Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 146

Thread: 737 max 8

  1. #1

    Default 737 max 8

    It would appear that the system Boeing designed to be transparent was too transparent.

    Here's the terrifying reason Boeing's 737 MAX 8 is grounded across the globe
    Pilots are outraged that Boeing did not properly inform them of a program that can wrench control of an aircraft from human hands

    There is nothing wrong with the basic mechanics of the aircraft: Its engines, wings and control surfaces are all believed to be working fine. Rather, the passenger jet may have killed 346 people for the terrifyingly modern reason that human pilots were unable to override a malfunctioning computer.


    The cause of the Lion Air crash — and the suspected cause of the recent downing of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — is a little-known piece of software known as MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.


    The 737 MAX 8 has heavier and more fuel-efficient engines than prior editions of the 737, a change which causes the aircraft to pitch upwards ever-so-slightly after takeoff.

    Rather than instructing airlines to warn their pilots of this quirk, Boeing simply equipped the MAX 8 with MCAS, a program that would automatically tilt the nose downwards to compensate.


    ---


    Ever since the Lion Air crash, 737 MAX 8 pilots have been expressing outrage that Boeing did not properly inform them of MCAS, particularly the possibility that the program could wrench control of an aircraft from human hands.


    “We had NO idea that this MCAS even existed,” one anonymous American Airlines pilot posted to an online forum. “I’ve been flying the MAX-8 a couple times per month for almost a year now, and I’m sitting here thinking, what the hell else don’t I know about this thing?”

    An aircraft incident reporting database maintained by NASA is filled with multiple reports from MAX 8 pilots of the aircraft aggressively pitching forward soon after takeoff.

    One pilot wrote of having to take special caution during takeoff to remove the “MCAS threat.” Nevertheless, that pilot still suffered an “undesired brief nose down situation.”

    In another, a pilot called the MAX 8’s flight manual “almost criminally insufficient” and complained that Boeing had left pilots in the dark about the extent of the MAX 8’s automation.

    “The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag,” read the report.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/heres-...-8-is-grounded

  2. #2

    Default

    Truly sad. Rumbles on Youtube has Boeing attempting to have the grounding avoided through higher up request... That would truly show how far greed has lost touch with life. We need to have that fine balance back.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Truly sad. Rumbles on Youtube has Boeing attempting to have the grounding avoided through higher up request... That would truly show how far greed has lost touch with life. We need to have that fine balance back.
    “We need to have that fine balance back.“

    You’re believing YouTube?

  4. #4

    Default

    My neighbour is an Air Canada senior pilot and a certified trainer. He told me that Air Canada is the only airline in the world that he knows of, that trains their pilots the procedures on how to shut off the MCAS system.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    A few fighter jets are designed to be inherently unstable and use flight controls like this to counter it. Being so close to the edge (or past it) improves their maneuvrability. However not something necessary or desireable on a commercial jet liner.
    Pretty interesting read on how they got to this point. In order to compete with the airbus neo they needed to add more fuel efficient engines to their 737, which were larger, so they moved them forward and up on the wing to accommodate. Which changed the COG and changed the lift characteristics. Which necessitated the need for the MCAS. They were considering a clean sheet re-design to compete, but that would take too long and cost too much, so the MAX 8.

  6. #6

    Default

    Not necessarily believing in it but another perspective to look at as the so called " real news" don't cover real news anymore. Believing in our news system ( accept local) is as laughable as YT if you really want to open the can of worms.
    Last edited by ctzn-Ed; 15-03-2019 at 02:27 PM.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    A few fighter jets are designed to be inherently unstable and use flight controls like this to counter it. Being so close to the edge (or past it) improves their maneuvrability. However not something necessary or desireable on a commercial jet liner.
    Pretty interesting read on how they got to this point. In order to compete with the airbus neo they needed to add more fuel efficient engines to their 737, which were larger, so they moved them forward and up on the wing to accommodate. Which changed the COG and changed the lift characteristics. Which necessitated the need for the MCAS. They were considering a clean sheet re-design to compete, but that would take too long and cost too much, so the MAX 8.
    Boeing 737-100
    First commercial service 1968
    Passengers 85 (124 max)
    Length/span 94 feet/93 feet
    Wing area 980ft2
    MTOW 110,000 lb
    Thrust 2x 14,000 lbf

    Boeing 737-MAX-8
    First commercial service 2017
    Passengers 178 (210 max)
    Length/span 129 feet/118 feet
    Wing area 1370ft2
    MTOW 181,200 lb
    Thrust 2x 26,786 to 29,317 lbf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8

    Default

    Boeing has much greater influence in the US government than in previous administrations. Like many departments of the government, lobbyists and former employees of the very industries they're supposed to regulate have declared their intention to "cut red tape" and "Make things easier for business". Government should rely on people knowledgeable with the industries they're responsible for while remembering that the government is responsible to the people, not to businesses.

    Trump grounds Boeing jets amid global outcry

    The action represents a rare case in which other countries — including allies such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany and the European Union — refused to follow the FAA's lead in dealing with the safety of a U.S.-made aircraft. Even more strikingly, the U.S. bowed to the pressure, even after Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg assured Trump in a phone conversation Tuesday that the aircraft is safe.


    Trump said Wednesday that "Boeing is an incredible company. ... Hopefully they will very quickly come up with the answer. But until they do, the planes are grounded."


    He called the move "a very tough decision."

    "We didn’t have to make this decision today," Trump said. "We didn’t have to make it at all.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...canada-1220264

  9. #9
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,829
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #10
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Boeing has much greater influence in the US government than in previous administrations.(…)
    ...please detail out what greater influence, on which administration, and which pervious administration was harder on Boeing?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  11. #11

    Default

    I think this is the starkest sign of how badly Boeing approached the small plane market: It tried to kill the Cseries by getting the US government to slap an absurd tariff on a niche it didn't even serve, then tried to take over Embraer wholesale but failed, and now their stopgap solution is shown to have (literally) fatal flaws.

    Meanwhile, China is having a major schadenfreude moment over this (they were the first ones to impose a full-scale grounding). Their C919 is another upcoming competitor in the small plane market and it's a perfect opportunity to hit back over previous incidents like ZTE and Huawei.

    The small plane market is the next big trend in passenger aviation and none of the main players can afford to screw it up. So-called skinny routes, or point-to-point connections between middle sized markets, are breaking down the traditional hub-and-spoke model.

    I wasn't kidding when comparing the end of A380 production to the end of Concorde. They were each extreme examples of visions of the aviation future, ones that the market eventually rejected.
    Last edited by Foolworm; 15-03-2019 at 12:36 PM.

  12. #12

    Default

    I’m always a fan of root causes so it was super interesting to learn that the Max 8 was a rushed response to the Canadian made C series jet, which proved to be an industry game changer!

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Boeing has much greater influence in the US government than in previous administrations.(…)
    ...please detail out what greater influence, on which administration, and which pervious administration was harder on Boeing?
    From that well known lefty rag, The Economic Times.
    Updated: Mar 13, 2019

    Ties between Boeing and Donald Trump run deep


    Trump has used Boeing products and sites as a backdrop for major announcements over the course of his presidency. In March 2018 he touted the impact of his tax overhaul bill as he visited a plant in St. Louis.



    Before joining the Pentagon, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who is expected to be named to the post, worked for 31 years at Boeing, where he was general manager for the 787 Dreamliner passenger jet.


    Boeing has nominated Nikki Haley, Trump's former U.S. ambassaambassador to the United Nations who continues to be a close ally, to join its board of directors at the company's annual shareholders meeting on April 29.


    Trump has also put pressure on U.S. allies to buy products from Boeing, the country's second largest defense contractor which received $104 billion in unclassified defense contracts between 2014 and 2018.


    U.S. officials and defense industry sources said that weeks after Trump pressed the Emir of Kuwait in 2018 over a long-delayed deal for Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, Kuwait said it would proceed with the order.


    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/68389185.cms

  14. #14
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,084

    Default

    ^

    you do realize that you still haven't answered the actual question RichardS asked don't you?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  15. #15

    Default

    I don't recall any prior Presidential appointee acting as a salesman for his former company.

    Trump’s defense secretary faces ethics complaint over Boeing promotion

    A government watchdog group has asked the Department of Defense Inspector General to investigate whether Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan violated ethics rules by promoting Boeing weapons systems while serving as a government official.


    Shanahan, 56, worked at Boeing for more than 30 years prior to being tapped by President Donald Trump to serve as deputy secretary of defense under former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. When Mattis submitted his resignation in December, Shanahan was named by Trump as acting defense secretary.


    Since coming to the Pentagon, Shanahan has faced criticism over reports that he has touted Boeing’s line of aircraft over rival Lockheed Martin. In the fiscal year 2020 budget released Tuesday, the Air Force is set to purchase up to 80 F-15Xs over the next five years — a system, made by Boeing, that the Air Force has said it does not want.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...r-boeing-ties/
    And I'm not the only one who's asking questions.

    The Trump Administration's Relationship With Boeing Is Under Scrutiny After Crashes

    Shanahan, who came to the Pentagon after spending more than three decades at Boeing, has routinely fended off questions about potential conflicts of interest with the aerospace company that also happens to be one of the largest suppliers for the U.S. military.


    His public support for an investigation at Thursday’s Senate Armed Services hearing comes a day after a government watchdog group, called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), wrote a 9-page complaint to the Pentagon’s inspector general urging the agency to scrutinize the relationship. At issue is whether Shanahan pushed the Pentagon to buy more Boeing-made F-15X fighter jets, which the Air Force does not want, and whether he castigated Boeing-rival Lockheed Martin Corp. during government meetings.


    The group cited a Politico report in January that said Shanahan had been promoting Boeing while criticizing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin program. The plane was “f-cked up,” he reportedly said, and Lockheed Martin “doesn’t know how to run a program.”

    ---

    Boeing has long been part of Washington’s “revolving door” between government, industry and the lobbying world that, critics say, make it hard to tell where one job begins and the other ends. Trump’s former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, for example, is joining Boeing’s board of directors after leaving the Administration more than two months ago. (The company has also hired 19 officials from the Department of Defense since 2008, according to the watchdog Project on Government Oversight.)

    William D. Hartung, director of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy, said the arrangement is odd. “The Trump Administration’s relationship with Boeing is precisely what President Eisenhower was thinking of when he warned of the dangers of unwarranted influence wielded by the military-industrial complex,” he said. “The fact that the acting secretary of defense is a former Boeing executive raises serious questions.”

    http://time.com/5552076/boeing-737-crash-trump-boeing/
    But let's not question what Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex". There's just too much money to be made.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 15-03-2019 at 12:15 PM.

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I’m always a fan of root causes so it was super interesting to learn that the Max 8 was a rushed response to the Canadian made C series jet, which proved to be an industry game changer!
    Sorry that it wasn't clear. The MAX is a response to the Airbus A321neo. Not the C-series planes (now called Airbus A220). Those are much smaller and don't compete in the same market/routes.

  17. #17

    Default

    The Chinese angle will sure get interesting for sure. I can't help but think Canada will be joining that buffet as well.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  18. #18
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I’m always a fan of root causes so it was super interesting to learn that the Max 8 was a rushed response to the Canadian made C series jet, which proved to be an industry game changer!
    Sorry that it wasn't clear. The MAX is a response to the Airbus A321neo. Not the C-series planes (now called Airbus A220). Those are much smaller and don't compete in the same market/routes.

    Thank you. I am so sick of the BS in this issue. The C-Series/A220 is not a factor, and the Delta trade conversation proved that out.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  19. #19
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^

    you do realize that you still haven't answered the actual question RichardS asked don't you?

    KK doesn't care. It is all about avoiding the real issue, and all about making it about Trump. Sure, Trump is a bombastic narcissist who will take credit for everything, but we know that he is a bombastic narcissist. That; however, is not why the FAA was last to the table.

    Heaven forbid there is a process where evidence is gathered, assessments are made, and then action it taken...just like Garneau who didn't make the call until more evidence was given. But then KK and others would have to understand how TC works, what actually are the consequences in grounding an entire aircraft fleet, how it affects global trade and commerce, the howling of the travelling public, the liability on all sides of the conversation, the lasting effects of the grounding on schedules, how amazingly uncooperative joe/jane q public are, the hype of social media and false reporting by "Citizen journalists"...

    ...and the amazing new satellite array NAVCanada has to track A/C globally which can give it a unique insight into things like this...I bet not many of you know what NAVCan is doing...and it is pretty freaking sweet! Hey KK, could this be what I am trying to do with the Airshow...show off this type of advancements? Nah. Of course not.

    You can certainly tell those that have had hard decisions thrust upon them vs those that just like to blame. The blamers are shouting at the FAA, and at TC/Garneau. I think Marc did the right thing. In the evidence he had, Air Canada and WestJet were aware of this potential issue and had trained their pilots to recognize it and react...just like the rudder issue of 1994. Marc has the experience of the training in this world where risk assessments are made on a routine basis, and so do many in the FAA. They know the liability of both sides - the complexity of grounding a fleet. The FAA had 9/11 as a backdrop to what it is like to shut something down like that. It is not easy, and I am sure it was weighing on Marc's mind. Once evidence was presented, Marc made the call.

    nah...it must be about TRUMP.

    And if KK would like to actually research aviation accidents and the politics/nuances/issues/complexities within them all, then the answer to the question I posed would be apparent.

    Oh, and by the way KK, the answer is all of them since the dawn of aviation. All have been influenced, lobbied, lobbied after accidents, lobbied for foreign markets, foreign market protection...and all have reacted in one way or another, and you would be hard pressed to make the case that Trump is more or less affected by the same. Same for AIRBUS, Embraer, Bombardier...and their requisite political leaders and certification agencies. The only thing you said correct was paraphrasing Ike's comment, but then that complex affects all Administration's equally...unless you're trying to say your heroes weren't? Should I bring up Kennedy/LBJ and the Arrow v F-15?

    I did start a list of accidents by aircraft type and similar issues, by all makes, but that just gets too long. Airbus, MD, Boeing...even NASA (Challenger anyone?)

    The key here is the age old questions of:

    1. how much tech is too much?
    2. where should automation end and humanity begin?
    3. is this new thing a new version (type rating), or a whole new plane? How should certification be done? How do we keep the politics out of certification?
    4. pilot training, airline revenue, manufacturer reputation, public outcry for having plans cancelled, public outcry for ...


    I could go into the lengthy post, but that would bore many here, and I am waiting for the investigation. KK accused me of having a slavish devotion to a part of aviation, but if KK actually would stop being so biased and look at what I actually do, KK would find out that it is really about answering the questions above, and integrating it into helping Edmonton diversify its economy. Coincidentally, one of the first symposiums proposed for the Career Fair was this exact question of how much tech is too much. Given this event, I am looking at accelerating that conversation.


    ...but yeah...trump...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  20. #20
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    I think this is the starkest sign of how badly Boeing approached the small plane market: It tried to kill the Cseries by getting the US government to slap an absurd tariff on a niche it didn't even serve, then tried to take over Embraer wholesale but failed, and now their stopgap solution is shown to have (literally) fatal flaws.

    Meanwhile, China is having a major schadenfreude moment over this (they were the first ones to impose a full-scale grounding). Their C919 is another upcoming competitor in the small plane market and it's a perfect opportunity to hit back over previous incidents like ZTE and Huawei.

    The small plane market is the next big trend in passenger aviation and none of the main players can afford to screw it up. So-called skinny routes, or point-to-point connections between middle sized markets, are breaking down the traditional hub-and-spoke model.

    I wasn't kidding when comparing the end of A380 production to the end of Concorde. They were each extreme examples of visions of the aviation future, ones that the market eventually rejected.
    There's a lot to unpack here, and you touching on one issue with global trade/certification.

    ...are incidents like this going to be politicized to hurt one nation's economy v another? Is one nation ignoring the certification process in favour of rapid development? Is the ban on the 737 Max tempered with aviation authorities trying to get back at Boeing, or embarrass Boeing? Boeing hasn't been a saint either....

    In this case, it is the argument of aircraft type commonality (a version upgrade for the computer speakers) vs a whole new airplane. The 2 737's EPRT referenced earlier are only common by saying they are the 737 family, but the planes couldn't be further apart. It is like saying a 1950 F series truck and a 2019 F series truck are the same...they are not.

    The issue I am seeing, and was raised before, is what is the level where the design is considered net new? In some aspects of the automotive world, if you can say 40% or more of the parts are new, or not interchangeable, then it is a new car model even if you call it a Cadillac Eldorado. In this case, the 737 Max only shares virtually nothing with the NG/Classic/original series. ...it is manufactured in Renton, is called a 737, and has the same radar cover. That's about it from what I know today. However, when this was being tested, this was treated as more of a version upgrade than net new. The investigation will ferret out whether or not this approach was foolhardy.

    I agree about the abandonment of hub/spoke in aviation, especially in the First World. This model lead to delays and the creation of superhubs, which are logistically a nightmare. This is where the C-series/Embraer will shine. However, the 737 Max and the A321Neo are meant for higher load routes, both in cargo and in passengers. Their range is larger too. ...and, you must remember that the 737 Max is also an attempt to replace the 757 series as they are getting old. I often wonder why they didn't redo the 757...it was taller, removed the clearance issues, and had a great wing. That thing is a rocket, and operators love it as much as the 727.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  21. #21

    Default

    New Evidence in Ethiopian 737 Crash Points to Connection to Earlier Disaster

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/b...ian-crash.html

    The evidence, a piece of the Boeing 737 Max 8 jet that crashed in Ethiopia last weekend killing 157 people, suggests that the plane’s stabilizers were tilted upward, according to two people with knowledge of the recovery operations. At that angle, the stabilizers would have forced down the nose of the jet, a similarity with the Lion Air crash in October.

    Separately, I have read that Boeing had to modify the 737 airframe for newer engines, which necessitated changes to the forward landing gear, which may have caused problems with the 2 types of sensors that inform the new software control system.

    From the draft Lion Air report, that plane seemed to exhibit control problems when autopilot was engaged, problems that stopped when it was disengaged, which had happened on a prior flight with the same plane. Other pilots have reported similar behaviour, collected by an anonymous reporting system managed by NASA.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  22. #22
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...just one of the issues Marc had to contemplate ...and the repercussions if he knee jerked...

    AC suspends 2019 Financial Guidance.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  23. #23
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Sully making remarks echoed by my father and many others in the industry for some time...

    Inadequate training and rushing unqualified people into the cockpit
    ... This is a huge issue for the industry as a whole.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  24. #24

    Default

    I don't think it's hard to see a political motive in, say, China grounding its entire fleet less than 24 hours after the incident. That's not enough time to even attempt any rescue efforts, let alone conduct a preliminary investigation. In light of recent grievances with the US, I think it is reasonable to infer as such.

    Oh the other hand, is it wrong to say their actions are justified when they (purportedly) act out of 'an excess of caution?' This is the second catastrophic crash in as many years involving a brand new aircraft of the same, newly introduced model. The last time a wholesale grounding like this occurred was the Dreamliner and their battery problems, and that was with no fatalities - compare this to the 737 Max, which has now incurred 350 in two years.

    It is entirely fair to say that the consequences of a grounding have to be weighed carefully, and that due process is allowed. However, China essentially 'took the lead' by being proactive in implementing a ban, with Indonesia following close behind. Both are giant aviation markets, and it set a precedent for other countries to follow. Besides the horrible optics, there is also the matter of consistency - if a country grounds its fleet, how is it supposed to tolerate aircraft of another flag over its airspace?

    In this case the US had to do an about-face, which seriously undermines its credibility given that it is the producer nation of the aircraft in question. Of course the sordid details are a feast for the media, but I emphasise that the FAA has a SAFETY mandate i.e. that it should on principle err on the side of caution.

    As an aside, I don't think the certification process is an issue here. There are pretty much only two authorities who really have any saying power (EASA and FAA) and anyone who is even remotely familiar with them will also know the sanctity of those institutions. Backpedalling a bit, I believe the either has enough authority such that any proclamation is enough for the rest of the world to follow suit. This allows for a orderly, coordinated process and is the usual state of affairs - witness 9/11 and how well-organised the response of the aviation world was. In this case, China broke order and unilaterally declared a grounding of the fleet, and that other countries would follow its lead is, I suspect, a sign of its growing clout.

  25. #25

    Default

    China didn't have to care that Boeing gave its president's Inaugural Committee a million bucks...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  26. #26
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    I don't think it's hard to see a political motive in, say, China grounding its entire fleet less than 24 hours after the incident. That's not enough time to even attempt any rescue efforts, let alone conduct a preliminary investigation. In light of recent grievances with the US, I think it is reasonable to infer as such.

    (…)
    As an aside, I don't think the certification process is an issue here. There are pretty much only two authorities who really have any saying power (EASA and FAA) and anyone who is even remotely familiar with them will also know the sanctity of those institutions. Backpedalling a bit, I believe the either has enough authority such that any proclamation is enough for the rest of the world to follow suit. This allows for a orderly, coordinated process and is the usual state of affairs - witness 9/11 and how well-organised the response of the aviation world was. In this case, China broke order and unilaterally declared a grounding of the fleet, and that other countries would follow its lead is, I suspect, a sign of its growing clout.

    I can agree that the Chinese decision could easily be inferred as political, especially with the haste. Safety can become a concern to tout, but the speed at which the ban came was, um, impressive... The domino effect alludes to what you suggest...

    Groundings are uncommon, the last one I can recall due to a crash was the DC-10 after Chicago.

    I've come to know a few FAA folks over the years, and I echo the safety first mandate. They are as risk adverse as TC. I rely heavily on my local TC advisors, and of the FAA when I am visiting the US. I would argue that the certification process is and will be brought up as a potential issue, just like training, hours of experience..it is all up for grabs now as it all plays into this. If the interpretation was that the FAA was in some kind of conspiracy, I apologize. That is not the word in the industry; rather, the process was followed, but was it the right process. Alarm bells were rung back in 2012 and all through the Max's development saying this was an all new plane, and that it maybe should even have a new designation. ...or be a NG 757. As you've no doubt read, the use of the 737 type saved Boeing design time, and now there is a conversation on the FAR's for this...but that will work itself out. It is a conversation that I think is long overdue as pilots of the NG 800/900 were complaining about this already...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  27. #27

    Default

    The point being is that the US was the last to the table and they had the manufacturer right there at their beck and call. And yet every major country grounded their 737 MAX planes before they did. Two crashes, not within two years but within 6 months ( October 29, 2018, Lion Air Flight 610, March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302), both just after takeoff. We have also gotten word about what Boeing did and did not tell the airlines about the MCAS system, including from pilots from American where they stated that they had been given no information on it or how to override it. But sure, let's just keep flying, regardless. Maybe we'll have another crash in another 6 months. Would you be OK with an immediate grounding then? How about two?

    There have been questions raised about the large number of industry lobbyists that are in the current American administration. Generally, the rest of the world have followed the American lead. We're seeing a situation where that may no longer be the case if it's shown that something other than passenger safety is being relied upon to make these decisions.

    So if two crashes of the same model plane, under similar situations in six months isn't sufficient reason for a grounding, what is? Three? Four in a year? Or should the planes just keep flying and crashing as long as the period between crashes is getting longer?
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 16-03-2019 at 03:18 AM.

  28. #28

    Default

    Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  29. #29

    Default

    Deregulation, abdicating oversight and making the bottom line more important than safety.

    From the link above.

    The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.

    Early on in certification of the 737 MAX, the FAA safety engineering team divided up the technical assessments that would be delegated to Boeing versus those they considered more critical and would be retained within the FAA.

    But several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing.

    A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA.”

    “There was constant pressure to re-evaluate our initial decisions,” the former engineer said. “And even after we had reassessed it … there was continued discussion by management about delegating even more items down to the Boeing Company.”

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Deregulation, abdicating oversight and making the bottom line more important than safety.

    From the link above.

    The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.

    Early on in certification of the 737 MAX, the FAA safety engineering team divided up the technical assessments that would be delegated to Boeing versus those they considered more critical and would be retained within the FAA.

    But several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing.

    A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA.”

    “There was constant pressure to re-evaluate our initial decisions,” the former engineer said. “And even after we had reassessed it … there was continued discussion by management about delegating even more items down to the Boeing Company.”
    “As Boeing hustled in 2015 ...”

    Seems like an appropriate time for someone to blast Obama.
    Last edited by KC; 17-03-2019 at 06:31 PM.

  31. #31

    Default

    Yup, as it happened under his watch. Also, the congress as they are the ones who actually set the budget allocations.

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    I've flown on the Max 8 several times in the past couple of years. Nice airplane, I especially like the larger overhead baggage compartments.

    It's rather ironic that the Airbus which was the first passenger aircraft with a completely digital fly by wire control system was criticized for having a flight control system that would not always accept pilot input. In 1988, an Air France Airbus crashed while conducting a low level low speed fly by at an airshow. The pilot flew the plane too low and when he tried to apply power and lift the nose by activating the elevators the FCS went into stall prevention mode and did not respond to the pilot's inputs. Sounds rather familiar. At the time, there was general praise in the pilot community for Boeing's jets still having traditional mechanical control systems.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  33. #33

    Default

    Will Garneau put Canadians safety above Boeing's bottom line?

    Canada urged to review aircraft certification agreement with U.S. following Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes

    Ashley Nunes, who studies regulatory policy at MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics, said the FAA has for years lacked adequate resources and staffing, which has had an “impact on the quality of service.” Currently, the FAA hasn’t had a permanent top official for 14 months.


