Posted on 10/18/2019 10:43:13 AM PDT by Red Badger
“When the 737 MAX begins flying again it’ll be the safest plane in the sky.”
Not with an inherently unstable wing/engine design. No software can make it safe.
My suspicion is an India team was in charge of the flight control system.
Very few people know it but it was an India technical manager who covered up the Intel floating point flaw.
His stock options were tied to how many Pentium’s Intel would sell in the first year.
The target frequency was supposed to be 66mhz.
It barely ran at 40 in the lab under lab conditions.
Engineers in validation were ordered to keep the floating point flaw quiet.
I was there and saw it happen.
I remember that!..........
“Not with an inherently unstable wing/engine design. No software can make it safe.”
I have trouble believing that Boeing made hundreds of these planes and it turns out they are inherently unstable.
Certainly hundreds of test flights and simulations were done before the plane was cleared for productions.
Also, if the plane were unstable wouldn’t there have been numerous reports of nasty behavior and near crashes?
I imagine that the airlines that bought the planes would have had their own pilots test them before the purchase.
“I have trouble believing that Boeing made hundreds of these planes and it turns out they are inherently unstable.”
So? Your personal instincts are not facts. MCAS was created because the aircraft is unstable.
What they knew, and when they knew it.
As was said in the Nixon days.
To Cymbeline who finds these claims incredulous;
1) Human nature is NEVER something to have faith in.
2) The soul-numbing, numbers-gaming, legal-speak, bureaucratic interactions that define corporate and pretty much all institutional cultures these days means that the value of human life is never the primary priority. Boeing was hurt by the MAX crisis, but rich enough to sustain it. And that is the point.
3) The MAX plane was not Boeing’s initial plan at all! They wanted to build a whole new pretty plane model but they scrubbed it due to cost and time — and fear of being outpaced by Airbus sales in the short term. So they put together the crap MAX instead and marketed as a new plane - yet claimed it runs almost exactly like a normal 737. Nope!
CodeToad,
You’ve been lied to about MCAS by the very same media that lies shamelessly about politics.
The Max is stable. MCAS is control law that provides artificial control feel under certain circumstances, and likely predates this CEO. Airbus uses similar systems. The failure is isolated with the flick of a switch.
http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm
Best technical description on the web, includes 2017 training material w/ MCAS description that kinda shades the “they didn’t tell the pilots” narrative.
Also, the NYT let this slip through:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html
Written by a former line pilot and freight dog that knows the reality of the business.
I suspect most reporting now days is narrative for hire.
Wow.
See post 28.
Free markets, and even human liberty, do not exist without trust in people. That is not the same as faith.
Clearly you know nothing of our founders. We put our trust in laws. Not people.
MCAS is an automatic system.
It’s not supposed to be controlled.
The test pilot’s statement out of context makes no sense, but the lynch mob doesn’t notice and doesn’t care.
“You’ve been lied to about MCAS by the very same media that lies shamelessly about politics.”
Dood, I’ve forgotten more about aircraft aerodynamics and safety critical software than you will ever know, including the MAX and MCAS.
I wasn’t lied to by the media, as you claim, because I don’t get my information from the media.
Deep State Boeing donated 10 million dollars towards the construction of Barack Obama’s presidential library in Chicago. Making them one of, if not his largest donor.
Rewind: Lion Air of Indonesia bought the MAX planes largely at the behest of Obama —who helped get a major Indonesia-Boeing deal signed as he scrambled about on the eve of his 2012 election for something economic to boast about.
Why bring this up? Just to be aware that Boeing lines the pockets of plenty of people on both aisles — including in the media —- and gets away with a LOT as a result.
Please don’t pull a Soviet style “blame the pilots” schtick and divert attention from the real criminals. The excesses of corporatism is not free market capitalism at all so let’s not play along. It is tyranny of the oligarchic, protected few of which Dennis Muhlenberg and ilk counts themselves members. No different from the Politburo.
The MAX should have never been built and a great company like Boeing should have invested in their original plan to make a whole new plane before greed got the best of them to “rush things along” (to compete with Airbus/feed shareholders) and get the FAA to comply with them as they set the MAX death traps into motion.
We are not a nation built on trust in people. We are a nation of LAWS. LAWS protect our freedoms - economic and political. And hopefully the higher ups at Deep State Boeing will be brought to justice as the LAWS would demand.
You’re conflating integrity in business leadership (required for success) with trust in humans given absolute authority over others. Freedom association keeps the former in check.
See post 34
“You’re conflating integrity in business leadership (required for success) “
Paying Obama 410 million in January 2019, after Obama was out of office for two years, was needed?? For what, exactly?? Sure as hell not for “integrity in business leadership”.
That’s $10 million, not 410 million.
I think you could benefit from a closer to look into who Mullenberg.
And respectfully, your opinions on the 737 Max are bullshit. And that is the true “Soviet Style”.
Post 28 has the info needed
I work on the regulatory approval side for commercial aircraft. The system MCAS is not due to inherent instability, but rather due to a specific region of operation - tied to the angle of attach (AOA) - can cause (under certain circumstances) a pitch-down, which is dangerous at lower altitudes.
The system was somehow certified to be used with a single AOA sensor. That should not have happened - just normal equipment failure rates would prevent the reaching of the requisite probability of failure (10 to the -9th power).
A dual sensor configuration was sold as an “upgrade” - but I cannot see how anything less than dual AOA sensors meet the required probabilities.
MCAS, as implemented for the MAX, is not the same as any previous version. It is, further, tied into the electric trim in a way that requires deactivation of the whole electric trim system to deactivate MCAS. When electric trim is deactivated, a hand wheel in the cockpit is used to actuate trim. One which I have been told can be difficult to operate under short time frames and stress from a dangerous situation. (I am not a pilot)
I do not see how the single-sensor version of the system was approved - I know that I would not have approved it if I was on the system (I approve software for use on airplanes for a living). I would have walked away from my Boeing job if ordered to do so - I can’t afford such an ethical (and dangerous) stain on my conscience.
I do not have any insider information - just what I have read, put together with now 13+ years of doing software approvals on commercial aircraft.
But, in my opinion (everyone has one!), neither of you are completely correct, but neither are completely wrong.
Just my semi-informed opinion.
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.