Boeing Says It Might Have To Shut Down 737 Max Production (cnn.com) 188
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg warned investors Wednesday that the company might need to further slow or temporarily halt its 737 Max production. Boeing has continued to build the 737 Max, its bestselling jet, although at a slower pace. The plane has been grounded since mid-March because of two fatal crashes that killed more than 300 people. Boeing hopes to get approval for the plane to fly again sometime early in the fourth quarter. Muilenburg said any further delays in approval to fly the 737 Max again could jeopardize its production. A further slowdown or temporary shutdown of 737 Max production is "not something we want to do, but an alternative that we have to prepare for," Muilenburg told investors on a conference call. He said the company needs to prepare for that "to make sure we've covered all scenarios." "Boeing is working on a software fix to a safety system which is believed to have caused the two crashes," reports CNN. "But it says it won't be able to present that fix to aviation authorities until September at the earliest, and it hopes to have a certification flight in October."
From there, regulators will need to approve the plane for flight. So it's possible the Boeing 737 Max won't be cleared to fly again until at least late this year.
From there, regulators will need to approve the plane for flight. So it's possible the Boeing 737 Max won't be cleared to fly again until at least late this year.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, better yet, design a new airframe for the 21st century?
They did; there's a shitload of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests that whatever came after the XB-70 and Oxcart has been operational for decades.
They clearly don't want to share the ramjet/waverider tech - as well as any possible affiliated 'blue sky' tech - with the civilian world.
Re: (Score:2)
They clearly don't want to share the ramjet/waverider tech
Nope. North American Aviation was independent of Boeing at the beginning of the SST program. They actually made a proposal for a passenger aircraft. Based on the XB-70 with that technology? Maybe not. But they clearly had demonstrated the ability to take a requirements document and build a working Mach 3 aircraft. Guess what? Boeing got the job instead. And they couldn't even do a proper weight calculation to ensure that the damned thing would fly. NAA would gladly have built a civilian aircraft.
And now, B
Re: (Score:3)
The real XB-70 at Wright-Patterson is....impressive. That was pretty amazing engineering.
Re: (Score:1)
The airlines don't want that, that's why the 737 Max exists in the first place. If you have a substantial fleet of 737s, adding whole new plane means a huge extra investment in training pilots, crews and maintenance workers, and a bunch of extra operational costs. That's why budget airlines typically have an entire fleet of a single model. Some of Boeing's biggest customers basically demanded the 737 Max get made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might end up being a wonderful opportunity to buy the stock on a massive dip....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, better yet, design a new airframe for the 21st century?
That would have taken vital time while the A320 Neo ate away at their market share.
Re: (Score:3)
While the overall shape and size does not change
But that was what ultimately caused the problems with the new engines, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the overall shape and size does not change....
That is precisely what caused this problem - trying to put bigger engines on it without changing the overall shape and size to match.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably cannot, because this slapped-together mess cannot be fixed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To say this in more genial terms, I heard the same thing from a friend who works in the industry. Although the feeling is that the new 'feature' was not documented the way it should have been, most pilots either know what to do or received the appropriate training for the difference in how the system works, but this is not true of all pilots in all parts of the world - not all of whom receive adequate training.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Boeing's idea of adequate training ends up being a 1-hour tutorial viewed on an iPad. I'm not joking. [qz.com]
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
And for the MCAS system, that is likely sufficient for a pilot who is already flying 737's. All this system really does is mess with the pitch trim under specific circumstances and there are other systems which already control the pitch trim. The solution for a failure of any of the other systems and the MCAS system is EXACTLY the same.
So, an hour of video watching on an iPad seems like enough time to explain more than just the the MCAS system, how it works, what happens when it's broken, and how to fly the airplane when it's not working as advertised. How hard is it to explain that you put the two "STAB TRIM" switches next to the throttles to "CUTOUT" when the pitch trim is running away from you?
Personally, I'm thinking 3-4 min on an iPad and 10 min of simulation time would be more than sufficient to train an otherwise competent pilot on the MCAS.
