Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Notices
Like Tree179Likes

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Old 03-27-2019, 07:11 AM
  #241  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 631
Default

Originally Posted by Gary M View Post
The fact that they are quickly changing the software to the MCAS, the fact that they brought 200 pilots, etc to Seattle to talk about MCAS, the fact that they are expanding the Training for MCAS......

See the Common Denominator there? Coming from Boeing.......
Once you associate corrective actions with admission of guilt, the world will cease to function.
km1125 likes this.
TurboJoe is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:21 AM
  #242  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,743
Default

Originally Posted by TurboJoe View Post
Once you associate corrective actions with admission of guilt, the world will cease to function.
Yes. There's a HUGE difference between the CAUSE, the CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, and other things you learn that could be done better. There are unsafe conditions and unsafe acts, which can be handled separately when talking about culpability.
km1125 is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:36 AM
  #243  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 190
Default

Originally Posted by TurboJoe View Post
Once you associate corrective actions with admission of guilt, the world will cease to function.
I doubt it. "Dad, I'm guilty of not studying hard enough. I will work harder in the future."

I see it that Boeing admits that the MCAS is a problem. Yes, they are taking action, much like McDonald Douglas did when two cargo doors popped open resulting in the Turkish Airlines catastrophe outside of Paris and the near disaster on an American Airlines DC-10 near Detroit. They had a goofy design and they fixed it.

I see it as, "We did a poor job with this. Now we will take corrective actions."

You can assign whatever semantics or phraseology to it that you want........
Gary M is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:50 AM
  #244  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC / Indian Creek, VA
Posts: 2,862
Default

Boeing and the FAA certified an airplane with a system that could command full nose-down trim with no alerts or error messages if one AoA sensor goes haywire. This seems like a bad idea to me.

I believe the correct way to do this would be to put three sensors in three different locations. If the sensors do not all agree then the MCAS is disabled and the pilot gets a caution light.
dell30rb is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:57 AM
  #245  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 618
Default

Originally Posted by dell30rb View Post
Boeing and the FAA certified an airplane with a system that could command full nose-down trim with no alerts or error messages if one AoA sensor goes haywire. This seems like a bad idea to me.

I believe the correct way to do this would be to put three sensors in three different locations. If the sensors do not all agree then the MCAS is disabled and the pilot gets a caution light.
hmmmmm.... Kind of defeats the purpose of MCAS then. If you're in a full stall, then it's pretty likely to have different alpha readings at different locations. It's outside the normal flight envelope, so turbulent flow is very plausible. So now you've got an MCAS system that MIGHT work as intended SOME of the time....
Kenny Powers is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:59 AM
  #246  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 2,875
Default

I know the 737NG had problems due to 3rd party manufacturing but Boeing was fully aware of it at the time. The 737NG also had a inflated payload and max speed. The MAX was another attempt at getting even more efficiency out of the 737 but as others have said its time for a redesign.
fjmaverick is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 08:07 AM
  #247  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,607
Default

From a CNN article that came out today regarding the Lion Air crash:



"As they battled the uncooperative and diving plane last year, the pilots on the doomed Lion Air flight attempted a routine maneuver to try and stabilize the plane by triggering a switch near the steering wheel approximately three dozen times, according to a report by Indonesian investigators.
But the force of the software continued to send the plane downward until it reached an angle that would have been unrecoverable for the pilots.
To shut down the MCAS software, the lead pilot would have had to TURN AROUND and flip two switches BEHIND him, a move that a representative for American Airline's pilots union called a "tremendous leap of logic.""There's no intuitive connection between those two things," Captain Jason Goldberg said, referring to what pilots would have been fighting with the MCAS software and this two-switch solution."



This is something that I have never heard before. Can you believe in this extreme emergency situation, to disengage MCAS, the lead pilot would have to TURN AROUND AWAY FROM THE CONTROLS and flip two switches BEHIND him? Sounds like a stupid design to me. Even the American Airlines pilots union representative must think it is a pretty stupid design as he termed it almost sarcastically as a "tremendous leap of logic."
MUHSFINK07 likes this.
Kendall is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 08:17 AM
  #248  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,894
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
From a CNN article that came out today regarding the Lion Air crash:



"As they battled the uncooperative and diving plane last year, the pilots on the doomed Lion Air flight attempted a routine maneuver to try and stabilize the plane by triggering a switch near the steering wheel approximately three dozen times, according to a report by Indonesian investigators.
But the force of the software continued to send the plane downward until it reached an angle that would have been unrecoverable for the pilots.
To shut down the MCAS software, the lead pilot would have had to TURN AROUND and flip two switches BEHIND him, a move that a representative for American Airline's pilots union called a "tremendous leap of logic.""There's no intuitive connection between those two things," Captain Jason Goldberg said, referring to what pilots would have been fighting with the MCAS software and this two-switch solution."



