Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
PW100 wrote:
It discusses a seemingly similar situation where a knowingly "broken processor" was used with no issues in Ariane 4, as the flight parameters would never reach the processor-software interaction limitations. The same set-up on Ariane 5 resulted in failure of first flight as flight parameters were significantly different, resulting in overload of the processor.
Perhaps, the same thing applies to the NG-MAX case. The processor limitations never showed up on the NG, but the extended software of the MAX might cause it to freeze up in certain scenarios.
All speculation of course, should we dismiss such scenario?

The only parallel I will draw is that Ariane 5's "broken processor" wasn't a broken processor in the sense that the fix was NOT to replace the processor but to fix the data conversion code.

I think we can talk of three different classes of fixes and the time to turn them around:
    1) Software point fix: small number of months
    2) Software redesign: large number of months
    3) Hardware replacement: one year or more

The point I'm trying to make is that the most recent reports suggest that we are in case (2) i.e. software redesign (which was said to be started months ago anyway) and NOT in case (3) i.e. hardware replacement.

However, I agree with your suggestion that no scenario should be dismissed.

The reports we have are too conflicting and are written by people who are not computer professionals so figuring out exactly where things are is problematic.


The software redesign that was started 8 months ago is what caused this catastrophic failure. I'm not so sure solving this issue is a quick fix to that work.

A quick software point fix is what Boeing is stating, but everything from outsiders points to 2) or 3) (FAA specialists). If Boeings is still in denial it can cost them months to even a year of failed attempts.

I sure hope they have a plan B (more serious ground up software redesign) and a plan C (hardware redesign) in place and executing in parallel in case their optimism was just hopeful thinking.

At this point the 737 MAX rescue mission needs to have all of Boeings most brightest fully mobilised and engaged with all other projects in standby mode.

As for the ungrounding, it seems we are now looking at 20Q1(FAA)-20Q2(EASA)-20Q3(CAC) at best.

This makes me wonder how long Boeing will stay in denial and keep producion at 42 planes/m and 52 engines/m. I can see them willing to eat the cost of ordering excess engines from CFM just to prevent the opportunity for Airbus to jump into that gap and increase their 320 engine orders

Either way, the silver lining for Boeing will be they will be the first airplane manufacturer to break the 1000 deliveries a year milestone. I can see them deliver up to 1200 planes next year, a record Airbus probably wont be able to break for at least 10 years.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:12 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Many, including me, attest to the belief that the system design and safety analysis was incompetent (for whatever reasons). There has been no indication anywhere that the software design, implementation and validation was not complaint with DO-178 or in any way had a 'glitch', was 'flawed' or any other vernacular you care to use.


But they aren't really something you can consider entirely separately.

You can meet all the traceability of -178, but if you aren't actually performing the System Safety Assessment (never mind the PSSAs or FHAs) right, then that is all more or less irrelevant detail. You've fixed the scratch in your car bumper but ignored the engine being out of oil.

I know some will say that they are part of ARP4761 or ARP4754, but that just means the assumptions that went into the S/W work done under Do-178 were wrong.


[I wouldn't hold the software guys innocent either - they weren't bright enough to question why there was only one input signal to the system and no queries as to how it was being validated, where was the .flt flag and how was it getting assigned?]
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:18 pm

PW100 wrote:
snowkarl wrote:
planecane wrote:
. . . .


Getting pretty difficult to deny the fact that Boeing's faulty design is 100% at fault here and that the crashes were unavoidable.

Perhaps you should, like Morrisond has seemingly done, give this talking point a rest for this particular crash?


Most, if not all accidents, are avoidable, at some level. While I think Boeing has lots of xplaining to do, I wouldn't go as far to claim that these accidents were totally unavoidable. I'm sure if you would present the exact same scenario at say 100 random crews, some (if not many) of them would be able to land the plane. But that is not what this is about. A relativley minor occurrence like an AoA sensor fault should be much easier to handle. And should not lead to an important part of that random group failing to cope with the situation. That is on Boeing, but it doesn't mean that the accidents were unavoidable.

I guess I'm getting lonely in the black-and-white thinking world around me.

Thank you, PW100. I appreciate your assessment above. I think it is actually one of the most balanced I've read on here.

I think for some posters, there's still a bitter taste left from the early days, with Boeing apologists defending the plane as being perfectly fine, and making bigoted statements about "third world pilots" and so on. When certain posters bang ony about how the pilots could have saved their planes, it seems like a distraction tactic which pulls discussion away from the aircraft itself. While some fo these posters may simply be looking to explain Boeing's actions, the result is that they appear to defend Boeing.

At the end of the day, with the safe and reliable technology available to us, IMHO there is no excuse for designing a plane which relies any more heavily than necessary on the skills of the pilot. Unfortunately, in this mission, Boeing has failed.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:23 pm

Absynth wrote:
Either way, the silver lining for Boeing will be they will be the first airplane manufacturer to break the 1000 deliveries a year milestone. I can see them deliver up to 1200 planes next year, a record Airbus probably wont be able to break for at least 10 years.

That might not be happening... Consider this: you plan expansion, buying 10 planes this year, and 10 next year. You are using income from the this year 10 planes to finance your next year purchase. But you did not get 10 planes this year, instead you got -10 planes (grounded ones). You have crappy year. Can you pay for 20 planes next year? Can you even pay for 10? I can see the lost deliveries during this year not just deferred to the next, but (in part) lost forever.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:00 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Many, including me, attest to the belief that the system design and safety analysis was incompetent (for whatever reasons). There has been no indication anywhere that the software design, implementation and validation was not complaint with DO-178 or in any way had a 'glitch', was 'flawed' or any other vernacular you care to use.


