The Boeing MAX 8 Accidents

Discussion in 'Non-Rail Transportation' started by Dakota 400, Apr 5, 2019.

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

  1. Oct 31, 2019 #176

    Trogdor

    Trogdor

    Trogdor

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,350
    Location:
    Here
    Sorry, but your general understanding of the situation is flawed, at best.

    First, if it was as simple as turning off MCAS, then MCAS would never have been developed in the first place. You need to research why MCAS was implemented on the 737MAX. It was to address certain control issues at high angles of attack, and without the fix, the 737MAX either couldn’t have been certified at all, or at best, couldn’t have been certified as a simple derivative (from a pilot training perspective) of the 737NG. The whole point was to allow 737NG pilots to switch to the max with a simple iPad training course. If they required significant additional pilot training, Boeing would be on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to airlines (Southwest reportedly would be owed $1 million per plane if the 737MAX required simulator training). As it turns out, Boeing botched it in such a way that they’re still going to owe millions in compensation, but that’s not something they saw coming ahead of time.

    Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem. The issue with MCAS is that the angle of attack sensor providing MCAS with data failed. MCAS had no crosscheck with the other sensor. All of the planes you watched so diligently on Flightradar24 had working AOA sensors, hence no MCAS issue. The planes that crashed had a sensor failure.

    As for articles behind paywalls, well, that would be virtually all newspapers these days. Back in the day, the “paywall” was buying the physical paper. Now, it’s the digital equivalent.

    You’re also contradicting yourself in saying the 737MAX is an incredible airplane, and then calling it a bust at the same time. Further, saying that Boeing should scrap the MAX and refresh the 737-700/800/900, well, what the heck do you think the MAX is, if not a refresh of the NG series?
     
    Devil's Advocate likes this.
  2. Oct 31, 2019 #177

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  3. Oct 31, 2019 #178

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,890
    Location:
    OTN
    Yeah, but he claimed "I saw all movements of 737 Max planes", not just a handful. He's apparently devoted his life's work to watching airplanes in the sky.

    Or he's stark raving mad.
     
    Trogdor and jis like this.
  4. Oct 31, 2019 #179

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  5. Oct 31, 2019 #180

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  6. Oct 31, 2019 #181

    adamj023

    a

    adamj023

    Train Attendant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages:
    67
    That is BS and you know it. The aviation industry started without any computerization or automation. Did any of those airplanes “require” any computer and automation? No, it didn’t exist until much later on. The theory that an MCAS system has to be “required” is totally incredulous. There have been many aircraft hull designs with different engines and weight distributions all built without MCAS systems.

    If we were back into an era where automation and computerization didn’t exist and a plane would never be able to fly without then then it is not airworthy and should never be flown. But with that being said, if you ran the Max without the system. of course pilots could make adjustments as necessary as humans do a better job and can account for variations. Engines have been placed in multiple locations without issues. Twin engine, three engine, four engine with 5th for transport and so on. You can fly a 747 with a 5th engine attached for transport. Military has done things like inflight refueling, and the list goes on of all things that can be done and we are told the Max design requires MCAS which is false.

     
  7. Oct 31, 2019 #182

    adamj023

    a

    adamj023

    Train Attendant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages:
    67
  8. Oct 31, 2019 #183

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    I am leaning towards the latter, using the proof technique of “reductio ad absurdum” since the former is demonstrably impossible.
     
  9. Oct 31, 2019 #184

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Ryan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,890
    Location:
    OTN
    Are you legitimately claiming that there is no way that you can change the position of the engine on an airplane wing that results in an unsafe plane?

    What aeronautical engineering training do you have to make this judgement?
     
  10. Oct 31, 2019 #185

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    Changing the engine position and getting the new version of the plane certified as a derivative of a previous version that required no additional documentation and allows common type rating without training of pilots requires MCAS. Or so says Boeing and at least I have no reason to question their judgement on this matter.
     
  11. Oct 31, 2019 #186

    adamj023

    a

    adamj023

    Train Attendant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages:
    67
    The same Boeing who never told pilots of the existence of the MCAS system at all. I think Boeings credibility is horrendous.
     
  12. Oct 31, 2019 #187

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    And I seriously question your credibility on this matter. What training or credentials do you have in designing and building safety critical systems of any sort?
     
    Trogdor likes this.
  13. Oct 31, 2019 #188

    ehbowen

    ehbowen

    ehbowen

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Um, what you're looking at is a hard point specifically designed and built into the airframe for the purpose of ferrying spare engines to remote maintenance bases. Boeing designed it into the 747 from the beginning as back in 1969 the 747's engines were too large to be shipped as air freight in a cargo hold, or actually by any ground method except railroad flatcar or break-bulk freighter ship. It was part of the original certification design and still is. Try again.
     
  14. Nov 1, 2019 #189

    Dakota 400

    D

    Dakota 400

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,437
    It's interesting to read the different posts with different opinions. What to believe from someone who has no engineering background?

    What I do believe is that Boeing screwed up in a major way with this plane. By doing so, they have caused major damage to the reputation of this Company in producing commercial airplane models, they have endangered the lives--and indeed--probably have caused the lives of those that flew on the MAX, they have significantly reduced the value of my investment in Boeing, and yet, while one executive has been "sacrificed", the really upper echelon of Management and the Board of Directors continue to draw their salaries.

    Can't rationally explain why I feel this way. But, the move from Seattle to Chicago for the Boeing Headquarters seems, to me, to have been a turning point in the direction of, at least, the commercial side of Boeing.
     
    jis likes this.
  15. Nov 1, 2019 #190

    TJGagliardo

    T

    TJGagliardo

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Responding to Lockheed Martin reentering commercial air craft market; it may not want to. This is from Wikipedia:

    "Lockheed Martin received $36 billion in government contracts in 2008 alone, more than any company in history. It does work for more than two dozen government agencies from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency
     
  16. Nov 1, 2019 #191

    adamj023

    a

    adamj023

    Train Attendant

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages:
    67
    Government contracts are a lot more lucrative than the commercial aircraft market.

