Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

<April 22> Boeing’s 737 Max Debacle: The Result of a Dangerously Pro-Automation Design Philosophy?
Naked Capitalism ^ | April 22, 2019 | Yves Smith

Posted on 07/20/2019 5:35:42 AM PDT by xxqqzz

The aftermath of two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets shortly after takeoff has led to the global grounding of the airplane. Boeing has been forced to cut production, and even so, undelivered planes are piling up. Big buyers like Southwest American Airlines have been forced to cancel flights during their peak time of year as a result of taking their 737s off line. American lengthened its 737 grounding to June 5 and Southwest, to August 5 [Update: American sent a notice to American Aadvantage members that the grounding would last through August 19].

Even though Boeing is scrambling to fix the software meant to counter the 737 Max’s increased propensity to stall as a result of the placement of larger, more fuel=efficient engines in a way that reduced the stability of the plane in flight, it’s not clear that this will be adequate in terms of flight safety or the public perception of the plane. And even though the FAA is almost certain to sign off on Boeing’s patch, foreign regulators may not be so forgiving. The divergence we’ve seen between the FAA and other national authorities is likely to intensify. Recall that China grounded the 737 Max before the FAA. In another vote of no confidence, even as Boeing was touting that its changes to its now infamous MCAS software, designed to compensate for safety risks introduced by the placement of the engines on the 737 Max, the Canadian air regulator said he wanted 737 Max pilots to have flight simulator training, contrary to the manufacturer’s assertion that it isn’t necessary. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Airlines is developing 737 Max flight simulator training.

But a fundamental question remains: can improved software compensate for hardware shortcomings? Some experts harbor doubts.

(Excerpt) Read more at nakedcapitalism.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 737max; boeing; engineering; software
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last
This is from 3 months ago, but explains the issues. The software was not documented well, because Boeing did not want it to be known that the plane had stability issues and was significantly different from previous 737s. The body of the article not excerpted thoroughly explains the issues.
1 posted on 07/20/2019 5:35:43 AM PDT by xxqqzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz
Pro-Automation is NOT the issue.

It is the lack of quality control, testing, and qualified oversight, that is the issue.

2 posted on 07/20/2019 5:39:14 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz

Yes, MCAS was a band-aid that had too much authority....and pilots were not given enough information about it.

MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.


3 posted on 07/20/2019 5:42:31 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party is now a hate-group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I agree. Automation is not the problem.

Airbus aircraft have done very well with fly-by-wire and extensive automation. Their safety over the last 20 years is excellent.

Boeing rushed the 737Max and should have done a clean-sheet design.


4 posted on 07/20/2019 5:46:48 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party is now a hate-group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz

Frankly speaking I like the old days when we trusted the Pilots to control the plane. Putting your life in the hands of Electronic Chips without the Pilots ability to override the Software is a risk I would rather not take.


5 posted on 07/20/2019 5:49:24 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

You’ll love driverless cars. How many times a week does my computer at work lock up and need rebooting? Or my iPhone?


6 posted on 07/20/2019 5:52:34 AM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

No driverless cars for me. I will drive my Ram 1500 until the wheels fall off.


7 posted on 07/20/2019 5:55:39 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

[MCAS was Boeing’s way of avoiding a new type-rating that would have cost millions.]


I expect time to market was a bigger factor. No idea how much more, but 2 extra years would have been terrible for its competitive position vs Airbus


8 posted on 07/20/2019 6:05:25 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz

It produced far fewer deaths than a year of automated cars out on the public streets of the DC Metro area would.


9 posted on 07/20/2019 6:06:55 AM PDT by MrEdd (Caveat Emptor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

“You’ll love driverless cars.”

Wait until that lane-keeping function fails. The car will be undrivable. Oh, and how about a proximity warning that won’t shut off?


10 posted on 07/20/2019 6:07:18 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

“Boeing rushed the 737Max and should have done a clean-sheet design.”
*

Agree. Boeing should recall the 737 Max and do a major modification to the structure, location of wings and engines or just eat the cost and scrap the plane altogether. Otherwise, appears to me this plane will be nothing but trouble going forward.


11 posted on 07/20/2019 6:11:02 AM PDT by snoringbear (,W,E.oGovernment is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
How many times a week does my computer at work lock up and need rebooting?

Try Windows 10.

I'm sure that'll get a laugh from some, but it's been pretty reliable for me.

12 posted on 07/20/2019 6:11:35 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz

Of interest.


13 posted on 07/20/2019 6:13:45 AM PDT by Travis McGee (EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Yes, it was both time to market and companies, like Southwest, that did not want pay for a separate type-rating for its pilots.

That was an Airbus advantage with the Neo....it does not have a separate type rating from the 319/320/321....so pilots are interchangeable.


14 posted on 07/20/2019 6:18:32 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party is now a hate-group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Especially at the design stage. Changing engines to the big ass CFM LEAP 1 caused a major design issue.
To keep ground clearance, they moved the Nacelle forward , changing the CG of the aircraft, making it in effect an new plane for pilots, not just a new 737.
Also the top of the nacelle is level or even slightly above the wing, causes lift and drag issues on the wing itself.
If Boeing's CEO used his damn engineering degree he would have questioned this.
But he was using his CEO quarterly profit hat.

15 posted on 07/20/2019 6:20:07 AM PDT by Waverunner (I'd like to welcome our new overlords, say hello to my little friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz

There was an article from about a year ago, before the crashes, where the author, almost predicting the future, said that what Boeing needs now is the 757, which had been cancelled years ago. The reason was that airlines were wanting more capacity on relatively short haul flights and travelers were sick of regional plane (smaller ones), and the 757 virtually matched their needs. The 757 sits higher, and has its engines where they belong, under the wing, rather than the goofy Max, which practically has them in front of the nose, due to sitting so low.

But I suspect that the plans and tooling have been ‘recycled’ so as to save storage costs. Not the first time aerospace companies have done the same, just plain stupid. You rent a warehouse outside of Seattle for $3,000 or so a month, throw in all the key tooling, have a relatively small climate-controlled area for the design and certification documentation (carefully indexed), hire a contract guard or two, and put in an alarm system (they can get 24 hour monitoring for less than $30 per month). Utilities are next to nothing in Seattle due to the climate, and so you run the operation for maybe $10k per month, and if you want to resurrect the 757, even 20 years later, it’s all there, and you paid $2.4M for all those years, whereas starting again from scratch would cost well into the billions.

Go figure.


16 posted on 07/20/2019 6:23:16 AM PDT by BobL (yI eat at McDonald's and shop at Walmart - I just don't tell anyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

Exactly. May I add as a former flight attendant (1970-1990) I remember the time when pilot skills and experience mattered significantly where safety was concerned. Flight crews are paid top salaries, often more than physicians. They should make decisions we are leaving to automation. The mind is a terrible thing to waste when dealing with the nuances of passenger safety. Total automation doesn’t meet this standard and never will.


17 posted on 07/20/2019 6:25:04 AM PDT by scottiemom (As a retired Texas public school teacher, I highly recommend private school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz
Can't speak for commercial aircraft but my experiences with the car I recently bought are a bit overwhelming.

2018...German...one of the well known German makes...and the computers are always telling me what I must,and must not,do. I've had to enlist the help of several younger family members to figure the damn thing out (the owner's manual is around 600 pages).

It's basically a 3,000 pound computer on wheels.

18 posted on 07/20/2019 6:27:34 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (A joke: Comey,Brennan and Lynch walk into a Barr...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner

“If Boeing’s CEO used his damn engineering degree he would have questioned this.
But he was using his CEO quarterly profit hat.”

Actually, the current Boeing CEO has an engineering degree. The one at the time the 737 Max came out was BA Yale, MBA Harvard. Worked at Procter and Gamble on brand management.


19 posted on 07/20/2019 6:34:11 AM PDT by xxqqzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xxqqzz

GIGO


20 posted on 07/20/2019 6:35:09 AM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson