American Airlines quietly made a decision that'll disturb everyone:
European regulators have already declared the Max is safe to fly. What 's curious is that Boeing hasn't yet made the software changes that European regulators insisted was necessary.
In the US, the Max has passed its certification test flights. American, though, understands that passengers will be nervous. The airline is trying to entice passengers to take a tour of the plane at selected airports.
[...] So this week I was a little disturbed to read: "Southwest, American pilots say new Boeing 737 Max manual may lead to errors in emergencies."
The pilots are concerned that the Federal Aviation Authority's manual for handling the new software in the event of an emergency is inadequate.
[...] An intriguing element is whether American and other airlines will tell customers they're flying in a Max at all.
Previously:
Boeing Customers Cancel Staggering 150 Max Plane Orders in March
Boeing Making New 737 MAX Software Updates to Address Computer Issues
737 Max Fix Slips To Summer—And That's Just One Of Boeing's Problems
737 Max "Designed by Clowns"; Boeing Suppliers Affected by Production Suspension
Boeing's 737 Max Troubles Deepen, Taking Airlines, Suppliers With It
Related Stories
Boeing's 737 Max troubles deepen, taking airlines, suppliers with it:
Boeing shares continued their slide Monday after explosive messages last week revealed a top pilot had concerns about a system on the 737 Max that was later implicated in two fatal crashes.
Several Wall Street analysts downgraded Boeing, fretting about the fallout from the crisis that has barred the manufacturer from delivering its best-selling planes that make up around 40% of its profit.
Boeing's stock was down 3.8% Monday afternoon, shaving more than 80 points off the Dow Jones Industrial Average, but had pared losses from earlier in the session
The messages made public Friday included an exchange from a top Boeing pilot to a colleague in 2016 that expressed his worries about an aggressive flight control system on the Max, whose performance he called "egregious." The pilot, who now works for Southwest, said in the exchange that he "unknowingly" lied to regulators. That same pilot months later told the FAA to remove the system, known as MCAS, from pilot procedures and training materials.
The FAA said Boeing knew about the messages for months and scolded Boeing in a letter for not releasing the documents earlier. Boeing defended its training materials for the 737 Max, which regulators deemed safe in 2017, and said it told regulators on "multiple occasions" about the broadened capabilities of the now-questioned system.
[...]Boeing's board is holding a regularly scheduled meeting in San Antonio that concludes Monday, a spokesman said. The board stripped CEO Dennis Muilenburg of his chairmanship on Oct. 11 to focus on getting the Max back into service.
Boeing: internal emails reveal chaos and incompetence at 737 Max factory
[On] Thursday hundreds of pages of internal messages were delivered to congressional investigators in which Boeing executives mocked their regulator, joked about safety and said the Max had been "designed by clowns".
Shocking as the emails are, they will come as no surprise to those following the Boeing story. Last month Edward Pierson, a former senior manager at Boeing's 737 factory in Renton, Washington, told Congress he had witnessed "chaos" at the factory where the Max was built and had warned management that "Boeing was prioritizing production speed over quality and safety". His warnings were ignored.
Boeing Mocked Lion Air Calls for More 737 Max Training Before Crash
Indonesia's Lion Air considered putting its pilots through simulator training before flying the Boeing Co. 737 Max but abandoned the idea after the planemaker convinced them in 2017 it was unnecessary, according to people familiar with the matter and internal company communications.
The next year, 189 people died when a Lion Air 737 Max plunged into the Java Sea, a disaster blamed in part on inadequate training and the crew's unfamiliarity with a new flight-control feature on the Max that malfunctioned.
[...] "Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I'm scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots," one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House committee.
In response, a Boeing colleague replied: "WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!" That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.
The past 10 months have not been good for Boeing for all sorts of reasons—capped off by the failure of the company's Starliner commercial crew vehicle to achieve the right orbit in its uncrewed premier in December. But the biggest of the company's problems remains the 737 Max, grounded since last spring after two crashes that killed 346 people between them. Combined, the crashes are the worst air disaster since September 11, 2001.
Both were at least partially caused by a sensor failure with no redundancy and a problem with MCAS (the new software controlling the handling of the aircraft) that the air crews had not been trained to overcome.
Boeing executives are now telling the company's 737 Max customers that the software fix required to make the airliner airworthy will not be approved in the near future, and that it will likely be June or July before the Federal Aviation Administration certifies the aircraft for flight again—meaning that the aircraft will have been grounded for at least 16 months.
The FAA, for its part, has not committed to any timeframe for re-certifying the aircraft. In an emailed statement, an FAA spokesperson said, "We continue to work with other safety regulators to review Boeing's work as the company conducts the required safety assessments and addresses all issues that arise during testing."
Boeing making new 737 MAX software updates to address computer issue:
Boeing Co (BA.N) said late on Tuesday it will make two new software updates to the 737 MAX's flight control computer as it works to win regulatory approval to resume flights after the jet was grounded following two fatal crashes in five months.
The planemaker confirmed to Reuters that one issue involves hypothetical faults in the flight control computer microprocessor, which could potentially lead to a loss of control known as a runaway stabilizer, while the other issue could potentially lead to disengagement of the autopilot feature during final approach. Boeing said the software updates will address both issues.
The Federal Aviation Administration said on Tuesday it is in contact with Boeing as it "continues its work on the automated flight control system on the 737 MAX. The manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with all certification standards."
The largest U.S. planemaker has been dealing with a number of software issues involving the plane that has been grounded since March 2019. Boeing halted production in January. Boeing said it does not expect the issues to impact its current forecast of a mid-year return to service for the plane. Boeing said the new software issues are not tied to a key anti-software system known as MCAS faulted in both fatal crashes.
Boeing customers canceled a staggering number of 737 Max orders last month, deepening the crisis the company faces amid the coronavirus pandemic and the continued grounding of its bestselling plane after two fatal crashes.
The Chicago-based manufacturer on Tuesday posted 150 cancellations of its beleaguered 737 Max jets in March, the most in decades, the company said. Brazilian airline Gol canceled 34 of the narrow-body planes and leasing firm Avolon scrapped orders for 75 of them, a move it announced earlier this month. Net cancellations in the month totaled 119 thanks to 31 orders for wide-body passenger planes and military aircraft.
That brought net orders Boeing removed from its order list in [the]first three months of the year to 307 planes, a sharp turnaround for a company that just over a year ago was aiming to increase output of its planes to meet strong demand.
[...] Boeing's airline customers are now facing the steepest drop in demand ever recorded because of Covid-19 and harsh measures like stay-at-home orders to slow its spread. The pandemic comes on top of the more than year-long grounding of the 737 Max after 346 people were killed in two crashes.
Alternate source: Yahoo finance
<no-sarcasm>
I wonder. If the 737 MAX had not been grounded, would those orders have been cancelled, despite the Covid-19 downturn in airline flights.
</no-sarcasm>
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Monday November 09 2020, @10:58AM (60 children)
The Max problem, if you recall, was driven by Boeing desire not to have to retrain pilots. One escape route for Boeing could be to train pilots to handle the different flight characteristics of the Max? Maybe that is what they did.
(Score: 5, Informative) by legont on Monday November 09 2020, @12:52PM (53 children)
It is called pilot's type rating for an airplane. There were much harder airplanes to fly and they were generally safe for specifically trained pilots. What they have to do is type certify pilots to fly it (and preferably rename the airplane in the process). It is simply not a Boeing 737 as far as safe operations are concerned.
However, nobody wants to do it - no Boeing, no airlines, no regulators. They want any 737 pilot to be legal to fly this one, which is not safe. It's a conspiracy of a sort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rating [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday November 09 2020, @01:44PM (52 children)
Now for your car analogy. That is like having a Ford Escape and a Ford Expedition. The Escape operates like every other car on the road while the Expedition will randomly steer you into a wall.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by legont on Monday November 09 2020, @02:10PM (51 children)
Let's be a little more precise here. The original reason for Max troubles was they put bigger engines on it to save the planet and money. The engines did not have enough clearance so they moved them forward screwing the bird's balance in the process. This was to save money and fuel (here is the exact analogy to cars as most have issues because of a desire to save fuel). Anyway, if they declare Max a different type, all those savings will be gone for both - Boeing and Airlines - who bribe the authorities. Case closed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday November 09 2020, @04:52PM (3 children)
but they *also* added lift, now the engine nacelles extended forward andn were flattened - and to fix that, they had an automatic system move the elevators
1. didn't tell the pilots
2. the special automation was run by ONE sensor.. which is not enough. This sensor failing helped cause several of the incidents.
3, the pilots couldn't disengage the automated system - it would just keep trying to push the nose down UNLESS the airline had bought (and paid for) a special override option, which the pilots weren't trained on. The override was manual, and the plan fought it.
The checklist to disengage took 5 minutes.. the crashes took less than that. Feel very sorry when those pilots,
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @09:15PM
I think I read somewhere that the change also lowered the center of thrust, putting it below the center of drag. This gives the plane a tendency to pitch up and stall, which is why the software was so keen on keeping the nose down, all the way into the ground.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 10 2020, @04:31AM (1 child)
That just seems incredible. Not a pilot, of course, but if it takes 15 seconds to complete a procedure in an emergency, that seems far too long. Huge, massive ships don't take 15 minutes to run emergency drills. Well - maybe - some ancient tramp freighter that last saw maintenance around 1980, maybe.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday November 11 2020, @12:15AM
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa [theverge.com]
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/ [seattletimes.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @05:04PM (46 children)
I don't think you're being precise enough here. The engines were moved forward because of runway clearance; it was the only way they could retrofit these inappropriate engines onto an airframe from the 1960s. What you let out is why they're using an airframe from the 60s in the first place: to keep the same "type" and avoid pilot training and certification needed for a new type. This should *never* have been allowed in the first place. The entire reason for this plane's existence is utterly flawed. The engines should never have been moved forward, and they should have been forced to make a new type to make a more efficient plane (which they had to do, to stay competitive with the better-designed Airbus competitor). I chalk most of this up to a terrible failure of regulation.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by RS3 on Monday November 09 2020, @06:13PM (16 children)
Are you a pilot (at all)?
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Tuesday November 10 2020, @10:47AM (15 children)
Thanks to the clowns and monkeys among Boeing's engineers and managers, everyone's been forced to think like a pilot these days.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday November 10 2020, @03:17PM (13 children)
Wow, thank you for a nice reply. Not sure why I got downmodded. I feel strongly that the downmodding is ruining this site. It surely has hurt my attitude toward this community. Sadly there are many great people here, but with the mod system that's in place, it only takes a few mean triggered people to hurt us good people who really wish to only contribute and be positive. Part of what I hate and is making this site a waste of my time is that I have no effing clue why I got downmodded, for simply asking a question. I guess people can read my mind and didn't like something about the question.
I'm pretty passionate about engineering (as I am one), product safety, general corporate management, company economics, priorities, the nuts and bolts of things, etc. I was trying to have an intelligent conversation and just wondered if Grishnakh was a pilot. I've had some really good interaction at Slashdot on the MAX topic, and some people there identify themselves as pilots. I had some questions for him if he is a pilot. I've taken some lessons in a Cessna and understand a lot about flying. I feel strongly that in the tech community, as here, there are many misunderstandings about flying, flight dynamics, plane "stability", etc.
If, instead of downmodding my question, someone would just simply answer me, I might be able to provide some actual factual detailed explanations about what constitutes a safe plane design. Again, there's a lot of popular misconception happening (as in other areas of life).
I guess I'm slow to observe and learn that people here don't necessarily want a factual discussion, but rather a more philosophical / theoretical one, and as such, constantly try to read others' minds. I just don't get it, but I'll spend much less time here.
BTW, since you were polite and high-minded enough to give me a decent response, I not only defend engineers, but as an engineer I'll tell you: we don't get to make the decisions, and I'm really sick of the world in general blaming engineers for problems. I can't possibly tell you how many times in my career I've suggested a clear solution, correct, safe, functional, efficient, on and on, designs and solutions, and been overruled by management. I observe that people in management are more about power and control (interpersonal politics) than design quality. And, companies I've worked at who did stupid things are now gone, out of business. One company insisted on shipping products that were not done, and they'd put me on a plane to go fix them at the customer's friggin site. Gee, sorry sales department, that the company name is now crap. Maybe the company can change the name and mailing address and nobody will know? Sorry- that was sarcasm. Not sure why managers behave the way they do. You'd think airplane safety would be a different mindset. I actually work in nuclear reactor safety and guess what- safety is more important. Some years ago I had worked in patient-connected medical products and safety was important there too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @11:46AM (3 children)
I think you got downmodded because you asked an almost irrelevant question in what could be taken as a dismissive tone. Sound out your "Are you a pilot (at all)?" question in a sarcastic tone and it would qualify as flamebait. And remember that those of us on the other side of the screen have to guess at the tone.
If it was genuine curiosity as to Grishnakh's qualifications it could have been phrased better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @04:43PM (2 children)
Thank you for your kind explanation. You're right, I'm not an English major. I often struggle with word choice. However, downmodding someone where you're not SURE of their "tone" is very bad form and a big problem with this site. In fact, "tone" is getting too much airplay these days.
It's going far far too deeply into guesswork and wasting a lot of time and causing a LOT of bad atmosphere, and frankly degrading society at large.
I don't think I need to defend myself when someone COULD have asked me, rather than downmod first.
No, I disagree, because I don't pretend I can read people's minds. My wording was abbreviated at best. My wording was simply meant because there are small-plane private pilots, VFR, IFR, commercial pilots, etc. I had questions for any pilot.
What isn't fair, again, is to downmod someone without asking for clarification. Since this confounded site won't let me edit my post, do I deserve downmod- because I'm not the most adroit nor eloquent speaker / writer?
I was hoping to learn, and share, some information. Isn't that the main purpose of a site like this?
Just to clarify, I did want to ask some pilot-specific questions. It was late at night, and I did my best to ask a simple question.
On Slashdot, there ARE some pilots, and they've been willing to say they are and I didn't get downmodded for asking.
I think people need to start acting with kindness. Or should society devolve into the behavior of the police- shoot first, ask questions later?
I'll just go all AC since I'm (obviously) not as good with wording as this site's community demands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @06:09PM (1 child)
It's the "(at all)" bit that sounds dismissive.
"Do you know what you're talking about, at all?"
vs
"Are you a pilot? If so what type?, because I have some questions I wanted to ask a pilot".
Yes the second involves more typing, but it is much more likely to get a favorable response. It also clarifies why you are asking and lets any other pilot chime in.
----
Tone is a very important part of human communications. The fact that you cannot hear voice tone through text simply means that people will assign tone based on word choice, sentence structure, and overall narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @06:36PM
I get it, you can stop beating the dead horse. It was very late at night, I was tired, and I can't help what people will read into things. No matter how much you explain it, I can't anticipate what people will dream up. As I already wrote, I think it's much more polite and civil to ask, rather than ASSume someone means ill will. I think people need to lighten up on each other. But I guess this is the age of bashing and trashing.
In MY mind, the fact that you can not hear tone through text means there's some degree of DOUBT, right? So why downmod when there's doubt? But okay, I get it. I'll do the same. I've tried to be a positive here, tried to mostly only upmod, trying to be nice. But I'll look for tone and downmod as appropriate. I feel a bit dumb that it took me this long to get onto the culture, but you've explained it well and I get it now. I'm onboard. I'm assimilated. Gone to the dark side. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Monday November 16 2020, @10:59AM (8 children)
Thank you for the gracious reply. I wasn't sure if your post was sarcastic or serious, so I thought I'd address it as if it was serious.
BTW, my reference to clowns and monkeys was not a go at all engineers (or all managers). Rather it is just an echo of an internal jibe (by someone at Boeing itself) at some very *specific* people who took shortcuts at Boeing:
https://fortune.com/2020/01/10/designed-clowns-supervised-monkeys-internal-boeing-messages-slam-737-max/ [fortune.com]
Boeing's attitude to safety with the MAX is truly disgusting. True justice would be the world rejecting their airplane, causing them to redesign the next one from scratch.
I respect engineers (I'm an engineer too, and not a good one). In my experience, engineers are absolutely susceptible to taking shortcuts :-). I have two pilot friends currently flying. One totally rejects the MAX, while the other put his trust in regulators (but agreed with my viewpoint after discussion).
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday November 16 2020, @04:23PM (7 children)
No, thank YOU for an awesome reply! Still not sure why someone would "interpret" (read into, put words in my mouth) my post as negative and deserving of being pounded down before asking for clarification. It's not just this board (although _I_ think it's a defect) but societally seems to be a problem everywhere, and I don't really understand what's happening to society, and that's for another discussion.
That you have some doubt as to your engineering ability, by definition, makes you one of the best. It's the overly-confident ones who wreck the most havoc. And they're usually the ones who get ugly at any question about a design. All that said, any of us can be overly confident, missing a critical detail. Which is why there needs to be more cross-checking and design review, especially anything which could affect human safety. And I think if design review was more common and frequent, people would feel less threatened by questions about designs, and the questioners might be more gentle rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.
No question we engineers are always trying to find clever solutions, and often "clever" == "shortcut".
Wow, thanks for that Fortune article. I often refer to bad designs and construction as being done by "drunk monkeys".
I'm not sure how I feel about Boeing or the MAX. For sure, politically and managerially I think the managers are criminal. But how do companies get so screwed up like that in the first place? And maybe more to my feeling on the subject, how do FAA become so useless? How / why did they allow MCAS when test pilots raised an alarm?
My main engineering analysis / criticism is that the MCAS has too much control of trim, that it should never be able to make more or faster trim adjustments than necessary to compensate for engine thrust rotation of the plane. But, I think it's Grishnakh (sp?) who commented that they originally limited MCAS's range or rate or something, but it needed more control.
What started all of this is my wanting to ask actual pilots, and/or airplane engineers, about the true characteristics of the MAX plane. Is it really that crazy, like driving a 10,000 HP funny car on the street? Or is it just a gentle rotation that any pilot would simply compensate for?
Someone, maybe on greensite, defined "stable" as a plane tending toward straight and level. Well, in calm air and not climbing or diving, sure. But by definition any plane will climb on increased thrust (because faster speed -> more wing lift...) So I'm kind of tossing out the binary concept of "stable" vs. "unstable". It's more a matter of degrees (pun intended) and I just want to know if the MAX plane could be easily handled by almost any pilot, because that's what pilots are always doing- compensating for this and that. Or if the thing is a wild ride and truly should be scrapped. I sorely want to try one in a simulator. :)
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Friday November 27 2020, @05:25AM (6 children)
Thank you for the kind words. Sorry for the delay responding.
According to recent statements by the EASA, it's the latter case [europa.eu]: "We also pushed the aircraft to its limits during flight tests, assessed the behaviour of the aircraft in failure scenarios, and could confirm that the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS.”
However, I doubt EASA. There's a reason Boeing created MCAS and why it deemed MCAS so essential it's been retained after two crashes. It may be a combination of climbing and microbursts make the MAX dangerous to handle without MCAS -- unless Boeing release all the technical details and simulations involved in MCAS' creation, we simple don't know.
What EASA should do is get Boeing to certify EASA's statement ("the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS”) is accurate, instead of issuing publicity certificates on Boeing's behalf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2020, @06:07AM (1 child)
Really, thank you for being a kind person. I so want to start yet another similar board, but enforce a CoC. I'm irritated seeing my post downmodded, and nobody upmodded it. Completely undeserved. I should write to the admins and ask them to remove the totally undeserved downmods. IMHO, the downmods are the evil of evil hateful people who "have an ax to grind" and feel all powerful downmodding someone. I've written too much about it. Hopefully someday...
Yes, I saw the article on greensite. I feel very very vindicated actually. Frankly an element of these boards that I hate is all the assumptions made. I guess everyone thinks they're great philosophers. In context, many people very arrogantly state how much of a deathtrap the MAX plane is, when they have no clue, and aren't even pilots. I still want to take one for a spin in a simulator. Not sure where such things are. Probably a 737MAX flight to get to one. :)
I'll augment what you wrote: from some more research I've done, and it's too late, I'm too tired, and it will take too long to dig it up, but basically the MAX is stable enough for normal piloting. The problem was, IMHO, dramatized. It reminds me far too much of non-technical management-types making bad technical decisions when they are clueless and should let the engineers do their jobs.
Remember, MCAS was NOT done because the plane is so dangerous. I think that's a "popular misconception" (and they spread like wildfire these days.) The original reason for MCAS was so that pilots did not have to be trained for the MAX version plane.
