SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The crew of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max declared an emergency shortly after takeoff and returned to Orlando's main airport on Tuesday after reporting an engine problem, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The FAA grounded this type of aircraft earlier this month following two fatal crashes of the popular model.
Airlines aren't allowed to fly passengers under the FAA's order. The Southwest plane, which was not carrying passengers, was bound for Victorville, Calif., where the carrier is storing the aircraft in a facility in the western Mojave Desert.
[...] The FAA said it is investigating the Southwest incident on Tuesday and that the issue was not related to other concerns about the 737 Max that led the agency to ground the plane.
Also at CNN.
See also: Boeing is handling the 737 Max crisis all wrong
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
(Score: 4, Interesting) by eravnrekaree on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:19PM (7 children)
It has nothing to do with MCAS, indeed. I am sure 737 Max can be made a safe plane, provided that Boeing actually provides pilots information in the manual about *everything* including MCAS and anything else they have been keeping a secret, and installs all of the MCAS safety features such as MCAS disagree light and a well documented way to disable MCAS.
Lets review what was known previously. The fact is, Boeing was negligent because it is well known that Boeing DID NOT disclose that MCAS even existed or even how to turn it off or what it does to pilots in the manual prior to the LionAir crash. This sounds like it could be criminal negligence as this is critical and vital information. It did so for monetary reasons, it wanted to make the MAX seem exactly the same as a 737 so it left out anything that might give the impression that it was any different than a 737 so Airlines could think they could just take a pilot off of a 737 and drop him in a MAX without any significant retraining. Even if, they did not put mention of MCAS in training, they could have made a video about it and included a discussion of it in the manual.
The fact is, pilots being aware of MCAS what it does and how to disable it would have saved hundreds of lives, LionAir would have never have happened since the disagree notice could have issued a visual and verbal alarm in the cockpit and the pilot would have known how to disable MCAS and take manual control.
Many try to blame LionAIr on pilot error. it could not be pilot error because a pilot cannot properly respond to a failure condition of MCAS without knowing what it is and what it does and how to turn it off. The error was clearly Boeing failing to properly disclose MCAS, how to disable it and the failure to include disagree light as a standard feature.
To add to the possibility of criminal negligence, a disagree light would come at negligable cost to Boeing, it wanted to charge airlines a huge amount of money for it as a result of pure greed. This is despite it being a critical safety feature that could have saved lives.
Boeing was trying to play catchup with Airbus. Airbus used Pratt and Whitney engines which provide much higher fuel efficiency with engines of the same size allowing Airbus to just swap out the engines on the same airframe without major modifications to the craft.
Boeing was eager to play catch up because Airbus had a huge lead on them. So Boeing was pressured to get out a new version of 737 as quickly as possible and lead to them making a series of foolish decisions. Boeing however did not use this technology and instead had to go with bigger engines that made the aircraft unstable. It wanted to save money by not going with a new clean sheet redesign. It also wanted to market the airplane as a drop in replacement for 737 which did not require pilot retraining. So it added MCAS to make the Max seem to be the same plane to the pilot and also withheld the critical information about MCAS to pilots to give the false impression the plane did not require retraining in order to increase Boeings marketing
and profitability to the airlines. Thus Boeing made a series of what appear to be criminally negligent errors with a profit motivation.
Boeing is probably responsible for LionAir and this is a very serious scandal for Boeing and will likely due serious damage to its reputation.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 27 2019, @02:30PM (4 children)
But the Starliner capsule will be safe to fly to the ISS.
The SLS will fly humans on its maiden voyage -- if it ever has one.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 27 2019, @02:44PM (3 children)
Not true. EM-1 [wikipedia.org] is still planned to be an unmanned mission.
They are scheduled to launch humans on the second mission. Point out that other rockets require more stringent testing before humans can fly on them? Well, it's OK, because..... it reuses Shuttle parts!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 27 2019, @03:09PM
Ah, okay. I had heard or read hints otherwise. And it was not hard for me to believe that SLS could get some special kind of exception.
