How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ <comment><AUTHOR> Notable and disturbing here is the lack of Max simulators in existence. It looks like neither Lion Air nor Ethiopian nor any US airline had access to one.

Also linked in this article is the original FAA table of differences between the Max and other 737 models. It makes no metion of MCAS.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. As much blame as Boeing and the FAA certification process seems to deserve here, it's worth pointing out how much of the cascade of failures is in the airlines and cockpits too.

I mean, yes, the trim system was being driven by input from a single nonredundant sensor, which is a violation of the kind of engineering for failure process that airliners should be designed in. But at the same time that trim system is, _by design_ , not strong enough to overpower pilot input to the other control surfaces. I mean, it's supposed to have been possible for the pilot to just fly the aircraft to a landing in the face of outrageous trim problems.

But the actual pilots didn't, not because they weren't strong enough to push the yoke but because they simply didn't know what to do and didn't have the presence of mind to just yank hard on the controls. Somehow the culture of "just fly the ?!@#! plane" got lost in all those training iPads.

<comment><USER4> Not true.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/faile...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system- implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/) Quote:

The discrepancy over this number is magnified by another element in the System Safety Analysis: The limit of the system's authority to move the tail applies each time MCAS is triggered. And it can be triggered multiple times, as it was on the Lion Air flight.

One current FAA safety engineer said that every time the pilots on the Lion Air flight reset the switches on their control columns to pull the nose back up, MCAS would have kicked in again and "allowed new increments of 2.5 degrees."

"So once they pushed a couple of times, they were at full stop," meaning at the full extent of the tail swivel, he said.

Peter Lemme, a former Boeing flight controls engineer who is now an avionics and satellite-communications consultant, said that because MCAS reset each time it was used, "it effectively has unlimited authority."

<comment><USER3> Yes true.[1]

You're misunderstanding that quote. It's talking about "authority" in the sense of software's authorization to move the trim tab, not the aerodynamic authority of the tailplane.

The 737 has a 60 year old, very conventional elevator with a trim tab. The tab changes the resting angle of the overall elevator, and thus the "center point" of tailplane force on the airframe. Being out of trim means that the aircraft might naturally want to pitch up or down, and forces the pilot to apply to force to the stick (which moves the elevator, not the trim tab!) to correct it.

This stick force can be significant and surprising, but it's designed to (and the certification surely requires it to) be achievable by a pilot under all conditions. That is: it's not supposed to be possible for _any_ trim failure on a 737 to render an aircraft uncontrollable, and I don't see any assertion in the analysis of the MAX 8 that changes that.

At the end of the day, what happened here is that the aircraft had a runaway trim failure. That was a failure that was understood and forseen (albeit not under software control) in the aircraft's original design, and the redundancy to treat it was the pilot's physical ability to override the trim. This was supposed to have been a recoverable failure within the cockpit, and it wasn't.

[1] Style note: why do people do this on the internet? Ah hah! You fool! You are WRONG! Stuff is complicated folks, be nice, assume competence, assume lack of malice, try to teach and not argue.

<comment><USER5> Your footnote is really appreciated. I think there is a lot of trauma in this world and coping is a daily struggle for many of us. My hat is off to you.

<comment><USER6> I don't know -- in discourse, it's perfectly fine to dispute ideas (it's the foundation of Western civilization and of analytical thought, and is a means to knowledge and wisdom).

If we cannot argue in a marketplace of ideas, we are prevented from having hard but necessary conversations. We need to adhere to parameters of civility of course, but to me, a necessary freedom is the freedom to disagree/dispute. Some ideas are truly wrong and they need to be put through the crucible.

That said, I've always been told to always "address the ideas, not the person" (never attack someone's character) and to adopt a pose of "curiosity".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article seems to be second-hand reporting some of the information originally broken here [1].

There's a lot of damning information, not only for Boeing, but also a lot of negligence at the FAA for pushing engineers to 'delegate' reviews of certain components back to Boeing themselves.

[1] [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/faile...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system- implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/)

<comment> GuB-42 AFAIK, the FAA, like many regulating bodies take everything at face value, making sure they are not getting lied to isn't their jobs.

An audit usually goes like: "I see that you mentioned a change in document X, show me the corresponding test report", "who is responsible for that part?", "does document Y match document X, as required by norm Z?".

They will never check that you actually did the tests, or that the analysis is correct. Only that the paperwork is done correctly and that the person responsible is identified. Their field of expertise is in the process, not software or mechanical engineering.

But now that they have a list of names, and if one of them rubberstamped something that wasn't actually done, things won't go well for him. It can get really serious, possibly resulting in prison time, so managers usually don't that this duty lightly.

<comment><USER7> > AFAIK, the FAA, like many regulating bodies take everything at face value, > making sure they are not getting lied to isn't their jobs.

I don't think this is accurate whatsoever. USDA has inspections all the time, they don't just check a report you file with them and go "Oh yeah, they know what they're doing over there." Similar with other industries.

If a regulatory body doesn't validate the tests of a manufacturer, what good is that body?

<comment><USER8> > > AFAIK, the FAA, like many regulating bodies take everything at face value, > making sure they are not getting lied to isn't their jobs.

> I don't think this is accurate whatsoever.

Which part, that the FAA encourages delegation to Boeing? This is established, AFAIK.

<comment><USER7> Regulatory agencies taking things at face value.

<comment><USER9> It's pretty common all around... it's as much about documenting who to point the finger at as anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Since I keep seeing partially-informed comments about 737 pitch controls here's some notes and terms and links: It's not obvious, it's not simple, and other planes work in other ways - you can not just assume the 737MAX is like them.

The 737 horizontal tail externally looks like 3 moving parts:front-to-back (and large to small) is: Stabilizer : Elevator : Balance Tab.

see here: [http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Pitch](http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Pitch)

Stabilizer moves in response to trim - this is what we are mostly looking at.

Elevator moves in response to the control column.

Balance tab has several modes depending on flaps and hydraulic system health - but it mostly serves to offset aerodynamic force on the elevator in case the hydraulics fail and the elevator has to be controlled manually.

(there is one other pitch control, I learned - the spoilers on the wing can give some help in landing in case the elevator controls fail.)

There are many modes of operation and simple generalizations will not help.

</comment><comment><USER11> >, "Boeing 737-800 pilots were required to receive some additional training on the MAX 8, which included an hour lesson on some differences. Additional training was not required, as the 737-800 and the MAX 8 have same type certification."

How are those type certifications determined? It seems to me that there should be an instance checking if the type certifications make sense.

Or perhaps they did, and they just really look like similar planes. In which case I wonder if the threshold for 'versioning' should be changed.

(I know nothing of how this actually works, it just baffles me that seemingly different planes get the same certificate)

EDIT: I read the FAA does check this, but I wonder on what _grounds_ it makes the decisions.

<comment><USER12> y, sounds like a change like this:

The system, known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, was incorporated because the plane has larger engines placed further forward on the craft, and so has a chance of facing a stall at lower speeds than earlier 737 variations.

Would require more training than a few hours.

<comment><USER13> _> has a chance of facing a stall at lower speeds than earlier 737 variations_

No, that's not the issue. The issue is that, because of the pitch up moment created by the engines, at higher angles of attack the force required to move the yoke decreases instead of increasing. That's (a) a highly undesirable characteristic since the changing feedback confuses pilots and makes it hard for them to know when a stall is imminent, and (b) a violation of FAA certification requirements. MCAS was added to compensate for the pitch up moment from the engines by adding nose down trim, so the yoke force would be similar to that of previous 737 models.

<comment><USER14> You're correct, however without MCAS it could be easier for the pilot to accidentally pitch into a stall when flying manually. That is why the requirement for consistent feedback, as you say. So the people who say the MAX engine placement makes it "more prone to stall" are not entirely wrong.

The media has done a poor job of communicating exactly what MCAS does and why it was developed. With today's media motivated by virality, ad clicks and eyeballs, most seem more interested in reporting this as dramatically as possible.

<comment><USER15> _With today 's media motivated by virality, ad clicks and eyeballs, most seem more interested in reporting this as dramatically as possible._

In 2019, we need to wise up to these shenanigans. Fear isn't the only mindkiller. It turns out that Outrage Virality is very synergistic with fear. Our society needs to become very skeptical and notice when something is evoking that particular emotion. We need to view people hawking outrage like we now view medicine shows.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

EDIT: If someone has gotten one to really hate a person, really want to harm them, and wonder if they're really sentient, or wonder if they're looking at the same reality, or wonder if they're really human -- this is a big red flag. This is _precisely_ the state of having those in-group/out-group instincts tweaked. Word to the wise! Expert tip: It even counts when one is shocked at someone else's groupthink! Perhaps especially so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is a big difference between how you behave when you're calm, vs how you behave when you're under stress. Basically, you start hitting sub-sentient "defaults." You default to your training. You default to inherited flight or fight behaviors. Emergency procedures and training need to be designed with this in mind, or they will fail.

(Presentation preparation is like this. My last presentation failed because by self-training wasn't designed with this in mind.)

<comment><USER16> How would you design presentation preparation with that in mind? Or anything for that matter?

<comment><USER15> _How would you design presentation preparation with that in mind?_

Rehearse. Repetition strengthens associations and so increases the chance that you will fall into the same behavior.

 _Or anything for that matter?_

Masaad Ayoob revolutionized police gunfighting techniques by simplifying movements and changing techniques to more closely resemble the natural stance people take when in the "Fight or Flight" mode.

When an airplane is diving into the ground, the natural inclination for pilots is to pull back on the stick. Making the override resemble this would be a way of following this design principle. I think the situation which caused the accident is a bit more complicated and nuanced than just that idea, however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a pretty damning statement, with respect to the original safety analysis submitted to the FAA:

"The safety analysis... assessed a failure of the system as one level below "catastrophic." But even that "hazardous" danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that's how it was designed."

Neither Boeing nor the FAA should have given this a pass.

</comment><comment><USER18> Unvetted image comparison of the cockpits

737 MAX 8 Cockpit - [https://i2.wp.com/thepointsguy.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/0...](https://i2.wp.com/thepointsguy.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/IMG-Norwegian-Air-Boeing-737-MAX-8-cockpit.jpg)

737 800 Cockpit - [https://i.imgur.com/eRULoST.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eRULoST.jpg)

I don't really know my way around an airliner but the key displays seem to be quite different and there's a lot fewer knobs on the MAX 8.

<comment><USER19> I don't know nearly enough to have a respectable opinion on this, but those screens can display different information configured to display different information at the user's choice.

Here you have another max 8 with a completely different layout on those screens: [http://www.driven- technologies.com/images/bt_portfolio/52/or...](http://www.driven- technologies.com/images/bt_portfolio/52/original/82d7d6b3d0dfab66726be2fc2f2a3833.jpeg)

<comment><USER20> That's a 787, not 737 at all...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For those who were wondering why pilots didn't override the autopilot? Turns out that just made things worse:

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>==

The discrepancy over this number is magnified by another element in the System Safety Analysis: The limit of the system's authority to move the tail applies each time MCAS is triggered. And it can be triggered multiple times, as it was on the Lion Air flight.

One current FAA safety engineer said that every time the pilots on the Lion Air flight reset the switches on their control columns to pull the nose back up, MCAS would have kicked in again and "allowed new increments of 2.5 degrees."

"So once they pushed a couple of times, they were at full stop," meaning at the full extent of the tail swivel, he said.

Peter Lemme, a former Boeing flight controls engineer who is now an avionics and satellite-communications consultant, said that because MCAS reset each time it was used, "it effectively has unlimited authority."

...

Boeing insists that the pilots on the Lion Air flight should have recognized that the horizontal stabilizer was moving uncommanded, and should have responded with a standard pilot checklist procedure to handle what's called "stabilizer runaway."

If they'd done so, the pilots would have hit cutoff switches and deactivated the automatic stabilizer movement.

Boeing has pointed out that the pilots flying the same plane on the day before the crash experienced similar behavior to Flight 610 and did exactly that: They threw the stabilizer cutoff switches, regained control and continued with the rest of the flight.

However, pilots and aviation experts say that what happened on the Lion Air flight doesn't look like a standard stabilizer runaway, because that is defined as continuous uncommanded movement of the tail.

On the accident flight, the tail movement wasn't continuous; the pilots were able to counter the nose-down movement multiple times.

In addition, the MCAS altered the control column response to the stabilizer movement. Pulling back on the column normally interrupts any stabilizer nose- down movement, but with MCAS operating that control column function was disabled.

These differences certainly could have confused the Lion Air pilots as to what was going on.

<comment><USER22> > For those who were wondering why pilots didn't override the autopilot?

MCAS only works when autopilot is OFF (and flaps retracted).

<comment><USER21> I'm using autopilot in the loose sense, to refer to the general suite of mavhine inputs to the flight controls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> These crashes are captivating, especially given how astonishingly safe air travel has been in the past decade or so. If I remember correctly 2017 was the safest year in the history of aviation.

And airplanes, particularly modern jets, are fascinating no matter what they're doing. I remember twenty, thirty years ago looking out the towering floor-to-ceiling windows at the airport, marveling at how many different technological fields had to come together to make air travel possible: materials, energy, engineering, radio, logistics, physics, process control, weather prediction, mapping, software development—nowadays even spaceflight and the freakin' theory of relativity come into play where GPS is in use. As a budding geek it was (and still is) catnip.

And then these two MAX jets go down within months of each other. Three hundred and forty six people killed. Three hundred and forty six families shattered, forever. When I think about them, I'm reminded that these weren't just malfunctions to be debugged in my terminal, these were _three hundred and forty six_ tragedies that will ripple out to their friends, families, coworkers, and beyond, for decades to come.

I wonder if we are being hasty in our speculation about the causes. I know we are all intensely curious—that intense curiosity is, I think, a defining feature of the community that frequents this site, and something a lot of us owe our successes to. I notice though a tendency for speculation to evolve into factual claims through repetition, and I wonder if we should be more careful not to allow repetition to take the place of evidence.

Accident investigation is a slow process, and slow processes are frustrating. Information comes in a trickle. It's natural to want to piece together whatever details we have, wherever we can find them. In our hunger to find out what happened, how these 346 people lost their lives, let's not lose sight of the fact that the information we have right now is _incomplete._

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about people. For the loved ones, this isn't an interesting puzzle; this is a gut-wrenching sorrow. I try to keep that at the center whenever someone asks me what I think about these crashes.

I'm glad the MAX is grounded. And I'm intensely curious about what happened. I try to temper my thoughts on the matter according to the amount and quality of information I have, and the degree of knowledge and experience I've acquired. I don't always succeed. But I can at least rest easy knowing that the investigative team has access to a wealth of information and experience, and that they will make their data and findings public when their work is complete.

<comment><USER7> > Accident investigation is a slow process, and slow processes are > frustrating. Information comes in a trickle. It's natural to want to piece > together whatever details we have, wherever we can find them. In our hunger > to find out what happened, how these 346 people lost their lives, let's not > lose sight of the fact that the information we have right now is incomplete.

Slow, and possibly corrupted process. If we believe the FAA has been captured by industry, do we trust the outcome of their investigation to be impartial? Do we trust their investigation to be at all competent?

I think it's incredibly important we all remain skeptical of the FAA and Boeing in this; the FAA's reluctance to ground the MAX 8 until it was ordered by the president shows their bias. Any sensible human with a safety-first mindset would have immediately grounded the aircraft after the second crash until a complete investigation was done.

<comment><USER24> This is likely one reason that the French have been put in charge of part of the investigation of the Ethiopian crash.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/why-france-is- analyzin...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/why-france-is-analyzing- ethiopian-jets-black-boxes/)

<comment><USER21> Also has a lot of the specialized hardware and equipment required - <USER2> Air tried shopping their blackbox around to Germany, but they didn't have the hardware to connect to so badly damaged a specimen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Required reading for anyone interested in understanding what probably went wrong.

</comment><comment><USER26> So what's the most likely outcome for all the grounded planes at this point? As someone who has some fear of flying I'll definitely make sure none of my trips include a 737 max in the future, no matter how many patches or upgrades boeing releases

<comment><USER27> [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/faile...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system- implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/)

> _According to a detailed FAA briefing to legislators, Boeing will change the > MCAS software to give the system input from both angle-of-attack sensors._

> _It will also limit how much MCAS can move the horizontal tail in response > to an erroneous signal. And when activated, the system will kick in only for > one cycle, rather than multiple times._

> _Boeing also plans to update pilot training requirements and flight crew > manuals to include MCAS._

> _These proposed changes mirror the critique made by the safety engineers in > this story. They had spoken to The Seattle Times before the Ethiopian > crash._

> _The FAA said it will mandate Boeing's software fix in an airworthiness > directive no later than April._

After the fixes are implemented I wouldn't worry too much about it. Lots of planes have had terrible design flaws that were fixed. The pre-MAX 737 included.

<comment><USER28> _Lots of planes have had terrible design flaws that were fixed._

Sure, but none of those planes (in the last 30 years or so) had two full hull losses within month of each other with brand new planes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Both Boeing and the FAA were informed of the specifics of this story and were asked for responses 11 days ago, before the second crash of a 737 MAX last Sunday."

i.e. people were following up on this before the public outcry started.

</comment><comment><USER29> _The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes._

How does it work in other countries?

<comment><USER25> Funny, I've never heard the FDA make a statement like that. If it takes longer to certify a new pharmaceutical because of lack of resources, so be it. It needs to take longer.

Instead of applying pressure on the FAA to cut corners, Boeing and Airbus should lobby Congress to increase FAA funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The details provided by the article read rather badly for Boeing for several reasons.

Firstly, I think the whole issue is not going away any time soon which is bad enough.

But what looks worse is the article points to high levels of incompetence, if not gross negligence in the design and testing of the MCAS.

 _Like all 737s, the MAX actually has two of the sensors, one on each side of the fuselage near the cockpit. But the MCAS was designed to take a reading from only one of them._

 _Lemme said Boeing could have designed the system to compare the readings from the two vanes, which would have indicated if one of them was way off._

 _Alternatively, the system could have been designed to check that the angle- of-attack reading was accurate while the plane was taxiing on the ground before takeoff, when the angle of attack should read zero._

I can see this headed to the courts and if the details in the article are found to be correct, there's a good chance Boeing would be up for a rather big settlement, not to mention a massive dent to their reputation

<comment><USER31> I think the underlying problem is that a control system was designed with the assumption that its purpose was to make the pilot force feedback feel right, for regulatory compliance reasons. Therefore it was designed with low reliability requirements, presumably on the basis that if it doesn't work, no biggie because it's only there to make the controls feel right, and that only happens when the plane is about to stall, which never happens...

Then...it turned out that when this control system malfunctions (which is can, quite often, due to aforementioned low reliability requirements), it will actually crash the plane.

The lesson is probably: make sure that some system you're designing with low reliability characteristics (only uses one sensor, doesn't have redundant power supplies...) will fail with safe or benign outcomes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Well, now we know. Boeing has blown a reputation for quality they had for half a century.

The Cormac C919 just got a big boost.

</comment><comment><USER33> How did Boeing decide to kill the 757 and to continually delay the "New Midsize Airplane", and to progressively extend and modify the 737 until it reached 757 size in the 737 MAX 9?

I would bet good money that there is a wonderful book to be written about competing design teams, rival marketing plans, and mahogany row politics at Boeing about events resulting in the MAX kludge.

Also: "An airline pilot reveals why a plane Boeing discarded 12 years ago is the one they desperately need"

[https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-757-pilot- reveals-737...](https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-757-pilot- reveals-737-not-replacement-2016-11)

<comment><USER34> > How did Boeing decide to kill the 757 and to continually delay the "New > Midsize Airplane", and to progressively extend and modify the 737 until it > reached 757 size in the 737 MAX 9?

> Southwest Airlines has only operated Boeing 737 jetliner models, except for > a period from 1979 to 1987

I expect that sort of things was part of the decision. Even more so as Boeing never really try to unify their offering and provide airbus-style CCQ[0][1] so there is a very strong incentive & pressure to update frames and keep them in the same rating to avoid crew retraining costs.

[0] moving from an A320 to an A380 can take as little as 15 days, other moves are much shorter (down to 2 days CCQ for — I believe — moving between the A330 and the A340)

[1] boeing does have some common type rating courses but only between a few pairs e.g. between the 757 and 767, or from the 777 to the 787

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is there a way to figure out where the 737Max is still being flown? I ask selfishly as I have a flight on Norwegian Air Argentina coming up and according to their seat map I appear to be on a 737 Max8, but there is no indication about the actual metal being flown for their flights, as far as I can tell.

Norwegian suspended its use of the 737 Max8 for their main airline, but I haven't seen anything about their use on their subsidiary airlines.

<comment><USER36> It is grounded worldwide

<comment><USER35> So it is. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wonder who at Boeing pushed to redesign the landing gear. At this point it would have been the cheaper option.

<comment><USER38> Redesigning the landing gear means redesigning the wing. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I do work at an aerospace organization. I've been told my multiple AE's that redesigning the wing is basically the same amount of work as designing a new plane from scratch. In light of that, I'm still not sure we're there yet in terms of purely monetary costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> For those curious about catastrophic vs. hazardous, the standard being used is DO-178B[1]

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B)

</comment><comment><USER40> I am losing my mind over some of this (and trying to reserve some judgement because we don't have all of the facts yet).

In the age where "engineers": (1) can automatically land a "VW bug sized" rover on Mars (2) can land booster rockets practically from orbit (3) can make an adaptive flight control system that can fly a drone even when half a wing is blown clean off mid-flight (on purpose). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JyyN- qWWNfQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JyyN-qWWNfQ)

How does this MCAS system, as part of a larger flight dynamics system, have so little understanding of what the hell it is doing to the flight dynamics?

I am beyond confused...

</comment><comment><USER41> This will all fall on the shoulders of Boeing. They installed a feature without properly notifying pilots and airlines. Thus when things went haywire, the pilots had no idea what was going on.

<comment><USER42> Hopefully it will also fall in part on the FAA, which greenlit the thing for use without checks that might have caught this.

<comment><USER43> And will it also fall in part on the passengers who demand cheap and cheaper air fares? (Not only to the detriment of their own safety but also to further increasing ecological debts).

<comment><USER44> I started to compose a reply to your comment, and it turned out to be a deceptively hard question to answer.

My attempt at a succinct answer is that carbon should be more expensive, and that Boeing very likely moved too aggressively to meet the market with a more fuel efficient plane.

In some ways – based on my probably naive understanding – consumer desire for a cheaper flight results in increased fuel efficiency, since the cost of flying is heavily dependent on the cost of fuel. Environmentally speaking, that's good. However, better fuel efficiency resulting in cheaper flights leads to people flying _more_. That's bad.

Pricing carbon to reflect its true environmental cost could fix that issue, by raising the price floor. Consumer choice would still drive higher efficiency, but ideally the overall higher cost of carbon would keep flying to a 'sustainable' rate. (Whatever that turns out to be.)

What I don't have a clear sense of is whether point-to-point travel with planes like the Max are better for the environment. Theoretically, hub-and- spoke travel is more fuel efficient. The reality ends up being more complicated, with airlines flying half-empty 747s. From what I understand, that makes airlines like Southwest (which operates point-to-point) more fuel efficient.

But I'd love to hear a more clear explanation from someone who better understands the subject.

<comment><USER45> > However, better fuel efficiency resulting in cheaper flights leads to people > flying more. That's bad.

This part sounds complicated. It might be good for the people but bad for the environment. On the other hand, it probably also displaces some long-distance driving, and we have to estimate how much that is. Even if the environmental impact of reduced driving doesn't cancel out the cost of added flights, it's probably worth putting a value on the safety benefit. (Even though the current thread is about plane crashes, flying is overall much safer than driving, and reducing driving by even a little saves lives.)

