Will you fly Boeing 737 Max again?

[charmer_]

If I remember correctly, the software did work the way it was supposed to, it was one of those sensors that malfunctioned. At least in of the two crashes, possibly both.

Unfortunately, that sounds very likely. Which means that the software wouldn't be able to tell that, since it's dependent on those sensors

Interesting or scary? Really I work in IT and all I know is that if you can avoid complexity well avoid it now whatever the cost!!!!

It's definitely scary. It's like a "patch" over the real implementation in order to save money/time instead of doing things the proper way and having them train/use the aircraft as is.

I would never feel safe with that kind of software patch emulating the older systems of 737s. The only way would be for pilots to be properly trained to use the 737 Max planes as is and remove that dependency.

 

[Bred Sob]

Here is the famous video.

Is it produced by Airbus?

Good video in any case, a very clear explanation. I did not realize that the Ethiopian pilots had in fact managed to switch off MCAS, but it was too late.

 

[Bred Sob]

Unfortunately, that sounds very likely. Which means that the software wouldn't be able to tell that, since it's dependent on those sensors

Sorry, I am afraid I don't follow. The software wouldn't be able to tell what? The angle of attack? Of course not, it just inputs (and processes) the data it gets from the sensor. It was the pilot's duty to figure out what happened and to shut MCAS down. And, as it happens, the Ethiopian guy did, just too late to save the plane.

 

[charmer_]

Sorry, I am afraid I don't follow. Software wouldn't be able to tell what? The angle of attack? Of course not, it just inputs (and processes) the data it gets from the sensor. It was the pilot's duty to figure out what happened and shut MCAS down. And, as it happens, the Ethiopian guy did, just too late to save the plane.

Yes, that's what I was saying. If the software is dependent on the sensors, then for sure it's going to behave incorrectly if the data it gets from the sensors is erroneous.

And, as it happens, the Ethiopian guy did, just too late to save the plane.

Not exactly unfortunately (from Wikipedia):

"The pilots then flipped a pair of switches to disable the electrical trim tab system, which also disabled the MCAS software. However, in shutting off the electrical trim system, they also shut off their ability to trim the stabilizer into a neutral position with the electrical switch located on their yokes. "

...

"At 8:43, having struggled to keep the plane's nose from diving further by manually pulling the yoke, the captain asked the first officer to help him, and turned the electrical trim tab system back on in the hope that it would allow him to put the stabilizer back into neutral trim. However, in turning the trim system back on, he also reactivated the MCAS system, which pushed the nose further down. The captain and first officer attempted to raise the nose by manually pulling their yokes, but the aircraft continued to plunge toward the ground.

The aircraft disappeared from radar screens and crashed at almost 08:44, six minutes after takeoff."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302

 

[Cruiser777]

Pretty much MERBites covered all the angles of the 737 MAX issues

If the question was asked if you would you fly the Airbus A319/320 series about 30 years ago ???

Per the video, after slow and low pass the pilot wanted to climb out, but because of the speed and attitude of the plane, the computer
overrode the pilot input and kept the plane at that level flight as the pitch up command from the pilot would have increased the AOA and
that speed the plane would have stalled. (They hit trees, thats a different issue)
There were few other similar crashes with other A319s with lots of loss of life (The first few years of operational service).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9gELPxPG8Q

When Airbus introduced the 319 /320 series, they were the first FBW / computer controlled commercial planes, they had issues and they had crashes
but now all forgotten and millions are flying these planes every year. (Same thing could happen if they fix the MAX software issues).

But one thing contributed to the MAX accidents were obviously the AOA SENSOR, because they were getting input from one sensor only,
(Faulty one in these cases) although there are two sensors on the plane but these companies hadn't bought using two sensors options because that
was an extra option with extra $$$. North American companies, including Air Canada, they had bought the two sensor input option).
With the re-design, two sensor use won't be optional anymore, it will be part of the main system.

These sensors maybe one of the cheapest parts on the plane but they play very important role that a bad one should never be on the plane.

Another example of a faulty tiny instrument causing this airplane ($1.5 Billion worth)to crash, because the pitot tubes was giving the wrong data,
because the ground crew had not covered these instruments and water got in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcY_I7i6gdk

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Pretty sure the Max will be more than capable once it is out again, do not think they are stupid enough the release it not being 100%.

 

[jalimon]

CEO got sacked today.

Most probably a necessary steps to only aim at restoring public confidence.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Last week’s malfunction of the spacecraft designed to ferry the astronauts to the International Space Station was the last straw. Too many failures. Billion dollar cost overruns and missed deadlines on another NASA contract didn’t help.

 

[sharkman]

By By Dennis Muilenburg!!!

"So long Dennis, have a good trip!...Maybe you can take one of them first class tickets to the resurrection".....Al Pacino, from the Scarface Movie!

