Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Brennus335 · 06-04-2019 10:48PM

Noxegon wrote: »

I’m honestly surprised that Ryanair hasn’t used this situation to save a lot of money on their MAX order. Though maybe they too are going for the wait and see approach.

Or planning a repeat of the "we raped the f*ckers" episode.

Bob24 · 06-04-2019 10:56PM

Jacovs wrote: »

Wonder if they are also refunding those airlines who chose to pay for the optional extra on the already operational aircraft.

I am not clear whether the optional package to see the warnings was a once- off payment are a subscription. In the second scenario, they’ll just stop charging for it. Otherwise I’d imaging there will be commercial discussions and if Boeing wants to sell more planes to those airlines they’ll have a weak hand.

Jeff2 · 07-04-2019 12:14AM

They have moved the disagree light from the pilot overhead position and integrated it into the panel in front of the pilot.

jasper100 · 07-04-2019 11:00AM

cnocbui wrote: »

They didn't say it, but what they said was illogical nonsense. They said they were slowing production while they concentrate on software. Can you explain to me why you would have to do that - the connection between the two? In what way does slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies, improve their capacity to write the software?

My son is a software developer. If I were to say I wasn't going to mow the lawn this weekend so that he could increase his output of lines of code you ought to say WTF?, because there is no logical connection between the activities.

What I am trying to get at is there must be some reason why they are slowing production, but since that function has no bearing on software development, why? Are they perhaps thinking the 'software' fix isn't going to be enough and that they will have to make actual changes to the aircraft?

Presumably software, and hardware, engineers are involved in installing testing and debugging the computer systems in the planes. By slowing production some of these people can be transferred to working on solving the problem.

By slowing production there will be less demand for people in the it department, logistics, accounts etc. etc. and they suitably qualified people can be transferred into solving the problem.

Storm 10 · 07-04-2019 11:41AM

If they do come back with a fix I will tell you it's one Boeing aircraft I will never step into regardless of what they say about it's safety .

coastwatch · 07-04-2019 12:05PM

cnocbui wrote: »

They didn't say it, but what they said was illogical nonsense. They said they were slowing production while they concentrate on software. Can you explain to me why you would have to do that - the connection between the two? In what way does slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies, improve their capacity to write the software?

My son is a software developer. If I were to say I wasn't going to mow the lawn this weekend so that he could increase his output of lines of code you ought to say WTF?, because there is no logical connection between the activities.

What I am trying to get at is there must be some reason why they are slowing production, but since that function has no bearing on software development, why? Are they perhaps thinking the 'software' fix isn't going to be enough and that they will have to make actual changes to the aircraft?

I'd say the slow down in production is more about avoiding some of the cost of producing and storing new 737max while the fleet is grounded. Apparently airlines are looking at 6 month leasing options on alternative aircraft.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-04-2019 12:12PM

cnocbui wrote: »

They didn't say it, but what they said was illogical nonsense. They said they were slowing production while they concentrate on software. Can you explain to me why you would have to do that - the connection between the two? In what way does slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies, improve their capacity to write the software?

It makes perfect sense. No one is saying that slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies will improve their capacity to write the software. You are adding 2 to 2 and getting 5 there, and asking why is Boeing adding 2 to 2 and getting 5. They arent.

All the parts must come together to have a sellable plane. The physical, and the software. At the moment they are missing certified safe software that corrects with confidence the problem. So cannot sell planes. But making physical planes is a very expensive business, in components and labour. Which if they were to make them, still cannot be sold without the software. So to avoid a cashflow crunch, and the tieing up of huge working capital in hardware that cannot be sold and pay for itself, you slow back the purchase of parts, and manufacture of the planes. Until such time as the software become usable again, can be installed, and planes sold to earn revenue and ramp up production again.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-04-2019 12:15PM

Storm 10 wrote: »

If they do come back with a fix I will tell you it's one Boeing aircraft I will never step into regardless of what they say about it's safety .

Ah, you will. We all will. There will be thousands of them over the next decades and anyone flying will be unable to avoid them without major cut off their nose to spite their face inconvenience.

L1011 · 07-04-2019 12:46PM

The production rate slowdown will be for many many reasons including space and also reducing outgoings to suppliers - not to get mechanists writing or testing software!

They will rapidly run out of storage space if they continue at full pace and the logistics of storing elsewhere will be troublesome when deliveries resume

Bob24 · 07-04-2019 12:58PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. No one is saying that slowing the mechanical task of physically making aircraft bodies will improve their capacity to write the software. You are adding 2 to 2 and getting 5 there, and asking why is Boeing adding 2 to 2 and getting 5. They arent.