    Nunes said a report from the Seattle Times alleging that the FAA sped up approval of Boeing’s 737 MAX 8, which included a flawed safety analysis, is more evidence Canada needs to rethink how it approaches certification with the troubled U.S. agency.


    “The FAA was putting pressure on its own employees to hurry up and certify the airplane, which, quite frankly, is not the role of the agency,” Nunes told Global News. “The agency isn’t there to look out for Boeing. The agency is there to look out for the flying public.”
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5069202/c...-boeing-max-8/

  34. #34

    Default

    EU & Canada to conduct independence certification of 737 MAX after crashes.

    Stakes rise for Boeing as EU, Canada step up scrutiny of 737 MAX after crashes

    As the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) analyses Boeing’s plans for a software fix prompted by the first crash five months ago, the European Union’s aviation safety agency EASA promised its own deep look at any design improvements.

    “We will not allow the aircraft to fly if we have not found acceptable answers to all our questions,” EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky told an EU parliament committee hearing.

    Canada said it would independently certify the 737 MAX in the future, rather than accepting FAA validation. It also said it would send a team to help U.S. authorities evaluate proposed design changes and decide if others were needed.

    Boeing Co declined to comment.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/ethi...-idUSKCN1R01AW

  35. #35
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    I've flown on the Max 8 several times in the past couple of years. Nice airplane, I especially like the larger overhead baggage compartments.

    It's rather ironic that the Airbus which was the first passenger aircraft with a completely digital fly by wire control system was criticized for having a flight control system that would not always accept pilot input. In 1988, an Air France Airbus crashed while conducting a low level low speed fly by at an airshow. The pilot flew the plane too low and when he tried to apply power and lift the nose by activating the elevators the FCS went into stall prevention mode and did not respond to the pilot's inputs. Sounds rather familiar. At the time, there was general praise in the pilot community for Boeing's jets still having traditional mechanical control systems.

    I intentionally left that accident out as it is mired in controversy over allegations of doctored CVR's and FDR's, allegations of pilot error, etc. ...but yes, that accident was the first time, and a constant whipping boy, when planes that are automated start doing things contrary to what pilots want.

    ...there is a conflict between pilots who are trained to fly who hate control being wrestled away from them vs "push button" pilots that haven't flown planes you have to fly. That statement will become clearer as this investigation rolls on as I am sure it will be brought up. I can explain more if people want.

    ...it will also highlight why other Airbus planes that crashed due to erroneous readings compiled with pilot error (AF447 anyone) weren't immediately grounded...oh, that's right. Training and AD's were issued for flight with abnormal airspeed indications...just like training was issued for the MAX...and then training will be put on the forefront of NA/EUR pilots vs others...it is going to get messy...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  36. #36
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ...it will also highlight why other Airbus planes that crashed due to erroneous readings compiled with pilot error (AF447 anyone) weren't immediately grounded...oh, that's right. Training and AD's were issued for flight with abnormal airspeed indications...just like training was issued for the MAX...and then training will be put on the forefront of NA/EUR pilots vs others...it is going to get messy...
    Yes, AF447 was a total cockup since it was determined that the crew did not follow the procedure for dealing with unreliable air-speed from a faulty pitot tube. The first Max 8 crash was also attributed to a faulty angle of attack sensor. The CBC interviewed a Canadian aviation expert after the 2nd Max 8 crash and one of things he mentioned was how Canadian pilots were taught how to turn off MCAS so obviously dealing with a recalcitrant FCS is part of the training syllabus. I would hope that is something all airlines should have as part of their simulator scenarios.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  37. #37

    Default

    Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-later-crashed

    As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving BoeingCo. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.



    That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia’s investigation.



    The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  38. #38

    Default

    The FBI has joined the investigation.

    FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX

    The FBI has joined the criminal investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, lending its considerable resources to an inquiry already being conducted by U.S. Department of Transportation agents, according to people familiar with the matter.


    The federal grand jury investigation, based in Washington, D.C., is looking into the certification process that approved the safety of the new Boeing plane, two of which have crashed since October.


    The FBI’s Seattle field office lies in proximity to Boeing’s 737 manufacturing plant in Renton, as well as nearby offices of Boeing and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials involved in the certification of the plane.


    The investigation, which is being overseen by the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal division and carried out by the Transportation Department’s Inspector General, began in response to information obtained after a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed shortly after takeoff from Jakarta on Oct. 29, killing 189 people, Bloomberg reported earlier this week, citing an unnamed source.


    It has widened since then, The Associated Press reported this week, with the grand jury issuing a subpoena on March 11 for information from someone involved in the plane’s development, one day after the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX 8 near Addis Ababa that killed 157 people.


    The FBI’s support role was described by people on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the investigation.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oeing-737-max/

  39. #39

    Default

    Not good for Boeing at a time where rvials have just emerged. L8imd our own and China. Hope we benefit out of their mistakes.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  40. #40
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The FBI has joined the investigation.

    FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX

    (…)

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oeing-737-max/
    Ah...the good ol' Times...

    I encourage all to read the full article. It actually goes into a bit more detail than the dun dun duuuuuunnnnn headline would have you assume. It is proper and often certain protocol that when there is any hint of malfeasance or intentional irregularities in an accident, the FBI gets brought into play. While the article does cite a potential to silence witnesses, it is due course and prudent in a case like this to bring the FBI into the investigation.

    Like I said earlier, there was talk of a rushed certification due to using a type rating v new aircraft....this would be a logical extension of that. However, the article also goes into some detail on how hard it is to make criminal charges stick. I was in Seattle during the 261 days, and the scrutiny on Alaska was intense...with good ol' King5 and KOMO doing their best dun dun duuuuuuuunnnnnn s...

    This is why one supports evidence vs a story. When you again review just how many criminal charges are actually laid, and then actually successful...it is low. That said, again, the FBI should be looking at this...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  41. #41
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-later-crashed

    As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving BoeingCo. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.
    A helping hand is not that uncommon. Jump seaters have a helped before. ...and then there are crew that just happen to be there...like United Airlines Flight 232 in Souix City.

    What is troubling in this read is the fact that the crew, including the jumpseater, didn't make a bigger fuss...from the article...

    However, the pilots on the harrowing Oct. 28 flight from Bali to Jakarta didn’t mention key issues with the flight after they landed, according to the report.
    Their request for maintenance didn’t mention they had been getting a stall warning since about 400 feet after takeoff as a result of the faulty angle-of-attack sensor. It was still giving false readings the next morning on the flight that crashed, according to flight data.
    ...this again starts to talk towards airline culture, maintenance strategies, issues therein, crew communication, etc. It is going to go towards culture, training, and efficacy of airlines in North America and Europe where no crashes have happened,(and in Canada they trained for this issue), vs other nations and airlines that may or may not have a culture of continuous improvement.

    Which again is why I applauded Garneau for wanting evidence, and again his training in a prior career would tell him to wait for it...

    ..for there are a few examples of where crews, for the sake of not being annoyed, or because they don't like how some things are installed/processed, will override safety mechanisms that lead to a crash...Northwest Airlines Flight 255 where it is alleged that the CWAS was disabled because of a common practice at Northwest where it annoyed pilots due to the design...and they would NEEEEEEEEEEEEVER forget to lower the flaps/slats for takeoff. I know that after that crash, and the crash of Delta 1141, I always have a habit to review the a/c's configuration prior to departure. These were within a year of each other...same cause...no fleet groundings due to poor training...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  42. #42

    Default

    Yeah, they should just let them keep crashing until the airlines pull up their socks.

    Last edited by kkozoriz; 20-03-2019 at 09:40 PM.

  43. #43
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    yeah...'cause that's what I said...or anyone.

    Maybe you need a "crash course" in how investigations are run?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  44. #44

    Default

    It's all about the Benjamans.

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

    “There are so many things that should not be optional, and many airlines want the cheapest airplane you can get,” said Mark H. Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot. “And Boeing is able to say, ‘Hey, it was available.’”

    But what Boeing doesn’t say, he added, is that it has become “a great profit center” for the manufacturer.

    Both Boeing and its airline customers have taken pains to keep these options, and prices, out of the public eye. Airlines frequently redact details of the features they opt to pay for — or exclude — from their filings with financial regulators. Boeing declined to disclose the full menu of safety features it offers as options on the 737 Max, or how much they cost.


    But one unredacted filing from 2003 for a previous version of the 737 shows that Gol Airlines, a Brazilian carrier, paid $6,700 extra for oxygen masks for its crew, and $11,900 for an advanced weather radar system control panel. Gol did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


    The three American airlines that bought the 737 Max each took a different approach to outfitting the cockpits.


    American Airlines, which ordered 100 of the planes and has 24 in its fleet, bought both the angle of attack indicator and the disagree light, the company said.


    Southwest Airlines, which ordered 280 of the planes and counts 36 in its fleet so far, had already purchased the disagree alert option, and it also installed an angle of attack indicator in a display mounted above the pilots’ heads. After the Lion Air crash, Southwest said it would modify its 737 Max fleet to place the angle of attack indicator on the pilots’ main computer screens.


    United Airlines, which ordered 137 of the planes and has received 14, did not select the indicators or the disagree light. A United spokesman said the airline does not include the features because its pilots use other data to fly the plane.


    When it was rolled out, MCAS took readings from only one sensor on any given flight, leaving the system vulnerable to a single point of failure. One theory in the Lion Air crash is that MCAS was receiving faulty data from one of the sensors, prompting an unrecoverable nose dive.


    In the software update that Boeing says is coming soon, MCAS will be modified to take readings from both sensors. If there is a meaningful disagreement between the readings, MCAS will be disabled.


    Incorporating the disagree light and the angle of attack indicators on all planes would be a welcome move, safety experts said, and would alert pilots — as well as maintenance staff who service a plane after a problematic flight — to issues with the sensors.


    The alert, especially, would bring attention to a sensor malfunction, and warn pilots they should prepare to shut down the MCAS if it activated erroneously, said Peter Lemme, an avionics and satellite-communications consultant and former Boeing flight controls engineer.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/b...es-charge.html

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's all about the Benjamans.
    Benjamans = Benjamins = One Hundred dollar bills

    Capitalism gone insane. Making safety features a costly upgrade. Hope Boeing gets sued to hell and back.

  46. #46

    Default

    Capitalism is fine. Man has gone rogue that's all...
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  47. #47
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Capitalism is fine. Man has gone rogue that's all...
    Facism the bleeding edge of capitalism. Complete control by a select elite - with or without military support.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,037

    Default

    Okay - understand passenger comfort can come with options. Passenger entertainment can come with options.

    How the F**k is passenger safety an option???

    Boeing ... the SNC-Lavalin of Uhmurrikka
    ... gobsmacked

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,820

    Default

    The airlines have to take some of the the responsibility for deciding not to take the safety options. AC to their credit took both options whereas WS took one. I think Canadians can take some reassurance from that.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  50. #50

    Default

    Boeing supplied training materials didn't mention MCAS system. Self taught, 3 hour online course.

    Pilots transitioned to 737 Max 8 with self-administered online course

    In the wake of the fatal crashes, some pilots are demanding additional training on the 737 Max series aircraft, in the form of both ground school and flight simulator time.
    "This is ridiculous," said Captain Dennis Tajer, a representative of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 15,000 American Airlines pilots. "If you're going to have equipment on the airplane that we didn't know about, and we're going to be responsible for battling it if it fails, then we need to have hands-on experience."


    The self-administered transition course for American Airlines pilots was a 56-minute online course, Tajer said, which he completed on his iPad. It was broken up into four broad sections, including a general description of changes to the aircraft, its engines, and its instrument panel. But an explanation or even an acknowledgement of the MCAS system was again missing, Tajer said.


    "(The transition course) usually works. It works for us. We have pilots who have a lot of experience. When I need to do a little more study, I know where to go. And if I was to go to that place, the MCAS wasn't even there."

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/us/ma...ntl/index.html

  51. #51

    Default

    First order cancellation for Boeing.

    Indonesia's Garuda is canceling its huge order for the Boeing 737 Max

    Indonesian airline Garuda said Friday that it's canceling a multibillion-dollar order for Boeing's 737 Max 8 passenger jet after the plane was involved in two deadly crashes in less than five months.


    "Our passengers have lost confidence to fly with the Max 8," Garuda spokesperson Ikhsan Rosan told CNN.


    The Indonesian carrier ordered 50 of the planes in 2014 for $4.9 billion. It has taken delivery of one of them but has now sent a letter to Boeing (BA) saying it no longer wants to receive the remaining jets on order, Ikhsan said.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/busin...cel/index.html



  52. #52

    Default

    On cars, you can buy various model safety upgrades like lane assist or auto braking. The consumer has a choice to make it safer.

    The Boeing difference is that they knowingly made a airliner that had an unsafe flying characteristic due to design changes that affected the center of lift. Then without full disclosures to customers; offered safety measures as an option that could negate the design problem.

    Big difference.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    On cars, you can buy various model safety upgrades like lane assist or auto braking. The consumer has a choice to make it safer.

    The Boeing difference is that they knowingly made a airliner that had an unsafe flying characteristic due to design changes that affected the center of lift. Then without full disclosures to customers; offered safety measures as an option that could negate the design problem.

    Big difference.
    Not quite true. They offered safety measures that negated the design problem as standard (MCAS). The optional safety features are for the safety features.

    In your analogy, it's like the auto braking was standard, but in rare instances the auto braking would slam on the brakes, unwarranted, at hwy speeds when merging. The optional safety features would be like a shutoff button for the auto braking, or an indicator which showed there was no need for braking (like a windshield).

  54. #54

    Default

    No, airliner flying straight and level in clear blue skies, has a single point sensor failure, becomes uncontrollable and plunges at 600mph into the ground.

    Sort of like a new car that has a tendency to pull left into oncoming traffic and has a computer system to prevent unintended left turns. Sensor fails and your vehicle swerves left and won't turn right to get back into your lane. Only if you bought the $1,000 option, can you shut off the computer to save your life.

    Boeing cheaped out and instead of fixing a design problem, they covered it up with a software fix that could, and did fail many times. Then they covered up the extent of the problem and only now after two major tragedies, do they grudgingly ground the planes.

    Max 8 is the most dangerous new airliner in history
    Fatalities by commercial aircraft by year after first flight
    https://www.theatlas.com/charts/By6l3FBDN

    Not only should Boeing be sued, the top brass should go to jail for the rest of their lives.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-03-2019 at 08:49 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Boeing supplied training materials didn't mention MCAS system. Self taught, 3 hour online course.

    Pilots transitioned to 737 Max 8 with self-administered online course

    In the wake of the fatal crashes, some pilots are demanding additional training on the 737 Max series aircraft, in the form of both ground school and flight simulator time.
    "This is ridiculous," said Captain Dennis Tajer, a representative of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 15,000 American Airlines pilots. "If you're going to have equipment on the airplane that we didn't know about, and we're going to be responsible for battling it if it fails, then we need to have hands-on experience."


    The self-administered transition course for American Airlines pilots was a 56-minute online course, Tajer said, which he completed on his iPad. It was broken up into four broad sections, including a general description of changes to the aircraft, its engines, and its instrument panel. But an explanation or even an acknowledgement of the MCAS system was again missing, Tajer said.


    "(The transition course) usually works. It works for us. We have pilots who have a lot of experience. When I need to do a little more study, I know where to go. And if I was to go to that place, the MCAS wasn't even there."

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/us/ma...ntl/index.html
    It was a big push by Boeing to sell jets.

    "Hey Customer, if you by a Max series, you can train your 737 pilots on their iPads at home in 2-1/2 hours on a self taught course." "Think of all the money your airline will save not having to train pilots on a new aircraft" "Buy Boeing and Download the free app today!"
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,787

    Default

    So Boeing tries to crab a relatively small sum by not including these safety features and now stuff is really hitting the fan.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47662967

    If other buyers are thinking the same way, all this is going to hammer Boeing.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  57. #57
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Boeing offered safety measures that negated the design problem as standard (MCAS). The optional safety features are for the safety features.
    If Boeing knew MCAS had a design feature that required safety options - they shouldn't have been options.

    Why would airbags in cars be required standard equipment when "options" to over-ride an unsafe piece of standard equipment on an aircraft with 200 people on board not be required?

    Also, when did pilots causing older generation 737's to stall become a problem? I know, the newer bigger engines positioned forward on the Max models was thought to be a potential problem.

    Then don't build the da*n thing in the first place.
    Last edited by McBoo; 22-03-2019 at 03:38 PM.
    ... gobsmacked

  58. #58

    Default

    Boeing Max 8*


    * This product should not be used as directed, as it should not be used at all, so do not use this product because you think you know better than Boeing. Do not believe our sales staff or executives or anything that they say. Do not use this product if between the ages of 2 and 102. While the product may be flown, it may also be used as a flying deathtrap, although after takeoff, please immediately finish your living will on fireproof paper. There’s no research on this software, so we don’t really know anything about the product, but you should buy it just in case it does something cool and nifty. Most importantly, don't buy Airbus, they make unsafe products and you can't trust the French, just cause.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-03-2019 at 02:40 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Boeing offered safety measures that negated the design problem as standard (MCAS). The optional safety features are for the safety features.
    If Boeing knew MCAS had a design feature that required safety options - they shouldn't have been options.

