Posted on 05/04/2019 2:26:46 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
I do not believe the story will end there. And boy does Deep State Boeing’s filthy swamp need some draining.
That switch is an extra cost safety option for the customers to choose.
Consider me on board.
Worse, it was a financial decision to use a software fix to avoid having to recertify the aircraft which would have cost tens of millions and added years of delay.
The article states that the reason for this configuration is increased fuel efficiency. One wonders if changes should be for anything that doesn’t increase safety, especially if it increases complexity.
My guess is that you’ll see the 737’s back in service pretty quickly. The airlines will accept whatever fix Boeing offers to get their investment back into the air. Eventually Boeing will have to settle the legal claims and that will take considerably longer.
“Going with a single sensor input instead of a 2 of 3 design was a physical design choice, and is the base cause of the deaths.”
No. They chose a software solution, instead of human solution, for monitoring the sensor input - which could have been nothing less than a single collective reading indicator - flashing for attention - on their visible board of monitors/indicators - like many other such indicators they are used to, and trained on. They went further than that with the software - the left the action - instead of a warning - to the software, not the pilot. Had it been just a warning to the pilot, for the pilot to correct, they would have made the flight correction and NOT made the mistake that the software made.
Ugh I blame the global warming BS crowd on the dangerous rush and push for fuel efficiency garbage. Deep State Boeing’s inspection and manufacturing standards have become shoddier and outsourced on the cheap as of late also. Not to mention the MAX 737 scandal has overshadowed coverage of the problems with its latest batch of military aircraft.
At the end, I think their only hope was to slow the plane down. The speed prevented cranking the trim wheel by hand, and it may have hindered electric trim, too. They made two very small up nose corrections with electric trim before MCAS trimmed the nose down one last time.
Of course, the pilots never should have let the situation get to that point. Keeping the flaps at 5 degrees while they figured out the stick shaker would have prevented MCAS from activating.
We are adding another key inspection point to the 777 aircraft — the wingtip hinge & locking pins. I would think that it would be a good idea to rotate the lock-pins for early replacement and destructive testing until we know how they wear under usage. The fuel savings will more than pay for this and we’ll have hard data on the design. NDT (non-destructive testing) would be an ongoing requirement for all new parts. We do this stuff every day at work. The paperwork trail is as important as the part or you’ve just made ‘scrap’.
Boeing’s customers are the ones pushing for fuel efficiency.
“That was before WWII, right?”
Looks like the old “Langley”, CV-1.
The catapault crew and the “shooter” probably caught Hell for that one. They are supposed to be watching that stuff.
The folding wings on any aircraft are not reliable if they are not properly put in place before take off.
I love you arrogant, superhero pilots who think you are invincible and infallible.
Your attitude is part of the problem in the industry.
Yes, MCAS is putting lipstick on a pig. The 737 dates back to the 707 and should have not been modified for the Max.
But Boeing was behind Airbus and rushed things. Now people died. The FAA is complicit as well.
It has nothing to do with the pilots. The pilots should not have been put in that situation by the MCAS system.
“The folding wings on any aircraft are not reliable if they are not properly put in place before take off.”
Not only that, but the wheels on my automobile aren’t safe if the lug nots are not properly put in place before leaving the driveway.
Reminds me of the time when the right real wheel of my VW sedan came off driving on the autobahn through Frankfurt am Main in 1977. Fortunately the speed limit through the city was 50mph and I was doing that. I can only think that someone had loosened the lug nuts on that wheel. Fortunately I got it to a stop on the side of the road and someone notified the German motor club which towed it to Rhine-Main AFB.
This looks like the referenced jet. Correction welcome.
Boeing 777X folding wingtips
I keep seeing posts that the 737 MAX was behind the NEO and rushed. I'm not sure that's true. Look at these dates:
NEO
Launch: 1 December 2010
First Flight: 25 September 2014 (3.8 years after launch)
Certification: 24 November 2015 (14.2 months after FF)
First Delivery: 20 January 2016 (57 days after cert)
MAX
Launch: 30 August 2011 - 9 months later than NEO
First Flight: 29 January 2016 (4.4 years) - 16.4 months later than NEO
Certification: 8 March 2017 (13.5 months) - 15.7 months later
First Delivery: 6 May 2017 (59 days) - 15.7 months later
Boeing launched nine later and took a little bit longer from launch to first flight, but not significantly so. First delivery was about a year and three months later than the Airbus. I just don't see any of this as rushed.
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.