This is something that I have never heard before. Can you believe in this extreme emergency situation, to disengage MCAS, the lead pilot would have to TURN AROUND AWAY FROM THE CONTROLS and flip two switches BEHIND him? Sounds like a stupid design to me. Even the American Airlines pilots union representative must think it is a pretty stupid design as he termed it almost sarcastically as a "tremendous leap of logic."

Ya seems like a dumb design...
MUHSFINK07 is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 08:33 AM
  #249  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 631
Default

I really don't see how they are behind him.. they are right there by the throttles.

Of course CNN
TurboJoe is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 08:48 AM
  #250  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Beaufort, NC
Posts: 66
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
Can you believe in this extreme emergency situation, to disengage MCAS, the lead pilot would have to TURN AROUND AWAY FROM THE CONTROLS and flip two switches BEHIND him? Sounds like a stupid design to me. Even the American Airlines pilots union representative must think it is a pretty stupid design as he termed it almost sarcastically as a "tremendous leap of logic."
It is actually pretty common to have to turn away and deal with pulling circuit breakers during certain emergency checklist procedures. Sometimes those CB's or switches are in awkward places. Some emergencies may even warrant a crew member to leave the flight deck all together.
HeidiMarie is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 09:18 AM
  #251  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: At end of the Chesapeake Bay
Posts: 335
Default

It's amazing how many keyboard commandos think they know more than the aircraft engineers who designed these aircraft and were on the shop floor solving issues as the aircraft were built built just because a "news source" gave an uneducated opinion that they take as an indisputable fact.

Are there issues with the MCAS system?
Only the contents of the flight recorders know for sure. And since the EU has a vested in Airbus (Boeing's main competitor) because the various governments heavily subsidize Airbus, there is a huge conflict of interest in allowing anybody but the FAA and NTSB to analyze the contents especially since they (FAA and NTSB) mandate what will be recorded for each flight. While Boeing may have some data that's constantly transmitted from the aircraft in real time, it's a pretty good bet that there is much more in those flight recorders. Personally, when in take off or landing mode, I want an experienced pilot flying the aircraft.

As far as the design, both the -800 & -900 series are NG or next generation 737 aircraft. While the NG aircraft still bear the 737 classification, they have been almost completely redesigned from earlier models. As far as the "nose up" attitude that the "all knowing" talking heads are babbling about, ALL winged aircraft are designed to assume this flight attitude as a standard flight attitude. That's why aircraft have the ability to "trim" the angle of the aircraft's attitude so that the angle of attack can be adjusted depending on aircraft loading, fuel usage, flight conditions and many other variables.

Now, if Boeing did in fact produce aircraft with a known flaw, then let's put the blame where it belongs and resolve the issues that led up the flaw being written off as a "peculiarity" of that aircraft design. However, if after expert analyzation of ALL the data vindicates Boeing, the all of the media outlets should be held liable for damages to Boeing by creating yet another media circus without any facts.

BTW, before all the hate posts start, I do know a little something about aircraft because I AM a flight controls design engineer in the aerospace industry.
km1125 likes this.
Wingnutt is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:13 AM
  #252  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,743
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
From a CNN article that came out today regarding the Lion Air crash:



"As they battled the uncooperative and diving plane last year, the pilots on the doomed Lion Air flight attempted a routine maneuver to try and stabilize the plane by triggering a switch near the steering wheel approximately three dozen times, according to a report by Indonesian investigators.
But the force of the software continued to send the plane downward until it reached an angle that would have been unrecoverable for the pilots.
To shut down the MCAS software, the lead pilot would have had to TURN AROUND and flip two switches BEHIND him, a move that a representative for American Airline's pilots union called a "tremendous leap of logic.""There's no intuitive connection between those two things," Captain Jason Goldberg said, referring to what pilots would have been fighting with the MCAS software and this two-switch solution."



This is something that I have never heard before. Can you believe in this extreme emergency situation, to disengage MCAS, the lead pilot would have to TURN AROUND AWAY FROM THE CONTROLS and flip two switches BEHIND him? Sounds like a stupid design to me. Even the American Airlines pilots union representative must think it is a pretty stupid design as he termed it almost sarcastically as a "tremendous leap of logic."
Originally Posted by MUHSFINK07 View Post
Ya seems like a dumb design...
You guys both have read the updates here from actual pilots showing how the system is disabled, and yet you believe some talking heads from CNN, of all places???

km1125 is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:21 AM
  #253  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
PLEDGERPLEDGERPLEDGERPLEDGER
 
Snapper Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Republic of West Florida - the ORIGINAL lone star state
Posts: 17,778
Default

I bailed at "steering wheel ".

