Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:53 am

Revelation wrote:

Ky is clearly pointing that out, and is also complementing Boeing's work with respect to resolving the issues.

I hope this makes some people less fearful about the future of the MAX.


Those people are not fearful, they just hate Boeing. It is was never doubtful that Boeing can fix the problems. But I must admit EASA handled the whole story with a lot of grace. They were tough when they needed to be tough, but remained respectful towards the FAA and Boeing. They handled it in the best possible way imho.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:05 am

YEYO wrote:
I have one question?? maybe someone knows the answer
making of test flights are not affected when a plane is grounded? Do they special permit to fly in those conditions? I see photos of max making test flights when they are supposed to be grounded. If yes those that mean you can get kill been a test pilot but doesn't matter?


Yes, Boeing can conduct test flights. How would the plane ever be ungrounded if it couldn't conduct test flights? Boeing can also conduct normal test flights for planes fresh out of the factory as well as repositioning flights for storage.

Airlines can also reposition grounded planes but the flights are normally subject to height and speed restrictions.
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.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:12 am

Some countries have closed their airspace for any MAX flights. AFAIK Germany did this so MAX ferry flights had to take detours around it.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:31 am

sgrow787 wrote:
Interesting thought today:

The AOA Disagree indicator on the PFD is computed using the PFD computer, which is, in contrast to the FCC, state of the art hardware and software. Would the MCAS 2.0 solution include reading the AOA disagree info from the PFD to the FCC (eg via discrete Arinc label)? Note that this answers the question why the NG had a working AOA disagree indicator, but doesn't have AOA comparison within its FCC. Note also, that Muilenburg stated "MCAS will now compare data from both AOA sensors", so it's unequivocal that the Max FCC will have AOA comparison logic within it. Unless he's lying again.

AOA DISAGREE was set by comparison of the two AOA sensor positions (provided by the AIDRU signal processing) exceeding 10deg for 10sec. This function was performed by the FCC and was present for both NG and MAX V1.0 and displayed by the PFD if set (if paid for re-MAX V1.0). We now expect the comparison function is more complex with a tightened limit of 5.5deg for 5sec?. It is not clear if this comparison is specific to MCAS and MAX V2.0 or by revision of the existing AOA DISAGREE function (either way, the function is performed by the FCC). I would suspect the later, in which case, it may also be applicable to NG. PFD is primarily a display system and remains so.

Ray
 
sgrow787
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:50 am

XRAYretired wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
Interesting thought today:

The AOA Disagree indicator on the PFD is computed using the PFD computer, which is, in contrast to the FCC, state of the art hardware and software. Would the MCAS 2.0 solution include reading the AOA disagree info from the PFD to the FCC (eg via discrete Arinc label)? Note that this answers the question why the NG had a working AOA disagree indicator, but doesn't have AOA comparison within its FCC. Note also, that Muilenburg stated "MCAS will now compare data from both AOA sensors", so it's unequivocal that the Max FCC will have AOA comparison logic within it. Unless he's lying again.

AOA DISAGREE was set by comparison of the two AOA sensor positions (provided by the AIDRU signal processing) exceeding 10deg for 10sec. This function was performed by the FCC and was present for both NG and MAX V1.0 and displayed by the PFD if set (if paid for re-MAX V1.0). We now expect the comparison function is more complex with a tightened limit of 5.5deg for 5sec?. It is not clear if this comparison is specific to MCAS and MAX V2.0 or by revision of the existing AOA DISAGREE function (either way, the function is performed by the FCC). I would suspect the later, in which case, it may also be applicable to NG. PFD is primarily a display system and remains so.

Ray


This isn't how it works on the HUD, which is an independent display used during approaches and landings. The AOA Disagree on the HUD combiner is computed by the HUD computer. I find it hard to believe that a brand new Collins glass cockpit in the Max wouldn't have it's own AOA disagree computation.

As far as the difference threshold, that could very well be a change to both FCC AOA logic, as well as PFD AOA logic, so that the disagree annunciation/condition lines up between the two.

I would expect the same setup with the NG Honeywell glass cockpit PFD as well.

EDIT: Also recall the word "standalone" w.r.t. Southwest's AOA issue and solution. A PFD is considered a standalone system w.r.t. the FCC.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:09 am

XRAYretired wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
Interesting thought today:

The AOA Disagree indicator on the PFD is computed using the PFD computer, which is, in contrast to the FCC, state of the art hardware and software. Would the MCAS 2.0 solution include reading the AOA disagree info from the PFD to the FCC (eg via discrete Arinc label)? Note that this answers the question why the NG had a working AOA disagree indicator, but doesn't have AOA comparison within its FCC. Note also, that Muilenburg stated "MCAS will now compare data from both AOA sensors", so it's unequivocal that the Max FCC will have AOA comparison logic within it. Unless he's lying again.

AOA DISAGREE was set by comparison of the two AOA sensor positions (provided by the AIDRU signal processing) exceeding 10deg for 10sec. This function was performed by the FCC and was present for both NG and MAX V1.0 and displayed by the PFD if set (if paid for re-MAX V1.0). We now expect the comparison function is more complex with a tightened limit of 5.5deg for 5sec?. It is not clear if this comparison is specific to MCAS and MAX V2.0 or by revision of the existing AOA DISAGREE function (either way, the function is performed by the FCC). I would suspect the later, in which case, it may also be applicable to NG. PFD is primarily a display system and remains so.

