Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:30 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 558 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13154
Location: South Oxfordshire
Rumham wrote:
Saint wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
I don't understand this statement;
Quote:
Boeing .... says the upgrades are not an admission that MCAS caused the crashes.

Why would they say that? Surely they'd want people to know that the planes will be safe after they've had the upgrade, rather than that something else might be making them fly into the ground?


Because otherwise they're admitting fault. The court cases become very simple at that point


Just on the news now and Boeing are saying their systems played a part in the crash. The cat is out the bag - no point in denying it anymore.

Edit: and for the Lion Air crash too. What a clusterfuck.


Ouch. This will get expensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
Saint wrote:
Rumham wrote:
Saint wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
I don't understand this statement;
Quote:
Boeing .... says the upgrades are not an admission that MCAS caused the crashes.

Why would they say that? Surely they'd want people to know that the planes will be safe after they've had the upgrade, rather than that something else might be making them fly into the ground?


Because otherwise they're admitting fault. The court cases become very simple at that point


Just on the news now and Boeing are saying their systems played a part in the crash. The cat is out the bag - no point in denying it anymore.

Edit: and for the Lion Air crash too. What a clusterfuck.


Ouch. This will get expensive.


Yet their share price is rising.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-03/boeing-s-financial-risk-deepens-as-737-max-factory-dilemma-looms

This is mental. Like a multi billion game of chicken. Maybe the markets know something us chumps dont.

But if this thing stays grounded for a year then they are farked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:19 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10404
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... c76d804428

Quote:
Boeing CEO apologizes for lives lost and acknowledges role of company’s flight-control system in two crashes
By Aaron Gregg April 4 at 4:35 PM

Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg apologized Thursday for the 346 lives lost in crashes of Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft in Indonesia and Ethiopia, according to a letter made public on the company’s website.

Muilenburg recognized the role in both crashes of a Boeing-approved flight system, called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. In certain dangerous situations, MCAS can cause pilots to lose control of an aircraft in response to erroneous data from the plane’s external sensors.

His comments followed the release of the preliminary report about the March 10 Ethiopian Airlines crash that killed everyone on the flight. Ethiopia’s transport minister said the crew had “performed all the procedures, repeatedly, provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft.”


As Muilenburg had in the past, he expressed condolences to the family members of those killed.

“We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 MAX accidents,” Muilenburg wrote.

He later wrote: “I cannot remember a more heart-wrenching time in my career with this great company.”

[Read the Ethiopian aircraft accident report here]

Preliminary reports from investigators in Indonesia and Ethiopia indicated that the MCAS had activated in the two flights’ final minutes, with pilots struggling to keep the plane level as it pitched inexorably downward.

“The history of our industry shows most accidents are caused by a chain of events. This again is the case here, and we know we can break one of those chain links in these two accidents,” Muilenburg wrote, also noting that pilots have raised concerns over the potential for the flight system to create new risks in “what is already a high workload environment.”


“It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk," Muilenburg said, adding "we own it and we know how to do it.”

[Ethiopian authorities describe similarities between jet crashes, but questions remain]

He also drew attention to the company’s efforts to improve the flight control system, an effort that began after Indonesian investigators issued their preliminary report in late November. The company is required to submit its final version of the software fix no later than April to the Federal Aviation Administration. The 737 MAX 8 and 9 planes have been grounded for weeks.

“We’re taking a comprehensive, disciplined approach, and taking the time to get the software update right," Muilenburg said. “We’re nearing completion and anticipate its certification and implementation on the 737 MAX fleet worldwide in the weeks ahead."


And he once again applauded the safety record of the Boeing 737 even as he apologized for lives lost in the two crashes.

“This update, along with the associated training and additional educational materials that pilots want in the wake of these accidents, will eliminate the possibility of unintended MCAS activation and prevent an MCAS-related accident from ever happening again,” he added. “When the MAX returns to the skies with the software changes to the MCAS function, it will be among the safest airplanes ever to fly.”

And he promised the company would work to regain the confidence of the flying public, which has been rattled in recent months.

