Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13930
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:01 pm

2175301 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
The presentation shows that Boeing in its original certification of the MAX:
* Presented MCAS to the FAA as not being a “new and novel” technology — and thus not requiring deeper scrutiny. The justification given was a doubtful comparison with the 767 tanker.
* Did not consider in its safety assessment the effect of multiple system failures and how this would affect the reactions of the pilots.
* Used questionable math to downgrade the system’s risk classification below a level that would have required more redundancy with at least two sensors to activate it.
* Made a key safety assessment prior to a major change in the design of MCAS, and did not reevaluate the system again before certification


Un.be.liveable, redux.

Why unbelievable when these same things have been reported for weeks if not months now?

It seems the media is recycling material to generate clicks, and it's working out well for them.


They get paid based on clicks... what else do you expect.

What is bad is that since the original articles on this both the NTSB and the JATR reports have been issued (and those bodies had full access to both Boeing and the FAA). They, to my reading essentially do say, that Boeing followed the certification process at the time. Key mistakes were using industry standard assumptions which turn out to be wrong; and that it should be work by the various international bodies to come up with new and appropriate assumptions for those areas.

The NTSB and JATR report mutes much of the previous identified things in the press... and regurgitating those things without discussing the NTSB and JATR reports is not being very truthful in my opinion.

I doubt any lawyer will have any field day. I actually think the NTSB and JATR reports will be used by Boeing in any legal defense that actually occurs.

At this point I think that Boeing can say (and there is no actual evidence so far to the contrary) that it was a mistake made at the Failure Modes & Event Analysis (FMEA) level based on incorrect assumptions; and the incorrect assumptions were standard industry assumptions that are now recognized as incorrect. I believe the JATR report uses the term Failure Hazard Analysis (FHA) as an alternate name for what I call the FMEA.

Have a great day,


Obviously you did not read the JATR report.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/The ... view_(JATR)_-_Boeing_737_MAX_Flight_Control_System

The JATR narrowed their look, and were very correct after they observed what they observed. The report says stop abusing grandfathered certification, restore severely damaged independent overview and out of control self cerification. Amongst other recommendations. We could have expected DM to jump up, saying "we'll do so on 737MAX and 777X" But I'm not aware of that.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:04 pm

Panel of experts have given there blessings that the MAX is ready to return to the skies
https://airlinerwatch.com/independent-f ... date-safe/
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:06 pm

DenverTed wrote:
https://mynorthwest.com/1589211/boeing-737-max-new-serious-concerns-defazio-larsen/
Does the rudder cable issue need a solution, or is that nothing? How about training? New simulators? Seems like still a couple open ended questions that are a headwind to RTS.



I asume you mean reprogramed simulators as opposed to "new simulators" as there would be a big difference. Some sim manufactures have more in house capability than others so you would need to factor this in. CAE way ahead of TRU in most of these fields IMO.
 
mzlin
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:58 pm

TropicalSky wrote:
Panel of experts have given there blessings that the MAX is ready to return to the skies
https://airlinerwatch.com/independent-f ... date-safe/


This is the same story as post 2584. The panel only said the MCAS revision was okay, but the recertification is now pending evaluating the dual flight computer integration, as mentioned in several posts upthread. Thus the headline of the airlinerwatch story, which you then repeated, is incorrect. This is how misinformation spreads.
 
ubeema
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:23 pm

2175301 wrote:
What is bad is that since the original articles on this both the NTSB and the JATR reports have been issued (and those bodies had full access to both Boeing and the FAA). They, to my reading essentially do say, that Boeing followed the certification process at the time.

No agency or authority out there can claim they had unfettered access to Boeing/FAA which you sound to imply here. DOJ could to a certain extent, but likely would have to convince a judge to access documents Boeing/FAA would not turn over. This to say despite NTSB or JATR reports, Boeing cannot bring their guards down on their legal defense.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13124
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
I used the wrong link, these are the ones saying Boeing expects march 2020 for RTS.
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news ... 45458.html
https://www.cnbctv18.com/aviation/boein ... 650561.htm

Context from first link:

Boeing is expected to approach the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to recertify the 737 Max in the near future, according to media reports.

Regulators globally are, however, expected to conduct their own due diligence before permitting carriers to operate the plane.

A senior official of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) said in September that it would carry out its own due diligence before permitting the 737 Max planes to fly on Indian skies even if the US FAA re-certifies the aircraft.

So, nothing new to see here, India may take longer than other jurisdictions.

Context from second link:

The company also said that it is working with regulators for certification to help bring MAX to service in the US in Q4 and if the processes progress without pause, the MAX may return to service globally by March.

Again, nothing new: US RTS estimated in Q4, international RTS a few weeks or months later.


US RTS in Q4 means one plane flying on December 31st, right ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13124
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:04 pm

mzlin wrote:
"Independent Review of Boeing 737 Max Finds Design Changes ‘Safe": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... anges-safe

Review is by the Technical Advisory Board. "The TAB was established shortly after the 737 Max was grounded worldwide on March 13, after the second fatal crash linked to a flight-safety system that malfunctioned... The TAB is made up of aviation experts from the U.S. Air Force, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, NASA and FAA."

Actually the design changes referred to in the headline appear to be for MCAS only, as there is no mention of the recent design changes to cover the bit-flip issue by cross-checking of the two flight computers. It makes sense FAA would want the MCAS revisions to be independently reviewed since nobody would trust FAA to do it correctly, whereas the bit-flip and flight computer reprogramming, as a FAA-requested change, would be appropriate for the FAA to review.


I thought there was a board of international experts ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:05 pm

keesje wrote:
It is easy to dismiss any relevation first as unconfirmed and later as we already knew.

It is just as easy to trumpet any media Revelation (TM, Patent Pending) based on anonymous sources as gospel truth then when documented evidence comes out say it's un.be.leave.able.

keesje wrote:
The influence Boeing has/had on FAA and how it worked on 737 MAX certification, is slowly becoming more and more clear.

If Boeing has so much influence on FAA, then why is RTS taking longer than Boeing's CEO predicted?

They should be bending to his will, no?

If FAA is so weak, how do you explain EASA saying it's planning to confirm FAA's findings on MAX RTS after a month or so to review the paperwork?

Aesma wrote:
US RTS in Q4 means one plane flying on December 31st, right ?