Ray


AoA disagree alarm has been standard from the beginning. It is in the manual and certification. There was no possibility to buy the activation of the AoA alarm, but buying the AoA indicator, that led to the alarm being activated.
As so often in this tragedy, Boeing kept mum about something not working on the MAX.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:19 am

Link to the DeFazio/Larson letter following the hearing last week. Their summary is below.
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/me ... 0Draft.pdf

'......To summarize our key concerns, our investigation shows that from almost the start, Boeing had a bad design on MCAS with a single point of failure. Then, Boeing couldn’t even meet its own design requirements. MCAS was fundamentally flawed, and according to Boeing’s own analysis, could result in catastrophic consequences in certain cases. What’s more, Mr. Muilenburg’s answers to our questions were consistent with a culture of concealment and opaqueness and reflected the immense pressure exerted on Boeing employees during the development and production of the 737 MAX. Boeing leadership has said that if company officials knew during the design of the MAX what they know now about some of the technical flaws and other issues, they would have done things differently. Our investigation has already shown that Boeing leadership was aware of many of the problems that engineers are now attempting to fix during the design and development phase of the 737 MAX........'

Ray
 
sgrow787
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:39 am

XRAYretired wrote:
Link to the DeFazio/Larson letter following the hearing last week. Their summary is below.
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/me ... 0Draft.pdf

'......To summarize our key concerns, our investigation shows that from almost the start, Boeing had a bad design on MCAS with a single point of failure. Then, Boeing couldn’t even meet its own design requirements. MCAS was fundamentally flawed, and according to Boeing’s own analysis, could result in catastrophic consequences in certain cases. What’s more, Mr. Muilenburg’s answers to our questions were consistent with a culture of concealment and opaqueness and reflected the immense pressure exerted on Boeing employees during the development and production of the 737 MAX. Boeing leadership has said that if company officials knew during the design of the MAX what they know now about some of the technical flaws and other issues, they would have done things differently. Our investigation has already shown that Boeing leadership was aware of many of the problems that engineers are now attempting to fix during the design and development phase of the 737 MAX........'

Ray


This is the kind a stuff that makes me feel a little better about this ongoing tragedy. But as others have said, it probably won't manifest into any meaningful finding, punishment, and/or improvement in certification and safety.

EDIT: Maybe there's hope though..
Our hearing last week was an important step in our investigation, but it certainly did not
mark the end
. Based on what we heard from Mr. Muilenburg and Mr. Hamilton in front of our
Committee, we have a litany of new questions for both Boeing and the FAA about the failures that
led to the tragic and unnecessary deaths of 346 innocent people.
Last edited by sgrow787 on Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
planecane
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:56 am

FluidFlow wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Link to the DeFazio/Larson letter following the hearing last week. Their summary is below.
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/me ... 0Draft.pdf

'......To summarize our key concerns, our investigation shows that from almost the start, Boeing had a bad design on MCAS with a single point of failure. Then, Boeing couldn’t even meet its own design requirements. MCAS was fundamentally flawed, and according to Boeing’s own analysis, could result in catastrophic consequences in certain cases. What’s more, Mr. Muilenburg’s answers to our questions were consistent with a culture of concealment and opaqueness and reflected the immense pressure exerted on Boeing employees during the development and production of the 737 MAX. Boeing leadership has said that if company officials knew during the design of the MAX what they know now about some of the technical flaws and other issues, they would have done things differently. Our investigation has already shown that Boeing leadership was aware of many of the problems that engineers are now attempting to fix during the design and development phase of the 737 MAX........'

Ray


You read this and then you wonder why no one buys products "Made in America". Boeing is the biggest exporter of goods from the US and this is the state of them...

If you replace Boeing by any government agency from whichever country and the 737 Max with whatever project they were "working" on, everyone would be like "oh yeah whatever, the government cant handle stuff like this", but when you think the biggest aircraft manufacturer world wide works like that...

There reason for not buying things made in America has nothing to do with Boeing's screw up on the MAX. Every engineering organization in the world operates similarly with cost and time pressures.

The difference is that with the 737 MAX, engineers that weren't born when the 737 was originally designed were tasked with modifying it. If they were starting from scratch they'd know how to design a robust system. Without intimate knowledge of the quirks and reasons behind design decisions from decades ago they missed what should have been glaring issues.

Ther reason "nobody" buys made in the USA is because it is orders of magnitude cheaper to produce things in China.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:39 pm

YEYO wrote:
I have one question?? maybe someone knows the answer
making of test flights are not affected when a plane is grounded? Do they special permit to fly in those conditions? I see photos of max making test flights when they are supposed to be grounded. If yes those that mean you can get kill been a test pilot but doesn't matter?

The key thing is the grounding applies to commercial airline flights, not Boeing test flights, nor even Boeing factory re-positioning flights. As mentioned airlines moving their MAXes does require special permits and flights must be arranged to avoid overflight of countries that will not accept such flights.

planecane wrote:
The difference is that with the 737 MAX, engineers that weren't born when the 737 was originally designed were tasked with modifying it. If they were starting from scratch they'd know how to design a robust system. Without intimate knowledge of the quirks and reasons behind design decisions from decades ago they missed what should have been glaring issues.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the notion that MAX's failure was due to younger engineers misunderstanding quirks of the design, that just does not fit the evidence we have. In turn I'm also not buying the idea that the same team could have started from scratch and designed a robust system. It's not like modern systems don't have their own quirks, I deal with them all the time. The key element seems to be avoidance of consideration of end to end effects. It still blows me away that no one did a live test with AoA disagree from the moment of takeoff and discovered the various faults. It seemed there was an atmosphere of false confidence in the idea that NG was a great plane so MAX will be too, and a lot of management pressure to not go the extra mile and consider end to end effects because that would add costs, and engineers caving in to that management pressure. MCAS wasn't a quirk, it unfortunately was code that did exactly what it was coded to do with disastrous effect.
Last edited by Revelation on Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:15 pm

PW100 wrote:
BEG2IAH wrote:
Didn't XRAYretired write that just a few posts above yours?

Yeah, just noticed that as well, after posting . . .

O well, I guess with all the repeating posts about "MCAS is just a feel thing" and distracting "declining piloting standards", it can't hurt to repeat some independent facts . . .


Have a thumbs-up :bigthumbsup:
"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."
 
slider
Posts: 7572
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:24 pm

As we approach the end of the first week of Nov, my spring break 2020 prediction is looking decent. Perhaps.

Holidays are coming, FAA is going to shut down, people are going to be cramming in vacation days, nothing will get done of consequence, and still have to do flight testing assuming there is a viable solution. And that's without EIS staging.

Heck, spring break might be too aggressive at this point.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:39 pm

PW100 wrote:
The associated safety assessments (FHA, SSA) failed to properly identify MCAS run-away risk (classifying it as MAJOR rather than HAZARDOUS), and did not take into consideration the stacked effects of three MAJOR events happening at the same time, which resulted in CATASTRPOHIC events.

It's kind of interesting to me that even something considered to be MAJOR didn't get sufficient scrutiny.

Patrick Ky's interview said that MCAS was not scrutinized because it was not flagged as safety related, isn't flagging it as MAJOR enough to gain the regulator's scrutiny?

It seems a lot of focus is on these classifications rather than the more basic engineering screw up, which was relying on input from one sensor known not to have high reliability.

You would think that scenario would have needed testing coverage regardless of classification as MAJOR vs HAZARDOUS vs CATASTROPHIC.

My mind goes back to one ST article where an unnamed Boeing engineer was asked about the classification and he said "You have to show your answer, you don't have to show your work".

It seems they should have to show their work as well, no?
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:42 pm

Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.

I know people will shout that it's not enough, but nothing ever will be.

IMO it's a positive move on the part of DM.

He's also getting a lot of public support from BoD Chair Calhoun 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
 
Noshow
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:10 pm

Muilenburg being some smart test engineer understanding all the details and long time Boeing employee would be the ideal person to sort things out. But it happened under his watch, so he now has to take the fire and blame for things his predecessors messed up royally, in the name of the company. Sort of brutal but this is the way it works.
 
sgbroimp
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.


Would that not be unprecedented in the history of commercial aviation?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:02 pm

sgbroimp wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.


Would that not be unprecedented in the history of commercial aviation?


Probably.

Watching him so many times on TV now he just seems personally awkward so it's hard to read him - but I think this might actually be affecting him and he is finally getting it.
 
Alfons
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:12 pm

sgbroimp wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.


Would that not be unprecedented in the history of commercial aviation?


as much as unprecedented how many times congress people asked a commercial airline manufacturers' CEO in the hearings things about his salary, and the percentage of it compared to what the families of the deceased will get. And as much as unprecedented the huge amount of risks a commerical airliner manufacturer was ready to take, to get an ac successor out to the market.

So I think, he's doing or at least saying that, under very heavy pressure from outside.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:18 pm

sgbroimp wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.


Would that not be unprecedented in the history of commercial aviation?

That is the plus side on the capitalist system, imagine how much money that would be if his salary and bonus were what the public want it to be, a couple hundred thousand.
Based on what information is publicly available, he alone could be donating over a million dollars of shares if converted to cash.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:24 pm

Noshow wrote:
Muilenburg being some smart test engineer understanding all the details and long time Boeing employee would be the ideal person to sort things out. But it happened under his watch, so he now has to take the fire and blame for things his predecessors messed up royally, in the name of the company. Sort of brutal but this is the way it works.

Seems to me it happened mostly under the watch of Jim McNerney and Ray Connor. What are they up to today, golfing?
 
MildBlueYonder
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:30 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:32 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Muilenburg being some smart test engineer understanding all the details and long time Boeing employee would be the ideal person to sort things out. But it happened under his watch, so he now has to take the fire and blame for things his predecessors messed up royally, in the name of the company. Sort of brutal but this is the way it works.

Seems to me it happened mostly under the watch of Jim McNerney and Ray Connor. What are they up to today, golfing?


Been asking myself the same question. Hope they get the attention they are due in the course of this investigation.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:34 pm

par13del wrote:
sgbroimp wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Muilenburg just said on CNBC that he will be donating "Significant personal amounts" to the Victims funds.

Would that not be unprecedented in the history of commercial aviation?

That is the plus side on the capitalist system, imagine how much money that would be if his salary and bonus were what the public want it to be, a couple hundred thousand.
Based on what information is publicly available, he alone could be donating over a million dollars of shares if converted to cash.

Calhoun was quoted extensively in ST today.

He says DM is giving up over 90% of his compensation.

Reality is that means DM will still be keeping $2M plus all the retirement benefits he's continuing to accrue.

Executive compensation is absurd, and Calhoun's comments are yet another example of the 0.1%er club looking out for their own.
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
 
Noshow
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:39 pm

Executive compensation is a separate topic but he should not personally pay for damages Boeing did do others. That's my position.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:44 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Muilenburg being some smart test engineer understanding all the details and long time Boeing employee would be the ideal person to sort things out. But it happened under his watch, so he now has to take the fire and blame for things his predecessors messed up royally, in the name of the company. Sort of brutal but this is the way it works.