[All eyes are watching as Boeing prepares software update months after Indonesia plane crash]

“We know every person who steps aboard one of our airplanes places their trust in us,” Muilenburg said. “Together, we’ll do everything possible to earn and re-earn that trust and confidence from our customers and the flying public in the weeks and months ahead.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10404
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-03-18 ... -Community
Quote:
We know lives depend on the work we do, and our teams embrace that responsibility with a deep sense of commitment every day. Our purpose at Boeing is to bring family, friends and loved ones together with our commercial airplanes—safely. The tragic losses of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610 affect us all, uniting people and nations in shared grief for all those in mourning. Our hearts are heavy, and we continue to extend our deepest sympathies to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board.

Safety is at the core of who we are at Boeing, and ensuring safe and reliable travel on our airplanes is an enduring value and our absolute commitment to everyone. This overarching focus on safety spans and binds together our entire global aerospace industry and communities. We're united with our airline customers, international regulators and government authorities in our efforts to support the most recent investigation, understand the facts of what happened and help prevent future tragedies. Based on facts from the Lion Air Flight 610 accident and emerging data as it becomes available from the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident, we're taking actions to fully ensure the safety of the 737 MAX. We also understand and regret the challenges for our customers and the flying public caused by the fleet's grounding.

Work is progressing thoroughly and rapidly to learn more about the Ethiopian Airlines accident and understand the information from the airplane's cockpit voice and flight data recorders. Our team is on-site with investigators to support the investigation and provide technical expertise. The Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau will determine when and how it's appropriate to release additional details.

Boeing has been in the business of aviation safety for more than 100 years, and we'll continue providing the best products, training and support to our global airline customers and pilots. This is an ongoing and relentless commitment to make safe airplanes even safer. Soon we'll release a software update and related pilot training for the 737 MAX that will address concerns discovered in the aftermath of the Lion Air Flight 610 accident. We've been working in full cooperation with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board on all issues relating to both the Lion Air and the Ethiopian Airlines accidents since the Lion Air accident occurred in October last year.

Our entire team is devoted to the quality and safety of the aircraft we design, produce and support. I've dedicated my entire career to Boeing, working shoulder to shoulder with our amazing people and customers for more than three decades, and I personally share their deep sense of commitment. Recently, I spent time with our team members at our 737 production facility in Renton, Wash., and once again saw firsthand the pride our people feel in their work and the pain we're all experiencing in light of these tragedies. The importance of our work demands the utmost integrity and excellence—that's what I see in our team, and we'll never rest in pursuit of it.

Our mission is to connect people and nations, protect freedom, explore our world and the vastness of space, and inspire the next generation of aerospace dreamers and doers—and we'll fulfill that mission only by upholding and living our values. That's what safety means to us. Together, we'll keep working to earn and keep the trust people have placed in Boeing.

Dennis Muilenburg
Chairman, President and CEO
The Boeing Company

SOURCE Boeing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 191
Location: Sydney
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
Taffia wrote:
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.


I've not read the report as I have not one iota of what it would mean. But there was a guy on CNN saying this AOA sensor was telling them the plane was plane was pitching up at a 75 degree angle.

Then the MCAS proceeded to put the plane it a 40 degree nose dive into the ground at 600 mph. It's shocking and beyond belief.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 3656
Location: Suffolk ba
More Boeing humbleness. Too late....

April, 4, 2019

We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 MAX accidents. These tragedies continue to weigh heavily on our hearts and minds, and we extend our sympathies to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. All of us feel the immense gravity of these events across our company and recognize the devastation of the families and friends of the loved ones who perished.

The full details of what happened in the two accidents will be issued by the government authorities in the final reports, but, with the release of the preliminary report of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident investigation, it’s apparent that in both flights the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information.

The history of our industry shows most accidents are caused by a chain of events. This again is the case here, and we know we can break one of those chain links in these two accidents. As pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment. It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we know how to do it.

From the days immediately following the Lion Air accident, we’ve had teams of our top engineers and technical experts working tirelessly in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration and our customers to finalize and implement a software update that will ensure accidents like that of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 never happen again.

We’re taking a comprehensive, disciplined approach, and taking the time, to get the software update right. We’re nearing completion and anticipate its certification and implementation on the 737 MAX fleet worldwide in the weeks ahead. We regret the impact the grounding has had on our airline customers and their passengers.

This update, along with the associated training and additional educational materials that pilots want in the wake of these accidents, will eliminate the possibility of unintended MCAS activation and prevent an MCAS-related accident from ever happening again.

We at Boeing take the responsibility to build and deliver airplanes to our airline customers and to the flying public that are safe to fly, and can be safely flown by every single one of the professional and dedicated pilots all around the world. This is what we do at Boeing.

We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX. All who fly on it—the passengers, flight attendants and pilots, including our own families and friends—deserve our best. When the MAX returns to the skies with the software changes to the MCAS function, it will be among the safest airplanes ever to fly.

We’ve always been relentlessly focused on safety and always will be. It’s at the very core of who we are at Boeing. And we know we can always be better. Our team is determined to keep improving on safety in partnership with the global aerospace industry and broader community. It’s this shared sense of responsibility for the safety of flight that spans and binds us all together.

I cannot remember a more heart-wrenching time in my career with this great company. When I started at Boeing more than three decades ago, our amazing people inspired me. I see how they dedicate their lives and extraordinary talents to connect, protect, explore and inspire the world — safely. And that purpose and mission has only grown stronger over the years.

We know lives depend on the work we do and that demands the utmost integrity and excellence in how we do it. With a deep sense of duty, we embrace the responsibility of designing, building and supporting the safest airplanes in the skies. We know every person who steps aboard one of our airplanes places their trust in us.

Together, we’ll do everything possible to earn and re-earn that trust and confidence from our customers and the flying public in the weeks and months ahead.

Again, we’re deeply saddened by and are sorry for the pain these accidents have caused worldwide. Everyone affected has our deepest sympathies.

Dennis Muilenburg
Chairman, President & CEO
The Boeing Company


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47983
Location: Dirty Leeds
So how much have they put aside for the payouts to relatives?

440+ dead

I know it won't happen but some form of accountability needs to be enforced legally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18743
Rumham wrote:
Yet their share price is rising.

Don't worry, the software should be able to make it go down soon enough


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
earl the beaver wrote:
So how much have they put aside for the payouts to relatives?

440+ dead

I know it won't happen but some form of accountability needs to be enforced legally.


They already paid off the Lion Air relatives knowing that their system was at fault. Scumbags.

fudge Boeing and the plane they rode it on. This has to be the greatest example of corporate malfeasance I can recall. What a bunch of spineless, gutless wankers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18743
Taffia wrote:
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Agreed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18743
Taffia wrote:
The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane.
MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made.

All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Out of curiosity, do you mean than ALL Airbus planes have three of each sensor?

And how many does a Boeing plane have?
One? or does it depend on the type of plane?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:47 pm
Posts: 2847
There was a guy on newstalk (radio station in Ireland) last night talking about this and his main point was that he thought the Ethiopian investigators had done a poor job and was questioning why they hadn't looked for international help with the investigation. Even seeming to suggest that they were too proud to look abroad (saying there was no shame in it etc).

It was pretty shocking, I'm guessing he was a Boeing guy anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5732
Location: Middle of the Lothians
Looks like Boeing might have made an enemy of the wrong man.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.5084655


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 401
Yer Man wrote:
Taffia wrote:
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Agreed.


Boeing cost cutting coming home to roost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
Yer Man wrote:
Taffia wrote:
The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane.
MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made.

All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Out of curiosity, do you mean than ALL Airbus planes have three of each sensor?

And how many does a Boeing plane have?
One? or does it depend on the type of plane?


This doesn't make much sense to us laymen. Why not have more if they can help avoid erroneous results? The list price for these plans is $125 million. Adding a few sensors as standard can't be done for that sort of wedge?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18743
de_Selby wrote:
There was a guy on newstalk (radio station in Ireland) last night talking about this and his main point was that he thought the Ethiopian investigators had done a poor job and was questioning why they hadn't looked for international help with the investigation. Even seeming to suggest that they were too proud to look abroad (saying there was no shame in it etc).

It was pretty shocking, I'm guessing he was a complete Fückwit anyway.

Fixed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13154
Location: South Oxfordshire
de_Selby wrote:
There was a guy on newstalk (radio station in Ireland) last night talking about this and his main point was that he thought the Ethiopian investigators had done a poor job and was questioning why they hadn't looked for international help with the investigation. Even seeming to suggest that they were too proud to look abroad (saying there was no shame in it etc).

It was pretty shocking, I'm guessing he was a Boeing guy anyway.


Umm - the investigation is being supported by French and US investigators and technical expertise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13154
Location: South Oxfordshire
Boeing slowing down production of 737 Max. First signs that they don't expect to resume flights and deliveries in the very immediate future


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13154
Location: South Oxfordshire
Yer Man wrote:
Taffia wrote:
The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane.
MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made.

All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Out of curiosity, do you mean than ALL Airbus planes have three of each sensor?

And how many does a Boeing plane have?
One? or does it depend on the type of plane?


I believe that wherever Airbus have sensors, for virtually anything, they use 3 and go with majority decision

Boeing use far fewer sensors in general as there's much less FBW in Boeing philosophy. In most previous usage, the sensors would provide infi to the pilot to then make a decision - in this case the sensors provided input to the software which then made the decision for the pilot. Aa the software is less discriminatory than the pilot would be, it's now of greater importance that the sensors are always accurate- something it sounds like Boeing didn't account for


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13772
Thanks to the majority of contributors to this thread, it has been very informative, even if chunks go right over my head.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 544
It will be interesting to see if this echos the US lobbying for Boeing and Mc D D after the BAC comet window issues. I think Europe (including the UK) will want to pay that back in spades. This has been a very politic industry for over 50 years but the American legal system may not take partisan lines anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33864
Rumham wrote:
Yer Man wrote:
Taffia wrote:
The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane.
MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made.

All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Out of curiosity, do you mean than ALL Airbus planes have three of each sensor?

And how many does a Boeing plane have?
One? or does it depend on the type of plane?


This doesn't make much sense to us laymen. Why not have more if they can help avoid erroneous results? The list price for these plans is $125 million. Adding a few sensors as standard can't be done for that sort of wedge?

The Boeing concern, as I understand it, was that pilots would have to recertify to fly the Max if there were too many differences between it and the previous 737. That would cost airlines time and money, and of course not having pilots recertify gives Beoing a market advantage. Pilots can earn revenue on the planes from day 1 without pilot recertification.

In retrospect it would appear to be marketing/sales trumping engineering, and Boeing are now paying the cost.

For a manufacturer whose most famous ad line still is "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going", a complete disaster, and they deserve everything that's coming down the line at them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9032
Taffia wrote:
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.


Agree with this. To be honest, I am amazed they got away with having only two on the plane, with an automatic system making decisions on only one input. This is jaw dropping.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:26 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19057
TheFrog wrote:
Taffia wrote:
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.


Agree with this. To be honest, I am amazed they got away with having only two on the plane, with an automatic system making decisions on only one input. This is jaw dropping.


It the sort of redundancy that leads to redundancies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18743
camroc1 wrote:
In retrospect it would appear to be marketing/sales trumping engineering, and Boeing are now paying the cost.

It's his bloody fault - I knew it :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5426
Saint wrote:
Yer Man wrote:
Taffia wrote:
The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane.
MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made.

All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Out of curiosity, do you mean than ALL Airbus planes have three of each sensor?

And how many does a Boeing plane have?
One? or does it depend on the type of plane?