<comment><USER34> > This part sounds complicated.

It's also extremely well known especially in environmental economics, if not well understood / solved: it's Jevon's Paradox (more efficient use of a resource can lead to an increase in demand which causes an increase in total resource consumption).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> So this is the equivalence of "let the software engineers do the QA" thing.

<comment><USER47> Nope, software engineers at least have a sense of proper QA. This is the equivalence of "let the product manager do the QA" thing.

<comment><USER48> You are sincerely suggesting that software engineers have a stronger sense of QA than aerospace engineers?

<comment><USER47> I was automotive engineer and software engineer. Both have a proper sense of QA, both do their own testing and both know what's right and wrong. Bad product managers certainly not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> EASA and other nations' aviation regulators are also on the hook for not validating this certification as thoroughly as they could have.

<comment><USER21> Everyone trusted the FAA. So much for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> tl;dr: Boeing said, "trust us", FAA said, "OK cool, less work for us. Golf Friday?"

</comment><comment><USER51> >FAA for pushing engineers to 'delegate' reviews of certain components back to Boeing themselves.

How much more proof do we need as a society that self regulation is a fool's errand?

<comment><USER42> Unfortunately, regulation doesn't fit with the narrative of self-determination and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"

Instead the narrative is about big, bloated bureaucracies, ignoring the fact that they got so big by having to respond and add additional layers every time someone figured out a new way to screw things up, as with Boeing.

<comment><USER52> I've never heard anyone criticizing the size of the FAA or calls for airplane manufacturers to be deregulated. Do you have examples of this? Or are you just making a general politicized point about deregulation?

On the other hand I've seen many people complain about "regulatory capture" between FAA + Boeing repeatedly. That's even on the Wikipedia for FAA.

> The FAA has been cited as an example of regulatory capture, "in which the > airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, > arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head > these regulators."

Which is an entirely different problem than a culture of "pulling up your bootstraps".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration)

<comment><USER42> Yes, I have an example. The parent comment was about regulation in general, and mine was in response to that. However, there was the massive deregulation of the FAA in 1978 due to this sort of pressure. It had one effect of creating more competition in the industry, but it arguably went too far and has had an impact on safety as well. [0]

[0] [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/perspective-on-airline- sa...](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/perspective-on-airline-safety- deregulation-increases-risk/)

<comment><USER53> I am not sure if you know what you are talking about. The FAA can't be "deregulated" as it is the regulatory body. And the airline deregulation that happened in '78 was deregulation of airline routes, not airline safety requirements. Furthermore, that 1996 Brookings opinion; that hasn't held up very well considering that US aviation has an extraordinary safety record since that time and an even better record than during the regulated days. More people are killed by trains every year than die in commercial airliners, but are we suggesting that train regulation is deficient? About 16 people a week are killed by trains in the US, yet with commercial airliners in the US, we've had a just single fatality since 2009.

By any measure, the FAA and industry have done an exceptional job of keeping the American flying public safe.

<comment><USER42> I think you're cherry picking and looking for reasons for me to be wrong because you don't like my conclusion. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and FAA were closely affiliated agencies until the '78 deregulation, and in the wake of it the FAA picked up some of the CAB's former duties. The CAB was deregulated out of existence.

And simply saying the Brooking's opinion isn't relevant isn't actually a supporting argument. Neither is stating that trains have more deaths: so do cars, but neither point is relevant to whether or not airplane safety was damaged by deregulation. Besides which, I think your estimate misses the much higher casualty rates among private aircraft, which do in fact rival cars [0]

The question has little to do with whether the FAA has done a good job, it's about what happened after the deregulation, and whether it would be even better without it.

[0] [https://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes- safety.html](https://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> With all the sensors on an aircraft, obviously the ones physical exposed out side the aircraft are more likely to malfunction, but I'm sure there are many unexpected behaviors that have yet to be discovered when other sensors fail too.</comment>


Study of quark speeds finds a solution for a 35-year physics mystery - <AUTHOR> https://news.mit.edu/2019/quark-speed-proton-neutron-pairs-0220 <comment><AUTHOR> paper: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0925-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0925-9)</comment>


Looking for Life on a Flat Earth - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth <comment><USER2> Flat Earth is kind of an interesting thought experiment if treated as such. It reveals just how much of our basic knowledge comes through intermediaries and how being able to trust other people is epistemologically extremely important. The decay of trust in a society harms more than politics and economics. It undermines fundamental epistemology and thus the ability to even think. A society that loses trust goes literally mad.</comment>


Show HN: Sudo for Windows - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mattn/sudo <comment><USER2> If you're at the command line anyway, Powershell is nearly always a better choice, and it has that covered also. See TokenDiversity 's comment, or use a simple function or use Invoke-Elevated from an installable package. E.g. [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1566969/showing-the- uac-...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1566969/showing-the-uac-prompt- in-powershell-if-the-action-requires-elevation)

Or if you know the admin account you could use something like

        Invoke-Command -ScriptBlock { ls } -ComputerName $env:COMPUTERNAME -Credential (Get-Credential)

<comment><USER3> > Powershell is nearly always a better choice

Not if I want resemblance with Bash-like shells. I guess that's also the point of this: Most people already know sudo from Linux and cmd.exe, now they can use both together.

<comment><USER4> 20 year bash user and recent Powershell convert here. Powershell has proper things like profiles and aliases, cool stuff like being able to cd and rm the Environment and Registry keys like files. cmd has none of those.

(Plus powershells structured output so you can use 'where' and 'select' and 'get-member' rather than scraping with regexs. )

<comment><USER5> > cool stuff like being able to cd and rm the Environment and Registry keys > like files. cmd has none of those

Emblematic of what's wrong with the Powershell (or perhaps MS as a whole) philosophy: you don't build this functionality into a shell, you build a file system module (you'd do it with FUSE if on Linux) that "mounts" the registry as a bunch of files. Then you could edit it in any shell or text editor, or even in a GUI file manager and GUI text editor if you wanted to.

<comment><USER6> i would call it "what's right with powershell" instead

<comment><USER7> By adding extra complexity to a shell command instead of offloading the process to small programs with a defined api?

I can see a lot more maintainability and portability of a implementation using FUSE to mount these systems as filesystems (so the abstraction is complete across the entire system instead of just in the command). Also the ease of having a abstraction which does not require special capabilities to be added to a program before it is useful is a reason that no system has properly supported these models before in this manner. On a UNIX system the same techniques could of been implemented sometime between the 70's and now to interact with environment variables and it has probably been implemented before but it has not gained mindshare as that approach is not scalable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's also a "sudo" for windows distributed as a chocolatey package that I've used for at least a year. Appears to do pretty much the same thing as this one.

[https://chocolatey.org/packages/Sudo](https://chocolatey.org/packages/Sudo)

<comment><USER9> Chocolatey is one of my biggest reasons to use this. Every single time I install something I forget to run as admin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've always been annoyed by the lack of ability for certain things to elevate as needed. Why doesn't Notepad offer to let you elevate when you try and save the hosts file?

I can't count how often I relaunch Command Prompt to Run as Admin.

But I'm hesitant to use a third party tool here, I really wish Microsoft just dealt with this properly.

<comment><USER11> 1 - Shift-Right Click on the executable, including links

2 - Select Run As...

<comment><USER12> His point was more like:

1\. Launch Notepad.

2\. Open etc\hosts (within the bowels of C:\Windows).

3\. Edit the file.

4\. Try to save.

5\. Profit?!? No, fail!

<comment><USER13> How is that different from *nix?

<comment><USER12> With graphical editors integrated into PolicyKit (I think that's the name), you get an elevation prompt.

<comment><USER11> Which is not standard across all *nix variants and requires explicit use of Freedesktop APIs.

<comment><USER12> But it's there.

And if we go by "standard across all * nix variants", outside of base POSIX (if even that), nothing is really standard across all * nix variants. There's no way "standards across all * nix variants" can compete with Microsoft's APIs available across, say, 90% of their installed user base.

