Boeing 737Max

[old salt]

So, after the death of 346 people, they choose to do the "right thing" and fix their crappy software? Two single points of failure: air speed sensors and flight control modules not constantly verifying and "checking" the other? Who the hlel thought that was good software practice?

They couldn't, or wouldn't do the right thing and "blank sheet" the proposed platform to compete with the retro-fitted Airbus. So instead they tried a "software" solution. And they did a really, really poor job on that given the requirements that it not require re-training of the pilots, and that it could, and did, introduce scenarios like the recurring invocation of the nose down condition. All of the corrective actions they subsequently introduced should have been found and implemented during development. Maybe, just maybe, the executive wunderkind shouldn't have laid off all of those senior software engineers, hmm?

"It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max softwareーplagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flawーwas developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospaceーnotably India."

https://www.industryweek.com/supply-cha ... -engineers

But they were in such a rush to meet management "targets," and get the product to market, 346 people died. But hey, those 346 people weren't real people, were they?

I find that completely unacceptable and feel strongly that many involved from Boeing and the FAA should have been charged and tried for 346 counts of manslaughter. At a minimum, they should have been removed from the aeronautics industry, permanently, counting themselves lucky not to be incarcerated for life.

Using software to standardize the flying qualities across the 737 fleet is a sound concept which enhances safety if done correctly.
Boeing did a good job making the F-18 E/F Super Hornet fly like the original F-18 A/B/C/D Hornet, which were, in fact, different airplanes.
The F-18 also had a rigorous system safety process to catch "sneak circuit" faults like those in the 737 Max MCAS. We still lost a F-18 in flight test using a manual adaptation to yield a more "natural" control feedback for the F-18's used by the Blue Angels.
Boeing did not do it as well with the 737 Max family succession as they did with the F-18's.
The FAA was not as capable in checking Boeing's work on the 737 Max as the Naval Air Test Center was in certifying the original F-18 & it's follow on models, ...in my biased opinion.

Boeing checked their own work. A client is heavily involved with the 737 Max program.

It was better for the airline industry when Boeing had domestic competition. McDonnell-Douglas & Lockheed made Boeing better.

[PizzaSnake]

So, after the death of 346 people, they choose to do the "right thing" and fix their crappy software? Two single points of failure: air speed sensors and flight control modules not constantly verifying and "checking" the other? Who the hlel thought that was good software practice?

They couldn't, or wouldn't do the right thing and "blank sheet" the proposed platform to compete with the retro-fitted Airbus. So instead they tried a "software" solution. And they did a really, really poor job on that given the requirements that it not require re-training of the pilots, and that it could, and did, introduce scenarios like the recurring invocation of the nose down condition. All of the corrective actions they subsequently introduced should have been found and implemented during development. Maybe, just maybe, the executive wunderkind shouldn't have laid off all of those senior software engineers, hmm?

"It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max softwareーplagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flawーwas developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospaceーnotably India."

https://www.industryweek.com/supply-cha ... -engineers

But they were in such a rush to meet management "targets," and get the product to market, 346 people died. But hey, those 346 people weren't real people, were they?

I find that completely unacceptable and feel strongly that many involved from Boeing and the FAA should have been charged and tried for 346 counts of manslaughter. At a minimum, they should have been removed from the aeronautics industry, permanently, counting themselves lucky not to be incarcerated for life.

Using software to standardize the flying qualities across the 737 fleet is a sound concept which enhances safety if done correctly.
Boeing did a good job making the F-18 E/F Super Hornet fly like the original F-18 A/B/C/D Hornet, which were, in fact, different airplanes.
The F-18 also had a rigorous system safety process to catch "sneak circuit" faults like those in the 737 Max MCAS. We still lost a F-18 in flight test using a manual adaptation to yield a more "natural" control feedback for the F-18's used by the Blue Angels.
Boeing did not do it as well with the 737 Max family succession as they did with the F-18's.
The FAA was not as capable in checking Boeing's work on the 737 Max as the Naval Air Test Center was in certifying the original F-18 & it's follow on models, ...in my biased opinion.

Boeing checked their own work. A client is heavily involved with the 737 Max program.

Regulatory capture and co-option.

Good news, though, once the Subpremes ditch the Chevron deference, we won't have any more of this pesky interference with the almighty capitalist process. Just look to employ a food taster and a drug tester...

[Typical Lax Dad]

So, after the death of 346 people, they choose to do the "right thing" and fix their crappy software? Two single points of failure: air speed sensors and flight control modules not constantly verifying and "checking" the other? Who the hlel thought that was good software practice?

