Posted on 07/14/2019 6:29:18 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Boeing has bested Airbus as the world's largest aircraft maker for most of this decade. That's about to change in dramatic fashion.
Airbus' commanding lead is especially significant because the race between the two companies has historically been tight. Last year, for example, Boeing delivered 806 aircraft last year to Airbus' 800. 2015 was the only year this decade in which one of the two airplane manufacturers delivered 100 more planes than the other.
The gap between them is almost certainly going to get wider. Boeing has not been able to deliver any of its bestselling 737 Max planes since March, when those jets were grounded. That month, one of the jets crashed in Ethiopia and killed all 157 people on board. It was the second fatal crash of a 737 Max in less than six months. In total, 346 people died aboard the two planes. Boeing probably won't get approval to fly the 737 Max again until the end of 2019 at the earliest — much later than what was initially expected.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Boeing let the bean counters farm out the coding to $9/hour coders.
Boeing wanted to save on fuel, resulting engines were larger in size, changed the outside of the plane, farmed out coding to $9/hour coders, US pilots reported problems, don’t defend them, they screwed this up royally.
Without EU subsidies Airbus would die
“” “” Uh, they still do. Part of the problem was that non-domestic pilots tend to depend on the automated features instead of taking total responsibility for airplane flight. Domestic pilots are the opposite. This is according to a commercial-airline pilot I heard interviewed after the crashes.”” “”
I am not supporting Boeing-bashing but your opinion coming from a company itself in verious forms is exactly why it takes traction.
Are you hinting that international airlines should be skipping on Boeing by saying that?
If so it works just fine as evident by the article.
I wouldn’t say it is ‘inferior’ international pilots who are to blame but the standards of training pilots more like a video game operators than actual fliers should be addressed.
Isn’t it Boeing behind these standards on how to train pilots including international?
The reasons behind the crashes are aerodynamically unstable airframe and faulty systems intended to compensate it.
You might insinuate that ‘good’ pilots would counter it but it is a weak point. There are instances of good pilots landing planes without a wing or a tail but it doesn’t mean the designers and plane manufacturers should put every pilot in such a position everyday and then blame them for not making it.
Being the liberals they are means they are ruining their own company. The CEO is a 55 year old child who thinks for employees that things outside Boeing are far more important and he has said so.
There is a very readable book by Joe Sutter (father of the 747) in which he describes the company's early developments. One memorable outtake is that there could be no single point of failure, meaning redundancy was critical to the increasingly complex designs.
The Max crashes were, IIRC apparently, due to single points of failure of the angle-of-attack sensor; and, even worse, the flight crew (again, IIRC) could not manually horse the control yokes to right the crafts.
I do want to see Boeing recover and succeed, however these kinds of thefts of pilot authority in aircraft design are not acceptable. Hopefully, the design teams learned something.
As an aside, I would still rather fly Boeing than Airbus, several reasons, including reliability and comfort.
.
[The two tragic crashes are outliers - a tragic situation where the pilots did not know how to handle a life-threatening anomaly.
Full disclosure - I worked at Boeing for 32 years.]
Was this software used for flight controls?
Were these programmers developing flight software?
No - it was South Carolina. Just so happens she is my idiot.
>> limeypropaganda
LOL, who added that keyword?
737 Max is a 50 year old plane with a new engine pasted on. The new engine made the plane unstable, so they developed software to keep the nose from getting to high and the plane stalling. The software was badly designed and didn’t work right. In both crashes, the pilots kept pulling the plane up and software kept pulling it down until it crashed. Plane was designed to sell and save money, not to fly.
Wouldn’t it be nice if every poster on FR stopped going to CNN for news. You could get the same story at a dozen other news sites. In fact, CNN probably did just that. I gave up on CNN 2 years ago...haven’t been to the website and I haven’t been to the cable site; and I get all the news I ever did before.
Help the cause and stop going to CNN!
You are right about the faulty systems, but may I gently correct you on a couple of points. The MAX8 airframe is not aerodynamically unstable as you assert. Unstable means that if you take your hands and feet off the controls, the aircraft will immediately do its best to crash - climb, dive, spin, whatever. Every commercial plane I know of is stable in flight, the pilots can, and DO, fall asleep at the controls and the plane flies like a train on rails.
The MAX8 is no different than any other aircraft and does not need the stability augmentation system, it flies fine without it. On takeoff, the pilot merely rolls in some nose down trim and that's that.
It does require a bit more more nose down trim than previous 737's so for some really inane reasons Boeing decided to AUTOMATICALLY adjust the nose down trim with, as you noted, a single-point failure event with the AoA indicator. When it failed, as I have posted before, third world pilots were unable to fly the plane manually, can you believe that? Amazing! So the FAA is now looking into training pilots to fly instead of being Nintendo operators. USA pilots had no trouble disconnecting the auto-trim feature and did complain about it, but Boeing did not listen. Boy, did this ever cost them. I hope this helps to understand the real problem.
That is just ignorant.
It caused the nose to go up too much, so they created software to compensate for that.
It caused the nose to go up too much, so they created software to compensate for that.
It caused the nose to go up too much, so they created software to compensate for that.
737 Max is a 50 year old plane with a new engine pasted on. The new engine made the plane unstable, so they developed software to keep the nose from getting to high and the plane stalling. The software was badly designed and didn’t work right. In both crashes, the pilots kept pulling the plane up and software kept pulling it down until it crashed. Plane was designed to sell and save money, not to fly.
**************************************
What he said
Additionally, there was only a single sensor dictating when the software engaged. This was another cheap aspect of the design.
That is just plain ignorant as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.