<comment><USER11> Which is why developers that actually care about the whole desktop experience setttle on OS X and Windows.

Developers that are fine with xmonad and CLI, settle for a POSIX experience, making such APIs like PolicyKit barely used, because portable UNIX applications don't adopt them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hi, all.

I'm author. I added this because I want to write hosts file with ":w !sudo tee %" from gvim.exe on Windows. But most of implementations doesn't work for this.

<comment><USER15> You should probably clarify in the Readme that your sudo remembers the credentials or this thread will overflow with runas alternative suggestions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I literally wrote something identical just over a week ago; even called it sudo as well. Mine's in .NET as a little EXE. It's about 10 lines of code. I am _not_ dissing this effort though. Far from it. Open Source is cool.

It's annoying that you still have to navigate the UAC dialog though - not sure how to get around that, without compromising security.

For those talking about right-click on the EXE... If you live in the command prompt, having to reach for the mouse just to elevate is irritating as hell.

<comment><USER15> The main point of sudo is that it eliminates the need to enter the password for a while.

Does your "something identical in 10 lines" do that?

<comment><USER17> > The main point of sudo is that it eliminates the need to enter the password > for a while.

I disagree, that's just an additional feature of it. The main point is that you can carry out admin tasks from an otherwise more restricted environment, so you only elevate your power when necessary. Otherwise, users might be tempted to always run whole sessions as an admin/root for convenience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't understand Windows permissions well but if anybody looking to do this without a dpendencey.. I think

`Start-Process <stuff> -verb RunAs` does the same

</comment><comment><USER11> Nice as a learning project, but RunAs is already supported at CLI and GUI level, since several versions.

For those without much Windows GUI-fu, shift-right click.

<comment><USER19> But it's extremely cumbersome from the CLI.

RunAs always asks for password for the Administrator account (not the account for the delegated account like sudo). I have admin access to my work PC, but not the Administrator password (since UAC grants me access). Also, running elevated programs always in separate windows, so you can't redirect their input/output. And CLI program disappear instantly (no time to read the output).

I have used elevate.exe ([http://code.kliu.org/misc/elevate/](http://code.kliu.org/misc/elevate/)) but sudo seems even better (supports redirecting input/output).

<comment><USER20> > I have admin access to my work PC, but not the Administrator password

I am not sure if I understand this. Does the machine have two different admin accounts, once of which you have access to?

<comment><USER13> In windows you can assign admin access to any account if you wish, kind of like sudo in unix. "Administrator" is a special account, basically like root in unix.

<comment><USER20> I am still confused. Can't you specify account name like so?

        runas /user:Administrator2

<comment><USER19> Yes, but you need the password then. With admin priviledges you can run "as admin" without needing to know the password. The privileged account still runs programs in normal mode (unprivileged), but can launch programs with elevated permissions.

<comment><USER20> So basically log in as admin and hope you don't press Yes on a UAC dialog by accident?

Sounds dangerous to me.

<comment> Const-me The dialog has been designed in a way so that's almost impossible to press by accident, nor programmatically.

Specially dimmed background, characteristic sound, the dialog runs on a dedicated desktop i.e. you won't see any apps nor the start menu. Also the default button is No i.e. you can't accidentally press Yes with enter or space keys, you have to use a mouse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is actually very useful, will save me time reopening terminal sessions

</comment><comment><USER22> I just use this 6 kb no-dependencies command line program:

[http://code.kliu.org/misc/elevate/](http://code.kliu.org/misc/elevate/)

<comment><USER14> I read the code. I don't make sure but AFAIS, elevate doesn't handle stdin/stdout/stderr, can't pass environment variable correctly. After set FOO=bar, the process can't read FOO. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is it really sudo? Does it remember credentials somewhere for a limited time and across the whole system? If so, I cant see a way to implement it securely if you're not MS.

<comment><USER24> There's no true Scotsman, you know.

This solves a real problem and it works great. There's no horrible issue with getting a UAC dialog every time you do a sudo command. After all, in Windows (for better or worse) you need to be Administrator for less stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There is also a sudo for scoop [http://scoop.sh/](http://scoop.sh/)

</comment><comment><USER26> There is also CPAU where you can store the elevated command as a sort of batch file [http://www.joeware.net/freetools/tools/cpau/](http://www.joeware.net/freetools/tools/cpau/)

</comment><comment><USER27> All of this can be done with a bit of vbscript, no need to install anything

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm using

      cygstart --action=runas

This works well, too.

<comment><USER29> Yeah, I'm never going to remember that one...

<comment><USER30> Maybe this will help? :)

alias sudo="cygstart --action=runas"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Isn't this more like "su" instead of "sudo"?

(and it would spare two key strokes ;)</comment>


Athlete Stock Market StarStreet Launches Daily Fantasy Baseball Game - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/fantasy-baseball-starstreet/

<comment><USER2> Giving away $100 to whoever puts up the top score in MLB tomorrow (and you can enter for free). Get at it: <http://starstreet.com/daily></comment>


A Blue Sky in Beijing? It's Not a Fluke, Says Greenpeace - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/asia/pollution-beijing-declines.html <comment><USER2> Pro tip: if you're going to visit Beijing, do what I did and accidentally schedule your trip over the same dates as a major diplomatic summit.

It was blue sky all week during APEC 2014, then on the last day before I headed for Seoul, it was wheels-up for Air Force One and right back to smog...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_blue)

<comment><USER3> Can confirm with own anecdotal evidence, was there in 2007 and they told me there is some kind of communist party summit (and thus increased security in parts of the city). The sky was blue and Beijing was kind of beautiful. Sure enough 1 or 2 days after that summit was over you could barely see the other side of the street.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A lot of the smog in Beijing comes from burning coal. Over the past few years, Beijing has ordered dozens of heavily polluting factories & power plants to shut down and move away from the city. I think Shanghai has done something similar. Combined with the push to discourage using coal for home heating, which is brought up in the article, air quality has improved in Beijing.

It is a shame though Beijing is mostly exporting their pollution elsewhere. China as a whole is still building more of those polluting coal fired power plants. China plans to increase their coal-fired generation capacity by nearly 20% over the next few years. Coal usage (and coal CO2 pollution) will increase and is projected to remain flat through 2030. Though the pollution will be out of sight from major cities. Guess they can't get enough of that cheap coal electricity.

<comment><USER5> Is it possible to ban the export of coal power? If your country needs it then go forth. You just can't resell that power stations output internationally.

<comment><USER6> Electricity is fungible, so such a ban would make no difference in practice. China has enough non-coal plants that they could just say all the power they were exporting came from them.

<comment><USER5> It would effectively take the form that if a country or maybe provider is generating coal power, they are unable to export any power.

I'm not arguing this would fix everything, just adding direct negative to using coal. If you need coal to make your own country function, fine go ahead that's still a problem that exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe: [http://airindex.eea.europa.eu](http://airindex.eea.europa.eu)

I am from southern Poland, where in winter time some regions experience visibility range of less than 200m due to smog.

This is due to many factors, including people burning trash to heat their homes, industrial pollution, building over natural green corridors, as well as simply local geography (lots of valleys and basins)

</comment><comment><USER8> > pollution levels fell less precipitously or rose elsewhere, suggesting that > a concerted effort last fall to shift heating to natural gas from coal may > have simply shifted the harmful effects to regions far from the capital

It looks like they've learned from the West.

</comment><comment><USER9> Moments like this is when I wish the Indian government acted a bit more like China : [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog_in_Delhi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog_in_Delhi)

<comment><USER10> I haven't seen a blue sky in Indian cities for ages now. I was in Goa recently and I could never see the sun set all the way in the horizon due to thick haze. It was the same case in Puri in east of India always hazy. Whole country seems polluted: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud)</comment></comment>


My New Entertainment Web Site - <AUTHOR>

Hi people, how are you? I would like to present you my new Entertainment Web Site: http://allinyourhandsweb.com
It is a funny site which you can search by various contents like musics, videos, places near of you and more! I hope you like it and Enjoy! There is a android version too, you can get it on google play. :-) <comment><USER2> nice website!!!!</comment>


If You are a Woman, Your Work Is Irrelevant - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/bf1a7c77873b

<comment><USER2> _So, when Dave Eggers decided to rewrite my book as his own novel about a youngwoman working her wayup through Facebook, the Wall Street Journal called it a treatment of "the essential issues of the day."_

Most likely, his book was more acceptable because he presented it as _fiction_. Social criticis is always more acceptable when it is less blunt. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. Jesus was crucified. In contrast, when humorists highlight social issues, we laugh. Social criticism is very dangerous stuff. It can get you literally killed regardless of gender, race, age, etc.

Edit: I will add that I am female and I find the "glass ceiling" maddening, but I think the big thing about the glass ceiling is being denied the knowledge and connections men have. I think that is the piece we need to work on. And this kind of criticism does not further that cause. It probably helps keep the problem entrenched.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you aren't in the "In" peer group your work is irrelevant.

<comment><USER4> I came here to say something similar. The ability to "break the rules" has as much, if not more, to do with wealth and privilege than race or gender.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Interactive 3D car visualizer in 15 minutes - <AUTHOR> http://www.taodyne.com/shop/en/blog/63-integrating-3d-models-in-a-tao-documents

<comment><USER2> Looks interesting. Going to try by myself right now.</comment>


Why Are So Many People on Capitol Hill Getting Infected? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/02/opinion/coronavirus-gohmert-congress-testing.html <comment><USER2> Because the mayor exempted city employees from wearing masks.

Because of mass protests.

Because lawmakers have access to the best healthcare, wear their masks for the TV cameras, and then do the opposite when no one is watching.

Because politics is a social game of meetings, meals, drinks, and parties.

Probably many more reasons. Those are just a start.

<comment><USER3> I thought makes mostly protect others. With much smaller benefits for the person themselves.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand why this would be a breach of logic. If nobody wears a mask, then nobody is protecting others, so then infections.

<comment><USER3> Because people are selfish sometimes?

<comment><USER4> Yes, but the hypothesis presented was "not wearing masks" => "more infections".

You said effectively, I don't think that's true because given "wearing a mask": "protection of others" > "protection of self".

This point and also the non-sequitur "sometimes people are selfish" can both be true, and yet the original point "not wearing masks" => "more infections" can also still be true. Just because masks protect others more, doesn't mean they protect the wearer zero or negative. Just because peoples' motivations are suspect doesn't change the arrow of causation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because they cram the interns (who are young kids) into tiny offices and have antiquated Air Conditioning.</comment>


Telecoms Claim: The Internet Works During Pandemic As We Killed Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200420/08133144330/telecoms-latest-dumb-claim-internet-only-works-during-pandemic-because-we-killed-net-neutrality.shtml <comment><USER2> the title of this post is super misleading, the article title is "Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality"

Leaving out the first part implies the opposite.</comment>


OpenGlass gives Google Glass real-time augmented reality [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/21/openglass-google-glass-real-time-augmented-reality/

<comment><USER2> Calling that "real-time AR" is a bit of a stretch, nonetheless, great job indeed!

<comment><USER3> Agreed, that wasn't our chosen title. It's a work in progress but we're getting there.</comment></comment>


Hyperapp for Redux refugees - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/hyperapp/hyperapp-for-redux-refugees-2507c9dd1ddc <comment> g-harel I really like the side-by-side format you used to compare the code!

<comment><USER2> Thanks! :)</comment></comment>


An airline that has made sure its airplanes won't disappear - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/31/one-airline-figured-out-how-to-make-sure-its-airplanes-never-disappear/ <comment><USER2> I deploy satellite-comm GPS tracking equipment on machinery in the ski industry.

What I don't get is why airlines insist on bundling emergency telematics along with position tracking. It massively complicates what otherwise is a pretty simple problem. It feels like that description of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle out of the Pentagon Wars movie.

With a box the size of a Big Mac, at <$1k per unit and about $100/month in data costs, you could deploy an off-the-shelf industrial grade tracking unit that would transmit location/speed/altitude every 10 seconds whenever the unit is powered. All it would need would be a power supply. This would neatly solve the "where the heck is the plane" problem, globally, for a fairly trivial cost.

I realize that finding a spot on the plane to mount it, verifying aerodynamics, figuring out how to wire it in, testing, doing the work across a fleet and managing all that data all end up costing a lot more than the equipment, but given the costs being quoted for some solutions in the articles that have been coming up, it really seems like the airlines could have a big PR win by paying for it with petty cash out of their marketing/advertising budget.

<comment><USER3> I'd like to talk with you. Could you hit me at my email in my profile?

<comment><USER2> Email sent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't like the tone of this article. Articles like this were written after each and every single crash, which eventually led to sharper requirements, more certification, added security gizmos and thingies and more safe-ropes in every single corner of the aircraft. Most of that was reasonable, but care must be taken when making systems more complicated and static by taking what seems to be the easy route of "just adding a fix".

The reason why most of these systems seem anachronistic is not due to the high costs and financial pressure on the airline companies. Most systems seem so anachronistic because they have to be incredibly reliable and robust. Flight recorders are built to withstand about any disaster you can throw at them, which would be quite hard to do achieve with a modern cloud-enabled micro- electronic device. Even if we threw billions at the problem, it would most likely take five years to build a mass-deployable remote aviation telemetry system of the required quality level, just because making hardware is hard, and a half-assed solution helps nobody. It's particularly unlikely that a niche solution like the one suggested in the article works for everybody.

Don't get me wrong -- added safety is always nice. But let's take a step back for the moment. Let us not just put another whole new box into every aircraft after every crash. Instead, let's try and make the smallest possible adjustment to what is a well-proven, existing system already.

There have been reports after the MH370 loss that turbine telemetry data had been transmitted even after all other systems had failed. An small adjustment would be to lower the interval in which this signal was transmitted, down to say 30 seconds, provided the comm satellites are prepared to handle this. I'm not an expert on avionics, and I'm not claiming that this is the egg of Columbus, but surely there has to be a nice, small, lightweight and elegant solution, which _incidentally_ is cheap on top of this.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. People forget that in addition to the nominal cost of a new tracking system ($120k PER PLANE in the article, not including control center cost), just the weight alone costs about $3k/year for each 1kg added to the plane. Add the yearly communication service, maintainance, depreciation costs to this, and we're soon gonna be paying $3k/plane ticket.

In contrast, since MH370, Inmarsat has changed the time period for handshakes with their terminals from one hour to 15 minutes. Cost: $0.

<comment><USER6> > _$3k /year for each 1kg added to the plane_

sorry, offtopic, but this is an interesting number. Do you have a source for more on this? Most of the search hits I can find are discussing economics of spaceflight.

<comment><USER7> Usually you find these kinds of figures in articles about 3D printing aircraft parts. For example, "By reducing an airplane's weight by just one kilogram, an airline can save $1,300 in fuel costs per year, according to the [2011] IBISWorld report." [1] The 2014 report can be purchased here [2]. Of course, these numbers will depend on the kind of plane and its utilization, as well as fuel costs.

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/technology/3d-printing-coming- to...](http://www.businessweek.com/technology/3d-printing-coming-to-the- manufacturing-spaceand-outer-space-01092012.html)

[2] [https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/3d-printer- manufacturing....](https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/3d-printer- manufacturing.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Notice that avoiding that the plane disappears does not save any life. That's why people do not care so much about it, and that's why they stil disappear.

That said, good telemetry brings economical gains. Planes will stop disappearing in due time, just not by state decree, and probably because of more usfull devices than this one.

<comment><USER9> > Notice that avoiding that the plane disappears does not save any life.

Analyzing the causes of plane crashes saves _lots_ of lives. You can't do that with a disappeared plane.

<comment><USER10> You usually get the black box upon recovery, which doesn't save the passengers, but does get you all the valuable data.

<comment><USER9> > You usually get the black box upon recovery, which doesn't save the > passengers, but does get you all the valuable data.

