Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:02AM   Printer-friendly

U.S. Grounds Boeing Planes, After Days of Pressure

After days of mounting pressure, the United States grounded Boeing's 737 Max aircraft on Wednesday, reversing an earlier decision in which American regulators said the planes could keep flying after a deadly crash in Ethiopia.

The decision, announced by President Trump, followed determinations by safety regulators in some 42 countries to ban flights by the jets, which are now grounded worldwide. Pilots, flight attendants, consumers and politicians from both major parties had been agitating for the planes to be grounded in the United States. Despite the clamor, the Federal Aviation Administration had been resolute, saying on Tuesday that it had seen "no systemic performance issues" that would prompt it to halt flights of the jet.

That changed Wednesday when, in relatively quick succession, Canadian and American aviation authorities said they were grounding the planes after newly available satellite-tracking data suggested similarities between Sunday's crash in Ethiopia and one involving a Boeing 737 Max 8 in Indonesia in October.

Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems

Related: Boeing 737 MAX 8 Could Enable $69 Trans-Atlantic Flights


Original Submission

Related Stories

Boeing 737 MAX 8 Could Enable $69 Trans-Atlantic Flights 23 comments

The management of Norwegian Air have reiterated a promise to deliver $69 trans-Atlantic flights using the new Boeing 737 MAX 8 airliner, starting sometime in 2017:

According to Norwegian Air chief commercial officer Thomas Ramdahl, his airline is awaiting the aircraft needed for the $69 flights. That's because the first of the 100 Boeing 737 MAX 8 airliners Norwegian Air ordered to operate those flights won't be ready for delivery until 2017. The Boeing 737 Max 8 is expected to enter service with launch partner Southwest Airlines during the third quarter of 2017. However, Boeing told Bloomberg's Julie Johnson and Mary Schlangenstein that the planes could be ready for delivery as early as March.

Ramdahl told Business Insider that his airline plans to make an announcement around November or December of this year with firm details of the $69 fares. "I can promise you that you will see trans-Atlantic flights on the 737Max next year," Ramdahl told us in an interview last week. "And that's when you will see the $69 fares."

The 737 MAX 8 features new fuel-efficient CFM LEAP-1B engines, upgraded avionics, and aerodynamics. As as result, the new jet offers airlines the range and performance to operate trans-Atlantic service with the lower cost of a narrow-body jet.

Found at NBF, which mentions other variants of the 737 MAX.


Original Submission

Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems 23 comments

All 157 passengers of an Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 died today, an accident that looks similar to the Indonesian Lion Air crash which caused 189 victims in October 2018.

The Ethiopian Boeing 737, a brand new plane, lost contact six minutes after departure from Bole International Airport; the 737 departing from Jakarta had done the same twelve minutes after taking off.

In both cases the weather was optimal and the pilots were experts. Ethiopian Airlines has a good safety record.

Both planes belong to the MAX variant, which features a "Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System" software to increase safety. Depending on sensor input, such software lowers the nose of the airplane, to prevent stalling. Investigations into the first disaster suggest the pilot might have had trouble with the automatic systems over this issue.

The two black boxes (with cockpit voice and flight data respectively), are likely to be recovered.

Sources:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ethiopian-airlines-crash-news-latest-death-toll-addis-ababa-nairobi-boeing-737-max-a8816296.html
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/10/second-crash-of-new-boeing-737-max-8-aggravates-safety-concerns/


Original Submission

Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features 60 comments

Boeing takes $5 billion hit as Indonesian airline cancels 737 MAX order

Indonesia's largest air carrier has informed Boeing that it wants to cancel a $4.9 billion order for 49 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. Garuda Indonesia spokesperson Ikhsan Rosan said in a statement to the Associated Press that the airline was cancelling due to concern that "its business would be damaged due to customer alarm over the crashes."

