• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
Noshow
Posts: 1299
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:55 pm

And doing the MAX was about being as fast as possible to the market with the product. Now the line is halted.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3538
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:59 pm

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Personally I think getting 25% of the program cost up front before any metal is cut and making the government a business partner is a far better deal then rebates for taxes you've already paid, but that's just me.


That might sound good at the outset of a single programme.

But as the programmes roll forward, the picture flips into reverse.
In Airbus's case it gets saddled with a load of royalty payments on the current programmes which put a drag on revenue to take from those programmes and put into a new one.

Conversely, Boeing get to keep the $8Bn or so of tax not paid on the 787 Programme, and apply it to the 777X
In years to come they get to add the next $8Bn of tax not paid on the 777X onto NMA, or FSA or whatever.
And get virtually a free Programme development built on the tax not paid in previous years/decades

The long term outcome is completely different, and is reflected in the financials of both companies.

That's not how it gets messaged on here though, presumably because it doesn't fit the A-net weltanschaunng :scratchchin:

I know which one I would want

Rgds


Boeing and Airbus grab (and demand) the covert government subsidies they can get. The are capitalists after all. LOL
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:28 pm

Yet another software glitch? Sounds minor, but still.... c'mon guys, this shouldnt be happening now!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 37-max-jet
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:39 pm

DL717 wrote:
The sad part about this whole $20 billion and growing debacle is that they could have been flight testing (or close to it) an entirely new narrowbody by now for about the same amount of money. It’s been 9-years since launch already and the new narrow had an estimated development cost around $15-20 billion.

That's a false narrative. You are not including the cost of a time machine that would have told you that Boeing engineering was going to screw up MCAS, nor are you counting for the 4-6 years that you would be selling nothing much while Airbus was selling NEOs as fast as they could build them.

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Yet another software glitch? Sounds minor, but still.... c'mon guys, this shouldnt be happening now!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 37-max-jet

TFA says:

The trim alert issue resulted from Boeing’s redesign the two flight computers that control the 737 Max to make them more resilient to failure, the two people said.

So this is what one would expect to be happening now.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:50 pm

2175301 wrote:
767333ER wrote:
The problem is one of philosophy here. MCAS has shown to be fundamentally flawed. The only version of the 737 that reached certification and was signed off as airworthy had this catastrophic system. This as it stands in paperwork is the only 737 MAX that has existed so far. The 737 MAX has flown around with this fundamentally flawed system that has a catastrophic failure model.

Also, the 767... only a specific version of it has a system like this and unlike MCAS it is implemented because of a different cause and is implemented like any other flight augmentation is (the correct way), again, unlike MCAS.


I disagree with these statements: There is nothing fundamentally flawed about the concept of MCAS for envelope protection at the edges. As you indicate the more modern versions of the 767 has a version of it. The key difference is that the 767 has a more modern computer system with a lot more capability. The past threads have also indicated that there are FBW aircraft with similar edge of envelope protection programmed into the FBW computer systems.

To get MCAS implemented in the 737 computer system they had to use much more limited computer resources (and is not a FBW system so you could not just code in the needed adjustments), and the programming is thus much simpler and shorter.

What was flawed was not the concept of MCAS (or edge of envelope protection system); as other aircraft uses them successfully. But how MCAS was implemented on the 737Max. V1 was very poorly done (and Boeing deserves the blame for that). Had the 737Max had what is now known as V2 (tested in June 2019 - with no publicly stated issues of the revised MCAS programing), or something similar; then none of us probably would have ever heard of MCAS.... as the crashes, had they occurred, would not have had a primary link to MCAS.

The big goof up was at the safety assessment level of the system. Had that been done correctly then Boeing would have been forced up front into something like what we now know as MCAS V2.

Have a great day,

Implementation is a key part of the concept and design process is it not? It was designed specifically for the 737’s flight data systems and as such ended up a flawed design/implementation; therefore the only MCAS version that has reached “certification” is fundamentally flawed. Fundamental because you never design a flight augmentation system that relies on one sensor. MCAS was specifically designed to rely on only one sensor and as such that reliance on one sensor is a key function of MCAS meaning it is part of the design of MCAS. Fundamental... Do you follow?