 

[MattMiller]

Boeing Can’t Fly Its 737 Max, but It’s Ready to Sell Its Safety
The company knows travelers are wary of its plane, so it has prepared presentations with strategies for airlines to help win back the public’s trust.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/boeing-737-max-survey.html

 

[EagerBeaver]

Boeing Can’t Fly Its 737 Max, but It’s Ready to Sell Its Safety
The company knows travelers are wary of its plane, so it has prepared presentations with strategies for airlines to help win back the public’s trust.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/boeing-737-max-survey.html

Those strategies are fucking nonsense. They have to take a hit monetarily to win the public trust back, which means selling or perhaps leasing the planes at discounted prices, enabling the airlines to offer rides at discounted fares. Then you actually have to fly people to their destinations and not crash the planes or get anyone killed for a year or maybe two. Then they can eventually increase prices back to typical market rates. Otherwise this is not going to work.

 

[sharkman]

Boeing Can’t Fly Its 737 Max, but It’s Ready to Sell Its Safety...

Those strategies are fucking nonsense.

..lol!...yeah prepared presentations with strategies to Sell SHORT Safety...terrific corporate policy...Are you kidding me!...Don't make me laugh!

You play with the public safety's without really knowing what you are talking about...and then you try to talk up the stock price!!!...eventually the CEO becomes ultimately responsible for the screw ups and the bullshit!!!

...have a nice trip Dennis on your Boeing 737!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUZv0n3jKzI

 

[hungry101]

I will fly the 737 if I can avoid the hated CRJ. My one carry on will probably be a parachute though.

 

[Famous Blue Raincoat]

There’s not only the MCAS for problems. There’s a good reportage by Découverte from Radio Canada.
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/decouverte/site/segments/reportage/141372/boeing-max-ecrasement

 

[IamNY]

When I get on a plane the last thing I’m checking is the safety record, accidents, problems with the manufacturer etc. If I did I’d probably never fly again. Also, if you have a trip set up, hotels booked, car rented, excursions planned, I really doubt any of us would take a look at the plane and then walk away. I’ve gotten on some pretty sketchy puddle jumpers in far away places in my day and still got on the plane because if I didn’t I’d have to go home.

 

[jalimon]

So today Boeing had no choice but to do what they should have done in the first place... Ask pilot to go back and train on flight simulator before going back flying the MAX as pilot.

This is huge for many airline companies. Flight simulator training cost are huge. For airlines who had not yet decide to go with the Max may decide to keep growing their Airbus planes or seek other options (or like AA did recently and buy the Airbus instead of the Boeing 737 Max).

Yet the problem is not resolved. Boeing tried to fix a hardware problem with software. Anyone working in technology will say this is a big no go! Especially for a plane!

 

[Bred Sob]

Boeing tried to fix a hardware problem with software.

What are you talking about? What hardware problem?

 

[jalimon]

Very well explained Patron

My friend, who is both an Airbus and boeing trained pilot with 24 years of experiences, said to me he would simply prefer the ability to shut down the software (MCAS) and learn to fly the plane without it.

Boeing earlier said it's possible as long as the pilot goes back to simulator training. Now the fact that Boeing is not going this way to solve the problem and remove MCAS completely leads me to think they are other perks we do not know about.

 

[Bred Sob]

Yes, it is a good explanation. Worth repeating, I guess, even if we have already gone over all this a few times. But I still don't see what exactly the "hardware problem" is/was. Raised engines? As I said before, the real problem was that (some) pilots did not receive sufficient training and as a result did not know how to deal with MCAS properly. And it is Boeing's fault, no doubt.

 

[Cruiser777]

But I still don't see what exactly the "hardware problem" is/was. Raised engines?

The "Hardware problem" mentioned over here, actually is (Or should be refereed to) as a design issue.
(Obviously not hardware/software issue as we have come accustomed to these days).

The design issue was arisen by the installation of the new turbofan engine which has a much larger diameter compare to the original engine
which had a smaller diameter (Turbojet engine ) which had resulted of the low height of the original 737 design.

In order the new engine to have a sufficient clearance from the ground, Boeing had few option of redesign, A: raising the landing gears or B: raise the pylon
to mount the new engine. Re-designing the landing gears was a major and expensive issue, option so they went with the raising of the pylon where there was no more "Gap" for smooth airflow between the wings, pylons and the engine nacelles hence creating extra drag which was causing un-commanded pitch-up during take off where MCAS was created to take control of the situation without any pilot input.

The irony is that, it kind of became a "Hardware issue" when the AOA sensor failed and fed the wrong data to the flight computer, had these airlines had the option of using two sensors input instead of one, maybe these accidents wouldn't have happened.

With the new software re-design, there is no more option, the computer will use and analyze inputs from the two sensors, compare the inputs and if they are within 5 degrees, it will continue to function as normal, if more then 5 degrees then warning will be shown so pilots take appropriate action.