Garuda had originally ordered 50 737 MAX aircraft, and Boeing delivered the first of those aircraft in December of 2017. The airline already operates 77 older Boeing 737 models; two of the aircraft ordered were conversions from earlier orders for 737-800s. Garuda also flies Boeing's 777-300 ER, and the company retired its 747-400 fleet in the last few years—so the airline was looking for an economical long-range aircraft to fill in gaps.

Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras

As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits. One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.

For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons. Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane's operations.

Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia's Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don't require them. Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.

See also: They didn't buy the DLC: feature that could've prevented 737 crashes was sold as an option

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


Original Submission

Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max Flight Makes Emergency Landing (While Carrying No Passengers) 13 comments

Southwest Boeing 737 Max makes emergency landing in Orlando; FAA cites engine issue unrelated to recent crashes

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


Original Submission

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Faces Scrutiny for "Shoddy Production" 23 comments

Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet

When Boeing broke ground on its new factory near Charleston in 2009, the plant was trumpeted as a state-of-the-art manufacturing hub, building one of the most advanced aircraft in the world. But in the decade since, the factory, which makes the 787 Dreamliner, has been plagued by shoddy production and weak oversight that have threatened to compromise safety.

A New York Times review of hundreds of pages of internal emails, corporate documents and federal records, as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees, reveals a culture that often valued production speed over quality. Facing long manufacturing delays, Boeing pushed its work force to quickly turn out Dreamliners, at times ignoring issues raised by employees.

Complaints about the frenzied pace echo broader concerns about the company in the wake of two deadly crashes involving another jet, the 737 Max. Boeing is now facing questions about whether the race to get the Max done, and catch up to its rival Airbus, led it to miss safety risks in the design, like an anti-stall system that played a role in both crashes.

Safety lapses at the North Charleston plant have drawn the scrutiny of airlines and regulators. Qatar Airways stopped accepting planes from the factory after manufacturing mishaps damaged jets and delayed deliveries. Workers have filed nearly a dozen whistle-blower claims and safety complaints with federal regulators, describing issues like defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations. Others have sued Boeing, saying they were retaliated against for flagging manufacturing mistakes.

Joseph Clayton, a technician at the North Charleston plant, one of two facilities where the Dreamliner is built, said he routinely found debris dangerously close to wiring beneath cockpits. "I've told my wife that I never plan to fly on it," he said. "It's just a safety issue."

Also at CNN and CNBC.

Related: Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan's Ties to Boeing Under Investigation
Initial Findings Put Boeing's Software at Center of Ethiopian 737 Crash


Original Submission

Boeing Will Temporarily Stop Making its 737 Max Jetliners 57 comments

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788775642/boeing-will-temporarily-stop-making-its-737-max-jetliners

Production will stop in January. The jets were grounded after two crashes that killed nearly 350 people. Despite being grounded, Boeing continued cranking the planes out at its factory near Seattle.

(The interview had more good information, but at time of submission, the transcript wasn't available. There may be better articles out there.)

There are. Here's one:

Boeing will suspend 737 Max production in January at CNBC:

Boeing is planning to suspend production of its beleaguered 737 Max planes next month, the company said Monday, a drastic step after the Federal Aviation Administration said its review of the planes would continue into next year, dashing the manufacturer's forecast.

Boeing's decision to temporarily shut down production, made after months of a cash-draining global grounding of its best-selling aircraft, worsens one of the most severe crises in the history of the century-old manufacturer. It is ramping up pressure on CEO Dennis Muilenburg, whom the board stripped of his chairmanship in October as the crisis wore on.

The measure is set to ripple through the aerospace giant's supply chain and broader economy. It also presents further problems for airlines, which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and canceled thousands of flights without the fuel-efficient planes in their fleets.

Boeing said it does not plan to lay off or furlough workers at the Renton, Washington, factory where the 737 Max is produced during the production pause. Some of the 12,000 workers there will be temporarily reassigned.

