So what is Boeing doing about the 737 MAX?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They wont offend a potential customer. If there is pilot error they will gloss over it.
You see how they buried the additional training in that statement? Why? Why mention pilots at all unless pilot error was part of the problem? And if it was even remotely possible why arent they making that reason one and not software?
I believe that based on that statement that there was software and pilot error.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Ever read Michael Crichton's "Airframe" It could have been written about this very thing. Right down to an uncommanded flaps deployment.

My wife bought me that book recently. Ironically, it was so I'd have something to read on a trip I was going on to South America. I'll bet you can't guess what the aircraft type was on the first, and second, legs of that trip, can ya?

Yep.

I haven't read the book yet. Never had time.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Right but the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) may have had other requirements for certification.
Neither of these airlines operated under our FAA.
Lionair is out of Indonesia and Ethiopian Air is out of Ethiopia.
Our FAA is only responsible for aircraft produced here or imported parts used on planes produced here.
Once they are certified and sold its up to the owner to maintain and upgrade.

Is this plane grounded anywhere else but here? Do you know?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They wont offend a potential customer. If there is pilot error they will gloss over it.
You see how they buried the additional training in that statement? Why? Why mention pilots at all unless pilot error was part of the problem? And if it was even remotely possible why arent they making that reason one and not software? I believe that based on that statement that there was software and pilot error.

Yes. The history of catastrophic failures of complex systems shows that it is rarely just one single factor that causes the failure. It is almost always two or three or more factors, all working together, that add up to the failure. It usually includes some bad decisions at the design phase coupled with faulty implementation during the construction phase, and operator error in the operational phase.

For anyone interested in reading about this, there is an excellent book titled "The Tender Ship", by Arthur Squires. It goes back and looks at the failures of expensive, complex, engineered systems, from 1600s battleships through the Space Shuttle. The pattern repeats itself, over and over. Collectively, we've been making the same kinds of mistakes for hundreds of years.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The Max was being operated around the world, including under EASA regulations. It was certified by all regulatory agencies based on the information provided by Boeing and the FAA.

All Max aircraft are grounded worldwide until they certify the upgrades and they're installed.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Peter Merlin has written several books talking about accident chains. They're very interesting reading, and on point here. If you were to break any single link, the accidents wouldn't happen.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

LOL you are living it chapter by chapter.
Right down to the nose dive. The conflicting data from FDR's The investigations. The memo system for tracking issues with an aircraft. How they are logged and how they are resolved.
Of course thats all fiction but Crichton was a superior researcher and the detail about manufacturing and certification are spot on and its so extremely ironic. I mean its almost like they made his book into a reality show.
I wont give it all away if you havent read it. Its old now and some of the technology is archaic but its a great read.

But with me a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing because I imagine myself as some avionics expert because I read a novel. LOL.

a reply to: 1947boomer

I hate to reduce it to this most common denominator but to make an omelette ya gotta break some eggs.
But you have made an excellent point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well thats good anyway. At least they will all be upgraded.
Will each aircraft be subject to re certification or just the model itself.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

To ensure unintended MCAS activation will not occur again, Boeing has developed and is planning to release a software update to MCAS and an associated comprehensive pilot training and supplementary education program for the 737 MAX. ...

See the part about comprehensive pilot training?
(bold mine)
Is it possible that the system was disabled?

Have you read through the thread about the Ethiopian crash? If not, it might answer some of your questions as it has pilots discussing the data that's available so far. The thread is "Another 737 MAX-8 down."

a reply to: Zaphod58

In my head I hear farmers yelling at Henry Ford to get a horse. LOL

a reply to: KansasGirl

Thank you!

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
1. Shouldn't the sensors have always compared more than one input before making un-commanded flight control inputs? There's two of the best sensors of all sitting right on the flight deck, they're called the pilots. Why not two sensor comparisons before taking control away from those two pilots?

Used to work in aircraft design (military not civilian but was headhunted by Boeing). I've never heard of a sensor not having a back up device or secondary measurement reading to avoid catastrophic incidents such as these (not only in planes, basic principle of design is to have a failsafe). Cockpit isn't my forte but a lack of a manual reset or override in the event of system malfunction seems equally bizarre.

Surprised they're not going over the whole design with a fine toothcomb, basic errors like that should never even occur in design process let alone make it to the end product.

And really, this is the heart of the matter at a very fundamental level...

Safety is important, but not as important as profits.

Now, to be fair, air travel is safer today than it's ever been in history if you look at it overall. However, the 737 MAX record is 'nosediving' the other direction. And to me, this is why this issue is so important. Call it complacency, or call it luck, but what else don't we know about? Boeing, the FAA and the airlines got caught with their pants down on this one...big time. And we should be taking them out behind the woodshed for that.

Boeing didn't want to ground it because it's their airplane, and they have hundreds of orders to fill. The airlines didn't want to ground the MAX because it squeezes more profits out of the traveling public. And the FAA didn't want to ground it because, well, just imagine how much lobby money from airlines and manufacturers changes hands in Washington DC. The max stayed in the air because some powerful and well connected people in Congress or the Senate kept it there...for their benefit (not yours).

How do we know this? Easy; because the rest of the free World not influenced by Congress and the Senate barred the MAX from flying in their airspace. Then there was no choice so they had to act, they had no other choice. And even then they didn't act, they had to be told to act.

They were betting with peoples lives like it was Vegas (like they always do). They were betting on statistics, and they bet wrong.

DBL

Wow, the CEO of Boeing admits the "apparent" role of a flight control system in two crashes that killed about 300 people?

The 737 has been around since around 1967, how did they go so wrong with this new modified design?

And they're going to fix this with new software?

a reply to: Sillyolme

There will be a general certification of the software update itself, along with both simulator and aircraft testing. Then each aircraft will receive the update and will be documented to have received it.

a reply to: ausername

They've had pretty serious issues with previous upgrades of the airframe. In this case, the engineers went stupid with MCAS.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Grounded worldwide, as Zaphod stated.

An important note here though...it was grounded by the EASA before any action was taken by the FAA. This is telling.

ETA - Correction: it wasn't 'grounded' by the EASA, the MAX was barred from flying in EASA controlled airspace (which is effectively the same thing).

a reply to: Zaphod58

I seen a discussion with an expert on the news earlier that said the changes made in the aircraft so changed the flight characteristics that the MCAS was necessary? They also wanted to promote this new design so that pilots of earlier 737 designs could fly this new one with little additional training or simulator time. Said in most cases the training was done on a tablet or computer?

I don't know what all of that means but it doesn't sound good.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not convinced a software fix is going to correct the underlying issue.

I mean, just look at the erroneous and conflicting data coming from the AOA sensors (as you and others have pointed out elsewhere).

ETA - the software fix might keep it from auggering into the earth at 500mph, but I'm not confident it will fix what's broken. I think that will be a software and flight control hardware fix, and that would be a design change, would it not?