Seems to me it happened mostly under the watch of Jim McNerney and Ray Connor. What are they up to today, golfing?



Yes, yes. But it happened under DM’s tenure. And after the Lion Air crash, blame was focused on the 3rd world airline. And after the Ethiopian crash, he was at the helm for the classic “make a safe plane safer “ line. And we were told it would be a short grounding. Now it looks like about a 10 to 12 month grounding with hundred of planes piling up on the side. I prefer Boeing planes. I have toured Everett several times. But the guy has to go. This mess happened under his watch and his handling of it has been less than stellar. The previous CEOs might need an addition to the golfing group?

Edit: I just saw this. It appears DM thought of resigning but felt responsible to “see it through”. Maybe he’s a good guy who will resign after RTS.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/busi ... rence.html
Last edited by MrBretz on Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
He's also getting a lot of public support from BoD Chair Calhoun these days.


In the UK it's very common for the chairman of a football club to give public support to the team's manager when the team is doing poorly. Then he fires the manager a few days later.

Seriously, it's happened so often that any public muttering of support for a manager is widely considered to be the kiss of death for the manager. :o
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.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10470
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:51 pm

MrBretz wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Muilenburg being some smart test engineer understanding all the details and long time Boeing employee would be the ideal person to sort things out. But it happened under his watch, so he now has to take the fire and blame for things his predecessors messed up royally, in the name of the company. Sort of brutal but this is the way it works.

Seems to me it happened mostly under the watch of Jim McNerney and Ray Connor. What are they up to today, golfing?



Yes, yes. But it happened under DM’s tenure. And after the Lion Air crash, blame was focused on the 3rd world airline. And after the Ethiopian crash, he was at the helm for the classic “make a safe plane safer “ line. And we were told it would be a short grounding. Now it looks like about a 10 to 12 month grounding with hundred of planes piling up on the side. I prefer Boeing planes. I have toured Everett several times. But the guy has to go. This mess happened under his watch and his handling of it has been less than stellar. The previous CEOs might need an addition to the golfing group?

He will probably be bumped after RTS, with them preferring not to do a leadership change during the middle of the crisis.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:56 pm

Or you do not want the successor in anyway connected with the problems of the MAX.
 
2175301
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
PW100 wrote:
The associated safety assessments (FHA, SSA) failed to properly identify MCAS run-away risk (classifying it as MAJOR rather than HAZARDOUS), and did not take into consideration the stacked effects of three MAJOR events happening at the same time, which resulted in CATASTRPOHIC events.

It's kind of interesting to me that even something considered to be MAJOR didn't get sufficient scrutiny.

Patrick Ky's interview said that MCAS was not scrutinized because it was not flagged as safety related, isn't flagging it as MAJOR enough to gain the regulator's scrutiny?

It seems a lot of focus is on these classifications rather than the more basic engineering screw up, which was relying on input from one sensor known not to have high reliability.

You would think that scenario would have needed testing coverage regardless of classification as MAJOR vs HAZARDOUS vs CATASTROPHIC.

My mind goes back to one ST article where an unnamed Boeing engineer was asked about the classification and he said "You have to show your answer, you don't have to show your work".

It seems they should have to show their work as well, no?


I have bolded your last statement; and do not believe "showing your work" on the final forms would result in a better review of a component or system.

I have several times described the process in the various threads. I refer to the form as Failure Modes & Effect Analysis (FMEA); although other names can be used. Boeing certification management and the FAA reviews these forms. Not the work that went into them.

My personal experience is that for each component or system the FMEA Forms are typically in the range of 20-30 pages; and have a long list of questions to be answered regarding very specific known or speculated failures. Can it occur (Y/N) If it occurs what is its significance and probability - which leads to a classification of the significance for that failure mode.

There is always an open ended question of can you conceive of any other failure mode that could occur with this system not identified above. If so, identify it and classify it (and it will be added to the next revision of the form).

At the end - the final classification of the component or system is driven by all the answers above (most significant of the above answers).

To provide a fully written answer and justification on each answer for those 20-30 pages of questions would likely blow the form to hundreds and perhaps a thousands+ pages; which then become to much for reviewers to effectively review.

What is done, is that the Draft form is provided to a team of other knowledgeable engineers and perhaps maintenance & operators (pilots) for them to review each answer and the resulting classifications. These people can (and do) question any answer that does not make obvious sense and it's to these people that the person who drafted the form has to provide their work to behind that question. My experience is that in about 25% of these cases the work behind the answer gets reworked and improved, and its not uncommon for the answer to that question to change (the other 75% is just a situation where the reviewers need to know the reasoning behind the answer - and they accept it once they hear it).

It also happens that the team decides to re-engineer how something is done to lower a classification rating in one area; and a revised FMEA is then submitted for review once the redesign is completed.

There has to be a consensus of the vast majority of the review team on every answer for the form to move to its Final and submitted to the Regulator (FAA in this case). I would estimate that a new aircraft has at least 1000 such FMEA's for all the various components and system; and the FAA get 20-30,000 pages of FMEA forms within the current usage (multiplying this by at least a factor of 10 to provide all the answers in my opinion is not going to provide an increase in overall review quality).

So the work is shown as part of the normal process, where relevant, to the review team. It is not generally shown to the Upper Management and the Regulator - unless the Upper Management or the Regulator questions the reason behind the answers on a specific question (in which case the work will be provided for that answer).

I've maintained from early on that the key issue here was a failure to properly classify at the FMEA stage. All other major actions and decisions essentially follows from that improper classification.