Previously:


Original Submission

Promised Production Halt of Boeing 737 Max 8 Begins; Follow-On Effects Already Under Way 7 comments

Boeing's promised 737 Max production halt begins:

The airline manufacturer had announced last month it would stop making the troubled craft at least until it was no longer grounded, but hadn't set a date. However the line has officially stopped producing planes while Boeing officials wait for regulators to give it the OK to fly again.

[...] The latest update estimated the grounding would last through at least mid-2020, Boeing said in a statement Tuesday.

Boeing will reassign 3,000 workers after 737 MAX production halt

Boeing Co said it will reassign 3,000 workers to other jobs as it halts production of the grounded best-selling 737 MAX jet in mid-January.

The announcement came after American Airlines Group Inc and Mexico's Aeromexico disclosed they were the latest carriers to reach settlements with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft.

Neither airline disclosed the compensation. A number of airlines have struck confidential settlements with Boeing in recent weeks. Boeing said it does not comment on discussions with airlines.

Boeing's biggest supplier lays off 2,800 workers because of 737 Max production suspension:

Spirit AeroSystems (SPR), which makes fuselages for the Max as well as other items for Boeing, announced Friday that it is furloughing approximately 2,800 workers. Shares of the Wichita, Kansas-based company fell more than 1% in trading.
"The difficult decision announced today is a necessary step given the uncertainty related to both the timing for resuming 737 Max production and the overall production levels that can be expected following the production suspension," Spirit AeroSystems CEO Tom Gentile said in a press release.

Boeing wants to resume 737 Max production months before regulators sign off on the planes:

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:38AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:38AM (#814091)

    Boeing! Software upgrade, to Windows 10, for Airy Forces One. No one would blame you.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:01PM (4 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:01PM (#814142) Journal

      On a second thought, don't. Just leak the IP address of AF1 to Russian hackers, much cheaper in terms of effort.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:19PM (2 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:19PM (#814169) Journal

        I would think the Russians could have he IP address of AF1 just by asking the right person and stroking their delicate ego.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by deadstick on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:38PM (1 child)

          by deadstick (5110) on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:38PM (#814178)

          The right person's reply would be something like "Somewhere on Andrews AFB, I guess".

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:58PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:58PM (#814194) Journal

            "I know someone who is really good with the cyber. He can get you this cyber thing. He can remotely let you in so you can roam around and find it by yourself. Then just let him know when you have found it and are done looking."

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:45PM (#814295)

        Not at all. Windows 10 will crash my plane / autopilot when it force-restarts because of an update. The Russians would hold such information very closely at this time and do everything possible to secure AF1, as Trump is an extremely good puppet ally of Russia.

  • (Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:54AM (21 children)

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:54AM (#814093)

    All I seem to be able to find is that some control system changed, but I'd like to know more. Is the design changed significantly, but they failed to update the autopilot? Any pilots around here or aviation enthusiasts with more info?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:10AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:10AM (#814097)
      They added MCAS that overrides pilot's actions in manual mode.
      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:30AM

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:30AM (#814102) Journal

        There have been other crashes where autopilots were "on" and thought to be off, or off when thought to be on, or something inbetween.
        https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-crash-faa-software-fix-lion-air/ [wired.com]

        A software fix could be enough.
        separately, pilots have been comolaining the aircraft checklists are awful.

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:34AM (3 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:34AM (#814104)

        MCAS was added because the bigger engines had to be put higher and far forward, changing the plane's behavior slightly.
        MCAS is extra SW supposed to make it seamless for a regular 737 pilot.

        But they didn't document it (before the first crash).
        And they seem to be a lack of redundancy (preliminary result from the first crash, faulty AoA sensor blamed).
        And it may override pilot orders unless explicitly disabled (change in behavior).

        At this point, everyone has heard about it, so every 737 pilot should have checked how to disable it if it misbehaves.
        The MCAS software update after the first crash prelim report got delayed by the FAA shutdown.

