The Boeing MAX 8 Accidents

[Trogdor]

i normally wouldn’t respond to these comments and was about to ignore it. With that being said, my comments never did any of these things.

My points were clear. If an MCAS issue was affecting the jets, system could have been permanently disabled and pilots could have hand flown these planes with stringent flight training procedures. Different aircraft designs have different flight characteristics and pilots are trained specifically to equipment types they are certified for. And if this was true why issue a software fix instead of permanently disabling the system and making sure pilots can fly the jets.

Before the groundings, and after the two crashes I saw all movements of 737 Max planes and on takeoff which is where both crashes happened, no Max in the sky of all of them flying had any deviations caused by a failed MCAS system as relayed by any ads-b, radar, air traffic control data and so on and so forth. A failed trim control would have showed the plane making inappropriate maneuvers which would have been seen. Data is publicly available from multiple sources including Flightaware, Flightradar24 and others who retrieve data from multiple methods. The groundings were initiated from the federal government.

I attest to the fact that I would have myself flown on the Max without issue before the groundings on American Airlines for instance and never thought the planes should have been grounded and if if it was not grounded I still would have flown on the Max. I would never have flown on Ethiopian or Lion Air which are not the same quality as other airlines and also are in nations which have poor, well not sure exactly how to say or put this but poorly developed militaries and aviation systems as they can lose control of a jet like the 737 Max easily.

Data on all the air communications and flight data recording units on all Max flown flights would have told the true story. NY Times is full of trash and since when does an honorable news organization put an article behind a paywall. I have caught them in so many lies over the years and I do not pay for any of their content.

Sorry, but your general understanding of the situation is flawed, at best.

First, if it was as simple as turning off MCAS, then MCAS would never have been developed in the first place. You need to research why MCAS was implemented on the 737MAX. It was to address certain control issues at high angles of attack, and without the fix, the 737MAX either couldn’t have been certified at all, or at best, couldn’t have been certified as a simple derivative (from a pilot training perspective) of the 737NG. The whole point was to allow 737NG pilots to switch to the max with a simple iPad training course. If they required significant additional pilot training, Boeing would be on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to airlines (Southwest reportedly would be owed $1 million per plane if the 737MAX required simulator training). As it turns out, Boeing botched it in such a way that they’re still going to owe millions in compensation, but that’s not something they saw coming ahead of time.

Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem. The issue with MCAS is that the angle of attack sensor providing MCAS with data failed. MCAS had no crosscheck with the other sensor. All of the planes you watched so diligently on Flightradar24 had working AOA sensors, hence no MCAS issue. The planes that crashed had a sensor failure.

As for articles behind paywalls, well, that would be virtually all newspapers these days. Back in the day, the “paywall” was buying the physical paper. Now, it’s the digital equivalent.

You’re also contradicting yourself in saying the 737MAX is an incredible airplane, and then calling it a bust at the same time. Further, saying that Boeing should scrap the MAX and refresh the 737-700/800/900, well, what the heck do you think the MAX is, if not a refresh of the NG series?

 

[jis]

A recent update from FAA regarding additional documentation from Boeing about problems with MCAS.

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

 

[Ryan]

Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem.

Yeah, but he claimed "I saw all movements of 737 Max planes", not just a handful. He's apparently devoted his life's work to watching airplanes in the sky.

Or he's stark raving mad.

 

[jis]

Here is a description from Boeing of what the MCAS system is for and the fixes to the faults, the existence of which Boeing admits to.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page

 

[jis]

What transpired at the Congressional hearing...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...th-ceo-response-new-allegations-boeing-update

 

[adamj023]

That is BS and you know it. The aviation industry started without any computerization or automation. Did any of those airplanes “require” any computer and automation? No, it didn’t exist until much later on. The theory that an MCAS system has to be “required” is totally incredulous. There have been many aircraft hull designs with different engines and weight distributions all built without MCAS systems.