We’ve seen the malicious intent in the company; I don’t think it really was an accidental goof up.
Chemist wrote:
There's no doubt that MCAS 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. If you take that as part of the MAX then MAX 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. However the OP was insuating that the entire aircraft needs to be scrapped because its fundamentally flawed, which is ridiculous. MCAS 2.0 assuming it is well designed should solve the problem. In fact, the two crashes would not have occurred if MCAS had not existed, because the non-conforming approach to stall behavior a) didn't occur in those flights; b) probably would have been corrected by the pilots even if that condition DID occur as the stall warning and the stick shaker would have been activated. The fundamental flaw in the A/C was MCAS 1.0 and that should be rectified in v2.0 as the regulators are going to be all over that.

It's a shame that a "safety system" (MCAS) actually caused all those deaths as it was a crap system. We all know that and Boeing is paying a huge price. Unfortunately not as huge a price as the affected passengers.

Might I remind you of your previous position: “The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous . . .” and now it is “ There's no doubt that MCAS 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. If you take that as part of the MAX then MAX 1.0 was fundamentally flawed”. The MAX “1.0” is the only MAX in official paperwork right now so if the MAX “1.0” is fundamentally flawed then the MAX is fundamentally flawed and you basically just admitted that. So now the only certified iteration 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed when you adamantly insisted it was not before?

I do agree it’s ridiculous to suggest it should be scrapped, but at the same time I think it should be because it deserves to be. Just as those that made the decisions deserve to be in prison and Boeing deserves to struggling a lot harder than it is for this. It’s high time they pay the price for something they’ve done since they never really have had to before. Banning the 737 MAX forever for no reason other than punishment is deep down what I wish would happen. It’s illogical but it feels right.
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?!
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:08 pm

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... KKBN20026S

Further report of 'new' software problem. Does anyone know if this ' indicator light' is an existing indicator or a new one added to the flight deck? do they mean a message on the PFD?

Additionally, Dickson - '....“On the design approval, from everything that I have seen I think we’ll have very solid alignment,” he said. ...'

Does this imply EASA and FAA now basically agree on the wire bundle change/no change conclusion?

And, '...“They have not given us a proposal on the wiring yet,” Dickson said. ...'

Does this imply that a change to the wire bundle separation will be made?

Ray
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:42 pm

767333ER wrote:
Might I remind you of your previous position: “The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous . . .” and now it is “ There's no doubt that MCAS 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. If you take that as part of the MAX then MAX 1.0 was fundamentally flawed”. The MAX “1.0” is the only MAX in official paperwork right now so if the MAX “1.0” is fundamentally flawed then the MAX is fundamentally flawed and you basically just admitted that. So now the only certified iteration 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed when you adamantly insisted it was not before?


This logic does not hold up. If the entire airplane was fundamentally flawed, it could never fly again. Yet the trouble is with a component, whose design function is certainly achievable and commonly used within the industry, that with redesign can perform its function properly. And as noted, the fundamental flaw has been traced not back even to the MCAS implementation but to the hazard assessment that drove its design.

In other words, if the driver's seat in your car has a design flaw such that it will break when more than 100 lbs is placed in it, your whole car is not fundamentally flawed. We simply replace the seat with a proper one - one that was designed correctly. Nor would we throw your whole car into a dumpster just because you "felt" that it was the proper response to the situation. There is plenty of residual value left in the product to fix it and return it to service.
 
WillyEckers
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:24 pm

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
TFA says:

The trim alert issue resulted from Boeing’s redesign the two flight computers that control the 737 Max to make them more resilient to failure, the two people said.

So this is what one would expect to be happening now.


Obviously we have zero in the way of context (wrong requirements? wrong coding?) but it does mean a new S/W p/n and a trip around the V&V model again. There's no such thing as a "little software change" :-)
 
WIederling
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
The trim alert issue resulted from Boeing’s redesign the two flight computers that control the 737 Max to make them more resilient to failure, the two people said.

So this is what one would expect to be happening now.


Shouldn't that have been exposed in regression testing and not in a flight test?

Sounds on occasion so very much like "rumprobieren" and "hinfummeln" ( in a way Cargo Cult programming.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1282
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:00 am

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The trim alert issue resulted from Boeing’s redesign the two flight computers that control the 737 Max to make them more resilient to failure, the two people said.

So this is what one would expect to be happening now.


Shouldn't that have been exposed in regression testing and not in a flight test?

Sounds on occasion so very much like "rumprobieren" and "hinfummeln" ( in a way Cargo Cult programming.)


If this was a timing issue, which I very much suspect to be the case, it's very difficult to test with any sort of real confidence level. I've personally had to chase a race condition in the product I work on that was in place for 3 or 4 years (I forget the exact dates) before someone ran just the right set of SQL with just the right machine load to provoke it. The bit of code involved gets exercised in every single test that is run.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
Chemist
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:43 am

On a somewhat-related note, it was announced that the Boeing "Starliner" had another potentially fatal software flaw that could have lost the capsule during reentry. It was patched only a few hours before reentry, during the recent test mission:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/starliner-faced-catastrophic-failure-before-software-bug-found/

So recently from Boeing we have:
    - MCAS on the 737 MAX
    - Just announced additional SW error on the MAX
    - Starliner one of three parachute bridles not properly fastened, chute failed during chute test
    - Starliner timing problem, failed to achieve proper orbit on recent test flight
    - Starliner software error, potential reentry failure and loss of craft during reentry, patched during flight

We are seeing a once great company's descent into mediocrity. It's a shame we can't clean out both the board of directors AND the upper management. All of them.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:59 am

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
We also know that Boeing are equally eligible for RLI..

We don't. Do tell.


Oh we do! RLI was defined in the 1992 Large Aircraft Agreement between the USA and EU. Boeing was as eligible for RLI as Airbus. That Boeing never requested it is by the by.

It was defined in the 1992 agreement because it was being used by Europe and they stated that they would continue to use it.
Now I admit I may have missed but I do not recall any US administration or session of Congress where they laid out the parameters for Boeing or any other to apply for RLI. I guess it is a chicken and egg situation, since Boeing never applied for it the congress never set up any requirements.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:01 am

smithbs wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Might I remind you of your previous position: “The claim that the MAX is fundamentally flawed is ridiculous . . .” and now it is “ There's no doubt that MCAS 1.0 was fundamentally flawed. If you take that as part of the MAX then MAX 1.0 was fundamentally flawed”. The MAX “1.0” is the only MAX in official paperwork right now so if the MAX “1.0” is fundamentally flawed then the MAX is fundamentally flawed and you basically just admitted that. So now the only certified iteration 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed when you adamantly insisted it was not before?


This logic does not hold up. If the entire airplane was fundamentally flawed, it could never fly again. Yet the trouble is with a component, whose design function is certainly achievable and commonly used within the industry, that with redesign can perform its function properly. And as noted, the fundamental flaw has been traced not back even to the MCAS implementation but to the hazard assessment that drove its design.

In other words, if the driver's seat in your car has a design flaw such that it will break when more than 100 lbs is placed in it, your whole car is not fundamentally flawed. We simply replace the seat with a proper one - one that was designed correctly. Nor would we throw your whole car into a dumpster just because you "felt" that it was the proper response to the situation. There is plenty of residual value left in the product to fix it and return it to service.

But I didn't say the entire 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed. I said the 737 MAX that we know, the only iteration of it to reach certification, the "1.0", is a fundamentally flawed aircraft because part of it by design puts the nose into the ground giving it a less than acceptable safety track record. Planes are never supposed to automatically fly themselves into the ground. Subtle difference. The car analogy is faulty because it does not render the car a deathtrap to have a seat that can't take more than 100lbs; however, a car would be considered fundamentally flawed if it did not have an engine or a transmission as it would not be able to effectively and safely do its job. The thing is though that if that is fundamentally flawed it's still easy to fix, you just give it an engine or transmission.

The hazard assessment of MCAS was flawed (intentionally?) as it should've classified as catastrophic, but if a system classifies as that, it is fundamentally flawed as it first has to be designed incorrectly before it reaches risk assessment to be deemed flawed. You can't assess risk on something before it is designed...
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:16 am

767333ER wrote:
But I didn't say the entire 737 MAX is fundamentally flawed. I said the 737 MAX that we know, the only iteration of it to reach certification, the "1.0", is a fundamentally flawed aircraft because part of it by design puts the nose into the ground giving it a less than acceptable safety track record.

A question, do you accept that 737 MAX 1.0 no longer exist and will never grace the skies again?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:36 am

Revelation wrote:
DL717 wrote:
The sad part about this whole $20 billion and growing debacle is that they could have been flight testing (or close to it) an entirely new narrowbody by now for about the same amount of money. It’s been 9-years since launch already and the new narrow had an estimated development cost around $15-20 billion.

That's a false narrative. You are not including the cost of a time machine that would have told you that Boeing engineering was going to screw up MCAS, nor are you counting for the 4-6 years that you would be selling nothing much while Airbus was selling NEOs as fast as they could build them.

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Yet another software glitch? Sounds minor, but still.... c'mon guys, this shouldnt be happening now!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 37-max-jet

TFA says:

The trim alert issue resulted from Boeing’s redesign the two flight computers that control the 737 Max to make them more resilient to failure, the two people said.

So this is what one would expect to be happening now.


Could have sold NGs for a song and kept enough share to keep things going. If your decision is to find a software fix for CG and a landing gear fix for a 50 year old design, they you aren’t being bold.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:50 am

DL717 wrote:
Could have sold NGs for a song and kept enough share to keep things going. If your decision is to find a software fix for CG and a landing gear fix for a 50 year old design, they you aren’t being bold.

Unfortunately, the only thing that has fundamentally changed from the A320CEO / 737NG generation is the engine.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3638
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:15 am

767333ER wrote:
We’ve seen the malicious intent in the company; I don’t think it really was an accidental goof up.


This is reckless falsehood. There has been no malicious content released to the public. What we've seen does not come close to the dictionary definition of malicious.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:25 am

767333ER wrote:
The car analogy is faulty because it does not render the car a deathtrap to have a seat that can't take more than 100lbs; however, a car would be considered fundamentally flawed if it did not have an engine or a transmission as it would not be able to effectively and safely do its job.


Entirely incorrect. If your seat is faulty, you could find yourself sitting on the floor in the back seat while going 60 mph down a windy canyon road. If the manufacturer's hazard analysis said that this is only hazardous and not catastrophic because you should be able to drive with your feet, then...hopefully it works out. Also, we're talking about a product that has already been certified, and so the presence of the engine/transmission in our example car is already a given.

767333ER wrote:
The hazard assessment of MCAS was flawed (intentionally?) as it should've classified as catastrophic, but if a system classifies as that, it is fundamentally flawed as it first has to be designed incorrectly before it reaches risk assessment to be deemed flawed.


You seem to assume malicious negligence on Boeing's part, which colors most of the posts I've read recently. I disagree. I'm in a different industry but design safety-related systems to the latest standards. Boeing's hazard assessment was flawed, but in a way that is almost too easy of a trap to fall into. You typically create some paradigms to help you get through safety certification and design. Boeing created a paradigm about expected pilot response - how fast and how correctly they would react to certain events. It turns out, they took it too far in a couple different ways - they started to expect too much of pilots, allowed them to reduce perceived risk in some design functions, and got lazy in guarding those functions. Negligent, I agree, but not malicious. Boeing didn't intend for the control system to override and crash the airplane, and the hazardous assessment shows that.

767333ER wrote:
You can't assess risk on something before it is designed...


They go hand-in-hand. You can't get far designing until you know your safety functions.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:34 am

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
2nd2none wrote:
Norwegian may use their Airbus order: In Norwegian https://e24.no/boers-og-finans/i/XgBLkm ... ertegrense


Not to detract and turn this into A v B flamebait....

This is an interesting article, but gives little away. I have always wondered how long they would wait before taking some of the Airbus for themselves in Norwegian colours. It kinda makes sense they would, it remains to be seen how the MAX will be received by passengers, regular flyers and the jittery nervous Nellies, when the MAX get a RTS. Does anyone have any idea what slots Norwegian hold for these Airbus birds?

Passengers, wall street etc. etc. everyone will forget it and it will be business as usual when MAX returns to service. There will be intense scrutiny at first world over and RTS will be slow with intense certification (rightfully slow) from multiple aviation regulatory authorities.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:07 am

A couple of thoughts on the “passengers will forget” thinking: the statement is obviously true when no timeframe is specified (passengers will surely forget at some point barring another accident), but one would think the important issue is when they will forget and the price tag for that period. They forget on Day Zero, i. e., RtS and nobody (read no significant percentage) will remember the two crashes, they forget in one month or six months or a year?

It also sounds like most passengers will have to forget. I will not fly the plane for a while, not because I believe I can assess risk accurately at this level of complication at such small probabilities, but because I like my peace of mind. The option may not be there for everyone as more and more non-MAXs are retired and replaced by MAXs.

And the two processes will go hand in hand, people will forget about the crashes as more and more MAX seats are available on more and more routes. A relatively “happy” ending to a bad beginning, especially if lessons are learned.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:36 am

"Boeing Co suppliers are shedding jobs and capacity to cope with a halt in 737 MAX output, but while that staves off chaos, aerospace executives worry the industry might be unable to ramp factories quickly enough when the plane wins approval to fly again."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN2010G7

The longer the grounding goes on the harder it will be to restart production.. and at an economic rate too.

So.. the closer we seem to get to regulatory approval a new issue pops up.. the software glitch and the wiring bundles.. looks like the grounding will reach its first year anniversary.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9211
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:19 am

Maybe it did not happen as long as the 2 flight computers did not have to share sensor data.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:42 am

par13del wrote:
It was defined in the 1992 agreement because it was being used by Europe and they stated that they would continue to use it.
Now I admit I may have missed but I do not recall any US administration or session of Congress where they laid out the parameters for Boeing or any other to apply for RLI. I guess it is a chicken and egg situation, since Boeing never applied for it the congress never set up any requirements.


RLI ~= you have to actually work for the money given.
This is a distasteful concept in the US corporate domain.
This is also the reason why the RLI tools must be destroyed at all cost for European use.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9211
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:01 am

Grandfathering is not all bad. It also gives you a lot of data on the performance and behaviour of parts under real life conditions. But when you add new functions, those must be limited to the capabilities of the old systems.

The system itself is pretty straight forward, but Boeing played the system by calling MCAS an evolution of STS, which it really is not. But that has nothing to do with grandfathering.
 
uta999
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:27 am

By halting production, Boeing has admitted they cannot fix the MAX and satisfy the various regulators. The only option now is to drop MCAS altogether and certify it without augmentation of any kind. That should have been the aim a year ago, in fact five years ago.
Your computer just got better
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:38 am

smithbs wrote:
Boeing created a paradigm about expected pilot response - how fast and how correctly they would react to certain events. It turns out, they took it too far in a couple different ways - they started to expect too much of pilots, allowed them to reduce perceived risk in some design functions, and got lazy in guarding those functions. Negligent, I agree, but not malicious.


Yet Boeing's initial MCAS 0.0 attempt with the G force sensor + AOA sensor was a two sensor setup. If they came up with their pilot performance assumptions (w.r.t. triaging quirky MCAS behavior as runaway trim), based on a "new" FMEA, and after the design change to single sensor, then one can seriously consider something malicious was going on.
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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:52 am

seahawk wrote:
Maybe it did not happen as long as the 2 flight computers did not have to share sensor data.


Certainly fits the scenario of antiquated hardware being maxed out beyond it's original capability. I.e. latency introduced elsewhere.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
Aviator34ID
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:34 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:05 am

sgrow787 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
Boeing created a paradigm about expected pilot response - how fast and how correctly they would react to certain events. It turns out, they took it too far in a couple different ways - they started to expect too much of pilots, allowed them to reduce perceived risk in some design functions, and got lazy in guarding those functions. Negligent, I agree, but not malicious.


Yet Boeing's initial MCAS 0.0 attempt with the G force sensor + AOA sensor was a two sensor setup. If they came up with their pilot performance assumptions (w.r.t. triaging quirky MCAS behavior as runaway trim), based on a "new" FMEA, and after the design change to single sensor, then one can seriously consider something malicious was going on.


Look, there is ample evidence of poor judgement, sloppy internal controls and even incompetence. "Malicious" means deliberate intent to cause harm. However much people despair of Boeing's management of the issue, to believe they set out to deliberately send hundreds of people to their death is hyperbole.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:30 am

 
planecane
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:09 am

DL717 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
DL717 wrote:
The sad part about this whole $20 billion and growing debacle is that they could have been flight testing (or close to it) an entirely new narrowbody by now for about the same amount of money. It’s been 9-years since launch already and the new narrow had an estimated development cost around $15-20 billion.

That's a false narrative. You are not including the cost of a time machine that would have told you that Boeing engineering was going to screw up MCAS, nor are you counting for the 4-6 years that you would be selling nothing much while Airbus was selling NEOs as fast as they could build them.