Exactly! Glad to see you're learning how corpo-speak works.
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
 
mzlin
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:20 pm

Aesma wrote:
mzlin wrote:
"Independent Review of Boeing 737 Max Finds Design Changes ‘Safe": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... anges-safe

Review is by the Technical Advisory Board. "The TAB was established shortly after the 737 Max was grounded worldwide on March 13, after the second fatal crash linked to a flight-safety system that malfunctioned... The TAB is made up of aviation experts from the U.S. Air Force, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, NASA and FAA."

Actually the design changes referred to in the headline appear to be for MCAS only, as there is no mention of the recent design changes to cover the bit-flip issue by cross-checking of the two flight computers. It makes sense FAA would want the MCAS revisions to be independently reviewed since nobody would trust FAA to do it correctly, whereas the bit-flip and flight computer reprogramming, as a FAA-requested change, would be appropriate for the FAA to review.


I thought there was a board of international experts ?


The international board is the JATR mentioned upthread, to review the certification process. They issued their report last month, and this was extensively discussed at the time. The TAB as stated is to review MCAS2.0. They issued their conclusion yesterday.

Yes, it's complicated. You have to pay close attention and the long repetitive arguments between the same 5 people covering 50+ pages doesn't help.
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:33 am

Nick1209 wrote:
Hoping and Relying on the ECAA won’t do much. Just look what those goons did with EgyptAir 990. Are we really expecting them to come up with an actual conclusion? They’re probably looking for dirt on Boeing far more than investigating the accident.

There’s a reason why Lion Air rushed to the families after the incident, and forced them to sign papers agreeing not to sue them, nor Boeing. They simply didn’t wanna ruin their relationship with Boeing over something their pilots should have known. Like not selling them anymore aircraft till they prove otherwise. All the talk from airlines regarding the max is just politics. I remember what the CEO for United said right after the incident too lol.

If we wanted to make sure every plane was perfectly built, then we would be grounding every single one. I can’t even begin to tell you how many aircraft have been cleared to fly that have “design flaws” but haven’t affected a single flight today. Not even Boeing’s “design flaw” affected either accident. It wasn’t the engines that caused the plane to crash. They both had a software malfunction. Which is Impossible to prevent. And any malfunction that is improperly handled, will end up the same way. Both of which were handled improperly. To me, this is more important that what happened at Boeing because even a perfectly designed and certified airplane can have failures and the crews are the ones who are left to handle them. Crews must be prepared to handle whatever emergency we are presented with, even those like UAL232, Aloha 243, Qantas 32, Qantas 72, and SWA1380 which were failures that were never anticipated and for which no crew had ever been trained.

So how much longer are we going to act like the crashes were very controllable, and entirely preventable? Of which happened in third world countries andone FO with a low amount of hours, flying the plane.

Regardless, neither crew completed a single step on their procedures for runaway stabilizer OR unreliable airspeed. Both of which have to be done in a reasonably manner to prevent an accident.

Lions crew knew what procedure to follow, but forgot it. As you can see on the final report. What I wanted to know, was why did the Captain keep them in trim through 21 MCAS activations, but the FO, to whom took control, did not. Neither of them went to their procedure. We know why though, now. Because they forgot it. Sounds like Lion Air if you ask me, just how many times have their pilots missed the runway, and confused the ocean for the runway? And how many drug charges have been in the news for their pilots?

Let’s not forget that Boeing promised the Max would come without any additional training. And the issues with the engine position was nonexistent till the end of certification. It wasn’t until the stick force per g, which involves banking the aircraft and pulling back on the yoke, and of course banking more and pulling back more, it should be harder to pull back each time, and never easier. But because of Boeing’s engine positioning, an aerodynamic nose up appeared. This nose up created a feeling of it being easier to pull back. The aircraft didn’t Meet FAA longitudinal stability anymore. So the easiest fix was to add some nose down. So it’s quite comical to watch the media call it a “stall prevention system” which is far from true. Just because Airbus has one, and calls it that, and yes, they’ve killed people with their system as well, but doesn’t mean it’s the same for Boeing. Their products do not need a stall prevention system nor recovery system. They’ll recover a stall with the control column in neutral.

Boeing figured one sensor shouldn’t be too bad, after all, the issue would appear itself as a runaway trim and there’s a procedure for that, and it has been around for 5 decades. Shouldn’t be too difficult for pilots already typed in the aircraft, right? Well they under looked these third world countries and the training issues they have. Oops. And it’s not like the system in Airbus aircraft, ya know? Like the one where the crews gotta call to the ground team to figure out what’s going on, who’s hiding systems? Airbus has been dealing with the same and has already been told by both US and Europe to fix it, but haven’t. So while everyone expects Boeing to fix this issue in under a year, Airbus hasn’t fixed theirs, in over 10 years now. Could it be, that designing an aircraft is just difficult? Nah, totally easy. Anyone can do it and Boeing should have knew better. It’s not like airlines had the option to purchase a second sensor but chose not to, and how did the airlines know to buy one or two? The 737 has always looked at one sensor the same way the Max did. It was just based off whoever was flying the plane.

It’s not like the Brazilian authority has MCAS on paper and listed as “B” training from January 2018. Besides all of that, the runaway stabilizer procedure has been the same and hardly changes. As you guys probably already know, the procedure that will disable MCAS. And Ethiopias crew knew it, because they verbalized it, and did it, and undid it. Then accelerated beyond the design limit and crashed. Blame Boeing. If anything, we can say Lions crew had the harder battle due to them not “knowing” not considering the fact that it literally the same as a runaway stab malfunction. Ethiopias crew was already reminded of the issue, due to the Lion crash. Boeing highlighted the issues on the checklist. And sent it out. It’s important that airlines inform their pilots of the new changes

That say “In the event of an uncommanded nose pitch down, hit the stab trim cut out switches to CUTOFF and stay in the CUTOUT position for remainder of flight” yet Ethiopias crew battled with the entire issue until it was near full nose down, then they cut out the switches. They also skipped over step 2 which was too disengage auto throttles, and that allowed the aircraft to fly to and past VMO and out of the flights envelope. Increasing nose down trim and increasing airspeed will result in a stronger nose down force. It’s also clear that when the FO took control, after hitting the cut out switches, he trimmed in the WRONG DIRECTION. And told his captain “it’s not working” followed by his captain saying “pitch up with me”

One of them re engaged the stab trim switches, and that allowed MCAS to reactivate and drive the nose down back down, and it did. Despite them knowing what was going on, and the entire procedure, and lions crash, they still failed the aircraft. I’m not trying to be harsh, but the blame is all going on Boeing when it shouldn’t. It’s clear there’s enough blame to around here. And allowing such training issues to go unnoticed is going to be a disaster for the aviation industry.


You seem very eager to point the blame at the pilots and cite deficient training and lack of experience (hours) amongst crews at airlines operating in 3rd world countries while seemingly casting aside any culpability on Boeing’s end.

My understanding is that there are a plethora of 3rd world airlines operating the 737NG , 32x CEO and 32x NEO in their fleets. How many instances can you cite where a 737NG, or 32x, operated by a 3rd world airline was turned into a lawn dart ? How do you suppose these 3rd world crews can safely operate thousands of NGs, CEOs and NEOs everyday but somehow they managed to plow 2 MAXs into the ground within half a years time ?

If poor training and lack of experience amongst 3rd world crew members is as big of a problem as you seem to claim, isn’t it reasonable to expect we would see higher numbers of catastrophic hull losses from other variants operated by these airlines. 3rd world airlines have massive fleets of 32x NEOs in their fleets. Given your stance, I assume you feel the NEO is 3rd world pilot proof given there hasn’t been a single hull loss, and thusly a superior aircraft ?

And before you go off citing Lion Air’s runway excursion incidents and attributing that to their status as a 3rd world airline you really ought to consider WN is usually good for an excursion or 2 every year. Beyond that, they have 2 very high profile runway excursions in their history (BUR/MDW). DL had a rather violent one at LGA a few years back too. I suppose you consider WN and DL 3rd world ?

Moreover, I could cite a number of US airlines that have had accidents/incidents, some resulting in fatalities due to poor maintenance. Again at the forefront of my mind is WN. To use your own examples, correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it an improperly installed fan blade on UA232 that ultimately led to the crash? AQ243 had metal fatigue so extreme that a passenger noticed a crack prior to take off that ultimately led to the top of the fuselage peeling back. If a passenger noticed such wear and tear certainly the maintenance team should have. I guess we can add United and the now defunct Aloha to the list of 3rd world airlines.

Almost forgot, you brought up questionable professional conduct by crews of 3rd world airlines to, citing drug charges was it ? I seem to recall several threads just this year regarding several US crews being arrested at the airport attempting to board their aircraft intoxicated... Oh and let’s not such professional conduct like the US crew that overflew their destination by approximately 150 miles or another that landed at the wrong airport.

Speaking candidly your posts sound quite ignorant.

77H
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13124
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:50 am

mzlin wrote:
The international board is the JATR mentioned upthread, to review the certification process. They issued their report last month, and this was extensively discussed at the time. The TAB as stated is to review MCAS2.0. They issued their conclusion yesterday.

Yes, it's complicated. You have to pay close attention and the long repetitive arguments between the same 5 people covering 50+ pages doesn't help.


Sorry I took a couple of weeks vacation for a wedding in the US, only flew Airbus though !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:24 am

keesje wrote:
Obviously you did not read the JATR report.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/The ... view_(JATR)_-_Boeing_737_MAX_Flight_Control_System

The JATR narrowed their look, and were very correct after they observed what they observed. The report says stop abusing grandfathered certification, restore severely damaged independent overview and out of control self cerification. Amongst other recommendations. We could have expected DM to jump up, saying "we'll do so on 737MAX and 777X" But I'm not aware of that.

So you expect DM to state that Boeing was going to implement independent oversight of Boeing's certification?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:31 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The influence Boeing has/had on FAA and how it worked on 737 MAX certification, is slowly becoming more and more clear.

If Boeing has so much influence on FAA, then why is RTS taking longer than Boeing's CEO predicted?

They should be bending to his will, no?

If FAA is so weak, how do you explain EASA saying it's planning to confirm FAA's findings on MAX RTS after a month or so to review the paperwork?


The problem is that two accidents have shown a spotlight on the cosy relationship between Boeing and the FAA and when the FAA does now put up a big show and seems to do something, other agencies will stop to accept certifications done in the USA.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:12 am

Revelation wrote:
If Boeing has so much influence on FAA, then why is RTS taking longer than Boeing's CEO predicted?

They should be bending to his will, no?

If FAA is so weak, how do you explain EASA saying it's planning to confirm FAA's findings on MAX RTS after a month or so to review the paperwork?

A possible explanation is that they basically got caught with their pants down and now they have to go through the motions of making everything look legitimate to build up that worldwide trust in the FAA again so that they can resume their pernicious business as usual for their future “engineering” projects. If Boeing can influence the FAA like that and does so now it would be so obvious with everyone else watching that they’d end up losing that influence for a long time and would have to actually try in order get planes certified. It’s possible, but it’s not necessarily true.
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?!
 
Planetalk
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:40 am

77H wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:
Hoping and Relying on the ECAA won’t do much. Just look what those goons did with EgyptAir 990. Are we really expecting them to come up with an actual conclusion? They’re probably looking for dirt on Boeing far more than investigating the accident.

There’s a reason why Lion Air rushed to the families after the incident, and forced them to sign papers agreeing not to sue them, nor Boeing. They simply didn’t wanna ruin their relationship with Boeing over something their pilots should have known. Like not selling them anymore aircraft till they prove otherwise. All the talk from airlines regarding the max is just politics. I remember what the CEO for United said right after the incident too lol.

If we wanted to make sure every plane was perfectly built, then we would be grounding every single one. I can’t even begin to tell you how many aircraft have been cleared to fly that have “design flaws” but haven’t affected a single flight today. Not even Boeing’s “design flaw” affected either accident. It wasn’t the engines that caused the plane to crash. They both had a software malfunction. Which is Impossible to prevent. And any malfunction that is improperly handled, will end up the same way. Both of which were handled improperly. To me, this is more important that what happened at Boeing because even a perfectly designed and certified airplane can have failures and the crews are the ones who are left to handle them. Crews must be prepared to handle whatever emergency we are presented with, even those like UAL232, Aloha 243, Qantas 32, Qantas 72, and SWA1380 which were failures that were never anticipated and for which no crew had ever been trained.

So how much longer are we going to act like the crashes were very controllable, and entirely preventable? Of which happened in third world countries andone FO with a low amount of hours, flying the plane.

