Boeing putting people lives at risk
Heard if the plane was upgraded with two other safety features
you wouldn't had have this two crashes.
Hope they are investigated and pay huge compensation for the lives
lost.
Message Board Archives
Boeing Max 8 aircrafts.
2019-03-21 13:59:30
2019-03-21 14:39:31
In reply to Ridge
I hope I do not get censured for that but it is all about the Benjamins.
Does Boeing produce safe aircraft? Yes. They have been doing so for years. Just take a look at the Boeing 747's and the 777's series.
Even the Boeing 737's before the Max series.
So what went so terribly wrong?
I think management, in their haste to put out the new version decide to side step some critical aspect of safety on the basis that this was just another updated version of an aircraft that Pilots already knew how to fly, hence no additional training needed.
But this was no ordinary version. Boeing put bigger engines on the Max for fuel efficiency and changed their locations on the wings from where they would normally be located. That changed the center of gravity of the airplane which eventually tend to pitch the nose upward. To correct that they installed the MCAS which would control the pitch.
I do not think that system was adequately tested, since there was no simulator available yet with that feature.
Also the FAA failed to perform due diligence and took Boeing at its word that the system was failure proof.
That is what happens when the very Agency responsible for regulating a Corporation is too close (buddy , buddy) with that entity.
to make matters worse, Boeing failed (or did so rather late) to inform Airlines and Pilots of the new feature of the plane.
To further compound the problem, Boeing continued to say the airplane was safe even with two crashes on the same type of aircraft within 5 months of each other. Also they were not proactive enough in grounding the fleet and it had to take some hand twisting before they grudgingly did so.
I have no doubt that they will fix the problem because they have done so in the past (787 battery fires).
But their credibility and that of the FAA took a big hit, giving away a very important aspect of that industry - TRUST.
2019-03-21 15:00:47
In reply to embsallie
Amen to that.
2019-03-21 15:15:04
Apparently Lion victims relatives were made to sign legal documents that will reduce Boeing’s liability.
2019-03-21 17:46:22
Pilots were only given 1 hour of training on an Ipad..ridiculous!!
2019-03-21 18:08:13
In reply to maj
60 minutes to learn a fix that takes 1 second to execute....
2019-03-21 18:58:51
In reply to Ayenmol
Can an Ipad accurately simulate the scenario, i say absolutely not.
2019-03-21 19:03:37
In reply to maj
Do you know what the issue is?
Have you seen what the fix is?
2019-03-21 19:25:45
In reply to maj
Can an Ipad accurately simulate the scenario, i say absolutely not.
If your armchair can make you so wise, I say an iPad can do it!
2019-03-21 19:54:14
In reply to Ayenmol
Yes, the planes' autopilot is over correcting, and the pilots are unable to deactivate it on time.
2019-03-21 19:56:18
In reply to Khaga
Yes an iPad can simulate a cockpit effectively.
how much apple and boeing stock you own? :
2019-03-21 20:22:43
In reply to embsallie
Preach
2019-03-21 20:24:07
Dunning Kruger in full force and effect 
2019-03-21 21:25:03
In reply to maj
First off, it's not autopilot, it's auto trim.
All thats needed to correct ot is to flip a switch.
Now there is some question as to whether turning off the feature always works or can the plane stall regardless...but there has been no determination of that in certainty.
But it literally takes a second to turnoff the trim.
Btw auto trim is like lane assist in a car.
2019-03-21 22:02:16
In reply to Ayenmol
Ok auto trim, like trying to correct course quickly on a tanker.
2019-03-21 22:09:49
In reply to maj
Yep but a bit more intuitive.
All you have to do is turn the thing off.
They should be able to turn the thing of before it ever becomes an issue....not sure if that option is available.
2019-03-21 23:36:42
In reply to Ayenmol
In a cockpit in all that mayhem it would be hard but with training a bettwr chance.
2019-03-21 23:57:53
In reply to maj
It aint hard. It whether they studied that ipad or not.
2019-03-22 03:02:02
In reply to Ayenmol
Molly the most critical periods of flight is during takeoff and landing. When a plane is not yet fully ascended and it starts diving, the pilots instinct is to gain altitude, and the plane keeps diving, added to that sirens blaring "climb, climb". The system led to people needlessly dying! No penalty should be too high for Boeing, in my opinion, because it was avoidable.