Big Al
Snapper Head is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:22 AM
  #254  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 618
Default

Originally Posted by Wingnutt View Post
It's amazing how many keyboard commandos think they know more than the aircraft engineers who designed these aircraft and were on the shop floor solving issues as the aircraft were built built just because a "news source" gave an uneducated opinion that they take as an indisputable fact.

Are there issues with the MCAS system?
Only the contents of the flight recorders know for sure. And since the EU has a vested in Airbus (Boeing's main competitor) because the various governments heavily subsidize Airbus, there is a huge conflict of interest in allowing anybody but the FAA and NTSB to analyze the contents especially since they (FAA and NTSB) mandate what will be recorded for each flight. While Boeing may have some data that's constantly transmitted from the aircraft in real time, it's a pretty good bet that there is much more in those flight recorders. Personally, when in take off or landing mode, I want an experienced pilot flying the aircraft.

As far as the design, both the -800 & -900 series are NG or next generation 737 aircraft. While the NG aircraft still bear the 737 classification, they have been almost completely redesigned from earlier models. As far as the "nose up" attitude that the "all knowing" talking heads are babbling about, ALL winged aircraft are designed to assume this flight attitude as a standard flight attitude. That's why aircraft have the ability to "trim" the angle of the aircraft's attitude so that the angle of attack can be adjusted depending on aircraft loading, fuel usage, flight conditions and many other variables.

Now, if Boeing did in fact produce aircraft with a known flaw, then let's put the blame where it belongs and resolve the issues that led up the flaw being written off as a "peculiarity" of that aircraft design. However, if after expert analyzation of ALL the data vindicates Boeing, the all of the media outlets should be held liable for damages to Boeing by creating yet another media circus without any facts.

BTW, before all the hate posts start, I do know a little something about aircraft because I AM a flight controls design engineer in the aerospace industry.
Agree. I used to write aerodynamic and flight control software for the simulators. I feel like I'm not qualified to comment here because I did work on Boeing platforms, but never the 737 MAX...... but I'm glad we have so many experts who are.
Kenny Powers is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:23 AM
  #255  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 618
Default

Originally Posted by Snapper Head View Post
I bailed at "steering wheel ".

Big Al
I pushed through that one, but punched out at "force of the software"
Kenny Powers is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:25 AM
  #256  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
PLEDGERPLEDGERPLEDGERPLEDGER
 
Snapper Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Republic of West Florida - the ORIGINAL lone star state
Posts: 17,778
Default

Yer a stronger person than I.

Big Al
Snapper Head is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:51 AM
  #257  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Newport Beach, CA. USA
Posts: 1,306
Default

Boeing messed up big-time.

End of story.

All you "know it all's" can say all you want, but design, communication, and/or training were substandard to say the least!!!!!

Lots of dead men women and children are the result.

You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be able to apply common sense reasoning.

PS.....some of the most stubborn bullheaded people I've ever dealt with are engineers.
As proven in this thread.

Multiple brand new airplanes flying straight into the ground, and some people don't see a connection, SMH.
Rico2 is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 11:09 AM
  #258  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,607
Default

Originally Posted by Rico2 View Post
Boeing messed up big-time.

End of story.

All you "know it all's" can say all you want, but design, communication, and/or training were substandard to say the least!!!!!

Lots of dead men women and children are the result.

You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be able to apply common sense reasoning.

PS.....some of the most stubborn bullheaded people I've ever dealt with are engineers.
As proven in this thread.

Multiple brand new airplanes flying straight into the ground, and some people don't see a connection, SMH.

AGREE! Simplified the main point.
Kendall is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 11:15 AM
  #259  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,743
Default

Originally Posted by Rico2 View Post
Boeing messed up big-time.

End of story.

All you "know it all's" can say all you want, but design, communication, and/or training were substandard to say the least!!!!!

Lots of dead men women and children are the result.

You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be able to apply common sense reasoning.

PS.....some of the most stubborn bullheaded people I've ever dealt with are engineers.
As proven in this thread.

Multiple brand new airplanes flying straight into the ground, and some people don't see a connection, SMH.
But yet there were some 8,000 a week for months and months on end that didn't fly into the ground. How did they possibly ever make it if the plane was really defective???
JCM 1420 likes this.
km1125 is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 11:16 AM
  #260  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 2,875
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
But yet there were some 8,000 a week for months and months on end that didn't fly into the ground. How did they possibly ever make it if the plane was really defective???
Failure over time seems pretty reasonable
fjmaverick is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread