6 ms·

It's just words. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions fly in the face of all the nice sounding things they say, and report after report fly in the fac

by mevile 7y ago

It's just words. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions fly in the face of all the nice sounding things they say, and report after report fly in the face of all of Boeing's denials and claims of safety. Boeing has gone into liability defensive mode at the expense of the lives of passengers, the safety of air travel, and America's credibility in aerospace engineering. Boeing is either going to face a major reckoning that they may not survive or maybe we'll have more deaths from accidents due to their negligent behavior. I'm basing all this on the many reports about what is going on around the 737 MAX aircraft published in the WSJ and the New York Times. It hasn't been pretty. I don't think that plane should ever fly again as engineered. It seems to require software to address problems with the large engine and the plane's form that other jets do not have. If a software patch can make the aircraft safe, then a bug can make it unsafe. Does the FAA validate all the aircraft software patches Boeing issues?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Robotbeat 7y ago
Boeing will definitely survive. It is a behemoth, both for export capital and for defense. Too big to fail. Also, lots of planes require software to be safe to fly. It’s just the way things are nowadays.
ReGenGen 7y ago
Other airliners w/ large turbofans have a pitch-up under climb/thrust characteristics. (like B777) We don't know if 737 MAX's pitch-up stall handling characteristics are really bad -or- just different from older 737's. MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's so 737 pilots could fly the 737 MAX and vice versa. (Airline pilots can only hold 1 type certification at a time.)
- acqq 7y ago
  > MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. Only Boeing being silent about MCAS is the effect of the goal of "avoiding re-certification." > We don't know I can't agree to that. Based on the above, I think it is obvious that we do know: 737 MAX without any MCAS-like help is dangerous to fly according to the security expectations which weren't specially invented for 737 MAX.
  - lmm 7y ago
    > But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. No, it would have been a perfectly certifiable plane with a particular set of handling characteristics (including 777-like pitch-up). It just wouldn't be a 737, and would require its own type certificate. No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe when flown by pilots appropriately trained and certified for them - otherwise the 777 would be grounded.
    - acqq 7y ago
      > No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe It is as long it keeps 737 MAX body and engines and doesn’t have something like MCAS I.e. Inherently unsafe under conditions under which MCAS was supposed to turn on when properly functioning. The certification requirements are the result of the clear safety goals not something invented “just so.”
      - salawat 7y ago
        MCAS was a type certificate hack. The poster you're responding to is right; there isn't anything wrong with the behavior given the right training. It's just that the investment in that training, and extra certification hoops to jump through would have made WhateveroModelNumberus MAX a non-starter. It had to be a 737 to work at all.
        acqq 7y ago
        > there isn't anything wrong with the behavior given the right training. The behaviour without MCAS on 737 MAX is that minimal movements of pilot’s controls effectively activate what would be considered “amplification” of nose up movement, resulting in an uncontrollable plane and sure crash. It’s definitely not something that pilots or passengers should be exposed to: being punished for approaching more dangerous position by plane forcing a deadly outcome. Training pilots to not to move even minimally the controls in the “wrong” direction is maybe technically possible but in practice still totally wrong: It’s comparable to what Boeing told everybody before Ethiopian crash, and their attempts to blame the pilots. In reality, the pilots had almost no chance to rescue themselves and the plane. In engineering the “positive feedback loops” (amplification of control inputs) are bad the “negative feedback loops” (correction of the input) are good. The functioning MCAS provides a correction. The plane without MCAS amplification. Badly functioning MCAS also amplification and crash. That's why the wrong behavior was regulated, and that's why it had to be fulfilled for the certification. It’s that easy. To convince me that 737 MAX without the "properly functioning MCAS" isn't inherently dangerous under higher angles of attack you'd have to provide some explicit proofs.
- chipsa 7y ago
  Where'd you get the idea that pilots can only hold one type rating at a time? One pilot managed to acquire 105 at one time (and is in the Guiness Book of World Records for that). Also, MCAS wasn't put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737s. It was put in place to allow it to be certified at all. It's a hack to ensure the force on the stick continues to increase with increasing angle of attack, which is a certification requirement.
mschuster91 7y ago
It's not unsafe per se, the MCAS software is only required to avoid (expensive) new type rating and training for pilots.
- chipsa 7y ago
  MCAS is required for the 737 Max to be certified at all. To remove the requirement for MCAS would require enough changes to the aircraft to make it not a 737.
lagadu 7y ago
Boeing is a strategic asset for the US government, of course they're going to survive.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Could you explain what you mean here, please?
  - michaelt 7y ago
    Boeing make a bunch of military aircraft, drones and missiles [1]. The US government might want to buy those in the future, so wants Boeing to stay in business. Hence, the government is unlikely to deal Boeing a killing blow. [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services
    - lagadu 7y ago
      Even when it comes to commercial aviation, the US wouldn't want to depend exclusively on foreign designed airplanes where they have far less influence.

by mevile 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Robotbeat 7y ago

Boeing will definitely survive. It is a behemoth, both for export capital and for defense. Too big to fail. Also, lots of planes require software to be safe to fly. It’s just the way things are nowadays.

ReGenGen 7y ago

Other airliners w/ large turbofans have a pitch-up under climb/thrust characteristics. (like B777) We don't know if 737 MAX's pitch-up stall handling characteristics are really bad -or- just different from older 737's. MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's so 737 pilots could fly the 737 MAX and vice versa. (Airline pilots can only hold 1 type certification at a time.)

acqq 7y ago
> MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. Only Boeing being silent about MCAS is the effect of the goal of "avoiding re-certification." > We don't know I can't agree to that. Based on the above, I think it is obvious that we do know: 737 MAX without any MCAS-like help is dangerous to fly according to the security expectations which weren't specially invented for 737 MAX.
- lmm 7y ago
  > But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. No, it would have been a perfectly certifiable plane with a particular set of handling characteristics (including 777-like pitch-up). It just wouldn't be a 737, and would require its own type certificate. No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe when flown by pilots appropriately trained and certified for them - otherwise the 777 would be grounded.
  - acqq 7y ago
    > No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe It is as long it keeps 737 MAX body and engines and doesn’t have something like MCAS I.e. Inherently unsafe under conditions under which MCAS was supposed to turn on when properly functioning. The certification requirements are the result of the clear safety goals not something invented “just so.”
    - salawat 7y ago
      MCAS was a type certificate hack. The poster you're responding to is right; there isn't anything wrong with the behavior given the right training. It's just that the investment in that training, and extra certification hoops to jump through would have made WhateveroModelNumberus MAX a non-starter. It had to be a 737 to work at all.
      - acqq 7y ago
        > there isn't anything wrong with the behavior given the right training. The behaviour without MCAS on 737 MAX is that minimal movements of pilot’s controls effectively activate what would be considered “amplification” of nose up movement, resulting in an uncontrollable plane and sure crash. It’s definitely not something that pilots or passengers should be exposed to: being punished for approaching more dangerous position by plane forcing a deadly outcome. Training pilots to not to move even minimally the controls in the “wrong” direction is maybe technically possible but in practice still totally wrong: It’s comparable to what Boeing told everybody before Ethiopian crash, and their attempts to blame the pilots. In reality, the pilots had almost no chance to rescue themselves and the plane. In engineering the “positive feedback loops” (amplification of control inputs) are bad the “negative feedback loops” (correction of the input) are good. The functioning MCAS provides a correction. The plane without MCAS amplification. Badly functioning MCAS also amplification and crash. That's why the wrong behavior was regulated, and that's why it had to be fulfilled for the certification. It’s that easy. To convince me that 737 MAX without the "properly functioning MCAS" isn't inherently dangerous under higher angles of attack you'd have to provide some explicit proofs.
chipsa 7y ago
Where'd you get the idea that pilots can only hold one type rating at a time? One pilot managed to acquire 105 at one time (and is in the Guiness Book of World Records for that). Also, MCAS wasn't put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737s. It was put in place to allow it to be certified at all. It's a hack to ensure the force on the stick continues to increase with increasing angle of attack, which is a certification requirement.

mschuster91 7y ago

It's not unsafe per se, the MCAS software is only required to avoid (expensive) new type rating and training for pilots.

chipsa 7y ago
MCAS is required for the 737 Max to be certified at all. To remove the requirement for MCAS would require enough changes to the aircraft to make it not a 737.

lagadu 7y ago

Boeing is a strategic asset for the US government, of course they're going to survive.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Could you explain what you mean here, please?
- michaelt 7y ago
  Boeing make a bunch of military aircraft, drones and missiles [1]. The US government might want to buy those in the future, so wants Boeing to stay in business. Hence, the government is unlikely to deal Boeing a killing blow. [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services
  - lagadu 7y ago
    Even when it comes to commercial aviation, the US wouldn't want to depend exclusively on foreign designed airplanes where they have far less influence.