What's worse is that when the LION air crashed they put the blame squarely on the airline, pilots/maintenance instead of examining their systems and correcting it.
Fuck Boeing!!!
2019-03-22 08:35:01
In reply to Ayenmol
Your simplification of the problem does not sit well with me.
For starters Boeing put out an advanced plane with very little training and simulation training requirements on said aircraft.
Secondly, the new system was a fundamental shift from pervious 7x7 aircraft. The "on by default" compensation system was supposed to solve the MAX's perpencity to pitch up. I suspect this "pitch up" tendency underlies a much darker problem in the engineering of the aircraft.
Thirdly, the FAA is playing nice to protect Boeing. Wait for independent aviation authorities to evaluate the crash data....
I fly small aircraft, training is fundamental especially on new systems. Simulators are actually very effective and I am also told the simulator for this feature and aircraft is yet to be completed and for now pilots are being trained as any on other 7x7 aircraft.
Time will tell when the EVIDENCE is reviewed independently.
2019-03-22 08:42:44
In reply to Larr Pullo
Molly the most critical periods of flight is during takeoff and landing. When a plane is not yet fully ascended and it starts diving, the pilots instinct is to gain altitude, and the plane keeps diving, added to that sirens blaring "climb, climb"
Agreed. Which does not give them much time to react. Which is why it would be interesting to know if the autotrim feature can be turned off during these instances.
Of course if the feature is turned off then the pilots have to input the trim, which means they have to mutitask then too.
2019-03-22 08:49:15
In reply to pelon
For starters Boeing put out an advanced plane with very little training and simulation training requirements on said aircraft.
Secondly, the new system was a fundamental shift from pervious 7x7 aircraft. The "on by default" compensation system was supposed to solve the MAX's perpencity to pitch up. I suspect this "pitch up" tendency underlies a much darker problem in the engineering of the aircraft.
Secondly, the new system was a fundamental shift from pervious 7x7 aircraft. The "on by default" compensation system was supposed to solve the MAX's perpencity to pitch up. I suspect this "pitch up" tendency underlies a much darker problem in the engineering of the aircraft.
I understand your view.
However, how many aircraft went down from the airplane's tendency to pitch up?
Why then are airplanes going down from them pitching down while apparently the pilots are not disabling the system?
I have no reason to argue Boeing be absolved of blame...
I am instead looking at the current evidence and recognizing failures by multiple parties.
I do not know how many different airplanes you have flown, but you would agree that each airplane has dfferent characteristics that a pilot has to be aware of in case of emergencies.
All aircraft do not react the same to external forces.
2019-03-22 08:53:02
In reply to pelon
Have you subscribed to pprune.org? That's the place I go to discuss aircraft stuff...having experienced discussions there, even the one on the recent incidents including lion Air and others notable incidents such as MH-70,MH-17,Sully,AFF47 etc it's hard to part take in discussions with so many armchair experts.. 
One poster said they should've made a 787 MIN instead of a 737 MAX then MCAS wouldn't have been needed to compensate for negative dynamics of the larger engines etc on the 50 y.o air-frame design..
2019-03-22 08:59:46
We used to have a Yardie poster who was/is a flight engineer. Can't recall his handle (he hasn't posted for a while).
Would've loved to get his perspective on this topic.
Yes, he actually does fly for a living, not drive a semi. 
2019-03-22 09:08:13
In reply to bravos
From that site:
I worked in fault-tolerant computing for some time and any single point of failure was something to be avoided at all costs. However, along come the mathematicians who say what is (a) the probability of an AoA failure? What is (b) the probability of a crew not being able to switch off a Stab Trim that is trimming against them - what probability do we have to meet. (c) if (a) * (b) is smaller than (c) -extremely improbable- then you meet the requirement. This type of reasoning is common.
Now that it is apparent that crews are not able to cope with some things unless well trained AND airlines are unwilling to pay for the training. I would expect that first officers are about to be automated out (is flying with HAL any worse than flying with a 25hour MPL?) and in some cases aircraft will become autonomous. Note that MCAS was only there because there was a regulatory concern that human pilots could mishandle the aircraft as the control column loads got lighter. MCAS does not operate with the autopilot controlling the aircraft as that is no safety concern.
Several articles in the media and statements by President Trump are that aircraft are too complicated. So are aircraft getting too complicated to fly? Or should that be that aircraft are getting too complicated for humans to fly?
In a world where there are unmanned jet aircraft operating from carriers and doing air-to-air refueling, flying a 737 is seen (rightly or wrongly) as a simple task to automate - yes even a Cat II landing in an on the limits blustery cross wind to a wet runway.
And before people ask: Yes I would fly as pax in an autonomous aircraft.
Now that it is apparent that crews are not able to cope with some things unless well trained AND airlines are unwilling to pay for the training. I would expect that first officers are about to be automated out (is flying with HAL any worse than flying with a 25hour MPL?) and in some cases aircraft will become autonomous. Note that MCAS was only there because there was a regulatory concern that human pilots could mishandle the aircraft as the control column loads got lighter. MCAS does not operate with the autopilot controlling the aircraft as that is no safety concern.
Several articles in the media and statements by President Trump are that aircraft are too complicated. So are aircraft getting too complicated to fly? Or should that be that aircraft are getting too complicated for humans to fly?
In a world where there are unmanned jet aircraft operating from carriers and doing air-to-air refueling, flying a 737 is seen (rightly or wrongly) as a simple task to automate - yes even a Cat II landing in an on the limits blustery cross wind to a wet runway.
And before people ask: Yes I would fly as pax in an autonomous aircraft.
2019-03-22 09:09:00
In reply to Drapsey
Also....
I've just done a search on PPRuNe for MCAS and the first mention of the phrase at all was December 2018 when news of the Lion Air crash investigation got out. So for a group of several thousand professional fairly nosey/inquisitive bunch of pilots worldwide there hadn't been a sniff of anybody coming across MCAS in some obscure manual and asking what is was. Says it all really.
2019-03-22 09:27:41
In reply to Ayenmol
Man you learn so much there..
2019-03-22 09:28:17
In reply to Ayenmol
It aint hard. It whether they studied that ipad or not
.
Seriously.
Those pilots must have learn to fly in Kindergarten then.
2019-03-22 09:34:11
Many pilots and engineers suggested reverting to basic 737 plane flying would've solved the problem.
Turn off auto-pilot and manually adjust trim before it reached a stage of having to counter overwhelming physical forces as many US pilots apparently did faced with similar issues on take-off.
Seems like software and training glitches are to blame..
2019-03-22 10:36:41
In reply to pelon
Secondly, the new system was a fundamental shift from pervious 7x7 aircraft. The "on by default" compensation system was supposed to solve the MAX's perpencity to pitch up. I suspect this "pitch up" tendency underlies a much darker problem in the engineering of the aircraft
Supposedly due to the engines being placed more towards the front of the aircraft is my layman’s understanding.
2019-03-22 15:34:21
The fact that Boeing offered two safety features with the MCAS (that would have probably saved lives) as an option in an Airplane is negligent from the start. Boeing should be ashamed knowing that if the MCAS was installed it required the features to ensure safety.
However Boeing did give the Airlines the option to put them in or not.
Again from what I understand it had to do with The Benjamins.
The fact that Airlines knew about these options and chose to save money is criminal. American Airlines chose both options. Southwest Airlines chose one and after the Lion Air crash implemented the other. United Airlines chose neither. So did the smaller airlines such as Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines.
Anything to do with the safety of an aircraft once it leaves the ground should be mandated by the FAA. How is it that the FAA allowed these very critical features to be sold as options?. After all that is their job - to regulate.
To those who are in favor of deregulation and cry about Government overreach, therein lies one of the consequences.
2019-03-22 16:11:18
I think less of the FAA now.
Puppets for the big boys.
2019-03-23 11:09:40
2019-03-23 12:02:31
The issue that even the present President got right is that these companies are over using technology,they are putting too much control to the computers, even new cars have too much automated features that sometimes becomes intrusive at the wrong time
Search
Live Scores
- no matches