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
Yet another software glitch? Sounds minor, but still.... c'mon guys, this shouldnt be happening now!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 37-max-jet

TFA says:

The trim alert issue resulted from Boeing’s redesign the two flight computers that control the 737 Max to make them more resilient to failure, the two people said.

So this is what one would expect to be happening now.


Could have sold NGs for a song and kept enough share to keep things going. If your decision is to find a software fix for CG and a landing gear fix for a 50 year old design, they you aren’t being bold.


The goal is not maintaining some market share, the goal is to make a profit. How much money in fuel does an A320NEO save over a 737-800? The sale price would have to be enough lower to at least mostly offset that difference for an airline to order it.

Due to the competitive market there isn't a huge profit margin in a 737 to start with. Having to lower it to offset the fuel savings of the NEO would likely make it that they would lose money on every 737NG produced.

Had they tried to keep charging the same price for NGs, no airline would have bought it. Since Airbus couldn't produce 100% of the market, Bombardier probably would have been able to sell the C Series and still be in the commercial aircraft business.
 
VS11
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:09 pm

The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:31 pm

WIederling wrote:
RLI ~= you have to actually work for the money given.

Funny thing, when you enter a negotiation to build a factory and the government gives you a tax break on the taxes you have to pay on the purchase of the property, you still have to spend the company money to purchase the property, I guess that is the major difference. In Europe RLI ensures that you work, while tax breaks ensures that you spend your own money.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:38 pm

VS11 wrote:
The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.

The second time that the FAA chief has talked up the MAX to in my opinion raise the share value of Boeing shares.
The first was after Boeing gave guidance to its shareholders that they do not anticipate RTS until the summer, shares took a hit then the head of the FAA chimed in and said he thought Boeing's estimate was too conservative but he would not give a time and the shares rose.

Now he visits Europe and even though he once again states that no time line is being given and he will only allow the MAX RTS after he has personally flown his family in the a/c, he thinks Boeing should say less BUT a certification flight may be possible in the next couple weeks, result, Boeing shares up again.
Somehow the investors paid little attention to his other hit where he says Boeing has not proposed anything about wire issues, wonder if he has checked with his engineers and inspectors and they got together and agreed to mandate that Boeing propose a fix?
Last edited by par13del on Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:39 pm

VS11 wrote:
The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.

So still plenty of time for Boeing to screw up multiple times and further delay the certification and RTS. They better get that house of cards through the door before also airlines understand that the 737 MAX should not be up in the air, flying people around.
 
Opus99
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:44 pm

I’ve seen a lot of posts about trying to make an old design compete with regards to the max, but isn’t that what Airbus did with the neo? And the previous sharklet update? I’m genuinely just asking. Though the 737 is older.
 
kyu
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:54 pm

Scotron12 wrote:

Seems Willie Walsh personally believes in the B737MAX.
Who would have guessed. He ordered it, even though many doubted if it was a good idea.
Let's see what happens after he "retires" in March.

VS11 wrote:
The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.

He never said that.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:07 pm

kyu wrote:
VS11 wrote:
The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.

He never said that.

What the BBC reporter said he said....
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51407951
 
benbeny
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:08 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’ve seen a lot of posts about trying to make an old design compete with regards to the max, but isn’t that what Airbus did with the neo? And the previous sharklet update? I’m genuinely just asking. Though the 737 is older.

But Airbus didn't make theirs enter kamikaze mode just because one sensor give bad reading. That's at least the big difference between Airbus and Boeing.
 
kyu
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:15 pm

par13del wrote:
kyu wrote:
VS11 wrote:
The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.

He never said that.

What the BBC reporter said he said....
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51407951

Financial Times' wording: "signalled" and "could".
https://www.ft.com/content/aea7c2e6-490c-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

BBC's wording: "did indicate" and "could".
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51407951

Reuters' wording: "might".
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/faas-dickson-says-regulators-seem-set-to-agree-on-737-max-design-fix-idUSKBN20026S
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:30 pm

No one has access to a time machine, success is based on being able to leverage what you got and hope you get it right. Sometimes that involves making difficult decisions. Maybe instead of it being well they had to rush to match the NEO they should have bitten the bullet many years earlier to plan for a succession. But no one has a time machine and the future sorts out the results.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:35 pm

par13del wrote:
WIederling wrote:
RLI ~= you have to actually work for the money given.