If we were back into an era where automation and computerization didn’t exist and a plane would never be able to fly without then then it is not airworthy and should never be flown. But with that being said, if you ran the Max without the system. of course pilots could make adjustments as necessary as humans do a better job and can account for variations. Engines have been placed in multiple locations without issues. Twin engine, three engine, four engine with 5th for transport and so on. You can fly a 747 with a 5th engine attached for transport. Military has done things like inflight refueling, and the list goes on of all things that can be done and we are told the Max design requires MCAS which is false.

Sorry, but your general understanding of the situation is flawed, at best.

First, if it was as simple as turning off MCAS, then MCAS would never have been developed in the first place. You need to research why MCAS was implemented on the 737MAX. It was to address certain control issues at high angles of attack, and without the fix, the 737MAX either couldn’t have been certified at all, or at best, couldn’t have been certified as a simple derivative (from a pilot training perspective) of the 737NG. The whole point was to allow 737NG pilots to switch to the max with a simple iPad training course. If they required significant additional pilot training, Boeing would be on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to airlines (Southwest reportedly would be owed $1 million per plane if the 737MAX required simulator training). As it turns out, Boeing botched it in such a way that they’re still going to owe millions in compensation, but that’s not something they saw coming ahead of time.

Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem. The issue with MCAS is that the angle of attack sensor providing MCAS with data failed. MCAS had no crosscheck with the other sensor. All of the planes you watched so diligently on Flightradar24 had working AOA sensors, hence no MCAS issue. The planes that crashed had a sensor failure.

As for articles behind paywalls, well, that would be virtually all newspapers these days. Back in the day, the “paywall” was buying the physical paper. Now, it’s the digital equivalent.

You’re also contradicting yourself in saying the 737MAX is an incredible airplane, and then calling it a bust at the same time. Further, saying that Boeing should scrap the MAX and refresh the 737-700/800/900, well, what the heck do you think the MAX is, if not a refresh of the NG series?

 

[adamj023]

https://static4.businessinsider.com...-onto-the-wing-of-a-boeing-747--heres-why.jpg

Changing the engine design requires MCAS? Did this Qantas plane require any modifications to fly this plane such as MCAS or a related system. No! Position of engines can affect handling but can not make plane unsafe to handle with pilots who understand the airplane.

 

[jis]

Yeah, but he claimed "I saw all movements of 737 Max planes", not just a handful. He's apparently devoted his life's work to watching airplanes in the sky.

Or he's stark raving mad.

I am leaning towards the latter, using the proof technique of “reductio ad absurdum” since the former is demonstrably impossible. [emoji51]

 

[Ryan]

https://static4.businessinsider.com...-onto-the-wing-of-a-boeing-747--heres-why.jpg

Changing the engine design requires MCAS? Did this Qantas plane require any modifications to fly this plane such as MCAS or a related system. No! Position of engines can affect handling but can not make plane unsafe to handle with pilots who understand the airplane.

Are you legitimately claiming that there is no way that you can change the position of the engine on an airplane wing that results in an unsafe plane?

What aeronautical engineering training do you have to make this judgement?

 

[jis]

Changing the engine position and getting the new version of the plane certified as a derivative of a previous version that required no additional documentation and allows common type rating without training of pilots requires MCAS. Or so says Boeing and at least I have no reason to question their judgement on this matter. [emoji57]

 

[adamj023]

The same Boeing who never told pilots of the existence of the MCAS system at all. I think Boeings credibility is horrendous.

 

[jis]

The same Boeing who never told pilots of the existence of the MCAS system at all. I think Boeings credibility is horrendous.

And I seriously question your credibility on this matter. What training or credentials do you have in designing and building safety critical systems of any sort?

 

[ehbowen]

https://static4.businessinsider.com...-onto-the-wing-of-a-boeing-747--heres-why.jpg

Changing the engine design requires MCAS? Did this Qantas plane require any modifications to fly this plane such as MCAS or a related system. No! Position of engines can affect handling but can not make plane unsafe to handle with pilots who understand the airplane.

Um, what you're looking at is a hard point specifically designed and built into the airframe for the purpose of ferrying spare engines to remote maintenance bases. Boeing designed it into the 747 from the beginning as back in 1969 the 747's engines were too large to be shipped as air freight in a cargo hold, or actually by any ground method except railroad flatcar or break-bulk freighter ship. It was part of the original certification design and still is. Try again.