Regardless, neither crew completed a single step on their procedures for runaway stabilizer OR unreliable airspeed. Both of which have to be done in a reasonably manner to prevent an accident.

Lions crew knew what procedure to follow, but forgot it. As you can see on the final report. What I wanted to know, was why did the Captain keep them in trim through 21 MCAS activations, but the FO, to whom took control, did not. Neither of them went to their procedure. We know why though, now. Because they forgot it. Sounds like Lion Air if you ask me, just how many times have their pilots missed the runway, and confused the ocean for the runway? And how many drug charges have been in the news for their pilots?

Let’s not forget that Boeing promised the Max would come without any additional training. And the issues with the engine position was nonexistent till the end of certification. It wasn’t until the stick force per g, which involves banking the aircraft and pulling back on the yoke, and of course banking more and pulling back more, it should be harder to pull back each time, and never easier. But because of Boeing’s engine positioning, an aerodynamic nose up appeared. This nose up created a feeling of it being easier to pull back. The aircraft didn’t Meet FAA longitudinal stability anymore. So the easiest fix was to add some nose down. So it’s quite comical to watch the media call it a “stall prevention system” which is far from true. Just because Airbus has one, and calls it that, and yes, they’ve killed people with their system as well, but doesn’t mean it’s the same for Boeing. Their products do not need a stall prevention system nor recovery system. They’ll recover a stall with the control column in neutral.

Boeing figured one sensor shouldn’t be too bad, after all, the issue would appear itself as a runaway trim and there’s a procedure for that, and it has been around for 5 decades. Shouldn’t be too difficult for pilots already typed in the aircraft, right? Well they under looked these third world countries and the training issues they have. Oops. And it’s not like the system in Airbus aircraft, ya know? Like the one where the crews gotta call to the ground team to figure out what’s going on, who’s hiding systems? Airbus has been dealing with the same and has already been told by both US and Europe to fix it, but haven’t. So while everyone expects Boeing to fix this issue in under a year, Airbus hasn’t fixed theirs, in over 10 years now. Could it be, that designing an aircraft is just difficult? Nah, totally easy. Anyone can do it and Boeing should have knew better. It’s not like airlines had the option to purchase a second sensor but chose not to, and how did the airlines know to buy one or two? The 737 has always looked at one sensor the same way the Max did. It was just based off whoever was flying the plane.

It’s not like the Brazilian authority has MCAS on paper and listed as “B” training from January 2018. Besides all of that, the runaway stabilizer procedure has been the same and hardly changes. As you guys probably already know, the procedure that will disable MCAS. And Ethiopias crew knew it, because they verbalized it, and did it, and undid it. Then accelerated beyond the design limit and crashed. Blame Boeing. If anything, we can say Lions crew had the harder battle due to them not “knowing” not considering the fact that it literally the same as a runaway stab malfunction. Ethiopias crew was already reminded of the issue, due to the Lion crash. Boeing highlighted the issues on the checklist. And sent it out. It’s important that airlines inform their pilots of the new changes

That say “In the event of an uncommanded nose pitch down, hit the stab trim cut out switches to CUTOFF and stay in the CUTOUT position for remainder of flight” yet Ethiopias crew battled with the entire issue until it was near full nose down, then they cut out the switches. They also skipped over step 2 which was too disengage auto throttles, and that allowed the aircraft to fly to and past VMO and out of the flights envelope. Increasing nose down trim and increasing airspeed will result in a stronger nose down force. It’s also clear that when the FO took control, after hitting the cut out switches, he trimmed in the WRONG DIRECTION. And told his captain “it’s not working” followed by his captain saying “pitch up with me”

One of them re engaged the stab trim switches, and that allowed MCAS to reactivate and drive the nose down back down, and it did. Despite them knowing what was going on, and the entire procedure, and lions crash, they still failed the aircraft. I’m not trying to be harsh, but the blame is all going on Boeing when it shouldn’t. It’s clear there’s enough blame to around here. And allowing such training issues to go unnoticed is going to be a disaster for the aviation industry.


You seem very eager to point the blame at the pilots and cite deficient training and lack of experience (hours) amongst crews at airlines operating in 3rd world countries while seemingly casting aside any culpability on Boeing’s end.

My understanding is that there are a plethora of 3rd world airlines operating the 737NG , 32x CEO and 32x NEO in their fleets. How many instances can you cite where a 737NG, or 32x, operated by a 3rd world airline was turned into a lawn dart ? How do you suppose these 3rd world crews can safely operate thousands of NGs, CEOs and NEOs everyday but somehow they managed to plow 2 MAXs into the ground within half a years time ?

If poor training and lack of experience amongst 3rd world crew members is as big of a problem as you seem to claim, isn’t it reasonable to expect we would see higher numbers of catastrophic hull losses from other variants operated by these airlines. 3rd world airlines have massive fleets of 32x NEOs in their fleets. Given your stance, I assume you feel the NEO is 3rd world pilot proof given there hasn’t been a single hull loss, and thusly a superior aircraft ?

And before you go off citing Lion Air’s runway excursion incidents and attributing that to their status as a 3rd world airline you really ought to consider WN is usually good for an excursion or 2 every year. Beyond that, they have 2 very high profile runway excursions in their history (BUR/MDW). DL had a rather violent one at LGA a few years back too. I suppose you consider WN and DL 3rd world ?

Moreover, I could cite a number of US airlines that have had accidents/incidents, some resulting in fatalities due to poor maintenance. Again at the forefront of my mind is WN. To use your own examples, correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it an improperly installed fan blade on UA232 that ultimately led to the crash? AQ243 had metal fatigue so extreme that a passenger noticed a crack prior to take off that ultimately led to the top of the fuselage peeling back. If a passenger noticed such wear and tear certainly the maintenance team should have. I guess we can add United and the now defunct Aloha to the list of 3rd world airlines.

Almost forgot, you brought up questionable professional conduct by crews of 3rd world airlines to, citing drug charges was it ? I seem to recall several threads just this year regarding several US crews being arrested at the airport attempting to board their aircraft intoxicated... Oh and let’s not such professional conduct like the US crew that overflew their destination by approximately 150 miles or another that landed at the wrong airport.

Speaking candidly your posts sound quite ignorant.

77H


Indeed. I don't take too seriously all these claims about how terrible 'third world' pilots are considering that they tend to refer to pilots flying in regions where often terrain and weather conditions are abysmal for flying, Indonesia being a prime example. Having lived in such regions, I have nothing but respect for the guys flying in them. They are also far more often flying into remote airports with more challenging approaches etc so I don't think they can really be that bad, given the lack of holes in the ground.