    Why would airbags in cars be required standard equipment when "options" to over-ride an unsafe piece of standard equipment on an aircraft with 200 people on board not be required?

    Also, when did pilots causing older generation 737's to stall become a problem? I know, the newer bigger engines positioned forward on the Max models was thought to be a potential problem.

    Then don't build the da*n thing in the first place.
    It’s funny you mentioned airbags.. The Rachel Madow Show did a clip on this. The auto industry started lobbying president JIMMY CARTER against mandatory airbags despite clear science they prevented significant loss of life. They only became mandatory in the 90’s.

    Chew on that while you wonder why seemingly necessary equipment remains “optional”. You will be interesting to know that oxygen masks are also “optional”

  60. #60

    Default

    Seatbelts had to be mandated, padded dashboards and safety glass too.



    The most notable issue is that prior to the two Max 8 tragic crashes, the airlines were having the safest record in history despite more passenger miles than ever.








    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #61
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    First order cancellation for Boeing.

    Indonesia's Garuda is canceling its huge order for the Boeing 737 Max


    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/busin...cel/index.html



    meanwhile in Canada...

    WestJet has no plans to cancel Max 8 order.

    I'll bet you Air Canada keeps theirs as well.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  62. #62

  63. #63
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    The 737 is too big to fail.
    That's been said of various empires in the past, though.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  64. #64

    Default

    Nothing wrong with the 737 series except the 737 Max Series
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Boeing Max 8*
    There’s no research on this software, so we don’t really know anything about the product, but you should buy it just in case it does something cool and nifty.
    Despite the sarcasm that sentence rings so true nowadays it should scare everybody. It speaks to the culture of geek in places like Facebook where there is no morality, more a sense of amorality and the worship of cool tech. One can easily picture a developers meeting where one programmer says "look at this cool subroutine I just cooked up" and they insert just to see how it fares. But in the case of Boeing it would be a matter where they thought the code would be useful or beneficial without addressing the potential ramifications in terms of training, documentation or even testing (because it might have passed testing previously elsewhere).
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  66. #66

    Default

    ^LOL, "One can easily picture a developers meeting where one programmer says "look at this cool subroutine I just cooked up" and they insert just to see how it fares."

    This just demonstrates that you haven't the foggiest idea of how software design and development works in the real world, nevermnd in mission-critical scenarios.

    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  67. #67

    Default

    Designing an unstable version of a trusted airframe is just wrong. To fix the problem they made a software fix as a patch with only a single critical sensor ( unless you bought the upgrade version at extra cost )

    When the accident happened last year, Boeing did the least effort and would not give full disclosure to their customers.

    That is why they are investigating and people will be held accountable.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  68. #68
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Designing an unstable version of a trusted airframe is just wrong. To fix the problem they made a software fix as a patch with only a single critical sensor ( unless you bought the upgrade version at extra cost )

    When the accident happened last year, Boeing did the least effort and would not give full disclosure to their customers.

    That is why they are investigating and people will be held accountable.
    Profit before people or people’s safety. The entire Board and Executive Team should be dismissed. Shareholders should demand that and nothing less.

  69. #69

    Default

    Jailed more like, in a really nasty prison.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Boeing Max 8*
    There’s no research on this software, so we don’t really know anything about the product, but you should buy it just in case it does something cool and nifty.
    Despite the sarcasm that sentence rings so true nowadays it should scare everybody. It speaks to the culture of geek in places like Facebook where there is no morality, more a sense of amorality and the worship of cool tech. One can easily picture a developers meeting where one programmer says "look at this cool subroutine I just cooked up" and they insert just to see how it fares. But in the case of Boeing it would be a matter where they thought the code would be useful or beneficial without addressing the potential ramifications in terms of training, documentation or even testing (because it might have passed testing previously elsewhere).
    Software writers rarely have to live (or die) with the results of their design. They get it working and then move on. The users then have to live with cumbersome screens, poor information transfer efficiencies, tedious input and review steps, etc.

    If they were home designers you’d be buying homes with loads of cool neat useless features but the attached garage wouldn’t have a door into the house, the mailbox would be beside the outdoor garbage cans, all the windows would be in one room, etc.
    Last edited by KC; 23-03-2019 at 09:13 PM.

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    ^LOL, "One can easily picture a developers meeting where one programmer says "look at this cool subroutine I just cooked up" and they insert just to see how it fares."

    This just demonstrates that you haven't the foggiest idea of how software design and development works in the real world, nevermnd in mission-critical scenarios.

    The comment (with an element of sarcasm) I made was directed at places like Facebook not Boeing. If you read about the culture in Facebook there are elements of that mindset that does not consider the ramifications of the potential fallout bearing in mind that Facebook is social media and not mission critical real time systems.

    And yes I have worked in software development environments. I have seen what the pressures of time constraints, the desire for profit in contracted software development and the lack of design oversight or even risk management that hinders the outcomes of software development projects.

    If you read the back story about the Max 8, Boeing originally wanted to develop a new plane but one of their major customers didn't want to wait and threatened to go with Airbus. The Max 8 was developed under severe time constraints and while there may not be intrinsic issues with the FCS software in terms of actual faults and defects there were and are definite consequences with regards to its impact on the operation of the aircraft as a whole.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 24-03-2019 at 03:12 AM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  72. #72

    Default

    When you cut corners in this business, people die.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #73

    Default

    In Test of Boeing Jet, Pilots Had 40 Seconds to Fix Error

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/b...ion-error.html
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  74. #74

    Default

    Their money is more important than your life.

    737 Max flight manual may have left MCAS information on 'cutting room floor'

    In the over 1,600-page flight manual of Boeing's 737 Max 8 planes, the aircraft's new MCAS computer system, now at the centre of the investigations into two deadly crashes, is mentioned only once by name — in the glossary of abbreviated terms.


    That brief mention in the manual, a copy of which was obtained by CBC News, has prompted some speculation that more details about the anti-stall computer system may have been included in previous drafts, but then left out of the final version.


    "I think the fairly obvious conclusion is that a broader explanation of MCAS was included in an earlier edition of the manual, and somewhere along the way it ended up on the cutting room floor," said Judson Rollins, a New Zealand-based aviation consultant, who worked for three airlines and a plane manufacturer.


    Air Canada says their 737 Max jets have all safety features Boeing sells as extras
    Rollins believes it was cut "to prevent the MCAS from having to be included in 737 Max transition training, which in turn will save 737 Max operators training costs."

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/boeing-737-m...rash-1.5065842

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    When you cut corners in this business, people die.
    To be fair that statement holds true for a lot of industries PRT, but still a ligit point.

  76. #76

    Default

    Yeah but usually not hundreds at a time.

  77. #77

    Default

    Today

    Boeing 737 MAX 8 makes emergency landing in Florida — while on its way to being grounded
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5098917/s...gency-landing/

    A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 that was on its way to California to be grounded had to make an emergency landing shortly after take-off at Orlando International Airport on Tuesday.

    Southwest 8701, which was occupied by a pair of pilots and no passengers, took off from Orlando just before 3 p.m. local time, a spokesperson for the airline told Global News.


    However, pilots reported a “performance issue” with one of the engines shortly after takeoff, and returned to Orlando where it made a safe emergency landing.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  78. #78
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,527
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  79. #79

    Default

    You'd think that this was the sort of thing they'd have bothered to check on before starting to sell them. But that would have hit the bottom line.

    Boeing 737 MAX 8 software fix delayed by a few weeks, FAA says

    The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Monday it expects to receive Boeing Co’s proposed software enhancement package for the grounded 737 MAX “over the coming weeks” after the company had previously said it planned to submit the fix for government approval by last week.


    FAA spokesman Greg Martin said that “time is needed for additional work by Boeing as the result of an ongoing review of the 737 MAX Flight Control System to ensure that Boeing has identified and appropriately addressed all pertinent issues.”

    https://globalnews.ca/news/5119425/b...oftware-delay/

  80. #80

    Default

    It makes you wonder about their commercial planes. Do they have the same problem and if so, how many have slipped through the cracks?

    US Air Force again halts delivery of Boeing refueling plane over debris found onboard

    For the second time in two months, the US Air Force has stopped accepting deliveries of new Boeing KC-46 tanker and refueling aircraft after debris was again found in some of the planes coming off the production line.


    "We actually stopped again the acceptance of the KC-46s because of foreign object debris that we found in some closed compartments," Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Congress Tuesday.


