Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:20 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
ManInTheBar wrote:
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'.


Ok, I understand the "make it like the existing type" benefit in terms of time and cost. A short-lived benefit, shall we say.

My question then is whether the plane is compliant without this MCAS added.

Take it out. Sure, pilots would need to be retrained without this fudge in place. But, if the 737 MAX program is not dead already, it's going to cost a lot of time and money now anyway.

Do you say it passes the FAA airworthy requirement with no system added?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 3656
Location: Suffolk ba
kiap wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
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'.


Ok, I understand the "make it like the existing type" benefit in terms of time and cost. A short-lived benefit, shall we say.

My question then is whether the plane is compliant without this MCAS added.

Take it out. Sure, pilots would need to be retrained without this fudge in place. But, if the 737 MAX program is not dead already, it's going to cost a lot of time and money now anyway.

Do you say it passes the FAA airworthy requirement with no system added?


No! Not at all - the aerodynamic change was always going to be an issue for Boeing (and thus the FAA). It may WELL be true that the effect is actually small and that, tragically, we have a tragedy caused by over-enthusiastic mitigation of a rarely-to-be-encountered state. Then again, we don't know (may never know) how many time MCAS has been triggered in the situations for which it was designed.

I (think I) stand behind the assertion that the system was designed as one that would NOT need specific documentation or training as this would have required both investment by airlines (SW quoted $1m per airframe if it required a SIM upgrade) and a full re-certification by the FAA.

Engineers then discovered that in order to achieve the desired effects the stabiliser had to move up to 5 times as much as in the original design but the FAA was not informed of this change. The FAA, apparently, did not compare the final documentation to that originally submitted.

Finally, separate pieces of equipment on quite new planes failed and the crews, who were not supermen, failed to diagnose and solve their problems accurately and in time, and we have two tragedies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
Ta. I'll stick with my original view (for now). Not that it matters a lot as an anonymous armchair expert.

This thing is a tragedy all round and has a long way to play out. A potential criminal aspect to it as well.

ManInTheBar wrote:
Engineers then discovered that in order to achieve the desired effects the stabiliser had to move up to 5 times as much as in the original design but the FAA was not informed of this change. The FAA, apparently, did not compare the final documentation to that originally submitted.

Not the sort of news to inspire confidence.


At the moment I don't see a quick software patch and an additional AoA sensor being allowed to fly. Even if that is utimately a satisfactory answer, too much doubt remains and the planes could be grounded a fair while.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 3656
Location: Suffolk ba
kiap wrote:
The planes could be grounded a while.


Absolutely

It's hard to see a way out for Boeing or the FAA that does not involve a length period of change, testing and certification.

I'd not fly in one until this happened and can't see anyone else doing so either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18746
sewa wrote:
If it's not Boeing I ain't dying

Boeing, boeing, goonne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23816
Location: Chickenrunning...
ManInTheBar wrote:
kiap wrote:
The planes could be grounded a while.


Absolutely

It's hard to see a way out for Boeing or the FAA that does not involve a length period of change, testing and certification.

I'd not fly in one until this happened and can't see anyone else doing so either.


Might as well go back to the drawing board and release the new 717 as ground-up new design in 2026. Nothing else will satisfy the public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
ManInTheBar wrote:
I'd not fly in one until this happened and can't see anyone else doing so either.


Neither would I. And I'd be more than happy to ask an airline to refund my ticket if they switched out the plane to something different to what was specced on the ticket (I'm sure they have T&Cs to negate this but fudge it).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19087
I see a Japanese airforce F35 ditched in the sea. I wonder will there be design / build issues here also?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47876128


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
This 737 Max really sounds like a piece of shit considering what these engineers could do if they were allowed a full redesign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19087
Rumham wrote:
This 737 Max really sounds like a piece of shit considering what these engineers could do if they were allowed a full redesign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html?


The two sensors versus three or more is gas, sounds very familiar to discussions I have had with engineers throughout my career. Its a crap solution but no one will ask any questions if we do it this way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10535
Location: Melbourne
jdogscoop wrote:
Shit airline = may die. Not worth it.


In hindsight, this was an unfortunate, knee-jerk response.

Clearly this incident had nothing to do with the operator and everything to do with the manufacturer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23816
Location: Chickenrunning...
jdogscoop wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Shit airline = may die. Not worth it.


In hindsight, this was an unfortunate, knee-jerk response.

Clearly this incident had nothing to do with the operator and everything to do with the manufacturer.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6948
jdogscoop wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Shit airline = may die. Not worth it.


In hindsight, this was an unfortunate, knee-jerk response.

Clearly this incident had nothing to do with the operator and everything to do with the manufacturer.


It was more a stereotypical, narrow minded take as opposed to a knee jerk reaction. That's being pretty generous too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10535
Location: Melbourne
Rumham wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Shit airline = may die. Not worth it.


In hindsight, this was an unfortunate, knee-jerk response.

Clearly this incident had nothing to do with the operator and everything to do with the manufacturer.


It was more a stereotypical, narrow minded take as opposed to a knee jerk reaction. That's being pretty generous too.


Thanks for the feedback but I'm going to stick with unfortunate, knee-jerk response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 3956
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBN9diHZ6a8

For aviation enthusiasts, just saw this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19087
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4028
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


Of course the fucking knew about it !!

These aircraft are continuously feeding back telemetry to Boeing; & that data is continuously analyzed; that's why Boeing had software in the chute so soon after the 2nd aircraft crashed.

The disgrace is that Boeing choose to protect their, reputation, rather than the passengers on their aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13155
Location: South Oxfordshire
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 3:37 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9633
Saint wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


I presume Boeing's lawyers have advised that saying this "voluntarily" now will be better in the long run than having it come out during the inevitable (and extremely high profile) court case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4028
Saint wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


and the Federal Budget shutdown, that had critical FAA employees off for a month, which held up the new flight software .....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13155
Location: South Oxfordshire
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


and the Federal Budget shutdown, that had critical FAA employees off for a month, which held up the new flight software .....


I was thinking more about how the FAA hadn't noticed that a safety system that Noeing had intended to make mandatory suddenly became optional due to Boeing making a key component optional.. however, you're right - there is no way that the FAA shouldn't be considered a critical government service.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4028
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


and the Federal Budget shutdown, that had critical FAA employees off for a month, which held up the new flight software .....


I was thinking more about how the FAA hadn't noticed that a safety system that Noeing had intended to make mandatory suddenly became optional due to Boeing making a key component optional.. however, you're right - there is no way that the FAA shouldn't be considered a critical government service.


Oh yeah; there's plenty of questions to be asked about the FAA; but people have been warning about how chronically underfunded its been for decades. There's been no increase in funding, to it or ATC, comparable to increase in air traffic. As a result, there been the inevitable increase in the, 'light-touch', regulation, the Politicians love so much; part of that was the FAA out-sourcing work the should be doing, to the manufacturers, & the airlines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9033
I am reading on PPRuNe Forum that Norwegian are transitioning their pilots from B737 to B787... Could Boeing use the Max crisis as an opportunity to sell more B787 and block both A321LR and A321XLR?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4028
TheFrog wrote:
I am reading on PPRuNe Forum that Norwegian are transitioning their pilots from B737 to B787... Could Boeing use the Max crisis as an opportunity to sell more B787 and block both A321LR and A321XLR?



Or Boeing are practically giving the aircraft away, to try & keep the sales figures looking okay; & taking the risk of the wrath of the WTO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13155
Location: South Oxfordshire
TheFrog wrote:
I am reading on PPRuNe Forum that Norwegian are transitioning their pilots from B737 to B787... Could Boeing use the Max crisis as an opportunity to sell more B787 and block both A321LR and A321XLR?


Norwegian are using a 787-9 as a replacement for a TWO 737 Max services - Dublin to Providence, and Dublin to New York Stewart. To make it work they're bussing passengers the 189 miles too and from Providence.

Which makes sense as the -9 in Norwegian configuration is only 40 seats short of the 2 full MAX

Even a -8 would have far too high a capacity for routes that the 321 LR and XLR would serve. Not to mention that at list price (and I know no-one pays list) a 787 is roughly double the cost of a 321


Last edited by Saint on Sat May 11, 2019 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18746
A5D5E5 wrote:
Saint wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


I presume Boeing's lawyers have advised that saying this "voluntarily" now will be better in the long run than having it come out during the inevitable (and extremely high profile) court case.

Jaysus!

How bad is the reality if Boeing themselves are volunteering this information in advance?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13155
Location: South Oxfordshire
Yer Man wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Saint wrote:
sewa wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797

Oh Boeing when will you ever learn


That pretty much seals the fate of the litigation. Adds further questions to the role of the FAA in almost of this


I presume Boeing's lawyers have advised that saying this "voluntarily" now will be better in the long run than having it come out during the inevitable (and extremely high profile) court case.

Jaysus!

How bad is the reality if Boeing themselves are volunteering this information in advance?


I 'd be pretty sure that they're just pre releasing real world. If they were caught pre-releasing limited info then that would end very badly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2019 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 3956
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
Sandstorm wrote:
Might as well go back to the drawing board and release the new 717 as ground-up new design in 2026. Nothing else will satisfy the public.


This


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2019 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6901
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc

What an absolute clusterfuck from Boeing. Several high-end heads need to roll at the very least.

Anyway, for the NZ-Australian skies, I understand only Virgin Australia, Fiji Air and Samoa Airways were in any danger of obtaining the B737-Max aircraft any time soon, although obviously not anymore.

Unless they get rid of the MCAS system altogether and get rid of the engines that necessitated the need for the system in the first place, hell unless they get rid of the aircraft type altogether, I don't think they'll ever regain the trust from the traveling public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17674
Auckman wrote:
Anyway, for the NZ-Australian skies

Australia is the arse. New Zealand is the pimple on the arse.

The word you're looking for is Australasian!

But, yeah, the MAX is looking farked ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 pm
Posts: 191
Boeing have apparently completed redesign of the MCAS system, which appears to be all software-driven change although I'd hope sensor redundancy now exists out-of-the-box.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-completes-software-update-tests-for-737-max-458217/

Not sure what this means for re-certification. Also interested how far they're pushed to bring new training into the equation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13155
Location: South Oxfordshire
I
The FAA are caught between a rock and a hard place. It's very likely they are under huge political pressure on one side to rectify quickly - on the other side they need to be seen to be doing more than just going through the motions.

The really interesting question is whether other global regulators will just accept the FAA certification when it comes through - previously this was a given, but I suspect far less likely now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9033
inactionman wrote:
Boeing have apparently completed redesign of the MCAS system, which appears to be all software-driven change although I'd hope sensor redundancy now exists out-of-the-box.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-completes-software-update-tests-for-737-max-458217/

Not sure what this means for re-certification. Also interested how far they're pushed to bring new training into the equation.


The option exists, but it is a chargeable option today. Question is whether the authorities in the world will make it mandatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16928
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
I doubt I could ever fly in one, even if any fixes were passed by every agency on the planet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9033
Enzedder wrote:
I doubt I could ever fly in one, even if any fixes were passed by every agency on the planet


If it's Boeing, I'm not going: :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18746
TheFrog wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
I doubt I could ever fly in one, even if any fixes were passed by every agency on the planet


If it's Boeing, I'm walking

Fixed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3065
Auckman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc

What an absolute clusterfuck from Boeing. Several high-end heads need to roll at the very least.

Anyway, for the NZ-Australian skies, I understand only Virgin Australia, Fiji Air and Samoa Airways were in any danger of obtaining the B737-Max aircraft any time soon, although obviously not anymore.

Unless they get rid of the MCAS system altogether and get rid of the engines that necessitated the need for the system in the first place, hell unless they get rid of the aircraft type altogether, I don't think they'll ever regain the trust from the traveling public.


Fiji Air already has them. I was due to take one on one of the legs from Sydney to Japan via Nadi, about 6 days after the Ethiopian crash. They grounded it and swapped the plane out for something else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11754
Not sure how significant this actually may be, but certainly an interesting headline https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 7-crashes/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13155
Location: South Oxfordshire
It turns out the Boeing MAX simulators didn't accurately represent an MCAS failure should one occur. Not directly relevant to either crash as simulator time wasn't required, nor even available outside of Seattle, but it speaks to the nature of what was effectively a coverup


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4028
Saint wrote:
It turns out the Boeing MAX simulators didn't accurately represent an MCAS failure should one occur. Not directly relevant to either crash as simulator time wasn't required, nor even available outside of Seattle, but it speaks to the nature of what was effectively a coverup


It does speak volumes to Boeings commitment to quality control !!

Why not just bung on a copy of MS Flight Simulator, & pretend that, if people can land something on that; they can land a MAX in Hong Kong during a Typhoon :roll:

The first rule of any software modeling; is to compare the accuracy of the results of the model, to a wide variety of real datasets, (not exclusively using the same data you derived the model from), to determine the actual validity of the model !


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 561 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A5D5E5, akann, clydecloggie, danthefan, eldanielfire, fatheralice, feckwanker, Geek, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Joost, lorcanoworms, Mick Mannock, Mr Mike, nardol, Plato'sCave, Raggs, Rinkals, saffer13, Seez, tabascoboy, Willie Falloon 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