Actually the original statement which triggered the discussion is that Boeing is “slowing production of the 737 MAX so it can focus its attention on fixing the flight-control software”. Pretty clear inference that slowing the former will improve work on the later.

Indeed as you said there are possibly logistics and financial reasons behind the decision to slow down production, maybe related to the fact that they know the the fix will take a while to be delivered and they don’t want to build and store planes in the meantime. But that’s pretty much what the OP was saying: the statement linking the slow down as a way to focus on the software fix probably isn’t that genuine.

billy few mates · 07-04-2019 02:35PM

Storm 10 wrote: »

If they do come back with a fix I will tell you it's one Boeing aircraft I will never step into regardless of what they say about it's safety .

Never say never, in ten years time you'll have your work cut out trying to avoid travelling on one.

mickdw · 07-04-2019 04:07PM

Id have no issue flying on them. All modern aircraft have flight envelope protection systems that behave in similar fashion. It appears that this is just a very shoddily designed system that needs to be redone.
If they can build in adequate redundancy into this system via further sensor inputs and sanity checks across other aircraft systems and perhaps make this a less powerful system and indeed make it fail towards non action as opposed to crashing the plane, it will be a safe aircraft.
Hopefully making these changes will deem it necessary to introduce a suitable level of pilot training on this new type.

On a related note, personally, I'd still be wary of flying on the dreamliner since it's issues but most seem to have no issues jumping on them.

L1011 · 07-04-2019 04:27PM

billy few mates wrote: »

Never say never, in ten years time you'll have your work cut out trying to avoid travelling on one.

It's relatively easy to avoid flying a 737 out of Ireland right now should you want to. If you have some reason, no matter how irrational, to avoid a MAX, it'll probably be just as easy.

billy few mates · 07-04-2019 04:52PM

L1011 wrote: »

It's relatively easy to avoid flying a 737 out of Ireland right now should you want to. If you have some reason, no matter how irrational, to avoid a MAX, it'll probably be just as easy.

There are (or were) over 350 of them in service and an order book of over 5000, once confidence has been restored those orders are likely going to be filled. I've flown on them several times and would have no problem flying on them again once this issue has been resolved. With the regulatory scrutiny these things are going to be under for the next few years they'll be the safest aircraft in the sky...

cml387 · 07-04-2019 04:58PM

One expert speaking on Radio 4 a few days ago made an interesting point.
When the Boeing 727 was new, it suffered four fatal crashes and confidence was lost to the extent that airlines had serious doubts about the aircraft and travel agents demanded the cancellation of 727 bookings

In those days (the early 60's) there wasn't the huge media focus there is now and Boeing revised and updated pilot training on the aircraft.

The 727 went on to be a very successful aircraft.

I suspect the same will happen with the max.

However what needs to change is that the FAA's oversight of the industry in the US must be strengthened, something which goes against the grain of the current thinking in Washington that the private sector knows best and the state should back off interfering in business.

murphaph · 07-04-2019 05:51PM

billy few mates wrote: »

Never say never, in ten years time you'll have your work cut out trying to avoid travelling on one.

In ten years if we've had no further accidents that we can directly blame on Boeing's penny pinching and FAA incompetence then most straight thinking people will have no issue flying on them. If on the other hand a different fatal flaw is found that can be attributed to these reasons this plane and possibly Boeing's place as a commercial airplane manufacturer will be at risk.

Irish Steve · 07-04-2019 06:12PM

There is an additional concern that has been raised in recent days, which may also apply to earlier generations. It is possible that above 250 Kts, it is hard or even impossible to move the trim wheel by hand in some circumstances, due to the loads on it. If that does prove to be the case, there are going to have to be some significant changes made to ensure that this issue is also addressed, in that the Max aircraft that have crashed have significantly exceeded these speeds.

Bob24 · 07-04-2019 09:43PM

cml387 wrote: »

One expert speaking on Radio 4 a few days ago made an interesting point.
When the Boeing 727 was new, it suffered four fatal crashes and confidence was lost to the extent that airlines had serious doubts about the aircraft and travel agents demanded the cancellation of 727 bookings

In those days (the early 60's) there wasn't the huge media focus there is now and Boeing revised and updated pilot training on the aircraft.

The 727 went on to be a very successful aircraft.

I suspect the same will happen with the max.

However what needs to change is that the FAA's oversight of the industry in the US must be strengthened, something which goes against the grain of the current thinking in Washington that the private sector knows best and the state should back off interfering in business.

Am i right that there wouldn’t have been any alternative option for airlines and customers then? (as the A320 would be today)

L1011 · 07-04-2019 09:50PM

Bob24 wrote: »

Am i right that there wouldn’t have been any alternative option for airlines and customers then? (as the A320 would be today)

There were vastly more options back then than now. Not exact size wise but the DC9 and HS Trident should both have been on sale as similars. Would need to check exact era but there was likely one domestic and two European alternatives at least

Jeff2 · 08-04-2019 12:20AM

The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

ChikiChiki · 08-04-2019 09:54AM

Jeff2 wrote: »

The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

That is exactly why I will never get on one. Fully expect more of these to go down if that fundamental flaw is not fixed and the aircraft are back in the skies.

Bob24 · 08-04-2019 10:08AM

Jeff2 wrote: »

The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

I would call it wrong design choice rather than design fault, as it was done on purpose and isn’t something that was overlooked.

But yes agree with the rest of your post.

Henry Ford III · 08-04-2019 10:18AM

Jeff2 wrote:

The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test. This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

Out of balance? What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting the centre of gravity is too far back causing the nose to point up?

Bob24 · 08-04-2019 10:42AM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Out of balance? What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting the centre of gravity is too far back causing the nose to point up?

Compared to previous generations the engines are larger to increase fuel efficiency, and positioned more forward and higher up on the plane’s wings.

This change causes the plane’s nose to naturally point up in certain situations which needs to be compensated for.

CoisFharraige · 08-04-2019 10:46AM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Out of balance? What does that mean exactly? Are you suggesting the centre of gravity is too far back causing the nose to point up?

When power is applied to any aircraft, it will naturally raise the nose. In training in a 738 (I’d imagine most aircraft) they teach you to let the thrust adjust the attitude on approach.

In the MAX, since the engines are higher up, bigger, and further forward along the fuselage, this increase in power from the engines creates a strong tendency to pitch nose up more so than many other aircraft of its size. This could cause the aircraft to pitch up too dramatically and induce a stall, so MCAS was brought in to counteract this.

Thirdfox · 08-04-2019 11:01AM

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

Vox gave a good explanation of the "inherent" problems of the Max - competing against the A320neo's large engines in a plane that has wings too close to the ground to mount larger engines.

But I'm not an aviation engineer or pilot - just someone interested in what's going on.

smurfjed · 08-04-2019 11:24AM

Excellent article, thanks for sharing.

I love the quote in it, Bottom line don’t blame software that’s the band aid for many other engineering and economic forces in effect.

deandean · 08-04-2019 11:44AM

Jeff2 wrote: »

The only reason the plane needs the system is because of disign fault.

The plane is out of balance and they use a computer and sensors to rectify this rather than developing a new plane that would need to pass all the test.
This was just a cheap way to get around regulations.

But there are loads of planes - i.e. warplanes - that are so inherently unstable that they are practically impossible to fly manually. The flight control software has a huge input into what the control surfaces do.
So I wouldn't be too worried about software that modifies the pilot input so as to better fly the aircraft. As long as it works, of course!

banie01 · 08-04-2019 12:00PM

deandean wrote: »

But there are loads of planes - i.e. warplanes - that are so inherently unstable that they are practically impossible to fly manually. The flight control software has a huge input into what the control surfaces do.

Thats a very false equivalence.

Warplanes use inherent relaxed stability as an aid to instantaneous manuevurability.
High speed reaction to control input is a definite advantage when in a dog fight or avoiding a missile.

The same control response is not warranted in a passenger aircraft.
IMO centres of lift and thrust being at or near equlibrium in a passenger aircraft allows for predictable and gentle control inputs.
Comfort and safety. A fighter will pull 9G in a turn! Anything approaching detectable G impact in a passenger cabin is either extreme turbulence or a sign of departure from a normal flight envelope.

There is nothing wrong with Fly By Wire, but don't equate fly by wire with a software driven flight envelope compensation system.
The plane itself is certified to fly "as" a 738....
It clearly doesn't and the effort to save money on training and certification seems to be inherently and dangerously flawed.

They could take the F4 approach and actually change flight surfaces with a bit of anhedral here, dihedral there, some weight shift to change COG.
But added weight, added drag, added cost all impact the bottom line that made the software fix an attractive option in the 1st place.

The Aircraft was designed to be competitive on a cost per seat basis with the NEO's.
As cheaply as possible. It has come back to bite Boeing on the arse badly!

basill · 08-04-2019 12:07PM

In a fighter jet when it goes t*ts up the pilot will if at all possible attempt to point it away from civilisation and then bail out.

Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Comments