There definitely is on most flights I’ve been on. It’s quite noticeable, especially on longer flights.
Boeing in trouble again
- Thread starter Foxbatt
- Start date
,
The original set of MAX problems were software related and then recently a loose bolt in the rudder which has been a problem before on earlier 737's, they have had quality control issues with the 787 in the body joins
The 777-X is badly delayed for all sorts of issues, Boeing are in trouble, airlines are going to switch to Airbus and Comac if this contiu
Interesting twist now on the recent issue …
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67909417
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67909417
Nah, the back orders are huge and there's no way Airbus can service the uptick in demand.
The A320-neo has it's own set of issues btw. The new issue with the Max seems like a manufacturing problem which is relatively easy to fix so that it never happens again.
The a320-neo problems are more difficult to resolve and should be more concerning to an operator.
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel...gine-issue-more-extensive-than-first-reported
While true, this is clearly an engine issue and not an Airbus issue. As they offer an alternative engine since the beginning of the program this is more likely improving CFM's market position over P&W but not Boeing over Airbus (both sell their planes with engines from both suppliers).
Why on earth they kept flying it in the first place. I'd think that pressurisation issues are one of the more immediate types of problems that need timely addressing. It should be easy to detect if a door is bleeding air since that's a component you usually start the investigation at.
Really interesting (and long) article on the 737 Max crashes, discussing the full failure and why blaming the sensor is overly simple, verging on incorrect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
That’s why I posted this to get some input from those that are more in the know. Seemed really weird to me that they indicated that flying over oceans was any different to flying over land too. Putting peoples’ lives at unnecessary risk.
There is indeed a distinction, that's why ETOPS exists in the first place but this is unrelated to the current issue. The problem here is that a disaster was averted due to sheer luck of the seat next to this door being unoccupied. They seem to have made a calculation that the most this problem could cause is a depressurisation (by "ordinary" means such as leaky valves) and not by pieces of airplane flying out.
True, I forgot the CFM leap was an option on the 320-neo.
Just because some seal isn't as tight as it should be doesn't mean you have to expect parts of the plane just falling off. Still in case of an engine failure it means that you can't keep up the pressure in the cabin and have to fly lower, which reduces your range.
As a precaution they just treated this plane as if it had a lower ETOPS. I don't know if it is the right thing by laws and rules as I don't work in aviation, but as an engineer it is the kind of risk assessment I could image to get behind (if the facts at the time looked like I expect them to do)
And it happening early in the flight. One dreads to imagine it happening at cruising speed and altitude.
Not been following the news recently and don't know a lot about planes, but I was reading a bit about the issues with the 737 MAX earlier on reddit. There were a few comments which caught my attention which basically said (I can't think of the correct term for the frame of the plane?) that the engineers made a big mistake in the design and they created a 'frame' that doesn't want to fly. Anybody know anything about this? It piqued my interest when I read it as it sounded like a pretty fundamental failure. I mean, how long have we successfully been designing and improving on the design on planes? And yet we can apparently still somehow come up with a design that's not even airworthy?
The issue is actually quite simple. A key point while developing the 737 Max was that it needed larger diameter engines because those are more efficient than the older smaller ones.
Fitting those to the original 737 is difficult because it just doesn’t have much ground clearance, it was just never intented to be upgraded this way. Keep in mind, it is amore than 50 years old design by now.
What they did was that they attached the new engines partially in front except of under the wings. This way their large intake fan fits the plane, but it of course leads to a different balance - the Max versions are quite top heavy, but at the same time and more importantly their engines can create a lot more lift than older ones.
Because of this they are not allowed to fly in certain angles that were no problem for older models of the 737. To help pilots dealing with this problem and not reachubg those angles of attack they developed their infamous MCAS system which failed in the two disasters.
Why did Boeing do this, if it leads to potential instabilities? Because of money. This way to develop the Max means that it still basically is a 737 with new engines. No need to recertify the whole plane, no need to retrain all pilots (that's what MCAS was for, ensuring every 737 pilot was just allowed to fly the Max without further training), no increased development cost etc.
In hindsight Boeing should just have constructed a 797 as completely new replacement for the 737, but at the time it loked like a smart business decision. But they butchered the execution of these ideas and therefore hundreds of people.
Can’t help but remember that quote, can’t remember from which astronaut though:
“As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of rocket was supplied by lowest bidder."
Edit: John Glen
“As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of rocket was supplied by lowest bidder."
Edit: John Glen
And with the rogue MCAS installed you had to be Neil Armstrong level of composure and ability to recover, especially when it happens close to the ground and you have no idea that this system even exists because it was swept under the rug during certification.
The engine issue was resolved, what's still ongoing are the checks/updates to the 1200 or so engines that were already built and in service
Yes the back orders are huge, but Boeing will get cancellations, they did with the MAX 8
Airlines are going to be very wary of Boing now, there's a catalogue of problems in recent years with new airplanes,
The NEO engine problem has been resolved, 1200 existing engines need attention but all new ones are fine
Boeing have fallen behind in a big way, not replacing the 757 has basically given that market to Airbus with the A321 LR and XLR, the 777X is way behind schedule and it's competitor is already in service,
Interestingly Airbus appear to be about to officially announce the A380neo, A390, A220neo, and A370, all new generation aircraft and Boeing have nothing coming in any of these markets
Providing more insight into the engine issue: contaminated powder nickel if used can create flaws in finished parts that lead to catastrophic fractures during flight. Thankfully P&W identified the issue and is expediting overhauls and inspections of all engines that may have contaminated material. The parent company's (RTX) share price took a hit upon disclosure of the news.
Back to Boeing: it's an absolute disgrace how they've sidelined engineering expertise and oversight at the company. Hooray for unfettered capitalism though.
This is some good insight. So as a lot of issues usually end up being traced back to, this is a result of corporate greed and cost cutting?
Some pics that show the engines increasing in size, the fuselage diameters are the same
https://flic.kr/p/2on3kQV B737-200 - original
https://flic.kr/p/NDeuxi - B737-300 - classic
https://flic.kr/p/NByDmp - B737-800 - new generation
https://flic.kr/p/2nf2d7G - B737-MAX 8 - MAX
https://flic.kr/p/2on3kQV B737-200 - original
https://flic.kr/p/NDeuxi - B737-300 - classic
https://flic.kr/p/NByDmp - B737-800 - new generation
https://flic.kr/p/2nf2d7G - B737-MAX 8 - MAX
Corporate greed and cost cutting, yes, but an increased reliance on software as a shortcut alternative to making the plane structure and dynamics better.
Yikes...
The reality is software does a better job than humans do, it helps if they actually tell you about it though, that was the main issue with the 2 MAX 8 crashes, the pilots didn't know about it!
Quality management and standards for software are laughably bad compared to other engineering disciplines. I am never surprised when software causes major disasters.
Welp, time to watch Netflix' Boeing doc again.
It does when it is created and tested properly according to rigorous engineering standards that exist for hardware.
Creating software for flight control systems is different from creating software for IG. Bugs and "oh shit, we didn't know that could happen" are tolerated and accepted in the latter.
It's a relatively young discipline, and most software isn't that critical to require rigor and quality management beyond your usual but identification and fixes.
It's important to keep in mind that this is as much a Boeing problem as it is a software problem; Airbus, Lockheed Martin, GE, and other defense contractors don't have their software killing people.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So I rewatched this doc.
Does anyone know more about how often pilots would have to deal with MCAS? If after the Lion Air crash pilots were briefed on MCAS, then what went wrong with the Ethopian Airlines flight specifically?
And is MCAS now not a problem anymore?
They were not briefed on MCAS. They were briefed on, "here's what you do if the plane starts to act up this way" without understanding why
MCAS has been modified to be less aggressive, and dependent on input from more than 1 sensor.
I'm flying Alaskan into Portland on Thursday.
Other than on a 9/11 flight, I've never felt safer.
Other than on a 9/11 flight, I've never felt safer.
Don't worry guys, it's never been safer to fly.
Don't forget that Bitcoin went up from 17k to 40k this year. Another one of your false panic parades busted.
Imagine thinking a random number artificially going up has any meaning
Google "total tethers in circulation" and compare the graphs
No thanks I'm not spending any time burying myself under false conspiracy theoriesImagine thinking a random number artificially going up has any meaning
Google "total tethers in circulation" and compare the graphs
MCAS was designed to make the Max feel and fly similarly to the previous generations of 737 so pilots didn't notice the difference and hence why they were not told about it because for them they didn't need to know anything as in theory it should fly the exact same.
However there was a design flaw with the software and it operated in a way which was unsafe and that's probably why Boeing didn't want to let anyone know about it because the way to deal with the issue there was already a procedure in place for a similar system so two birds one stone and less certification time and training for pilots.
So we got 2 Boeing threads going?
It's a containment strategy to hopefully eventually have one crypto discussion free version of the thread on every topic.
If ain't Boeing the threads are not going