collapse

* Recent Posts

Big East 23-24 NCAA and NIT Results by PointWarrior
[Today at 12:08:31 AM]


Three Years Ago Today... by Newsdreams
[March 27, 2024, 11:34:10 PM]


Kam Jones 1st Round Mock - The Ringer by PGsHeroes32
[March 27, 2024, 10:40:15 PM]


Katz has MU in Final Four by MurphysTillClose
[March 27, 2024, 10:24:36 PM]


UNLEASH THE POWER OF SCOOP!!! by TallTitan34
[March 27, 2024, 10:20:50 PM]


Best MU team since 1977 by Galway Eagle
[March 27, 2024, 09:47:04 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Hallmarq
[March 27, 2024, 09:09:04 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Boeing  (Read 7330 times)

vogue65

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Boeing
« on: March 25, 2019, 04:48:38 AM »
It is unfortunate that we can't seem to have a civilized conversation on a technical subject.   Has everything become politically charged and adversarial? 

Nevertheless, the 737 Max is a case study in many aspects of engineering, technology and business practices.  The AF is always interested in lessons learned and I'm sure there will be a few lessons to be learned from this situation.

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Boeing
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2019, 09:45:02 AM »
It is unfortunate that we can't seem to have a civilized conversation on a technical subject.   Has everything become politically charged and adversarial? 

Nevertheless, the 737 Max is a case study in many aspects of engineering, technology and business practices.  The AF is always interested in lessons learned and I'm sure there will be a few lessons to be learned from this situation.

Yes, lessons can be learned.  Hopefully the media will cover it properly so we can all decide. 
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23344
Re: Boeing
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2019, 09:50:39 AM »
And...... one post in, there it is. 
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Boeing
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2019, 10:19:13 AM »
And...... one post in, there it is.

The usual fool.

I wonder how many people he has driven away from this site.

PBRme

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
Re: Boeing
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2019, 10:43:45 AM »
The usual fool.

I wonder how many people he has driven away from this site.

Pot meet Kettle
Peace, Love, and Rye Whiskey...May your life and your glass always be full

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6583
Re: Boeing
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2019, 11:01:48 AM »
Pot meet Kettle

That's pretty laughable.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Boeing
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2019, 11:05:25 AM »
It is unfortunate that we can't seem to have a civilized conversation on a technical subject.   Has everything become politically charged and adversarial? 

If you are honestly asking the question and want an honest answer, you should be less politically charged and divisive yourself.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

dgies9156

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Boeing
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2019, 11:25:48 AM »
Back when I was in grad school, we had a case study on the ethics of the engineers surrounding the DC-10. As you technies know, the DC-10 had a new cargo door design that had been problematic. Ultimately, a DC-10 crashed in Paris killing 346 persons. The cause was an improperly latched cargo door.

At the time, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were engaged in a "to-the-death" battle for widebody trijet superiority between the DC-10 and the Tri-Star. Engineers allegedly rushed the design process to get the DC-10 to market ahead of the Tri-Star. The debate we had was whether the rush to market and potential profitability issues caused engineers to to make a less than thoroughly robust DC-10 cargo door.

Fast forward about 45 years. Did the rush to get the Max in the market lead to short-cuts in the design and certification process. While engineers think in terms of process -- if "A" then "B" and therefore the plane should fly without a hitch -- the human factors and lack of training/education into the MCAS system may have been an ethical if not legal failure on the part of Boeing. How much of a rush to design and build and get into market with a perceived commonality with earlier 737 models led to the accident.

Like the DC-10, which I flew on far more than I could measure, I think the Max is a safe airplane.  But it's only a safe airplane if you know how to fly it and that's the ethical dilemma.

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Boeing
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2019, 12:24:17 PM »
Back when I was in grad school, we had a case study on the ethics of the engineers surrounding the DC-10. As you technies know, the DC-10 had a new cargo door design that had been problematic. Ultimately, a DC-10 crashed in Paris killing 346 persons. The cause was an improperly latched cargo door.

At the time, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were engaged in a "to-the-death" battle for widebody trijet superiority between the DC-10 and the Tri-Star. Engineers allegedly rushed the design process to get the DC-10 to market ahead of the Tri-Star. The debate we had was whether the rush to market and potential profitability issues caused engineers to to make a less than thoroughly robust DC-10 cargo door.

Fast forward about 45 years. Did the rush to get the Max in the market lead to short-cuts in the design and certification process. While engineers think in terms of process -- if "A" then "B" and therefore the plane should fly without a hitch -- the human factors and lack of training/education into the MCAS system may have been an ethical if not legal failure on the part of Boeing. How much of a rush to design and build and get into market with a perceived commonality with earlier 737 models led to the accident.

Like the DC-10, which I flew on far more than I could measure, I think the Max is a safe airplane.  But it's only a safe airplane if you know how to fly it and that's the ethical dilemma.

Best post yet on this debate.

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Boeing
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2019, 12:32:23 PM »
So I haven't been around scoop much.  Not much interested in rehashing college basketball.  More interested in Knebel's elbow.  But I do come back to see that my 737 thread had to get locked down because of some a-clowns that invade this community with their continuous BS.  We can't have nice things anymore.  Makes me sad.  Thanks for relaunching vogue.

vogue65

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Boeing
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2019, 12:37:14 PM »
Back when I was in grad school, we had a case study on the ethics of the engineers surrounding the DC-10. As you technies know, the DC-10 had a new cargo door design that had been problematic. Ultimately, a DC-10 crashed in Paris killing 346 persons. The cause was an improperly latched cargo door.

At the time, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were engaged in a "to-the-death" battle for widebody trijet superiority between the DC-10 and the Tri-Star. Engineers allegedly rushed the design process to get the DC-10 to market ahead of the Tri-Star. The debate we had was whether the rush to market and potential profitability issues caused engineers to to make a less than thoroughly robust DC-10 cargo door.

Fast forward about 45 years. Did the rush to get the Max in the market lead to short-cuts in the design and certification process. While engineers think in terms of process -- if "A" then "B" and therefore the plane should fly without a hitch -- the human factors and lack of training/education into the MCAS system may have been an ethical if not legal failure on the part of Boeing. How much of a rush to design and build and get into market with a perceived commonality with earlier 737 models led to the accident.

Like the DC-10, which I flew on far more than I could measure, I think the Max is a safe airplane.  But it's only a safe airplane if you know how to fly it and that's the ethical dilemma.

The DC -10 is an interesting case, wasn't the first blame directed at the grounds crew who failed to properly secure the hatch?

I don't understand the mistrust of journalists trying to give us the story.  Good reporting today on 200 pilots flying simulators at Renton and successfully handling the A.I. glitch.

Also, there is much information out there about the engines, reversers, and weight considerations.

One business decision led to another and another, that might be the heart of the ethical dilemma.


Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Boeing
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2019, 03:53:16 PM »
Back when I was in grad school, we had a case study on the ethics of the engineers surrounding the DC-10. As you technies know, the DC-10 had a new cargo door design that had been problematic. Ultimately, a DC-10 crashed in Paris killing 346 persons. The cause was an improperly latched cargo door.

At the time, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were engaged in a "to-the-death" battle for widebody trijet superiority between the DC-10 and the Tri-Star. Engineers allegedly rushed the design process to get the DC-10 to market ahead of the Tri-Star. The debate we had was whether the rush to market and potential profitability issues caused engineers to to make a less than thoroughly robust DC-10 cargo door.

Fast forward about 45 years. Did the rush to get the Max in the market lead to short-cuts in the design and certification process. While engineers think in terms of process -- if "A" then "B" and therefore the plane should fly without a hitch -- the human factors and lack of training/education into the MCAS system may have been an ethical if not legal failure on the part of Boeing. How much of a rush to design and build and get into market with a perceived commonality with earlier 737 models led to the accident.

Like the DC-10, which I flew on far more than I could measure, I think the Max is a safe airplane.  But it's only a safe airplane if you know how to fly it and that's the ethical dilemma.

The difference I see between the Max 8 and DC-10 cases is twofold:

1) The engineering and physics behind the DC-10 issue were tangible.  The MCAS system, unfortunately, is not.  IOW, both the design flaw and mechanism failure - along with the solution - on the DC-10 can easily be explained to a 5th grader... i.e. an average person doesn't need an understanding of IT or aerodynamics to feel safe provided they have a conceptual understanding of "Grog say stronger rod no bend like wimpy rod compromising latch mechanism... ergo, Grog keep people safe."

So try explaining the actual operation of MACS - i.e. how the software code works to prevent a stall, how it's triggered, how it could falsely engage, etc. - to anyone on the street (other than a software or systems engineer) let alone the modification to the software that intends to solve the problem.  Chances are, your average person is either a) lost by the time you start explaining how a pilot simply can't call his/her son for help when the screen turns blue or b) simply going to dismiss anything you say knowing that the robots in the cargo hold who really fly the plane are just going to do whatever the damn hell they want anyway.