And recovery is only possible if you can find the wreckage. MH370 is still missing, and as such the cause of its crash is unknown. If we had real-time GPS monitoring of airliners, chances are we'd have wreckage in-hand.

<comment><USER10> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_reco...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders)

17 unrecovered black boxes since 1965. I don't think that calls for spending tens of millions of dollars considering ADS-B and Iridium will have the problem solved in the next few years: [http://www.aireon.com/AboutAireon/AnIridiumInnovation](http://www.aireon.com/AboutAireon/AnIridiumInnovation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "...a six-pound tracking system, about the size of a hotel safe, installed in the planes' electronics bays...if something goes wrong — a sudden loss of altitude; an unexpected bank; engine vibrations — the system begins transmitting data to the ground, via satellite, every second. That six-pound box spits out reams of performance data, as well as the basics necessary for a search-and-rescue: coordinates, speed, and altitude....installation alone runs about $120,000 per plane..."

Should this cost $120k? I'm no expert, but that seems steep. I assume this data is already being written to the black box, so piggybacking off that data feed seems like it would be a pretty simple thing.

<comment><USER12> Airlines and regulators have no interest in slapping on crude, consumer grade transmitters to existing aircraft. As is the case with any aircraft part, it needs to be a high-grade, reliable, tested, and certified.

When you start tying in transmitters to the aircraft's existing avionics, the need for a redundant, extremely reliable, tested and fault-free system is even greater. An absolute must.

That's where the big expense comes in. And I believe that's what passengers have come to expect. Personally, I'd rather fly on an airliner without a satellite tracking system than fly with one that hasn't been subjected to the same testing and certification standards as the rest of the plane's equipment.

The cost is the prohibitive factor. I can imagine that Delta, for instance, has no interest in a $90M charge to retrofit their aircraft with a system that they will probably never use.

<comment><USER10> The money would probably be better spent speeding up ADS-B transmitter installations, as well as incentive payments to Iridium to get their new satellites with ADS-B receivers into orbit. No point in reinventing the wheel.

<comment><USER13> This is already being done, by Aireon.

<comment><USER10> Right, which is a subsidiary of Iridium:

[http://www.aireon.com/AboutAireon/AnIridiumInnovation](http://www.aireon.com/AboutAireon/AnIridiumInnovation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From the article: "In discussing about potential safety advances, Tony Tyler, the International Air Transport Association director general, said earlier this month that 'even though aircraft cannot be tracked in all cases, flying is safe. Over 100,000 flights operate safely every day.'" That's important baseline information. I would much rather fly on any of the airlines that serve the major airport in my town than drive here, and that's even though some website has just identified the drivers in my state, incredibly, as the safest drivers in the United States.[1] Airline flying as it is currently regulated and implemented daily is an astounding safe way to go to places near and far.

[1] [http://bringmethenews.com/2015/01/04/study-finds- minnesota-h...](http://bringmethenews.com/2015/01/04/study-finds-minnesota- has-the-nations-safest-drivers/)

<comment><USER15> No matter how safe something is, we should still be trying to make it safer.

<comment><USER16> Rubbish. Perhaps you meant to say "Unless something is already completely safe, we should always be open to analyzing the benefits and costs of possible safety improvements, while being sure to spend the majority of our resources on areas that offer easier or larger gains".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Any new technology also requires new training of pilots and ground crew, and > it opens new avenues for mistakes.

I think this is the key point. This isn't iPhone level technology, this is closer to Space Shuttle technology, where things need to be tested to the extreme, radiation tolerant, and able to withstand the force of a literal plane crash.

<comment><USER18> Meanwhile they allow hundreds of relatively high power RF transmitters (passengers' phones) onboard. I call humbug.

<comment><USER17> Right, my point is that this new device has to be tolerant of radiation from passengers' phones, increased radiation from space, etc

<comment><USER18> And what happens if it isn't? And how would be this be any worse than no device at all?

<comment><USER17> The device recording plane data is presumably connected to important plane systems to record them. Can data/electricity only flow one way? Are you sure?

<comment><USER19> Why? for location data all they need is GPS. If you know location you find the black box which has the telemetry data.

Is there a reason a location tracker can't be self contained with it's own power supply and no connections to a plane's telemetry feed?

<comment><USER17> If you do that, the next time there's a crash like Air France 447, you'll see rending of garments and crappy articles like this (again) saying "Why have a black box when you can just transmit the data?!?!?!"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Underwate...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Underwater_search)

> French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA) chief Paul-Louis Arslanian said > that he was not optimistic about finding them since they might have been > under as much as 3,000 m (9,800 ft) of water and the terrain under this > portion of the ocean was very rugged. Although France had never recovered a > flight recorder from such depths, there was precedent for such an operation.

Crashed: June 2009

Black boxes found: May 2011

<comment><USER8> Notice that the AF447 had great telemetry reporting its position right before the accident. Searching for things at the sea bottom is simply hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't think this expensive solution is the answer. All airliners already have ADS-B transmitters...the problem is that over the ocean there are no ground receivers to pick up the signals. Aireon is launching a set of satellites that will pick up ADS-B signals from all aircraft, and will offer the service completely free of charge to any airline in the event they lose contact with a plane.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm curious why a simple "Where am I right now" item that doesn't have to plug into the avionics and could possibly even have it's own power supply isn't sufficient to cover this. The biggest problem for both of those planes seems to be that we can't find them.

Figuring out why they crashed is possible once we find them and can get the black box. The only really missing component is the location ping and it should be possible to completely isolate from the plane shouldn't it?

<comment><USER20> You can buy a box that attaches to anything you'd like to track. For example with magnets to a steel shipping container. It has its own battery and gps and a satellite phone. It notices from the gps when the container is moving and starts sending position updates with the satellite phone. You can specify the interval, that then decides how many years the battery lasts.

<comment><USER19> So why isn't this a cost effective approach to the problem for airlines? You could even have a pool of them that you attach to airplanes that on overseas duty only to limit the costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The ultimate system would ping home every minute, not wait for a fatal even which may cause loss of power or antenna.

Certainly satellite data cost has come down to the point where you can track such expensive planes in real time?</comment>


Ask HN: I can build free design wireframes for your MVP in 2days - <AUTHOR> Have an Idea for long time but never started on it? We know lot of people out there have an idea and never take any action to realize the potential of their idea. I want to help you to get started by developing free wireframe designs for your idea in 2 days. At Least with wireframes, you can visualize your idea's potential and may be you get motivated to spend more time on it. All you have to do is post here and I will contact you. If you are happy with my work then we can work on developing the MVP/prototype. I am hoping to create a long term freelancing opportunity through this process. <comment><USER2> Perfect, We are at this stage exactly what our idea, Please can you shoot me an email on email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> definitely payamb

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I tried this once. The client ran away with the wireframe, hired a couple of unpaid interns to complete it. Just saying.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hi Cbnits,

Could you please drop me an email on email@example.com

Regards

<comment><AUTHOR> sending you email wesiewesie</comment></comment>


ReMarkable: The paper tablet for people who prefer paper - <AUTHOR> https://getremarkable.com/ <comment><USER2> Can one write apps for this? I see its operating system is "Codex, a custom Linux-based OS optimized for low-latency e-paper."

Edit: I see on their FAQ this question-and-answer:

DO YOU PROVIDE THE REMARKABLE WITH A SDK FOR CUSTOM DEVELOPMENT? The reMarkable will not initially ship with an officially supported SDK. We might however release an unsupported SDK for best developers.

What defines a "best developer"?

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm looks interesting. I'd love to see a video of an actual prototype.

I have a boogie board sync and while I enjoy it because of the feel of writing just like on paper, the contrast keeps me from using it for everything. The boogie board sync is an awesome doodling and brain storming tool though.

I'd love it if this actually delivers on it promises - even at the full price.

<comment><USER4> The device in the videos is an actual prototype, an engineering verification sample from our ODM. And all the apps are real, functional apps.

There's no CGI in the product movie, we don't want to show anything we can't deliver.