    Southwest Airlines is the most impacted by the 737 Max in the USA.

    Delta is one of the large legacy airlines in the USA which has no exposure to the Max issue.

    American Airlines and United already have orders for other aircraft and so they could order new replacements as necessary and/or use existing orders as leverage to get another Boeing jet instead.

    Whether Boeing decides to nix the 737 Max or issue a fix, Airlines will have this all sorted out by 1st Quarter 2020 as 737 Max will be nixed or start going back into service.

    The aircraft market has only two firms for 737 Max equivalent jets, which is Boeing itself and Airbus that USA will do business. Both Russia and China also compete but they won’t do business with them and while not impossible, almost certain they won’t be used.

    Mitsubishi will start entering service for Regional jets starting in 2020 at earliest but there has been nothing larger announced for production by them or others.
     
  17. Nov 2, 2019 #192

    anumberone

    anumberone

    anumberone

    OBS Chief AU Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    That particular aircraft will fly, has flown and maybe will continue to fly. But, the company misled buyers into thinking extra special training was not required. Every thing in that manual had been revised with every different model to the point that it was incomprehensible. It flys just like the last model except for it doesn't and when the $:;t hit the fan, well now, big problem. Somebody at Boeing never looked past the end of their nose.
     
  18. Nov 5, 2019 #193

    saxman

    saxman

    saxman

    Conductor Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Location:
    New Orleans
    This, alone, along with your other posts tells me you have zero understanding of automation and the purpose of it. MCAS, stall warnings, stick shakers, auto pilots, etc, are all tools to reduce pilot work load. Pilot's have to constantly tell these automations what to do and how to do it. Sometimes it gets too much of a workload so that function gets turned off to reduce workload, ie, turning off the autopilot to hand fly a visual approach. MCAS is an added tool that was added because of the slightly different characteristics of hand flying the aircraft due to the slightly moved engines from the other 737's. Could the MCAS have been turned off? Sure, but it's hard to turn off something you don't know exists.

    The pilots were not trained in MCAS at all, and most weren't even aware it existed much less how it worked. That, and the fact it was only tied to one AOA vane was the fatal flaw. You claimed that no other flights had the same problem just by looking at flightaware? Flightaware data isn't precise, at all, and it doesn't give AOA nor indicated airspeed; two key components. It's just radar data; altitude and ground speed. So there's no way of knowing what happened on the thousands of other flights the MAX took, unless you have access to their flight data recorders. Also, the Lion Air accident airplane had the exact same thing happen on its previous flight. Luckily, the pilots were able to get it down. Unfortunately, it was signed off by maintenance because they couldn't find a problem.

    These two crashes were all about MCAS, period. Oh, yeah. I'm a Boeing 767 pilot.
     
  19. Nov 5, 2019 #194

    Bob Dylan

    Bob Dylan

    Bob Dylan

    Conductor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    18,524
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    Always good to hear from those who know of where they speak instead of Armchair Pilots and Engineers.;)
     
    railiner, Dakota 400 and jis like this.
  20. Nov 13, 2019 #195

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    The MAXs have been removed from schedules by all major airlines now through March 2020. My guess is they will be further delayed beyond March, but we'll see. Once they get certified to fly again, it is estimated that it will take upto a year or more to get all of them, the delivered ones and the undelivered ones waiting in the wings, up and flying.

    Meanwhile, there was this very interesting article on the matter published in the New Yorker. It also touches on the Tort law issue, something that Amtrak is trying to wriggle itself out of by forcing everything into Arbitration.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-against-boeing?utm_source=pocket-newtab
     
  21. Nov 13, 2019 #196

    Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate

    Conductor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    10,889
    Location:
    Америка
    They seem to have inspired our own Amtrak Unlimited to follow suit. Link: https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/tos/

    Watching millions of Americans fighting to have their legal remedies and protections greatly reduced and restricted in order to protect conglomerates from jury awards painful enough to change their behavior was a rather eye opening experience for me. The great American experiment has taught me so much about the inherent frailties of the human mind.
     
  22. Nov 13, 2019 #197

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    Indeed!

    A minor saving grace is that at least the AU website cannot kill or maim you by mistake, unlike Amtrak, unless one is of a very excitable kind I suppose. :oops:

    Incidentally, IIRC, at the Congressional hearing today there was a testy exchange between a Congressman and Mr. Anderson on this matter, in which at one point the Congressman in effect asked Mr. Anderson to STFU while he spoke. o_O
     
  23. Nov 20, 2019 #198

    jis

    jis

    jis

    Conductor AU Lifetime Supporter Gathering Team Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,078
    Location:
    Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
    jiml and railiner like this.
  24. Nov 20, 2019 #199

    railiner

    railiner

    railiner

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,359
    Location:
    South Florida
    That's a fascinating viewpoint...thanks for posting that link. Another one of those "tail wagging the dog" stories, where the smaller of the merger partner's ends up in control of the larger. Sometimes that works out favorably, other times...not so much.
     
    jis likes this.
  25. Nov 21, 2019 #200

    Dakota 400

    D

    Dakota 400

    Conductor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,437
    I appreciate reading this article. Thanks for posting it.

    My question is: Where does Boeing go from here? Does Senior Management and the Board of Directors understand what has happened? And, if they do, are they competent to steer a company the size of Boeing to an improved path?
     

Share This Page



arrow_white