Also, my personal experience working with FMEA forms is that they are not easy to do - and take a lot of thought. Often many of the answers are based on "Engineering Judgment" as you cannot actually calculate a direct answer. But, again - you must get the review team to agree on that "judgement" call.

I've never seen anyone intentionally mis-classify anything. As a Root Cause Investigator I have seen cases where the classification process got it wrong.

From what I have read from the various reports issued (NTSB, JATR, etc.) I have not seen anything that suggest that within the procedures at the time that this was anything other than a misclassification, combined with some miscommunication on who in the FAA knew and when (did the right people know at the right time).

I am glad to see that Boeing at least considered a failure of the MCAS system that would result in multiple repeated actuations. It turns out a key assumption on Pilot response time was wrong (3-4 second response time appears to have been an industry standard, Pilot workload appears to have not been properly accessed - again this appears to be an industry issue): and now the industry and various countries will work together to come up with new standards. That is how the industry gets better.

I do not believe that the DOJ will find any criminal actions; or even any intent to cut corners on safety (they were intending to comply with the legal and industry standards for such a project).

The independent reports do indicate that that a modernization/upgrade of the procedures needs to occur for future aircraft and modifications as well to raise the standards over what existed during the 737Max certification period; which will increase overall aviation safety. Some of that is being done now by Boeing and the FAA. Other portions will require a change in Federal Law by Congress and the President of the United States. Some of this will be from the coordination of the various national regulatory agencies to come up with modern unified standards - and I'm sure that they have started to work on it (formation of appropriate international committees, etc.).

Back to my point: No. I do not think showing all the work on the FMEA Forms (or whatever other name is used) will add any real value or increase safety. In fact, I think it would overwhelm the reviewers to consider it which would lead to a less thorough review. They already have the ability to question any answer on those forms that does not make sense, and then see the work behind that answer.

Have a great day,
 
smartplane
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
The key thing is the grounding applies to commercial airline flights, not Boeing test flights, nor even Boeing factory re-positioning flights. As mentioned airlines moving their MAXes does require special permits and flights must be arranged to avoid overflight of countries that will not accept such flights.

Commercial aviation insurers have amended cover to just 'aircraft on ground'. Even taxiing under power requires one off cover. Airlines are enjoying the benefit of temporarily reduced premiums. In Europe at least, a part of the flight permission process is evidence of insurance for the proposed flight.
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:14 pm

Latest from Reuters: Regulators find gaps in Boeing's 737 MAX software documentation

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/regulators-gaps-boeings-737-max-192327972.html

Fair use excerpt:

WASHINGTON/PARIS (Reuters) - Regulators have asked Boeing Co <BA.N> to fill in gaps in the documentation on its proposed 737 MAX software fix, industry sources told Reuters, raising new questions over the planemaker's hopes to return the jet to U.S. service by year-end.

The world's largest planemaker submitted documentation in a key part of an approval process, already delayed by months, for a 737 MAX software upgrade in the wake of two crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia that killed 346 people.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and European Union Aviation Safety Agency officials flagged a number of issues during a documentation audit over the weekend at an FAA facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the people said.

"We think there is still some work to be done," EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky told Reuters on Monday. A person with knowledge of his thinking said he was partly referring to the documentation audit.

The extent of the delays caused by the documentation requirements was not immediately clear. There was no indication of any need to revise the software package based on the audit, sources said.

One person briefed on the matter said Boeing's paperwork was incomplete and substandard and meant regulators could not complete the audit, a crucial step before the plane can be certified to return to service.

The person said it could take "weeks" to satisfy regulators in a worst-case scenario, though Boeing believes it can address the omissions in a matter of days.

Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndrone declined to comment in detail on the audit but said the company was "continuing to work with the regulators to safely return the MAX to service."

...

A third person, familiar with FAA documentation audits but who did not participate in the 737 MAX review over the weekend, said such audits frequently uncover inconsistencies or omissions in documentation but rarely lead to changes to the underlying software or system.
Flying at the cruising altitude is (mostly) boring. I wish all flights were nothing but endless take offs and landings every 10 minutes or so.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2683
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:24 pm

seahawk wrote:
Or you do not want the successor in anyway connected with the problems of the MAX.


I'd say DM gets canned as soon as Boeing can coax Alan Mullaly out of retirement.

I can't think of a better person to take the helm and lead the way in restoring the

good name the Boeing company :)
 
shmerik
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 2:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:25 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
Latest from Reuters: Regulators find gaps in Boeing's 737 MAX software documentation

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/regulators-gaps-boeings-737-max-192327972.html

Fair use excerpt:

WASHINGTON/PARIS (Reuters) - Regulators have asked Boeing Co <BA.N> to fill in gaps in the documentation on its proposed 737 MAX software fix, industry sources told Reuters, raising new questions over the planemaker's hopes to return the jet to U.S. service by year-end.

The world's largest planemaker submitted documentation in a key part of an approval process, already delayed by months, for a 737 MAX software upgrade in the wake of two crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia that killed 346 people.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and European Union Aviation Safety Agency officials flagged a number of issues during a documentation audit over the weekend at an FAA facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the people said.

"We think there is still some work to be done," EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky told Reuters on Monday. A person with knowledge of his thinking said he was partly referring to the documentation audit.

The extent of the delays caused by the documentation requirements was not immediately clear. There was no indication of any need to revise the software package based on the audit, sources said.

One person briefed on the matter said Boeing's paperwork was incomplete and substandard and meant regulators could not complete the audit, a crucial step before the plane can be certified to return to service.

The person said it could take "weeks" to satisfy regulators in a worst-case scenario, though Boeing believes it can address the omissions in a matter of days.

Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndrone declined to comment in detail on the audit but said the company was "continuing to work with the regulators to safely return the MAX to service."

...

A third person, familiar with FAA documentation audits but who did not participate in the 737 MAX review over the weekend, said such audits frequently uncover inconsistencies or omissions in documentation but rarely lead to changes to the underlying software or system.


Interesting, hopefully the requested changes are more easily solved bureaucratic things like formatting and such and not that Boeing failed to provide adequate information on the system again.
 
2175301
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:31 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
Latest from Reuters: Regulators find gaps in Boeing's 737 MAX software documentation

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/regulators-gaps-boeings-737-max-192327972.html

(See above post for this section)
...

A third person, familiar with FAA documentation audits but who did not participate in the 737 MAX review over the weekend, said such audits frequently uncover inconsistencies or omissions in documentation but rarely lead to changes to the underlying software or system.


I've seen the NRC reject submittals for punctuation, how "and" and "or" are used, and even paragraph and bullet point structure - and cite "inconsistencies or omissions" Other times, something fairly trivial missing. I've never seen a submittal that was rejected because it was missing significant information.

I suspect that the FAA is very similar - and agree with the quote by the third person cited above and in the article.

I think this will likely be cleared up fast; and is likely fairly normal.

Have a great day,
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1765
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:54 pm

This is really dragging on. Hopefully, these planes will be back in the air quickly. Surely they could have just added an "MCAS Off" button, an extra page in the manual explaining how it works and be done with it.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:24 pm

2175301 wrote:
...


:thumbsup:

As a veteran of FMEAs and safety-critical engineering in my own industry, I fully agree with your post. Thanks!
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:32 pm

I've never seen software documentation that didn't have gaps
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:35 pm

2175301 wrote:
I am glad to see that Boeing at least considered a failure of the MCAS system that would result in multiple repeated actuations. It turns out a key assumption on Pilot response time was wrong (3-4 second response time appears to have been an industry standard, Pilot workload appears to have not been properly accessed - again this appears to be an industry issue): and now the industry and various countries will work together to come up with new standards. That is how the industry gets better.

I do not believe that the DOJ will find any criminal actions; or even any intent to cut corners on safety (they were intending to comply with the legal and industry standards for such a project).

The independent reports do indicate that that a modernization/upgrade of the procedures needs to occur for future aircraft and modifications as well to raise the standards over what existed during the 737Max certification period; which will increase overall aviation safety. Some of that is being done now by Boeing and the FAA. Other portions will require a change in Federal Law by Congress and the President of the United States. Some of this will be from the coordination of the various national regulatory agencies to come up with modern unified standards - and I'm sure that they have started to work on it (formation of appropriate international committees, etc.).

Back to my point: No. I do not think showing all the work on the FMEA Forms (or whatever other name is used) will add any real value or increase safety. In fact, I think it would overwhelm the reviewers to consider it which would lead to a less thorough review. They already have the ability to question any answer on those forms that does not make sense, and then see the work behind that answer.

Thanks for the detailed and considerate response. I think it's going to be problematic for Boeing's reputation to say that something as basic as not sanitizing the input to MCAS was acceptable because they applied an industry standard metric that says a pilot should have countered it within four seconds, but I agree this is not enough to trigger criminal liability concerns.

As for other actors such as executive and legislative branch, I found Leeham's "pontification' on the Congressional hearing to be noteworthy:

It was also a chance for Muilenburg to hit home the fact that if Congress wants the FAA to do more, Congress needs to fund the FAA adequately.

Of course, this would have been politically incorrect and I understand why he wouldn’t want to go down this rabbit hole.

But Congress is every bit as culpable. When the FAA can’t even get its own reauthorization act approved by Congress, which would not only fund safety but improvements to Air Traffic Control, Congress deserves to be tagged.

Of course, Congress won’t do this sort of navel-gazing.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/04/ponti ... -revealed/

BEG2IAH wrote:
The extent of the delays caused by the documentation requirements was not immediately clear. There was no indication of any need to revise the software package based on the audit, sources said.

One person briefed on the matter said Boeing's paperwork was incomplete and substandard and meant regulators could not complete the audit, a crucial step before the plane can be certified to return to service.

The person said it could take "weeks" to satisfy regulators in a worst-case scenario, though Boeing believes it can address the omissions in a matter of days.

What was DM saying about having his best people working the task? :D

But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.
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
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:59 am

morrisond wrote:
Planetalk wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Explain ET302 then - they were in the same position as they would have been in an NG if they were dealing with real runaway trim - No electric trim and they weren't able to save it. They didn't have the knowledge to control it without electric trim. Pulling the thrust out of TOGA and reducing speed would have been the first thing to do in both cases.

Maintaining speed within normal ranges should not have to be put in a Procedure and it is common knowledge that controls become ineffective at high speed.


When you write posts like this, perhaps you could acknowledge that you are not writing on any factual basis. Until the accident report is released, literally nothing in your post is supported by fact, so please stop repeatedly presenting it as so. As for your point about it being 'common knowledge that controls become ineffective at high speed' you may have damned yourself and Boeing with your own words.

Also have a think about where you said 'Maintaining speed within normal ranges should not have to be put in a Procedure' . You could equally say 'maintaining altitude within normal ranges should not have to be put in a procedure' . In which case you're saying no plane ever should be outside 'normal' speed and altitude, whatever the circumstances. Which is clearly absurd.