After all, what are a few human lives when the cost of a single SLS test / demo launch is a billion dollars!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday March 27 2019, @06:10PM (1 child)
Wait until we get the new 2024 "Moon during my presidency" schedule.
At the rate they can build and launch SLS, and given they probably won't get a cash infusion, they're definitely going to cut corners somewhere and not test every piece once before putting live bodies on board.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 27 2019, @06:43PM
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/18282598/nasa-mike-pence-vice-president-space-policy-lunar-landings-2024-gateway-sls-orion [theverge.com]
The Pence speech potentially ties into the previous story: White House Budget Request Would Move Launches from SLS to Commercial Providers [soylentnews.org]
But the SLS is propped up by Congress and is still central to the Moon plans:
Struggling with flat budgets, they say. It would be nice to see orbital BFR tests this year so that these articles are forced to mention it and not just Falcon Heavy. Under the current plans [wikipedia.org], Yusaku Maezawa and artists would fly around the Moon in 2023, sooner than any 2024 activity and probably sooner than an Orion crew launch (scheduled for 2022, expected to slip).
It's like the orbital profile was chosen as another jab at SLS (hopefully a nail in the coffin).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @03:23PM (1 child)
MCAS or not. Runaway trim is disabled by pulling the breaker. It hardly matters what causes it. The same rule would apply to any aircraft with electric trim controls.
Boeing is being victimized by cultural issues. Just look at the statistics over the last few years. All the fatal airline wrecks, including these, are happening in third world countries, which includes Russia, China, Brazil. This isn't Boeing's. or Airbus's fault. Third world pilots are little more than button pushers. Despite recent events, the safety record is a sound testament as to the reliability of the machinery. If a goat herder can fly 'em, anybody can.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday March 27 2019, @04:37PM
You sound like the AC who eloquently explained to me much about bigger plane dynamics, trim, etc. If so, thank you again.
I understand your position, but I'm still torn. As an engineer, I feel it's my job to design UI to fit the human, including the general user. Of course much training is needed to safely fly any plane. You've established the fact (and I believe you) that some pilots aren't super astute. Given that fact, airplane manufacturers should design UI to be more foolproof. Killing a bunch of innocent people who have no say in how the plane is flown is not acceptable. Blaming deaths on inept pilots is not okay when the system could have been designed differently, in consideration of possibly inept pilots.
I wish they would release "black box" voice / data sooner. I'm very anxious to know what exactly those pilots thought was happening when the plane rotated itself so violently, and kept fighting the UI. I don't know, but I've gotten hints that big jets might have several levels of autopilot. Regardless, did they definitely turn all autopilots off? If so, then I strongly blame Boeing and MCAS.
Is "if the trim wheels start spinning wildly, in opposition to your direct command, turn off this switch" part of _all_ jet pilot training?
For me much of this whole thing comes down to who's right in the heat of the moment: the machine, sensors, and their product managers, or the human (pilot)?
We all know human error is often the major factor in many accidents. But when the human operator (pilot) repeatedly contradicts the machine's decisions, maybe the machine should disable itself and let the human know? From what I've read, we already have that behavior in many autopilot systems.
How about this point of view: I'm going to play the part of a QC design reviewer (Boeing, FAA, NTSB, whoever) talking to the 737 product design mgt. team: "Okay, you want the MAX plane to fly like a non-MAX. What is the contingency plan for when the MCAS fails during flight?"
Yes, you (or other AC) have established that engine thrust is a major factor in how big jets handle, so the pilots already know that. If I was a pilot, I'd rather know that "there's an automatic compensation system in this plane, and like any tech., it might fail and you'll have to be aware that engine thrust will affect this plane differently than you're used to." I'm pretty sure I could figure it out, as long as I'm told that is the case.
A couple of days ago I had to drive a fairly large rental vehicle 300+ miles. I'm not trained, nor used to such vehicles, but I'm astute enough to know it's different, it's going to take longer to stop, quick / jerky steering inputs might cause big disaster, too much side g-force also -> disaster, etc. But if I was wearing VR goggles that fooled me into thinking I was driving a Lambo, I surely would have wrecked.