But they aren't really something you can consider entirely separately.

You can meet all the traceability of -178, but if you aren't actually performing the System Safety Assessment (never mind the PSSAs or FHAs) right, then that is all more or less irrelevant detail. You've fixed the scratch in your car bumper but ignored the engine being out of oil.

I know some will say that they are part of ARP4761 or ARP4754, but that just means the assumptions that went into the S/W work done under Do-178 were wrong.


[I wouldn't hold the software guys innocent either - they weren't bright enough to question why there was only one input signal to the system and no queries as to how it was being validated, where was the .flt flag and how was it getting assigned?]


Point is, as you say, is it is not a software error. A rush mod (as V1.0 would have been) dropped on a software team in a highly compartmentalised organisation including sub contractor (probably) will likely be implemented and validated at that level without further question. Doesn't matter how bright the software team is or isnt. Even if a question was raised, the answer would have been the safety assessment says its OK.

Ray


NB: There are several systems in the FCC that use only one sensor, so it would not be immediately noticeable as anything out of the ordinary.
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:09 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
Absynth wrote:
Either way, the silver lining for Boeing will be they will be the first airplane manufacturer to break the 1000 deliveries a year milestone. I can see them deliver up to 1200 planes next year, a record Airbus probably wont be able to break for at least 10 years.

That might not be happening... Consider this: you plan expansion, buying 10 planes this year, and 10 next year. You are using income from the this year 10 planes to finance your next year purchase. But you did not get 10 planes this year, instead you got -10 planes (grounded ones). You have crappy year. Can you pay for 20 planes next year? Can you even pay for 10? I can see the lost deliveries during this year not just deferred to the next, but (in part) lost forever.


The airliners will be compensated. Legal experts estimate lease rate + storage expenses + probably also some damages for lost revenues. I see no reason why that would affect their orders the next year. Moreso since compensation most likely will be in the form of rebates on their upcoming orders.

On top of that, they probably won't be able to delay their 2020 orders anyway, without severe penalties. I'm sure Boeing has nearly all available 2020 slots covered with binding sales.
Last edited by Absynth on Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:10 pm

ClubCX wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
Boeing should consider buying Embraer and turn the E-Jet into a real competitor of the A220.

We need more competition, not less. Boeing must not be allowed to buy or influence its competitors.


...or bring them to their knees. But that's all in the past, now.

It will be interesting, long term, to see how Boeing gets through this. Shades of the Comet and L-188.
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:12 pm

Boeing attempted to write the terms of reference for the MCAS investigation, keeping it as narrow as possible. For example, they did not want it to reach beyond the MAX, or completely different models, or new models, or culture. Boeing certainly didn't want the NASA held reporting database to be interrogated.

By now, other authorities and the FBI must be receiving 'tips' from flight crew, engineers, and Boeing current and ex-staff, and not just for the MAX.

The old adage, 'do it once, do it right' applies especially to commercial aviation safety, which Boeing needs to re-learn.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:33 pm

Absynth wrote:

The airliners will be compensated. Legal experts estimate lease rate + storage expenses + probably also some damages for lost revenues. I see no reason why that would affect their orders the next year. Moreso since compensation most likely will be in the form of rebates on their upcoming orders.

On top of that, they probably won't be able to delay their 2020 orders anyway, without severe penalties. I'm sure Boeing has nearly all available 2020 slots covered with binding sales.


We'll see how it develops. Boeing will compensate Airlines a bit, but compensations for lost revenues are not going to happen, at least not in entirety. Southwest alone with its puny 34 Maxes claims 200M lost revenues in Q1 alone. Try and see what this number would translate into for all the grounded maxes towards the end of the year.

Penalties for not taking deliveries - yeah, right. In the context of the grounding any court will side with airline.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:11 pm

aerolimani wrote:
PW100 wrote:
[Most, if not all accidents, are avoidable, at some level. While I think Boeing has lots of xplaining to do, I wouldn't go as far to claim that these accidents were totally unavoidable. I'm sure if you would present the exact same scenario at say 100 random crews, some (if not many) of them would be able to land the plane. But that is not what this is about. A relativley minor occurrence like an AoA sensor fault should be much easier to handle. And should not lead to an important part of that random group failing to cope with the situation. That is on Boeing, but it doesn't mean that the accidents were unavoidable.

I guess I'm getting lonely in the black-and-white thinking world around me.

Thank you, PW100. I appreciate your assessment above. I think it is actually one of the most balanced I've read on here.

I think for some posters, there's still a bitter taste left from the early days, with Boeing apologists defending the plane as being perfectly fine, and making bigoted statements about "third world pilots" and so on. When certain posters bang ony about how the pilots could have saved their planes, it seems like a distraction tactic which pulls discussion away from the aircraft itself. While some fo these posters may simply be looking to explain Boeing's actions, the result is that they appear to defend Boeing.

At the end of the day, with the safe and reliable technology available to us, IMHO there is no excuse for designing a plane which relies any more heavily than necessary on the skills of the pilot. Unfortunately, in this mission, Boeing has failed.


