Jul 20, 2019, 7:49 pm
737-Max 8 safety concerns
Jun 4, 2019, 6:06 pm
#316
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,373
needless to say, even though the 777 was a completely new design, some degree of commonality in terms of what flight crews were accustomed to seeing on their 767s and other jets was a very important element of both the technical conversations and the ensuing contracts
Jun 5, 2019, 12:04 am
#317
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,884
What's really a shame is that Boeing didn't avail itself of the aeronautical engineering expertise of FlyerTalk! Think of all the lives that could have been saved by the combined input of all of these armchair engineers educated by reporters with effectively *no* knowledge of the subject matter, but an intense need to sell newspapers/improve Neilsen ratings/draw clicks to websites.
Jun 5, 2019, 7:11 am
#318
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,703
What's really a shame is that Boeing didn't avail itself of the aeronautical engineering expertise of FlyerTalk! Think of all the lives that could have been saved by the combined input of all of these armchair engineers educated by reporters with effectively *no* knowledge of the subject matter, but an intense need to sell newspapers/improve Neilsen ratings/draw clicks to websites.
Trying to paint everyone else as having ulterior motives, but Boeing as standing apart with complete altruism, is an argument that will go exactly nowhere.
Last edited by DenverBrian; Jun 5, 2019 at 10:47 am
Jun 5, 2019, 9:49 am
#319
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,623
What's really a shame is that Boeing didn't avail itself of the aeronautical engineering expertise of FlyerTalk! Think of all the lives that could have been saved by the combined input of all of these armchair engineers educated by reporters with effectively *no* knowledge of the subject matter, but an intense need to sell newspapers/improve Neilsen ratings/draw clicks to websites.
The problem with MCAS is software architecture and operational design.
And some of us (who are not pilots) have 2+ decades of experience working with automation software, and it's clear that Boeing violated multiple fundamental principles of software-design when they built MCAS.
Clearly, Boeing's design team and the manager who approved MCAS needed input from people with experience in automation software design. They didn't seek it out, possibly because they have the attitude of "the pilot will save the plane from MCAS". That's an actual position taken by a Boeing executive after the LionAir crash. It's, IMO, an insanely arrogant approach to faulty software to assume that the operator will be able to compensate for what the malware (MCAS) is doing and thus the malware doesn't need to be fixed.
Nevertheless - that's Boeing's approach and it appears some people support that position.
I find that to be a poor and unacceptable approach to safety, but opinions vary.
Jun 5, 2019, 10:40 am
#320
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
It can probably be argued whether it was cost cutting or smply trying to beat airbus to the post. Probably a mix of both. Adapting an inadequate engine to an obsolete airframe? Probably more due to time savings. However, trying to skimp on the re-certification and re-training looks like cutting to me. YVMV
Even today it is interesting to see how the bottom of the 737 have it clipped.
another of my Boeing experiences was a year in 777 Customer Engineering, shortly after the program was launched in the spring of 1990; that organization worked with the design and analysis organizations on the one hand, and the customer airlines on the other, to establish each airline’s unique configuration (relatively mundane things like the Layout of Passenger Accommodations (LOPA) at delivery, and significant things like engine thrust rating and — yes — information to be presented on flight deck displays), as well as Flight Test and the FAA Coordination office to identify potential certification issues
needless to say, even though the 777 was a completely new design, some degree of commonality in terms of what flight crews were accustomed to seeing on their 767s and other jets was a very important element of both the technical conversations and the ensuing contracts
Jun 5, 2019, 12:00 pm
#321
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,656
I'm not a commercial pilot, but this is like asking a 172/182 to be on par with something much more new. Good design back in the day, as was the 737. It's fine that it still exists, but asking an almost 50 year old airplane to compete is asking a lot. I don't see Chevy or Ford, even Jeep trying to sell a 60's design with modern engines hoping to compete, but that seems to be the new norm now with Boeing. I can only imagine if Jeep was selling a version of the Grand Wagoneer with the only change being the engine. The old 5.9 was a dog (I've owned 5 of them), but acting like the Grand Wagoneer is on par with a current Range Rover is a stretch. There again, I've owned all of the above, and there is nothing you can do with something decades old to compete with current product offerings.
The purchase price is the first attractive buy in for airlines, and much more. However, Boeing isn't going anywhere, as we are down to two major manufacturers in the world, Boeing and Airbus. China and Russia will always try to disrupt this, but not going to happen. So as much as I think the 737 needs to be retired, it will survive for now. Boeing will someday come up with something better, and for personal reasons I hope they succeed.
The purchase price is the first attractive buy in for airlines, and much more. However, Boeing isn't going anywhere, as we are down to two major manufacturers in the world, Boeing and Airbus. China and Russia will always try to disrupt this, but not going to happen. So as much as I think the 737 needs to be retired, it will survive for now. Boeing will someday come up with something better, and for personal reasons I hope they succeed.
Jun 5, 2019, 2:24 pm
#322
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,703
Ah where did it all start, with a new and super efficient engine with one interesting characteristic it was darn wide, bolt it on an old frame and all sorts of collateral things happened that needed modification and addressing. I have no understanding why the landing gear couldn't have been extended a bit, but wouldn't that have avoid the whole moving the engine forward on the plane.
Jun 5, 2019, 4:36 pm
#323
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
Actually just demand
I think Boeing would have been happy to keep churning out 757, but pretty much all orders dried up. Kind of like 747 now.
757 was just too much airplane with too powerful engines to make it economical at the time. It was only much later that 757 came into its own ..... perhaps if Boeing could have developed a -100 version, but would have to certify new less powerful engines to make it feasible.
Don't bet me wrong, I love 757, even flew it TATL a couple of times, but when Boeing canned it they had a reason to do it. Sadly. Perhaps if they could have seen the future ....
Jun 7, 2019, 7:48 am
#324
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,991
What's really a shame is that Boeing didn't avail itself of the aeronautical engineering expertise of FlyerTalk! Think of all the lives that could have been saved by the combined input of all of these armchair engineers educated by reporters with effectively *no* knowledge of the subject matter, but an intense need to sell newspapers/improve Neilsen ratings/draw clicks to websites.
There is always the saying if the pilots are ready some am I but that is based on a properly designed trained and built plane. I currently do not have a warm and fizzy feeling regarding the Max, at this time. I do have friends still flying and have had some interesting conversions with them, none of which I care to share .
Fly safe and CK Six
Jun 8, 2019, 8:23 pm
#325
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,623
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1T8284
Not really related to the crash or MCAS, but it does illustrate a pattern of behavior where safety is of less concern to Boeing than secrecy.
Boeing intended to provide the AoA-disagree alert because it was felt to be a beneficial safety feature. When it didn't work as expected, Boeing decided to hide it rather than fix it. That's a problem with corporate philosophy-mindset which can be used to infer the same cavalier attitude went into the design/implementation of MCAS.
If Boeing is sloppy about safety-related software issues in 1 aspect of 737 Max - it strongly suggests the same attitude carried over into MCAS.
This will seriously hurt Boeing's credibility as they try to get the 737 Max certified, and it also brings into question whether Boeing's existing software team is really the best group to address their own failures.
Boeing decided in November 2017 to defer a software update to correct the so-called AOA Disagree alert defect until 2020, three years after discovering the flaw, U.S. Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Rick Larsen said in a press release on Friday. Boeing only accelerated this schedule after the Lion Air accident in Indonesia, they added.
Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said by email that a company safety review found the absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation.
“Based on the safety review, the update was scheduled for the MAX 10 entry into service in 2020,” Johndroe said. “We fell short in the implementation of the AoA Disagree alert and are taking steps to address these issues so they do not occur again.”
Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said by email that a company safety review found the absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation.
“Based on the safety review, the update was scheduled for the MAX 10 entry into service in 2020,” Johndroe said. “We fell short in the implementation of the AoA Disagree alert and are taking steps to address these issues so they do not occur again.”
Boeing intended to provide the AoA-disagree alert because it was felt to be a beneficial safety feature. When it didn't work as expected, Boeing decided to hide it rather than fix it. That's a problem with corporate philosophy-mindset which can be used to infer the same cavalier attitude went into the design/implementation of MCAS.
If Boeing is sloppy about safety-related software issues in 1 aspect of 737 Max - it strongly suggests the same attitude carried over into MCAS.
This will seriously hurt Boeing's credibility as they try to get the 737 Max certified, and it also brings into question whether Boeing's existing software team is really the best group to address their own failures.
Jun 9, 2019, 2:35 pm
#326
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: Rapid Rewards, AAdvantage, SkyMiles
Posts: 2,931
At this point they should just scrap all MAX's, reopen up the NG line, and come up with a completely brand new clean design.
Jun 9, 2019, 3:18 pm
#327
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,991
I agree with Plato90s post it hits to the core issue Boeing has simply dropped the ball and it will affect them for a very long time. Precisely what Platos90s posted is my concern what about all those other issues. DCP2-16 brings about my feelings as well ground that bird and get on with a new design and this make it right. But then they need to clean house at the Big B. And open a criminal investigation. Yes I am #%^%^%6
Jun 10, 2019, 6:57 am
#328
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,703
Jun 10, 2019, 7:06 am
#329
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mountain Time Zone
Programs: AS Million Miler/Marriott Lifetime Titanium/ IGH Ambassador
Posts: 5,991
Jun 10, 2019, 7:09 am
#330
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
I agree with Plato90s post it hits to the core issue Boeing has simply dropped the ball and it will affect them for a very long time. Precisely what Platos90s posted is my concern what about all those other issues. DCP2-16 brings about my feelings as well ground that bird and get on with a new design and this make it right. But then they need to clean house at the Big B. And open a criminal investigation. Yes I am #%^%^%6
The Department of Justice’s Fraud Section has opened a criminal investigation into the development and certification of the Boeing 737 MAX by the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General and the FBI are participating in the investigation. Federal attorneys are gathering evidence through a federal grand jury seated in Washington, D.C. Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret and the Justice Department has declined to comment on the investigation. The FAA and Boeing have also declined to comment.