Boeing

[NorthernDancerColt]

Then you will really love flying in an electric airplane 10-20 years from now. They will take extreme vertical takeoff to an entirely new level.

(and not due to the noise concerns, since they are extremely quiet)

While I have learned a bit about electric cars, I know zero about electricity as applied to commercial aviation. While I can fathom a Tesla creating the proper energy to propel an automobile forward, it is hard for me to grasp the amount needed to create enough thrust to propel a massive jetliner and get it airborne to the altitudes necessary. I’m assuming self-flying will be a given as well. Hope that your timeframe is accurate and that I’m still around to see it.

[jsglow]

Yikes.  A SWA MAX that was being relocated just had to make an emergency landing after an engine problem.

[Benny B]

Yikes.  A SWA MAX that was being relocated just had to make an emergency landing after an engine problem.

Completely unrelated to the MACS system.   

[jsglow]

Completely unrelated to the MACS system.

I got it.  Still not good.

[Benny B]

I got it.  Still not good.

Yeah, but engine problems happen regularly.  “Problem” doesn’t necessarily mean catastrophic issue.  Like a car, there are numerous sensors on a jet engine that could simply fail and trigger an otherwise innocuous “Check Engine” light, but unlike a car, you can’t just keep flying it for several thousand miles until it’s convenient to take it into the shop. 

Not to mention, an emergency landing isn’t always a “mayday, we’re going down” situation... “emergency landing” in this context simply means an unscheduled landing.

IOW, absent the Max/MACS issue, this wouldn’t have even made the news. 

[MU82]

Boeing (BA +1.4%) pops higher after unveiling its software fix, cockpit alerts and additional pilot training for its 737 MAX planes, saying the changes will boost the safety of the aircraft which has been involved in two deadly crashes since October.

Among the notable changes to MAX flight controls, the plane's MCAS automated flight control system will now receive data from both angle of attack sensors instead of just one.

Also, a Boeing official says the company’s reviews of various flight control systems on new 737 MAX planes have not revealed any additional potential problems.

The review has revisited analyses of potential hazards and malfunctions, and "we have uncovered nothing that concerns us in any of those areas," the Boeing official said. "Those reviews continue [and] they will continue for some time."

[D'Lo Brown]

While I have learned a bit about electric cars, I know zero about electricity as applied to commercial aviation. While I can fathom a Tesla creating the proper energy to propel an automobile forward, it is hard for me to grasp the amount needed to create enough thrust to propel a massive jetliner and get it airborne to the altitudes necessary. I’m assuming self-flying will be a given as well. Hope that your timeframe is accurate and that I’m still around to see it.

As far as I'm aware, the eventual shift to electric aircraft will coincide with a paradigm shift in air travel. You can research the Uber air taxis that are about to begin service in LA and other cities within a few years. These air taxis are going to be quite light and only transport a few passengers at a time. You will also see individuals possessing their own, a couple decades from now of course but it will happen. You don't need a runway for these things. Uber is leasing space on the top floor of parking garages to accommodate them. You will be able to park them on your driveway some day.

When it comes to the implications for the airline industry, they are going to ride all of this out until their current fuel source becomes extraordinarily prohibitive. We aren't all that close to it happening. I don't know if an electric aircraft will be able to carry 500 passengers, or even 200, in our lifetimes. From what I've read they will be for individuals, up to maybe 10 or 12 passengers.

[mu03eng]

Thanks. This really clarifies it for me. It calls to mind the cost-benefit analysis that can be so troubling. I was still a naive youngster when I learned about cost-benefit in both a business law class and products liability class. If the costs of making a change to an unsafe product outweigh the costs of absorbing lawsuits and remuneration of victims, corporations will let people die via a defective product. Of course, if too many people die, the government will take action and ground your airplane.

  There are some cool videos on YouTube of jetliners and extreme vertical take-offs....some mandated by local noise ordinances and some just with pilots apparently having fun with no passengers aboard. When I see how extreme the nose is pitched upward, it makes me wonder why these planes didn’t stall and if the 737Max’s counter-stall software is even necessary given the extreme vertical takeoff prowess of other designs.

This has nothing to do with the anti-stall mechanism, if you have enough thrust from the engines you can "fly" at any angle of attack....hell the F-15, F-18, and F-22 can accelerate while going completely vertical but the aircraft isn't actually flying at that point it's behaving more like a rocket.

The MCAS is intended to avoid a high speed stall, as the angle of attack increases the airflow over the wing(generates lift) decreases which reduces you ability to stay in the air unless you have enough thrust to compensate. So the MCAS looks at the AoA indicator and forces a nose down condition when a high speed stall is probable....that calculation is highly complex as it has to factor in the aircraft's real time center of gravity, available thrust, humidity, altitude, external temperature, etc. The possible AoA is higher at lower altitudes than higher altitudes because there is "more air" at lower altitudes (density). Simple example of this is if you take off in San Diego you will use considerably less runway then if you take off in Denver.

All the MCAS is doing is running this calculation and then comparing it to the AoA sensor input(the reprogram is to cross reference this sensor with other indicators of actual AoA) to the "allowable" AoA given current conditions. If the actual AoA exceeds the threshold of the allowable calculation the MCAS orders a nose down condition.

[Jockey]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/

Boeing has long embraced the power of redundancy to protect its jets and their passengers from a range of potential disruptions, from electrical faults to lightning strikes.

The company typically uses two or even three separate components as fail-safes for crucial tasks to reduce the possibility of a disastrous failure. Its most advanced planes, for instance, have three flight computers that function independently, with each computer containing three different processors manufactured by different companies.

So even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor — a type of sensor that was known to fail. Boeing’s rival, Airbus, has typically depended on three such sensors.

“A single point of failure is an absolute no-no,” said one former Boeing engineer who worked on the MAX, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the program in an interview with The Seattle Times. “That is just a huge system engineering oversight. To just have missed it, I can’t imagine how.”


This is a long article - I just posted the start of it here. It has become fairly obvious that Boeing rushed the process to get the planes up and flying and neglected to train pilots to fly them.

The FAA’s upper management pressured their safety engineers to let Boeing approve the new MAX themselves. To say the least, Boeing might be a little biased to approve Boeing aircraft.

[vogue65]

Question:
If the plane has so much power, why would it stall In the first place?

Answer:
1.  It is unbalanced.
2.  It takes the engines too long to spool during climb-out and add thrust.
3.  The engines are allready at max. thrust.
3.  ????

Other planes, properly flown, don't stall.  Is it a solution looking for a problem?  Did the idiots try to make the plane idiot proof for the idiots?

And I was thinking, does the C17 have this problem?  Probably not, it has enough lift in the wing and power in the engines.  It is probably not fuel efficient, oh well.

[DegenerateDish]

What will be curious is once the MAX gets approved to fly again, will Joe/Jill Air Traveler want to fly on it? I think the infrequent traveler may not know when booking a flight that one can see the scheduled type of aircraft being used for that flight. I travel a lot and always check, as it will impact my seat choice. Time will probably heal this wound eventually, but I know I’ll think twice if my route is showing a MAX.

[dgies9156]

What will be curious is once the MAX gets approved to fly again, will Joe/Jill Air Traveler want to fly on it? I think the infrequent traveler may not know when booking a flight that one can see the scheduled type of aircraft being used for that flight. I travel a lot and always check, as it will impact my seat choice. Time will probably heal this wound eventually, but I know I’ll think twice if my route is showing a MAX.

Won’t bother me a bit. Anymore than it did to see that big DC10 parked at my gate.

It’s a safe airplane.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

In six months, no one will care.

[jsglow]

I think Fluffy has it right.  New software fix, some training, and probably a redundant sensor.  This all goes away pretty quickly.

[Cheeks]

WSJ has five articles last few days offering many different angles on this.  Some look bad for Boeing, some look bad for the gov’t back in 2011, some question airline decisions.  When all put together, they are a good read from perspectives covering every aspect of this.

Worth the read in my opinion.

[Jockey]

I think Fluffy has it right.  New software fix, some training, and probably a redundant sensor.  This all goes away pretty quickly.

Not too quickly - Boeing is gonna have a ton of financial liability here.

[mu03eng]

Not too quickly - Boeing is gonna have a ton of financial liability here.

Only if the phrases "pilot error" or "human error" don't appear in the final accident reports. And let's face it A) there is almost certainly an element to this that was exacerbated by the pilots B) the industry has a vested interest absolving Boeing and Airbus in aircraft accidents to a large degree giving the high liability risks anyway.

[Benny B]

Only if the phrases "pilot error" or "human error" don't appear in the final accident reports. And let's face it A) there is almost certainly an element to this that was exacerbated by the pilots B) the industry has a vested interest absolving Boeing and Airbus in aircraft accidents to a large degree giving the high liability risks anyway.

This.  If the market is pricing in the risk (hint: it is), the financial risk would appear to be minimal.


Hate to say it, but even if there some modicum of a case against Boeing, consider what would have to happen... where in this country are you going to find a jury that isn't going to prejudge and virtually dismiss the training of Ethiopian and Indonesian pilots no matter how competent their American counterparts are?  So the best chance these plaintiff's may have is to file outside the U.S., which - even with a finding of responsibility - isn't likely to move the needle since Boeing's assets are almost entirely in the U.S.

[Jockey]

Only if the phrases "pilot error" or "human error" don't appear in the final accident reports. And let's face it A) there is almost certainly an element to this that was exacerbated by the pilots B) the industry has a vested interest absolving Boeing and Airbus in aircraft accidents to a large degree giving the high liability risks anyway.

Even taking into account that a software fix and new pilot training were needed.

[mu03eng]

Even taking into account that a software fix and new pilot training were needed.

Literally true of every commercial airframe flying these days on at a semi annual basis. The software updates that Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus, BAE, etc push annually would make Microsoft blush.

This is why pilots always will be in the cockpit, to deconflict the automatic systems when they run into a combination of conditions, variables, decision points that have never been simulated or dreamt of

[MU82]

Mr. Market doesn't seem especially concerned anymore.

BA back over 380 today.

[JWags85]

Mr. Market doesn't seem especially concerned anymore.

BA back over 380 today.

There is a gap to 400 that should be filled pretty quick next week.  Look like it wanted to go there today but the end of week/quarter machinations held it up a bit.  Should see continuation Monday

[MU82]

There is a gap to 400 that should be filled pretty quick next week.  Look like it wanted to go there today but the end of week/quarter machinations held it up a bit.  Should see continuation Monday

In addition to all of its own hullabaloo, BA is one of those companies affected by the trade war. Most multinationals are, especially industrials. Almost every time there is favorable news on the trade front, BA goes up.

[D'Lo Brown]

What will be curious is once the MAX gets approved to fly again, will Joe/Jill Air Traveler want to fly on it? I think the infrequent traveler may not know when booking a flight that one can see the scheduled type of aircraft being used for that flight. I travel a lot and always check, as it will impact my seat choice. Time will probably heal this wound eventually, but I know I’ll think twice if my route is showing a MAX.

There are more potential downsides beyond this. I don't think there will be much longterm concerns, even medium term concerns, among Americans. They will fly on it.

I don't know about people internationally, however. We have a blind spot here in the US because Boeing is essentially an arm of the military - we are always going to have a rosy outlook. I do think people internationally are going to be quite a bit more skeptical than those in the US. The sentiments are already quite different today.

If these crashes had happened in the US (from all evidence/case reports presented so far, largely luck that it didn't), then the outlook in our country would also be entirely different.

Generalizing what we think about Boeing in the US to what the rest of the world will think about this aircraft is probably quite myopic. Boeing's hold on some of these international MAX contracts is tenuous. I hate the baseball analogy, but in this case it does fit. They are on strike 2 here. Strike 3 and the MAX is out.

They have other exposure beyond just the MCAS system that is also being probed by DOJ/others. While they are to be restoring faith in their products worldwide, they are also potentially going to be hit from multiple angles in the coming months.

[mu03eng]

There are more potential downsides beyond this. I don't think there will be much longterm concerns, even medium term concerns, among Americans. They will fly on it.

I don't know about people internationally, however. We have a blind spot here in the US because Boeing is essentially an arm of the military - we are always going to have a rosy outlook. I do think people internationally are going to be quite a bit more skeptical than those in the US. The sentiments are already quite different today.

If these crashes had happened in the US (from all evidence/case reports presented so far, largely luck that it didn't), then the outlook in our country would also be entirely different.

Generalizing what we think about Boeing in the US to what the rest of the world will think about this aircraft is probably quite myopic. Boeing's hold on some of these international MAX contracts is tenuous. I hate the baseball analogy, but in this case it does fit. They are on strike 2 here. Strike 3 and the MAX is out.

They have other exposure beyond just the MCAS system that is also being probed by DOJ/others. While they are to be restoring faith in their products worldwide, they are also potentially going to be hit from multiple angles in the coming months.

Airbus has had very similar issues over the last 10 years, both companies are protected and assuming this was not 100% liability on Boeings part, all will return to "normal" within 6 months