        BUT this is all speculation until the black boxes are thoroughly checked, and there might be another failure mode than the AoA sensor and MCAS. It just happens that symptoms seem to be similar.
        At already over 300 bodies, the safe answer is to err on the side of caution, even if 2 crashes in over 40000 flights means it's not epidemic.

        After the 787 batteries, one would have thought Boeing would have been careful to be spotless on the next plane and new features, but apparently there was a ... problem.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by isostatic on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:39AM (1 child)

          by isostatic (365) on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:39AM (#814125) Journal

          At this point, everyone has heard about it, so every 737 pilot should have checked how to disable it if it misbehaves.

          That was after Lionair. Every 737 pilot knew about lionair, yet a major airline still had a crash. Until it's proven that the crash wasn't caused by the same problem it makes perfect sense to ground the planes.

          At already over 300 bodies, the safe answer is to err on the side of caution, even if 2 crashes in over 40000 flights means it's not epidemic.

          There are 687 A320neos, they've been flying since 2016. No crashes.

          There are 376 737-maxes, been flying since 2017, two crashes, the first one attributed to a feature of the new plane, the second with a very similar flight profile.

          On a terms of fatalities per mile, the 737-max has flown less than 1 billion miles since introduction (average age about 12 months, say 5 flights a day at 1000 miles a flight is 2 million miles per plane, 350 planes delivered is 700m miles), and had 346 deaths in two separate instances, at least 189 deaths related to the new design

          So 737-max fatalities per billion mile are in the 300-500 range.

          By comparison general airline fatalities per mile are int he region of 0.03-0.05 range.

          A 737-max is 10,000 times more dangerous than a normal plane. Only the de Havilland Comet, back in the 50s, had such a terrible start.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:41PM (#814337)

            At already over 300 bodies, the safe answer is to err on the side of caution, even if 2 crashes in over 40000 flights means it's not epidemic.

            So 737-max fatalities per billion mile are in the 300-500 range.

            By comparison general airline fatalities per mile are int he region of 0.03-0.05 range.

            A 737-max is 10,000 times more dangerous than a normal plane. Only the de Havilland Comet, back in the 50s, had such a terrible start.

            I was going to retort to you to compare against car driving, but apparently there is an average of about 12 fatalities per billion miles traveled [wikipedia.org].

            So this really is worse than I had taken it for. (Not listed are the maimings and other life-changing effects of car accidents.)

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:07PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:07PM (#814143) Journal

          Software... agile mantra: release early, release often.
          Translation: let the user's be your QA, you'll fix the bugs within the boundaries of your (evershrinking) budget.
          Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, it does increase the profits.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:35AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:35AM (#814105)

        That is bad enough, but when a Real Estate developer from New York City claims to know enough about flight systems to issue a no-fly rule? Donald! You are a moron! And this only makes it more apparent to everyone! And you have caved to public pressure! So where is the Medicare for All, eh? Big guy? Make me an offer you cannot refuse!

        • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:23AM (4 children)

          by isostatic (365) on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:23AM (#814123) Journal

          Every country on the planet had grounded these planes until the reason for this latest crash can be found out.

          The FAA and Beoing should have done so within an hour of the last crash.

          It could be the investigation finds that it was a meteorite that crashed through the plane, it could be that they find the pilots had fallen asleep, it could be that it was the same cause as LionAir and the modifications that SouthWest have had are all that's needed.

          Until then a plane that's 500 times more dangerous than other similar planes in the 737 and a320 category was still flying, but only in the U.S.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:10PM (#814147)

            in the 737 and a320 category was still flying, but only in the U.S.

            The country where profit is king and the populace is cheap.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @12:50PM (#814158)

            a plane that's 500 times more dangerous

            Where are you getting this number? It at most has a crash rate 10x higher, but crash rates seem to drop as the plane gets more flights (crashes are more likely early on): https://i.ibb.co/bBVhF0Z/planecrash.png [i.ibb.co]

            It could be all thes other planes had such "kinks" to be worked out when they had only 500k flights.

