101–110 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't sound right. The 737 went into service in the late 60s. There were two confirmed fatal accidents involving rudder hardover in the 90s.
By Original I meant the NG version
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all the many problems of the Boeing 737Max situation, and there are several, for once I don't think the media reporting is one of the biggest. But, your basic point stands.
The root problem is the culture at Boeing and the FAA has shifted from safety first to profit first. The investigative reporting from The Seattle Times[0] indicates that safety engineers were pressured to avoid delays to rush out a competitor to the A320. Furthermore, their safety analysis was based on flawed assumptions to meet an artificial constraint of not requiring pilot simulator training in order to appease th…
The must read on the issue says so too.
"The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse: How to Spot Moral Meltdowns in Companies", Marianne M. Jennings
There are a myriad of issues that put the planes at risk, but I think that the fact that when the control system (MCAS) is engaged causes it to ignore feedback is the biggest issue of all. "But with the MCAS activated, said Fehrm, those breakout switches wouldn’t work. MCAS assumes the yoke is already aggressively pulled back and won’t allow further pullback to counter its action, which is to hold the nose down. Fehr…
To be fair, ignoring user input could have potentially have saved Air France 447... I mean I actually can't think of an automated fool proof system that would've fixed 447, but incorrect input was a major factor.
The co-pilot apparently didn't realize that the sensor issue that disabled the autopilot also disabled the stall prevention. And that's despite an audible "STALL" warning being repeated in the background.
The captain was not in the cockpit when the whole situation started, but as he re-entered the cockpit during the stall he saw one of the co-pilots holding back on the yoke and told him to push the yoke forward to prevent the stall. The co-pilot followed the instructions, but only for a few seconds before pulling the yoke back again.
All of this is to say if the plane hadn't been known to ignore user inputs in most situations, the co-pilot might not have assumed the Airbus would do the right thing and climb no matter what when pulling back on the yoke. So in a sense, never ignoring user inputs might have also saved Air France 447.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason people are outraged is that "don't use a single sensor to decide that the plane should perform an uncontrollable nose-dive" isn't the outcome of new learning. That wasn't competent airworthiness seventy years ago. It's a lesson the industry thought it had already internalized. We shouldn't applaud mistakes of the distant part being repeated recklessly as some kind of improvement.
What amazes me about this whole sorry saga is what appears to be blatant deception on the part of Boeing. Boeing somehow tricked the FAA into believing, from the pilots perspective the 737-MAX and 737 were the exact same plane. That allowed the plane to enter service quickly as it meant the pilots would not require any flight simulator retraining. What we now know is the 737-MAX is nothing like the 737 and the level…
Not going to trust that model, like dc10 (?). May work not engineer. But as customer, only get 1 life. Not as software beta tester.
How can you practically avoid a model of plane, other than avoiding all airlines that operate them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they would have to redesign the parts of the fuselage that holds the landing gear when they are retracted - as far as I know, there's not enough room to house taller landing gear.
Boeing did actually design extendable landing gear for the 737 MAX-10 model, which hadn't shipped yet. That aircraft is longer. To avoid tail strikes, the rear gear becomes longer as the aircraft is taking off. I'm sure that costs more money. If it were on all 737 MAX aircraft, perhaps the engines could be lower. It'd be like a kneeling bus that gets lower when stopped to take on passengers. Another option would be t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you practically avoid a model of plane, other than avoiding all airlines that operate them?
In the US, avoiding southwest lowers your chances by a large margin!
The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time around and as such I suspect they will be checking every aspect of the plane in very fine detail. That could spell more trouble for Boeing.
The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time... Because I'll just check with the next air transit regulatory body right?
I'd be pretty comfortable flying it after all this attention and review. It will probably be the best reviewed passenger plane software developed in America, if not the world once this is over. Boeing deserves a 9-figure fine though, and its shareholders should lose massively to make sure this doesn't happen again.
The problem is that this is not actually a software problem. It’s an airplane design problem, and Boeing is trying to convince you that it’s just the software.
Even if the software is perfect, this plane remains a flying coffin until it is redesigned from scratch.
The only real fix is not to fly on this plane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The root problem is the culture at Boeing and the FAA has shifted from safety first to profit first. The investigative reporting from The Seattle Times[0] indicates that safety engineers were pressured to avoid delays to rush out a competitor to the A320. Furthermore, their safety analysis was based on flawed assumptions to meet an artificial constraint of not requiring pilot simulator training in order to appease th…
> The root problem is the culture at Boeing and the FAA has shifted from safety first to profit first. So the same problem that pervades society everywhere now? I’m not sure if that wasn’t the case before, but it feels to me that people previously wanted to make lots of money by building great products, and they’ve just left the ‘building great products’ part behind.