<comment><USER3> To be completely honest, I'm ready to pre-order if I see a real person (not an actor) show off the device, talk us though the features (for example, compare it side-by-side a kindle and boogie board sync) and show it off in a regular natural lighting condition.

It needn't be perfect. Most potential early adopters here would understand that the software might not be ready for prime-time but with a device such as this, you'd need a more 'real' presentation than a marketing video if you expect pre-orders -- at least IMHO.

<comment><USER4> The marketing laws in Norway are pretty strict, so doing side-by-side comparisons I'm not sure if is something we can do.

I have some videos of myself when we first got the livesync to work last summer, but I'll have to discuss if I can post them publicly. The issue is that we don't want to show functionality we can't deliver, and there's some other really neat functionality visible that we might not have the time and resources to include in the initial release. It's also on a much earlier prototype, so we might have to film something new for it to be representative of the device.

But tbh. it is mostly something I want to do personally for street cred, the pre-orders are going way, way better than intended already.

And lastly, only the people in the intro and outro are actors, I'm sure my co- workers will take it as a compliment that people confuse them with professional actors. :-)

<comment><USER3> > The marketing laws in Norway are pretty strict, so doing side-by-side > comparisons I'm not sure if is something we can do.

Ok sounds reasonable.

So I'll be honest here, I _really_ am hoping this is all that you claim it to be, but since I've followed what is considered the current state of the art, a bit, I feel skeptical.

As someone who would love to have this (I _know_ I don't want a tablet, I don't want apps, I want a book... that I can read and I scribble on, just digital, dammit!), I _want_ this to be true and your video hasn't convinced me yet. That's all :-)

Basically I'm hoping for something that you can get me from 'super-cool-me- want' to 'here-take-my-money'.

Wish you the best. I'll be watching you guys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Yawn!_ —yet another one to file under "Product doesn't actually exist"

I'm taking pre-orders on robot unicorns which shit gold bars, if anyone's interested. I don't actually have them in stock yet, but I've designed a slick looking website.

<comment><USER4> I'm interested in your product and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Pls do the needful.</comment></comment>


The Case Against Time Warner-Comcast Just Got Stronger - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/net-neutrality-comcast-level3,news-18739.html <comment><USER2> Here in Brasil, the ISP must guarantee packet loss of at most 2% in 90% of measurements. [1]

A public comitee manages servers located precisely at exchange points, and, thus at network borders. These servers are used by applications which anybody can run that are used to measure speed from clients to them.

Of course, there's always a chance of selective QoS based in packet origin, but this is now illegal (we have a net neutrality law now) and not that hard to investigate if needed.

[1] The speed is also rated, but at 30% at any measurement and 70% at long term average.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's kinda depressing that if the FCC acted to rein in the companies that have the lowest levels of customer satisfaction in the country, conventional wisdom is that it would be immediately thwarted by Congress. The same Congress which was elected by those same dissatisfied customers.

<comment><USER4> What's the Congressional action that's feared here? I thought that the FCC merely has to classify ISPs as telecommunications services in order to impose Net Neutrality with authority they already have under existing law, and that their attempts to impose Net Neutrality _without_ that reclassification are what's getting shot down, but shot down by the courts, not Congress. Is there something Congress could do to block or reverse the reclassification in a manner not subject to Presidential veto?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand the arguments against the merger very well. From what I've read, there is currently very little overlap between the regions of Time Warner Cable and those of Comcast [1]. If this is correct, how could the merger allow either firm to raise the price?

There are also arguments that combining the customer base will give greater buying power when making deals over content (ex. complete broadcasting power over local sports franchises). But the combined customer base is supposed to be less than 30% of households that subscribe to cable or satellite TV [2].

I understand net neutrality is a huge concern, but that seems to be a separate issue from the Time Warner - Comcast merger. It looks like the problem (which is addressed at the end of the post) is higher barriers to entry from local governments. If that's the root cause of net neutrality, that probably deserves more focus than just preventing a merger.

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/six- takeways...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/six-takeways- from-the-comcast-time-warner-cable-deal)

[2] [http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/28/news/companies/comcast- timer...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/28/news/companies/comcast-timer-warner- cable-charter/)

<comment><USER6> _I don 't understand the arguments against the merger very well. From what I've read, there is currently very little overlap between the regions of Time Warner Cable and those of Comcast [1]. If this is correct, how could the merger allow either firm to raise the price?_

Raising the consumer price is only one of _many_ things ComcastWarner could do. Having an even larger marketshare would allow them, for example, to extort more content distributors for more paid peering and hosting, for example.

 _But the combined customer base is supposed to be less than 30% of households that subscribe to cable or satellite TV [2]._

30% is a very big number! No company would voluntarily give up 30% of its income over a distribution dispute, so ComcastWarner would be able to extract far more concessions from content producers.

 _It looks like the problem (which is addressed at the end of the post) is higher barriers to entry from local governments._

A larger ComcastWarner would have even more lobbying power to ensure those barriers to entry remain high.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Net neutrality aside, there's still the separate issue of providers not paying to upgrade their peering equipment. How would that best be handled (assuming that increasing competition will never happen)?

<comment><USER8> How could it be handled? Perhaps a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the broadband customers who are not getting the service they paid for.

Of course, this is not without great difficulty.

I'd estimate that roughly 100% of US consumer broadband providers have written into their customer agreements clauses that a) provide no guarantee for any level of service and b) require customers to wave their right to file a lawsuit for any reason, class-action or otherwise. So, first these provisions would be challenged, and then the case could continue.

What is the outcome? Cynically, 10 years later, the broadband company settles out of court, admitting no wrong-doing and changing nothing in their business, and the lawyers get paid millions, the consumers sort of just plod on.

On a larger scale, I think the biggest mistake that we've made as a culture is that we no longer expect the government to be the final arbiter of justice. Indeed, the political winds on the matter of hated "regulation" shifts so frequently that regulators themselves must be a bunch of basket-cases. My sense is that in other countries the issue of fairness and acceptable behavior is more deeply understood. There is no doubt that it is the government who is the ultimate boss, and the folks that work there see it as their noble purpose to prevent large companies from taking advantage of everyday people. But for some reason people that figure out how to get away with it are admired, respected, and feared by government.

It ain't right.

<comment><USER9> 30-some years ago the courts broke up the Bell System (original AT&T) monopoly on the basis of monopolistic behavior.

Perhaps a judicial finding that present day ISP practice constitutes a de facto, /necessary/ monopoly, forcing wholesale access to competitors to the incumbent ISPs' customer access facilities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Appears to be a dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7699862](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7699862).

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder what that company in Europe is.</comment>


E-Gold founders avoid jail thanks to great judge - <AUTHOR> http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/11/25/e-gold-founders-avoid-jail

<comment><USER2> They always throw the old "child pron" line into these stories to gain public support.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's sad that we get so excited when our justice system works; it should be a matter of course.

</comment><comment><USER4> This really sucks. e-gold is a great service and this judgement will only mean that competitors that do not have operations in the USA will take over.

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe they were innovative, but at the end of the day their service was frequently used to launder money.

They also violated the law about know your customer (banks must know who each of their customers are, no anonymous customers).

Sorry, but if you run a business you have to obey the law, not just ignore it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Their legal counsel had advised them that they were not a money transfer business and not required to do so.

They had also been in business successfully for years before the patriot act passed.

I also hardly think you could say that they directly ignored it as they had actually been disputing that they were under Fincen regulations for several years and not just sitting back hoping for the best.

Whether you agree with their analysis is up to you. I think it was probably not a battle worth fighting.

Their service was undoubtably used for money laundering, but mainly for smaller criminals and fraudsters. The same could be said for craigslist, paypal, ebay and even google.

Over the years money laundering has become code for tax avoidance, online gaming and dubious investment schemes. By using that term the DOJ make it sound like it was used by major criminal organizations. It wasn't.

Real large scale money laundering is done most often through real estate, fake invoices between cover businesses and use existing banks complete with know your customer compliance.

For more on how this is done: <http://econotrix.com/archives/000524.html></comment></comment>