          • (Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:14PM (1 child)

            by physicsmajor (1471) on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:14PM (#814476)

            The FAA grounded them. Trump announced it, he didn't really make the call. Stop.

            • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday March 15 2019, @07:39AM

              by isostatic (365) on Friday March 15 2019, @07:39AM (#814692) Journal

              That’s not the order of events, but I didn’t mention trump at all.

              The order of events were countries from singapore to austrailia to France to Uk to Canada had grounded them, but the faa was still saying they were fine.

              Then the faa finally changed their mind days after the second crash of a brand new plane in 6 months. Something that statistically was highly unlikely to happen without the cause of the two crashes being linked, and the first crash already blamed on the new plane.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:35AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:35AM (#814106)

      The engines are much larger for efficiency (similar power) and far forward to make them fit on a plane is stuck with short landing gear for compatibility. At some angles, the outside of the engines generates a surprising amount of lift.

      Airlines want to avoid pilot training. For legal reasons, this requires that the plane act just like the old 737. As a bonus, lots of stuff is grandfathered in from older standards.

      That life throws everything off. Being so far forward, it can cause the nose to pitch up. This is particularly worrisome right near a stall because it means that pitching the aircraft upward becomes easier the more upward it goes. That is, there is positive feedback for the angle of attack.

      Well, that won't do. It would prevent certification. Boeing decides to compensate with software. Teaching all the pilots about this isn't really an option, because if they need to know about the feature then the plane obviously isn't acting just like any old 737.

      The system tips the stabilizer. That is the whole horizontal tail piece, not just the movable part that is normally used to fly the plane. (using a jackscrew, while the other part is done with cables)

      The pilot can override this by adjusting a manual trim wheel, but that only lasts 5 seconds before the automatic system goes back to messing with things.

      The automatic system is only hooked up to a single device (despite the aircraft having two) to measure the plane's angle of attack. If that is defective, as it very often does due to being an external moving part like a wind vane, the automatic system gets bad data and then makes bad adjustments.

      Thus, people die.

      Southwest deserves to keep flying. They had special training and they had some extra equipment installed to alert the pilots when the measurement equipment was malfunctioning.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:04AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:04AM (#814109)
        The problem is that when a faulty MCAS is turned off, the airplane has a good chance to pitch up and stall. The airplane itself cannot be flown manually, and that is not customary to Boeing products and Boeing pilots. The pilots are (were) proud that their airplane has no computer in between cabin controls and the mechanisms that they operate. The MCAS itself is not reliable because it does not use redundant sensors. As you can see, the aircraft should be modified before it is permitted to carry passengers.
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:22AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:22AM (#814114)

          With MCAS off, there isn't much extra chance of a stall. The positive feedback does mean that you have to be a little careful, perhaps, and that this is different from an old 737. As you pitch up (purposely) on an old 737, you'd need to apply more and more force. As you do likewise on the new 737, you find that it suddenly gets easier. Well, don't just shove the controls and expect resistance to not weaken. That isn't so hard to learn. Granted, it would be best to practice this in a simulator, but any pilot should be able to manage the oddity.

          Flying manually without MCAS is not any more trouble than that. This isn't a B2 or F117. It's just a passenger jet with some positive feedback to catch you off guard if you aren't expecting it.

          With or without MCAS, the whole problem is fixable with pilot education. Trouble is, that would mean the airplane doesn't count as a 737 for regulatory purposes. It wouldn't be grandfathered in, and airlines would not be able to toss a random ordinary 737 pilot in the cockpit. Boeing is going to try really hard to keep this aircraft as just another 737, using patched software and avoiding any extra training requirement.

          Despite the certification as just another 737, Southwest decided to have special training and to add a warning for inconsistent sensor readings. Those pilots should still be able to fly those planes.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PocketSizeSUn on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:36PM (2 children)

            by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:36PM (#814223)

            With or without MCAS, the whole problem is fixable with pilot education. Trouble is, that would mean the airplane doesn't count as a 737 for regulatory purposes. It wouldn't be grandfathered in, and airlines would not be able to toss a random ordinary 737 pilot in the cockpit. Boeing is going to try really hard to keep this aircraft as just another 737, using patched software and avoiding any extra training requirement.

            Sounds like reckless disregard for customers, pilots and passengers.

            Despite the certification as just another 737, Southwest decided to have special training and to add a warning for inconsistent sensor readings. Those pilots should still be able to fly those planes.

            That is good to know. When the training is mandatory and the pending 'fixes' are applied then maybe flying a MAX that isn't being flown by southwest pilots would be safe. As it is Boeing needs to be held accountable and perhaps the FAA and other regulatory bodies should be considering how to fix the hole in the regulations that allowed Boeing to pass off the (very bad) redesign as just the same 'ol plane.

            The actions of Boeing have been reckless as the consequences had to have been understood, otherwise why would Southwest have decide to have special training for the MAX?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:08PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:08PM (#814239)

              The extra training that Southwest uses will not be mandatory. Boeing will really fight that because it would break certification. That would make airlines much less interested in buying the aircraft. Nearly the whole point of this awful design is to avoid needing to train pilots.

              The other trouble is that the grandfathered certification would be lost. Extra requirements would then be added, such as triple-redundant sensors, jacking up the cost of the aircraft. If that happens, Boeing might as well just design a totally new aircraft.

            • (Score: 2) by mrchew1982 on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:47PM

              by mrchew1982 (3565) on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:47PM (#814539)

              Boeing is hurting bad right now... Lockheed got the contract for the next military airplane, SpaceX is murdering them in the rocket launch business, they almost lost the airtanker bid to BAE for bribery, Airbus is nipping at their heels for passenger jets, China really wants to start making their own passenger jets, etc.

              At this point I think Boeing needs a major shake up at the top, maybe even splitting all of those different branches mentioned above into separate companies.

      • (Score: 2) by eravnrekaree on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:53PM (1 child)

        by eravnrekaree (555) on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:53PM (#814372)

        Thanks for the insights. I dont want to set foot on one of these things now knowing the whole thing counts on one sensor. Why not have more redundancy with many different sensors and a voting system to go with the majority and also could generate warnings in the cockpit and possibly allow for a fast manual takeover.

        I am also glad to hear about Southwest and the attention to such things such as treating their passengers like human beings is one reason people choose that airline. Definitely my favorite airline.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:49PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:49PM (#814407)

          the whole thing counts on one sensor.

          That alone should have Boeing execs in prison. I've never heard of anything as fucking crazy as that, in a multi-million dollar plane. Zero excuses here. NASA has been operating for over 50 years, and they sure as fuck learned the value of redundant systems, THE HARD WAY. This is cost cutting by Boeing so that execufucks can have more cocaine and hookers.

          THREE sensors. THREE sensors are the minimum. I'm developing tech that administrates and monitors networks and our mantra is simple; No Single Point Of Failure. Our systems are not directly and intimately involved in the safety of human lives either. It's so that uptime can consistently be four 9's. The value of three data inputs is also the fact you can apply error correction codes. If there were three sensors, and two sensors agreed on one thing, and the last was faulty giving bad data, there would not have been a crash and lives would have been saved.

          This is why we should rise up and kill every executive. They treat us like disposable cattle when they make the decision to have only one sensor. I'll bet you anything you want that the Boeing engineers were against a single sensor, but an executive overrode the decision.

          Boeing no longer deserves our trust. This isn't the same company, or the same corporate culture, that existed in WW II. They clearly have a corporate culture infected by avarice and a complete disregard for the value of human life.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by RedBear on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:07AM

      by RedBear (1734) on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:07AM (#814131)

      All I seem to be able to find is that some control system changed, but I'd like to know more. Is the design changed significantly, but they failed to update the autopilot? Any pilots around here or aviation enthusiasts with more info?

