Same type of plane.
737 Max - Boeing grounds the fleet after second crash | Production temporarily suspended
- Thread starter Ramshock
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
yes i think its belongs in this thread. but it doesnt look like the same fault, and it hasnt happened before, and they made a safe landing, so its (hopefully) not too big a deal.
Well yes, it’s one of the fleet that was grounded. As of now we don’t know what caused the problem.
It was an engine problem. Unrelated.
Of course, that's not how the news headline looks, but there you go with anything aviation related.
Of course, that's not how the news headline looks, but there you go with anything aviation related.
These planes are grounded, other than a few logistics like this are barely flying, and yet here we go now with a new issue in one of the few flights they are making.
I don't know how it being "unrelated" is in any way redeeming. Whatever Boeing do with them, I think it would take about ten years of them flying without issues for me to ever accept boarding one. If they took shortcuts in that trimming software then I have to assume that sort of uncarelessness may have happened in other areas.
Not being an expert, but having read quite a bit about it's a flawed design. That natural nose down thing that needs constant trimming just doesn't compte with me. Boeing and airlines should just forget they ever existed, destroy them, and do a proper job next time.
I don't know how it being "unrelated" is in any way redeeming. Whatever Boeing do with them, I think it would take about ten years of them flying without issues for me to ever accept boarding one. If they took shortcuts in that trimming software then I have to assume that sort of uncarelessness may have happened in other areas.
Not being an expert, but having read quite a bit about it's a flawed design. That natural nose down thing that needs constant trimming just doesn't compte with me. Boeing and airlines should just forget they ever existed, destroy them, and do a proper job next time.
Boeing doesn't make the engines, though, amirite?
No, but my point is I don't trust the plane, and this doesn't help. I also assume engines can fail for problems other than the engine building itself.
Also my understanding is that it's the engines (their weight, position, whatever) that are responsible for the "natural" bad pitch of the plane. Could be wrong, but it just seems a bad plane, for which they tried to find soutions that have so far failed.
CFM engine. Hard to escape one of those, I believe it's also one of the engine options for the A320-neo.
Oh yeah, they can fall off, explode, etc.
Almost non-existent. An engine failure or mishap is 99.99% the responsibility of the engine manufacturer.
Regarding the 737 being a bad plane, if the same standards were applied to cars or other devices we use (where failure can prove fatal), we would live in bubble wrap.
Southwest, too! 
Well said, aviation safety standards is well above anything that we know and use day to day. The regulations are written in blood and things will improve.
You can point to the engine design and wing design to be at fault for the MCAS, but if a problem was seen with the engine itself it's really unrelated incident and really nothing to do with Boeing.
Problem is that Boeing were falling behind Airbus due to the original wing design and that you can't put the 78 inches fan diameter engine that A320 neo did in their latest plane. They went with the next type of engine - the 69 inch fan blade one, but even with it, that really pushed the plane to the limit creating the other issues like weight distribution.
I wouldn't call the latest report a "new issue", though. Airplanes do suffer engine problems here and there(regardless of Boeing or Airbus) and emergency landings happen. Nothing to do with the design of the plane.
Standards are only as effective as the corresponding will to ensure they are actually being met. The moment where your system allows the fox guarding the hen house it is all for nought.
The very fact that Boeing was allowed to sell a plane where one its critical systems ran without any redundancies -purely for profit reasons- should give people some food for thought.
It is absolutely beyond me how the people responsible for putting safety on the options list are still running around in freedom
Because the crash happened in Africa and not on US soil.
There's an engine shutdown pretty much every day of the year somewhere in the world. It's a complete non event.
The report on this crash is due next week.
Hopefully it’ll be one that makes the skies safer.
No need for scapegoats either, just an honest assessment of what caused the crash.
Could be interesting.
Hopefully it’ll be one that makes the skies safer.
No need for scapegoats either, just an honest assessment of what caused the crash.
Could be interesting.
Perfectly true.
I get the impression that the 737-MAX was rushed into service and problems were given a sticking plaster instead of a solution.
Questions remain about how it was certified.
It has been stretched and upgraded and revised in order to keep up with an inherently more modern A320 competitor.
I read that there were reliability problems with the AOA Sensor.
I cannot understand how Failure and Criticality analysis using FMECA principles would not require some form of redundancy resulting in more than one such sensor to maintain airworthiness.
That's right. The engines are made by a consortium of Snecma (France) and General Electric (USA).
The Leap X engine is derived from the previous CFM-56.
Not sure that is correct. The A320-neo (new engine option) uses a Pratt and Witney Pure Power 1000 engine.
The 737-MAX uses a Leap-X engine.
The architecture of both are significant different.
So does that mean there was a fault with the plane?
Or with the procedures themselves/training material that they were following.
So the problem isn't a fault with the plane itself but rather the training the pilots received? Or do we not know yet?
The article or report it's based on isn't attributing cause yet. It's probably going to be a while before they work out the cause.
From my experience, usually when something like this goes wrong it's not just because of one reason. Its usually a series of events that line up in the wrong place at the wrong time. It'll take them some time to map out everything that happened and find the unfortunate sequence that resulted in the crash.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
this means the families of the killed passengers will be paid handsomely?
Considering this is as close to an admission of guilt as you’re likely to get, I would think so.
Ideally you would not only have financial compensation but also a criminal investigation into whether Boeing was aware of the issue beforehand and then possibly criminal charges filed. People lost their lives here. Payouts are all good and well but given how much these companies make it's not a deterrent to it happening again in the future. Also the relationship between the regulatory authority in the US and Boeing needs to be looked at.
There clearly is a massive problem with the aircraft and it's going to take a lot of work to get it flying again, but the news outlets are running with a misleading headline. The preliminary report suggests the pilots did make mistakes. We won't know for sure until the full report comes out.
The primary problem appears to be the failure of an Angle of Attack sensor which feeds erroneous signals to the aircraft flight control system (MCAS). The aircraft features an anti stall system. If it believes that the aircraft is about to stall it pushes the nose down. It appears that in both cases the AoA sensors were sending erroneous signals to the MCAS during the climeout phase.
Going by that short clip posted above he's talking about a risk they have caused. Whether that risk materialized in these respective cases or not is a different question altogether. Causing a risk only creates exposure to criminal liability since the risk itself is not a damage in civil law terms which is the starting point of getting a payout. Again, if it was to be found that this risk caused the crash they sure get money. But that's not really the message I'm getting from the Boeing CEO here.
Well that’s why I’m not a lawyer
Some of the points I find correct but others are way off the mark. For instance:
Although the author mentions that programmers were most probably directed by managers he then again goes to :
It's not the coders that take these decisions. This is taken at a very high level and not by the actual implementors who are wrongly blamed here. Furthermore , the MCAS was already present before on KC-46 tanker . And it is behaving in a completely different manner there : both alpha vanes are taken as inputs , and pilot pulling on the yoke automatically disables the system (eliminating the need to cut out electric trim). So, in a nutshell, Boeing stripped down an already functional system in order to save costs.
Secondly , this:
Not sure how a pilot can write this . It's not the pitch that's problematic here, it's the AOA . Secondly, even if the pitch indication was the problem, you can verify it visually only if you are flying VFR.
If the plane never flies again, how much would that cost Boeing?
Billions. Canceled orders, cost of redeveloping a new plane, lost revenue from aftermarket services, reputation blow...
That won't happen though. Nor should it.
If it turns out there is real a design deficiency, it absolutely should though.
Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet
Workers at a 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina have complained of defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html
Workers at a 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina have complained of defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations.
The move to SC was part of a series of moves (including outsourcing), to destroy the influence of powerful unions that existed in Washington.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html