6 ms·

This all feels like smokescreen for the real issue - engines being too large for the airframe. Am I the only one who sees this as a grand fuck up that only has

This all feels like smokescreen for the real issue - engines being too large for the airframe. Am I the only one who sees this as a grand fuck up that only has one outcome? And it's certainly not what they are trying to sell the public on.

djsumdog 7y ago
It seems like the sane thing to do is to scrape all these 737-MAX planes currently grounded. They should have all their parts recycled/reused into a completely new airplane and the 737 should be retired. Of course that's not going to happen. There is simply way too much money involved and way too many interests to allow Boeing to take that kind of hit. It seems like the airline industry is surviving without this substantial number of planes in their fleet. Have prices surged for the old 737-MAX routes? Have companies taken out more debt to put in orders for Airbus and Bombardier replacements, or are they confident the existing stock will return this year? The 737 did survive their rudder issue several decades ago. Maybe this new generation of 737 will survive this? I'm sure there are a number of people who will avoid booking flights on these jets if they can though, at least for several months or a year.
- selectodude 7y ago
  The airline industry wanted another 737 far more than Boeing wanted to make one. Retiring the 737 puts Southwest and Ryanair’s business model at risk. It’s far more than Boeing at fault here, and airlines are keeping their mouths shut because they’re more than happy to let Boeing take the heat for this.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > It’s far more than Boeing at fault here, at the risk of being obtuse, why, and who?
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Parent just said. Why do you think this was a best-selling plane for Boeing? Who's buying it, and why? The answers to that question and yours are the same: airlines want to decrease operational costs, of which pilot training and specialization is a huge component.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        You're blaming those airlines because they wanted to buy boeing's product? Let me rewite that as it comes across... tempguy9999 happens to fancy a bottle of spirits right now, it is the weekend after all. tempguy9999 pops down the road to the local offy (short for off-license, brit-english for place that sells booze), and being skint at the moment, I ask for the cheapest thing that will get me sloshed. Sales bod suggests x. I buy x. I drink x and go to hospital because x contains a big dollop of methanol. I went to (what I honestly thought was) a reliable supplier that's sold me loads before with perfect satisfaction, and got something dangerous. I did not know it was dangerous, nor was I told it was dangerous. Also, that supplier had a world-class reputation. I don't accept it's Southwest/Ryanair's fault at all.
        selectodude 7y ago
        It’s as if you demand a bottle of something exactly like, but not quite exactly methanol and end up with methanol. Southwest demanded a 737 that met criteria the airframe absolutely could not accomplish. It’s Boeing’s fault for building it but it’s Southwest’s fault for buying the impossible.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        > It’s Boeing’s fault for building it but it’s Southwest’s fault for buying the impossible. respectively yes, and, can you show me what southwest actually asked for that was so extreme? edit: actually, I'm not sure. If mcas had worked correctly (including being documented) then 2 planeloads of people might not have been dead, but AIUI it fought the pilots and sadly won.
  - lowdose 7y ago
    I thought Ford already came up with a car instead of the horse his customers asked for.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
tbh the real issue is the fast path certification of the type.
sandworm101 7y ago
The answer is to stop calling this a 737. Make it a new airframe subject to new type certification. That frees boeing to adopt comprehensive flight controls rather than this layered protections approach. It also means fully training new crews, the avoidance of which was much of the 737-max selling point.
- mchristen 7y ago
  Changing the name of the plane will not fix the problems in the plane. The worst part for Boeing is that now under additional scrutiny more problems are being found, that begs the question what else is being missed?
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    It won't change the problems of the plane, but it will allow Boeing to actually fix them The problem with the Max is that Boeing favoured the major airlines that wanted 2010s technology in a 60s airframe. But guess what, that doesn't work, in the same way you can't turn a Thunderbird into a Tesla by "just plugging a new engine". Not that Boeing probably didn't have a vested interest in not investing in a new airframe and preferred the lowest cost project Now if they can call the Max the 737-2, cut the legacy crap and work around the longitudinal stability by breaking backwards compatibility (and sell the plane at a discount) they could end up with smaller losses
    - mchristen 7y ago
      > The problem with the Max is that Boeing favoured the major airlines that wanted 2010s technology in a 60s airframe. But guess what, that doesn't work, in the same way you can't turn a Thunderbird into a Tesla by "just plugging a new engine". No, the problem with the plane was that Boeing engineered a crappy solution to a problem they had. There were 3 major problems that I am aware of. 1) A powerful(flight control wise) automated system that relied on one source of sensor data when multiple are available. 2) The switches that disabled the automated system also disabled all electronic control for the elevator trim, making it much harder for the pilots to recover from an out of trim condition. 3) The normal elevator controls are not enough for the pilot to overcome the out of trim condition so pulling back on the yoke as far as possible would not pitch the plane up enough to regain altitude. The only way to recover from this type of situation is to momentarily pitch the plane further downwards to take stress off of the elevator trim so the manual controls are easier to operate with your hand. You would have to do that enough times to get the plane back into a stable position, this is not always possible when the plane is already at a low altitude.
lapnitnelav 7y ago
As unfortunate as it might be, I feel this situation is the perfect demonstration of the "speed, quality, price; pick 2" conundrum. They went fast to beat Airbus, cheap as the total cost of the package (plane + training + etc ...) and therefore quality takes a hit. It happens everywhere but I think we were all under the assumption that surely this industry wouldn't stoop as low. I've been told a while ago that the engineering of planes involved a fair amount of "duct-tape" (used loosely here) to make all of it work despite the risk involved. I didn't think much of it. Now I sure have a different take on those words. While growing up plane crashes that happened were rare or their own kind of event(9/11, german pilot suicide, MH370). Therefore people around my age (30) might have bigger faith in planes than one should expect from travelling in hundred of tons of metal, composite materials and fuel going 500+ MPH in the sky.
- jaclaz 7y ago
  Yes, provided that the reasons of the actual issue are essentially linked to: 1) delegation from FAA to "Boeing internal" 2) poor communication during the design and/or poor review of the decisions made in earlier stages 3) the deliberate taking of shortcuts (changing the amount of correction the MCAS without documenting it or re-running proper tests/verifications) 4) the use of this or that verbal/lexical workaround to avoid a re-certification of the plane, which essentially ended up in hiding info from the pilots The problem is not limited to the specific issue, the above are IMHO clear signs of a (deviated) modus operandi from the company (but possibly also from the FAA), the same mis-management may have caused (or may not, but there is no way to know) tens of other potential issues that by sheer luck have not caused any accident to date (or have not yet been noticed because they only happen in corner cases). Previous (historical) recalls and modifications to Boeing airplanes (often mandated - after an accident - on the basis of NTSB reports) were - AFAICR/AFAIK - mistakes "in good faith", this one seems like the result of a general lowering of the processes.
- Aloha 7y ago
  Airplanes and Aviation systems are safer now than they ever have been - look at the frequency of crashes 1959-1989, and look at them from 1989-2019 - you'll see a sea change in frequency.
teh_infallible 7y ago
You’re not the only one. It’s a fundamentally flawed design that should be scrapped. That people are focusing exclusively on the software is a testament to the power of PR and regulatory capture.

djsumdog 7y ago

It seems like the sane thing to do is to scrape all these 737-MAX planes currently grounded. They should have all their parts recycled/reused into a completely new airplane and the 737 should be retired. Of course that's not going to happen. There is simply way too much money involved and way too many interests to allow Boeing to take that kind of hit. It seems like the airline industry is surviving without this substantial number of planes in their fleet. Have prices surged for the old 737-MAX routes? Have companies taken out more debt to put in orders for Airbus and Bombardier replacements, or are they confident the existing stock will return this year? The 737 did survive their rudder issue several decades ago. Maybe this new generation of 737 will survive this? I'm sure there are a number of people who will avoid booking flights on these jets if they can though, at least for several months or a year.

selectodude 7y ago
The airline industry wanted another 737 far more than Boeing wanted to make one. Retiring the 737 puts Southwest and Ryanair’s business model at risk. It’s far more than Boeing at fault here, and airlines are keeping their mouths shut because they’re more than happy to let Boeing take the heat for this.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > It’s far more than Boeing at fault here, at the risk of being obtuse, why, and who?
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Parent just said. Why do you think this was a best-selling plane for Boeing? Who's buying it, and why? The answers to that question and yours are the same: airlines want to decrease operational costs, of which pilot training and specialization is a huge component.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      You're blaming those airlines because they wanted to buy boeing's product? Let me rewite that as it comes across... tempguy9999 happens to fancy a bottle of spirits right now, it is the weekend after all. tempguy9999 pops down the road to the local offy (short for off-license, brit-english for place that sells booze), and being skint at the moment, I ask for the cheapest thing that will get me sloshed. Sales bod suggests x. I buy x. I drink x and go to hospital because x contains a big dollop of methanol. I went to (what I honestly thought was) a reliable supplier that's sold me loads before with perfect satisfaction, and got something dangerous. I did not know it was dangerous, nor was I told it was dangerous. Also, that supplier had a world-class reputation. I don't accept it's Southwest/Ryanair's fault at all.
      - selectodude 7y ago
        It’s as if you demand a bottle of something exactly like, but not quite exactly methanol and end up with methanol. Southwest demanded a 737 that met criteria the airframe absolutely could not accomplish. It’s Boeing’s fault for building it but it’s Southwest’s fault for buying the impossible.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        > It’s Boeing’s fault for building it but it’s Southwest’s fault for buying the impossible. respectively yes, and, can you show me what southwest actually asked for that was so extreme? edit: actually, I'm not sure. If mcas had worked correctly (including being documented) then 2 planeloads of people might not have been dead, but AIUI it fought the pilots and sadly won.
- lowdose 7y ago
  I thought Ford already came up with a car instead of the horse his customers asked for.

LoSboccacc 7y ago

tbh the real issue is the fast path certification of the type.

sandworm101 7y ago

The answer is to stop calling this a 737. Make it a new airframe subject to new type certification. That frees boeing to adopt comprehensive flight controls rather than this layered protections approach. It also means fully training new crews, the avoidance of which was much of the 737-max selling point.

mchristen 7y ago
Changing the name of the plane will not fix the problems in the plane. The worst part for Boeing is that now under additional scrutiny more problems are being found, that begs the question what else is being missed?
- raverbashing 7y ago
  It won't change the problems of the plane, but it will allow Boeing to actually fix them The problem with the Max is that Boeing favoured the major airlines that wanted 2010s technology in a 60s airframe. But guess what, that doesn't work, in the same way you can't turn a Thunderbird into a Tesla by "just plugging a new engine". Not that Boeing probably didn't have a vested interest in not investing in a new airframe and preferred the lowest cost project Now if they can call the Max the 737-2, cut the legacy crap and work around the longitudinal stability by breaking backwards compatibility (and sell the plane at a discount) they could end up with smaller losses
  - mchristen 7y ago
    > The problem with the Max is that Boeing favoured the major airlines that wanted 2010s technology in a 60s airframe. But guess what, that doesn't work, in the same way you can't turn a Thunderbird into a Tesla by "just plugging a new engine". No, the problem with the plane was that Boeing engineered a crappy solution to a problem they had. There were 3 major problems that I am aware of. 1) A powerful(flight control wise) automated system that relied on one source of sensor data when multiple are available. 2) The switches that disabled the automated system also disabled all electronic control for the elevator trim, making it much harder for the pilots to recover from an out of trim condition. 3) The normal elevator controls are not enough for the pilot to overcome the out of trim condition so pulling back on the yoke as far as possible would not pitch the plane up enough to regain altitude. The only way to recover from this type of situation is to momentarily pitch the plane further downwards to take stress off of the elevator trim so the manual controls are easier to operate with your hand. You would have to do that enough times to get the plane back into a stable position, this is not always possible when the plane is already at a low altitude.

lapnitnelav 7y ago

As unfortunate as it might be, I feel this situation is the perfect demonstration of the "speed, quality, price; pick 2" conundrum. They went fast to beat Airbus, cheap as the total cost of the package (plane + training + etc ...) and therefore quality takes a hit. It happens everywhere but I think we were all under the assumption that surely this industry wouldn't stoop as low. I've been told a while ago that the engineering of planes involved a fair amount of "duct-tape" (used loosely here) to make all of it work despite the risk involved. I didn't think much of it. Now I sure have a different take on those words. While growing up plane crashes that happened were rare or their own kind of event(9/11, german pilot suicide, MH370). Therefore people around my age (30) might have bigger faith in planes than one should expect from travelling in hundred of tons of metal, composite materials and fuel going 500+ MPH in the sky.

jaclaz 7y ago
Yes, provided that the reasons of the actual issue are essentially linked to: 1) delegation from FAA to "Boeing internal" 2) poor communication during the design and/or poor review of the decisions made in earlier stages 3) the deliberate taking of shortcuts (changing the amount of correction the MCAS without documenting it or re-running proper tests/verifications) 4) the use of this or that verbal/lexical workaround to avoid a re-certification of the plane, which essentially ended up in hiding info from the pilots The problem is not limited to the specific issue, the above are IMHO clear signs of a (deviated) modus operandi from the company (but possibly also from the FAA), the same mis-management may have caused (or may not, but there is no way to know) tens of other potential issues that by sheer luck have not caused any accident to date (or have not yet been noticed because they only happen in corner cases). Previous (historical) recalls and modifications to Boeing airplanes (often mandated - after an accident - on the basis of NTSB reports) were - AFAICR/AFAIK - mistakes "in good faith", this one seems like the result of a general lowering of the processes.
Aloha 7y ago
Airplanes and Aviation systems are safer now than they ever have been - look at the frequency of crashes 1959-1989, and look at them from 1989-2019 - you'll see a sea change in frequency.

teh_infallible 7y ago

You’re not the only one. It’s a fundamentally flawed design that should be scrapped. That people are focusing exclusively on the software is a testament to the power of PR and regulatory capture.