6 ms·

"1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant aga

• FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
  > These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance... First I have heard of this issue, though I haven't been following it closely. Citation, please?
  • jen729w 7y ago
    https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-upd...
  • codingslave 7y ago
    I dont have time to find all the sources for this. But basically Boeing tried to make a flawed plane because it was cheaper and they could fly more people around on less fuel. The plane was also designed for runways in third world countries. Then they hired 8$ an hour software engineers to patch up the issues that they knew about (which ended up taking down the plane anyways).
    • FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
      Not all the sources. Just one, reasonably well documented source. From what I understand, MCAS functions to emulate the similar flight experience of prior 737 aircraft to minimize pilot retraining..l
      • Gibbon1 7y ago
        I think that there are two issues. MCAS was needed because the airplane wouldn't meet FAA rules without it. Fixes for things like that are not necessarily bad. Problem comes from two issues. Not wanting to require retraining meant they tried to bury the MCAS's existence to the point of not having a way to disable it and only it. And second the flight envelope problems were worse than originally expected. So they gave MCAS more control authority. They ended up with a problem where bad inputs to the MCAS system could only be countered by disabling the electric trim motors. Once you did that the only way to fix the trim was via a manual wheel which didn't have enough mechanical advantage when the elevators were loaded. That itself was a festering problem carried forward from the original design.
  • advantager 7y ago
    Look up MCAS.
    • FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
      Yeah, I know about MCAS, and nothing I have found suggests the airplane is inherently unstable. In fact, a cursory search shows the opposite. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19556707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19556707
  • rednerrus 7y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
  • ping_pong 7y ago
    If you haven't been following closely, then do a modicum of your own research first before you ask for citations. The MCAS is exactly the cause of the issues and was the software that caused the crashes because it behaved unexpectedly to the pilots. The whole reason why Boeing leaned on software was because their sales pitch was that this new plane was essentially the same as a 737 so it didn't need any extra training. But this was false. They needed this MCAS because the mechanics of flying the plane were vastly different, I think because of the location of the engines, etc. That's the whole issue, where Boeing lied to the FAA and sold the 737MAX as a drop-in replacement for the 737 when it really wasn't. So if you don't even know this then you need to start from scratch and do your own research.
    • function_seven 7y ago
      Everything you wrote it true, but doesn't support the statement: > These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance. I haven't seen anything suggesting that. If MCAS was completely ripped out of the computers, these planes still can be flown, right? The pilots would need to be trained on the differing characteristics, but it isn't inherently unstable like some military jets are.
      • sokoloff 7y ago
        The planes would still physically fly without MCAS. (They are not unstable.) The planes could not legally fly without MCAS, because they fail a required stick force linearity certification requirement. (FAR 25.173)
    • rootusrootus 7y ago
      > the mechanics of flying the plane were vastly different I suggest you need to continue doing your own research on when MCAS comes into play and why. Especially if you're going to condescend to others.
• na85 7y ago
  >Secondly, its not a software problem, the plane is structurally deficient. Aerospace engineer here. This is incorrect. The MAX exhibits different pitch behavior at high angles of attack than the 737NG, which would normally require a different type certificate. MCAS was their attempt to change the handling characteristics of the MAX aircraft so that it was sufficiently similar to previous iterations of the 737. This is not the same as being "structurally deficient". The fatalities arose from a combination of ethic failures at Boeing, financial pressures from large customers, bad safety design of the MCAS system, and inadequate pilot training. Plenty of aircraft flying today exhibit nose-up pitch tendencies at high angles of attack. This is not an intractable problem; it's just not a problem that Boeing could solve while keeping to the 737NG type.
  • codingslave 7y ago
    "This is not the same as being "structurally deficient". The fatalities arose from a combination of ethic failures at Boeing, financial pressures from large customers, bad safety design of the MCAS system, and inadequate pilot training." Boeing used a 737 airframe for economic reasons (it wwas way cheaper, didnt require pilot retraining), but needed more ground clearance for bigger engines. The 737 design cant be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount to engines higher on the plane. This made the plane more unstable, so they slapped the software solution on. This "fixed" the problem, but then the plane was more complex to fly, which led to the crashes. But Boeing didn't want a plane that required retraining, so they hid the complexity of the software solutions, which led to crashes because the pilots didn't know what was going on. Sure you can say the plane was structurally fine, but this is semantics, they created a plane that was unstable because it was cheaper.
    • perl4ever 7y ago
      It really annoys me when people just dismiss a point with the phrase "this is semantics". Semantics is meaning! You're ignoring the meaning of what you responded to. If you don't think the point was valid, you should give a reason.
      • 7y ago
• kanox 7y ago
  > These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance, something that is not true of any other major aircraft. The problem can be solved with software, but its more like a bandaid. Why is it wrong to rely on software? I'm not sure I understand the issues you're talking about but many military aicraft are deliberately built to be dynamically unstable and need constant software control to fly.
  • alistproducer2 7y ago
    Because people died and will continue to die unless the airframe/engine configuration , which they knew was faulty, is changed to not be garbage. It is crazy to accept a flawed design when people's lives are at stake. A plane isnt a movie or a song. You cant just fix stuff in post. Do it right the first time.
  • codingslave 7y ago
    Read my update, this was a criminal action taken to cut costs
  • na85 7y ago
    >I'm not sure I understand the issues you're talking about but many military aicraft are deliberately built to be dynamically unstable and need constant software control to fly. Some specific fighter variants are built this way, yes. But the risk tolerance for a single-seat fighter aircraft that has to fly combat sorties is very different than for a civilian airliner with hundreds of people onboard.
  • sfifs 7y ago
    > many military aicraft are deliberately built to be dynamically unstable and need constant software control to fly. Yes. It's also well understood that combat pilots accept the possibility of death when they sign up for military service. That's not the risk tolerance that is accepted for passenger travel.
• gumby 7y ago
  > These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance, something that is not true of any other major aircraft. I think you mean any other major civilian aircraft. No recent major combat aircraft can fly at all without significant computational assistance. This does not excuse the 737-Max shitshow in the slightest...if anything it makes it worse.
  • rootusrootus 7y ago
    > any other major civilian aircraft Aside from Airbus? Isn't basically every Airbus in the sky at this point flown by a computer with the pilots making requests for what they'd like it to do? This has long been a fundamental ideological difference between Boeing and Airbus, with Boeing just now starting to get into the same game Airbus has been doing for a while.
    • na85 7y ago
      I think only the A300 and the A310 are not fly-by-wire. Don't forget Boeing's own 777 and 787, both are fly-by-wire also.
      • rootusrootus 7y ago
        Stretching my knowledge about those planes a bit, so it'll probably show, but I think the distinction I'm going for is not how the controls are activated (hydraulic vs electrical), but what role computers play in day-to-day flying. Boeing has long held that pilots are in charge, and as a result Boeing planes are pretty manual without a great deal of automation. Airbus has a differing philosophy, where the computer is fundamentally in control of the plane, and the pilots manipulating the controls are asking the computer to do something for them -- it decides if that request is valid for the flight mode and then acts to make it happen. One of the most well-known relatively recent failures of the Airbus system was the Air France flight, and IIRC a main cause was the computer switching to a mostly manual flight mode (due to a sensor failure) and the resulting change in how the flight controls work confused the copilot to the point that he stalled the plane. In any case, that's what I was trying to get at. The game Boeing is playing with MCAS is a step in the direction that Airbus has a lot more experience with.
• ulfw 7y ago
  Oh so sweet this history revisionism. “ The 737 engines used too much fuel so to make a more attractive plane for poorer countries ...“ It was AMERICAN Airlines and Southwest (of yes the USA) who pushed Boeing into creating the Max, not “poorer countries” (unless you count the US among those)
  • beowulfey 7y ago
    Yes this is more accurate—Southwest in particular is a huge 737 customer, and they wanted to be add longer legs with minimal changes (same ground crew, berthing and piloting). The versatility of crew is a key part of their business model.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]