They couldn't, or wouldn't do the right thing and "blank sheet" the proposed platform to compete with the retro-fitted Airbus. So instead they tried a "software" solution. And they did a really, really poor job on that given the requirements that it not require re-training of the pilots, and that it could, and did, introduce scenarios like the recurring invocation of the nose down condition. All of the corrective actions they subsequently introduced should have been found and implemented during development. Maybe, just maybe, the executive wunderkind shouldn't have laid off all of those senior software engineers, hmm?

"It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max softwareーplagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flawーwas developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospaceーnotably India."

https://www.industryweek.com/supply-cha ... -engineers

But they were in such a rush to meet management "targets," and get the product to market, 346 people died. But hey, those 346 people weren't real people, were they?

I find that completely unacceptable and feel strongly that many involved from Boeing and the FAA should have been charged and tried for 346 counts of manslaughter. At a minimum, they should have been removed from the aeronautics industry, permanently, counting themselves lucky not to be incarcerated for life.

Using software to standardize the flying qualities across the 737 fleet is a sound concept which enhances safety if done correctly.
Boeing did a good job making the F-18 E/F Super Hornet fly like the original F-18 A/B/C/D Hornet, which were, in fact, different airplanes.
The F-18 also had a rigorous system safety process to catch "sneak circuit" faults like those in the 737 Max MCAS. We still lost a F-18 in flight test using a manual adaptation to yield a more "natural" control feedback for the F-18's used by the Blue Angels.
Boeing did not do it as well with the 737 Max family succession as they did with the F-18's.
The FAA was not as capable in checking Boeing's work on the 737 Max as the Naval Air Test Center was in certifying the original F-18 & it's follow on models, ...in my biased opinion.

Boeing checked their own work. A client is heavily involved with the 737 Max program.

Regulatory capture and co-option.

Good news, though, once the Subpremes ditch the Chevron deference, we won't have any more of this pesky interference with the almighty capitalist process. Just look to employ a food taster and a drug tester...

https://goodjobsfirst.org/

[old salt]

PR disaster. Nobody's going to believe Boeing, but FAA, DoT & the affected airlines could be doing much more to reassure the public.

The MAX 9 is a good airplane. The first accidents were due to pilot training. The door plug was due to shoddy maintenance.

Self-inflicted damage by Boeing.

Boeing stock went up 1.78 % today.

BS.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... n-the-jet/

In the two cases of fatalities, on take off and initial ascent, the MCAS detected a "stall" due to faulty single airspeed sensor and induced a nose down condition, at full, or near, full throttle. Pilots didn't know what the plane was doing because they hadn't been trained on the "hidden" feature. They didn't stand a chance. Nose first into the ground at near full throttle.

Follow-up testing of these conditions in flight simulators by Boeing test pilots who were aware of the MCAS system resulted in crash conditions. So spare me the sanctimonious, thinly veiled racism about the foreign pilots. I bet you a buck you couldn't handle those conditions in a simulator either.

As I pointed out in a post above, before the crashes by 2 third world airlines, several pilots of US airlines reported experiencing the same nose down hardover that the 2 crashed aircraft experience. They did not crash because they responded the way any competent airline pilot would.
They disconnected the autopilot & manually flew the aircraft.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/70293689 ... wasnt-alon
Several U.S. pilots who reported having trouble controlling Boeing 737 Max planes early in their flights used NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System to flag issues they encountered.

"In two cases, pilots flying in the U.S. late last year had their planes pitch down unexpectedly after departures. Both times, the crew disengaged the autopilot and were able to keep flying safely," NPR's Russell Lewis reports.

When was the last fatal crash of a Boeing passenger carrying aircraft operated by a US airline ?
...& the saying is -- if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

[Kismet]

Fact remains that Boeing employees failed to properly re-install door plug and but for the grace of God it only failed at 14,000 feet and not 35,000 feet. Very BIG miss, no matter how you want to spin it.

Blaming the FAA and DoT in your commentary doesn't help - In fact, YOUR party supports LESS Federal regulation. As usual, you inject gratuitous political spin in just about ANY discussion.

[cradleandshoot]

It is the rare occasion when any topic, any discussion on this forum excludes a political perspective. It is baked into the cake.

[PizzaSnake]

It is the rare occasion when any topic, any discussion on this forum excludes a political perspective. It is baked into the cake.

It is the “politics” section…

Isn’t politics just shorthand for different neural frameworks and processing? How can that NOT be part of any discussion?

The line between events and ideation is thin.

[PizzaSnake]

It is the rare occasion when any topic, any discussion on this forum excludes a political perspective. It is baked into the cake.

It is the “politics” section…

Isn’t politics just shorthand for different neural frameworks and processing? How can that NOT be part of any discussion?

The line between events and ideation is thin.

[cradleandshoot]

It is the rare occasion when any topic, any discussion on this forum excludes a political perspective. It is baked into the cake.

It is the “politics” section…

Isn’t politics just shorthand for different neural frameworks and processing? How can that NOT be part of any discussion?

The line between events and ideation is thin.

The point of order is that politics always seems to be inserted into every post on every thread that meander off
in different directions not relevant to what is being discussed or debated.

[PizzaSnake]

Death of 1,000 btich slaps?

"Please, let me carry passengers even though we are manifestly incompetent assemblers..."

"Under intense political pressure, Boeing on Monday withdrew its request for an exemption from key safety regulations to allow the 737 MAX 7 to be certified to carry passengers.

“We have informed the FAA that we are withdrawing our request for a time-limited exemption relating to the engine inlet de-icing system on the 737-7,” Boeing said in a statement. “We will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process.”

This means entry into passenger service of the MAX 7, the smallest model of the MAX family, will be significantly delayed until Boeing can design a fix for the flawed design and get it approved by the Federal Aviation Administration."

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... exemption/

[PizzaSnake]

Better and better. Again, trying to be cheap and slick, Boeing has yet another engineering kluge on the engine for all 737 Max variants. This engine, the LEAP-1B from CFM International, employs a light-weight carbon fiber element in the outer engine cowl.

The de-icing system, which diverts incredibly hot gas from the engine's compressors stages, "washes" the front of the engine intake by directing that hot "wash" across the engine cowl. Unfortunately, per the FAA Airworthiness Directive issued in August 2023:

"The FAA in August 2023 ordered a temporary operational work-around for in-service 737 MAXs. The “direct final” airworthiness directive (AD) required operators to modify flight manuals with language prohibiting pilots from using the EAI “when not in actual or anticipated icing conditions.” Operating the EAI in dry air and at certain altitudes and thrust settings for more than 5 min. could cause nacelle damage, the agency explained. Shedding of inlet pieces “may cause fuselage and/or window damage, potentially resulting in decompression and hazard to window-seated passengers aft of the wing,” the FAA noted.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... r-delaying

So, because they didn't want to re-cert the airframe (sort of like the MCAS fiasco), they didn't utilize existing technology used on their more recent offerings that obviated the need for the pilots, via visual inspection form the cockpit, to cycle the de-icing on and off lest the engine cowling fail leading to nacalle damage causing engine failure.

Who wants to fly on that airframe with those engines and the constant risk of engine failure and potential loss of airworthiness?

"If it's Boeing, I ain't going."

Anyone want to bet whether or not they can get a new engine inlet certification completed in 9 months like they predict?

"Boeing says it can develop new 737 MAX engine inlets in a year or less and sees the task as the new primary pacing item for 737-7 and 737-10 certification, CEO Dave Calhoun said.

“We’ll step up resources, we’ll step up whatever testing is required, and we will do everything we can to inform the FAA about that particular part of that program,” Calhoun said on Boeing’s Jan. 31 call on 2023 fourth quarter (Q4) earnings. “That is the pole in the tent all of us should be watching.”

CFO Brian West said developing the new inlets “will take about a year.” Calhoun, recapping a recent conversation with Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), said he told the senator the time frame could be closer to nine months.

The new inlets are needed to address a hazard that could see the composite parts overheat and fail if engine anti-ice is used in certain circumstances—notably dry air. Boeing petitioned the FAA to have the 737-7 certified while it developed a permanent fix and introduced it on the 737-10. But the company on Jan. 30 confirmed it would reverse course, pull its request, and incorporate the change—which will be retrofitted on all in-service 737 MAXs as well as on new aircraft—as part of 737-7 certification."

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... r-delaying

[Kismet]

Another problem/headache for Boeing on new Max planes

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/business ... index.html

"New problem has been found during the production of 737 Max jets that will force Boeing to rework about 50 planes that have not yet been delivered.

The problem was disclosed in a memo sent to Boeing (BA) employees Sunday by Stan Deal, the head of the company’s commercial aircraft unit. An employee at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the fuselages of the 737 Max jets, notified the plane maker that two holes may not have been drilled exactly to Boeing’s requirements, according to Deal’s memo.

“While this potential condition is not an immediate flight safety issue and all 737’s can continue operating safely, we currently believe we will have to perform rework on about 50 undelivered airplanes,” it said.

The news about the mis-drilled holes is just the latest blow to Boeing’s reputation, which has been battered repeatedly over the last five years, most recently by a terrifying accident aboard a 737 Max 9 flight on January 5."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/ntsb-bo ... plane.html

Bolts appeared to be missing from Boeing 737 Max door plug that blew off midflight, NTSB says

[PizzaSnake]

NTSB prelim update -- no bolts!!

[old salt]

Fact remains that Boeing employees failed to properly re-install door plug and but for the grace of God it only failed at 14,000 feet and not 35,000 feet. Very BIG miss, no matter how you want to spin it.

Blaming the FAA and DoT in your commentary doesn't help - In fact, YOUR party supports LESS Federal regulation. As usual, you inject gratuitous political spin in just about ANY discussion.

To whom was this post directed ?

[Farfromgeneva]

It is the rare occasion when any topic, any discussion on this forum excludes a political perspective. It is baked into the cake.

It is the “politics” section…

Isn’t politics just shorthand for different neural frameworks and processing? How can that NOT be part of any discussion?

The line between events and ideation is thin.

Yes to question which I figured was rhetorical.

Problem is when folks don’t realize their mixing codified/social controls with more metaphysical/humanistic rule sets when they are distinct

[Kismet]

Fact remains that Boeing employees failed to properly re-install door plug and but for the grace of God it only failed at 14,000 feet and not 35,000 feet. Very BIG miss, no matter how you want to spin it.

Blaming the FAA and DoT in your commentary doesn't help - In fact, YOUR party supports LESS Federal regulation. As usual, you inject gratuitous political spin in just about ANY discussion.

To whom was this post directed ?

YOU Salty

PR disaster. Nobody's going to believe Boeing, but FAA, DoT & the affected airlines could be doing much more to reassure the public.

[old salt]

Fact remains that Boeing employees failed to properly re-install door plug and but for the grace of God it only failed at 14,000 feet and not 35,000 feet. Very BIG miss, no matter how you want to spin it.

Blaming the FAA and DoT in your commentary doesn't help - In fact, YOUR party supports LESS Federal regulation. As usual, you inject gratuitous political spin in just about ANY discussion.

To whom was this post directed ?

YOU Salty

PR disaster. Nobody's going to believe Boeing, but FAA, DoT & the affected airlines could be doing much more to reassure the public.

BS. That's not blaming the FAA & DoT for the problem. It's calling for them to do their job. They deem the 737 Max safe to carry passengers again & return to service. When they do so, they need to explain why & do more to reassure the traveling public, otherwise the cranks on social media will have undue influence. All aircraft undergo AD's & SB's their entire service life. That goes unreported & barely noticed. When the FAA, DoT & the user airlines don't adequately reassure the public about an aircraft which they certify & operate, it unleashes cranks & scaremongers like this to dominate the news.

[youthathletics]

Just saw this run across my timeline: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1767311 ... 42119?s=20

NEW: 62-year-old Boeing whistleblower John Barnett found dead in his truck after he didn't show up for a legal interview linked to a case against Boeing.

Barnett worked for Boeing for 32 years and retired in 2017. After retiring, Barnett spoke out about how Boeing was cutting corners on their airplanes.

Just days before his death, Barnett gave evidence in a lawsuit against Boeing.

Barnett accused Boeing of "deliberately fitting sub-standard parts" on their aircraft.

He also accused Boeing of having faulty oxygen systems, saying one in four breathing masks would *not* work in an emergency situation.

Barnett said new plane builds were rushed. When he brought his concerns forward, they were allegedly ignored by the company.

When he died, Barnett was in Charleston for interviews linked to a case against Boeing.

He was supposed to come back for more questioning on Saturday but did not show up. Inquiries were made to his hotel where Barnett was found dead in his car in the parking lot.

Police are investigating Barnett's death but say he died from a "self-inflicted" wound.

The video below was a recent interview Barnett had with TMZ.

Totally normal.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Wonder who Epsteined him? Boeing has a lot to lose.

Gotta always have backups and a dead-man switch if you get caught up in this kind of stuff.

Government should have never let the airline industry get this consolidated.

[Kismet]

Another Boeing aircraft with an in-flight issue - 787 from Sydney to Auckland experienced a "technical failure" at cruising altitude where pilots claimed they lost control of the aircraft temporarily - 50 passengers injured

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB1jJZc2