Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
dk1967
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:56 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:06 am

Amiga500 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/elwell-mcas-issues-do-not-mean-737-max-certification-was-flawed

“The FAA was directly involved in the system safety review of” MCAS, Elwell will tell the U.S. Senate aviation and space subcommittee during the first of several expected Congressional hearings on the 737 MAX saga, according to a copy of his prepared remarks obtained by Aviation Week. “FAA engineers and flight test pilots were involved in the MCAS operational evaluation flight test,” Elwell will say, noting that several of the MAX’s 297 certification flight tests included trials of MCAS functions.


To me, that only makes the FAA as incompetent as the system architects at Boeing that came up with the idea.

1. Incorrect classification (HAZARDOUS to CATASTROPHIC)
2. 1x AoA sensor as input
3. Alternating sensors from flight to flight
4. System could enter an infinite loop of stabilizer inputs
5. Not on FCOM

2 and 4 are beyond incompetent.


Of the moving on 4000 comments, it's looking like this one is the most spot on.

Admitted Boeing fanboy here, because … why not pick a team.

But from a design and engineering perspective, how this version of MCAS ended up implemented is mind boggling. Everyone in design and engineering is taught to imagine the consequences, and this is clearly an example of lack of imagination. The fix that is now being rolled out is first year teaching/engineering stuff. Amiga500's number 4 alone is insane given the system you're impacting. Unlimited nose down inputs to an airframe based on a single sensor input? This isn't the IFE, it's the goddamn horizontal stabilizer.

And I don't think it's Boeing being evil. I think it's Boeing being lazy. And I'm not sure what's worse given the outcome.
 
mwmav8r01
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:22 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:47 am

RogerMurdock wrote:
mwmav8r01 wrote:
It was a trim runaway. The procedure for trim runaway would have prevented these accidents unless there is something they are not telling us.


The problem is that "it was a trim runaway" is something you know definitively only in hindsight. The intermittent nature of MCAS makes it quite insidious. It's different than how runaway trim is trained. (Pilots do, however, routinely experience intermittent trim - STS, for example. The only contemporaneous account of how any pilot perceived MCAS activation was "STS running to the wrong direction".) With all sorts of unreliable airspeed and stick shaker alerts going off, it was difficult to realize that the true problem was a trim problem. It may have seemed like a relatively minor nuisance that could be fought off with the column switch.

In actual experience, six actual pilots failed to diagnose MCAS as runaway trim and cut it out. Apparently only a jumpseater on LionAir had the mental bandwidth to correctly assess the trim situation (and see wheels spinning in front of his face) and recommend the cutout procedure.



Thats what I was saying. Training. And time in the seat. I promise you the minute my airplane starts trimming an opposite direction, im gunna assume the worst first. But hey thats just me.
 
mwmav8r01
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:22 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:54 am

CO953 wrote:
mwmav8r01 wrote:
Remember when you could come on here for reasonable aviation related discussion? That was great.

[snip].


Back when people like me had to pay to comment, it was better. Not that I'm an expert. But as a paid member I do still take each comment I make here seriously, and I don't just blab like it's a free blog.


Agreed.
 
PixelPilot
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:07 am

speedking wrote:
planecane wrote:
RogerMurdock wrote:

In the US, that means avoiding three of the four largest airlines in the country. I doubt people will educate themselves sufficiently to truly avoid the MAX. It sure doesn't help the paranoia, however, that many airlines share safety cards between ex. 737-800 and MAX8. Every day people are tweeting at airlines worried that they are flying a currently grounded type.

Also, once the MAX are back in service for a few months with no more issues (hopefully), everyone will forget about it. If I were Boeing I'd rebrand the MAX as just 737-7, 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10. Non-aviation people won't associate them.


I believe some people have underestimated the power of the internet. We, the flying passengers, are here educating ourselves and following these discussions carefully. Very carefully! And the web doesn't forget.


Yep, and safe spaces. You have those too.
As for the subject itself seems the whole media issue is starting to wind down.
On top of that ET management expressed "belief in Boeing" so I'm pretty sure they got a sweet deal for future purchases and are very happy at this moment.
Boeing will fix the plane and In the end nobody but geeks will remember this.
It's the nature (and power) of the internet that something new will shortly consume the masses and will feed on their insecurities and paranoia.
 
speedking
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:16 am

PixelPilot wrote:
speedking wrote:
planecane wrote:
Also, once the MAX are back in service for a few months with no more issues (hopefully), everyone will forget about it. If I were Boeing I'd rebrand the MAX as just 737-7, 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10. Non-aviation people won't associate them.


I believe some people have underestimated the power of the internet. We, the flying passengers, are here educating ourselves and following these discussions carefully. Very carefully! And the web doesn't forget.


Yep, and safe spaces. You have those too.
As for the subject itself seems the whole media issue is starting to wind down.
On top of that ET management expressed "belief in Boeing" so I'm pretty sure they got a sweet deal for future purchases and are very happy at this moment.
Boeing will fix the plane and In the end nobody but geeks will remember this.
It's the nature (and power) of the internet that something new will shortly consume the masses and will feed on their insecurities and paranoia.


I don't trust in any corporation or need any government to tell me what to do. Do you?
In the end only the ones who know how to think for themselves, survive.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:36 am

mwmav8r01 wrote:
CO953 wrote:
mwmav8r01 wrote:
Remember when you could come on here for reasonable aviation related discussion? That was great.

[snip].


Back when people like me had to pay to comment, it was better. Not that I'm an expert. But as a paid member I do still take each comment I make here seriously, and I don't just blab like it's a free blog.