2) MACS is designed to itself be a fail-safe without its own fail-safe.  In other words, its purpose is to monitor for human error and correct those mistakes, but if the software makes its own mistake, it relies on human monitoring and intervention to correct itself. 

Think of someone in the hospital (pilot) who's hooked up to a heart monitor (AoA sensor)... if the monitor flatlines, the doctors/nurses (i.e. the MACS) automatically proceed to d-fib.  However, if the monitor falsely flatlines, only the patient immediately knows whether his/her heart is still beating, and if he/she's distracted by something else (anesthesia, perhaps), they may end up with a couple thousand volts unnecessarily.

And looping back to #1, if you don't know who (or what) the plane is in the above analogy, think of how difficult it's going to be getting the general public to understand - and more importantly, buy into - the solution.

Full disclosure: I own stock and out-of-money call options in BA.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 03:55:16 PM by Benny B »
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Plaque Lives Matter!

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Boeing
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2019, 07:56:54 PM »
Coming from an industry that has faced highly intensified (and rightful) clamp downs on individual company oversight in the past decade, wouldn't surprise me if there was some new regulations coming. Granted I am comparing medical to aviation but people seem to get peeved when deaths occur.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13003
Re: Boeing
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2019, 08:20:05 PM »
So I haven't been around scoop much.  Not much interested in rehashing college basketball.  More interested in Knebel's elbow.  But I do come back to see that my 737 thread had to get locked down because of some a-clowns that invade this community with their continuous BS.  We can't have nice things anymore.  Makes me sad.  Thanks for relaunching vogue.

+1 Well said.

It's time to move on to a National League Central Pissing Thread

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Boeing
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2019, 10:54:39 PM »
And...... one post in, there it is.

There was nothing wrong with my post.  Let the media report the facts in a fair fashion, I don’t know why in today’s day and age this is even controversial statement.  I am hopeful they will, as I stated.  There could be valued lessons learned, and in my opinion the more objective the reporting, the more likely those lessons will take hold.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22055
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Boeing
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2019, 11:55:54 PM »
Is it bad that I don't typically read threads on the Superbar until they get locked?  Sure there are a few topics I enjoy or are passionate about that I'll post in, but  my favorites are the locked threads. I get to sit back, eat some popcorn, and just enjoy without the risk of letting myself get drawn into the muck.

God bless scoop. It is a wonderful and terrible place.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 12:00:52 AM by TAMU Eagle »
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


vogue65

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Boeing
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2019, 03:15:43 AM »
There was nothing wrong with my post.  Let the media report the facts in a fair fashion, I don’t know why in today’s day and age this is even controversial statement.  I am hopeful they will, as I stated.  There could be valued lessons learned, and in my opinion the more objective the reporting, the more likely those lessons will take hold.

Yes, and let Boeing be forthcoming and trasparent.
Let them not hide under the trade secret ruse.

Ebrare may be acquired by Boeing, Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas years ago, Lockheed, Martin, Grumman, and Republic are no more.  Raython runs Beechcraft and Sikorsky, there is a lot "flying under the radar".  GE makes engines for the 737 MAX 8 in partnership with the French and Boeing is our major aerospace defense contractor.  Boeing is the definition of globialization, this not a political statement.

Therefore, a lot is riding on this whole issue,  it goes far beyond some computer software.

Journalism is very difficult as reporters who are not experts in some area try and ferret out  the revevlant facts and then explain them in laymans language.  When journalists report on a subject that is one of my specialties they usually get it 80 to 90 % right, I don't fault them and I don't attribute nefarious motives.

Since Scoop has eliminated the political it has become much more civilized. When we argued politics I regret that I would get down and throw mud with the best of you guys.



NorthernDancerColt

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: Boeing
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2019, 06:24:33 AM »
It is unfortunate that we can't seem to have a civilized conversation on a technical subject.   Has everything become politically charged and adversarial? 

Nevertheless, the 737 Max is a case study in many aspects of engineering, technology and business practices.  The AF is always interested in lessons learned and I'm sure there will be a few lessons to be learned from this situation.

So much has been going on in my life lately that I haven’t really made a concerted effort to read up on the intricacies of the Lion Air and Ethiopia crashes and subsequent grounding of the 737 Max. From the snippets I’ve seen, is my rudimentary understanding accurate??...that basically the aircraft was designed with engines that are almost too powerful for the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. This theoretically can cause the aircraft to nose-pitch upward at times, leading to dangerous stall characteristics...and Boeing was aware of this peculiarity so it installed onboard state of the art computer anti-stall software....which often compounds the problem because it is tasked to gather sometimes faulty info from sensors, which can in turn cause incorrect adjustments from pilots basing their countermeasures on these faulty readings. Or, the pilots have not been properly trained in the latest software version of the anti-stall measures. So, a 737 Max can be either A)in a normal flight nose attitude...in which case the sensor either reads correctly, thus employing no software-based automatic correction or B) in a normal nose attitude, but now the sensor reads incorrectly and employs the automatic software correction and now the pilot has to consult his training on how to overcome the faulty “correction” which may have put the aircraft into a dive....or C) actually in a stall characteristic with the correction software employed and the nose dropped or raised accordingly.

Am I understanding this stuff correctly? At risk of being called a Luddite or somehow aligned with Trump’s words immediately following the FAA grounding....

Are we better not having layer upon layer of complex systems whereby pilots, in a sometimes extremely limited timeframe window, have to be troubleshooting gurus and swift expert software disablers to disengage a “fix” gone wrong? Isn’t manual operation of controls in either VFR or IFR by real human pilots operating relatively simple instruments the way to go? Was Boeing’s installation of the anti-stall computer program proof of a bad design attribute of engine power relative to fuselage design?
Zenyatta has a lot....a lot... of ground to make up. She gets there from here she’d be a super horse......what’s this.....Zenyatta hooked to the grandstand side....Zenyatta flying on the outside....this....is...un-belieeeeeevable!...looked impossible at the top of the stretch...

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11506
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Boeing
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2019, 07:28:18 AM »
There was nothing wrong with my post.  Let the media report the facts in a fair fashion, I don’t know why in today’s day and age this is even controversial statement.  I am hopeful they will, as I stated.  There could be valued lessons learned, and in my opinion the more objective the reporting, the more likely those lessons will take hold.


Stop being so passive aggresssive. That is exact same place you took the previous thread before it was locked down. You know what you are doing.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

D'Lo Brown

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: Boeing
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2019, 09:24:47 AM »
Was Boeing’s installation of the anti-stall computer program proof of a bad design attribute of engine power relative to fuselage design?

My understanding was that the MCAS system was intended to make the flight characteristics automatically behave more like the prior 737 models. The issue was that the plane did not behave like the others on its own; due to the changes intended for better efficiency it just flew different.

Any answer to "was the design of the plane bad" is totally subjective at this point. It seems pretty unlikely to me but it's a step too far from where things stand. The intent of an antistall system is entirely reasonable, and good. The problem arises when the system misfires and there isn't enough time to identify/correct (such as during takeoff).

I know I'm way oversimplifying, the issue is multifactorial, like any issue these days. As perfectly described in an earlier post.

dgies9156

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Boeing
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2019, 10:02:21 AM »
Brother Benny B:

You are right about software and trying to explain/understand it. I agree it is complex and very few people in a group will ever understand it. But, that's part of the problem.

The pilots who fly the Max may not be able to understand the software but they have to understand the engineering logic of, "If "A" then "B". If the nose pitches up out of the blue, then you cut the autopilot and fly the plane manually and re-engage the autopilot at flight level. U.S. pilots apparently have understood that.

Boeing was in a to-the-death battle with Airbus over twin-engine, single aisle superiority in the world. To acknowledge that the plane had been heavily re-designed and did not have commonality with other "versions" of the 737 family would mean more training, more certification and probably more pilots, since a pilot  probably could not operate both a 737-700/900 series and the Max.

Simply put, this is not the difference between a 757-200 and a 757-300. Or a 727-100 and a 727-222 from earlier years.

In a rush to get the Max certified and in worldwide airline fleets, did Boeing underplay the differences between the Max and the 700 to 900 series of the 737 family? Most likely they did. Was this done with malice or greed? Probably not malice but certainly with the notion of maximizing shareholder return.

People of good character can and do disagree over these issues. And I doubt the engineers and scientists who certified the Max realistically believed they would have had the problems Lion Air and Ethiopian Air had. But the realistic question should be what drove the "rush to certification," and whether the process was short-cutted to maximize profitability.

We shall see. And, I hope but I doubt this will be done in the interest of aviation safety and not in the interest of some politician's political future.

vogue65

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Boeing
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2019, 11:19:43 AM »
As I see it the problem was not that the plane had a complete redesign.  The problem is that it didn't.  They changed the engines which changed everything, they did not redesign the wings, or allow for a new center of gravity.  They added 17 inches to the front wheel reach, great.  They made do, they made a business decision.

For a pilot there is one big deal and that is altitude.  So on climb out we have extra thrust, not much altitude and the computer taking over and pushing the nose down.  Great.

On a slightly political note, sorry, the Aerospace Industries Association is more powerful than the NRA.  The American public would be suprised how powerful they are.   They will be working behind the scene full time to fix this problem. 

NorthernDancerColt

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: Boeing
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2019, 03:21:00 PM »
As I see it the problem was not that the plane had a complete redesign.  The problem is that it didn't.  They changed the engines which changed everything, they did not redesign the wings, or allow for a new center of gravity.  They added 17 inches to the front wheel reach, great.  They made do, they made a business decision.

For a pilot there is one big deal and that is altitude.  So on climb out we have extra thrust, not much altitude and the computer taking over and pushing the nose down.  Great.

On a slightly political note, sorry, the Aerospace Industries Association is more powerful than the NRA.  The American public would be suprised how powerful they are.   They will be working behind the scene full time to fix this problem.

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.
Zenyatta has a lot....a lot... of ground to make up. She gets there from here she’d be a super horse......what’s this.....Zenyatta hooked to the grandstand side....Zenyatta flying on the outside....this....is...un-belieeeeeevable!...looked impossible at the top of the stretch...

D'Lo Brown

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: Boeing
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2019, 03:39:26 PM »
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.

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)

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: Boeing
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2019, 04:15:43 PM »
The crew of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max declared an emergency shortly after takeoff and returned to Orlando's main airport on Tuesday after reporting an engine problem, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The FAA grounded this type of aircraft earlier this month following two fatal crashes of the popular model.

Airlines aren't allowed to fly passengers under the FAA's order. The Southwest plane, which was not carrying passengers, was bound for Victorville, Calif., where the carrier is storing the aircraft in a facility in the western Mojave Desert.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/southwest-boeing-737-max-reportedly-made-an-emergency-landing-at-orlando-international-airport.html
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

NorthernDancerColt

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: Boeing
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2019, 04:27:33 PM »
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.
Zenyatta has a lot....a lot... of ground to make up. She gets there from here she’d be a super horse......what’s this.....Zenyatta hooked to the grandstand side....Zenyatta flying on the outside....this....is...un-belieeeeeevable!...looked impossible at the top of the stretch...

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Boeing
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2019, 08:42:01 PM »
Yikes.  A SWA MAX that was being relocated just had to make an emergency landing after an engine problem.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Boeing
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2019, 09:02:03 PM »
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.   
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Boeing
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2019, 09:03:17 PM »
Completely unrelated to the MACS system.

I got it.  Still not good.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Boeing
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2019, 09:27:06 PM »
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. 
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: Boeing
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2019, 03:42:39 PM »
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."
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

D'Lo Brown

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: Boeing
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2019, 03:52:42 PM »
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

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Boeing
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2019, 04:19:07 PM »
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.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Boeing
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2019, 12:02:37 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Boeing
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2019, 02:12:27 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 06:27:19 AM by vogue65 »

DegenerateDish

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2531
Re: Boeing
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2019, 05:08:41 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Boeing
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2019, 07:40:51 AM »
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 Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11506
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Boeing
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2019, 08:00:37 AM »
In six months, no one will care.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Boeing
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2019, 09:24:21 AM »
I think Fluffy has it right.  New software fix, some training, and probably a redundant sensor.  This all goes away pretty quickly.

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Boeing
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2019, 10:42:02 AM »
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.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Boeing
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2019, 06:32:06 PM »
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

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Boeing
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2019, 07:56:31 AM »
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.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Boeing
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2019, 09:31:40 AM »
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.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Boeing
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2019, 10:39:35 AM »
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

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Boeing
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2019, 12:02:47 PM »
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
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: Boeing
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2019, 02:38:39 PM »
Mr. Market doesn't seem especially concerned anymore.

BA back over 380 today.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

JWags85

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Boeing
« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2019, 05:47:32 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: Boeing
« Reply #47 on: March 29, 2019, 10:02:12 PM »
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.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

D'Lo Brown

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: Boeing
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2019, 01:13:04 PM »
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

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Boeing
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2019, 11:30:52 PM »
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
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."