3 ms·

> Boeing needs to just start over Would that even be possible? How long time would it take them to complete a completely new design? And then how long time fro

by diggan 3y ago

> Boeing needs to just start over Would that even be possible? How long time would it take them to complete a completely new design? And then how long time from the design is finished until they can start delivering planes?

plett 3y ago
The whole reason the 737 Max series exists is to avoid having to start over. By maintaining "backwards compatibility" type approval with the regular 737 then the existing massive pool of 737 pilots can jump straight in it and start flying.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  I always thought that was the most idiotic part that the FAA accepted. Like, I get that there has to be leeway for similar configurations of the same plane so they don't have to go through the process for each. But it's been so clearly abused that it's ridiculous now. This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323AS_%282896342517%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323A... Is so obviously not this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_737_Max_9.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_7...
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    I'm not sure a simple picture is enough. The Airbus A330 and A350 share the same type rating. (At least some variants; I'm not an expert.)
    - nicole_express 3y ago
      A big advantage Airbus has is their more modern designs are full fly-by-wire, so they're able to more practically compensate for the handling characteristics in software. As far as I know (not a pilot or aeronautics engineer) MCAS was more or less an attempt to do the same to a non-fly-by-wire plane, and we see how that turned out...
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      The Airbus A330 and A350 share the same type rating. In fact, they do not in the United States. https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ In Europe, they do: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/11737/en https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/11737/en However even within the same type rating you may have additional training or restrictions. For instance the FAA prohibited Southwest from using the same pilots across three generations of 737 (Classic, NG, MAX), so Southwest ditched the Classics when they bought the MAX.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      The picture is just to show how far the plane has deviated from its original design on a colinear (e.g. same price/size target among the new generation) scale. If you want more depth into the pains Boeing goes to not trigger a "new design" recertification, there are plenty of articles on it released during the initial Boeing MAX MCAS forced crashed saga, such as ArsTechnica's series of articles.
- bilsbie 3y ago
  How bad can retraining possibly be? Is there something in that process we can address instead?
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Is not starting over even possible for Boeing a this point?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Using a trusted and proven design (eg: 737 NG) is fine and even beneficial. In fact, reusing older designs in and of itself is fine. The problem is Boeing clearly doesn't know how to manufacture good aircraft anymore. Whether it's a rehash or clean sheet design, the result won't change until Boeing is run through the washing machine.
  - sgarland 3y ago
    Except it’s been so heavily altered that they had to use software (MCAS) to correct for the flight characteristics induced by the larger engines. And we all know how that worked out.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Yes but this is not a huge problem with the airframe itself. The tendencies without MCAS are fine. The pilots just need to be trained for them. The problem was that airlines want to skimp on the training. The same thing happened with the engine management. Boeing doesn't want to introduce an engine warning system because it would mean pilots have to be retrained. A lot of these barriers aren't part of the physical design but the industry as a whole being extremely wary of training. Probably as a result of cheap low-cost carriers emerging. Not saying Boeing is a great manufacturer but it's not the only issue at play.
      - sgarland 3y ago
        I’ve just finished reading Flying Blind by Peter Robison (recommended elsewhere on HN recently), which had engineers arguing that the plane’s flight characteristics in extremis were not acceptable, and that the correct fix was by physical redesign, not software. Another point the book made was that since nearly every other modern aircraft has far more advanced avionics, it causes the issue of pilots who are used to computers handling a lot of tasks suddenly having to do that themselves. This is probably not as much an issue with carriers who solely use 737s, like Southwest, but I can definitely see the issue otherwise.
nobodyandproud 3y ago
It’s definitely “possible”: Clean out the outsource-advocating management from C-suite to middle, and replace them with engineering managers. This was always a leadership issue. Whether the will is there? The fear of not dying while flying 4 miles high is a powerful incentive, and the public/market had spoken What other (poor) outsourcing can we disincentivize?
icegreentea2 3y ago
787 was announced in 2003, and the first shipment was in 2012. Obviously we have no idea what the extent of work was prior to the announcement. A220 was officially launched in 2008 (with like 3-5 more years of some degree of development prior to that) and first delivery was in 2016. A350 was officially launched in 2004 and first delivery was 2014. Expecting 8-12 years would be reasonable.
bilsbie 3y ago
The 747 was designed in 65 and doing its first commercial flights 5 years later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

by diggan 3y ago

plett 3y ago

The whole reason the 737 Max series exists is to avoid having to start over. By maintaining "backwards compatibility" type approval with the regular 737 then the existing massive pool of 737 pilots can jump straight in it and start flying.

deaddodo 3y ago
I always thought that was the most idiotic part that the FAA accepted. Like, I get that there has to be leeway for similar configurations of the same plane so they don't have to go through the process for each. But it's been so clearly abused that it's ridiculous now. This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323AS_%282896342517%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/EM_N323A... Is so obviously not this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_737_Max_9.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Alaska_7...
- Symbiote 3y ago
  I'm not sure a simple picture is enough. The Airbus A330 and A350 share the same type rating. (At least some variants; I'm not an expert.)
  - nicole_express 3y ago
    A big advantage Airbus has is their more modern designs are full fly-by-wire, so they're able to more practically compensate for the handling characteristics in software. As far as I know (not a pilot or aeronautics engineer) MCAS was more or less an attempt to do the same to a non-fly-by-wire plane, and we see how that turned out...
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    The Airbus A330 and A350 share the same type rating. In fact, they do not in the United States. https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ In Europe, they do: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/11737/en https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/11737/en However even within the same type rating you may have additional training or restrictions. For instance the FAA prohibited Southwest from using the same pilots across three generations of 737 (Classic, NG, MAX), so Southwest ditched the Classics when they bought the MAX.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    The picture is just to show how far the plane has deviated from its original design on a colinear (e.g. same price/size target among the new generation) scale. If you want more depth into the pains Boeing goes to not trigger a "new design" recertification, there are plenty of articles on it released during the initial Boeing MAX MCAS forced crashed saga, such as ArsTechnica's series of articles.
bilsbie 3y ago
How bad can retraining possibly be? Is there something in that process we can address instead?

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Is not starting over even possible for Boeing a this point?

Dalewyn 3y ago
Using a trusted and proven design (eg: 737 NG) is fine and even beneficial. In fact, reusing older designs in and of itself is fine. The problem is Boeing clearly doesn't know how to manufacture good aircraft anymore. Whether it's a rehash or clean sheet design, the result won't change until Boeing is run through the washing machine.
- sgarland 3y ago
  Except it’s been so heavily altered that they had to use software (MCAS) to correct for the flight characteristics induced by the larger engines. And we all know how that worked out.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Yes but this is not a huge problem with the airframe itself. The tendencies without MCAS are fine. The pilots just need to be trained for them. The problem was that airlines want to skimp on the training. The same thing happened with the engine management. Boeing doesn't want to introduce an engine warning system because it would mean pilots have to be retrained. A lot of these barriers aren't part of the physical design but the industry as a whole being extremely wary of training. Probably as a result of cheap low-cost carriers emerging. Not saying Boeing is a great manufacturer but it's not the only issue at play.
    - sgarland 3y ago
      I’ve just finished reading Flying Blind by Peter Robison (recommended elsewhere on HN recently), which had engineers arguing that the plane’s flight characteristics in extremis were not acceptable, and that the correct fix was by physical redesign, not software. Another point the book made was that since nearly every other modern aircraft has far more advanced avionics, it causes the issue of pilots who are used to computers handling a lot of tasks suddenly having to do that themselves. This is probably not as much an issue with carriers who solely use 737s, like Southwest, but I can definitely see the issue otherwise.

nobodyandproud 3y ago

It’s definitely “possible”: Clean out the outsource-advocating management from C-suite to middle, and replace them with engineering managers. This was always a leadership issue. Whether the will is there? The fear of not dying while flying 4 miles high is a powerful incentive, and the public/market had spoken What other (poor) outsourcing can we disincentivize?

icegreentea2 3y ago

787 was announced in 2003, and the first shipment was in 2012. Obviously we have no idea what the extent of work was prior to the announcement. A220 was officially launched in 2008 (with like 3-5 more years of some degree of development prior to that) and first delivery was in 2016. A350 was officially launched in 2004 and first delivery was 2014. Expecting 8-12 years would be reasonable.

bilsbie 3y ago

The 747 was designed in 65 and doing its first commercial flights 5 years later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747