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 ...
By nine dollar an hour programmers.
The system is a very rudimentary form of Artificial Intelligence, and the bugs have not all been worked out in the < E >< stop > programming.
You cannot know what you do not know, until you learn the hard way what you should have known.
It is called “gaining experience”.
Uh.....NEVER for FLIGHT SOFTWARE!!!!!!!
Spontaneous rebooting & all. /s
Exactly - driven by Southwest’s requirement to have bigger jets and a fleet with a single type rating.
You’re quoting internet blab.
Any pilot can safely fly the plane’s design without MCAS. You have no idea what you’re talking about here. This has been discussed AT-LENGTH in other threads.
Not here. Maybe it's because I loaded up on RAM.
“And think of the cost to fix it.”
The Pick-n-Pull in Tallahassee has a row of beautiful later model Mercedes. They look like they could be on a used car lot. So, I asked why they were there.
“That one needs a couple of computers. I think there are seven and used ones, with no guarantees, run between $1,500 and $3,000. Not sure which ones it needs or how long the others will last.”
“That one needs a transmission; about $12,000.”
“The blue one needs an engine rebuild, probably north of ten or twelve thousand.”
I own two Lincoln Town cars from the early 2000’s. The motors work fine. One even still has air and cruise control. Hardly anything else electric still works. They aren’t worth repairing as it would cost more than they are worth. Do we really need a computer and software to run lights and the dash?
I disagree.
Boeing used automation to try and cover up a serious design flaw.
The 37’s have gone through a number of improvements over the course of their operational history, none of which required a name change or a new type rating. The originals had low bypass engines, stubby wings and were relatively underpowered. I swear the wing engineering was a touch off, as the aircraft cruised at about a 3 or 4 degree pitch up. Cabin crew always felt like they were working on a slope. That all changed with the NG models with a new wing, entirely updated avionics and bigger hi bypass engines. All of this accomplished without a real name (737 NG) change or requirement for a new type rating for pilots. The MAX is the 3rd iteration of the venerated 73s that have possessed a top safety rating for 20+ years.
...Just to give a bit more historical perspective.
Their attempt to save $millions is instead going to cost them $billions.
Any plane with software should be required to have ejection seats.
The entire MCAS system was chocked full of bad software and hardware design. Some of the problems were so blatant that an intelligent 3rd grader could have picked them out. If course then we hear that the software was written in India.
Yet even with all that in mind. If Boeing had put an off switch on MCAS that did not also disable the manual electric trim buttons on the yoke then probably neither of the planes would have crashed. It is a sure thing that the second crash would not have happened. In order to understand that- then one would have had to listen to a professional go through the data from the flight recorder, and explain what it means. Anyone who has not done that should not think that they have any real understanding at all.
Wait for it...
You can get two out of three: fast, cheap or good. You cannot get all three.
Thanks - but I just think they went too far on the Max and over-engined the small airframe.
Yet even with all that in mind. If Boeing had put an off switch on MCAS that did not also disable the manual electric trim buttons on the yoke then probably neither of the planes would have crashed. It is a sure thing that the second crash would not have happened. In order to understand that- then one would have had to listen to a professional go through the data from the flight recorder, and explain what it means. Anyone who has not done that should not think that they have any real understanding at all.
I concur based on extensive reading about this. Boeing created a “safety system” that those pilots were seemingly unaware of and did not understand. The “safety system” was reliant on a sensor and a simple failure analysis should have shown (in hindsight) that the safety system was potentially more dangerous than the problem it was supposed to mitigate.
The safety record of this plane here in the U.S. was good. Why? We had more hours and more flights with the same plane? We had pilots who responded to the same issue according to the unions and Boeing was aware of it. They dropped the ball and should have sent out a warning. The transcripts from the cockpit recorders are hard to listen to as the pilots on those doomed planes appeared clueless and lost as to what was happening until it was too late.
That is the most inexcusable thing to me. Remove the MCAS from the system and neither of those crashes would occur.
I have seen no documentation where the MCAS prevented a crash and am curious if anyone else is aware of one.
Sounds like someone should buy 3 or 4 cheap and build one really good car - and then sell it fast. Maybe pull the engine and tranny from the one with bad computers and have two running cars. Then sell them fast and buy a Toyota or Subaru.
“Raise the nose, HAL.” “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
Aside from software, engine placement.
Apparently it's underpowered also.
Read restrictions on takeoffs at hot, high airports.
Would they have been cancelled into/out of Denver yesterday? High and hot.
Bring back the 757!!!
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.