Weather is the one thing automation can't really do anything about and these guys deal with it day in day out. I'm sure there's plenty of American and European pilots who would be horrified by a day flying in monsoon season.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8338
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm

Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:04 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.

FMC is not relevant to this thread since no FMC issue has been reported, MCAS runs on FCC not FMC.
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
 
Jamie514
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.

FMC is not relevant to this thread since no FMC issue has been reported, MCAS runs on FCC not FMC.


Looking forward to and frankly expecting this quick of a shut down from you the next time the grossly off topic "worldwide pilot training" resurfaces. and ten thousand previous posts show that it will.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:30 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.


They are used a lot. The ELAC of the A320s uses a 68000 CPU, you find them in industrial machines, printers, calculators, ..
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24300
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:31 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.

FMC is not relevant to this thread since no FMC issue has been reported, MCAS runs on FCC not FMC.

Looking forward to and frankly expecting this quick of a shut down from you the next time the grossly off topic "worldwide pilot training" resurfaces. and ten thousand previous posts show that it will.

You do know if you want the topic to drop you should just let the topic drop, right?

Or is this a passive-aggressive way to trigger more discussion you claim you don't want?

seahawk wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.

They are used a lot. The ELAC of the A320s uses a 68000 CPU, you find them in industrial machines, printers, calculators, ..

For those who care, we have a thread from two years ago ( viewtopic.php?t=1362007 ) that claims you can still buy new 68000s from NXP who accquired the old Moto + Freescale product lines ( https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... 00:MC68000 )
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
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8338
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:56 pm

I am aware of old mil/industrial grade chips maybe still in production or someone has a license, Just wanted to know who had the license. Samsung holds an old Alpha chip license. Sorry for going off-track thinking it was FMC. My bad. I could have overclocked for them to atleast 100Mhz.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Chemist
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:06 pm

Spacecraft often use super slow older processors. Sometimes it's more important to have well established and certified software and hardware than the latest performance or technology.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:26 pm

And the bigger the transistors, the less they are likely to create fault from any form of energy radiation.
 
shmerik
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 2:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:15 pm

Slide deck from a Boeing presentation to the FAA back in December 2018:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... 8-MCAS.pdf

Interesting that the dev and cert timeline slide is completely redacted
 
shmerik
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 2:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:28 pm

Another noteworthy snippet:

Image

https://imgur.com/4JICeWE
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5631
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:55 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.

Faster performance is not necessarily always advantageous. Simplicity and reliability are paramount in aviation and many industrial applications; and especially in aviation once you have a component that does the job accurately and reliably you don’t change it. And as long as there is demand for a chip or whatever someone will keep making it. The price may be high because volume is low but it will be available. But programming and certifying a new system using a modern chip is very expensive and ultimately gains nothing. Some of the 737 controls date to 1967, some to 1983. Others to 1997 (dates approximate). That is aviation, where the phrase “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” has more relevance than in any other field.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:29 pm

SEPilot wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.

Faster performance is not necessarily always advantageous. Simplicity and reliability are paramount in aviation and many industrial applications; and especially in aviation once you have a component that does the job accurately and reliably you don’t change it. And as long as there is demand for a chip or whatever someone will keep making it. The price may be high because volume is low but it will be available. But programming and certifying a new system using a modern chip is very expensive and ultimately gains nothing. Some of the 737 controls date to 1967, some to 1983. Others to 1997 (dates approximate). That is aviation, where the phrase “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” has more relevance than in any other field.


I'm not in electronics, but many of my own projects have building automation and controls in them. The clock speed is also quite important for reliability, in particular if devices are some distance from the processor. Temperature, vibration, stress, electrostatic issues, lightning, all affect the speed and signal/noise ratio. Having the remote device at some slower clock timing (say 10 cycles) is an advantage. Besides, as you note what is the actual volume of data to be processed, having a processor capable of 10X more data does not improve a process that only requires the original amount of data. I would imagine that most of the sensors in the 737 are analog, using a 4-20 ma signal. This is a excellent approach for pressure sensors, as the sensor no longer cares about clock speed, just providing the right reading between the 4 ma and 20 ma limits. Is there any improvement to reading the pitot tube 100x per second or 10x. The data doesn't vary that fast.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm

There is a fine line between safe and slow and obsolete.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5631
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:34 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
There is a fine line between safe and slow and obsolete.

Obsolete has no functional meaning as far as aviation is concerned. What matters is that the job is done reliably and predictably. What obsolete means in the rest of the world is that there are better/faster/more powerful/cheaper alternatives available, and hence any new designs will use them, and since certification is not needed many old products will be redesigned to use the new components. But in aviation, where every last item must be certified, which is time consuming and expensive, obsolete has no meaning. If it does the job, is reliable and has been certified, you keep using it unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a redesign is necessary for other reasons then you use new components.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13124
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:47 am

Chemist wrote:
Spacecraft often use super slow older processors. Sometimes it's more important to have well established and certified software and hardware than the latest performance or technology.


For spacecraft the reason is mainly high energy particles that are stopped by the atmosphere, aren't when in space.

For aircraft/spacecraft there are certification issues, you change anything you need to certify the new part. If you change a processor, I'd guess you need a lot of testing to be 99,99% sure it does the same thing as before. A faster processor might improve some things, while making new issues appear, stuff getting out of sync, etc. Basically you don't do it without a very good reason, like needing to run more programs.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
maint123
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:43 am

Has the justice department started any investigation for negligence if not culpable homicide ? No one seems to remember that 350 persons lost their lives, and at least half could have been saved if Boeing had been transparent after the first crash and not resorted to shirking responsibility. And the posters above defending Boeing should remember that trump initiated the max shutdown after the 2nd crash not Boeing. Their CEO said its a safe plane even after the 2nd crash.
Its mind boggling that no serious criminal investigation is being carried out by USA or other countries.
A 10 b usd hit is nothing for a company like Boeing.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:15 am

SEPilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
There is a fine line between safe and slow and obsolete.