I believe that wherever Airbus have sensors, for virtually anything, they use 3 and go with majority decision

Boeing use far fewer sensors in general as there's much less FBW in Boeing philosophy. In most previous usage, the sensors would provide infi to the pilot to then make a decision - in this case the sensors provided input to the software which then made the decision for the pilot. Aa the software is less discriminatory than the pilot would be, it's now of greater importance that the sensors are always accurate- something it sounds like Boeing didn't account for

That and the fact Boeing had intended that the system could be manually overriden as the fail safe, that the pilot could and should always be able to regain direct control of the airplane. It didn't have to be done fly-by-wire, we're not talking fundamentally unstable state of the art fighter here. This is one aspect the reports to date haven't indicated that I've seen. Why the thing kept kicking back in and what were the fail safes to stop it kicking back in. It's easy enough to put in an analogue switch that just goes ON-OFF. Part and parcel of Boeing admitting they didn't recognize the extent of the possible threat I assume.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
Flockwitt wrote:
It didn't have to be done fly-by-wire, we're not talking fundamentally unstable state of the art fighter here.

Yeah but that's really a matter of degree.

The handling of the airframe is not stable enough to be certified for flight by the FAA - and the others.

An aircraft built for business expediency. It's a lemon that will go close to sinking Boeing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5695
Location: the Confederacy of Dunces
BlackMac wrote:
Looks like Boeing might have made an enemy of the wrong man.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.5084655

Tragic about his grandniece, still haven't quite f forgiven him for cockblocking Gore 2000 but yeah,,he,s going to make Boeing pay. As noted there,s got to be a pending criminal investigation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:46 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19057
If it's not Boeing I ain't dying


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3852
Location: Monmouthshire
Bradwall Boy wrote:
Yer Man wrote:
Taffia wrote:
That in this day an age , a system has been installed to a commercial airliner that relies on a single source of information affecting a primary flight control system , is nothing short of corporate manslaughter.

A software update does not fix this issue, period.

The bare minimum needed is the installation of a 3rd AOA vane. MCAS then has to query 3 inputs , and go with a majority decision , ie 2 of 3 must agree before an action is made. All airbus flight control systems operate in triplicate and should be the industry norm for a commercial passenger aircraft.

Agreed.


Boeing cost cutting coming home to roost.


Ditto for rolls-royce on the Trent 1000. On no we won't bother to do that testing it costs too much and I'm sure it will be fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 3656
Location: Suffolk ba
kiap wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
It didn't have to be done fly-by-wire, we're not talking fundamentally unstable state of the art fighter here.

Yeah but that's really a matter of degree.

The handling of the airframe is not stable enough to be certified for flight by the FAA - and the others.

An aircraft built for business expediency. It's a lemon that will go close to sinking Boeing.


Apparently the system wasn't INTENDED to enhance stability per se, but to increase the 'feel' that pilots get from the controls when the plane gets close to stall - should have made pulling back harder. The reasoning was that the geometry of the MAX is such that the control stick forces would get very light when the nose pitched up thus encouraging flight crews to pull too far and stall the plane.

It appears that insufficient consideration was given to failure scenarios where the plane was neither actually stalling nor at great altitude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:48 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5455
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
kiap wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
It didn't have to be done fly-by-wire, we're not talking fundamentally unstable state of the art fighter here.

Yeah but that's really a matter of degree.

The handling of the airframe is not stable enough to be certified for flight by the FAA - and the others.

An aircraft built for business expediency. It's a lemon that will go close to sinking Boeing.


So they couldn't simply turn it off after the first disaster, else they would have lost certification?

Who took the decision to carry on flying once they became aware it had brought the Lion plane down? That had some pretty serious consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
message #2527204 wrote:
kiap wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
It didn't have to be done fly-by-wire, we're not talking fundamentally unstable state of the art fighter here.

Yeah but that's really a matter of degree.

The handling of the airframe is not stable enough to be certified for flight by the FAA - and the others.

An aircraft built for business expediency. It's a lemon that will go close to sinking Boeing.


So they couldn't simply turn it off after the first disaster, else they would have lost certification?

As I understand it, yes. Based on this regulation applying to FAA: 14 CFR § 25.203 - Stall characteristics

    (a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls.

message #2527204 wrote:
Who took the decision to carry on flying once they became aware it had brought the Lion plane down? That had some pretty serious consequences.

Good question. I think it could be a bit of a contested process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:19 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5455
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
kiap wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
kiap wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
It didn't have to be done fly-by-wire, we're not talking fundamentally unstable state of the art fighter here.

Yeah but that's really a matter of degree.

The handling of the airframe is not stable enough to be certified for flight by the FAA - and the others.

An aircraft built for business expediency. It's a lemon that will go close to sinking Boeing.


So they couldn't simply turn it off after the first disaster, else they would have lost certification?

As I understand it, yes. Based on this regulation applying to FAA: 14 CFR § 25.203 - Stall characteristics

    (a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls.

message #2527204 wrote:
Who took the decision to carry on flying once they became aware it had brought the Lion plane down? That had some pretty serious consequences.

Good question. I think it could be a bit of a contested process.

So an ON/OFF switch on the mcas would have been impossible if I read that correctly. Basically it would allow you to override the reason it was able to get certified in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
ManInTheBar wrote:
the geometry of the MAX is such that the control stick forces would get very light when the nose pitched up thus encouraging flight crews to pull too far and stall the plane.

It appears that insufficient consideration was given to failure scenarios where the plane was neither actually stalling nor at great altitude

Reckon that's right

ManInTheBar wrote:
Apparently the system wasn't INTENDED to enhance stability per se, but to increase the 'feel' that pilots get from the controls when the plane gets close to stall - should have made pulling back harder.

No doubt the 'feel' will be lighter approaching stall due to the extra lift produced forwards of the COG.

I would place the emphasis differently - The system was intended to counter the abnormal nose up pitch under certain manoeuvring conditions. Asuming you are referring to MCAS.

That's a longitudinal stability effect, without which it is in certification jeopardy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
message #2527204 wrote:
So an ON/OFF switch on the mcas would have been impossible if I read that correctly.

I just try to glean info from reading sources. No hands-on knowledge of these 737s on my own, obviously.

This uk site here has some technical details: http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm#aoa

From how I see it, and I could be wrong, even under manual flight (i.e. autopilot off) the MCAS can directly command electric stab motors to adjust the aircraft's pitch.

The only way to stop it is to cut the power to those electic motors.

Did pilots know about that? It seems not - and it's a bad "fix" at any rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 3656
Location: Suffolk ba
kiap wrote:
No doubt the 'feel' will be lighter approaching stall due to the extra lift produced forwards of the COG.

I would place the emphasis differently - The system was intended to counter the abnormal nose up pitch under certain manoeuvring conditions. Asuming you are referring to MCAS.

That's a longitudinal stability effect, without which it is in certification jeopardy.


I disagree, I am afraid - my reading is that if it HAD been required for longditudinal stability then it could not have been certified with the light touch it was given, but would have to have been treated as a major modification to the existing certification. It would also have then required robust retraining for pilots rather than the powerpoint handed out, as Boeing would have had to have acknowledged the differences in handling characteristics at high angles of attack.

Thus it was presented to the FAA at least, as an enhancement to crew effectiveness, restoring the plane to the same control senses as the NG version, and not to crew at all as they would not need to know anything about it - the plane would 'fly just as its predecessor had done'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 am
Posts: 991
kiap wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
So an ON/OFF switch on the mcas would have been impossible if I read that correctly.

I just try to glean info from reading sources. No hands-on knowledge of these 737s on my own, obviously.

This uk site here has some technical details: http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm#aoa

From how I see it, and I could be wrong, even under manual flight (i.e. autopilot off) the MCAS can directly command electric stab motors to adjust the aircraft's pitch.

The only way to stop it is to cut the power to those electic motors.

Did pilots know about that? It seems not - and it's a bad "fix" at any rate.

Just to clarify, MCAS only operates when the autopilot is off.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 558 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assfly, Bing [Bot], Clogs, CrazyIslander, danny_fitz, Dark, Deco2, Demilich, fatcat, Gazzamonster, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, handyman, Insane_Homer, irishrugbyua, julian, KnuckleDragger, Lacrobat, Lazy Couch potato, Leffe, message #2527204, mr bungle, Mr Mike, Nieghorn, Nobleman, RuggaBugga, sewa, slick, Ted., Turbogoat, Working Class Rugger, Xin, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group