Agreed.


Thirded.

Amiga500 wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
Hopefully, the "fix" doesn't get approved without thorough testing, done by FAA, not boeing.


EASA or another competent regulator please.


[erm... just realised I'm calling EASA competent. Jeez. Best of a bad bunch I guess.]


All things are relative! ;)
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7063
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:51 am

CO953 wrote:
The question I have, and I'm probably not alone, is:

Will Boeing be releasing "a" fix, or "the" fix?

What Boeing has released is THE fix.

1. involving both AoA sensors and disabling MCAS in case of disagree, that changes MTBF (per plane) from (give or take one magnitude) a thousand years to something like a billion years.

2. in fact more important, eliminating infinite looping of the failure changes failure mode from "potentially catastrophic" to "inconvenient".

It is not rocket science. The MAX should fly again well before summer.

Much has been talked about "when will EASA, TC, CAAC etc. approve the MAX"? Fact is that European, Canadian, Chinese airline companies with MAX fleets will lobby them to approve ASAP, and not one day later than that. And they will make sure that they all work tightly together with Boeing and the FAA to get the MAX in the air ASAP.

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter. That is something which DOT, DOJ, FBI and God knows who will work on for years to come.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Bradin
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:10 am

prebennorholm wrote:
CO953 wrote:
The question I have, and I'm probably not alone, is:

Will Boeing be releasing "a" fix, or "the" fix?

What Boeing has released is THE fix.

1. involving both AoA sensors and disabling MCAS in case of disagree, that changes MTBF (per plane) from (give or take one magnitude) a thousand years to something like a billion years.

2. in fact more important, eliminating infinite looping of the failure changes failure mode from "potentially catastrophic" to "inconvenient".

It is not rocket science. The MAX should fly again well before summer.

Much has been talked about "when will EASA, TC, CAAC etc. approve the MAX"? Fact is that European, Canadian, Chinese airline companies with MAX fleets will lobby them to approve ASAP, and not one day later than that. And they will make sure that they all work tightly together with Boeing and the FAA to get the MAX in the air ASAP.

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter. That is something which DOT, DOJ, FBI and God knows who will work on for years to come.


Simple. See: http://projectcartoon.com/cartoon/1
 
glideslope900
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:27 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:43 am

If sim training is required, how does that work considering I am under the impression most airlines do not have a MAX simulator? Will pilots be flown out to Seattle?
 
Virtual737
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:56 am

ArgentoSystems wrote:
You can be sure plane comes with expressly spelled out liability for various situations when thing don't work as they should.


Are you sure those contractual liability clauses would stand up if there is clear evidence of negligence?
 
Virtual737
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:15 am

scbriml wrote:
Aviation Week is reporting that the FAA is seeking consensus on lifting the MAX ban.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... f4fd51701a
WASHINGTON—FAA does not want to be the first regulator to lift its 737 MAX operations ban and is working with other agencies to find consensus on joint approval of the model’s return to service, but the agency is prepared to act alone if the authorities cannot agree, sources with knowledge of the agency’s thinking tell Aviation Daily.

“The world thinks FAA is in Boeing’s pocket,” said one source, who requested anonymity due to the issue’s sensitivity. “FAA does not want to be first to lift the grounding.”


Quite telling, IMHO.


"but the agency is prepared to act alone if the authorities cannot agree"

Is it me or are they continuing to dig the hole?

Paraphrasing the FAA..... "We know our motives are being questioned so we want other agencies to approve the MAX fix at the same time as we do, but if they refuse then we'll approve it anyway...."

You can't make this stuff up.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24502
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:22 am

Statement from United ref meeting with Boeing today:


United and other carriers met on Wednesday with representatives of Boeing in Renton, Washington, to review Boeing’s presentation on the updated 737 MAX software.
After reviewing Boeing’s presentation, we are optimistic that the updates address the concerns voiced by some about the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system.
The U.S. commercial aviation system is the safest in the world because its foundation is built on rigorous data analysis and evidence-based independent oversight, and we look to the FAA to employ these tools as it reviews and certifies this update. As always, we stand ready to support and cooperate with that process.
We remain confident that United pilots are properly trained to safely fly the MAX aircraft in our fleet. Moving forward, we’ll continue to work closely with regulatory authorities and Boeing as they gather information and use it to ensure our highest priority: the safety of our customers and employees.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
dakota123
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:19 am

Virtual737 wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
You can be sure plane comes with expressly spelled out liability for various situations when thing don't work as they should.


Are you sure those contractual liability clauses would stand up if there is clear evidence of negligence?


Not a lawyer, but from UAL’s 2010 purchase of A350s that would seem to be the case — and it’s blanket, not for various situations. Boeing’s agreements read basically the same, except that I did see a couple that imply negotiated, confidential terms.