You know what? While I have argued heavily against the likes of Morrison and company, that continued on preaching the "poor worldwide pilot training standards" (some of them actually mean "third-world" instead of "worldwide"), I would not argue against that pilot standards could be improved, and I would be the last to claim that pilot standard in developing countries are at the same level as the northern hemisphere.
In fact, I would readily accept that in my example only between 25 and 50 "developing world" pilots would successfully land the plane. And that between 50 and 75 (or even 95) of the US / European pilots would be able to cope successfully with such scenario. But again, that is not what this is about. A relatively simple and common failure of AoA should be easily handled by all 100 crews. It should really be a no-brainer, which should be designed into the system. Both in terms of aircraft (control) system design and fault tolerance, as well as in terms of type-specific training. In that way I fully underwrite the words of fellow member Interested that each new (generation) aircraft should be significantly better and more fault tolerant, and easier to handle than the previous one. And the MAX is not, at this point.

Some of the more extreme fanboy members still believe it’s mainly a crew thing (both accidents), and Boeing should not allow third world operators to operate Boeing’s equipment and tarnish their good reputation. I’ll offer an alternative view: while certification goes a long way to prove that a design is safe, it is still a paper thing. The real safety is demonstrated in the real world, especially by sub-standard operators because a) this is what the regulations take into account, and b) as they would likely be the first to line up the holes in the swiss cheese. The MAX failed that ultimate live test. Twice.
Make no mistake, even proper first world pilots would, eventually, line up the same holes . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
spongenotbob
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:40 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:54 pm

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:59 pm

Since this thread is about the MAX grounding, I think that the following piece of news has its place here. The Belgian Civil Aviation Authority has issued the following NOTAM valid till Dec 30:
A2252/19
From:27 JUN 19 10:05 Till:30 DEC 19 23:59 EST
Text:BOEING 737-8 MAX AND BOEING 737-9 MAX PROHIBITED IN BELGIAN AIRSPACE EXC NON COMMERCIAL FERRY FLT. REF THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION (EU) 2018/1139 ARTICLE


https://ops.skeyes.be/opersite/notamsummary.do?cmd=summaryToHtml

I don't know whether this NOTAM is related to a wider European decision or not, I haven't followed the news about the MAX grounding lately. It seems a bit premature to already extend this decision till the end of the year. Or am I missing something?
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:10 am

tomcat wrote:
Since this thread is about the MAX grounding, I think that the following piece of news has its place here. The Belgian Civil Aviation Authority has issued the following NOTAM valid till Dec 30:
A2252/19
From:27 JUN 19 10:05 Till:30 DEC 19 23:59 EST
Text:BOEING 737-8 MAX AND BOEING 737-9 MAX PROHIBITED IN BELGIAN AIRSPACE EXC NON COMMERCIAL FERRY FLT. REF THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION (EU) 2018/1139 ARTICLE


https://ops.skeyes.be/opersite/notamsummary.do?cmd=summaryToHtml

I don't know whether this NOTAM is related to a wider European decision or not, I haven't followed the news about the MAX grounding lately. It seems a bit premature to already extend this decision till the end of the year. Or am I missing something?


It's likely the original notam was about to expire, and there is no harm in extending it to the end of the year as it can be cancelled early. It just prevents it inadvertently timing out and self canceling.
DH1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30/50/80 717 727 735/6/7/8/9 744 762/3 77E/W E40/75/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150
J/S DH8D 736/7/8 763
 
hivue
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:04 am

smartplane wrote:
The old adage, 'do it once, do it right' applies especially to commercial aviation safety, which Boeing needs to re-learn.


"Measure twice, cut once" would have been better advice for Boeing to have followed from the get-go.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:05 am

Revelation wrote:
PW100 wrote:
It discusses a seemingly similar situation where a knowingly "broken processor" was used with no issues in Ariane 4, as the flight parameters would never reach the processor-software interaction limitations. The same set-up on Ariane 5 resulted in failure of first flight as flight parameters were significantly different, resulting in overload of the processor.
Perhaps, the same thing applies to the NG-MAX case. The processor limitations never showed up on the NG, but the extended software of the MAX might cause it to freeze up in certain scenarios.
All speculation of course, should we dismiss such scenario?

The only parallel I will draw is that Ariane 5's "broken processor" wasn't a broken processor in the sense that the fix was NOT to replace the processor but to fix the data conversion code.

I think we can talk of three different classes of fixes and the time to turn them around:
    1) Software point fix: small number of months
    2) Software redesign: large number of months
    3) Hardware replacement: one year or more

The point I'm trying to make is that the most recent reports suggest that we are in case (2) i.e. software redesign (which was said to be started months ago anyway) and NOT in case (3) i.e. hardware replacement.

However, I agree with your suggestion that no scenario should be dismissed.

The reports we have are too conflicting and are written by people who are not computer professionals so figuring out exactly where things are is problematic.
I mostly agree. However the situation two clock was just reset. Eight months of work now has to be redone.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:28 am

According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html
 
planecane
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:24 am

RickNRoll wrote:
According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html

Can we please at least be somewhat accurate with summaries? Bloomberg says no such thing. They posted an article with the same NG entries from the NASA database that were reported months ago. All of the incidents in the article seem related to autopilot.

Don't imply that Bloomberg reported that the FCC issues found on the MAX have caused NG incidents. They didn't report that.

