8 ms·

Is the 737-MAX fixable? Boeing is stopping production of them, so they know that it's not going to be for a while, if ever. The 737-MAX's problem is that they

Is the 737-MAX fixable? Boeing is stopping production of them, so they know that it's not going to be for a while, if ever. The 737-MAX's problem is that they changed the center of gravity of the plane so that it's not stable without an active system to correct that (MCAS). A failure in that system has already crashed 2 planes and killed hundreds. I don't think you can throw an active system on an inherently unstable airframe and call it a fix. Airplanes need to be as fail-safe as possible.

Alupis 7y ago
While this is true (the MCAS being at fault), it was compounded by incorrect and/or absent reporting of what the MCAS system was doing. One of the indicators was tied to an optional set of features on accident (spaghetti code?), which caused budget airlines that didn't purchase the optional features to not show pilots when there was a problem with MCAS. That coupled with lack of training of how to react to exactly that scenario, and we have the events that transpired. All of which is fixable one way or another.
- empath75 7y ago
  If it’s fixable, why isn’t it fixed? Why are they stopping production? It’s been a year.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    Because rushing a fix into production and then having another airline crash would be far more severe than the current situation. So it makes sense to step back, and fix things the right way before you reintroduce the system back into the market.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    Once the second crash happened there was extra oversight and other issues that were signed off on during the design phase were once again put in question. Its no longer just MCAS being modified but what happens when the two flight computers disagree. So to answer your question there are now multiple issues at play and they are effectively redesigning the flight computer system as a whole. This is not a quick fix.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  You can fix the issues that have been found in the MCAS, sure. You can do more training, rewrite the code, introduce more tests/checks, etc... But what you cannot do is change the fact that the MCAS is necessary. The plane is always and forever going to be off-balanced and require an active system to account for that. Active systems will fail. Maybe they can fix it such that the failure rate is negligible, but I doubt it.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    All Airbus airliners (the only other serious airline manufacturer in the world) are fully fly-by-wire and require computers and sensors to even get off the ground, let alone maintain level flight. Unstable flight profiles are not foreign in aircraft, and requiring computer systems to maintain stable flight is nothing new. The problem is entirely how this specific system was implemented... and that can be fixed.
    - addicted44 7y ago
      The fact that Airbus are fly by wire doesn't mean they are "unstable". They might be, but fly by wire does not imply that. For the record, I don't believe Airbus plans are unstable in the way the MAX is, whose instability, from what I understand, came about because they were trying to fit larger engines on the original 737 frame (to prevent pilot retraining), and so had to move the wings higher.
      - johannes1234321 7y ago
        In some avionics podcast A380 pilots described that that huge beast is a quite good glider. This makes sense since you want to reduce fuel usage and just enjoy smooth sailing. Something like an F-16 however is less stable and requires constant adjustment of flaps etc. there dynamic properties of air to air dogfight are more important.
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      I'm not saying unstable planes cannot be built, just that I don't trust a company that's already had 2 planes go down to get it right. A quick google search seemed to imply most unstable airframes were military or experimental, not commercial. Unstable airframes are not appropriate for commercial airliners unless you can point to a good reason. "We don't want to train pilots" is a bad reason. The FAA should have pushed back very hard on this point. Personally I think the flaws in the 737-MAX design process were so deep that it would be safest to just scrap the plane. It's not that the issues cannot be fixed, but rather that we'd be better off starting over from scratch knowing that good design principles will be followed the whole time.
kayfox 7y ago
They are suspending production of them to avoid various issues: 1. Cash flow issues, since they have hundreds sitting around they haven't been paid for yet. 2. Storage issues, since they have hundreds sitting around. 3. To make it clear to the FAA that there's a limit to how long re-certification can take without larger economic impacts. I would fully expect that with Boeing and the Airlines' pressure on the FAA, and the FAA's current schedule, the aircraft should be re-certified in January. It could slip again, with another issue or a government shutdown, but those are not that likely.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  > 3. To make it clear to the FAA that there's a limit to how long re-certification can take without larger economic impacts. Good to know they've got their priorities straight. Would hate to see the U.S. economy lose any jobs building unsafe aircraft.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    How many people does hurting the US economy kill? What about raising ticket prices, making more people drive instead of fly? There is a trade-off to be made here, and it's not just between money and lives - it's also between the certainty of a small number of deaths and the chance of a large number of the same.
johannes1234321 7y ago
One of the issues with the system was that pilots didn't know about the system. It is possible to add an override and train pilots accordingly. The question is what kind of requirements the relevant authorities put on it and when they are willing to sign the papers. After two fatal crashes this isn't a rubber stamp but solvable.
- akira2501 7y ago
  > It is possible to add an override and train pilots accordingly. This was always possible. The reason Boeing didn't do it in the first place is because it would have required full retraining of all pilots.. the promise of the 737-MAX, at least from an airline perspective, is that you can take all your existing 737 pilots and put them through a much shorter cross-training program and immediately have highly qualified staff operating these planes in your fleet. Without this, the 737-MAX will have to be operated as any other entirely new aircraft. Boeing's mistake here really is manifold.
  - johannes1234321 7y ago
    > Without this, the 737-MAX will have to be operated as any other entirely new aircraft. Whatever they do - scrap it an build a new model (be it derived from 737 pre-MAX or something else) or "fixing" 737-MAX there will be lots of eyes on it and request for training. I don't think the argument is relevant. They are too deep in the sh*t.
vpribish 7y ago
of course it's fixable - be realistic. It's the more a problem of increasing lift from the forward-mounted engines, not CG. Active control systems are just fine. The airframe is not inherently unstable. armchair aerospace engineers are the worst.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  If the real Aerospace engineers did their jobs correctly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Real aerospace engineers are the worst.

Alupis 7y ago

While this is true (the MCAS being at fault), it was compounded by incorrect and/or absent reporting of what the MCAS system was doing. One of the indicators was tied to an optional set of features on accident (spaghetti code?), which caused budget airlines that didn't purchase the optional features to not show pilots when there was a problem with MCAS. That coupled with lack of training of how to react to exactly that scenario, and we have the events that transpired. All of which is fixable one way or another.

empath75 7y ago
If it’s fixable, why isn’t it fixed? Why are they stopping production? It’s been a year.
- Alupis 7y ago
  Because rushing a fix into production and then having another airline crash would be far more severe than the current situation. So it makes sense to step back, and fix things the right way before you reintroduce the system back into the market.
- jdsully 7y ago
  Once the second crash happened there was extra oversight and other issues that were signed off on during the design phase were once again put in question. Its no longer just MCAS being modified but what happens when the two flight computers disagree. So to answer your question there are now multiple issues at play and they are effectively redesigning the flight computer system as a whole. This is not a quick fix.
henryfjordan 7y ago
You can fix the issues that have been found in the MCAS, sure. You can do more training, rewrite the code, introduce more tests/checks, etc... But what you cannot do is change the fact that the MCAS is necessary. The plane is always and forever going to be off-balanced and require an active system to account for that. Active systems will fail. Maybe they can fix it such that the failure rate is negligible, but I doubt it.
- Alupis 7y ago
  All Airbus airliners (the only other serious airline manufacturer in the world) are fully fly-by-wire and require computers and sensors to even get off the ground, let alone maintain level flight. Unstable flight profiles are not foreign in aircraft, and requiring computer systems to maintain stable flight is nothing new. The problem is entirely how this specific system was implemented... and that can be fixed.
  - addicted44 7y ago
    The fact that Airbus are fly by wire doesn't mean they are "unstable". They might be, but fly by wire does not imply that. For the record, I don't believe Airbus plans are unstable in the way the MAX is, whose instability, from what I understand, came about because they were trying to fit larger engines on the original 737 frame (to prevent pilot retraining), and so had to move the wings higher.
    - johannes1234321 7y ago
      In some avionics podcast A380 pilots described that that huge beast is a quite good glider. This makes sense since you want to reduce fuel usage and just enjoy smooth sailing. Something like an F-16 however is less stable and requires constant adjustment of flaps etc. there dynamic properties of air to air dogfight are more important.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    I'm not saying unstable planes cannot be built, just that I don't trust a company that's already had 2 planes go down to get it right. A quick google search seemed to imply most unstable airframes were military or experimental, not commercial. Unstable airframes are not appropriate for commercial airliners unless you can point to a good reason. "We don't want to train pilots" is a bad reason. The FAA should have pushed back very hard on this point. Personally I think the flaws in the 737-MAX design process were so deep that it would be safest to just scrap the plane. It's not that the issues cannot be fixed, but rather that we'd be better off starting over from scratch knowing that good design principles will be followed the whole time.

kayfox 7y ago

They are suspending production of them to avoid various issues: 1. Cash flow issues, since they have hundreds sitting around they haven't been paid for yet. 2. Storage issues, since they have hundreds sitting around. 3. To make it clear to the FAA that there's a limit to how long re-certification can take without larger economic impacts. I would fully expect that with Boeing and the Airlines' pressure on the FAA, and the FAA's current schedule, the aircraft should be re-certified in January. It could slip again, with another issue or a government shutdown, but those are not that likely.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
> 3. To make it clear to the FAA that there's a limit to how long re-certification can take without larger economic impacts. Good to know they've got their priorities straight. Would hate to see the U.S. economy lose any jobs building unsafe aircraft.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  How many people does hurting the US economy kill? What about raising ticket prices, making more people drive instead of fly? There is a trade-off to be made here, and it's not just between money and lives - it's also between the certainty of a small number of deaths and the chance of a large number of the same.

johannes1234321 7y ago

One of the issues with the system was that pilots didn't know about the system. It is possible to add an override and train pilots accordingly. The question is what kind of requirements the relevant authorities put on it and when they are willing to sign the papers. After two fatal crashes this isn't a rubber stamp but solvable.

akira2501 7y ago
> It is possible to add an override and train pilots accordingly. This was always possible. The reason Boeing didn't do it in the first place is because it would have required full retraining of all pilots.. the promise of the 737-MAX, at least from an airline perspective, is that you can take all your existing 737 pilots and put them through a much shorter cross-training program and immediately have highly qualified staff operating these planes in your fleet. Without this, the 737-MAX will have to be operated as any other entirely new aircraft. Boeing's mistake here really is manifold.
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  > Without this, the 737-MAX will have to be operated as any other entirely new aircraft. Whatever they do - scrap it an build a new model (be it derived from 737 pre-MAX or something else) or "fixing" 737-MAX there will be lots of eyes on it and request for training. I don't think the argument is relevant. They are too deep in the sh*t.

vpribish 7y ago

of course it's fixable - be realistic. It's the more a problem of increasing lift from the forward-mounted engines, not CG. Active control systems are just fine. The airframe is not inherently unstable. armchair aerospace engineers are the worst.

henryfjordan 7y ago
If the real Aerospace engineers did their jobs correctly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Real aerospace engineers are the worst.