SELLER HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND RENOUNCES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS, GUARANTEES AND LIABILITIES OF THE SELLER AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND REMEDIES OF THE BUYER AGAINST THE SELLER, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY CONTRACT, TORT, OR STATUTORY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY NONCONFORMITY OR DEFECT OR PROBLEM OF ANY KIND IN ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY, PART, SOFTWARE, DATA OR SERVICE DELIVERED BY THE SELLER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR ANY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR PURPOSE;
ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY ARISING FROM COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR TORT, UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, HOWEVER ALLEGED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIONS AND/OR CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL ACTS, WILLFUL DISREGARD, IMPLIED WARRANTY, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY OR FAILURE TO WARN;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR ANY OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER ANY REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS IMPOSED BY ANY INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, STATE OR LOCAL STATUTE OR AGENCY;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY TO RECOVER OR BE COMPENSATED FOR:
LOSS OF USE OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;
(i) LOSS OF, OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND TO, ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;

53
(ii) LOSS OF PROFITS AND/OR REVENUES;
(iii) ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE.
THE WARRANTIES AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY PROVIDED BY THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE EXTENDED, ALTERED OR VARIED EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THE BUYER. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY PROVISION OF THIS CLAUSE 12 SHOULD FOR ANY REASON BE HELD UNLAWFUL, OR OTHERWISE UNENFORCEABLE, THE REMAINDER OF THIS CLAUSE 12 WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE 12.5, “SELLER” WILL BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE THE SELLER, ITS AFFILIATES AND SUPPLIERS

You can find this particular agreement here; there are many others on the SEC site as well. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex1027.htm
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:38 am

You left out the bit before "SELLER HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND RENOUNCES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES".

WARRANTIES AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY


12.1 Warranty


12.1.1 Nature of Warranty

Subject to the limitations and conditions hereinafter provided, and except as provided in Clause 12.1.2, the Seller warrants to the Buyer that the Aircraft and each Warranted Part will at the time of Delivery to the Buyer be free from defects:

(i) in material,

(ii) in workmanship, including, without limitation, processes of manufacture,

(iii) in design (including, without limitation, selection of materials) having regard to the state of the art at the date of such design, and

(iv) arising from failure to conform to the Specification, except as to those portions of the Specification that are expressly stated in the Specification to be estimates or approximations or design aims.

For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Warranted Part” will mean any Seller proprietary component, equipment, software, or part, that (a) is installed on an Aircraft at Delivery, (b) is manufactured to the detail design of the Seller or a subcontractor of the Seller and (c) bears a Seller's part number at the time of Delivery.


12.1.2 Exclusions

The warranties set forth in Clause 12.1.1 will not apply to Buyer Furnished Equipment, Propulsion Systems, or to any component, accessory, equipment or part purchased by the Buyer that is not a Warranted Part, provided, however, that:

(i) any defect in the Seller’s workmanship in respect of the installation of such items in the Aircraft, including any failure by the Seller to conform to the installation instructions of the manufacturers of such items that invalidates any applicable warranty from such manufacturers, will constitute a defect in workmanship for the purpose of this Clause 12.1 and be covered by the warranty set forth in Clause 12.1.1(ii), and

(ii) any defect inherent in the Seller’s design of the installation, considering the state of the art at the date of such design, that impairs the use of such items will constitute a defect in design for the purposes of this Clause 12.1 and will be covered by the warranty set forth in Clause 12.1.1(iii).
 
dakota123
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:54 am

Apologies; should be BUYER HEREBY... not SELLER HEREBY... That word was missing from my cut/paste, and I mis-typed. It’s late and I’ve been looking at similar docs all evening actually. But right, Airbus (in this case) must fix the warranted part or design defect at its cost during the warranty period (and must fix the defect on undelivered craft). Doesn’t change the nature of the liability provisions.

12.1.4 Limitations of Warranty

12.1.4.1 The Buyer’s remedy and the Seller’s obligation and liability under Clauses 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 are limited to, at the Seller’s expense and option, the repair, replacement or correction (to include, in the case of software, supply of a comparable product with equivalent function) of any defective Warranted Part. The Seller may elect to effect such repair, replacement or correction by supplying modification kits designed to rectify the defect or by furnishing a credit to the Buyer for the future purchase of goods and services (not including Aircraft) equal to the price at which the Buyer is then entitled to acquire a replacement for the defective Warranted Part.

12.1.4.2 If the Seller corrects a defect covered by Clause 12.1.1(iii) that becomes apparent within the Warranty Period, on the Buyer’s written request the Seller will correct any such defect of the same type in any Aircraft that has not already been delivered to the Buyer. The Seller will not be responsible for, nor deemed to be in default on account of any delay in Delivery of any Aircraft or otherwise, in respect of performance of this Agreement, due to the Seller’s undertaking to make such correction. Alternatively, the Buyer and the Seller may agree to deliver such Aircraft with subsequent correction of the defect by the Buyer at the Seller’s expense, or the Buyer may elect to accept Delivery and thereafter file a Warranty Claim as though the defect had become apparent immediately after Delivery of such Aircraft.
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:48 am

prebennorholm wrote:
CO953 wrote:
The question I have, and I'm probably not alone, is:

Will Boeing be releasing "a" fix, or "the" fix?

What Boeing has released is THE fix.

1. involving both AoA sensors and disabling MCAS in case of disagree, that changes MTBF (per plane) from (give or take one magnitude) a thousand years to something like a billion years.

2. in fact more important, eliminating infinite looping of the failure changes failure mode from "potentially catastrophic" to "inconvenient".

It is not rocket science. The MAX should fly again well before summer.

Much has been talked about "when will EASA, TC, CAAC etc. approve the MAX"? Fact is that European, Canadian, Chinese airline companies with MAX fleets will lobby them to approve ASAP, and not one day later than that. And they will make sure that they all work tightly together with Boeing and the FAA to get the MAX in the air ASAP.

(...)

I guess this is a clash of cultures. In Europe, no manufacturer - let alone airliner - excerts that kind of pressure on the regulatory body, like Boeing seems to have over the FAA.
EASA is not going to move an eyelid over Norwegian, Ryanair or Icelandair crying their heart out. They will independently go over the system changes between NG and MAX. Not just review the software fix related to MCAS.

I guess their concern is "what else is there to find" ? - A question the FAA should be asking as well.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:54 am

prebennorholm wrote:

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter.


Not a rocket science whatsoever, only two words: SELF-CERTIFICATION.
FAA made the fatal error by allowing boeing to do most of the certification work itself, without proper oversight and restrictions. Add rushed and flawed 737 MAX design to it and the recipe for disaster is ready. The warning light should go off back when the 787 was allowed to fly with faulty batteries.

Hopefully, FAA doesn't make the same error twice and no more self-certification work would ever be allowed to boeing, or anyone else. FAA must do FAA's job, plain and simple.
The queen of the skies is dead.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:18 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter.


Not a rocket science whatsoever, only two words: SELF-CERTIFICATION.
FAA made the fatal error by allowing boeing to do most of the certification work itself, without proper oversight and restrictions. Add rushed and flawed 737 MAX design to it and the recipe for disaster is ready. The warning light should go off back when the 787 was allowed to fly with faulty batteries.

Hopefully, FAA doesn't make the same error twice and no more self-certification work would ever be allowed to boeing, or anyone else. FAA must do FAA's job, plain and simple.


Self certification is not in accordance with the principles of a quality process.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:27 am

dakota123 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
You can be sure plane comes with expressly spelled out liability for various situations when thing don't work as they should.


Are you sure those contractual liability clauses would stand up if there is clear evidence of negligence?


Not a lawyer, but from UAL’s 2010 purchase of A350s that would seem to be the case — and it’s blanket, not for various situations. Boeing’s agreements read basically the same, except that I did see a couple that imply negotiated, confidential terms.

SELLER HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND RENOUNCES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS, GUARANTEES AND LIABILITIES OF THE SELLER AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND REMEDIES OF THE BUYER AGAINST THE SELLER, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY CONTRACT, TORT, OR STATUTORY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY NONCONFORMITY OR DEFECT OR PROBLEM OF ANY KIND IN ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY, PART, SOFTWARE, DATA OR SERVICE DELIVERED BY THE SELLER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR ANY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR PURPOSE;
ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY ARISING FROM COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR TORT, UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, HOWEVER ALLEGED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIONS AND/OR CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL ACTS, WILLFUL DISREGARD, IMPLIED WARRANTY, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY OR FAILURE TO WARN;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR ANY OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER ANY REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS IMPOSED BY ANY INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, STATE OR LOCAL STATUTE OR AGENCY;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY TO RECOVER OR BE COMPENSATED FOR:
LOSS OF USE OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;
(i) LOSS OF, OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND TO, ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;

53
(ii) LOSS OF PROFITS AND/OR REVENUES;
(iii) ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE.
THE WARRANTIES AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY PROVIDED BY THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE EXTENDED, ALTERED OR VARIED EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THE BUYER. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY PROVISION OF THIS CLAUSE 12 SHOULD FOR ANY REASON BE HELD UNLAWFUL, OR OTHERWISE UNENFORCEABLE, THE REMAINDER OF THIS CLAUSE 12 WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE 12.5, “SELLER” WILL BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE THE SELLER, ITS AFFILIATES AND SUPPLIERS

You can find this particular agreement here; there are many others on the SEC site as well. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex1027.htm


Is this a US thing, being able to demand that a client waives a right to recompense against criminal activity? (hence the wording of my original question to include negligence).

It could well be a different between B2B and B2C contracts and I could just be plain wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in Europe the law trumps a contract.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:33 am

prebennorholm wrote:
1. involving both AoA sensors and disabling MCAS in case of disagree, that changes MTBF (per plane) from (give or take one magnitude) a thousand years to something like a billion years.

This is a bit misleading unless we only consider "make it very difficult to fly the plane" as a failure, and "turn myself off so I fail to work when needed" as not a failure.

Using both sensors will actually double the likelihood of MCAS failing to properly carry out the task it was implemented for. The difference, though, is that a sensor failure now will mean that MCAS will simply fail to operate when it is needed, instead of the previous failure mode of making it difficult to impossible for pilots to fly the plane.
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:34 am

RickNRoll wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter.


Not a rocket science whatsoever, only two words: SELF-CERTIFICATION.
FAA made the fatal error by allowing boeing to do most of the certification work itself, without proper oversight and restrictions. Add rushed and flawed 737 MAX design to it and the recipe for disaster is ready. The warning light should go off back when the 787 was allowed to fly with faulty batteries.

Hopefully, FAA doesn't make the same error twice and no more self-certification work would ever be allowed to boeing, or anyone else. FAA must do FAA's job, plain and simple.


Self certification is not in accordance with the principles of a quality process.

A regulator cannot review every detail, especially when it comes to software and integrated systems. Their duty of care is to make sure the paperwork is present, to ask questions regarding the method of compliance where concerns arise, and to be able to understand what the regs are there for.

Ultimately the manufacturer has an inherent desire to build a safe plane, and the independent teams that are responsible for that self-certification May have some company pressure to be expedient, their role is usually respected.

Now, why the hell Boeing had a summer intern design MCAS is beyond me, but it has happened before (Kansas City Hyatt Regency sky bridge collapse was the result of an intern reviewing shop drawings...). Sarcasm on the intern thing, but they really didn’t think through the original design very well.
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2430
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:35 am

PixelPilot wrote:
Boeing will fix the plane and In the end nobody but geeks will remember this.


