• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:51 am

Sooner787 wrote:
After the anal exam this airframe has been thru, it'll be the safest plane in the skies once it returns to service .

Textbook logical fallacy. Duration and level of inspection necessarily determine how safe a design is as they only go so far as finding mistakes that shouldn’t be there in the first place. When one actually does an analysis of the engineering of the 737 MAX you will see how it can’t ever be statistically significantly safer than the 737NG as it is mostly the same minus these things that have made it less safe. No new safety features have been added, only risk mitigating features for risk that didn’t exist on the 737NG. The 737NG is no safer than anything else so how can a 737 MAX be if it can’t be a safer design than a 737NG. Does not follow or more eloquently put non sequitur.
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?!
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3638
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:25 am

Revelation wrote:
A) I think the guy who was "responsible for the safety and operational performance of Delta's global flight operations, as well as pilot training, crew resources, crew scheduling, and regulatory compliance" has a lot of relevant experience that hundreds of thousands of line pilots probably would not have.


We already know you believe this. The question is why do you believe so. I gave you reasons why it's not relevant experience. Let's see if your reasons stack up.

Revelation wrote:
B) All he did was mention his own sign off, he didn't say it would be the only sign off that would happen.


You're shifting the argument. I'm not arguing that he will be the only sign off. I'm arguing about exactly what he said - that he will be the ultimate sign-off. That is autocratic language.

Revelation wrote:
C) A person who was in charge of DL's pilot training in addition to being a line pilot is a great person to provide an evaluation of the new training package, and again, there's no evidence that he'll be the only one doing so.


Coming from DL means that he may not be unbiased and likely has a financial conflict of interest in the MAX grounding. That's not a positive. But as I've stated before, his prior role was a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. Big difference. We can assume there are many people at the FAA that have experience making rules that other entities have to follow. He is not one of them.

But this really isn't about the training package. In fact, in the article he says they will have people from around the world giving their evaluation and will defer to them. He implies that it will properly be a group decision. This is about him first flying the plane and not signing off until he does. From the article language, it implies this is prior to the validation of Boeing's training package. Saying he will not sign off until he has flown it is at best a PR statement. Is that what we want our regulations to do? Talk to us like we're fools?
 
Ertro
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:34 am

I get the feeling that Boeing really does not like anybody test flying the plane. I cannot understand the strong feelings in some writings in any other way. Either he flies or not, who cares? It is his decision. He wants personally see what is the problem so that there is no grand mistake. Good for him.

I did not see anybody complaining much when the new CEO of Boeing said publicly something about new plane control philosophy. Maybe somebody wants to loudly critizise him for opening his mouth about stuff that he is certainly not qualified to say anything?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:27 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Woah, rewind the tape. I gave you some insight to those questions. You made the first claim. How about for a change you state your reasons to back up your opinion. I expect a healthy amount of them since in your opinion the article isn't just evidence, it is the proof that ends the debate.


I simply stated an opinion that the steps outlined by Dickson seemed reasonable. You claimed the goalposts had moved and that proposed fixes were illogical.

Now you’ve repeated your opinion that because he worked for Delta he “may” be biased against Boeing but also “likely” has a financial interest in seeing Boeing harmed. Both of course accompanied by a complete lack of evidence.
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.
 
sealevel
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 9:57 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:59 pm

Ok, so Southwest now pushed out rts to August, the saga continues.
 
giblets
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:55 pm

Leeham news and Analysis working out that Boeing won't be able to deliver their current backlog until 2026 (I've not read behind the paywall, but that's my understanding of the article), meaning unless they lose or delay orders significantly in the interim, then they will struggle to offer any news slots to customer by 2026.

It will take Boeing years to deliver new production airplanes scheduled for delivery in 2020-2023 because the restart of the 737 MAX production will fall far short of delivery commitments.
There are an estimated 2,682 deliveries scheduled in this timeframe. Boeing’s production restart and ramp up provides delivery positions for an estimated 1,827 aircraft. This leaves an estimated 855 aircraft that will have to be rescheduled into the future, from 2023.
These will compete with Boeing sales for new order delivery slots. For example, the MOU for 200 MAXes from IAG, the parent of British Airways and other carriers, has delivery slots in these periods.

An analysis by LNA indicates it will take at least until 2026 to deliver these 855 airplane if no other orders are slotted in through 2025.
146, ATR72, Q400, Saab 340, PA-46 Jetprop, Jetstream, E175/195, 707/727/737/747/757/767/777, DC-3/9/10, MD-11/80, A300/310/319/320/321/330/340/350/380 Tristar, BAC 1-11, Trident, Chipmunk, Bell 206/222, Chinook, Puma, Cessna 172, Fokker 70, 100, SRN4!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:29 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Revelation wrote:
A) I think the guy who was "responsible for the safety and operational performance of Delta's global flight operations, as well as pilot training, crew resources, crew scheduling, and regulatory compliance" has a lot of relevant experience that hundreds of thousands of line pilots probably would not have.

We already know you believe this. The question is why do you believe so. I gave you reasons why it's not relevant experience. Let's see if your reasons stack up.

Oh well, at least you backed off the "he's no different than hundreds of thousands of other pilots" canard.

MSPNWA wrote:
Revelation wrote:
B) All he did was mention his own sign off, he didn't say it would be the only sign off that would happen.


You're shifting the argument. I'm not arguing that he will be the only sign off. I'm arguing about exactly what he said - that he will be the ultimate sign-off. That is autocratic language.

He's the head of the FAA during the recovery from the biggest crisis of confidence the FAA has ever seen.