Obsolete has no functional meaning as far as aviation is concerned. What matters is that the job is done reliably and predictably. What obsolete means in the rest of the world is that there are better/faster/more powerful/cheaper alternatives available, and hence any new designs will use them, and since certification is not needed many old products will be redesigned to use the new components. But in aviation, where every last item must be certified, which is time consuming and expensive, obsolete has no meaning. If it does the job, is reliable and has been certified, you keep using it unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a redesign is necessary for other reasons then you use new components.


Yes, the job done reliable. But if the job is not done reliable any longer with aging hardware, than it is not enough to go for exemptions. There must be quite a few processors or whole computers certified for aviation out there, otherwise, to stay with Boeing, a 777 or 787 could never have been certified. And grandfathering has been used to move things between other models. Just not to the 737.

EICAS would not work on the aging 737, oh lets get an exemption rather than update and so on.

Using two computers two control each other, using two sensors and not three, is just simply obsolete, a band aid on an aging hardware.
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:37 am

Revelation wrote:
For those who care, we have a thread from two years ago ( viewtopic.php?t=1362007 ) that claims you can still buy new 68000s from NXP who accquired the old Moto + Freescale product lines ( https://www.nxp.com/products/processors ... 00:MC68000 )


You can order 'em right now today from Digikey, among others. That's qty 1, of course; I don't doubt that bulk buyers will have a direct sales arrangement.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13124
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:52 am

What Boeing did or didn't do with the MAX was not a new way of doing it, remember the 737NG was available with the screens displaying simulated steam gauges to please some airlines !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
mzlin
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:22 am

maint123 wrote:
Has the justice department started any investigation for negligence if not culpable homicide ? No one seems to remember that 350 persons lost their lives, and at least half could have been saved if Boeing had been transparent after the first crash and not resorted to shirking responsibility. And the posters above defending Boeing should remember that trump initiated the max shutdown after the 2nd crash not Boeing. Their CEO said its a safe plane even after the 2nd crash.
Its mind boggling that no serious criminal investigation is being carried out by USA or other countries.
A 10 b usd hit is nothing for a company like Boeing.


The answer is yes and you can unboggle your mind now. There has been a Department of Justice investigation into the certification of the 737 MAX since before ET302. This has been discussed many times as well. Mark Forkner's text chat was one of the things turned over by Boeing to the DOJ as part of the investigation. And since you yourself mentioned the Justice Department in your first sentence, you could have just googled "Justice Department 737 max" to answer your own question.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5631
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:12 am

mjoelnir wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
There is a fine line between safe and slow and obsolete.

Obsolete has no functional meaning as far as aviation is concerned. What matters is that the job is done reliably and predictably. What obsolete means in the rest of the world is that there are better/faster/more powerful/cheaper alternatives available, and hence any new designs will use them, and since certification is not needed many old products will be redesigned to use the new components. But in aviation, where every last item must be certified, which is time consuming and expensive, obsolete has no meaning. If it does the job, is reliable and has been certified, you keep using it unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a redesign is necessary for other reasons then you use new components.


Yes, the job done reliable. But if the job is not done reliable any longer with aging hardware, than it is not enough to go for exemptions. There must be quite a few processors or whole computers certified for aviation out there, otherwise, to stay with Boeing, a 777 or 787 could never have been certified. And grandfathering has been used to move things between other models. Just not to the 737.

EICAS would not work on the aging 737, oh lets get an exemption rather than update and so on.

Using two computers two control each other, using two sensors and not three, is just simply obsolete, a band aid on an aging hardware.

The components themselves are new, they are just an old design, which has been proven reliable over decades. What you are challenging is the entire grandfathering system, which is another argument. Thousands of 737NGs and Classics have been flying since the early 1980s and have accumulated an impressive safety record. Yes, the MAX stumbled badly, but that was because of poor assumptions and design decisions, not from using obsolete components. If you want to apply your logic to its ultimate conclusion, every time certification standards are changed all airliners in use would have to be modified to meet them or be grounded. Airline safety has made tremendous advances since the 1960s, but almost all of that advance has come from better training and crew management, not from advances in the aircraft. The number of crashes caused by the aircraft themselves has been tiny ever since the jet age began. Pilot error is still by far the biggest cause, but we have made tremendous strides there. The MAX disasters should not have happened, and we need to make sure they do not happen again. But saying that systems that have flown on thousands of airliners for decades without ever having contributed to a crash are unsafe because newer aircraft do it differently does not advance safety.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:48 am

SEPilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Obsolete has no functional meaning as far as aviation is concerned. What matters is that the job is done reliably and predictably. What obsolete means in the rest of the world is that there are better/faster/more powerful/cheaper alternatives available, and hence any new designs will use them, and since certification is not needed many old products will be redesigned to use the new components. But in aviation, where every last item must be certified, which is time consuming and expensive, obsolete has no meaning. If it does the job, is reliable and has been certified, you keep using it unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a redesign is necessary for other reasons then you use new components.


Yes, the job done reliable. But if the job is not done reliable any longer with aging hardware, than it is not enough to go for exemptions. There must be quite a few processors or whole computers certified for aviation out there, otherwise, to stay with Boeing, a 777 or 787 could never have been certified. And grandfathering has been used to move things between other models. Just not to the 737.

EICAS would not work on the aging 737, oh lets get an exemption rather than update and so on.

Using two computers two control each other, using two sensors and not three, is just simply obsolete, a band aid on an aging hardware.

The components themselves are new, they are just an old design, which has been proven reliable over decades. What you are challenging is the entire grandfathering system, which is another argument. Thousands of 737NGs and Classics have been flying since the early 1980s and have accumulated an impressive safety record. Yes, the MAX stumbled badly, but that was because of poor assumptions and design decisions, not from using obsolete components. If you want to apply your logic to its ultimate conclusion, every time certification standards are changed all airliners in use would have to be modified to meet them or be grounded. Airline safety has made tremendous advances since the 1960s, but almost all of that advance has come from better training and crew management, not from advances in the aircraft. The number of crashes caused by the aircraft themselves has been tiny ever since the jet age began. Pilot error is still by far the biggest cause, but we have made tremendous strides there. The MAX disasters should not have happened, and we need to make sure they do not happen again. But saying that systems that have flown on thousands of airliners for decades without ever having contributed to a crash are unsafe because newer aircraft do it differently does not advance safety.


My point was not about old or new manufactured components.

The argument that thousands classics and NG have flown safely has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The rest of your arguments go into the same direction

Let us take just 2 points.

16 G. There was a decision made around 1988 that seats and fastenings for the seats aka the floor should take a 16g force in case of an accident.
Yes, I understand that the classic was grandfathered, it was in production at that time. But give me good reason for the 1997 getting an exemption and the 737MAX in 2016 again?
Show me another industry were a safety standard once introduced does not lead to at least new models having to fulfill that standard.
Either 16 G makes sense or not. If it makes sense you do not exempt one of several producers. Yes I know it would add weight to the 737, but is that a reason for an exemption?

EICAS was introduced at Boeing with the 757/767 to fulfill the 1980 regulation as the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System. Yes the classic 737, than in production, got an exemption, but is that a reason to exempt the NG and MAX? Boeing managed fine to integrate EICAS into the P-8.

The current Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System of the 737, if one call it that, was indicated as one of the big problems in regards to the workload on the pilots in the Lion Air accident.

So if now 30 to 40 years old safety features are not integrated, I call it obsolete.

It also skews the competition considerable if one producer gets exemption from rules for half a century and with the 737MAX continuing with the exemptions, they will reach half a century.
 
AirBoat
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:15 am

Unfortunately these days big projects are driven by project managers, who don't always appreciate engineering consequences, and mostly look at time lines.
If new computer hardware takes years to certify and just re-using and old one with some updates takes a few months, then that is what they will choose. The fact that you are kicking the can down the road and 10 years from now, some unfortunate engineer is going to sit with huge problems to get the job done. The project manager is going to assume that it always takes a few months to do the control computers, and when the engineer says, actually we need new hardware and it will take a few years, he will not want to even consider it, and so on.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8338
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:36 am

SEPilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
There is a fine line between safe and slow and obsolete.

Obsolete has no functional meaning as far as aviation is concerned. What matters is that the job is done reliably and predictably. What obsolete means in the rest of the world is that there are better/faster/more powerful/cheaper alternatives available, and hence any new designs will use them, and since certification is not needed many old products will be redesigned to use the new components. But in aviation, where every last item must be certified, which is time-consuming and expensive, obsolete has no meaning. If it does the job, is reliable and has been certified, you keep using it unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a redesign is necessary for other reasons then you use new components.


As more and more automation is expected it would have been prudent to move on to more capable processor. 68000 is a dead-end architecture after its mainline customer Apple dropped it. BAE seems to have several high-end hardened processors.

Aircraft are not interstellar spacecraft, they show up at some air within hours.

Honest question about component certification. Couldn't a vendor like Rockwell Collins work on a new backward-compatible component, get it certified from FAA as an equivalent replacement?
All posts are just opinions.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2817
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:41 am

SEPilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Obsolete has no functional meaning as far as aviation is concerned. What matters is that the job is done reliably and predictably. What obsolete means in the rest of the world is that there are better/faster/more powerful/cheaper alternatives available, and hence any new designs will use them, and since certification is not needed many old products will be redesigned to use the new components. But in aviation, where every last item must be certified, which is time consuming and expensive, obsolete has no meaning. If it does the job, is reliable and has been certified, you keep using it unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a redesign is necessary for other reasons then you use new components.


Yes, the job done reliable. But if the job is not done reliable any longer with aging hardware, than it is not enough to go for exemptions. There must be quite a few processors or whole computers certified for aviation out there, otherwise, to stay with Boeing, a 777 or 787 could never have been certified. And grandfathering has been used to move things between other models. Just not to the 737.

EICAS would not work on the aging 737, oh lets get an exemption rather than update and so on.

Using two computers two control each other, using two sensors and not three, is just simply obsolete, a band aid on an aging hardware.

The components themselves are new, they are just an old design, which has been proven reliable over decades. What you are challenging is the entire grandfathering system, which is another argument. Thousands of 737NGs and Classics have been flying since the early 1980s and have accumulated an impressive safety record. Yes, the MAX stumbled badly, but that was because of poor assumptions and design decisions, not from using obsolete components. If you want to apply your logic to its ultimate conclusion, every time certification standards are changed all airliners in use would have to be modified to meet them or be grounded. Airline safety has made tremendous advances since the 1960s, but almost all of that advance has come from better training and crew management, not from advances in the aircraft. The number of crashes caused by the aircraft themselves has been tiny ever since the jet age began. Pilot error is still by far the biggest cause, but we have made tremendous strides there. The MAX disasters should not have happened, and we need to make sure they do not happen again. But saying that systems that have flown on thousands of airliners for decades without ever having contributed to a crash are unsafe because newer aircraft do it differently does not advance safety.

Indirect contribution of old system is pretty feasible.
We are talking about the real time control system, running that many cycles a second with guaranteed timing. Adding another task may be breaking guarantee for loop time if there is not enough resources. Sounds like that was one of root causes for initial MCAS implementation and a problem in summer update.
So a fine line between outdated but working fine and dangerously obsolete may have been crossed.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:41 am

Sure but as long as the original is cheaper and available, it would have no business case. And Boeing would have to support it.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:45 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The argument that thousands classics and NG have flown safely has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The rest of your arguments go into the same direction

Let us take just 2 points.

16 G. There was a decision made around 1988 that seats and fastenings for the seats aka the floor should take a 16g force in case of an accident.
Yes, I understand that the classic was grandfathered, it was in production at that time. But give me good reason for the 1997 getting an exemption and the 737MAX in 2016 again?
Show me another industry were a safety standard once introduced does not lead to at least new models having to fulfill that standard.
Either 16 G makes sense or not. If it makes sense you do not exempt one of several producers. Yes I know it would add weight to the 737, but is that a reason for an exemption?

EICAS was introduced at Boeing with the 757/767 to fulfill the 1980 regulation as the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System. Yes the classic 737, than in production, got an exemption, but is that a reason to exempt the NG and MAX? Boeing managed fine to integrate EICAS into the P-8.

We need some college students to take on the research on this, what would it cost to have the 16g and EICAS put on the civilian transport version of the 737,
it is all about the certification process and how much it will cost as Boeing would not only have to satisfy the FAA but EASA and others.
We talk about more efficient government and ease of doing business, has anyone really looked at the certification process to determine whether the massive cost is really safety or job related?
 
Guillaume787
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:02 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:07 pm

Boeing would like to deliver its 737 MAX jet before the end of the year to some airlines, even as aviation regulators have yet to approve pilot training:

https://www-wsj-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ ... 1573421213
 
Theseus
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:18 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
As more and more automation is expected it would have been prudent to move on to more capable processor. 68000 is a dead-end architecture after its mainline customer Apple dropped it. BAE seems to have several high-end hardened processors.