Oh, I'm pretty sure the relatives and friends of the 350+ people who were killed due to Boeing cutting corners won't forget in a hurry. :sarcastic:

What Boeing did was criminal. There is no way to gloss over that, no matter how hard you try.
If you hate wearing a mask, you’re really going to hate using a ventilator.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:07 am

StarAC17 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72


Rather different circumstances that lead to that dive.
IMU the ADIRU sent _counter to specs_ bad data ( apparently still unknown why ).
The sanitizing algorithm on the Airbus side did not cope well with intermittent wrong data.
In the end it is a question of probabilities. How many A330 flight hours per upset vs the MAX situation.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:10 am

JHwk wrote:
A regulator cannot review every detail, especially when it comes to software and integrated systems. Their duty of care is to make sure the paperwork is present, to ask questions regarding the method of compliance where concerns arise, and to be able to understand what the regs are there for.


That requires that the conjoined OEM does not "game" the system.
But Boeing did this here. And they have been doing it for quite a while already. Brinkmanship at its worst.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19030
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:32 am

glideslope900 wrote:
If sim training is required, how does that work considering I am under the impression most airlines do not have a MAX simulator? Will pilots be flown out to Seattle?


Apparently, no sim training required.

From Leeham:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/28/mcas- ... -training/
Boeing 737 MAX pilots learning about the revised software upgrade to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) will need a half hour of computer-based training (CBT), the company told the media yesterday in a briefing.

Pilots of the 737 NG who have not yet made the transition to the MAX also have to be trained on the MCAS now. Boeing did not specify if this will take longer than those already trained on the MAX.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:03 am

Rbgso wrote:
Just curious, if not EASA or FAA, what regulator would be acceptable to you?


CAA, DGAC, LBA or the Swedes (Styrelsen).


But I don't think there really is any regulator any more that has the resources to be wholly competent in certifying a modern aircraft.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:06 am

PW100 wrote:
Rbgso wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

EASA or another competent regulator please.


[erm... just realised I'm calling EASA competent. Jeez. Best of a bad bunch I guess.]


Just curious, if not EASA or FAA, what regulator would be acceptable to you?


China! (tongue firmly in cheek . . .)


Their attitude might be right (or it might be political, can't say).

But till they have a few modern airliner designs flying, they ain't technically competent enough to do the job.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:09 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter.


Not a rocket science whatsoever, only two words: SELF-CERTIFICATION.
FAA made the fatal error by allowing boeing to do most of the certification work itself, without proper oversight and restrictions. Add rushed and flawed 737 MAX design to it and the recipe for disaster is ready. The warning light should go off back when the 787 was allowed to fly with faulty batteries.

Hopefully, FAA doesn't make the same error twice and no more self-certification work would ever be allowed to boeing, or anyone else. FAA must do FAA's job, plain and simple.


The batteries are completely different. They had been tested and the manufacturer claimed a very low probability of a catastrophic failure - the tested batteries performed as expected. That the mass production did not perform the same way was not something the regulator could foresee.

In the 737 it was the addition of a new flight system and to be honest the dependence of one sensor only should have raised an eyebrow with the FAA, when they increased the strength of the pitch command for the system, the system should have been blocked. How this happened is to be investigated.
 
pugman211
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:08 am

seahawk wrote:
when they increased the strength of the pitch command for the system, the system should have been blocked. How this happened is to be investigated.


I thought it was never disclosed that Boeing had increased the authority of the pitch command, so how could they know? Or do I have that assumption wrong?
 
asdf
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:08 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Rbgso wrote:
Just curious, if not EASA or FAA, what regulator would be acceptable to you?


CAA, DGAC, LBA or the Swedes (Styrelsen).


But I don't think there really is any regulator any more that has the resources to be wholly competent in certifying a modern aircraft.



its not at all about the recources and the competence

do you really think there will ever be a FAA airbus certification again if the EASA now doesnt waive through the MCAS fix within days - never mind what fix they provide?

that's all political
the topic is done.

with the increasing number of MAX, the number of flights will increase significantly

since the software solution and the additional sensor only hides the problem but does not solve it, it will probably lead to MAX accidents again

By that time, however, there will be so many thousands of MAX in the air that in a much larger extent it will be a matter for the national US economy that the crates will have to fly on
even though you do not have neutral safe flight behavior

In future I will have to pay attention to which type of aircraft is used on a flight
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:24 am

pugman211 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
when they increased the strength of the pitch command for the system, the system should have been blocked. How this happened is to be investigated.


I thought it was never disclosed that Boeing had increased the authority of the pitch command, so how could they know? Or do I have that assumption wrong?


That is the point the investigation needs to find out.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:31 am

asdf wrote:
do you really think there will ever be a FAA airbus certification again if the EASA now doesnt waive through the MCAS fix within days - never mind what fix they provide?


Yes. They'd have to.

EASA etc have legitimate technical and legal reasons for denying a rubber stamped certification - reasons that would be upheld in court as per the current agreement of reciprocal certification.

If FAA were to punitively respond via, say, denial of cert to a hypothetical A322 at some point in the future, then they would have to justify their reasoning in court. If they couldn't, they'd have to certify off the aircraft - or face political consequences*.

*which could be as severe as having Boeing denied certification in every country which is a supplier to the airframe in question.

Its a slippery road they would not want to go down.
 
KingOrGod
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:42 am

scbriml wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:
If sim training is required, how does that work considering I am under the impression most airlines do not have a MAX simulator? Will pilots be flown out to Seattle?


Apparently, no sim training required.

From Leeham:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/28/mcas- ... -training/
Boeing 737 MAX pilots learning about the revised software upgrade to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) will need a half hour of computer-based training (CBT), the company told the media yesterday in a briefing.

Pilots of the 737 NG who have not yet made the transition to the MAX also have to be trained on the MCAS now. Boeing did not specify if this will take longer than those already trained on the MAX.



Because it worked so well the first time round. :tapedshut: :thumbsdown:
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:44 am

mwmav8r01 wrote:
CO953 wrote:
mwmav8r01 wrote:
Remember when you could come on here for reasonable aviation related discussion? That was great.

[snip].


Back when people like me had to pay to comment, it was better. Not that I'm an expert. But as a paid member I do still take each comment I make here seriously, and I don't just blab like it's a free blog.


Agreed.

Going back over contentious topics all the way back to A380 getting ready for FF ...
( A.net at the time had the much better technical discussions over what was available in a German context,
... but also real bullets flying gang warfare )
Lots of posters around that went for getting their full dues paid worth of partisan trash posted.

I see a trend to rush young astro turfers into action after only a few days or just hours have passed from account creation.
Back when, such build up went over several month with held back style of posting until a reputation was set up.
Then the partisan misdirections started.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4109
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:48 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter.


Not a rocket science whatsoever, only two words: SELF-CERTIFICATION.
FAA made the fatal error by allowing boeing to do most of the certification work itself, without proper oversight and restrictions. Add rushed and flawed 737 MAX design to it and the recipe for disaster is ready. The warning light should go off back when the 787 was allowed to fly with faulty batteries.

Hopefully, FAA doesn't make the same error twice and no more self-certification work would ever be allowed to boeing, or anyone else. FAA must do FAA's job, plain and simple.


I don't think you understand how "Self-Certification" works. BTW, I hate that word, because it does little to describe how the process really works. I'd like to use "delegated authority".

In any case, I believe that even if MCAS was not covered by the "delegated authority" but directly by FAA themselves, even then it might have slipped the mazes of the certification net.

During, and as a result of flight testing, MCAS system parameters and authority level were changed significantly. Those very system parameters were an important input into the risk assessment matrix, to determine system and sensor reliability and required redundancy level. The problem was that the flight-test-changes to those parameters were not reported back to the certification authority. Which in this case was the "delegated authority". But if FAA would have done this themselves, (so no "self-certification"), do we have any evidence to conclude that those parameter changes would have been reported back to FAA? I haven't seen any of that, did you?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:48 am

seahawk wrote:
The batteries are completely different. They had been tested and the manufacturer claimed a very low probability of a catastrophic failure - the tested batteries performed as expected. That the mass production did not perform the same way was not something the regulator could foresee.

This may be so but it does demonstrate one of the problems with this self-certification approach. The manufacturers, under severe cost pressure, will almost always take a rather optimistic view of their design, test and production processes.

Had the 787 battery design been reviewed by an independent expert, I suspect that they would have pointed out the inherent dangers of the small-number-of -very-large-cells approach that was being taken, and the outcome might have been very different, and far less costly, for Boeing and their customers.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:56 am

Self certification is not a real thing.

https://www.iaf.nu/articles/SelfCertifi ... _Thing/391
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:58 am

speedbored wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The batteries are completely different. They had been tested and the manufacturer claimed a very low probability of a catastrophic failure - the tested batteries performed as expected. That the mass production did not perform the same way was not something the regulator could foresee.

This may be so but it does demonstrate one of the problems with this self-certification approach. The manufacturers, under severe cost pressure, will almost always take a rather optimistic view of their design, test and production processes.

Had the 787 battery design been reviewed by an independent expert, I suspect that they would have pointed out the inherent dangers of the small-number-of -very-large-cells approach that was being taken, and the outcome might have been very different, and far less costly, for Boeing and their customers.


It is the old conflict between safety and innovation, so I have more a problem with the installation than they type of battery.
 
StTim
Posts: 3684
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:02 am

I am amazed that it is purely a software fix to use both AoA returns. This shows just how sloppy the initial design of the MCAS system was.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:03 am

PW100 wrote:
I don't think you understand how "Self-Certification" works. BTW, I hate that word, because it does little to describe how the process really works. I'd like to use "delegated authority".

In any case, I believe that even if MCAS was not covered by the "delegated authority" but directly by FAA themselves, even then it might have slipped the mazes of the certification net.

That is all nice and dandy. "delegated authority" dies a gory death ( sic ) when the airframer goes for gaming that system.
And that has been going for so long that today few involved ( and posters here too ) seem to actually remember how it initially was supposed to work.
Murphy is an optimist
 
morrisond
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:14 am

asdf wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Rbgso wrote:
Just curious, if not EASA or FAA, what regulator would be acceptable to you?


CAA, DGAC, LBA or the Swedes (Styrelsen).


But I don't think there really is any regulator any more that has the resources to be wholly competent in certifying a modern aircraft.



its not at all about the recources and the competence

do you really think there will ever be a FAA airbus certification again if the EASA now doesnt waive through the MCAS fix within days - never mind what fix they provide?

that's all political
the topic is done.

with the increasing number of MAX, the number of flights will increase significantly

since the software solution and the additional sensor only hides the problem but does not solve it, it will probably lead to MAX accidents again


What problem exactly are you talking about? That a MAX can obtain an AOA that it stalls like all other airplanes ever built or certified? That is absurd. Yes the design of the MAX may cause it to pitch up more in certain flight regimes (take off when fully loaded at high AOA's) but that doesn't make it unsafe or unique. MCAS was designed to help the MAX never get in that situation - maybe because Boeing (as well as Airbus) apparently are concerned about declining pilot standards. However exiting a stall is the most basic thing a pilot is taught to do.

As long as the pilot can maintain a consistent climb AOA in Manual mode (this should not be considered a difficult skill in any plane - if you can't do that you should not be in a cockpit) MCAS will never be activated. This will never happen when the Autopilot is active as the AP does a pretty good job at maintaining a consistent climb.

If MCAS fails again (which it can again even with two sensors as two sensors can go bad at the same time - but they seemed to have dumbed it down so it can't put the plane in a nose down situation so crashes should be avoided and no pilot should have missed the memo on to hit the trim cut-off switches if MCAS or Electric Trim starts doing weird things again) and does nothing to limit the flight envelope and the plane enters a stall then that is no big problem - lower the nose or add power to exit the stall - the plane will not fall out of the air - there will be lots of warnings (stick shakers etc..) that will alert the pilot that they are about to enter a stall.

If the pilots are so incompetent to allow a plane that is in a stall to enter a spin yes then it could crash - but then you would be talking about Pilot incompetence so bad that they should not have even passed basic flight training or be allowed to even fly a Cessna.

I have no way of knowing for sure - but I would have to guess that the more forward COG of the Max would help it exit the stall sooner as it would help to pull the nose down.

The MAX will be fine after this fix - no better or worse than any other Commercial airplane out there. In fact I will feel safer on a MAX due to the fact that it actually has physical connections to it's primary flight surfaces in the case of a full electric failure.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23891
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:16 am

PW100 wrote:
During, and as a result of flight testing, MCAS system parameters and authority level were changed significantly. Those very system parameters were an important input into the risk assessment matrix, to determine system and sensor reliability and required redundancy level. The problem was that the flight-test-changes to those parameters were not reported back to the certification authority. Which in this case was the "delegated authority". But if FAA would have done this themselves, (so no "self-certification"), do we have any evidence to conclude that those parameter changes would have been reported back to FAA? I haven't seen any of that, did you?

AFAIK we don't know this to be fact, beyond what was published in the Seattle Times, which was based on interviews with unnamed sources.

We don't know if some or any or all of this part of the story is true.

For all we know, the anonymous FAA person being interviewed was the one given the updated info and failed to record it and is now lying to protect themselves.

AFAIK we've never seen an official statement from FAA saying Boeing failed to update them.

WIederling wrote:
PW100 wrote:
I don't think you understand how "Self-Certification" works. BTW, I hate that word, because it does little to describe how the process really works. I'd like to use "delegated authority".

In any case, I believe that even if MCAS was not covered by the "delegated authority" but directly by FAA themselves, even then it might have slipped the mazes of the certification net.

That is all nice and dandy. "delegated authority" dies a gory death ( sic ) when the airframer goes for gaming that system.
And that has been going for so long that today few involved ( and posters here too ) seem to actually remember how it initially was supposed to work.

Is this the reality of it, or just your perception of the reality of it?

If it is reality, please show proof (from official sources rather than hearsay) that "the airframer goes for gaming that system".

So far, we have no proof that the outcome we have would be any different if no delegation of authority was occurring and every evaluation was made by a government employee.

However we have a lot of perceptions that line up with a lot of prejudices, and a lot of media reports that get paid for via the "impressions" they make.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:19 am

speedbored wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The batteries are completely different. They had been tested and the manufacturer claimed a very low probability of a catastrophic failure - the tested batteries performed as expected. That the mass production did not perform the same way was not something the regulator could foresee.

This may be so but it does demonstrate one of the problems with this self-certification approach. The manufacturers, under severe cost pressure, will almost always take a rather optimistic view of their design, test and production processes.

Had the 787 battery design been reviewed by an independent expert, I suspect that they would have pointed out the inherent dangers of the small-number-of -very-large-cells approach that was being taken, and the outcome might have been very different, and far less costly, for Boeing and their customers.

The Tesla style approach was extremely novel at the time; I doubt that would have been a suggestion. Prismatic batteries at the time were considered the best approach. What hopefully would have been recommended is active cooling mechanisms.
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:25 am

prebennorholm wrote:
CO953 wrote:
The question I have, and I'm probably not alone, is:

Will Boeing be releasing "a" fix, or "the" fix?

What Boeing has released is THE fix.

1. involving both AoA sensors and disabling MCAS in case of disagree, that changes MTBF (per plane) from (give or take one magnitude) a thousand years to something like a billion years.

2. in fact more important, eliminating infinite looping of the failure changes failure mode from "potentially catastrophic" to "inconvenient".

It is not rocket science. The MAX should fly again well before summer.

Much has been talked about "when will EASA, TC, CAAC etc. approve the MAX"? Fact is that European, Canadian, Chinese airline companies with MAX fleets will lobby them to approve ASAP, and not one day later than that. And they will make sure that they all work tightly together with Boeing and the FAA to get the MAX in the air ASAP.

What is rocket science, however, that is how it could happen that Boeing made such a blunder, and how it could slip through the FAA filter. That is something which DOT, DOJ, FBI and God knows who will work on for years to come.


I think the real question is now what happens if MCAS is disabled and how does is affect the stability of the MAX. THIS is what the regulators will look at more thoroughly. And this could spell more trouble for Boeing imho
 
Elementalism
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:31 am

hilram wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
CO953 wrote:
The question I have, and I'm probably not alone, is:

Will Boeing be releasing "a" fix, or "the" fix?

What Boeing has released is THE fix.

1. involving both AoA sensors and disabling MCAS in case of disagree, that changes MTBF (per plane) from (give or take one magnitude) a thousand years to something like a billion years.

2. in fact more important, eliminating infinite looping of the failure changes failure mode from "potentially catastrophic" to "inconvenient".

It is not rocket science. The MAX should fly again well before summer.

Much has been talked about "when will EASA, TC, CAAC etc. approve the MAX"? Fact is that European, Canadian, Chinese airline companies with MAX fleets will lobby them to approve ASAP, and not one day later than that. And they will make sure that they all work tightly together with Boeing and the FAA to get the MAX in the air ASAP.

(...)

I guess this is a clash of cultures. In Europe, no manufacturer - let alone airliner - excerts that kind of pressure on the regulatory body, like Boeing seems to have over the FAA.
EASA is not going to move an eyelid over Norwegian, Ryanair or Icelandair crying their heart out. They will independently go over the system changes between NG and MAX. Not just review the software fix related to MCAS.

I guess their concern is "what else is there to find" ? - A question the FAA should be asking as well.


VW group absolutely did when it came to emissions tests. And to be fair, Mercedez, BMW, and other EU car manufacturers were also cheating emissions. And they exerted pressure on regulatory bodies and politicians to look the other way.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19030
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:59 am

Revelation wrote:
AFAIK we don't know this to be fact, beyond what was published in the Seattle Times, which was based on interviews with unnamed sources.

We don't know if some or any or all of this part of the story is true.


If it were untrue, I would have expected a fairly vigorous denial from Boeing since it paints them in a very poor light.

Regardless of the degree of involvement of MCAS in either or both crashes, it has become very clear that its implementation was shockingly bad and its certification dumbfounding.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:07 pm

How is the fix really a fix?

If MCAS is switched off automatically, we have an aircraft without MCAS. Apparently MCAS is good for something in the first place, otherwise it would not be there. So the aircraft will then be operating at the brink of a stall and the pilots need to keep it in the air? Sounds as relaxed as running at high speed balancing an egg on a teaspoon....
 
User avatar
smittythepirate
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:08 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:30 pm

vfw614 wrote:
How is the fix really a fix?

If MCAS is switched off automatically, we have an aircraft without MCAS. Apparently MCAS is good for something in the first place, otherwise it would not be there. So the aircraft will then be operating at the brink of a stall and the pilots need to keep it in the air? Sounds as relaxed as running at high speed balancing an egg on a teaspoon....


To say at the brink of a stall is a little dramatic as it isn't as if the plane is seconds from stalling during normal flight...

If the system is disabled pilots will just need to pay attention to the aircraft and not let it drift in the range of a stall.
www.jbweather.com
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
PW100 wrote:
During, and as a result of flight testing, MCAS system parameters and authority level were changed significantly. Those very system parameters were an important input into the risk assessment matrix, to determine system and sensor reliability and required redundancy level. The problem was that the flight-test-changes to those parameters were not reported back to the certification authority.

AFAIK we don't know this to be fact, beyond what was published in the Seattle Times, which was based on interviews with unnamed sources.

We don't know if some or any or all of this part of the story is true.

For all we know, the anonymous FAA person being interviewed was the one given the updated info and failed to record it and is now lying to protect themselves.

AFAIK we've never seen an official statement from FAA saying Boeing failed to update them.

Firstly; let's turn that around so it is facing the right way.
We haven't seen a statement from Boeing denying the allegation is true.

Are their lawyers asleep? :shakehead:
Boeing are the ones with more to lose from this as it stands. They are the ones with the resources to fight this.
The FAA isn't required to do anything here.

Surely by now Boeing would have found a copy of their e-mail or hard correspondence detailing the increase from 0.6deg to 2.5deg, and showing a named person at the FAA who would have received it? That would definitely put the FAA on the spot.

Where is the correction & apology issued by the Seattle Times? (you don't think perhaps Boeing has a hot-line straight to the editor?)

The total silence from Boeing on this matter, is deafening. :scratchchin:


Secondly, a thoroughly scurrilous suggestion that the FAA person (what, you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge he/she was a "safety engineer"?) is now lying to protect themselves, would in any other instances be jumped on from a great height, by others if not by you.

Whilst it is indeed a remote possibility, I am quite disgusted you would even suggest that idea.
This is America, not a "third world country"! (*)


(*) Yes, I do know what the correct term is. :roll:

EDIT; whilst getting some breakfast, scbriml beat me to it with a more succinct response
scbriml wrote:
If it were untrue, I would have expected a fairly vigorous denial from Boeing since it paints them in a very poor light.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:38 pm

What I find fascinating is the belief held by some here that just because MCAS is now more limited in its authority, that this makes the plane automatically 100% safe. We still don't know what caused the stickshaker, unreliable airspeed and AOA readings. The assumption around these parts is that any pilot can handle that scenario just fine without MCAS activating.

I am personally not so sure. Both accidents occurred during the day in good weather. Let's add bad weather and/or nighttime flying conditions (easier to lose situational awareness), and a MAX throwing a hissyfit like this could still end up with lots of fatalities. I won't set foot on any of these anytime soon.

A half hour online training course? Are you kidding me? That is shorter than my last legal/compliance training and test that my EMPLOYER mandated in the Financial Services Industry. Embarrassing what Boeing is trying to do here. If another MAX crashes after this display lacking concern, they deserve everything that is coming to them.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos