So what is Boeing doing about the 737 MAX?

a reply to: ausername

They moved the wings forward relative to the center of gravity (among other things).

Boeing did not want to have to require the pilots to get a different type rating (think $$$$)

a reply to: rickymouse

This is complete stupidity and I feel bad for everyone that reads it.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The software fix gets them back into the air. And it may be enough for early run aircraft to continue flying without requiring any changes that are identified, if any.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The software fix gets them back into the air.

Without any emotion or comment, yes, that is the answer.

Incidentally, do you happen to know if MCAS engaging sends an ACARS message? That would be some interesting data to analyze.

on a lighter note...



MCAS: DON'T SINK...DON'T SINK

PIC: "Confirm MCAS disable, and lockout"

I jest of course, but suspect you get the idea.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As far as the publisherd literature, there are no messages sent.

Makes it kinda hard to judge something if all the information isn't out there. Even experienced pilots had never heard that the aircraft could tuck and not recover if the stab trim was cut out.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They were doing as little as possible until it was discovered they were doing as little as possible so now they're doing as much as possible to try and save their sorry ass's.

Investigation and charges where needed should follow.

Just my take.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The software fix gets them back into the air. And it may be enough for early run aircraft to continue flying without requiring any changes that are identified, if any.

Apparently they have another software problem affecting flaps and other hardware critical to safety they have to fix now...

www.latimes.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe that should be part of the software fix. (i.e. sending data on engagement).

Then there would be data to identify the frequency of this event.

a reply to: gortex

Of course they were. All industries do that, the big difference with aviation is the number of fatalities involved.

a reply to: ausername

That's probably why it's taking this long. They're going to roll that into the same fix.

its clear that boeing rather paying out 500 million compensations to the victums than loosing orders in the summ of billions ..
just an matter of counting dollars...good deal to go on the knees for an bad designed plane

Chief Executive Dennis A. Muilenburg said Thursday that a new software update would prevent future incidents.

A bold statement. Never say never, especially when software is involved.

Interesting article on Flight.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.

They have already been certified. What will have to be done to get the aircraft back in the air depends on the relevant regulatory authority. In the US, the airworthiness certification for the type was not cancelled. The FAA will set out what needs to be done to comply with the directive that grounded the fleet. The work will be done and an AI (airworthiness inspector will sign off that the aircraft has complied and is approved for return to service. Someone will then test fly the aircraft and enter that in the aircraft logbooks. Then it's back to work.

Sounds like they should have used their system to set off alarms, not take over control.

You can "break free" of auto pilot in other planes, it even does it itself sometimes in turbulence.

Rediculous tech. It reminds me of my Chevy stabilitrak "autopilot" that runs the truck into the ditch by steering using the brakes. Well, before I bypassed it at the steering sensor.

Beyond dangerous. Code-monkey engineers need to back it off a notch.

Dp

a reply to: Mandroid7

There are numerous warnings like low altitude, stall, overspeed etc.

Imho the MCAS thing is there to avoid costly pilot training, make the transition to the new aircraft as seamless as possible. It is all about money.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Mandroid7

There are numerous warnings like low altitude, stall, overspeed etc.

Imho the MCAS thing is there to avoid costly pilot training, make the transition to the new aircraft as seamless as possible. It is all about money.

A lengthy article on the decision to build the 737 Max and the reasons Boeing tried to make it just another 737.. There were other pilots who experienced the same problems but did not crash...WHY... because they disabled the automation..

Recall, after all, that the whole point of the 737 Max project was to be able to say that the new plane was the same as the old plane. From an engineering perspective, the preferred solution was to actually build a new plane. But for business reasons, Boeing didn’t want a “new plane” that would require a lengthy certification process and extensive (and expensive) new pilot training for its customers. The demand was for a plane that was simultaneously new and not new.
But because the new engines wouldn’t fit under the old wings, the new plane wound up having different aerodynamic properties than the old plane. And because the aerodynamics were different, the flight control systems were also different. But treating the whole thing as a fundamentally different plane would have undermined the whole point. So the FAA and Boeing agreed to sort of fudge it.

www.vox.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

Everything about this new plane stinks.

It's not customer friendly.

It's not pilot friendly.

It's not crew friendly (they hate it, I asked)

It's not maintenance friendly.

It's only friendly to the bank accounts of Boeing and the Airlines.

But hey, they put the pretty blue lights in the overheads in the cabin like the 787 (probably hoping it might keep people from going ballistic after being jammed into a hopelessly uncomfortable aircraft with a lavatory which is nonfunctional except for anorexic midgets. Even that was a ruse.)

Bottom line - The 737 MAX sucks!

If people don't stand up and say "NO!" now, the next generation will be the 737 Ultimate...

- 900 passengers,
- No seats (just a 1 sq. ft. box painted on the floor with two footprints in it and a number)
- No overhead bins (too much $$$, and the carry-on weight can be traded out for more passengers)
- 10,000 nautical mile, 22 hour, range
- No pilots (too much $$$)
- No flight attendants (just one "Customer Service Enforcement Officer" (CSEO) with a taser)
- Meal? HA!! Surely you jest!
- Drink? HA!! **zzzzzzzzzZZZAP!** (you WILL listen to the CSEO!! Now stand there like a good sardine and LIKE it!)
- Checked bag? That'll be $250 (FedEx is cheaper!)
- Aisle seat, erm, square? There ain't no stinking "aisle" here! Now get back to your square! **zzzzzZZZAAAAPP**

You'll take it, and you'll LIKE it! Because we said....because we don't have to give you a reason, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it! So SHUT UP, stand there, and BEHAVE! For the next 19 hours we OWN your miserable ass!

PS - When I get out of this business I will never fly again unless I absolutely cannot avoid it. The industry I've loved and worked my entire career to make a happier and more comfortable place has progressively been absolutely eviscerated by the greed machine. In 1992 NASA's Daniel Goldin coined the mantra "Faster, Better, Cheaper". The Airline industry has succeeded in making people believe "Better" has no place in this mantra, so we are left with "Faster, Better, Cheaper". And it's thoroughly disgusting.