Yes - we don't know for sure exactly what happened but we do know that the AT was still engaged at TOGA and the rest about controls becoming ineffective at high speed comes right from Private Pilot Ground school 101.

morrisond, I am sorry to put it this way, but you are failing at reading comprehension here. The point is if either of these flights were operated by a 737NG there would’ve been no trim event because it so highly unlikely it would happen. Most 737NG pilots will go though their career without ever facing a runaway trim event. Compare that to how many times MCAS failed that we know of in a relatively short timeframe. Given that rate of failure we can extrapolate that it would’ve continued to fail making it many times more likely than traditional runaway trim.

As well I can tell you haven’t considered the notion of power controlling pitch. Sure that is more of a thing they teach on the C172 for example, but it most certainly applies on other planes so think about what happens when that power gets cut. The nose down tendency may get significantly worse before it gets better. This is why they wouldn’t want to start messing around with things even though in hindsight why not try because they crashed anyway. Does the speed really reduce enough or does the nosedive just get worse and the speed doesn’t change much? I can think of the “roller coaster” maneuver that is something like this, but it’s a ridiculous maneuver that shouldn’t have to be done. The point is a plane should not be designed in such a way that it ever requires crews to make a lesser of two evils choice this unless something in the actual trim mechanism goes bad (this generally wouldn’t necessarily be due to shoddy engineering).
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:51 am

As of today, November 7 2019, how much $$$ has Boeing lost from its coffers because of the MAX saga?
Vahroone
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:22 am

Revelation wrote:
But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.


But by the same token, after hundreds of hours of meetings between the FAA and Boeing about the MAX, would it not be reasonable to expect Boeing to know exactly what was required? Without much detail of what was missing, I'm somewhat surprised that Boeing didn't nail it.
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.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:35 am

Spiderguy252 wrote:
As of today, November 7 2019, how much $$$ has Boeing lost from its coffers because of the MAX saga?



Leehamnews says: https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/05/boein ... more-31580

Boeing already has racked up $9.2bn in one-time charges and additional costs to the accounting block in the 737 MAX crisis.

Some expect there will be more substantial charges before the dust settles. Even Boeing officials said it will be years before all customer claims are settled. Legal liabilities are only partially covered by insurance.
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:02 am

oschkosch wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
As of today, November 7 2019, how much $$$ has Boeing lost from its coffers because of the MAX saga?



Leehamnews says: https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/05/boein ... more-31580

Boeing already has racked up $9.2bn in one-time charges and additional costs to the accounting block in the 737 MAX crisis.

Some expect there will be more substantial charges before the dust settles. Even Boeing officials said it will be years before all customer claims are settled. Legal liabilities are only partially covered by insurance.


Interesting. I'm sure once it went past $3-$4 billion Boeing would have realized that they were better off making a clean sheet, if they didn't know such already.
Vahroone
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:41 am

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.


But by the same token, after hundreds of hours of meetings between the FAA and Boeing about the MAX, would it not be reasonable to expect Boeing to know exactly what was required? Without much detail of what was missing, I'm somewhat surprised that Boeing didn't nail it.

Hmm....if Boeing were that competent would they be in the situation they are in now?
If we accept that management pressure created the situation, there has not been a whole scale removal of said management, so the core that remains is in protective node, the "integrity" of their "system" as in method of management has to be preserved and shown to be viable.
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:56 am

Spiderguy252 wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
As of today, November 7 2019, how much $$$ has Boeing lost from its coffers because of the MAX saga?



Leehamnews says: https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/05/boein ... more-31580

Boeing already has racked up $9.2bn in one-time charges and additional costs to the accounting block in the 737 MAX crisis.

Some expect there will be more substantial charges before the dust settles. Even Boeing officials said it will be years before all customer claims are settled. Legal liabilities are only partially covered by insurance.


Interesting. I'm sure once it went past $3-$4 billion Boeing would have realized that they were better off making a clean sheet, if they didn't know such already.


Not really, given that the last clean sheet Boeing did went over by $30+ billion, $9-15 billion is well within the uncertainty on future Boeing programmes. What the $3-4 billion point clearly indicates is that didn't do their risk analysis on MCAS, et al appropriately, let alone at $9-15 billion. The PV cost over the life of the WN order for doing it right and having to risking having to have simulator time would have been <<$500 million.
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:00 pm

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.


But by the same token, after hundreds of hours of meetings between the FAA and Boeing about the MAX, would it not be reasonable to expect Boeing to know exactly what was required? Without much detail of what was missing, I'm somewhat surprised that Boeing didn't nail it.


Really depends. The FAA doesn't really tell you what "Good enough" is. What they will tell you is if a submission is OK or if it needs more work. It is pretty common to put stuff in that you are pretty sure is just under the FAA's threshold and then get the feedback. This will be especially true when a company is new, the rules are new, or you expect that the interpretation will have changed. If you don't do this you run the risk of what happened to Hamilton Standard on the FV3000.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:26 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.


But by the same token, after hundreds of hours of meetings between the FAA and Boeing about the MAX, would it not be reasonable to expect Boeing to know exactly what was required? Without much detail of what was missing, I'm somewhat surprised that Boeing didn't nail it.


Really depends. The FAA doesn't really tell you what "Good enough" is. What they will tell you is if a submission is OK or if it needs more work. It is pretty common to put stuff in that you are pretty sure is just under the FAA's threshold and then get the feedback. This will be especially true when a company is new, the rules are new, or you expect that the interpretation will have changed. If you don't do this you run the risk of what happened to Hamilton Standard on the FV3000.


Hardly applicable when you want to get the MAX fast in the air again. Any need to redo something because of shoddy work can cost one or several billions because of lost time.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10470
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:31 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.


But by the same token, after hundreds of hours of meetings between the FAA and Boeing about the MAX, would it not be reasonable to expect Boeing to know exactly what was required? Without much detail of what was missing, I'm somewhat surprised that Boeing didn't nail it.


Really depends. The FAA doesn't really tell you what "Good enough" is. What they will tell you is if a submission is OK or if it needs more work. It is pretty common to put stuff in that you are pretty sure is just under the FAA's threshold and then get the feedback. This will be especially true when a company is new, the rules are new, or you expect that the interpretation will have changed. If you don't do this you run the risk of what happened to Hamilton Standard on the FV3000.


Having plenty of experience with the government I agree things like this is very common. Counterintuitively, often times the difficulty in knowing what exactly they want is because the government agency is trying to avoid accusations of favoritism or bias so they minimize what they tell private companies. A lot of government procedure is try to maintain the appearance of being neutral in the public’s eye even if it comes at the cost of efficiency (and is usually maddening, even to government employees).
 
morrisond
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:37 pm

767333ER wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Planetalk wrote:

When you write posts like this, perhaps you could acknowledge that you are not writing on any factual basis. Until the accident report is released, literally nothing in your post is supported by fact, so please stop repeatedly presenting it as so. As for your point about it being 'common knowledge that controls become ineffective at high speed' you may have damned yourself and Boeing with your own words.

Also have a think about where you said 'Maintaining speed within normal ranges should not have to be put in a Procedure' . You could equally say 'maintaining altitude within normal ranges should not have to be put in a procedure' . In which case you're saying no plane ever should be outside 'normal' speed and altitude, whatever the circumstances. Which is clearly absurd.


Yes - we don't know for sure exactly what happened but we do know that the AT was still engaged at TOGA and the rest about controls becoming ineffective at high speed comes right from Private Pilot Ground school 101.

morrisond, I am sorry to put it this way, but you are failing at reading comprehension here. The point is if either of these flights were operated by a 737NG there would’ve been no trim event because it so highly unlikely it would happen. Most 737NG pilots will go though their career without ever facing a runaway trim event. Compare that to how many times MCAS failed that we know of in a relatively short timeframe. Given that rate of failure we can extrapolate that it would’ve continued to fail making it many times more likely than traditional runaway trim.

As well I can tell you haven’t considered the notion of power controlling pitch. Sure that is more of a thing they teach on the C172 for example, but it most certainly applies on other planes so think about what happens when that power gets cut. The nose down tendency may get significantly worse before it gets better. This is why they wouldn’t want to start messing around with things even though in hindsight why not try because they crashed anyway. Does the speed really reduce enough or does the nosedive just get worse and the speed doesn’t change much? I can think of the “roller coaster” maneuver that is something like this, but it’s a ridiculous maneuver that shouldn’t have to be done. The point is a plane should not be designed in such a way that it ever requires crews to make a lesser of two evils choice this unless something in the actual trim mechanism goes bad (this generally wouldn’t necessarily be due to shoddy engineering).


And people call me a troll. What did you have to go back a week to find this to start the endless cycle again?

We are all aware that Boeing really screwed up and no one on here says it was a good design.

Well I guess you want some entertainment and supposedly Boeing pays me by the word so the following is for you.

IF you had actually read what I wrote from the original source - I said if they were faced with a real runaway trim event they probably would not have saved it either. I'm fully aware the odds were lower - People were saying that if they were in an NG they would have been able to save it from a Runaway trim. I called BS on that.

I have considered the notion of power controlling pitch - that is one of those things they teach you when you are taking your license and it has been discussed on here many times.

At the time when they should have reduced power they were in an climb and not an nosedive. 737 pilots on here (you dug my post up from a week ago - you can go find it yourself) have commented reducing power from say 94% to 85% would have still kept the plane in a climb and starting reducing the pressure on the control column (from less flow over the tail surface) or at least made the control wheel easier to turn which would have reduced pressure on the control column. There is still debate on whether or not they actually tried the manual trim - if we hear the extension of the helper handle or it's noted in the Final CVR transcript that will give us a lot better clue. They were close to and soon over Vmo in a climb - that is really bad.

In any case there is no evidence they even tried to reduce thrust by 1% - that is incredibly bad airmanship to not at least try all the controls you have available to you to save the situation.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:39 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
But yeah, the odds of getting something with this much focus on it approved on the first go doesn't seem realistic.


But by the same token, after hundreds of hours of meetings between the FAA and Boeing about the MAX, would it not be reasonable to expect Boeing to know exactly what was required? Without much detail of what was missing, I'm somewhat surprised that Boeing didn't nail it.

Really depends. The FAA doesn't really tell you what "Good enough" is. What they will tell you is if a submission is OK or if it needs more work. It is pretty common to put stuff in that you are pretty sure is just under the FAA's threshold and then get the feedback. This will be especially true when a company is new, the rules are new, or you expect that the interpretation will have changed. If you don't do this you run the risk of what happened to Hamilton Standard on the FV3000.

I agree. Besides, in the current climate, both FAA and EASA will not want to appear to be rubber-stamping the Boeing document. It was bound to not pass on the first try, IMO.

We notice that Boeing is not making announcements or even comments as many of these events leading to RTS occur, such as hand off of documents and software, test flights, etc. I think it's clear they are trying to reduce the media chatter, presumably to take some of the heat off the people in the trenches.
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