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Excuse me, you're not following the narrative. The narrative is Big Corporation Intentionally Kills People To Save Small Number Of Bucks.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
The number of bucks saved was actually yuuuuuge, quite possibly the difference between life or death of Boeing. There was no allotment of 10 mins for simulator time at all and they've found many bugs in the MCAS system. This was gross negligence and incompetence on the part of Boeing management, no more and no less.
Re: (Score:2)
And there remains the fact that Boeing, who at a corporate level *absolutely* knows better, relied on a single sensor, which is just....well, websites that are not life or death are instrumented multiple ways so it's possible to see how and when they fall over. Single instrumentation in an aeronautical design is unheard of and unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not far from the truth though. What Boeing needs is not a software fix the the 737 Max, it's a major and in depth restructuring.
I found this piece interesting:
https://mattstoller.substack.c... [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"3-4 min on an iPad and 10 min of simulation time would be more than sufficient to train ..."
Those 10 minutes will end up costing half a day including paperwork and travel time. Or do all major airport hubs have simulators for all the common plane models where pilots can drop in when they are around?
"How hard is it to explain..."
After you set the switch to "cut out", how do you get the trim back to where it belongs? That manual trim wheel was very difficult to turn once the trim was far off.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Who upvoted this crap?
1) You don't just turn off MCAS when it's not working and save the plane. The Ethiopian crew tried that and they found out manually correcting TRIM was impossible due to aerodynamic pressure (as switching off MCAS switches off electronic TRIM as well).
2) If your solution is to turn off MCAS when it's not working, then you are saying the crew will need to fly without MCAS for an amount of time. This whole MCAS thing started because the plane without MCAS would be considered A NEW TYPE a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what is your solution when the trim wheels are too stiff for a human to turn them now that the electrical mechanism has been turned off?
Had Boeing supplied a switch that left the electrical trim working but disconnected MCAS from it, you might be on to something.
Since there are 2 AoA sensors anyway, it might have been nice if MCAS actually looked at BOTH of them and cut out if they disagreed, with an accompanying alarm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
But that was the whole point of the feature. Boeing sold the max as not requiring extra training. That was one of the key selling points of the plane, that you wouldn't need to retrain your pilots. It's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that airlines are at fault for not providing training that the manufacturer was adamant they didn't need.
It was this requirement to not need pilot training that has caused the whole problem. The max should have required a new type rating, it's not unique for a aircraft to nose up under throttle, but it is different to previous iterations of the 737. The software fix (hack) is a wrong-headed solution to the problem that was always going to be a problem. In essence there were two choices:
1) Require a new type rating to fly the plane
2) Create a system to make the plane act like old models, however that system would need to be flawless, as if it ever failed then you have a pilot not type rated for the plane they are flying without that system. That's why having a warning light isn't a solution, it just highlights the problem.
There's an American arrogance at play because the 2 crashes have happened in what American's consider "backwards" countries, however both airlines (particularly Ethiopian Airlines) had excellent safety records.
Of course Boeing further sabotaged any chance their hack had at working by other cost cutting methods. If they hadn't combined electronic trim and automatic trim into a single switch then the second crash definitely wouldn't have happened, and if they hadn't shrunk the size of the trim wheels then neither crash may have happened.
The system as delivered was inherently unsafe under certain circumstances. If the system activated at low altitude whilst the plane was under high throttle and trying to climb, then a sensor failure would cause the plane to nose down whilst aerodynamic forces prevented manually altering the trim, and there was no way to deactivate the automatic trim without also deactivating the electronic trim need to alter the trim.
People question why the pilots re-activated auto/electronic trim in the second crash, it seems fairly clear that they did so because they couldn't manually alter the trim and they hoped that either they could electronically alter the trim before the automatic system nosed-down again, or that the fault had cleared when they turned it off.
Excellent comment (Score:2)
Excellent comment, that's the gist of it. At this point it makes absolutely no sense to keep the MCAS. If the solution to the MCAS problems is to disable it as they are suggesting, then you still need the extra training as you are flying with the different characteristics. So having the MCAS serves no purpose currently, just adding problems.
They simply have to remove it and the planes can start flying again, after additional pilot training. Sure it is not optimal for business, but nothing else is possible r
Re: (Score:1)
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, I was attacking that attitude, which the next line shows (where I mentioned the excellent safety records of the airlines involved), plus I'm not American, so your retort is misplaced.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
most pilots either know what to do or received the appropriate training for the difference in how the system works, but this is not true of all pilots in all parts of the world - not all of whom receive adequate training.
In other words: It's not safe!
The 737 has a failure mode where a seemingly-correct control input creates a feedback loop that ends up crashing the aircraft.
The "inadequately trained" excuse is as lame as Apple's "you're holding it wrong!" excuse.
Re: (Score:1)
The bestselling jet that like the 777 and 787 I have never personally flown on and am not likely to ever? Wonder where they all go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... they're holding it wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The plane is flight worthy.
It's unstable in flight, dipshit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's unstable in flight
No, it's not. The engine nacelles generate aerodynamic lift at high angles of attack which causes the pitch up yoke force to reduce as the plane pitch increases. To meet federal regulations, it must take increasing amounts of yoke force to continue to increase pitch. Since the 737 MAX does the exact opposite of the requirement, MCAS was developed to trim the plane nose down to simulate this effect. Failures of this system may have caused so much trim down that the planes were unrecoverable at high speed lea
Re: (Score:2)
The plane is flight worthy.
It's unstable in flight, dipshit.
While there's plenty about the MAX to criticize, I really don't think this is a good one. Instability doesn't mean it's not flight worthy. It isn't the only aircraft in the world that's unstable. Like or hate it, these aircraft are largely fly by wire anyway. If the avionics aren't properly correcting for the instability because of stupid design flaws , well, one should the avionics and the hardware it relies on (e.g. single point of failure sensors). Not that I trust Boeing to fix it properly; I'm just sa
Re: (Score:1)
The plane is flight worthy.
It's unstable in flight, dipshit.
No it's not. The aircraft is absolutely flyable with one minor tweak. FAA regulations require that increasing angles of attack must require increasing yoke pressure up to stall. The MAX had issues meeting this regulation due to the increased lift of the engines at high angles of attack actually decreased the pressure required to increase the AOA. This was ONLY at very low speeds and very high AOAs. So you have three choices in the regulations...
1. adjust the aircraft and it's control systems to provide
Sully's opinion - or yours? (Score:5, Informative)
"Sully (Yes, that Sully) flew the Ethiopian flight data in a simulator shortly after the crash. His statement was that he found it almost impossible to fly and in his opinion most pilots wouldn't have been able to save it even with hours of training. Yes it really IS that dangerous.
"It's bloody easy to armchair-quarterback but you're not facing 90-120 seconds of situational overload and trim controls requiring several hundred POUNDS of force to turn thanks to aerodynamic pressures whilst being required to make flight changes that every fibre of your being screams NO about ("Always maintain thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee", and "Never fly into the ground. It hurts") - actually LETTING an aircraft that's determined to fly itself into the ground DO SO - even momentarily - so you can frantically wind the wheels and _HOPE_ you can adjust them enough before you hit the ground".
- Comment by Alan Brown at https://forums.theregister.co.... [theregister.co.uk] ("Boeing's 737 Max woes trigger BEEELLIONS in losses – and that's just for the latest quarter")
Alan's comment has garnered 50 upvotes and 1 (inevitable) downvote so far.
Re:Sully's opinion - or yours? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Modern aviation design is all about cost savings - functionality hasn't changed much in decades. That said though, that cost savings has to be done while maintaining a reasonable safety standard and I agree that Boeing has failed here. They need to face the consequences of that failure - which have to be extremely sever to prevent this from happening in the future. Sadly the people responsible for the bad decisions may not themselves face the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally, 737 Max was an exercise in cost-saving hackery
Nope, not cost saving, profit maximising. They may sound like the same thing but Boeing could have spent any amount of money they want, fundamentally their customers needed a plane with the specs of the A320 Neo but without any of the re-training which would make a competitive tender viable and the only solution to provide this is what they delivered.
They needed a new airframe to compete with the Neo. That simply is not possible in the time frame required regardless of cost.
They needed a plane which prevent
Re: (Score:1)
"Sully (Yes, that Sully) flew the Ethiopian flight data in a simulator shortly after the crash. His statement was that he found it almost impossible to fly and in his opinion most pilots wouldn't have been able to save it even with hours of training.
While Sully may be an excellent pilot, his time at American (and USAir) was entirely in the A320 series. That needs to be kept in mind when evaluating his opinion because the design schemes between Airbus and Boeing might as well be as similar as Venus and Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's worth mentioning that the A320 is totally fly by wire, where the 737 is hydraulic assisted direct control. An A320 is uncontrollable if you lose all the hydraulics or power where the 737 requires neither hydraulics or power for a pilot to control it.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong.
A320 has mechanical backups. Actual bowden cables, like in the fifties.
Re: (Score:1)
You have the A320 series and the 737 family confused.
http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm
Check out what that says in "Manual Law"
In case of a complete loss of electrical flight control signals, the aircraft can be temporarily controlled by mechanical mode.
Pitch control is achieved through the horizontal stabilizer by using the manual trim wheel.
Lateral control is accomplished using the rudder pedals.
Both controls require hydraulic power.
A red MAN PITCH TRIM ONLY warning appears on the PFD.
That bolded section is important. If all electrical and hydraulic power are lost, the plane is toast. However, that means that both engines have failed, the APU has failed, all batteries are depleted, and the ram air turbine has failed to deploy because the RAT, batteries, and APU (in addition to its own hydraulic pump) can all supply electrical power to an electric hydr
Re: (Score:2)
I don't confuse anything. The A320 rudder pedals have an actual mechanical connection. It cannot be operated without a hydraulic boost, though.
737 != 737 Max (Score:2)
Re:Sully's opinion - or yours? (Score:5, Informative)
The plane is flight worthy. They only crashes that happened were from airlines in third world shit holes flown by unqualified pilots.
"Sully (Yes, that Sully) flew the Ethiopian flight data in a simulator shortly after the crash. His statement was that he found it almost impossible to fly and in his opinion most pilots wouldn't have been able to save it even with hours of training. Yes it really IS that dangerous.
"It's bloody easy to armchair-quarterback but you're not facing 90-120 seconds of situational overload and trim controls requiring several hundred POUNDS of force to turn thanks to aerodynamic pressures whilst being required to make flight changes that every fibre of your being screams NO about ("Always maintain thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee", and "Never fly into the ground. It hurts") - actually LETTING an aircraft that's determined to fly itself into the ground DO SO - even momentarily - so you can frantically wind the wheels and _HOPE_ you can adjust them enough before you hit the ground".
- Comment by Alan Brown at https://forums.theregister.co.... [theregister.co.uk] ("Boeing's 737 Max woes trigger BEEELLIONS in losses – and that's just for the latest quarter")
Alan's comment has garnered 50 upvotes and 1 (inevitable) downvote so far.
From an RAF officer: "In this case, pilot error means that the pilot was faced with three simultaneous problems and he managed to solve two and a half of them before he ran out of sky'". As for any individuals around here who are, ... shall we say, ... 'obsessed with the racial superiority pale skinned people' like our AC up there, and therefore think pilots from 'shit-hole countries' (and we all know which one of his personal heroes he is quoting there) are incapable of feats of exemplary flying skill, they should read up on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. These pilots actually belly-landed a Boeing 767 in the ocean, flying on fumes while fighting with a bunch of hijackers and still managed to land their crate intact enough for 44 passengers out of 163 to survive. Those that died did so mostly because they panicked, ignored the flight attendants' instruction and inflated their life vests while still in the aircraft (flight attendants being another group of people whose courage usually goes un-acknowledged). If these Ethiopian pilots hadn't been fighting the hijackers while trying to land the thing they probably would have made Prince Said Ibrahim International Airport and saved all of the passengers. Leul Abate ended up winning the Hugh Gordon-Burge Memorial Award for exemplary airmanship.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 seems to reflect more on the pilots' ability in combat than in piloting. Defeating three hijackers is certainly impressive; successfully belly-landing in an ocean could be anywhere from impressive to trivial depending on how badly they were distracted, which isn't exactly a controlled condition.
And if you went digging all the way back to Flight 961 in 1996, I'm surprised you didn't notice Flight 409 in 2010, which crashed - per the investigation report - purely as a result of pilot error, killing all 90 people aboard. The last comparable incident for, for example, American Airlines, was in 2001 - and that's an airline with eight times the fleet size (965 vs 116), so you'd expect it to have incidents eight times as frequently.
There really is a difference in safety between Western and non-Western airlines. Just because some racists believe it *doesn't make it false* - and if you refuse to believe it because they do, that just makes you even stupider than them.
There is nothing trivial about belly landing a large jet airliner on water, period! Doing that while fighting a hijacker is even less trivial. You can continue to defend you racist comment abut pilots from shit-hole countries till you are blue in the face but all you'll achieve is make your self look like even more of a bigoted racist. It's a good thing for you that you shouted that comment from under your rock so we can't see who you are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sully (Yes, that Sully) flew the Ethiopian flight data in a simulator shortly after the crash. His statement was that he found it almost impossible to fly and in his opinion most pilots wouldn't have been able to save it even with hours of training.
Could I get a source for this? I can find a quote of him [bloomberg.com] saying that "Even knowing what was going to happen, [he] could see how crews could have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems.", which isn't quite so generous.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.wmar2news.com/news... [wmar2news.com]
That was the SECOND result I saw when I Googled "sullenberger ethiopian flight data simulator".
Go and do thou likewise.
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
First, "shithole" is one word. Sheesh, you must be new here.
But more importantly, a shithole country would meet these criteria?
* Despotic warlord going to extremes to stay in power indefinitely
* Disenfranchised voters
* Incarceration, capitol punishment, and street executions of specific racial groups
* Xenophobia
* Suppression of journalism and basic human rights
* Enforcement of a feudal system with a small hereditary aristocracy and everyone else is a peasant
Seems to me that Murica is a shithole country the
Boo Hoo... (Score:3)
Quick ,someone pass me a hanky, I'm just welling up here....
Re: (Score:2)
Good. The more expensive flying gets the better, its not a fucking human right and the amount of pollution its causing is getting out of hand.
Baloney (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual Boeing is lying. This time not about pilot error, for a change.
Any fool, including the regulatory-captured bureaucrats at the FAA that Boeing is belly-aching to, knows that production will continue and, perhaps, *deliveries* to customers may be delayed until the software fix for their deadly cost-cutting negligent engineering is available and approved. So their quarterly profits may suffer but the backlog will clear out quickly.
I'd like to know when the DoJ referral is happening and which PE's are getting their licenses revoked forever in Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual Boeing is lying. This time not about pilot error, for a change.
Any fool, including the regulatory-captured bureaucrats at the FAA that Boeing is belly-aching to, knows that production will continue and, perhaps, *deliveries* to customers may be delayed until the software fix for their deadly cost-cutting negligent engineering is available and approved. So their quarterly profits may suffer but the backlog will clear out quickly.
I'd like to know when the DoJ referral is happening and which PE's are getting their licenses revoked forever in Washington.
Not exactly the first time and Boeing weathered previous times it wasn't pilot error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in this case I wouldn't blame the engineering nearly as much as blind idiotic reliance on bad policy. The system literally steals the controls to nosedive the plane. AND it's not documented in the manual. Sounds like a top level management and direction problem to me...
(That the engineers failed to properly build such a system is more a testament to the fact such a system should never have been specified)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that PEs need to have their licenses pulled. There's not much point in having a PE certification if it's not revocable for something like this.
Re: (Score:1)
My read was more like "At this point we think few people will ever buy this plane so we don't want to end up with 500 of them parked gathering dust.
"Boeing has continued to build the 737 Max..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
Where I was brought up, that was called "throwing good money after bad".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The factories are setup, the workers are there to work. Their options are slow production and hope to sell the planes later, or lay everyone off and pay huge layoff expenses.
Re: (Score:1)
But this is destruction of property. They are taking perfectly good raw materials and building death-machines that will never fly.
Suppose it were a Russian plane... (Score:1)
...The plane has been grounded since mid-March because of two fatal crashes that killed more than 300 people....
Let's remember blame was initially placed on the pilot...even here at Slashdot...
With folks asking why no crashes had happened in the USA, where a big number of flights take place daily...
Then it was the training...
Then it was the "3rd world" conditions...
But can anyone really think of what could have happened if this aircraft were Russian or Chinese for that matter?
I will tell you...It would be hell around here with "technical experts" blaming Russia Technology...this is even though the "Greatest Technolo
I remember engineers complaining about (Score:4, Interesting)
how Boeing used fly by wire so was so much more reliable than Airbus, but I bet Airbus doesn't outsource their software development.
As usual, the easy way is to not build a better plane, just stuff more information into a pilot's head and then say "we trained him" when he fails to spot the error.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing's FBW philosophy was that the pilot could always override the computer. That's not always possible on Airbus planes, which has led to a few fatal accidents (e.g. pilots unable to deploy thrust reversers upon landing because wheels hydroplaning on rainy runway made computer think the plane wasn't yet on the ground).
The 737 Max accidents were caused by programmers modifying the new flight control system so the pilot couldn't overr
Boeing too big to fail (Score:2)
Boeing taking a bath (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4000+ 737MAX orders have already been placed. With 737 production ended for good, not only Airbus A320neo will effectively own this market for a decade, but everyone's fares will have to go up simply because of limited supply of new A320 or B737 airplanes. Airbus already has 5000+ orders for A320neo, so I can't imagine they will be able to ramp up the production so far as to absorb all the 4000+ Boeing 737 customer orders. This could be a bonanza for the vendors of smaller class airplanes, like the new Airb
Playing Chicken (Score:2)
... with the FAA, Muilenburg is (sorry for that Yodaism).
Not able to present a fix to the FAA until September? There should be blood in the hallways by now. None of the management from when I worked there would have put up with that lax an attitude.
Unless it's a matter of there being nobody left inside Boeing capable of handling this. And what they are waiting for is contract negotiations with the vendor who will actually design the fix. And that vendor knows they've got Boeing over a barrel right now.
Re: (Score:2)
why? the plane is grounded. no fix, it doesn't fly. no problem
Re: (Score:2)
no problem
12,000 people out of work. Voters. Usually GOP supporters. Problem.
Since when did BoingBoing start making aircraft? (Score:1)
Awwwwwwwww... (Score:2)
All software all the time (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I just shake my head on that one.
Why shake your head? Properly designed software combined with properly designed hardware has saved far more lives than it has cost. Something as simple as you applying the breaks to your car can get overridden by software which is far better at knowing the optimum break force than a driver.
You shake your head, I nod mine in support. Yeah my handheld radio takes a long time to boot up as well. But damn if it doesn't have orders of magnitude more features and capabilities compared to the days where we did thi
They need to make a 738 (Score:1)
The problem here is that they don't want to pay to get a "new" plane certified. The process is expensive, and then pilots need to be trained on the "new" plane.
The 737 max is a design nightmare created out of a desire to keep stretching this lie that all their new models are still "just a 737 with a tweak"
People called out this bullshit, but boeing managed to push it through regulators. Pasting from wikipedia:
Chief executive Dai Whittingham of the independent trade group UK Flight Safety Committee disputed
Boeing loses $5 Billion (Score:2)
That right, Boeing hired the cheapest programmers (read: outsourced) it could find to write the software for their newest model of the 737 line.
How much did they save, $1 million, $2 million, $10 million? Was it worth it?
Number of lives lost: 246.
Corporate reputation ruined.
$5 billion writeoff.
Newest aircraft 777X: delayed.
Was it wo
how about this (Score:1)
737Max (Score:1)
pilot error is listed as part of the issue in cras (Score:2)
pilot error is listed as part of the issue in crashes from time to time (in away to make things safer next time).
Re:pilot error is listed as part of the issue in c (Score:5, Insightful)
Except in this case the computer took over control from the pilots to push the nose down and their only mistake was not knowing the secret handshake to turn it off in 40 seconds or less. Note: that the system existed to push the nose down existed wasn't even mentioned in the manual. Death to those who didn't finish all the extra credit!
I don't see how anyone can think taking control AWAY from pilots is a good idea, especially in difficult circumstances...
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case the computer took over control from the pilots to push the nose down and their only mistake was not knowing the secret handshake to turn it off in 40 seconds or less. Note: that the system existed to push the nose down existed wasn't even mentioned in the manual. Death to those who didn't finish all the extra credit!
I don't see how anyone can think taking control AWAY from pilots is a good idea, especially in difficult circumstances...
In Boeing's defense.. There are many things that mess with the pitch trim automatically already. The MCAS is not unique, nor is the solution to dealing with this weird failure mode of the MCAS unique, you use yoke trim to correct the pitch trim, then flip two switches and keep flying. Where I agree that pilots where NOT notified about or trained to recognize what the MCAS is doing and that was a mistake, but they knew how to deal with a pitch trim runaway situation which is exactly what this was. I also d
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize the Ethiopian crew correctly diagnosed the situation and followed Boeing procedures? But to disable MCAS you have to disable electronic trim (either because of cost-cutting or the general attempt to "hide" MCAS) and the pilots found out manual trim required superhuman force. Even Sunny tried it on a simulator and said you'd need a lot of training to have any hope of surviving that incident. Note that training is exactly what Boeing is trying to claim is not needed.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't follow the procedure exactly.. When I read it, It starts with "trim the aircraft using the yoke trim switch" THEN you disable the STAB TRIM switches. IF you don't have the aircraft in trim, there are aerodynamic loads on the stab trim which make turning the manual wheel pretty hard. You have to trim it first... The MCAS system only applies trim for a few seconds at a time regardless of the system's status and I'm told the thumb switch on the yoke overrides the MCAS input.
IF they had followed t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The MCAS "kicks in" only about 10 seconds at a time, with 20 seconds off. IF you are applying nose up trim with the thumb switch, you should have enough control to relax the control forces, eventually, but if the MCAS is applying nose down and you are applying nose up, I don't think anything is going to happen, which is weird. You do need to understand what's happening, the behavior of the aircraft is non-intuitive when the MCAS is applying nose down trim and you are trying to apply nose up, because if t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how anyone can think taking control AWAY from pilots is a good idea, especially in difficult circumstances...
Except it is a good idea. The entire industry has for several decades seen improvements in safety precisely due to offloading or outright taking control away from pilots. Pilots aren't magic and there are several planes at the bottom of the ocean that show pilots do incredibly stupid things especially in difficult circumstances.
The kicker is, if the system worked as intended and wasn't a fucking stupid design with easily foreseeable results and failure modes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The proble
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
those dipshits should stop producing the 737 max altogether and design a plane that isn't fucking garbage. maybe this is an unpopular opinion but lives matter more than profits \_()_/
There is nothing at all wrong with the 737.... It is a proven design, rugged and fits it's market niche just fine. Does it have it's issues? Sure, and after decades of flying the design, Boeing and the industry are well aware of the limitations and have ways to deal with them. Some fresh clean sheet designed aircraft would not be so well understood and carry additional risks of being unproven in commercial service.
However, Boeing IS designing it's replacement already. They've been developing a 737 replace
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a horse carriage driver.
After all, it's a proven design, rugged and fits it's market niche just fine.
Idiotic analogy (Score:2)
How many 1966 designed cars with 1966 level crash resistance, economy, emissions and occupant protection systems are still being built?
"Forty-Thousand killed each year in auto crashes just in the US."
"300 people killed in car wrecks seem to be less important than 300 killed in flying"
And how many people drive every day compared to fly? Whats more aircraft don't generally fly within a few feet of each other, pass in opposite directions at full speed a few feet away and have other aircraft pull out from junc
Re: (Score:1)