I think appearing to be autocratic is the least of his worries.

MSPNWA wrote:
Revelation wrote:
C) A person who was in charge of DL's pilot training in addition to being a line pilot is a great person to provide an evaluation of the new training package, and again, there's no evidence that he'll be the only one doing so.

Coming from DL means that he may not be unbiased and likely has a financial conflict of interest in the MAX grounding. That's not a positive.

If freedom from financial conflict was a requirement, most of the Trump Administration would need to resign, including Trump himself. Same can be said for a large percentage of all recent other administrations, red or blue. Regulatory agencies are all loaded with former corporate executives with all kinds of direct or indirect ties to previous employers. The Fed and the Department of the Treasury are jokes, there is a revolving door between them and Wall Street, the financial ties between the regulators and the regulated are obscene jokes.

Maybe we should do like China does and create institutes that crank out political cadre loyal to party alone so we can have a pristine bureaucracy?

MSPNWA wrote:
But as I've stated before, his prior role was a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. Big difference. We can assume there are many people at the FAA that have experience making rules that other entities have to follow. He is not one of them.

I guess you see the transition from rule taker to rule maker as troubling, but I doubt others do. He was head of DL's pilot training. They would take Boeing's FAA approved training package and adapt it for their airline and then get the modified plan approved by FAA. Since DL was also flying A320, A330 and A350 he would have been part of adapting EASA training packages and getting them approved.

MSPNWA wrote:
But this really isn't about the training package. In fact, in the article he says they will have people from around the world giving their evaluation and will defer to them. He implies that it will properly be a group decision. This is about him first flying the plane and not signing off until he does. From the article language, it implies this is prior to the validation of Boeing's training package. Saying he will not sign off until he has flown it is at best a PR statement. Is that what we want our regulations to do? Talk to us like we're fools?

Sorry you feel that you are being talked down to.

As I wrote earlier I feel better that we have experienced pilots as FAA Administrator and deputy administrator rather than career politicians. UASFA provides a great educational basis for people to go on and do great things. If the result is that these people have an autocratic air to them, it's something I think we can deal with.
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
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:20 pm

Initial plan submitted to FAA to resolve wiring issue, BA says wont affect RTS.

BA wont say what plan is.

Will wait and see what the other regulators think of this before getting too excited.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/boeing- ... cerns.html
 
JonesNL
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:13 pm

Extremely well written in depth article about a lot that has surfaced around the 737 MAX (highly recommended read!!):
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... cover.html

Architecture difference between 737 and A320:
And, just like the original autopilots [on the 737], there are only two EDFCS-730s[FCC's] (the A320neo has the equivalent of five and they are far more comprehensive).


Forensic reasoning why the fix with double FCC's is taking so long:
Forensically, I can think of two possible reasons:

1. It was just “too hard.”The software in the EDFCS-730 is too brittle and crufty (these are software technical terms, believe me), there is something about the nature of the link (it’s a 150 baud serial link, for example (note for the pedants, I am not saying it is)), you have to “wake up” the standby FCC, etc.
2. Boeing deliberately did not want to use both AOA sensors because, as I said at the beginning, “a man with one AOA sensor knows what the angle of attack is, a man with two AOA sensors is never sure.”e. if Boeing used two sensors then it would have had to deal with the problem of what to do if they disagreed. And that would have meant training which would have violated ship the airplane.

I tend to tilt towards #1. I think it’s just really, really hard to do so and I think that the “boot up” problems (see end of this article) point to exactly that. If so, that is yet another damning reason why the FAA and no one should ever certify as safe MCAS as a solution to the aircraft’s longitudinal stability problem.

That said, it’s never “either/or.” The answer could be “both #1 and #2”


It goes in details about the culture at Boeing. I will not give away the ending/conclusion, as it is only rewarding when reading the article as an whole...
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3638
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:30 pm

scbriml wrote:
I simply stated an opinion that the steps outlined by Dickson seemed reasonable. You claimed the goalposts had moved and that proposed fixes were illogical.

Now you’ve repeated your opinion that because he worked for Delta he “may” be biased against Boeing but also “likely” has a financial interest in seeing Boeing harmed. Both of course accompanied by a complete lack of evidence.


Yes, now back up that opinion with the reasoning behind it. Tell us why the article dismisses the contrary argument to the level of proof. Or can you not defend your position?

Step back and take a look at what position you've put yourself in. Talk about unfounded faith. I thought we were to be skeptical everyone involved? You're now forced to defend (with falsehoods about my position I might add) a relatively new FAA head who is making strange comments, has outwardly moved the ungrounding process to a glacial pace, and has a known potential conflict of interest. My question to that is why do you want to go down that road? It's so much easier not to.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:47 pm

JonesNL wrote:
It goes in details about the culture at Boeing. I will not give away the ending/conclusion, as it is only rewarding when reading the article as an whole...


From the article - “It still has yet to demonstrate a viable fix.

Yet some are still claiming the FAA is going too slowly.

MSPNWA wrote:
You're now forced to defend (with falsehoods about my position I might add) a relatively new FAA head who is making strange comments, has outwardly moved the ungrounding process to a glacial pace, and has a known potential conflict of interest.


What falsehoods? You’re still banging on about alleged but unproven “conflicts of interest”.
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
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3750
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:41 am

Please stick to discussing the topic without making comments personal.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
mileduets
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:02 am

JonesNL wrote:
Extremely well written in depth article about a lot that has surfaced around the 737 MAX (highly recommended read!!):
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... cover.html


This article is indeed very enlightening, both on company culture and system architecture. If I haven't fully understood the "Frankenplane" argument so far, this article explaines it pretty well, illustrated in detail. Thank you very much for sharing it!
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:06 am

Interesting article shedding a bit more light on the wiring issue, some excerpt

There are more than a dozen different locations on the 737 MAX where wiring bundles may be too close together. Most of the locations are under the cockpit in an electrical bay.

Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues.

New safety rules on wiring were adopted in the aftermath of the 1998 Swiss Air 111 crash.


https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/ ... ed-sources
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:38 am

mileduets wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Extremely well written in depth article about a lot that has surfaced around the 737 MAX (highly recommended read!!):
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... cover.html

This article is indeed very enlightening, both on company culture and system architecture. If I haven't fully understood the "Frankenplane" argument so far, this article explaines it pretty well, illustrated in detail. Thank you very much for sharing it!

IMO the article is all sizzle and no bacon, and not worth the time to read its 17959 words ( ref: https://wordcounter.net/website-word-count ).

It throws together many disparate ideas and theories that make some obvious things (like A320's flight computer architecture is ~20 years newer so better, and Boeing is a greedy, for profit, capitalist entity) and wraps lots and lots of verbiage around the basic stuff to try to make these obvious things sound profound

When the author tries to make a conclusion, there's no bacon. There's just an unsubstantiated theory that greedy Boeing deliberately threw the MCAS problem into the lap of some unnamed junior engineer in the hopes they would be too stupid to ask the kinds of questions a skilled senior engineer would ask. Great, one more theory to add to the long list of other theories, all of which can be explained in a few sentences rather than 17959 words.

TL;DR: Article advances an theory that greedy Boeing deliberately threw the MCAS problem into the lap of some unnamed junior engineer in the hopes they would be too stupid to ask the kinds of questions a skilled senior engineer would ask, without offering any proof of such, despite using 17959 words to present the theory.
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
Amwest2United
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:36 am

United now plans Sept. 4th for MAX return


MAX return date set to Sept. 4
February 14, 2020

Today, we announced that the 737 MAX will return to service on Sept. 4, 2020.
The MAX has been out of service since March 2019 following the grounding of the aircraft by the FAA. Since then we’ve gone to great lengths to minimize the impact on our customers’ travel plans. We’ve used spare aircraft and other creative solutions to help our customers who had been scheduled to travel on one of our MAX aircraft, get where they are going.
While the MAX is out of our schedule, we’ll continue to automatically book affected customers on alternate flights, or proactively reach out to them and offer other options.
For more than 93 years, the safety of our customers and employees at United has come first, which is why we have cooperated fully with the FAA’s independent review of the MAX aircraft. We won’t put our customers and employees on the 737 MAX until regulators make their own independent assessment that it is safe to do so.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:46 am

The last paragraph makes me giggle. It would literally be against the law to return it to service before FAA approval. It's not like this is a voluntary decision to comply. Lol.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:56 am

JonesNL wrote:
Extremely well written in depth article about a lot that has surfaced around the 737 MAX (highly recommended read!!):
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... cover.html

Architecture difference between 737 and A320:
And, just like the original autopilots [on the 737], there are only two EDFCS-730s[FCC's] (the A320neo has the equivalent of five and they are far more comprehensive).


Forensic reasoning why the fix with double FCC's is taking so long:
Forensically, I can think of two possible reasons:

1. It was just “too hard.”The software in the EDFCS-730 is too brittle and crufty (these are software technical terms, believe me), there is something about the nature of the link (it’s a 150 baud serial link, for example (note for the pedants, I am not saying it is)), you have to “wake up” the standby FCC, etc.
2. Boeing deliberately did not want to use both AOA sensors because, as I said at the beginning, “a man with one AOA sensor knows what the angle of attack is, a man with two AOA sensors is never sure.”e. if Boeing used two sensors then it would have had to deal with the problem of what to do if they disagreed. And that would have meant training which would have violated ship the airplane.

I tend to tilt towards #1. I think it’s just really, really hard to do so and I think that the “boot up” problems (see end of this article) point to exactly that. If so, that is yet another damning reason why the FAA and no one should ever certify as safe MCAS as a solution to the aircraft’s longitudinal stability problem.

That said, it’s never “either/or.” The answer could be “both #1 and #2”


It goes in details about the culture at Boeing. I will not give away the ending/conclusion, as it is only rewarding when reading the article as an whole...


I haven't finished reading the entire article, but I did get all the way to the above "forensic" analysis and was happy to see a senior level software engineer like Gregory agreeing with me and what I've been saying for months now... (a) Boeing proved they wanted a two sensor design with MCAS 0.0, and (b) because of the time it is taking - a year plus so far - to implement a two-sensor AOA solution, the logical conclusion left is that it was too difficult to get that cross-side AOA sensor data, through the "corpus collasum" from the cross-side FCC, during the MCAS 1.0 implementation. I don't buy the training deterrent. $1M penalty on a plane that's selling for $120M doesn't stack up to the risk of lawn-darting a plane with 100s of passengers, grounding, production stoppages, layoffs.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:24 am

Another excellent article from Dominic Gates..

Looks like the wiring issue wont go away.. Boeing is arguing that the wiring is the same as the 737NG which hasnt had a problem.. the FAA saying that it doesn't comply with current standards..

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-missed/
 
bennett123
Posts: 9194
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:52 am

Given how this situation continues to drag on, will parked B737NG return to service, or be parted out quicker.

I expect the latter.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:15 am

flyingphil wrote:
Another excellent article from Dominic Gates..