 

[Dakota 400]

It's interesting to read the different posts with different opinions. What to believe from someone who has no engineering background?

What I do believe is that Boeing screwed up in a major way with this plane. By doing so, they have caused major damage to the reputation of this Company in producing commercial airplane models, they have endangered the lives--and indeed--probably have caused the lives of those that flew on the MAX, they have significantly reduced the value of my investment in Boeing, and yet, while one executive has been "sacrificed", the really upper echelon of Management and the Board of Directors continue to draw their salaries.

Can't rationally explain why I feel this way. But, the move from Seattle to Chicago for the Boeing Headquarters seems, to me, to have been a turning point in the direction of, at least, the commercial side of Boeing.

 

[TJGagliardo]

Responding to Lockheed Martin reentering commercial air craft market; it may not want to. This is from Wikipedia:

"Lockheed Martin received $36 billion in government contracts in 2008 alone, more than any company in history. It does work for more than two dozen government agencies from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency

 

[adamj023]

Government contracts are a lot more lucrative than the commercial aircraft market.

Southwest Airlines is the most impacted by the 737 Max in the USA.

Delta is one of the large legacy airlines in the USA which has no exposure to the Max issue.

American Airlines and United already have orders for other aircraft and so they could order new replacements as necessary and/or use existing orders as leverage to get another Boeing jet instead.

Whether Boeing decides to nix the 737 Max or issue a fix, Airlines will have this all sorted out by 1st Quarter 2020 as 737 Max will be nixed or start going back into service.

The aircraft market has only two firms for 737 Max equivalent jets, which is Boeing itself and Airbus that USA will do business. Both Russia and China also compete but they won’t do business with them and while not impossible, almost certain they won’t be used.

Mitsubishi will start entering service for Regional jets starting in 2020 at earliest but there has been nothing larger announced for production by them or others.

 

[Asher]

That particular aircraft will fly, has flown and maybe will continue to fly. But, the company misled buyers into thinking extra special training was not required. Every thing in that manual had been revised with every different model to the point that it was incomprehensible. It flys just like the last model except for it doesn't and when the $:;t hit the fan, well now, big problem. Somebody at Boeing never looked past the end of their nose.

 

[saxman]

That is BS and you know it. The aviation industry started without any computerization or automation. Did any of those airplanes “require” any computer and automation? No, it didn’t exist until much later on. The theory that an MCAS system has to be “required” is totally incredulous. There have been many aircraft hull designs with different engines and weight distributions all built without MCAS systems.

If we were back into an era where automation and computerization didn’t exist and a plane would never be able to fly without then then it is not airworthy and should never be flown. But with that being said, if you ran the Max without the system. of course pilots could make adjustments as necessary as humans do a better job and can account for variations. Engines have been placed in multiple locations without issues. Twin engine, three engine, four engine with 5th for transport and so on. You can fly a 747 with a 5th engine attached for transport. Military has done things like inflight refueling, and the list goes on of all things that can be done and we are told the Max design requires MCAS which is false.

This, alone, along with your other posts tells me you have zero understanding of automation and the purpose of it. MCAS, stall warnings, stick shakers, auto pilots, etc, are all tools to reduce pilot work load. Pilot's have to constantly tell these automations what to do and how to do it. Sometimes it gets too much of a workload so that function gets turned off to reduce workload, ie, turning off the autopilot to hand fly a visual approach. MCAS is an added tool that was added because of the slightly different characteristics of hand flying the aircraft due to the slightly moved engines from the other 737's. Could the MCAS have been turned off? Sure, but it's hard to turn off something you don't know exists.

The pilots were not trained in MCAS at all, and most weren't even aware it existed much less how it worked. That, and the fact it was only tied to one AOA vane was the fatal flaw. You claimed that no other flights had the same problem just by looking at flightaware? Flightaware data isn't precise, at all, and it doesn't give AOA nor indicated airspeed; two key components. It's just radar data; altitude and ground speed. So there's no way of knowing what happened on the thousands of other flights the MAX took, unless you have access to their flight data recorders. Also, the Lion Air accident airplane had the exact same thing happen on its previous flight. Luckily, the pilots were able to get it down. Unfortunately, it was signed off by maintenance because they couldn't find a problem.

These two crashes were all about MCAS, period. Oh, yeah. I'm a Boeing 767 pilot.

 

[Bob Dylan]

This, alone, along with your other posts tells me you have zero understanding of automation and the purpose of it. MCAS, stall warnings, stick shakers, auto pilots, etc, are all tools to reduce pilot work load. Pilot's have to constantly tell these automations what to do and how to do it. Sometimes it gets too much of a workload so that function gets turned off to reduce workload, ie, turning off the autopilot to hand fly a visual approach. MCAS is an added tool that was added because of the slightly different characteristics of hand flying the aircraft due to the slightly moved engines from the other 737's. Could the MCAS have been turned off? Sure, but it's hard to turn off something you don't know exists.

The pilots were not trained in MCAS at all, and most weren't even aware it existed much less how it worked. That, and the fact it was only tied to one AOA vane was the fatal flaw. You claimed that no other flights had the same problem just by looking at flightaware? Flightaware data isn't precise, at all, and it doesn't give AOA nor indicated airspeed; two key components. It's just radar data; altitude and ground speed. So there's no way of knowing what happened on the thousands of other flights the MAX took, unless you have access to their flight data recorders. Also, the Lion Air accident airplane had the exact same thing happen on its previous flight. Luckily, the pilots were able to get it down. Unfortunately, it was signed off by maintenance because they couldn't find a problem.

These two crashes were all about MCAS, period. Oh, yeah. I'm a Boeing 767 pilot.

Always good to hear from those who know of where they speak instead of Armchair Pilots and Engineers.

 

[jis]

The MAXs have been removed from schedules by all major airlines now through March 2020. My guess is they will be further delayed beyond March, but we'll see. Once they get certified to fly again, it is estimated that it will take upto a year or more to get all of them, the delivered ones and the undelivered ones waiting in the wings, up and flying.

Meanwhile, there was this very interesting article on the matter published in the New Yorker. It also touches on the Tort law issue, something that Amtrak is trying to wriggle itself out of by forcing everything into Arbitration.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-against-boeing?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Amtrak is trying to wriggle itself out of by forcing everything into Arbitration.

They seem to have inspired our own Amtrak Unlimited to follow suit. Link: https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/tos/

Watching millions of Americans fighting to have their legal remedies and protections greatly reduced and restricted in order to protect conglomerates from jury awards painful enough to change their behavior was a rather eye opening experience for me. The great American experiment has taught me so much about the inherent frailties of the human mind.

 

[jis]

They seem to have inspired our own Amtrak Unlimited to follow suit. Link: https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/tos/

Watching millions of Americans fighting to have their legal remedies and protections greatly reduced and restricted in order to protect conglomerates from jury awards painful enough to change their behavior was a rather eye opening experience for me. The great American experiment has taught me so much about the inherent frailties of the human mind.

Indeed!

A minor saving grace is that at least the AU website cannot kill or maim you by mistake, unlike Amtrak, unless one is of a very excitable kind I suppose.

Incidentally, IIRC, at the Congressional hearing today there was a testy exchange between a Congressman and Mr. Anderson on this matter, in which at one point the Congressman in effect asked Mr. Anderson to STFU while he spoke.

 

[jis]

An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ntic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social

 

[railiner]

An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/?utm_term=2019-11-20T11:00:04&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social

That's a fascinating viewpoint...thanks for posting that link. Another one of those "tail wagging the dog" stories, where the smaller of the merger partner's ends up in control of the larger. Sometimes that works out favorably, other times...not so much.

 

[Dakota 400]

An explanation how Boeing has come to its current sorry state...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/?utm_term=2019-11-20T11:00:04&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social

I appreciate reading this article. Thanks for posting it.

My question is: Where does Boeing go from here? Does Senior Management and the Board of Directors understand what has happened? And, if they do, are they competent to steer a company the size of Boeing to an improved path?