Funny thing, when you enter a negotiation to build a factory and the government gives you a tax break on the taxes you have to pay on the purchase of the property, you still have to spend the company money to purchase the property, I guess that is the major difference. In Europe RLI ensures that you work, while tax breaks ensures that you spend your own money.


The business in your example is not spending money, it is investing in real estate. Most people interpret the word to spend for money gone (ever heard “he is such a big spender, he keeps buying real estate?”). So, excluding the risk of a drop in real estate prices (which of course has an upside as well), the business in question gets a tax break for substituting one kind of asset (cash) for another kind (real estate). All in all, not a bad deal and clearly helps the business in question by lowering the amount of capital necessary for doing business without any significant risk (in the real estate transaction). Taxes paid on the other hand would have been money gone.
 
pasen
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:55 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’ve seen a lot of posts about trying to make an old design compete with regards to the max, but isn’t that what Airbus did with the neo? And the previous sharklet update? I’m genuinely just asking. Though the 737 is older.

There is nothing wrong with continuously modernising an aircraft type. But there are arguably limits to how far it can and should go. The 737 is 20 years older than the A320 and it wasn't exactly cutting-edge technology when it came out IMHO compared to the A320 which was the first commercial full FBW aircraft. Furthermore, the 737 was designed for very specific missions, which for example is the reason for it's short landing gear that always made it hard to add modern engines and eventually made the 737 MAX require MCAS. The A320 has less such limitations.
 
upright
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:01 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:47 pm

par13del wrote:
kyu wrote:
VS11 wrote:
The FAA chief was talking to the Aviation Club of the UK on Thursday and said 737 certification flight was within weeks. This is per a FT article.

He never said that.

What the BBC reporter said he said....
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51407951

Too much talking and confusing around the Max for almost a year now.
It is a kind of future preparing strategy. Once the MAX will be fully dead, noone should be surprised anymore receiving the big bill of losses, which was thought to be avoided. Thats all about it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:08 pm

DL717 wrote:
Could have sold NGs for a song and kept enough share to keep things going.

Of course not. The LEAP/GTF generation of engines were offering ~+15% better fuel burn. No one was going to keep buying NGs for 4-6 years just to give Boeing the time to bring NSA on the market. AA said as much during the negotiations that prompted Boeing to bring MAX to the market.

WIederling wrote:
RLI ~= you have to actually work for the money given.
This is a distasteful concept in the US corporate domain.

After watching Airbus stiff the EU tax payers on A380 and A340 pay back of RLI and twisting their arms for give backs on A320 and A440M we can use your language and say living up to the terms of RLI is distasteful to Airbus.

Also given their admitted guilt with regard to corruption we can say Airbus finds fair competition distasteful.

Or maybe we should just avoid such language?

par13del wrote:
It was defined in the 1992 agreement because it was being used by Europe and they stated that they would continue to use it.
Now I admit I may have missed but I do not recall any US administration or session of Congress where they laid out the parameters for Boeing or any other to apply for RLI. I guess it is a chicken and egg situation, since Boeing never applied for it the congress never set up any requirements.

Yes, this is why I said it was an inoperative clause.

par13del wrote:
Funny thing, when you enter a negotiation to build a factory and the government gives you a tax break on the taxes you have to pay on the purchase of the property, you still have to spend the company money to purchase the property, I guess that is the major difference. In Europe RLI ensures that you work, while tax breaks ensures that you spend your own money.

Tax rebates only just that, a rebate of a portion of the money you've already spent.

RLI is a lump sum paid before any metal is cut and in the case of A340 and A380 ends up not being paid back in full so it's an outright gift.

kyu wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:

Seems Willie Walsh personally believes in the B737MAX.
Who would have guessed. He ordered it, even though many doubted if it was a good idea.
Let's see what happens after he "retires" in March.

Yes, let's see.

All the reasons WW gave to buy 737 are still going to be valid.

He's outright saying the plan will be followed through, so I wouldn't be too sure things will change.
Last edited by Revelation on Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:17 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
 
744SPX
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:50 pm

Well 3-4% of the Max's gains come from the winglets and revised tailcone. There is no reason to believe that the 69" Leap-1B gives the same 13-15% as the Leap-1A and much less the 15%+ of the PW1000G. On a side note, John Ostrower revealed a number of years back that APB's Slit scimitars give a 2% gain vs Boeing's proprietary Advanced Winglet which gives 1.5%.

I don't think it would be too hard to find an additional 5% on the CFM-56 with some parts insertion from leap.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:16 pm

744SPX wrote:
Well 3-4% of the Max's gains come from the winglets and revised tailcone. There is no reason to believe that the 69" Leap-1B gives the same 13-15% as the Leap-1A and much less the 15%+ of the PW1000G. On a side note, John Ostrower revealed a number of years back that APB's Slit scimitars give a 2% gain vs Boeing's proprietary Advanced Winglet which gives 1.5%.

I don't think it would be too hard to find an additional 5% on the CFM-56 with some parts insertion from leap.

No reason?

How about 3.59/3.04 = +18% for MAX-8 vs NG-800 ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

The point is that no one was going to be buying NGs for four to six years that would need to be operated for twenty to thirty years to get ROI while their competitors were operating LEAP/GTF.
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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:41 pm

744SPX wrote:
I don't think it would be too hard to find an additional 5% on the CFM-56 with some parts insertion from leap.


I'm sure that the CFM engineers would be pleased to have your insights as to which parts to just plop onto the existing engine, leaving weight and balance essentially unchanged, and get 5%. Because clearly they are missing something.

Or perhaps it's not as simple as you imagine.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:47 pm

NonTechAvLover wrote:
par13del wrote:
WIederling wrote:
RLI ~= you have to actually work for the money given.

Funny thing, when you enter a negotiation to build a factory and the government gives you a tax break on the taxes you have to pay on the purchase of the property, you still have to spend the company money to purchase the property, I guess that is the major difference. In Europe RLI ensures that you work, while tax breaks ensures that you spend your own money.


The business in your example is not spending money, it is investing in real estate. Most people interpret the word to spend for money gone (ever heard “he is such a big spender, he keeps buying real estate?”). So, excluding the risk of a drop in real estate prices (which of course has an upside as well), the business in question gets a tax break for substituting one kind of asset (cash) for another kind (real estate). All in all, not a bad deal and clearly helps the business in question by lowering the amount of capital necessary for doing business without any significant risk (in the real estate transaction). Taxes paid on the other hand would have been money gone.

Not sure most of these are one to one swaps, usually other than the Death Tax, most state taxes for property sales is not more than the cost of the property, and since in most cases the land does not belong to the government........

If the property owner needs to be paid in money for his property, that money has to come from somewhere, whether you for tax purposes list that as an investment and claim lower taxes from what the government is already giving you a break on, the money has to come from somewhere, usually that is the company and or its investors.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:04 pm

Aviator34ID wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
Boeing created a paradigm about expected pilot response - how fast and how correctly they would react to certain events. It turns out, they took it too far in a couple different ways - they started to expect too much of pilots, allowed them to reduce perceived risk in some design functions, and got lazy in guarding those functions. Negligent, I agree, but not malicious.


Yet Boeing's initial MCAS 0.0 attempt with the G force sensor + AOA sensor was a two sensor setup. If they came up with their pilot performance assumptions (w.r.t. triaging quirky MCAS behavior as runaway trim), based on a "new" FMEA, and after the design change to single sensor, then one can seriously consider something malicious was going on.


Look, there is ample evidence of poor judgement, sloppy internal controls and even incompetence.


It's not yet proven that Boeing's assumptions about pilot performance were due to poor judgement or incompetence. Nor proven their ability to get the complete MCAS 1.0 fiasco past the FAA to the flying public is due to sloppy internal controls. Unless you have other evidence I think your statement is unfounded.

"Malicious" means deliberate intent to cause harm. However much people despair of Boeing's management of the issue, to believe they set out to deliberately send hundreds of people to their death is hyperbole.


Boeing's intent was to make money, and when their back was against the wall with looming deadlines and potential market share loss, they deliberately chose money over safety.
The one system they deliberately hid from the end user and from the regulator, was the very same system that pointed the plane's nose into the ground beyond pilot control, killing 346 lives. And Boeing's initial and still current response was to blame dead pilots. I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to say that the law is not perfect. Every situation is unique. It's quite possible a statute is introduced - if it doesn't exist already - to say something about product manufacturers who deliberately cut corners without regard to negative impact on safety. And just a reminder.. here we are almost a year since the second crash, and Boeing is still working on a dual AOA sensor design.
Last edited by sgrow787 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
Aviator34ID
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:34 am

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:13 pm

4 MAX's in the air today! 2 -7s and 2 -8s
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 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