We can infer from lack of any kind of EAD that the issue found is a MAX only issue. If it was present on the NG then the FAA should have at least put out an EAD on the NG detailing what pilots should look out for and what to do if they encounter the issue.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:30 am

RickNRoll wrote:
According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html
Oh dear. Every day brings more bad news.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
Elshad
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:40 am

Every time I see that Muilenberg scumbag on TV I want to punch him in the face. He keeps repeating, in an obviously insincere voice, that “safety is our number one priority” when it is demonstrably false. He can’t even fake empathy properly.
 
planecane
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:45 am

oschkosch wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html
Oh dear. Every day brings more bad news.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Read the article, not RickNRoll's highly biased summary. They do not report that the FCC issues go back to the NG. They report some incidents in the NASA database that were reported months ago and all appear to be related to autopilot, not a microprocessor in the FCC locking up.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:52 am

planecane wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html
Oh dear. Every day brings more bad news.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Read the article, not RickNRoll's highly biased summary. They do not report that the FCC issues go back to the NG. They report some incidents in the NASA database that were reported months ago and all appear to be related to autopilot, not a microprocessor in the FCC locking up.
I read it...

Pilots flying Boeing planes in recent years have reported flight-control problems they blamed on malfunctioning software -- not on the company's maligned 737 MAX jets, but widely used earlier versions of the plane that are still in the air.
Commercial pilots flying Boeing's NG, or "Next Generation," models have registered concerns on a variety of computer problems through the Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database administered by NASA.



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
planecane
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:58 am

oschkosch wrote:
planecane wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Oh dear. Every day brings more bad news.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Read the article, not RickNRoll's highly biased summary. They do not report that the FCC issues go back to the NG. They report some incidents in the NASA database that were reported months ago and all appear to be related to autopilot, not a microprocessor in the FCC locking up.
I read it...

Pilots flying Boeing planes in recent years have reported flight-control problems they blamed on malfunctioning software -- not on the company's maligned 737 MAX jets, but widely used earlier versions of the plane that are still in the air.
Commercial pilots flying Boeing's NG, or "Next Generation," models have registered concerns on a variety of computer problems through the Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database administered by NASA.



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

These incidents don't appear to have anything to do with the MAX or the potential microprocessor lock up. They all appear to be autopilot related. If I recall correctly from the posts about those incidents back in March or April, the recovery was accomplished by disengaging the autopilot.
 
speedking
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:06 am

spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.


Incredible. 737MAX, designed by third world engineers. The Cheapest.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:07 am

oschkosch wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html
Oh dear. Every day brings more bad news.


Black boxes be they AB or BA are not bulletproof. Something breaks, the airplane does something it’s not supposed to do, the pilot takes charge — that’s what he’s there for. If you did a download on AB you’d probably see a lot of the same things. None of these have anything in common with the MCAS issue or the lack of FAA oversight. Where was this horrendously dire story a year ago?
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:09 am

New article from Leeham

https://leehamnews.com/2019/06/28/bjorn ... more-30568


The FMEA analysis lists all possible faults which can occur for a critical function in an aircraft and the fault scenarios are then played through and simulated in the aircraft’s simulators. It was during the simulation of such a possible fault in a 737 MAX simulator at Boeing in Renton the issue was found by the FAA.

It has been questioned why the FMEA performed on the original Flight Control computer software didn’t detect the hazardous MCAS condition caused by a faulty Angle of Attack sensor. If properly executed it should have found how dangerous MCAS could be with certain system faults.

Now, the FMEA analysis worked as it should. It detected a problem, this time caused by how the fixed software changed the data flows in the flight control system’s computers.


Well.. yes and no. Boeing should have produced a FMEA on its MCAS fix which caught this stab runaway before it was presented to the FAA. Boeings analysis failed AGAIN but this time the FAA instead of rubber stamping Boeings analysis (which was so clearly wrong on MCAS) sent their own guys onsite to run their own test series. The fact the FAA were easily able to unpick a software fix passed by Boeing should by rights get this whole remediation effort shut down until Boeing has audited its internal processes and found out why it keeps passing MAX flight software with fatal flaws.

But, the FAA is on the case now with a licence to test everything and anything and demand it be fixed. I predict that this is just the start of a rolling series of FAA requests.
BV
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:19 am

XRAYretired wrote:

Apologies for not having more detail.

But I seem to remember posters discussing in one of the crashes that every time the pilot(s) tried to trim they seemed to arrive at the exact same number??

And posters were thinking this was too co-incidental to happen randomly?

Could this new flaw be anything to do with that end result?

Or am I off track?


Very true, but it does not look like this problem from what has been reported, more likely aerodynamic load trim motor could not overcome.

Ray[/quote]

Yes, there was speculation from another board that the Lion air crash could be related to dropped "bits" in the analogue signalling, which cause the sensor data to be misinterpreted, but this didnt seem to hold for ET302. We could speculate that fixing this may add to extra CPU clock cycles contributing to locking up the computer..
BV
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:24 am

xmp125a wrote:
art wrote:
Is there not a faster Motorola chip that is compatible with the processor currently used? If there is, would a change of chip take long to be tested and certified to run the software which is currently run on the processor?


Don't know for the particular model of the CPU Boeing is using, but these older processors have single clock that is shared among many system components. Even if they just increase clock, the whole FCC should be retested and recertified. As I wrote before, this "hardware spaghetti" that is, unlike "spaghetti software" a standard because tight integration actually benefits hardware in many aspects. But, as a consequence, you cannot "take a spoonful", just like with the real spaghetti.

The easiest path would indeed be to just to overclock the processor and the rest of the components, but even that looks daunting (that would affect the yield in CPU production, but this really does not matter when you are already $10 billion in the hole, you can afford to throw away 99.99% of the silicon produced, or instruct your subcontractors to do so).

Then if any of the components in overclocked FCC fails, then you are in deep trouble.

Doing anything else hardware-wise is even worse can of worms. Or plate of spaghetti.


There is a faster CPU in the series with the same clock speed (it wasn't popular though so is there reliable stock of an unloved 1992 processor?), changing the clock speed or "clocking" the CPU would be a nightmare as analogue inputs are also used in the system everything would have to be tested from scratch.
BV
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:49 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
According to Bloomberg the flight control computer problems now reach back to the NG, with planes displaying uncontrolled, random behaviour. Pilots are not happy.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/compa ... 5224z.html
Oh dear. Every day brings more bad news.


Black boxes be they AB or BA are not bulletproof. Something breaks, the airplane does something it’s not supposed to do, the pilot takes charge — that’s what he’s there for. If you did a download on AB you’d probably see a lot of the same things. None of these have anything in common with the MCAS issue or the lack of FAA oversight. Where was this horrendously dire story a year ago?
Quite. Where was it? The FAA seem to be showing some vigor for a change and are pursuing issues ii would have had to let go before.

Another issue.

MCAS was MAX specific but was the recent issue uncovered MAX specific as well since the auto pilot is just another piece of software and most of the MAX software is common with the NG?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:28 am

planecane wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
planecane wrote:
Read the article, not RickNRoll's highly biased summary. They do not report that the FCC issues go back to the NG. They report some incidents in the NASA database that were reported months ago and all appear to be related to autopilot, not a microprocessor in the FCC locking up.
I read it... Pilots flying Boeing planes in recent years have reported flight-control problems they blamed on malfunctioning software -- not on the company's maligned 737 MAX jets, but widely used earlier versions of the plane that are still in the air.
Commercial pilots flying Boeing's NG, or "Next Generation," models have registered concerns on a variety of computer problems through the Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database administered by NASA.

These incidents don't appear to have anything to do with the MAX or the potential microprocessor lock up. They all appear to be autopilot related. If I recall correctly from the posts about those incidents back in March or April, the recovery was accomplished by disengaging the autopilot.


Can we disregard the possibility that auopilot commands are send through the same trim motor controller and/or processor to manipulate the horizontal stabelizer?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:16 am

 
Ertro
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:03 am

There is a rumour that the CPU type is Harris 80286 or something similar.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/b ... puter.html
Last edited by Ertro on Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:26 am

planecane wrote:
to me, it has always been completely irrelevant that MCAS was intermittent. The big failure that was missed is that the same thing that would cause MCAS cause a runaway stabilizer ALSO caused other issues simultaneously. This factor is the reason that I believe the lack of documentation of MCAS and specific training played a huge factor. The training could have been part of the iPad course. Simple instructions that if there was uncommanded nose down trim that the runaway stabilizer NNC should be performed first, regardless of other issues would have gone a long way. The information should have been provided that other alerts (single side stick shaker, unreliable airspeed, etc.) would likely occur simultaneously but that responding to the runaway stabilizer should take priority. This should have been part of the training and the QRH.


Agreed. And I think that's hard enough to require sim training and hands-on experience of the situation.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:33 am

Or even point out that if all those alerts are going off don't put the flaps up. Follow UAS procedure and land ASAP.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:07 am

Revelation wrote:
I think we can talk of three different classes of fixes and the time to turn them around:
    1) Software point fix: small number of months
    2) Software redesign: large number of months
    3) Hardware replacement: one year or more


Yes. To quote Jon Ostrower from https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... re-glitch/ this is what Boeing believes will be the fix to the new issue:

... to re-route data across multiple processor chips in the flight control computer ...


I am a software engineer, and that does raise a big red flag in my mind. That's an architectural change in the design. In other words, is not a simple localised fix, but rather something that affects multiple components, teams, and will need significant work and testing.

Now, I'd certainly trust Jon to have the best information in all of the aviation press, but of course we don't know if the above is really what will be done.

But, I agree with you Revelation, but there are software redesigns and software redesigns. This one is giving me a nervous feeling. Large number of months... at least. I think I'll update my prediction to return to flight to 2020.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:09 am

spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.

Yup. Disgraceful.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:12 am

speedking wrote:
spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.


Incredible. 737MAX, designed by third world engineers. The Cheapest.

The software was, not the MAX itself. It’s disgraceful enough without your hyperbole
 
Norlander
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:21 am

Bobloblaw wrote:
spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.

Yup. Disgraceful.


That report is getting quite a lot of outrage press across popular media, it will cause Boeing additional problems from a purely perception point of view, in addition to it being a massive misstep for them, hopefully whoever though up that idea will feel the ramifications.
Longtime Lurker
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:41 am

Norlander wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:
spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.

Yup. Disgraceful.


That report is getting quite a lot of outrage press across popular media, it will cause Boeing additional problems from a purely perception point of view, in addition to it being a massive misstep for them, hopefully whoever though up that idea will feel the ramifications.

I wish the press would find outrage in outsourcing itself. Well the CEO signed off on it.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:38 am

PW100 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Interested wrote:
The CNN report claims there is an issue with the microprocessor that leads to the nose pointing down if the chip fails and this cannot be recovered quickly enough by pilots

It almost seems to suggest that if the pilots could correct the problem quick enough it wouldn't be such a big thing?

So, if your phone is too slow, is your phone broken, or is there a problem with the apps you've loaded or even the phone's OS?
This problem appears to be more like the later, not the former.
If the microprocessor was broken it would need to be replaced, and it seems no one is suggesting that any longer.
And from what we read yes, the issue will be resolved once the system is responsive enough.


Check out this slide about Ariane 5 failure:.

It discusses a seemingly similar situation where a knowingly "broken processor" was used with no issues in Ariane 4, as the flight parameters would never reach the processor-software interaction limitations. The same set-up on Ariane 5 resulted in failure of first flight as flight parameters were significantly different, resulting in overload of the processor.
Perhaps, the same thing applies to the NG-MAX case. The processor limitations never showed up on the NG, but the extended software of the MAX might cause it to freeze up in certain scenarios.
All speculation of course, should we dismiss such scenario?


Thanks for that slideshow. I hadn't read the details before - if I understood correctly it's not actually what you wrote, though... It was software recycled from Ariane 4, with a redundant (unused!) module throwing an error message due to an overflow. The design "oops" was poor error handling; the unexpected error message both shut down the IRS system *and* got passed on to the engine control as "real data" pointing the nozzles in silly directions.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
chiad
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:48 am

spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.


Speechless.
:tapedshut:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21403
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:58 am

Bobloblaw wrote:
speedking wrote:
spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.

Incredible. 737MAX, designed by third world engineers. The Cheapest.

The software was, not the MAX itself. It’s disgraceful enough without your hyperbole

Wait, did anyone actually read the article?

If you did, you'd find it is click bait using the MAX tragedy as a vehicle to vent frustration about outsourcing.

All the freaking article says is:

Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

It says NOTHING like the troll message above, "737MAX, designed by third world engineers".

The fact that people are going with such a suggestion shows what utter click bait it is.

TFA also says:

Boeing said the company did not rely on engineers from HCL and Cyient for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which has been linked to the Lion Air crash last October and the Ethiopian Airlines disaster in March. The Chicago-based planemaker also said it didn’t rely on either firm for another software issue disclosed after the crashes: a cockpit warning light that wasn’t working for most buyers.

TFA says that Boeing outsourced work on flight test equipment and display systems.

You'll note the article says the US-based engineers find this frustrating and it took many go-arounds to get the work done right, but you don't read them saying that eventually the work wasn't done right.

I get it. I've been in a similar situation. It is frustrating. But there's no fighting outsourcing. Back when I was in engineering school not many other kids were willing to sign up for the kind of workload it took to become an engineer. Lots of them were happy to get generic non-tech degrees and spend their nights partying. There was no national move to say we should prioritize and incentivize sci-tech skills development even though it was clear decades ago that the future would be driven by tech. In fact we've done the opposite. We've turned academia in to a profit center for fat cats. We make families deal with the issue of saddling a kids in their 20s with six figures of debt before they've earned their first pay check. Then we wonder why it's cheaper to outsource???

To me the frustrating bit is how the media is having a field day generating click bait articles that are best tangentially related to the MCAS tragedy.

I guess we can see what all the kids who wouldn't crack the books and get an engineering degree are doing with themselves these days.
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
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:09 am

chiad wrote:
spongenotbob wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

(Use incognito to get past paywall)

America’s favorite form of cost-cutting finally comes home to roost.


Speechless.
:tapedshut:


Nothing I read about Boeing surprises me any more
 
Ertro
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:25 am

I believe Boeing did not use HCL or Cyient for MCAS. However I remember reading from somewhere months ago that MCAS SW was subcontracted to some other company which I cannot remember else than it had a respected American company name. Whether that other company used 9$ engineers is another discussion.

Also I have now learnt many times that everything Boeing says has been optimized by dozen lawyers and PR people to be the best possible spin for everything and so when Boeing says "We did not subcontract to these 2 specific companies" I can take that as a confirmation that they did subcontract it to somebody. Otherwise the Boeing line would have been "We did not subcontract MCAS SW period."

The reason why thought this was bad is that subcontracting to another company is always bad for engineering critical complex stuff as those other companies cannot be expected to have deep understanding of 737 as a whole and information how each individual small detail can affect the whole plane behaviour does not flow upwards in organization so easily to be recorded into some document or persons mind. The engineers in subcontractors do not have pride and sense of responsibility like inhouse engineers have. For subcontractors it is just a job that pays their bills until some other design work for some other client next month. Fulfill the specs and that is end of it.
Last edited by Ertro on Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:29 am

AirlineCritic wrote:
planecane wrote:
to me, it has always been completely irrelevant that MCAS was intermittent. The big failure that was missed is that the same thing that would cause MCAS cause a runaway stabilizer ALSO caused other issues simultaneously. This factor is the reason that I believe the lack of documentation of MCAS and specific training played a huge factor. The training could have been part of the iPad course. Simple instructions that if there was uncommanded nose down trim that the runaway stabilizer NNC should be performed first, regardless of other issues would have gone a long way. The information should have been provided that other alerts (single side stick shaker, unreliable airspeed, etc.) would likely occur simultaneously but that responding to the runaway stabilizer should take priority. This should have been part of the training and the QRH.


Agreed. And I think that's hard enough to require sim training and hands-on experience of the situation.


It all sounds wonderful. But, there is always a but, and its rather a biggie again I think.

The EID basically starts at un-commanded nose down (and refers to a raft of possible co-incident warnings and alerts). This is really because to do anything else would be far too complex for an emergency procedure, as I understand it, and would require extensive training in all likely hood. Oh, and there are only one or two MAX simulators available. Oh, and they do not simulate MCAS.

Well, may be they could have written the EID in the direction of 'If you have Stick Shaker and /or Airspeed Disagree and/or Altitude disagree and/or AOA Disagree (if you paid for it!) and/or etc. etc. Or, in short form, instruct 'if anything blinks or buzzes or goes bump in the night, - hit Trim Cut-Out'. Perhaps it would sit better if the EID was just to 'Set Trim for T/O then hit Trim Cut-Out, you're on the trim wheel for rest of the flight'

I would suggest that neither of these possibilities would be acceptable of course, although they likely would have saved ET302. And by this time, it would be obvious to everyone that that the situation was not safe and the thing should be grounded, as it should have been in my view, and ET302 would not have happened at all. As it was, an EID was issued to try and keep the thing flying and failed to save the A/C on the one time it was required to.

Ah, it should have all been there from the start. In the manuals, in the QRH with Airspeed Unreliable, Altitude Unreliable, AOA Disagree etc. etc. QRHs all saying hit Trim Cut-Out, and trained. But, I would argue, of course this would not be acceptable, and by this point you must have realised that V1.0 MCAS was a pig and poke (otherwise you would not be doing it) and of course it would actually be easier to go to a two sensor system and still possibly get away with no type change or simulator training and made it fit the processor resources and have a 'safer aircraft'

Rant over.

Ray
 
kalvado
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:34 am

Revelation wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:
speedking wrote:
Incredible. 737MAX, designed by third world engineers. The Cheapest.

The software was, not the MAX itself. It’s disgraceful enough without your hyperbole

Wait, did anyone actually read the article?

If you did, you'd find it is click bait using the MAX tragedy as a vehicle to vent frustration about outsourcing.

All the freaking article says is:

Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

It says NOTHING like the troll message above, "737MAX, designed by third world engineers".

The fact that people are going with such a suggestion shows what utter click bait it is.

TFA also says:

Boeing said the company did not rely on engineers from HCL and Cyient for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which has been linked to the Lion Air crash last October and the Ethiopian Airlines disaster in March. The Chicago-based planemaker also said it didn’t rely on either firm for another software issue disclosed after the crashes: a cockpit warning light that wasn’t working for most buyers.

TFA says that Boeing outsourced work on flight test equipment and display systems.

You'll note the article says the US-based engineers find this frustrating and it took many go-arounds to get the work done right, but you don't read them saying that eventually the work wasn't done right.

I get it. I've been in a similar situation. It is frustrating. But there's no fighting outsourcing. Back when I was in engineering school not many other kids were willing to sign up for the kind of workload it took to become an engineer. Lots of them were happy to get generic non-tech degrees and spend their nights partying. There was no national move to say we should prioritize and incentivize sci-tech skills development even though it was clear decades ago that the future would be driven by tech. In fact we've done the opposite. We've turned academia in to a profit center for fat cats. We make families deal with the issue of saddling a kids in their 20s with six figures of debt before they've earned their first pay check. Then we wonder why it's cheaper to outsource???

To me the frustrating bit is how the media is having a field day generating click bait articles that are best tangentially related to the MCAS tragedy.

I guess we can see what all the kids who wouldn't crack the books and get an engineering degree are doing with themselves these days.

It is easy to blame $9/hour coder hired by $200/hour MBA for mistake of $150/hour engineer in Seattle.
If anything, communication between indian coder and WASP engineer was probably broken, with "need to know", "trade secret", and "what do those guys know?!".
Second, as far as we know, MCAS was repurposed for low-speed situations by US engineers, not by subcontractors.
Third, I don't see latest failure as subcontractor issue. Subcontractors were likely given small tasks, with little idea of what going on on a system level. How much resources other tasks allocate, how things are managed on top level, is there enough room for everything. There is a spec to follow, and if specs were written so that a full liter should fit in a quart bottle - it is not plumber's fault.
Last, but not the least. Boeing is doing subcontractor management for a living. Another lost skill, as demonstrated by 787 program, and no lesson learned as proven by MAX. Or outsourcing management was also outsourced?
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:
speedking wrote:
Incredible. 737MAX, designed by third world engineers. The Cheapest.

The software was, not the MAX itself. It’s disgraceful enough without your hyperbole

Wait, did anyone actually read the article?

If you did, you'd find it is click bait using the MAX tragedy as a vehicle to vent frustration about outsourcing.

All the freaking article says is:

Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

It says NOTHING like the troll message above, "737MAX, designed by third world engineers".

The fact that people are going with such a suggestion shows what utter click bait it is.

TFA also says:

Boeing said the company did not rely on engineers from HCL and Cyient for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which has been linked to the Lion Air crash last October and the Ethiopian Airlines disaster in March. The Chicago-based planemaker also said it didn’t rely on either firm for another software issue disclosed after the crashes: a cockpit warning light that wasn’t working for most buyers.

TFA says that Boeing outsourced work on flight test equipment and display systems.

You'll note the article says the US-based engineers find this frustrating and it took many go-arounds to get the work done right, but you don't read them saying that eventually the work wasn't done right.

I get it. I've been in a similar situation. It is frustrating. But there's no fighting outsourcing. Back when I was in engineering school not many other kids were willing to sign up for the kind of workload it took to become an engineer. Lots of them were happy to get generic non-tech degrees and spend their nights partying. There was no national move to say we should prioritize and incentivize sci-tech skills development even though it was clear decades ago that the future would be driven by tech. In fact we've done the opposite. We've turned academia in to a profit center for fat cats. We make families deal with the issue of saddling a kids in their 20s with six figures of debt before they've earned their first pay check. Then we wonder why it's cheaper to outsource???

To me the frustrating bit is how the media is having a field day generating click bait articles that are best tangentially related to the MCAS tragedy.

I guess we can see what all the kids who wouldn't crack the books and get an engineering degree are doing with themselves these days.

Yes, just another 'blame a foreigner' deflection in my view.

However, it would be nice to know where the task split is between Boeing and Rockwell, who did the system design and who did the implementation and if a further level of sub-contract is involved was it shared etc.

Ray
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21403
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:20 pm

Ertro wrote:
I believe Boeing did not use HCL or Cyient for MCAS. However I remember reading from somewhere months ago that MCAS SW was subcontracted to some other company which I cannot remember else than it had a respected American company name. Whether that other company used 9$ engineers is another discussion.

Also I have now learnt many times that everything Boeing says has been optimized by dozen lawyers and PR people to be the best possible spin for everything and so when Boeing says "We did not subcontract to these 2 specific companies" I can take that as a confirmation that they did subcontract it to somebody. Otherwise the Boeing line would have been "We did not subcontract MCAS SW period."

The reason why thought this was bad is that subcontracting to another company is always bad for engineering critical complex stuff as those other companies cannot be expected to have deep understanding of 737 as a whole and information how each individual small detail can affect the whole plane behaviour does not flow upwards in organization so easily to be recorded into some document or persons mind. The engineers in subcontractors do not have pride and sense of responsibility like inhouse engineers have. For subcontractors it is just a job that pays their bills until some other design work for some other client next month. Fulfill the specs and that is end of it.

I agree (in principal if not degree) with everything you wrote, especially the last paragraph, and especially the last two sentences of the last paragraph.

Managers want to look at engineers as interchangeable cogs. It makes their job so much easier when that is true. They definitely don't want to look at engineers as being the wizards of tech that are the only ones who can comprehend the magic that makes everything the company does possible. Even when they figure out that there is some wizardry involved they want to surround the wizards by drones in a forlorn hope that the drones can pick up the magic via osmosis and they spend their time tinkering with the wizard to drone ratio. Time will tell if there is an acceptable wizard/drone ratio or if the whole concept is fatally flawed. Yet if it is flawed, US and EU are screwed, since the world's advancement is indeed strongly linked to tech wizardry, and US and EU universities turn out tiny numbers of tech wizard embryos compared to IN and CN.

BTW, if you're willing to go with "everything Boeing says has been optimized by dozen lawyers and PR people to be the best possible spin for everything", are you also willing to go with "everything the media says has been optimized by dozens of flacks whose pay is directly tied to mouse clicks and 'impressions' who know the truth behind the saying 'if it bleeds it leads'"?

If you credit Boeing's legal and PR team, you have to credit a media team that can serve up an article whose lead is that outsourcing complicates the lives of Boeing engineers which ends up leaving the impression "737MAX, designed by third world engineers" right here on the world's most active aviation forum.
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
 
xmp125a
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:13 pm

planecane wrote:
Unless Boeing is run by complete idiots


Wanna bet? Now this is somehow becoming an unreasonable assumption...
 
RogerMurdock
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:27 pm

Doesn't STS also sometimes command nose-down trim? Hence simply training to always stop "uncommanded" nose-down trim is not helpful.

This is part of the pilot confusion involved in at least the Lion Air crash. And the source of the JT43 log book entry of something like "STS also running to the wrong direction"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21403
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:52 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
Yes. To quote Jon Ostrower from https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... re-glitch/ this is what Boeing believes will be the fix to the new issue:

... to re-route data across multiple processor chips in the flight control computer ...

I am a software engineer, and that does raise a big red flag in my mind. That's an architectural change in the design. In other words, is not a simple localised fix, but rather something that affects multiple components, teams, and will need significant work and testing.

Now, I'd certainly trust Jon to have the best information in all of the aviation press, but of course we don't know if the above is really what will be done.

But, I agree with you Revelation, but there are software redesigns and software redesigns. This one is giving me a nervous feeling. Large number of months... at least. I think I'll update my prediction to return to flight to 2020.

It's pretty funny to me given how most posters to this thread are ready to cast doom and gloom on Boeing in general and MAX in particular how they're missing the inferences you are making that are obvious to anyone who is in software engineering, as well as the next inference in sequence, how such a re-design is something that probably does have knock-on effects to other programs. If you are trying to pull off a re-design on a highly visible project with harsh deadlines, regardless of any pre-planing or pre-staging or early steps you've done in advance, chances are that you are going to be pulling in resources from other programs, and those other programs are going to suffer.

Before when the grounding was "just" MCAS 2.0 I was thinking of it as a point fix that could close in a few months, now that the grounding is also contingent on fixing this "responsiveness" problem that will "re-route data across multiple processor chips in the flight control computer" I think we're in the many months time frame with some collateral damage as well. As above it's hard to be sure because what we are told is pretty garbled, but that's what it sounds like based on what we know right now.

It's interesting to put this in the context of the now-pulled "heads will roll" report we had a few days ago on this site. Chances are now pretty good this change in scope has dented one or more people's career path, as well it should. Since very little of what DM has projected is coming true, I think he'll also be facing a reckoning some day in the not too distant future.
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

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