    "We've got corrective action in place, including (inspections) in some of those closed compartments to make sure that the production line is being run the way that it needs to be run," she said.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/polit...ery/index.html

  81. #81
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It makes you wonder about their commercial planes. Do they have the same problem and if so, how many have slipped through the cracks?

    US Air Force again halts delivery of Boeing refueling plane over debris found onboard

    For the second time in two months, the US Air Force has stopped accepting deliveries of new Boeing KC-46 tanker and refueling aircraft after debris was again found in some of the planes coming off the production line.


    "We actually stopped again the acceptance of the KC-46s because of foreign object debris that we found in some closed compartments," Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Congress Tuesday.


    "We've got corrective action in place, including (inspections) in some of those closed compartments to make sure that the production line is being run the way that it needs to be run," she said.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/polit...ery/index.html
    Unless you have information about other manufacturers - based on this article it is Boeing only that has a problem with debris left behind.

  82. #82

    Default

    Boeing is the one that the story is about. If it doesn't go into detail about every other aircraft manufacturer, does that make it wrong? No. Does it mean that other companies might not have the same problem? Again, no.

    However, Boeing is in the news right now and in no small part to the fact that the FAA has handed over a lot of the work that used to be done by FAA inspectors to Boeing. Their shortcoming are naturally going to attract more attention.

    Now, if you have information that Airbus is getting the same deal from the inspectors in France, by all means, post a link and let's see.

  83. #83

    Default

    Was the software reengaging even after being turned off?

    Ethiopian Airlines pilots reportedly turned off anti-stall software, but it re-engaged before crash

    Boeing anti-stall software on a doomed Ethiopian Airlines jet re-engaged as many as four times after the crew initially turned it off due to suspect data from an airflow sensor, two people familiar with the matter said.


    It was not immediately clear whether the crew had chosen to re-deploy the system, which pushes the nose of the Boeing 737 MAX downwards, but one person with knowledge of the matter said investigators were studying the possibility that the software had kicked in again without human intervention.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/5125662/e...ll-re-engaged/

  84. #84

    Default

    Boeing’s 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/b...-737-max-.html

    Pilots start some new Boeing planes by turning a knob and flipping two switches.
    The Boeing 737 Max, the newest passenger jet on the market, works differently. Pilots follow roughly the same seven steps used on the first 737 nearly 52 years ago: Shut off the cabin’s air-conditioning, redirect the air flow, switch on the engine, start the flow of fuel, revert the air flow, turn back on the air conditioning, and turn on a generator.


    The 737 Max is a legacy of its past, built on decades-old systems, many that date back to the original version. The strategy, to keep updating the plane rather than starting from scratch, offered competitive advantages. Pilots were comfortable flying it, while airlines didn’t have to invest in costly new training for their pilots and mechanics. For Boeing, it was also faster and cheaper to redesign and recertify than starting anew.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  85. #85

    Default



    New York Times: Boeing's South Carolina plant faces production issues that 'have threatened to compromise safety'

    Former and current employees at a Boeing plant in South Carolina that produces the company's 787 Dreamliner claim the factory is overrun by "shoddy production and weak oversight that have threatened to compromise safety" -- a revelation that surfaces as Boeing is under fire over a separate aircraft, the New York Times reported Saturday.


    The paper said a 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 of the North Charleston plant, revealed "a culture that often valued production speed over quality." According to the paper, plant employees described defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations across "nearly a dozen whistle-blower claims and safety complaints" filed with federal regulators.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/20/polit...ant/index.html

  86. #86

    Default

    How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer

    Design shortcuts meant to make a new plane seem like an old, familiar one are to blame

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ware-developer

    Various hacks (as we would call them in the software industry) were developed. One of the most noticeable to the public was changing the shape of the engine intakes from circular to oval, the better to clear the ground.

    “Everything about the design and manufacture of the Max was done to preserve the myth that ‘it’s just a 737.’ Recertifying it as a new aircraft would have taken years and millions of dollars. In fact, the pilot licensed to fly the 737 in 1967 is still licensed to fly all subsequent versions of the 737.”—Feedback on an earlier draft of this article from a 737 pilot for a major airline
    Long ago there was a joke that in the future planes would fly themselves, and the only thing in the cockpit would be a pilot and a dog. The pilot’s job was to make the passengers comfortable that someone was up front. The dog’s job was to bite the pilot if he tried to touch anything.

    Like someone with narcissistic personality disorder, MCAS gaslights the pilots. And it turns out badly for everyone. “Raise the nose, HAL.” “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
    In the MCAS system, the flight management computer is blind to any other evidence that it is wrong, including what the pilot sees with his own eyes and what he does when he desperately tries to pull back on the robotic control columns that are biting him, and his passengers, to death.

    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  87. #87

    Default

    Why the idea to have companies police themselves was flawed from the start. When employees put their jobs on the line reporting problems to someone who also is employed by the company, they tend to report fewer problems, especially when the company doesn't act on them in the first place. Profits over people.

    Source: Boeing whistleblowers report 737 Max problems to FAA

    The FAA tells CNN it received the four hotline submissions on April 5, and it may be opening up an entirely new investigative angle into what went wrong in the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max commercial airliners -- Lion Air flight 620 in October and Ethiopian Air flight 302 in March.


    Among the complaints is a previously unreported issue involving damage to the wiring of the angle of attack sensor by a foreign object, according to the source.
    Boeing has reportedly had previous issues with foreign object debris in its manufacturing process; The New York Times reported metal shavings were found near wiring of Boeing 787 Dreamliner planes, and the Air Force stopped deliveries of the Boeing KC-46 tanker after foreign object debris was found in some of the planes coming off the production line.


    Other reports by the whistleblowers involve concerns about the MCAS control cut-out switches, which disengage the MCAS software, according to the source.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/polit...rts/index.html

  88. #88

    Default

    American Airlines pilots want additional training before 737 Max returns to service.

    U.S. pilots demand better training if Boeing wants to rebuild trust in 737 MAX

    American Airlines pilots have warned that Boeing Co.'s draft training proposals for the troubled 737 MAX do not go far enough to address their concerns, according to written comments submitted to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and seen by Reuters.


    The comments were made by the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents pilots at American Airlines Group Inc., the world's largest airline and one of the biggest 737 MAX operators in the United States.


    Their support is important because Boeing has said pilots' confidence in the 737 MAX will play a critical role in convincing the public that the aircraft is safe to fly again.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boe...-max-1.5114538

  89. #89

    Default

    Your lives were worth less than their money.

    FAA nearly grounded some Boeing 737 Max planes last year: source


    "The inspectors were in charge of monitoring Southwest Airlines, the biggest user of 737 MAX planes, with a fleet of 34 of them at the time, added the source.


    Before the Lion Air crash, which killed all 189 people on board, “the (signals) were depicted as operable by Boeing on all MAX aircraft” regardless of whether the cockpit crew thought they had them turned on or off, said a Southwest spokeswoman.


    She said after the accident, Boeing told Southwest the signals were “turned off unless they were specifically designated as being turned on” — prompting the airline to choose that option for all its aircraft.


    It was at that point inspectors learned Boeing had opted to make the malfunction alert an optional extra costing more money — and had deactivated the signal on all 737 MAX delivered to Southwest without telling the carrier.


    They considered recommending grounding the planes as they explored whether pilots flying the aircraft needed additional training about the alerts, said the source.


    They decided against that — but never passed details of the discussions to higher-ranking officials in the FAA, the source said, confirming a story in The Wall Street Journal."

    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/faa...t-year-source/

  90. #90

    Default

    Interesting that they may have to pay for the lost flights.

    I suppose that’s the difference between business to business dealings and business to Joe Blow dealings. Your car or whatever craps out, gets recalled, etc. and you’re usually the loser on lost time and the like. Flight delays included.

    “The grounding has already cost the carrier... But the bill will probably climb because Boeing is expected to pay money to airlines forced to cancel thousands of flights and hire more reservations and services staff.”
    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/faa...t-year-source/
    Last edited by KC; 29-04-2019 at 09:13 AM.

  91. #91

    Default

    This is a Boeing Angle of Attack Sensor


    You often see them when you board.

    Even before the tragic events, I always wondered why they use a analog sensor that can be damaged by a bird strike, lightening, accidental impact by mechanics or service.

    Rather than a complex software fix, why cannot they make a simple bypass switch that results in a nominal signal?

    Why do they use an external sensor rather than one mounted internally. Heck, my smart phone has angle sensors.

    You can buy them at the hardware store too
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #92

    Default

    It's because the angle of attack is not relative to the ground or a horizontal plane but in fact the angle between the plane and the oncoming wind direction. See here for details:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

  93. #93

    Default

    Understood and it helps during windshear. Simply relying on a single failure prone sensor is very disconcerting. On some small regional jets, the sensor is so close to the door that the ramp almost makes contact and even a passenger could reach the sensor.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  94. #94

    Default

    Even their own pilots were kept in the dark about certain aspects.

    Boeing’s own pilots lacked key details of 737 MAX flight-control system in tests
    Culture of collaboration between test pilots, engineers deteriorated in later stages of development, insider tells the Wall Street Journal

    Boeing Co. limited the role of its own pilots in the final stages of developing the 737 MAX flight-control system implicated in two fatal crashes, departing from a longstanding practice of seeking their detailed input, people familiar with the matter said.


    As a result, Boeing test pilots and senior pilots involved in the MAX’s development didn’t receive detailed briefings about how fast or steeply the automated system known as MCAS could push down a plane’s nose, these people said. Nor were they informed that the system relied on a single sensor—rather than two—to verify the accuracy of incoming data about the angle of a plane’s nose, they added.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bo...sts-2019-05-03

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    This from a current MAX8 pilot on a different board I frequent:

    "It you strap anything to the outside of an aircraft it's going to modify the flying characteristics. Boeing (much like since the first 737) has once again put a bigger engine on the 737. Boeing installed MCAS such that the aircraft would fly very similar to the NG in all sectors of the flying envelope. The MAX only had subtle differences at high angles of attack, hence the birth of MCAS. I think the other option would be to install a larger tail and introduce a new type rating. Boeing and customers did not go down that road. I will agree that they failed in not having MCAS run off of more than once source, but not to the point that it would solely down an aircraft. Typically you will see 2/4/or/6 fail safes when it comes to manipulation of primary control surfaces. Yes, that's a slap on the wrist, and I'm glad to see this being rectified.

    I will agree that there is no denying that Boeing could have done better in having a more than one source of air data for MCAS, but I wouldn't waver that finger pointing to far from the crew. You should not have to dumb down aviation to the point that you don't have to use your noggin'. If only ONE stick shaker is going off, and you are climbing out in visual conditions --- are you really stalling? Do you really need a flashy light to tell you there is an angle of attack disagree?; After both of these crashes maybe we do have to dumb down aviation. Those of us that learned to fly before GPS call these inexperienced pilots/new age pilots "Children of the Magenta Line" that have just blindly followed automation since day one.

    Had the crew run the unreliable airspeed and the runaway stabilizer trim memory items as per Boeing procedures, the aircraft would have landed safely regardless of MCAS being installed or not. Type rated 737 pilots are trained on and are required to know memory items for the NG and MAX for these two issues that they would have encountered.

    I don't want to say MCAS wasn't a contributing factor in the swiss cheese model, but lets be clear that MCAS did not cause these crashes.

    The fact that FOUR, that's right, count them....FOUR crews prior to the Lion Air crash all ran into the same issues, ran the memory items, and returned the aircraft safely to the ground. But the news doesn't publish that because that's boring and doesn't end in a smoking hole in the ground.

    The fact that the Ethiopian crews left the thrust levers fire walled when that is step 2 of unreliable airspeed and step 3 of runaway stabilizer trim memory items tells you something. The fact that they tried to reengage the auto pilot when the memory and checklist items tell you not to, the fact that they re-engaged the stabilizer trim cut off switches when Boeing outlines you shall NOT.....the list goes on. I think these crashes surfaced some issues with MCAS, but I feel like it's hard direct even a majority blame on Boeing. I imagine we will see this filed away along with the number one leading cause of accidents in the past 20 years -- a loss of control in flight.

    I hope the MAX get's back in service soon. I would confidently fly it tomorrow without additional training, but I appreciate any information moving forward. It sound like Marc Garneau wants us back in the sim anyways to train on the same things we already train on."

    https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/s...=1#post2018238

  96. #96
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,212
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'm getting similar comments from the industry folks i talk to vs the media quote bait that is around here.

    Boeing installed MCAS such that the aircraft would fly very similar to the NG in all sectors of the flying envelope. The MAX only had subtle differences at high angles of attack, hence the birth of MCAS. I think the other option would be to install a larger tail and introduce a new type rating. Boeing and customers did not go down that road.




    ...as I mentioned much earlier in this thread before it became yet another typical echo chamber quote fest is exactly what was highlighted above. This is not just Boeing. It is an industry conversation. AIRBUS has and recently had issues with its system(s).

    The big lesson will be type rating be damned. IF it is new, it will be trained as new. Enough with the trying to avoid the reality that you created a new 757, not an improved 737.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  97. #97

    Default

    FAA allows Boeing to certify themselves. Boeing allows workers to certify themselves. Quality of work goes down. Profits go up because of less oversight.

    Boeing SC lets mechanics inspect their own work, leading to repeated mistakes, workers say
    ‘An everyday thing — every single day.’

    A Boeing Co. program that speeds production by letting mechanics inspect their own work is leading to repeated mistakes on the 787 Dreamliner production line in North Charleston, workers say, at a time when the airplane maker is facing worldwide scrutiny over its safety record.

    Some of the mistakes are serious safety hazards, like debris being left in the sensors that measure air speed while a plane is in flight. More common problems, workers say, range from surplus rags and bolts left in planes to loose cabin seats and unsecured galley equipment.

    Workers say many of those production problems can be traced to the relatively new self-inspection program now spearheaded by Boeing Vice President Ernesto Gonzalez-Beltran, a former automobile executive with no previous aviation manufacturing experience.

    The lean manufacturing approach Gonzalez-Beltran is working to incorporate at Boeing drew similar complaints and a lawsuit at a California auto plant he once helped manage.

    “I’m always finding cases where jobs are signed off and the parts aren’t installed,” said a Boeing worker, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal. “It happens a lot.”

    Boeing says the program, which some regulators have called ineffective, is only used in stable production areas where defects typically are not being made.

    But some workers say the self-inspection program puts production speed ahead of passenger safety and that problems are often ignored to meet deadlines. While most of the mistakes are eventually caught before a plane is turned over to an airline, workers say they worry about what’s being missed.

    And the mistakes, they say, are numerous.

    “It’s an everyday thing — every single day,” said a Boeing employee with firsthand knowledge of the production process. This worker also asked for anonymity.

    https://www.postandcourier.com/busin...34127eb85.html
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 06-05-2019 at 08:26 PM.

  98. #98

    Default

    And it's not just Boeing that's getting into the self-inspection game.

    It’s Not Just Pork: Trump Is Also Letting Nuclear Plants Regulate Their Own Safety

    The draft version of the rule, released by the NRC in 2016, required all nuclear plant owners to do two things: reassess all flood and earthquake risks, then implement new safety measures taking the reassessment into account. But in January 2019, with Trump appointees making up a majority of the commission, it approved a final version of the rule making the safety measures voluntary. Nuclear power plants, in other words, will still have to do new risk assessments—but now they can choose whether they want to prepare for those risks or not.


    The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.”


    The Trump administration also has been pushing to reinstate self-regulation of offshore oil rigs, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to a government crackdown. “After the 2010 blowout, the Obama administration ... required well operators to hire independent third parties to conduct safety checks,” NPR reported this week. “Now, the Trump administration is trying to roll that regulation back.”

    https://newrepublic.com/article/1534...egulate-safety
    I'd imagine that that there's a number of people that would like to see the O&G sector do more self-regulation here.

  99. #99
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,820

    Default

    Interesting video sums it up. https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  100. #100

    Default

    Meanwhile....

    Boeing Jet Sales Have Tanked in the Wake of 737 Max Crashes

    A company report says that Boeing has not sold a single new 737 Max aircraft since the line was grounded on March 13, while April also saw no new sales of other Boeing jets “such as the 787 Dreamliner or the 777,” CNN wrote. The report suggests that potential customers have grown wary about the wisdom of buying 737 Max aircraft, and have held off on buying other Boeing models that were not involved in crashes as well

    ---

    In the meantime, backlash against the aerospace manufacturer has been mounting. The company only offered critical safety features that could have alerted pilots to a sensor malfunction as optional upgrades. Other reports have indicated flight crews may not have been aware the systems were not operational by default or otherwise received insufficient training.


    Boeing has announced a software fix to MCAS that the Federal Aviation Administration characterized last month as “operationally suitable,” as well as said it would install some of the safety features previously offered as optional upgrades as default features in all 737 Max jets. But that fix has not yet been approved and the groundings have continued, with the planes starting to pile up at storage sites.


    Boeing and the FAA are also facing increasing scrutiny of whether regulators failed to flag potential issues with the aircraft’s design, as well as whether Boeing should have responded more aggressively after the first crash, according to reports in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

    https://gizmodo.com/boeing-jet-sales...cra-1834768869

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •