8 ms·

It's never too late to reverse a bad decision - Max series is and remains a low bar airplane; we all know why: Marketing took over engineering. Accept the probl

It's never too late to reverse a bad decision - Max series is and remains a low bar airplane; we all know why: Marketing took over engineering. Accept the problem, scrap it and move on.

stickfigure 4y ago
You make it sound like trading in a car rather than retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Well certainly the people killed by these planes are also entitled to an opinion, but I guess there's survivorship bias in play in the market of opinions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - MilStdJunkie 4y ago
    As a producer of civilian airframes and a major military contractor, Boeing has discovered a way to cut out the middlemen and kill all the civilians directly. Boeing: "the Next Hundred Years".
- Someone1234 4y ago
  > retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. That ship has largely already sailed after the 737 Max crashes.
- kodah 4y ago
  Regular people boarded the Max 8 and regular people will have board the Max 7 and Max 10. Unless of course, only aviation industry professionals fly on the Max 7 and 10s.
- throw7 4y ago
  Boeing's plane fell out of the sky not once, twice. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this.
  - echelon 4y ago
    > > Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this. "You don't share my opinion, [and you lack credentials,] so kindly don't speak" is becoming an increasingly common debate stratagem. It would be so much gentler if it were phrased as, "Industry professionals have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I'm not sure your conclusions capture the complexities and nuances of the situation, but I understand your points".
  - mnd999 4y ago
    Sure but that’s not super interesting. Everyone’s opinion will be “Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts please fix this.”
    - mindslight 4y ago
      This whole saga, including this article, has been about the tension between Boeing's business/political shortcuts and what aviation experts seem to think is prudent.
    - parminya 4y ago
      "Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts please fix this." "Also, lawmakers, ensure the aviation experts fix this." "Having regard to our advisors, we, the US lawmakers, have concluded that one criterion according to which aviation experts should judge their fix is that planes should have a doobywhacky in them, because aviation experts have assured us that a doobywhacky is important. But we will give them two years to get their plane certified without the doobywhacky on a legacy basis, since it seems like a good faith effort should be able to get legacy planes certified within two years." "Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at the FAA would like to know some information about your planes." "Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at the FAA need to know some information about your planes; what you have said is not good enough and you've left many questions unanswered." "Oh, hi, US lawmaker, we, the lobbyists at Boeing thought you might like to know how bad it would be for you if the law isn't changed, yeah, we know everyone thought a good faith effort should be able to get legacy planes certified within two years, but you know how complicated planes can be." And at this point, I think there are two possible replies: "Everyone believed it should have been possible, and there are clearly problems at Boeing's end, so they need to wear their mistakes; it's not like they're left with nothing and it's widely agreed that 737 MAX represents an end-of-line design so the cost is not excessive" or "The two years was written into the law to get these particular models out without conforming to the law; if they can be approved under the strictest application of the old rules, does it hurt if the approval is made just before the two year deadline, or just after it? In either case, it's flying according to the legacy certification. So we'll just extend the period a little." I certainly think a case can be built either way, but knowledge of aviation is really only a minor part of the decision making process facing lawmakers right now.
- anonym29 4y ago
  Yeah, forget about this guy's right to freedom of expression, let's go after his right to even hold an opinion! /s
- not-my-account 4y ago
  Well, I mean... if Boeing is so corrupt and/or incompetent to let TWO of their airplanes full of people crash because of bad engineering / bad ops, perhaps we can have an opinion on the matter? If retraining those pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel are required, then why not do it? Sure, it will be expensive, but if the costs are human lives, c'est la vie.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this. Unless the proposal is to only use the aircraft for flying cargo, this is absolute nonsense. As soon as the public is allowed to board the aircraft for regular flights, then *OF COURSE* the public is entitled to an opinion about how safe aircraft should be. To even suggest otherwise is, frankly, nonsense.
  - pvarangot 4y ago
    Maybe cargo but over seas? I mean if an airplane crashes it crashes on someone else's land, unless Boing is buying land to build like a flying railroad or something then everyone that lives close enough to an air route has a say on what they fly above them.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      Last time I checked, there's remarkably few airports in international waters. Most big airports that are cargo hubs are(unsurprisingly) next to major cities.
- roody15 4y ago
  Retraining pilots and mechanics is what is needed. The idea of keeping the same jet but slapping on larger more fuel efficient engines was and remains disastrous. To fit the larger engines they had to shift the placement to the front changing the aerodynamics of the plane. Adding a couple sensors to constantly correct the pitch for this hacked together designed is an embarrassment to Boeing. The 737max should either be scrapped or limited to cargo only (at best).
  - grepfru_it 4y ago
    Why limit to cargo? MCAS is just a pilot aid that changes the type rating of the aircraft. It was designed to avoid that change but we are witnessing why you do not hide critical subsystems from pilots or regulators. So reveal the system, force a new type, require training. Revealing the system will highlight the obvious flaw of a single air speed foil and aerodynamic issues of the elevator trim. Fix that and you have a perfectly flightworthy plane. But money is the motivator here and the MAX is starting to look like a loss leader. Big question here: what will southwest do if the MAX requires a new certification by pilots? Stick with Boeing (meaning Boeing pays for this mistake) or flip entirely to airbus (and Boeing loses a major customer)
    - tiahura 4y ago
      Just think about how many 10’s of thousands of hours the Max flew, and no pilot ever noticed MCAS.
- theYipster 4y ago
  I am a CEO and recognized thought leader in the aviation industry and I say your position is nonsense. If you truly work in aviation, then you should consider finding another career. Our industry needs less people with your type of thinking.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- constantcrying 4y ago
  If you have written software for planes you should know that it is near impossible to fuck up this bad. It is hard to fuck up at level D like that, it is near impossible to fuck up this way at A(or was it classified at B?). The amount of people who have to have went "this doesn't seem too important, I don't need to check this" is unfathomable. That such an error was not caught speaks of a deep rot in the entire organization, from management down to the guys writing the software.
  - grepfru_it 4y ago
    The software aspect was outsourced to a dev shop overseas
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      It is very unfortunate that safety critical software is not developed inhouse. The direct communication between engineering, development, testing and management is usually quite important. But this is never an excuse even if this software had been delivered from a contractor it is the duty of Boeing to write specific requirements and to test them, while making sure that the requirements cover all forseeable eventualities. This isn't frontend development. You do not just ship software some third party wrote for you.
    - tiahura 4y ago
      Good job of advertising that you haven’t read any of the reporting about how the bug arose. But please, keep opining.
- MilStdJunkie 4y ago
  Having seen inside a group with Ma B, and you can believe me or not when I say Boeing hasn't had a single completely successful new program in more than a generation. Sometimes individuals or teams will, with herculean effort, do a clever thing here or there, but by and large Boeing leadership has created an environment that's actively hostile to innovation. I've never seen an incompetent person fired, not once. It's always the superstars and the go getters. Occasionally they buy some company, exhaust its goodwill, then zombify it with dead-eyed MBAs as a meaningless "Center of Excellence". It's such efficient value destruction they should figure out a way to pack it into a JDAM.
therealbilly 4y ago
You would make a poor airline executive. These planes cost an enormous amount of money to develop. I notice you didn't mention the poor training of the now deceased pilots. Be brave and mention all the factors.
- theYipster 4y ago
  Another comment opening with a personal attack. I hope you're not an airline executive. While the requirements for the MAX were largely defined by Southwest Airlines, Boeing's sales targets for the plane focused largely in developing ecosystems, i.e. airlines in Southeast Asia or Africa. It's not logical nor practical to think that pilots in developing countries should meet the training norms in the US. Developing countries don't have air forces or general aviation ecosystems anything close to the size and scale of the US. If you are going to develop a plane to sell in a certain market, the plane must be able to accommodate the needs of the market. This is why automation and fly-by-wire is the way to go. It's also why the future will be further automation, up to and including autonomous flight.

It's never too late to reverse a bad decision - Max series is and remains a low bar airplane; we all know why: Marketing took over engineering. Accept the problem, scrap it and move on.

stickfigure 4y ago

You make it sound like trading in a car rather than retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
Well certainly the people killed by these planes are also entitled to an opinion, but I guess there's survivorship bias in play in the market of opinions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MilStdJunkie 4y ago
  As a producer of civilian airframes and a major military contractor, Boeing has discovered a way to cut out the middlemen and kill all the civilians directly. Boeing: "the Next Hundred Years".
Someone1234 4y ago
> retraining thousands of pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel. That ship has largely already sailed after the 737 Max crashes.
kodah 4y ago
Regular people boarded the Max 8 and regular people will have board the Max 7 and Max 10. Unless of course, only aviation industry professionals fly on the Max 7 and 10s.
throw7 4y ago
Boeing's plane fell out of the sky not once, twice. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this.
- echelon 4y ago
  > > Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this. "You don't share my opinion, [and you lack credentials,] so kindly don't speak" is becoming an increasingly common debate stratagem. It would be so much gentler if it were phrased as, "Industry professionals have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I'm not sure your conclusions capture the complexities and nuances of the situation, but I understand your points".
- mnd999 4y ago
  Sure but that’s not super interesting. Everyone’s opinion will be “Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts please fix this.”
  - mindslight 4y ago
    This whole saga, including this article, has been about the tension between Boeing's business/political shortcuts and what aviation experts seem to think is prudent.
  - parminya 4y ago
    "Planes should not fall out of the sky. Aviation experts please fix this." "Also, lawmakers, ensure the aviation experts fix this." "Having regard to our advisors, we, the US lawmakers, have concluded that one criterion according to which aviation experts should judge their fix is that planes should have a doobywhacky in them, because aviation experts have assured us that a doobywhacky is important. But we will give them two years to get their plane certified without the doobywhacky on a legacy basis, since it seems like a good faith effort should be able to get legacy planes certified within two years." "Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at the FAA would like to know some information about your planes." "Aviation experts at Boeing, we, the aviation experts at the FAA need to know some information about your planes; what you have said is not good enough and you've left many questions unanswered." "Oh, hi, US lawmaker, we, the lobbyists at Boeing thought you might like to know how bad it would be for you if the law isn't changed, yeah, we know everyone thought a good faith effort should be able to get legacy planes certified within two years, but you know how complicated planes can be." And at this point, I think there are two possible replies: "Everyone believed it should have been possible, and there are clearly problems at Boeing's end, so they need to wear their mistakes; it's not like they're left with nothing and it's widely agreed that 737 MAX represents an end-of-line design so the cost is not excessive" or "The two years was written into the law to get these particular models out without conforming to the law; if they can be approved under the strictest application of the old rules, does it hurt if the approval is made just before the two year deadline, or just after it? In either case, it's flying according to the legacy certification. So we'll just extend the period a little." I certainly think a case can be built either way, but knowledge of aviation is really only a minor part of the decision making process facing lawmakers right now.
anonym29 4y ago
Yeah, forget about this guy's right to freedom of expression, let's go after his right to even hold an opinion! /s
not-my-account 4y ago
Well, I mean... if Boeing is so corrupt and/or incompetent to let TWO of their airplanes full of people crash because of bad engineering / bad ops, perhaps we can have an opinion on the matter? If retraining those pilots, mechanics, and other support personnel are required, then why not do it? Sure, it will be expensive, but if the costs are human lives, c'est la vie.
ncallaway 4y ago
> Honestly, if you aren't part of the aviation industry in some professional capacity, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion on this. Unless the proposal is to only use the aircraft for flying cargo, this is absolute nonsense. As soon as the public is allowed to board the aircraft for regular flights, then *OF COURSE* the public is entitled to an opinion about how safe aircraft should be. To even suggest otherwise is, frankly, nonsense.
- pvarangot 4y ago