      You may want to check a channel on YouTube called Mentour Pilot, where an actual commercial airline pilot explains many things about airplanes. He did a very thorough video on the issue a few months ago, related to the findings after the LionAir crash. Search for "mentour pilot mcas".

      Or just clicky the linky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfQW0upkVus [youtube.com]

      Basically a part of the autopilot system in the 737 MAX can take over and run the plane straight down into the ground if it gets faulty data from an air speed or Angle of Attack sensor that leads it to think the plane is about to stall. There seems to be a dangerous lack of redundancy for the system that will cause it to just keep trying to force the nose of the plane downward more and more as long as it believes there is a danger of a stall. A faulty sensor means the system will end up sending the plane straight down or even flipping the whole plane over forward. I wonder how many pilots could recover from that at 1500 feet?

      The pilots need to know this system (MCAS) exists and how to disable it immediately, because even both pilots pulling back on the stick together can't physically overpower the system if they don't disable it. It's mechanically augmented to be more powerful than the pilot input. That's probably the ultimate reason for the fatal results. The pilots can't just fight with a misbehaving system for 15 minutes while they try to figure out what's wrong, they literally have to immediately understand what is happening within a minute or so (depending on height above ground) before everyone is dead.

      It's implied that the MCAS behavior was poorly documented by Boeing prior to the LionAir crash, but since the FAA results came out a few months ago every pilot on Earth should have known about the MCAS, when it might kick in, and how to disable it.

      Needless to say I was dumbfounded by the apparent stupidity of the design and implementation of this system after I watched this video.

      All details I've heard of the new incident so far are very similar to what happened to the LionAir flight. The fact that it happened again even though the pilots should have been perfectly aware of how to prevent the issue is very scary, and it's embarrassing that the US took so long to finally ground all 737 MAX planes while the cause is being confirmed.

      I can't vouch for the usefulness of the following content yet because I've just started watching it, but here is a cached livestream video from yesterday (also on the Mentour Pilot channel) dedicated to the current 737 MAX situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJwUk5HH4KI [youtube.com]

      .
      -

      --
      ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
      ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by isostatic on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:16AM (7 children)

    by isostatic (365) on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:16AM (#814121) Journal

    Every country in the world grounded these planes before the U.S. Finally, after a few days, even Canada pulled the plug.

    Two crashes with very similar circumstances in 6 months for a fleet that's only got 300 planes in the air? If that doesn't warrant a precautionary grounding while the black box is analyzed for the second crash, I don't know what is.

    How deep is Boeing into the U.S. government?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday March 14 2019, @10:48AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday March 14 2019, @10:48AM (#814129) Homepage Journal

      Missile Silo Deep.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:41AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:41AM (#814136) Journal

      SLS deep

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:35PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:35PM (#814174) Journal

        Also Starliner.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:14PM (3 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:14PM (#814205)

      Just to spoil your conspiracism, I don't think it is possible for an outfit like Boeing and US government to set up such a conspiracy on a compatible timescale.

      • (Score: 2) by TheFool on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:25PM

        by TheFool (7105) on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:25PM (#814251)

        I think it's about is likely that this was an Airbus conspiracy designed to damage Boeing stock. That's to say - not very likely, but who knows?

      • (Score: 2) by pipedwho on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:28PM

        by pipedwho (2032) on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:28PM (#814531)

        All it takes is a guy who has the ear of (or maybe a favour owed, or some dirt on) the other guy who is in charge. No need for a complex multi level conspiracy.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @01:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @01:19AM (#814583)

        It's not a conspiracy, but Boeing is pretty much the US' flag manufacturer for aircraft, and you wouldn't expect the government to cast doubt on their products, nor disrupt the operations of US companies using that hardware, unless it really wasn't politically acceptable anymore. Oh, and as someone above said, the US is "the country where profit is king and the populace is cheap". It is the mantra on which the US is run. But the government still fears a good lashing from the media.

(1)