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

Skip to comments.

Boeing’s Own Test Pilots Lacked Key Details of 737 MAX Flight-Control System
Wall Street Journal ^ | May 3, 2019 | Andrew Tangel and Andy Pasztor

Posted on 05/03/2019 8:50:09 AM PDT by billorites

Boeing limited the role of its own pilots in the final stages of developing the 737 MAX flight-control system implicated in two fatal crashes, departing from a longstanding practice of seeking their detailed input, people familiar with the matter said.

As a result, Boeing test pilots and senior pilots involved in the MAX’s development didn’t receive detailed briefings about how fast or steeply the automated system known as MCAS could push down a plane’s nose, these people said. Nor were they informed that the system relied on a single sensor—rather than two—to verify the accuracy of incoming data about the angle of a plane’s nose, they added.

Investigators have linked faulty sensor data to the flight-control system’s misfire, which led to crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that took 346 lives. Share Your Thoughts

How involved should pilots be in airplane-engineering decisions? Join the conversation below.

The extent of pilots’ lack of involvement hasn’t been previously reported and could bring fresh scrutiny from investigators and regulators already looking into Boeing’s design and engineering practices. It isn’t clear whether greater pilot participation would have altered the ultimate design of the flight-control system. But the scaling back of pilots’ involvement and their lack of detailed knowledge about the plane’s system add to the list of questions about engineering and design practices facing the Chicago-based aerospace giant.

A Boeing spokesman said test pilots and senior pilots didn’t have less of a role in the design, briefing and testing of the final version of MCAS when compared with counterparts who worked on previous models featuring important new systems.

“Listening to pilots is an important aspect of our work,” the spokesman said. “Their experienced input is front and center in our mind when we develop airplanes. We share a common priority—safety—and we listen to them carefully.”

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 737; 737max; aerospace; aviation; boeing; boeing737max; faa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101 next last
To: BRL
Boeing, lying and otherwise acting in an underhanded fashion ??

<== My Shocked Face, this is it!

When I worked at Boeing, we were under a ton of consent decrees for previous shenanigans they had done. Hell, I was working at the Pentagon and SAW them leading Darleen Druyun out of her office in handcuffs for the stunts she pulled for them. . .

21 posted on 05/03/2019 9:28:24 AM PDT by Salgak (You're in Strange Hands with Tom Stranger. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billorites

The MCAS system looked down right scary to me, you have to risk breaking your arm/hand to manually override it?

The Software engineers allowed it to engage below 1000 feet?

Of course any decent pilot would never engage these automated systems until they hit altitude.


22 posted on 05/03/2019 9:29:29 AM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I’m surprised the control logic doesn’t take account of the myriad other data such as increasing air speed, engine thrust, decreasing altitude, ground proximity, etc to determine pitch-down is not a good flight strategy.

...

That’s the job of the pilots.

Can't do much of that pilot stuff with the AOA of the horizontal stab max'd out. Pulling back on the elevator then puts a great deal of downward pressure on the trailing edge of the stab and won't overcome the upward forces.

Also Boeing failed to tell Southwest that the AOA disagree alert was option on the MAX. Southwest had incorrect manuals and training concerning this system.

http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2019/04/southwest-was-unaware-of-optional-boeing-737-max-safety-feature/

Things look bad for both Boeing and the FAA.

23 posted on 05/03/2019 9:32:34 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billorites

“I’ll say it again: In the 737 Max, the engine nacelles themselves can, at high angles of attack, work as a wing and produce lift. And the lift they produce is well ahead of the wing’s center of lift, meaning the nacelles will cause the 737 Max at a high angle of attack to go to a higher angle of attack. This is aerodynamic malpractice of the worst kind.”


24 posted on 05/03/2019 9:34:22 AM PDT by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: billorites

I read that article last month...it is a good one.


25 posted on 05/03/2019 9:35:55 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

“The redesign of the 737-800 Max resulted in an aircraft that was unstable in pitch around the lateral axis ...”

I’m not sure the test pilot’s job is to evaluate reliability of things like an angle of attack sensor. Just like they’re not supposed to evaluate the strength of the blades within the engines.

But I’d think they would put the plane through all sorts of unusual maneuvers and problem situations while in flight.

Whether or not they knew explicitly of the MCAS system (autopilot), I’d think they would fly the plane with it both on and off.

I’d say the test pilots wouldn’t even need to know about the MCAS peculiarities beforehand because they would find them when testing.

The first job of the test pilots is to verify that the plane is safe for an ordinary pilot to fly.


26 posted on 05/03/2019 9:36:29 AM PDT by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
"This is aerodynamic malpractice of the worst kind"

But it allows us to make belive that it is still a 737.

27 posted on 05/03/2019 9:37:31 AM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
Boeing seems to be liable for punitive damages from wrongful death lawsuits over the two crashes, but that isn't the worst. The scale of this negligence makes all its designs from the period of the 737 Max onwards suspect.

And airline rejections of current production aircraft indicate major lapses in plain old quality control. Overall, Boeing is in deep, deep trouble in the market.

IMO only a top to bottom internal purge (board of directors down to its workforce) plus really dramatic change in design and production procedures might save the company. How long it takes Boeing to do that will probably determine whether it survives.

28 posted on 05/03/2019 9:38:01 AM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: billorites

From the comments...

...Very good analysis, but fatally incomplete. One really essential reason those planes crashed was that each time the MCAS triggered, it acted like it was the first time. If it added 1 degree of trim last time, it adds a second this time, a third next time, up to the five degrees that runs the trim all the way to the stops. A second reason is that, under the design still on file at the FAA, it could only add a maximum of 0.8 degrees (each time). This was raised to 2.4 degrees after testing, so only two hits could, in principle, put you almost to the stops. A third was that the only way to override the MCAS was to turn off power to the motor that worked the trim. But above 400 knots, the strength needed to dial back the trim with the hand crank was more than actual live pilots have, especially if it is taking all their strength to pull back on the yoke. A fourth was that, with two flight control computers, the pilot could (partly) turn off a misbehaving one, but there is no way to turn on the other one. You have to land first, to switch over, even though the other is doing all the work to be ready to fly the plane. A fifth was that it ignored that pilots were desperately pulling back on the yoke, which could have been a clue that it was doing the wrong thing. A sixth was that, besides comparing redundant sensors, it could have compared what the other flight computer thought it should be doing.


29 posted on 05/03/2019 9:45:22 AM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: billorites

Thanks for that article reference. It’s the only one to coherently explain the function of MCAS on the 737 MAX. Looks ultimately like a software hack to overcome an inherent bad design; engine nacelles simply too large to properly fit the airframe without a redesign.

“Finally, there’s the need to keep the very existence of the MCAS system on the hush-hush lest someone say, “Hey, this isn’t your father’s 737,” and bank accounts start to suffer.”


30 posted on 05/03/2019 9:45:54 AM PDT by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: billorites

“But it allows us to make believe that it is still a 737. “

A plan entirely based upon the idea that calling it a 737 would save Boeing and the airlines millions in retraining. Guess they will have to rethink that one.


31 posted on 05/03/2019 9:47:45 AM PDT by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

In the case of the Ethiopian crash, the first sign of a problem was the stick shaker going off on the captain’s side only. Why didn’t he transfer control of the plane to the first officer at that point?


32 posted on 05/03/2019 9:49:31 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: billorites
I dunno what will happen, but it's clear than in the shoving match between engineering and the executive suite the executives won out.

Reminds me of the Shuttle Challenger fiasco...

33 posted on 05/03/2019 9:51:27 AM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Even my cat voted Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: billorites
The redesign of the 737-800 Max resulted in an aircraft that was unstable in pitch around the lateral axis when flown at high angles of attack and under conditions of high thrust. Rather than address the underlying aeronautical design flaws, and risk certification as a 737 variant, a decision was made to fix the problem with a "software kludge" the MCAS system.

Stop spreading lies.

34 posted on 05/03/2019 9:57:45 AM PDT by Yo-Yo ( is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

“Is Boeing going to be sued into oblivion?”

No.

BA is too important to the DJIA and the President has made the stock market his official ‘report card’. Plus nikki haley is now on the board of directors and Boeing does too much defense work for the government to allow them to be crippled.

The FAA should be on the hook as well, as they certified the aircraft. But public trust in the FAA is too important to lose, so you will see little to no fallout on their end either.

If BA hasn’t taken a huge hit by now, it isn’t going to. But I applaud the WSJ for their work.


35 posted on 05/03/2019 10:03:35 AM PDT by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Stop spreading lies.

What is your argument? "Stop spreading lies??" That's it?? Don't be an asshole.

36 posted on 05/03/2019 10:07:31 AM PDT by rexthecat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: billorites

The bottom line is that human intervention was over-ridden by AI. Any craft that does not permit the pilot to immediately assume stick control of the aircraft is a flying coffin. Furthermore, FAA should never have certified a craft that was inherently unstable.


37 posted on 05/03/2019 10:09:41 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
The redesign of the 737-800 Max resulted in an aircraft that was unstable in pitch around the lateral axis when flown at high angles of attack and under conditions of high thrust. Rather than address the underlying aeronautical design flaws, and risk certification as a 737 variant, a decision was made to fix the problem with a "software kludge" the MCAS system.

Since the larger more powerful engines were used and relocated, and affected the trim on takeoff, you would have to make some physical alterations to the wings and tail of the plane to offset that engine change.

Using MCAS software to accomplish this was the less expensive way of correcting this.

What I don't like is not having the second external flight plane indicator made mandatory and being specific in what to do if you get two radically different readings - Tom

38 posted on 05/03/2019 10:30:08 AM PDT by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom

“Since the larger more powerful engines were used and relocated, and affected the trim on takeoff, you would have to make some physical alterations to the wings and tail of the plane to offset that engine change.
Using MCAS software to accomplish this was the less expensive way of correcting this.”

WRONG. THE MCAS is totally disabled from actuation during take off.


39 posted on 05/03/2019 10:32:27 AM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: billorites

It has been obvious from the start, BOEING and/or the FAA engaged in criminal activity to get this plane certified for airworthiness. The model with a single sensor being used to override pilot input could NEVER pass the most basic review.

Either BOEING faked/lied about this to the FAA, or they bribed folks in the FAA to look the other way.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY engineers did not raise concerns about this configuration and there is NO WAY, FAA oversight would not have picked this up. Either BOEING completely lied about how MCAS operated in this version to the FAA, or greased palms there to get it to pass.

The fact the CEO went from “WE OWN IT” in less than two weeks, to telling investors “IT WASN’T OUR FAULT” further reinforces the fact malfeasance occurred.

300+ people are dead, as a result of pure greed, pure and simple.


40 posted on 05/03/2019 10:36:22 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101 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