  Maybe cargo but over seas? I mean if an airplane crashes it crashes on someone else's land, unless Boing is buying land to build like a flying railroad or something then everyone that lives close enough to an air route has a say on what they fly above them.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Last time I checked, there's remarkably few airports in international waters. Most big airports that are cargo hubs are(unsurprisingly) next to major cities.
roody15 4y ago
Retraining pilots and mechanics is what is needed. The idea of keeping the same jet but slapping on larger more fuel efficient engines was and remains disastrous. To fit the larger engines they had to shift the placement to the front changing the aerodynamics of the plane. Adding a couple sensors to constantly correct the pitch for this hacked together designed is an embarrassment to Boeing. The 737max should either be scrapped or limited to cargo only (at best).
- grepfru_it 4y ago
  Why limit to cargo? MCAS is just a pilot aid that changes the type rating of the aircraft. It was designed to avoid that change but we are witnessing why you do not hide critical subsystems from pilots or regulators. So reveal the system, force a new type, require training. Revealing the system will highlight the obvious flaw of a single air speed foil and aerodynamic issues of the elevator trim. Fix that and you have a perfectly flightworthy plane. But money is the motivator here and the MAX is starting to look like a loss leader. Big question here: what will southwest do if the MAX requires a new certification by pilots? Stick with Boeing (meaning Boeing pays for this mistake) or flip entirely to airbus (and Boeing loses a major customer)
  - tiahura 4y ago
    Just think about how many 10’s of thousands of hours the Max flew, and no pilot ever noticed MCAS.
theYipster 4y ago
I am a CEO and recognized thought leader in the aviation industry and I say your position is nonsense. If you truly work in aviation, then you should consider finding another career. Our industry needs less people with your type of thinking.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
constantcrying 4y ago
If you have written software for planes you should know that it is near impossible to fuck up this bad. It is hard to fuck up at level D like that, it is near impossible to fuck up this way at A(or was it classified at B?). The amount of people who have to have went "this doesn't seem too important, I don't need to check this" is unfathomable. That such an error was not caught speaks of a deep rot in the entire organization, from management down to the guys writing the software.
- grepfru_it 4y ago
  The software aspect was outsourced to a dev shop overseas
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    It is very unfortunate that safety critical software is not developed inhouse. The direct communication between engineering, development, testing and management is usually quite important. But this is never an excuse even if this software had been delivered from a contractor it is the duty of Boeing to write specific requirements and to test them, while making sure that the requirements cover all forseeable eventualities. This isn't frontend development. You do not just ship software some third party wrote for you.
  - tiahura 4y ago
    Good job of advertising that you haven’t read any of the reporting about how the bug arose. But please, keep opining.
MilStdJunkie 4y ago
Having seen inside a group with Ma B, and you can believe me or not when I say Boeing hasn't had a single completely successful new program in more than a generation. Sometimes individuals or teams will, with herculean effort, do a clever thing here or there, but by and large Boeing leadership has created an environment that's actively hostile to innovation. I've never seen an incompetent person fired, not once. It's always the superstars and the go getters. Occasionally they buy some company, exhaust its goodwill, then zombify it with dead-eyed MBAs as a meaningless "Center of Excellence". It's such efficient value destruction they should figure out a way to pack it into a JDAM.

therealbilly 4y ago

You would make a poor airline executive. These planes cost an enormous amount of money to develop. I notice you didn't mention the poor training of the now deceased pilots. Be brave and mention all the factors.

theYipster 4y ago
Another comment opening with a personal attack. I hope you're not an airline executive. While the requirements for the MAX were largely defined by Southwest Airlines, Boeing's sales targets for the plane focused largely in developing ecosystems, i.e. airlines in Southeast Asia or Africa. It's not logical nor practical to think that pilots in developing countries should meet the training norms in the US. Developing countries don't have air forces or general aviation ecosystems anything close to the size and scale of the US. If you are going to develop a plane to sell in a certain market, the plane must be able to accommodate the needs of the market. This is why automation and fly-by-wire is the way to go. It's also why the future will be further automation, up to and including autonomous flight.