Boeing was afraid they'd lose sales to Airbus because airlines would balk at pilot retraining. I'm not a sales/market person, but I highly doubt it would have been a factor. I strongly doubt the additional pilot training would have cost much. And they have to do it now.
IMHO it's a horrendous irony. FAA would have required the additional pilot training because: safety. Overly stringent IMHO. So in response, Boeing came up with MCAS and people died. I'd be willing to bet that without MCAS and no additional training, there would have been no problems. Pilots would have noticed the plane being a bit different, they'd have spread the knowledge around in the pilot community, and none of the needless death would have occurred.
I think it's a win-win, as long as pilots can easily turn MCAS OFF without disabling electric trim.
The whole thing reminds me of driving different cars with different power, brakes, handling, ride, etc.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday November 29 2020, @12:13PM
Thanks again!
BTW, I was wondering what you meant by greensite until it struck me ... /. :-)
I won't worry too much about downmods - I've been downmodded too... and I think it's just random chance: someone had a bad day or is immature. As greensite has so many more users, posts are statistically more likely to be (eventually) modded 'fairly' there. Soylent is probably just subject to more outlier moderations, due to fewer users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2020, @06:11AM
PS: I don't receive shitty downmods on greensite...
To be fair, somehow I got the wrong initial impression of this site. There are some really great polite awesome people here, like you, but much of the core and regulars here are pretty surly poeple. I gotta wonder what they're like in person- I'd bet they're much nicer than their SN personas.
Thanks!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday November 28 2020, @06:46AM (2 children)
So both the EASA report, and just this evening ABC TV's "20/20" show did an hour on 737MAX. I didn't see the whole show, but I learned a whole bunch more. Much of it is what I suspected, and also what I was pretty sure I heard and remembered. Too much to list, but for example in the Ethiopian plane crash, the pilots knew of MCAS. When the plane violently and uncorrectably nosedived, they switched electric trim OFF, but couldn't recover the plane. Trim was too far out for normal pilot yoke control.
That, IMHO, is a different problem. That the main control input does not have enough range of motion to override trim seems backwards to me. The word "trim" means fine adjustment, or well, it used to. Again, what I've said many times: MCAS needs its own OFF switch, if electric trim can overwhelm main elevator control.
The horrible irony, IMHO anyway, is the stick shaker and alarms were sounding, but MCAS had greater priority and power over flight surface control from autopilot or human pilots.
Hopefully there will be a total boycott of the MAX planes until much more is done. Like just removing MCAS.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday November 29 2020, @12:07PM (1 child)
Completely agree. I remember watching a TV report on MCAS months ago, when I finally got the horror of the Ethiopian flight - written reports don't do it justice. They poor crew didn't have a chance. You needed to be superhuman to work that trim wheel.
Some more info here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/simulator-tests-demonstrate-737-max-manual-trim-difficulties/137651.article [flightglobal.com]
Boeing staff must go to jail (and FAA staff fired) for this. As it happens, I don't think anything of the sort has occurred.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday November 30 2020, @01:06AM
At the risk of repetitiveness and redundancy, I completely agree. :)
How is our system such that fairly minor infractions that hurt nobody end in ten year prison sentences, but so far, no hint of criminal prosecution for the MCAS debacle?
And why aren't people up in arms about it? We have all the demonstrations going on, but people are quite passive, on average, about MCAS.
In early discussions on greensite, my first reaction to the whole thing, certainly never having flown anything larger than a Cessna, was that MCAS had far too much range of control, and that humans should be able to override a malfunctioning deathtrap. One Einstein tried to put me in my place saying that machines are far faster and smarter than humans. Well, maybe, but if a machine malfunctions, should a human be allowed to make the override decision? Be given the opportunity to so save their own lives?
Especially in light of these new reports, I was right- MCAS did not need so much control even if everything else was okay.
And, again, why did MCAS operate independently of Autopilot? I have to assume that MCAS did not get inputs from gyros, artificial horizon, etc., because if it did, it would have seen the AoA discrepancy, and sounded an alarm and disabled itself (if I had designed it anyway).
Very frustrating. I'd like to believe I lived in a world that was progressing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @03:38AM
Everybody's an expert now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by legont on Monday November 09 2020, @08:44PM (28 children)
Totally agree with you except that Airbus is better. It is actually way worse as it hides many more things from pilots. The infamous crash over Atlantic revealed that the autopilot had I believe 7 levels of automation with the last three being not possible to turn off. When the autopilot was giving up it was going down the chain one by one and each time the plane behaved differently to pilot's inputs. Pilots were let in a situation they have never seen before in their lifes. Yes, they were bad pilots, but it is Airbus's fault as well because even a moron can fly it 99% of the time.
Airbus was always like this, while Boeing is just at the beginning of the road.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @11:19PM (27 children)
Maybe, but at least Airbus doesn't keep making 1960s-vintage aircraft with old-fashioned controls that many people can't physically override (the trim wheels on the 737), and that have landing gear that are really meant for using ladders, and not jetways (because they didn't have jetways in the 1960s).
I'm looking forward to seeing what COMAC (the Chinese aircraft maker) comes out with. They're going to have a bunch of help from the Russians, who have a long history in aerospace, so maybe we'll see sensible design decisions not needlessly weighed down by history because Boeing refuses to stop making an airframe that was certified in 1967.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Monday November 09 2020, @11:35PM (26 children)
I know a lot of people here don't like me for this, but I believe the peak of our progress was in late 60s early 70s and since then there was only regress which will stay with us for a few more generations.
In this particular case I will take any aircraft built in 70s over any modern one as long as the pilot was trained at the same time.
Yes, I know that computer advances hid the issues (it's so easy to mask ones design faults by making a computer to avoid this particular point of the envelope) but sooner or later it will bite one in the ass. It appears to me that it is sooner as Boeing simply can't fix it's software issues and it should not be able to do ever if my theory is correct.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by legont on Tuesday November 10 2020, @12:07AM (24 children)
Let me elaborate on this - on how computers make it less safe.
Suppose an engineer designed a new engine and during the tests it tirns out that on 2579 rpm it vibrates and may destruct. In pre computer times the designer would have to find out why and fix it which may be very difficult if not impossible for a particular design. In modern times the designer just tells (russian|chineese|indian) programmers to never let the engine into this rpm, period.
It usually works just fine. However, there is usually a deep reason why the engine was not happy at this rpm and one day that reason will surface and somebody will die. Without computers the engineer would have no choice but to find and fix the issue to begin with. With computers he can get away with it.
That's how computers kill us.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 10 2020, @05:42AM (23 children)
Meanwhile, in reality, modern cars easily outlast cars from the 60s and 70s, even with far less maintenance, and have far superior performance in addition (both in fuel economy, power/handling/braking, and crash protection). I can't speak for passenger planes as far as airworthiness and reliability, but I do know they're far more fuel-efficient than they were in those days, and given how much the airlines push the manufacturers to reduce operating costs (which is why they care *so* much about fuel economy; it isn't about saving the planet), I can't imagine the airlines would be interested in planes that cost more to maintain or have more downtime or worse unplanned failures than ones made decades ago. Your anecdote is nothing more than a baseless supposition with no evidence whatsoever. When planes have problems (and they do: see 737MAX), the whole world learns about it, in great detail. There's been zero evidence of anything like what you allege. Instead, computer modeling has made huge improvements in design, thanks to the ability to simulate designs before making physical prototypes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2020, @07:22AM (2 children)
It's only because oils are far far superior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2020, @07:32AM
modern oils
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday November 10 2020, @07:59AM
The Oils [youtube.com] are definitely far superior.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday November 10 2020, @06:28PM (19 children)
No they don't. My friend just traded in his 7 years old ford diesel track because every single electric green deal sensor started to fall off. A few hundred bucks repair every month. The truck itself - without all this computer shit - would easily last for 25 years.
Yes, if one is to make 1990 Ford using modern tech, it would last forever. However computers and regulations kill it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @03:59AM (15 children)
Well, to be fair, it's economic pressure (coming through management) causing engineers to constantly pursue cheapening of everything, rather than bettering things. It's the #1 thing we're to have on our resumes: how we "cut costs", which only means cheapening things. That older vehicle was made before they figured out how to cheapen this and that. And I own (some are much) older vehicles. Newer ones do pollute less and generally get better gas mileage. More and more people are putting very new computerized engines into old antique / classic cars. I'm okay with the computer if I can mod it. Some are very programmable, some very expensive to program. But you're free to own older cars, and I'm on board with it. I travel with tools, and a box of sensors, ignition module, etc. 10 or so years ago a friend of mine was driving his 1986 Ford F150 5.0L V8 home from work and it all but quit. It went into "limp home" mode, which most (all?) computers will do if a sensor fails, or something goes wrong but the computer thinks it can keep you running a little bit. It turned out to be an amazing thing: pinholes in the wires under the hood. Water intrusion corroded and separated the wires. The kicker was: at least 3 sensors were disabled and it still ran. He patched up the wires and of course it ran better than ever.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @02:47PM (14 children)
Yes, all true. There is progress and if it were possible to build a car using modern tech but without unneeded extras, it would be a lifetime car for roughly $10,000.
I watched once a WWII airplane recovered from a Great Lake. All the plastic on it was as new - bright and shiny. The airplane was restored and now flying. We have tech to build equipment that would work forever. We just have to change the economy model.
As per wires, I just added a new lights to my trailer. Being an airplane guy I was amazed how bad car wires are. They are unbelievably bad quality by design. Now I understand why everything is wrapped in layers of electric tape while on airplanes all the wires are plain open. Good wires don't cost much - they are doing this crap on purpose to kill the car at 10 years.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @04:29PM (13 children)
"planned obsolescence" my dad would say.
A few years ago there was a story about many cars being damaged in Denver area, IIRC. Turns out they were (are?) using soy in the ingredients going into the wire insulation, and animals (mice, rats, squirrels, etc.) were eating the wire insulation!
I blame that purely on cost-cutting. Obviously airplanes need higher reliability and quality.
Since you brought it up, I remember years ago reports about wire chafing in jets causing lots of "incidents" and some crashes. Some were blamed on added entertainment systems. Do you know much about that?
Are you a pilot? Do you own a plane? I've always wanted one, just curious.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @04:48PM (12 children)
Wires were always a treat for rodents and aircraft wires are specifically designed to be less attractive. Why car industry does not use it could be attributed only to a conspiracy)
Yes, I am a pilot - just a private - and I own an experimental aircraft that I have rights to modify as I see fit; within safety regulations, off course. I really enjoy doing it even more than actual flying. If you feel like doing it, do it. It changes you and gives you a whole new view of the reality. I mean working on something that your life depends on. Thinking mostly in terms of failure scenarios. I can't drive for awhile after I change brake pads on my car because I see how shitty they are safety wise compared to airplane's.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @06:47PM (6 children)
Wow, super cool. I worked before college. First job, wealthy gentleman owned a Skymaster- pressurized, turbos, autopilot, pretty much all the bells and whistles. So, my problem is I'm spoiled. I'm not into the fun of flying, but more the practicality of a plane that will cruise 220 kn or so at fl 220, and just haven't had the budget to do anything. I took a couple of lessons, besides many hours in the 337, and did extremely well. We did high-bank turns, engine idle glide path, etc. Just needed better income...
Anyway, back on topic, frankly I have limited patience with all the philosophical / speculation that I accept is the general nature of these types of discussions. IE, I'm looking for some hard facts. Many call the 737MAX a deathtrap, and I know, as I've stated elsewhere here, that a pilot's job is to control the plane, which requires compensation for pretty much everything you do. So my question to you is, do you know if a 737MAX without MCAS would be that difficult to fly? If you go full-throttle, and you feel and see the plane pitching up, you'll see loss of airspeed, artificial horizon too far off level, vertical speed dropping, etc., and you'll push yoke forward, right? Am I missing something? Again, I really don't mean any negativity, just trying to get at solid facts. Maybe I need to contact an Air Force test pilot I used to know...
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @07:02PM (1 child)
I wrote it before a few times and I can do it again. There were many airplanes that were way worse than Max and they fly safely. The issue here is pilot's training for this specific airplane. Even stronger, the issue is to recognize officially that this particular bird needs special training. Yes, it'd be nice to fix the plane itself and at least make it somewhat better, but it's secondary I believe. They simply can't let any 737 certified pilot fly this one. They have to admit it.
Having said that, any even low hours pilot should be able to handle Max. It's just the safety requirements for an airliner should be higher and pilots, unfortunately, don't have many opportunities to fly by hand. They are spoiled by autopilots.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @07:33PM
Thank you thank you, for re-writing it, and for confirming what I surmised. And I'll admit, I'd really love to try a 737MAX simulator, MCAS OFF.
The whole story has many pieces. I don't know the numbers, but I've heard that many (most?) commercial pilots are ex-military, so I'd expect they'd be pretty on the ball with handling planes that are misbehaving, or better stated, not handling as expected.
Also, there were stories of the MAXes going nuts but American (ex military probably) pilots figuring it out, including turning electric trim off.
Also, many stories that AirBus planes are much more computerized, and to some extent, many pilots might have less of a feel for plane dynamics.
And maybe worse, kind of overstating the obvious, when a plane misbehaves in a way that isn't predictable, the human might make bad decisions. I read the story of the plane that went down in the Atlantic and how the pilot and co-pilot sometimes did opposite control inputs, and the plane's control systems did something with the combination of the two- I forget and don't have the time to look it up, but it all makes me think that too much automation is bad when the automation fails, but the human doesn't know how to handle the thing without it. The simplest example is manual vs. automatic transmission cars. Slightly higher level- people who are used to automatic headlight systems, if it fails (and they do), or they use a car without the automatic system, they don't know how to turn the headlights on.
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @07:09PM (3 children)
Oh, and the single most important fix it needs is a large red switch to turn off any autopilot inputs. Way easier said than done as it flies by wire so everything is going through computers. This part I really really hate as I know that computers can't be made reliable in our age. But this is the problem for all new birds and cars.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @07:39PM (2 children)
I need someone to encourage me to practice what I preach. Too many car fires occur due to a fuel line breakage, and the fuel pump runs on. I've said for several years that I'll put a big red E-STOP button on my dash to kill the fuel pump circuit. Wiring it is a little messy, but I could put one under the driver's seat, under which the fuel pump wiring is routed, so it'd be an easy wiring job.
I partially agree re: computers. Actually I've found the computers to be quite reliable. But I admit, there are many points of failure that will leave you sitting. Or much worse if it happens at a very bad moment.
What, if anything, do you think could make PCMs more reliable? Is it the PCM, wiring, sensors, ...?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @10:23PM (1 child)
OK, here is a story about that diesel Ford I mentioned earlier when it was new and shiny. My friend was driving it from West to East after a motorcycle camping trip when it said that it run of of piss. It was a new tech at the time - ammonia used to produce cleaner exhaust - and was not easy to get. The truck said that he has only 3 engine starts before it will shut itself if no ammonia is available and it was still far from home. So he decided to fill up the truck while running to save starts for motel nights. The truck immediately recognized the trick and reported that now he has only 1 restart and 100 miles of range whatever comes first. Forget about fixing engineering issues. Start with legal first.
Another story. A friend of mine added a small light to an F650 BMW enduro motorcycle. The bike shut itself down for overload right away and refused to start even after the light was removed. It wanted dealership and took no negotiations. Mind you it is an enduro bike that people are supposed to ride into the wilderness where no dealer is available. Screw you German engineering similar to the Airbus one.
Now back to the design, everything should be on physical switches that actually interrupt the wire. No decision like this can be made by computer only. Human always should have an upper hand. That includes our desktop computers as well. Off switch and the sucker is off - not a nanowatt of electricity goes in. On the other hand a car should run even if a nuke explodes in stratosphere and fries all the electronics. It does not have to run well, but it has to run to bring me home. That's how general aircraft engines are designed. In trouble you kill all the electricity and fly on the engine alone.
As per pumps, I have an engine driven all time up pump, but it is on the other side of the firewall. I have an auxiliary electric pump with a manual switch. I also have physical fuel cut off valves. I have filters in front of each mentioned devices. Lastly I have a checklist of what to do in case of a fire which I review before every flight.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 12 2020, @06:33AM
Thanks! I didn't know about the diesel thing, ammonia, refusing to run, etc. I'm sure someone has software to patch that!
I also had NO idea BMW was doing stuff like that! Like John Deere and many others. That bike needs all the electronics, save for lights, ripped away and a carb and magneto added. If I were king, I'd put corporate fat cats in prison for that stuff. It's like the software companies, and hardware as much as possible these days, that you don't "own" but "license the use of". Even if the thing is still functional, the companies remote-brick the thing. Something about Sonos speakers or some such recently.
My main vehicle right now is a 2002 Chevy Astro that I bought cheap in '06 because it had a check engine light. I thought I'd be able to figure out the problem. It was (and is) in really good condition, partly because it sat (preserved) for like 10 years until I resurrected it 3 years ago. The code is "random misfire", but it does not misfire at all ever. Long story. Of course all ignition stuff and some sensors have been replaced. Anyway, in my state, like many, we're required to get annual vehicle inspection, but they won't do the mechanical safety inspection until the emissions passes. Well, with the check engine light, I automatically fail. Idiocy.
Someday, hopefully soon, I hope to build a computer interface from some plans I found online, and if it works, I can reprogram the PCM to disable the misfire detection. It really doesn't detect misfires, as there is no friggin misfire sensor. It "ascertains" misfire due to crankshaft sensor pulse irregularities. Of course I've replaced that sensor too, and its connector.
You and I are in agreement re: wires, switches, etc. Even though I'm an EE, I don't trust things that can fail. I always want the human to be able to override. Simpler is better. On slashdot many months ago some idiot tried to argue that computer-run machines are far superior to humans and the human should not be able to disable the computer. Many screws loose in that dude's head. It was discussion about MCAS.
Thanks again and keep it level!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @07:19PM (4 children)
I forgot to ask: what year make model car, and what don't you like about the brakes?
I do all my own car work, and mods. Considering some Wilwood stuff, but it's really expensive. There are some upgrades using parts from some other cars that I'll probably do before buying the awesome but pricey Wilwood stuff. I already went with larger pads, for example, that just simply fit, if you know the part numbers.
And get the stainless braided flex lines. I haven't done it yet but will when I change them next time.
I converted 2 (or 3?) of my older cars to silicone (DOT 5) brake fluid. Man oh man, entirely different driving experience. Just unbelievable difference. There are websites stating how horrible silicone is and why. I wish I understood how / why people like to make such strong but wrong arguments. Any experience with silicone fluid?
My current daily driver has ABS and they say do not use silicone, but I don't know why not. I may do it anyway someday. Bleeding ABS unit is not fun, and requires diagnostic tool that I don't currently have (to exercise valves and pump in ABS unit).
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @10:26PM (3 children)
What I don't like about brakes? Calipers are on just two unsecured bolts. Everything on my airplane is safety wired including calipers even though brakes are not critical for it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 12 2020, @06:38AM (2 children)
Yeah, I know what you mean about the calipers. But on mine, anyway, the braking force causes the caliper to press against the steering knuckle / caliper bracket, so the pin bolts are just guides and don't get much force. Wilwood might have calipers you might like- 2 and 4 piston, and some are 6 piston for big stuff and racing.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday November 12 2020, @01:01PM (1 child)
Yeah, I kind of know that most car calipers are safe, but it's just a deep anxiety to see unsecured bots that hold my life :) BTW, many bikers safety wire their bolts in addition to thread lock as their stakes are higher.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 12 2020, @03:53PM
Good idea but heat loosens Loctite. But maybe they have a high temp version?
I've never seen caliper pin bolts come loose. I've never worked as a full-time mechanic, but I've done many dozens of brake jobs on my cars, family's, friends, extended friends, etc. But it could happen. BTW, my cars have the stupid exposed pins that RUST no matter how much super thick special exposed gear grease I put on them. I'd like them in stainless steel.
The aircraft safety wire is great, but in my case, there's no place to do that- the bolts are socket head Allen, and the bolt head becomes part of the sliding surface, and it doesn't protrude at all, such that you could cross-drill.
Not sure what you have, but maybe a longer bolt so the threads protrude through the bracket and put a locknut on those threads. That wouldn't work on my (GM) design unfortunately. Newer GMs have the slide pin bolts enclosed- much better design, like most other cars.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 11 2020, @05:39AM (2 children)
Don't buy Ford? My 5-year-old Japanese car hasn't had a single issue of any kind (except when I ran into a curb--my fault obviously--I had to replace the rear wheel bearing for $125). The Japanese cars I had before this went decades without issues. One was 18 years old when I finally sold it, and the engine still ran like new.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday November 11 2020, @02:35PM (1 child)
I had two Japanese cars and one American truck over years. The first two run for 10 years each without any issues. The truck I still have is 2003 without major issues. All of them were mostly without electronics, while modern car is 50-60% electronics by price. However even for my truck all the issues were related to sensors mandated by the regulators to save the planet. Somehow regulators forget to count that early replacement of a car is way more damaging than a few grams of bad exhaust. It's easy to understand why. The regulations are mostly designed to drive the prices up. They are to fake progress and artificially bump GDP.
Oh, BTW, before one starts talking safety, I am yet to own an airbag that was not recalled. Every single one of them was and for exploding into their owners for no reason.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 12 2020, @06:41AM
Airbag shrapnel. Oh the irony. The safety device literally directly kills people. None of mine are in the recall. :)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 10 2020, @04:41AM
You are terribly optimistic. If/when Americans have lost the last of the drive that made America great, I don't think it is likely to be recovered within any foreseeable future. I'm talking about a bleak future of hundreds of years, not a few generations. When did Rome pick itself up, and resume the leadership of the known world? Or Greece? The British Empire is as much history as the Ottoman. For more hints, look to China. When they have fallen in the past, it took literally hundreds of years to recover their former glory. And, I'm not just talking about military power, if that's what anyone is thinking.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 09 2020, @05:34PM (1 child)
American Airlines escape route seems different.
If I read things correctly, AA got rid of their last non-MAX model 737 way back in '15. So they've had 5 years to retrain on MAX-only operations and very specifically they can train the heck out of MAX-only software issues.
It would be a huge nightmare for AA if they had a mix of MAX and non-MAX aircraft, despite boeing's attempt at making them interoperable.
You don't need interoperability and cross training if you don't have multiple models, like AA is doing. Last time someone at AA trained on and did a check ride on a non-max was five years ago plus with the massive scrutiny on the software patch for MAX they don't need perfect interoperability and cross training.
It does mean all the effort boeing put into interoperability and cross training was completely wasted.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Monday November 09 2020, @08:50PM
While it's true what you said, the situation is different from Boeing point of view. 737 is arguably the best airplane ever made for it's size. It is very popular everywhere and there is huge second hand market and shitload of pilots in many obscure places of the world. Boeing need to keep this legacy or it will lose a lot more than just Max. If they agree it's a new type, a lot of that trust that all the 737 are safe and fly the same will be put in doubt. It would be a new era for them.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2020, @02:57AM (3 children)
Boeing wanted to be able to tell carriers they could avoid costs of retraining pilots, as you said. But, the root cause was their solution to allow larger engines that would hit the runway if mounted in the same location on the wings as prior 737s without making the landing gear taller. Apparently increasing the height of the landing gear, and the necessary changes to the air frame to accommodate the taller gear was either enough to trigger the type change by itself, or was just considered undesirable because the 737 has historically served airports where a short ramp/steps out on the tarmac is used for boarding.
Their solution was to move the engines forward which made the plane unstable in its flight characteristics. Especially full throttle during climb-- it wanted to loop all the way over, as if onto its back, stall and crash tail first.
To avoid retraining pilots they used the infamous MCAS with zero sensor redundancy etc., and by telling carriers no new training needed, pilots didn't know how to tell MCAS was activated (the indicator light for activation was an extra charge to the carrier, so many, including the planes that crashed, didn't have it).
And hundreds died.
You couldn't pay me to get on one of those planes again. I flew both of the routes in Indonesia and Ethiopia shortly before the crashes. I know probability doesn't work this way, but I feel I already used up all that luck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @01:55PM
There's an old saying: better safe than sorry. I would not get on one of those planes either.
At this point I don't trust Boeing's quality control / FAA process. IMHO this is a time when FAA and Boeing should be forced to fully open up all engineering, software, project management systems, etc., to anyone interested in getting involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2020, @06:44AM (1 child)
So just put the wheels on the bottom of the engine housing. Problem solved. Next problem?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 12 2020, @10:10AM
Sounds like a good way to rip off the engines, unless you added extra reinforcement and/or redesigned things so that they could support the weight directly on them.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday November 09 2020, @11:31AM (4 children)
When you stack political corruption on poor engineering you'll get a disaster, inevitably.
Most probably, this is only an enabler trick to drop stocks with reduced losses, for some privileged person(s).
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @05:49PM (3 children)
I wonder if the Roman Empire, towards its end, was having things like aqueducts fall down because they'd bribed a government overseer to look the other way while they built with cheaper mortar, which quickly failed. After all, today we only see the ones that didn't fail.
This is one of the ways that civilizations use to destroy themselves. When the culture permits slipshod work in infrastructure and transportation, in time you don't have infrastructure or transportation anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @07:33PM (1 child)
Perhaps this is a good opening for our resident Greek immortal to provide another history lesson.
I should probably get a user so I can mod those up. Only thing I can offer is a half-remembered factoid that they knew about the dangers from lead and asbestos for example but did not switch to alternative materials.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 09 2020, @08:51PM
Only longlived, not immortal by any means. And no thanks to corrupt and Microsoft "engineers" in the past couple millennia!!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday November 09 2020, @08:02PM
It would be amazing if we could get some time constants on the bribed permit -> build -> failure intervals for various infrastructure types across the ages.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Monday November 09 2020, @11:52AM
I thought this was going to be about supersonic jets.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 09 2020, @02:44PM (4 children)
They can hide it at ticket purchase time, but they won't be able to hide the views out the windows. Most people won't be able to tell a Max from a Cessna, but enough can to cause trouble for the airline.
(Score: 5, Informative) by clive_p on Monday November 09 2020, @03:31PM
When we are again able to travel, some of us will make sure we never have to fly on a 737 MAX by the simple option of only flying on airlines which don't have any of them.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @04:23PM
Yes and if they're hiding the plane type from the customer in order to get people to pay for a ticket they wouldn't otherwise buy, that's fraud. Even if there are no more crashes as a result, they could still be on the hook for anybody that wants their money back if they find out last minute that they're flying on that kind of aircraft because AA decided to lie about it. If there is a mishap as a result of some defect in the Max, then there'd likely be even more compensation called for.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @05:56PM (1 child)
Some booking sites used to tell you the kind of aircraft, as well as on time percentage. It was interesting to see the correlations. DC-10's were pretty much never on time (mechanicals I'd suspect). Though they still have a good safety record.
It would be a good idea for booking sites to start doing this again. It would externalize risk. I could totally see a lawsuit on the ground of "You didn't tell me I was flying THAT?!". Frankly I had that very thought once when I saw the bucket o' bolts Alitalia parked at the gate. Of course it didn't get to look that way by being a ramp queen, so that was some comfort. But if you are selling flights, yo probably want to not be the line of fire if things go wrong.
If I remember right, the supposed benefit of the MAX was that it gave the platform super long legs. I think there were some airlines planning on using it for trans-atlantic flights. I was really stoked when I first heard it that since those flights would be a lot cheaper than the 777, or 747. But because CEO bullshit is the magic fairy dust that makes airplanes fly, they went past the edge of envelope. Physics is nothing compared to the power of software and unicorn farts. /s
I have flown on some rickety airplanes over the years. (literally, rivets missing, you could see through the skin of the aircraft) But the MAX is not one I want to be on. It is a different kind of risk. I am willing to assume a certain amount of risk because I like flying. But I have no tolerance for corporate douche-baggery. It is a matter of principle. Kind of stupid perhaps, but there it is.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @07:11PM
Why does the pope kiss the ground every time he lands anywhere?
Have you ever flown Alitalia?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @02:59PM
Will the courts consider all that pushed this through to be personally liable as accessories to murder should another plane fail in the same manner?
Or does law not apply to those who buy their own special law?
Fix the damned thing!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday November 09 2020, @04:46PM (11 children)
I've worked as a quality assurance engineer in the aero industry. There were 2 things that were as sure as ice is cold: the FAA and the EASA would not overlook any fault of any kind - be it design, QA, process or otherwise - and neither would your FAA- or EASA-approved local QA rep. There was one simple reason for that absolute certainty: whoever signed on the QA paperwork is penally responsible for whatever happened later one if it was linked to an oversight on their part. For life. Really!
And yet, despite that, what have we learned with the Max debacle? Not only did the FAA overlook one massive fault (if you know anything about the ARP-4754 standard, the Max's problem stems from DAL-A feature that didn't have any redundancy - a big, GIGANTIC no-no) but I've yet to hear of anybody going to jail over it. What the holy fuck gives?!?
I don't know what's going on at the FAA, but one thing's for sure: when they certify something, I'll certainly take it with a very large salt crystal from now on. And the EASA don't impress me much neither. I never thought I'd ever say that in my life.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @05:12PM (5 children)
I hate to say this, but now I'm starting to think the Chinese regulators are probably a lot more trustworthy than the western ones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @05:50PM (1 child)
Longer version: For now I doubt the Chinese regulators are more likely to prevent shit from hitting the fan than the US regulators are. But if bad enough stuff happens the regulator's top boss could be executed along with others responsible. So that could be a bit more satisfying, even if many might call it barbaric etc.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @11:25PM
There's another factor: China's coming up with their own planes now with COMAC, and if their regulators can find good reasons to refuse entry into Chinese airspace for poorly-engineered western (esp. American) aircraft, this would benefit them by making them look more competent, and might also help sell Chinese planes as long as they don't have these engineering failures.
Seriously, the reason China is doing so well these days is because their geopolitical competition is fucking up so badly. All they have to do is not fuck up as badly and stick to the plan.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @05:59PM (2 children)
Thanks for the insight, Mr Chen from the bereau of tourist body disposal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @06:20PM (1 child)
Thanks Trumpchen, your deregulation and tariffs were SO GREAT for the US economy. Now wr can haz all teh cancerz and substandard parts failurez.
Thaaaaaanks Republicaaaaannnnnns
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2020, @03:40PM
They only did it to make the Biden Harris Warren AOC Sanders socialism look good and make us hungry for it. Go Robin Hoods!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Monday November 09 2020, @08:45PM (1 child)
Software tends to have funny exceptions [bbc.com] when it comes to quality standards, probably in no small part based on how difficult it is to work with for people who don't have the mind for it:
*
** I guess history really does repeat itself, sometimes scene for scene.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 10 2020, @05:48AM
Software tends to have funny exceptions [bbc.com] when it comes to quality standards, probably in no small part based on how difficult it is to work with for people who don't have the mind for it:
Software-savvy people write complex software, then layer it into a lasagna of multiple abstraction levels
To sell to the consumer/business market, software culture emphasizes performance/features/time-to-market rather than reliability, intelligibility, and maintainability
The software used in aviation and other safety-critical applications is almost nothing like the software used in the consumer/business markets.
In fact, as far as I can tell, the software used in the 737MAX's MCAS system performed perfectly: it flew the planes into the ground just as it was designed to do by the systems engineers. When you write software for an application like that, it's done using a waterfall method with extremely strict requirements. The software engineers are simply implementing the requirements, and have no say in the system design. It's not like other types of software development (frequently using Agile methodology) where the software engineers also do much, if not all, of the system engineering. And, of course, the reason the systems engineers fucked up so badly with the 737MAX is because they had requirements from upper management requiring it to be implemented this badly so that pilots wouldn't need new training or a new type certification for the MAX.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @04:25AM (2 children)
I blame FAA for allowing MCAS to fly. Stories I've read included test pilots' complaints were hushed, and FAA approval rushed through. Care (dare?) to speculate on how this happened?
One thing that's been bugging me and you're the person to shed some light on it: IMHO MCAS should never have been able to crank trim that much. But maybe the MAX engines really cause that much pitch-up?
I want to ask a pilot about this. I tried to above but got downmodded (still don't understand that). I've only flown a little, in Cessnas, so I have some understanding of flight dynamics and the job of a pilot. Do you pilot, or do you understand, in detail, the difference in the MAX variant?
And here's my premise: any control input from the pilot will generally result in several reactions. For example, you turn, you also lose altitude, so you compensate. You go into a steep turn and your tail will drag, so you compensate with rudder too. You climb, you lose airspeed. You dive, you gain speed. Keeping the plane under control, compensating for the various reactions, is the pilot's job. No question the MAX handles differently and for safety, FAA requires pilot training. But, is it that much different? IE, would any jetliner pilot be able to recognize the increased AoA and compensate, like he/she would for any other maneuver?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 11 2020, @05:42AM (1 child)
One thing that's been bugging me and you're the person to shed some light on it: IMHO MCAS should never have been able to crank trim that much. But maybe the MAX engines really cause that much pitch-up?
Yes. From what I remember, the initial versions could *not* crank the trim that much, by design, for the reason you're thinking. However, in testing they found it just wasn't sufficient, so they multiplied the trim amount, leading to the crashes.
Do you pilot, or do you understand, in detail, the difference in the MAX variant?
Pilots didn't know MCAS even existed: it wasn't in the flight manual. It was intentionally kept a secret from the pilots so they wouldn't have to get a new certification.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 11 2020, @07:39AM
Thanks, I hadn't heard that. I'm horrified.
Yes, that's what I believed until very recently someone on slashdot said that MCAS is mentioned in the flight manual, but that's it- just a mention that it exists. You may have heard that an activity indicator light was optional, but the 2 planes that crashed did not have the light. Not that it would have helped anyway. But yes, it was pretty much hidden from the pilots, and for reasons explained greatly here and elsewhere. Crazy overconfidence that a system like that would be foolproof.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @07:42PM
your summary sucks goat balls. [add sufficient vitriol here]