Looks like the wiring issue wont go away.. Boeing is arguing that the wiring is the same as the 737NG which hasnt had a problem.. the FAA saying that it doesn't comply with current standards..

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-missed/



From that article:

It’s probably true that if Boeing proposes to do nothing, EASA is going to say, ‘Hell, no,'” the second person said.

Jeff Guzzetti, a former accident investigator with both the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and now an air-safety consultant, said the federal agency’s decision “will be influenced by the white-hot spotlight the FAA is under” because of the MAX crashes.

On Friday, the FAA issued an official statement hinting that Boeing may be forced to comply with the wiring regulation.
“We will rigorously evaluate Boeing’s proposal to address a recently discovered wiring issue with the 737 MAX,” the FAA said. “The manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with all certification standards.”
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
JonesNL
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:27 am

Revelation wrote:
mileduets wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
Extremely well written in depth article about a lot that has surfaced around the 737 MAX (highly recommended read!!):
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... cover.html

This article is indeed very enlightening, both on company culture and system architecture. If I haven't fully understood the "Frankenplane" argument so far, this article explaines it pretty well, illustrated in detail. Thank you very much for sharing it!

IMO the article is all sizzle and no bacon, and not worth the time to read its 17959 words ( ref: https://wordcounter.net/website-word-count ).

It throws together many disparate ideas and theories that make some obvious things (like A320's flight computer architecture is ~20 years newer so better, and Boeing is a greedy, for profit, capitalist entity) and wraps lots and lots of verbiage around the basic stuff to try to make these obvious things sound profound

When the author tries to make a conclusion, there's no bacon. There's just an unsubstantiated theory that greedy Boeing deliberately threw the MCAS problem into the lap of some unnamed junior engineer in the hopes they would be too stupid to ask the kinds of questions a skilled senior engineer would ask. Great, one more theory to add to the long list of other theories, all of which can be explained in a few sentences rather than 17959 words.

TL;DR: Article advances an theory that greedy Boeing deliberately threw the MCAS problem into the lap of some unnamed junior engineer in the hopes they would be too stupid to ask the kinds of questions a skilled senior engineer would ask, without offering any proof of such, despite using 17959 words to present the theory.


Well, the description of the Wall Street focused culture is nothing special. A lot of organizations share the consequences of that which leaves no bacon on that end, rehashed potato at best.

The bacon for me is in the architecture outline and the choices it lead to. Basing mcas on one AOA was almost logical when looking at the architecture. But if you were already aware of this, then no bacon there either.

That leaves the gargantuan writing style that writers tend to use to portray their higher intellect. Which can be entertaining at times, but annoying if it is not your cup of tea. So, no bacon on three occasions...
 
mileduets
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:15 pm

JonesNL wrote:

The bacon for me is in the architecture outline and the choices it lead to. Basing mcas on one AOA was almost logical when looking at the architecture. But if you were already aware of this, then no bacon there either.


That's exactly where the article goes deeper than what I've seen so far. Precise illustration on what lead to the choices Boeing made and why corrective measures are so difficult to implement.
 
SDL
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:52 pm

Well the max was a big misstanke thats clear, a new aircraft would have been in the air earlier.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14560
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:06 pm

I suspect the insurance and reinsurance premium rates as well as deductibles for airlines, Boeing and suppliers as to the 737MAX's will be measurably higher that of older versions. Consider the losses of insurers in the 2 deadly crashes will be in the $10's of millions, that insurers will want their money back 2 times, and the still unknowns of if the fixes will work as intended so the need to have higher reserves for them. Over the long run, if the 737MAX works out, then premiums and deductibles will level out lower as have a better date to do the underwriting.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:57 pm

mileduets wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
The bacon for me is in the architecture outline and the choices it lead to. Basing mcas on one AOA was almost logical when looking at the architecture. But if you were already aware of this, then no bacon there either.

That's exactly where the article goes deeper than what I've seen so far. Precise illustration on what lead to the choices Boeing made and why corrective measures are so difficult to implement.

Yet this type of change, going from active/standby pair to active/active pair, is IMO not as challenging as the author makes it out to be. He uses a lot of extraneous verbiage to suggest that it is, but it's been done countless times (I've been a part of teams doing similar things at least three times in my career) and there's a lot of prior art on how to make it work. It seems like a radical change to someone who thinks in terms of biology, but to a computer scientist this is all well understood stuff, far simpler than things like the VAX/VMS cluster of the 1980s that one a.net member writes about. Note the author of this article never quantifies anything like impact to schedule, resources needed, etc. He just floats a scary theory to get people's imaginations going and walks away.

It is, of course, enough work to want to avoid doing if it is not needed, but FAA said in the June/July time frame it was needed and even the elongated time schedule that now encompasses many other things like developing the sim based training and get it all approved suggests a mid summer RTS so this new active/active implementation is largely already done and just dealing with minor issues such as a warning light being left on longer than it should have been.

Bottom line is I think MCAS 2.0 was largely sorted by June last year and this architecture thing was largely sorted by November of last year with testing showing a few minor bugs. I think if there was a real showstopper kind of problem this article hints at, we would be hearing about it by now. I'm not saying such a thing is impossible, I'm saying this article isn't a good basis to believe there is one, IMO.
Last edited by Revelation on Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:01 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
 
LDRA
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:57 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Extremely well written in depth article about a lot that has surfaced around the 737 MAX (highly recommended read!!):
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... cover.html

Architecture difference between 737 and A320:
And, just like the original autopilots [on the 737], there are only two EDFCS-730s[FCC's] (the A320neo has the equivalent of five and they are far more comprehensive).


Forensic reasoning why the fix with double FCC's is taking so long:
Forensically, I can think of two possible reasons:

1. It was just “too hard.”The software in the EDFCS-730 is too brittle and crufty (these are software technical terms, believe me), there is something about the nature of the link (it’s a 150 baud serial link, for example (note for the pedants, I am not saying it is)), you have to “wake up” the standby FCC, etc.
2. Boeing deliberately did not want to use both AOA sensors because, as I said at the beginning, “a man with one AOA sensor knows what the angle of attack is, a man with two AOA sensors is never sure.”e. if Boeing used two sensors then it would have had to deal with the problem of what to do if they disagreed. And that would have meant training which would have violated ship the airplane.

I tend to tilt towards #1. I think it’s just really, really hard to do so and I think that the “boot up” problems (see end of this article) point to exactly that. If so, that is yet another damning reason why the FAA and no one should ever certify as safe MCAS as a solution to the aircraft’s longitudinal stability problem.

That said, it’s never “either/or.” The answer could be “both #1 and #2”


It goes in details about the culture at Boeing. I will not give away the ending/conclusion, as it is only rewarding when reading the article as an whole...


Lot of hot air in that article

Strictly in the context of MCAS system, there is nothing wrong with one sensor MCAS design, as long as MCAS control output is limited to 2.5degrees. STS uses similar design concept, in that only one set of airspeed is used for input, and control authority is limited to ensure aircraft is controllable
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:12 pm

LDRA wrote:
Lot of hot air in that article

Strictly in the context of MCAS system, there is nothing wrong with one sensor MCAS design, as long as MCAS control output is limited to 2.5degrees. STS uses similar design concept, in that only one set of airspeed is used for input, and control authority is limited to ensure aircraft is controllable

Indeed.

And the comparison to A320 is superflous, EASA itself has addressed the point:

    FlyersRights: With MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), Boeing has apparently added a form of envelope protection to the 737 MAX. We believe that MCAS is implemented in the Rockwell-Collins EDFCS-730 autopilot/flight control computer(s) (FCC). The architecture of the 737 MAX FCC appears to be considerably more primitive and limited when compared to the architecture of the A320neo envelope protection system. Particularly in the areas of sensor redundancy, self-diagnosis and software heterogeneity (we believe the software is single-sourced).

    Additionally, the automation philosophy between the 737 and the A320neo appears to differ in that the A320neo system incrementally gives more control to the pilots, through flight control law progression, in response to system fault and/or failure. The MCAS system does not appear to operate on the same principle.

    What, if any, effects on EASA’s certification process might the above have?

    EASA: An aircraft is certified based on the demonstration that its design complies with all relevant airworthiness requirements and all features are safe. Our airworthiness requirements are not prescriptive. Depending on the technology and system architecture used, aeroplanes can meet the safety objectives differently. Therefore, we would not compare aircrafts to each other, rather assess how they comply with the requirements.

Ref: https://flyersrights.org/boeing/exclusi ... ty-agency/

Bottom line: What A320 did/does is irrelevant to the regulators when they are evaluating the 737.
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
 
JonesNL
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
mileduets wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
The bacon for me is in the architecture outline and the choices it lead to. Basing mcas on one AOA was almost logical when looking at the architecture. But if you were already aware of this, then no bacon there either.

That's exactly where the article goes deeper than what I've seen so far. Precise illustration on what lead to the choices Boeing made and why corrective measures are so difficult to implement.

Yet this type of change, going from active/standby pair to active/active pair, is IMO not as challenging as the author makes it out to be. He uses a lot of extraneous verbiage to suggest that it is, but it's been done countless times (I've been a part of teams doing similar things at least three times in my career) and there's a lot of prior art on how to make it work. It seems like a radical change to someone who thinks in terms of biology, but to a computer scientist this is all well understood stuff, far simpler than things like the VAX/VMS cluster of the 1980s that one a.net member writes about. Note the author of this article never quantifies anything like impact to schedule, resources needed, etc. He just floats a scary theory to get people's imaginations going and walks away.

It is, of course, enough work to want to avoid doing if it is not needed, but FAA said in the June/July time frame it was needed and even the elongated time schedule that now encompasses many other things like developing the sim based training and get it all approved suggests a mid summer RTS so this new active/active implementation is largely already done and just dealing with minor issues such as a warning light being left on longer than it should have been.

Bottom line is I think MCAS 2.0 was largely sorted by June last year and this architecture thing was largely sorted by November of last year with testing showing a few minor bugs. I think if there was a real showstopper kind of problem this article hints at, we would be hearing about it by now. I'm not saying such a thing is impossible, I'm saying this article isn't a good basis to believe there is one, IMO.


I agree that it should be not to difficult to go active active from active/passive. Like you say, there is a lot out their on how to do it. The problematic part is that it is against the base architecture. Usually this means an overhaul of interacting systems, as every system interacting is not designed to talk to each other. Which changes the prospects of how complex the change is.
And the lack of factual data is a problem in this whole soap. Nobody is clear what the real hurdles are that need to be taken for recertification, so you see a lot of guessing and gambling.
 
dakota123
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:53 pm

LDRA wrote:

Lot of hot air in that article

Strictly in the context of MCAS system, there is nothing wrong with one sensor MCAS design, as long as MCAS control output is limited to 2.5degrees. STS uses similar design concept, in that only one set of airspeed is used for input, and control authority is limited to ensure aircraft is controllable


Indeed, mostly hot air. He would have done well to complete his homework. https://www.satcom.guru/2018/11/737-fcc ... d.html?m=1 and the other articles in the series.
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
dakota123
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:00 pm

SDL wrote:
Well the max was a big misstanke thats clear, a new aircraft would have been in the air earlier.


It’s not clear at all. If there hadn’t been this fubar, no one would be saying that. (Sure, they’s be lamenting the loss of the 757 market to Airbus, but that’s it.)
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:23 pm

JonesNL wrote:
I agree that it should be not to difficult to go active active from active/passive. Like you say, there is a lot out their on how to do it. The problematic part is that it is against the base architecture. Usually this means an overhaul of interacting systems, as every system interacting is not designed to talk to each other. Which changes the prospects of how complex the change is.

And the lack of factual data is a problem in this whole soap. Nobody is clear what the real hurdles are that need to be taken for recertification, so you see a lot of guessing and gambling.

https://gizmodo.com/boeing-finds-new-so ... 1841493750 gives some interesting dates:

“During flight testing of the 737 MAX’s updated software, an indicator light associated with the stabilizer trim system illuminated in the flight deck,” a Boeing spokesperson told Gizmodo via email. “We determined that the illumination of this light was caused by differences in input data between the flight control computers (FCC). This is a result of the FCC cross compare redundancy software update issued in June 2019.”

“We are incorporating a change to the 737 MAX software prior to the fleet returning to service to ensure that this indicator light only illuminates as intended,” the aviation company’s statement continued. “Boeing notified the Federal Aviation Administration of this the week of Jan. 20 and has shared technical background regarding the issue and planned software update. We have also notified our airline customers.”

So if nothing else we know a flight test of the FCC cross compare redundancy software update that happened on or before the week of January 20th found the problem with the illumination of the stabilizer trim system warning light, and we know the problem was due to a difference in the FCC input data streams so both FCCs were active. To me this means they were able to figure out an architecture to support active/active mode a long time before that and were deep into testing by that point in time.

It's very interesting to me that the claim was the software update was issued in June 2019. That really doesn't match any timeline I know of, but there has been a theory that Boeing was concerned about the redundancy issue after the JT crash in November 2018 and was already working on the problem when FAA decided it needed the change during the "cosmic ray" testing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/boeing- ... eview.html tells us that the display/monitor initialization problem was discovered in a code review in Iowa earlier in January. The fact that the code was under review undermines the idea that there is no architecture that can solve the problem, and the fact that it was in Iowa undermines the suggestion that Boeing has kept the FCC code in house rather than having Rockwell Collins do the work.
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
PITingres
Posts: 1282
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:59 pm

flyingphil wrote:
Another excellent article from Dominic Gates..

Looks like the wiring issue wont go away.. Boeing is arguing that the wiring is the same as the 737NG which hasnt had a problem.. the FAA saying that it doesn't comply with current standards..

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-missed/


If one posits the facts as I understand them from the article, I think Boeing has a very strong case for leaving existing builds alone. Moving wiring bundles doesn't come without its own risk of nicks or insulation damage. Even disregarding the dollar cost of moving wiring, it seems like a dumb idea. I could see agreeing to move the bundles on new builds, maybe.

As for EASA saying hell no: either the risk of moving the wiring is lower than the existing zero-out-of-250M flight hours risk of leaving them alone, or it isn't. The regulatory agencies either regulate for safety, or they regulate for politics and safety theater. People shouldn't let them get away with pretending they can have it both ways.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:06 pm

JonesNL wrote:
I agree that it should be not to difficult to go active active from active/passive. Like you say, there is a lot out their on how to do it. The problematic part is that it is against the base architecture. Usually this means an overhaul of interacting systems, as every system interacting is not designed to talk to each other. Which changes the prospects of how complex the change is.
And the lack of factual data is a problem in this whole soap. Nobody is clear what the real hurdles are that need to be taken for recertification, so you see a lot of guessing and gambling.


I haven't worked on the Max design, but my experience tells me that redundant systems - at least for DO178B/C Level-A - are active/active. But the general gist of the article Gregory Travis wrote is legit. And I agree, the details we are guessing at at this point. And all of the software issues - failsafe design aka "cosmic ray", power-up monitor timing, stab trim fail indicator timing - are likely related to the same two sensor AOA design change, especially considering the antiquated hardware being used.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/boeing- ... eview.html tells us that the display/monitor initialization problem was discovered in a code review in Iowa earlier in January. The fact that the code was under review undermines the idea that there is no architecture that can solve the problem, and the fact that it was in Iowa undermines the suggestion that Boeing has kept the FCC code in house rather than having Rockwell Collins do the work.


And the time it is taking, and still taking, to get to a software solution, says that there is [no architecture that can solve the problem, and solve it reliably].
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:22 pm

PITingres wrote:
flyingphil wrote:
Another excellent article from Dominic Gates..

Looks like the wiring issue wont go away.. Boeing is arguing that the wiring is the same as the 737NG which hasnt had a problem.. the FAA saying that it doesn't comply with current standards..

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-missed/


If one posits the facts as I understand them from the article, I think Boeing has a very strong case for leaving existing builds alone. Moving wiring bundles doesn't come without its own risk of nicks or insulation damage. Even disregarding the dollar cost of moving wiring, it seems like a dumb idea. I could see agreeing to move the bundles on new builds, maybe.

As for EASA saying hell no: either the risk of moving the wiring is lower than the existing zero-out-of-250M flight hours risk of leaving them alone, or it isn't. The regulatory agencies either regulate for safety, or they regulate for politics and safety theater. People shouldn't let them get away with pretending they can have it both ways.

Political pressure seems more likely on the US side. EASA seems to have been consistent and co-operative. Some of the issues identified by JATR, whistle blowers and even Boeing as important, were previously raised by EASA, and the FAA persuaded / reassured no action required.

Recent Airbus trade tariff moves enable US leverage to indirectly influence EASA, by applying political pressure to the EU to directly influence EASA to make their concerns go away. If some of those same concerns are shared by the FAA, that suggests political interference is already at work there.

Most passengers may be dumb, but customers and insurers?
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:41 pm

PITingres wrote:
flyingphil wrote:
Another excellent article from Dominic Gates..

Looks like the wiring issue wont go away.. Boeing is arguing that the wiring is the same as the 737NG which hasnt had a problem.. the FAA saying that it doesn't comply with current standards..

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-missed/


If one posits the facts as I understand them from the article, I think Boeing has a very strong case for leaving existing builds alone. Moving wiring bundles doesn't come without its own risk of nicks or insulation damage. Even disregarding the dollar cost of moving wiring, it seems like a dumb idea. I could see agreeing to move the bundles on new builds, maybe.

As for EASA saying hell no: either the risk of moving the wiring is lower than the existing zero-out-of-250M flight hours risk of leaving them alone, or it isn't. The regulatory agencies either regulate for safety, or they regulate for politics and safety theater. People shouldn't let them get away with pretending they can have it both ways.


Simple question; Does it meet current regulations?

Simple answer; No

Push back; But its been this way for aaaaggggeeeesss is fine until its not!

Do you want to be the person willingly signing off on something knowing current regulations are not being met?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:33 pm

sgrow787 wrote:
And the time it is taking, and still taking, to get to a software solution, says that there is [no architecture that can solve the problem, and solve it reliably].

Displays/monitors that are initialized incorrectly and/or warning lights that stay on too long are not indicative of "no architecture that can solve the problem, and solve it reliably", IMO. In fact if these are the worst things being reported after doing flight testing, I'd think they have solved the main problem to be solved reliably and are chasing down relatively minor side effects.
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
 
LDRA
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:38 pm

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
PITingres wrote:
flyingphil wrote:
Another excellent article from Dominic Gates..

Looks like the wiring issue wont go away.. Boeing is arguing that the wiring is the same as the 737NG which hasnt had a problem.. the FAA saying that it doesn't comply with current standards..

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ng-missed/


If one posits the facts as I understand them from the article, I think Boeing has a very strong case for leaving existing builds alone. Moving wiring bundles doesn't come without its own risk of nicks or insulation damage. Even disregarding the dollar cost of moving wiring, it seems like a dumb idea. I could see agreeing to move the bundles on new builds, maybe.

As for EASA saying hell no: either the risk of moving the wiring is lower than the existing zero-out-of-250M flight hours risk of leaving them alone, or it isn't. The regulatory agencies either regulate for safety, or they regulate for politics and safety theater. People shouldn't let them get away with pretending they can have it both ways.


Simple question; Does it meet current regulations?

Simple answer; No

Push back; But its been this way for aaaaggggeeeesss is fine until its not!

Do you want to be the person willingly signing off on something knowing current regulations are not being met?


Ture

I think the end result would be some compromise - i.e. Mandate some bullsh!t reoccuring wiring inspection that does not effectively detect problem in wiring, but at least make it look like Boeing is not getting a free pass on certification requirement again
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1282
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:53 pm

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Simple question; Does it meet current regulations?

Simple answer; No

Push back; But its been this way for aaaaggggeeeesss is fine until its not!

Do you want to be the person willingly signing off on something knowing current regulations are not being met?


Wrong simple question.

Simple question: Is it safe?

Not as simple question: Is it safer to try to fix it, or to leave it alone?

Meeting a regulation is not the goal. Being safe is the goal. It's unwise to meet a regulation and cause less safety. It's just like being legal vs being right, they aren't always the same thing.

I would happily be the one to sign off on "leave it alone" if I could be convinced that digging up everything needed to get at the wiring, then moving the wiring trying not to damage any of it, then putting it all back, would be less safe than just leaving existing builds alone.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:45 am

Revelation wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
And the time it is taking, and still taking, to get to a software solution, says that there is [no architecture that can solve the problem, and solve it reliably].

Displays/monitors that are initialized incorrectly and/or warning lights that stay on too long are not indicative of "no architecture that can solve the problem, and solve it reliably", IMO. In fact if these are the worst things being reported after doing flight testing, I'd think they have solved the main problem to be solved reliably and are chasing down relatively minor side effects.


I didn't read "displays" anywhere in the CNBC article you referenced. From the article:

One of the monitors was not being initiated correctly, officials said. The monitor check is prompted by a software command at airplane or system power up, and will set the appropriate indication if maintenance is required, company officials added.


I don't see how you can matter-of-factly state (in your IMO) that the issue is solvable with the current hardware. Note I'm interpreting the words "no architecture that can solve the problem" as "no software architecture for the current antiquated hardware that can solve the problem". Also, it's quite possible that this overall systems monitor function was implemented in the glass display system that Collins/UTC developed in Iowa - the system that displays all the indicators - and that the issue is the FCC system test (ie FCC monitor) is failing when it is initiated too early in the power up sequence (or because of the increased number of checks, it isn't completing in time). The result of that test being sent to the overall systems monitor within the glass display.

I'm guessing the stab fail indicator is the indicator for when MCAS is disabled (due to AOA disagree... but there's already a AOA disagree light).
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
Ugly51
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:02 am

Boeing has been playinthe ALARP ( As Low As Is Reasonably Practical) game for a long time now. They also have a very toxic work place environment. The wiring problems are here to stay, they either alter the wiring or the aircraft doesn't fly.
The 737NG got past the FAA certification due to Boeing/FAA mandarins working at Boeing.
The same mistake will not be made by the FAA again. They do not trust Boeing in anyway shape or form.
This could possibly be the deal breaker for Boeing Commercial Aircraft.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9738
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:12 am

sgrow787 wrote:
I don't see how you can matter-of-factly state (in your IMO) that the issue is solvable with the current hardware. Note I'm interpreting the words "no architecture that can solve the problem" as "no software architecture for the current antiquated hardware that can solve the problem".

Appreciate the explanation, when I saw your first post I thought you meant that the reason MCAS was designed could not be resolved via software.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9738
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:18 am

Ugly51 wrote:
Boeing has been playinthe ALARP ( As Low As Is Reasonably Practical) game for a long time now. They also have a very toxic work place environment. The wiring problems are here to stay, they either alter the wiring or the aircraft doesn't fly.
The 737NG got past the FAA certification due to Boeing/FAA mandarins working at Boeing.
The same mistake will not be made by the FAA again. They do not trust Boeing in anyway shape or form.
This could possibly be the deal breaker for Boeing Commercial Aircraft.

So the wiring has to be changed because it is not safe?
How would they allow the NG's to continue to fly without a refit, as far as I have seen, they are not requiring the entire a/c to be rewired, and if this latest concern is about short circuits and not increase danger from a uncontained failure of a larger engine, the safety of the public would demand that the NG also be grounded.

It will be interesting to see the approach the FAA takes to the wire bundle, fix all or after line number X with others done at next D check.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2335
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:30 am

par13del wrote:
Ugly51 wrote:
Boeing has been playinthe ALARP ( As Low As Is Reasonably Practical) game for a long time now. They also have a very toxic work place environment. The wiring problems are here to stay, they either alter the wiring or the aircraft doesn't fly.
The 737NG got past the FAA certification due to Boeing/FAA mandarins working at Boeing.
The same mistake will not be made by the FAA again. They do not trust Boeing in anyway shape or form.
This could possibly be the deal breaker for Boeing Commercial Aircraft.

So the wiring has to be changed because it is not safe?
How would they allow the NG's to continue to fly without a refit, as far as I have seen, they are not requiring the entire a/c to be rewired, and if this latest concern is about short circuits and not increase danger from a uncontained failure of a larger engine, the safety of the public would demand that the NG also be grounded.

It will be interesting to see the approach the FAA takes to the wire bundle, fix all or after line number X with others done at next D check.

This is not a yes-or-no question. There can a solution other than ripping off existing wire bundles. Just two most obvious: Running a new armored power wiring while leaving old one in place, de-energized. Putting a watchdog capable of detecting shorts - and acting on them.
Possibly something else is possible....
 
2175301
Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:57 am

PITingres wrote:
ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Simple question; Does it meet current regulations?

Simple answer; No

Push back; But its been this way for aaaaggggeeeesss is fine until its not!

Do you want to be the person willingly signing off on something knowing current regulations are not being met?


Wrong simple question.

Simple question: Is it safe?

Not as simple question: Is it safer to try to fix it, or to leave it alone?

Meeting a regulation is not the goal. Being safe is the goal. It's unwise to meet a regulation and cause less safety. It's just like being legal vs being right, they aren't always the same thing.

I would happily be the one to sign off on "leave it alone" if I could be convinced that digging up everything needed to get at the wiring, then moving the wiring trying not to damage any of it, then putting it all back, would be less safe than just leaving existing builds alone.



To expand on this: There are very few aircraft flying today that meet all the regulations when it was built. They have Waivers on a number of things. The original classic reason for waivers is that historic data indicates that there is not an issue with the older design. Real world data on real world events logically beats theoretical projections every time.

The reality is that our current method of projecting the occurrence of events - and how safe a design is - is most often at least partial based on theoretical guesses. They may be educated guesses; but, are guesses nevertheless.

If the regulators follow the logic of "safety first" - and not blind regulatory compliance; then I feel that Boeing will likely get a Waiver on existing built aircraft if their data is what they say it is.

I would expect that they may have to modify the wiring in all new builds after they restart production.

Have a great day,
 
Scotron12
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:17 am

A question: IAG have an LOI for 200 B737MAX from June 2019 with EIS of 2022. The models chosen are the MAX 8 and MAX 10.

With the grounding still ongoing and RTS not expected until this summer, how realistic is that date? And what mix do Boeing start producing between the 3 models?

I guess ramp up will be to clear the MAX8 back log first.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:33 am

Revelation wrote:
In fact if these are the worst things being reported after doing flight testing, I'd think they have solved the main problem to be solved reliably and are chasing down relatively minor side effects.


Initializing errors are not really "minor".

If you are unable to power up a system into a known to be safe/correct state
any activity onwards is "für die Füsse", worthless.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:30 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In fact if these are the worst things being reported after doing flight testing, I'd think they have solved the main problem to be solved reliably and are chasing down relatively minor side effects.


Initializing errors are not really "minor".

If you are unable to power up a system into a known to be safe/correct state
any activity onwards is "für die Füsse", worthless.

That's true, but I meant the amount of work needed to resolve the issue is typically minor. Usually it shows developers have not tested all the different orders in which things can be initialized, and the fixes are pretty minor (insert logic so X waits for Y to be initialized before doing Z). Developers tend to not think about startup/shutdown as thoroughly as other things, and tend to turn on equipment in a particular order that may or may not match the real world.
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
 
maint123
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:12 pm

So did Max take a test flight with mcas switched off or that's off the table?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

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