everything goes smoothly: 2065? There’s like a 20%
chance Everett will be scoured to bedrock by a tsunami by then. So I can
understand the reluctance to do the right thing.

~~~
bdavis__
Using existing Boeing Standards and Processes? (how to install a rivet. how to
anodize aluminum. how to verify software. 100 years of experience written into
requirements and specifications of how to build a plane)

Likely 10 years. Starting from scratch. 30 years.

------
mnm1
It's incredible they are still pushing to fly this plane without changing the
plane itself (engines etc.). This is, as most software issues, an issue of
trust. After Boeing killed almost four hundred people with an airplane they
knew was unsafe we're supposed to trust the latest software update? Again?
That's what they said after the first crash.

This is a prime example of software (these days sometimes called artificial
"intelligence" or other nonsense) running amok and the dire consequences it
can have.

------
tjpnz
At what point will Boeing decide to just scrap them all? Are they relying on
the flying public being oblivious to what plane they're getting on? I know I
wouldn't board a Max regardless.

~~~
rasz
No way government allows it to be scrapped. Worst case scenario they will be
refitted for cargo duty, or 'purchased' by army/navy at a reverse discount to
prop Boeing up.

~~~
ardy42
> or 'purchased' by army/navy at a reverse discount to prop Boeing up.

What use would the military even have for such a plane? The only thing I can
think of is ferrying personnel out to deployments, but I understand 737s are
fairly short range planes and better, cheaper charter flights are probably
available.

~~~
kayfox
The US military has a hundred or so 737 derivatives:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Other_variants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Other_variants)

------
leoh
Open source it. Just open source it all. This would restore so much faith and
allow passionate researchers to improve safety.

------
freepor
I will never fly on one of these air Yugos. I suspect there are quite a few
like me.

------
ilaksh
I am guessing that previously they did not take the testing nearly as
seriously.

------
origami777
For the sake of all of us I hope this plane never sees another flight.

~~~
GenericsMotors
I'll never set foot on a MAX series out of principle. Not much else one can do
as a consumer other than vote with one's wallet.

------
tyfon
Why are they even bothering with the MAX?

Do they really think that people will willingly board a MAX plane again when
travelling? I'm certainly not going to do that.

~~~
mechhacker
Because they have hundreds of new airplanes sitting on the ground, as well as
a tooled up production line as well as the innumerable companies involved in
the supply chain.

The 737 Max issues have been causing layoffs at supplier companies that were
heavily reliant on the Max as a source of income.

~~~
tyfon
Yeah but nobody is going to get on that thing. The moment someone tries to use
that model again there will be headlines like "XX Airlines puts death plane
back in the sky" etc.

It's a waste of money trying to get it back on track.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Yeah but nobody is going to get on that thing

People absolutely will. Boeing is literally too big to fail and people don't
care enough either. If someone can have a 50 Euro flight from Berlin to London
they won't mind if it's a reintroduced 737 MAX.

~~~
dkarras
We'll see about that. Why would airlines accept to operate these planes at a
significant loss after the loss they incurred with this whole fiasco to begin
with?

I personally wouldn't board this plane until it had a spotless record a decade
in the air even if they paid me for it. And I'm someone who loves flying so no
specific phobia involved.

~~~
kalleboo
> _Why would airlines accept to operate these planes_

Because their other option is getting at the end of the line for an A320neo
and get delivery in 6 years (or worse)

------
pseingatl
Boarded a plane last night. Looked like a 737. Breathed a sigh of relief when
I saw it was an Embraer.

~~~
ahartmetz
The rudder hard-over in '90s 737 should be fixed now, no problem :>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues)

I'd call that one even more scandalous but the media didn't seem to report it
much at the time.

~~~
marcosdumay
Airplanes were much more dangerous back then, and those 3 accidents happened
over a much larger number of flights (orders of magnitude larger) than the 2
Max ones.