I think that the processor is about the last concern here. On the other hand, the overall logics underlying the software seems to be at stake.

More generally if an existing processor can be sourced and will support well-understood, certified software, why change ?
I have heard about plenty of cases of old processors used in industrial applications, just because there is no need for something different. That does not mean that the next generation has to use them of course.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:34 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Is it true MAX FMCs are based on 60 Mhz 68040 with 4Mb static and 32Mb volatile memory? That is insane, any h/w vendor would have offered with higher specs without any changes to functionality. Who is producing new 68040s? Imagine these in service 30 years later.


Do that and you have to requalify the entire stack. That'd be a nightmare as somewhere something wouldn't port over as clean as you predicted and you'd end up down a very deep rabbit hole.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:34 pm

par13del wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The argument that thousands classics and NG have flown safely has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The rest of your arguments go into the same direction

Let us take just 2 points.

16 G. There was a decision made around 1988 that seats and fastenings for the seats aka the floor should take a 16g force in case of an accident.
Yes, I understand that the classic was grandfathered, it was in production at that time. But give me good reason for the 1997 getting an exemption and the 737MAX in 2016 again?
Show me another industry were a safety standard once introduced does not lead to at least new models having to fulfill that standard.
Either 16 G makes sense or not. If it makes sense you do not exempt one of several producers. Yes I know it would add weight to the 737, but is that a reason for an exemption?

EICAS was introduced at Boeing with the 757/767 to fulfill the 1980 regulation as the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System. Yes the classic 737, than in production, got an exemption, but is that a reason to exempt the NG and MAX? Boeing managed fine to integrate EICAS into the P-8.

We need some college students to take on the research on this, what would it cost to have the 16g and EICAS put on the civilian transport version of the 737,
it is all about the certification process and how much it will cost as Boeing would not only have to satisfy the FAA but EASA and others.
We talk about more efficient government and ease of doing business, has anyone really looked at the certification process to determine whether the massive cost is really safety or job related?


It is about the certification process yes. A process that seems to be adjusted by the FAA to Boeing's needs. If the talk is about industry wide practices, we should talk about Boeing's practices, because that is the whole industry in regards to commercial airliners in the USA.
It should not be about how much it costs Boeing to integrate safety features decades after the rules are made, either the rules make sense or not. If they make sense, they should be integrated with the next model change, if they do not make sense, than nobody should need to integrate them.

Let us compare this to the automobile industry, would it be acceptable that seatbelts rip out in an accident on the 2019 model because in the 1974 model seatbelts were not a standard?
Do we allow a 2019 model VW Golf without ABS brakes, because it was not standard on the 1974 Golf?
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4789
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:35 pm

A plane will last 30+ years in service, a new iPhone will last maybe 3. If you go with the latest and greatest every time, you run a serious risk of not being able to support it down the road, as the consumer electronics guys have moved on.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:55 pm

shmerik wrote:
Slide deck from a Boeing presentation to the FAA back in December 2018:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... 8-MCAS.pdf

Interesting that the dev and cert timeline slide is completely redacted
:checkmark:
Many thanks for the link.
Agree with you. While I understand that information about peoples are redacted, I don't understand why so much technical information are redacted.

Anyway, this document give a another confirmation on how much Boeing was confident at that time that there design was fully in conformity, even is there was fully aware of exactly what failure assessments identified the "Erroneous AoA, one source" but did not analyse it (page 23).

Page 15 give an idea of the safety margin between Vmo and Vd; supporting the scenario where a small Vmo overspeed cannot compromise the aircraft main control surface usability. Would be interesting to see how the manual trim wheels usability fit in that graph. I expect the ET302 final report to give more on this.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm

Guillaume787 wrote:
Boeing would like to deliver its 737 MAX jet before the end of the year to some airlines, even as aviation regulators have yet to approve pilot training:

https://www-wsj-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ ... 1573421213

First question, why is training an issue, if the a/c crashed because it was flawed and nothing to do with pilot training as is the general theme here in this thread, is the article supposed to have a caveat on it saying Boeing is 100% responsible? The number of posters pushing to and fro on the pilot training issue should be weighing in on this is 3....2.....1.....

Second question, why would any airline take an a/c that they cannot fly commercially and pay parking and storage fees? The better moral and financial position for Boeing to take is a major reduction in their production rate if they are running out of parking space, I suspect the article is a result of a slow news day. The other thing that we know is that airlines who already operate the MAX and have additional a/c on order awaiting delivery have already stated that they will put into commercial use new build a/c direct from the production line while taking their time to restore a/c that have been stored for months. Based on that, what sense does it make to take more a/c and park them potentially for a month or 3 months, as December 2019 to March 2020 is the moving time line for RTS.

If Boeing had reduced the rate below 42 initially they would not be in the position they are now, I suspect we will never see the actual financial numbers related to lower production rate and the cost to ramp up after RTS. What we will see is the actual result on the operation of the higher production rate. Boeing will have close to a years worth of a/c sitting around requiring update and preparation for delivery to clients, including test flights by Boeing and the client, all this has to be done in parallel with ongoing production. Boeing is already hiring temp staff at Moses Lake, I think in general these are workers who will prepare the a/c for delivery, have we seen anything on them hiring additional test pilots, how easy is that if they have to be certified? How many FAA approved inspectors are available to review the paperwork before approval for delivery, is the FAA even factoring their resources required once RTS is given or will they simply say they are not hiring new staff and will work at the same pre-grounding rate? We have already seen speculation that the backlog will be cleared in 2020, I suspect it will go to 2021, and if there is continued economic slow down due to the tariff wars, it may drag on even longer.
 
planecane
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

shmerik wrote:
Slide deck from a Boeing presentation to the FAA back in December 2018:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... 8-MCAS.pdf

Interesting that the dev and cert timeline slide is completely redacted

From this presentation and the Lion Air final report, it seems like the single sensor design wasn't the major mistake. It looks to me like the major mistake was allowing more than one MCAS cycle per high AoA event.

This document states that at the 2.5 unit maximum nose down trim authority, control using the elevator would still be possible in an erroneous activation.

If the original MCAS logic only reset MCAS after the AoA had gone below the trigger AoA neither crash would have occurred.

The single sensor design was not a good design but it wasn't the root cause mistake.

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