All Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft Grounded

220 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Anna66 said:

everything

 

1 hour ago, Anna66 said:

everyone

 

1 hour ago, Anna66 said:

every company

 

1 hour ago, Anna66 said:

everywhere

 

That's a lot of "every's".  We're all doomed.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Anna66 said:

Off topic kind of.

 

You ask me it is the sickness in our current society of everything being done on the cheap. All everyone cares about is saving money. In every company, even medicine... This is wreaking havoc everywhere upon us!

 

True. The US might be in a big mess with China now because of it. People also want more and more for free. Health care, housing, education. You get what you pay for.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.5.2019, 15:22:34, Fromm said:

 

True. The US might be in a big mess with China now because of it. People also want more and more for free. Health care, housing, education. You get what you pay for.

 

On 13.5.2019, 16:35:44, catjones said:

 

 

 

 

That's a lot of "every's".  We're all doomed.

 

Most people nowadays do not believe in God at all. Their God is money.

 

Off topic, but..

 

Revelation 13.

"  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Bible, the mark of the beast is attributed to the worship of the beast. Presumably a "chip" could be implanted in someone against their will or even placed inside a baby. So I don't think the mark with be an actual physical thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have found new problems with the 737 Max which will delay it coming back into service.  But details were not given.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48752932

 

 

Quote

 

US regulators have uncovered a possible new flaw in Boeing's troubled 737 Max aircraft that is likely to push back test flights.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it identified the "potential risk" during simulator tests, but did not reveal specific details.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very simple: there is a huge mechanical design flaw that they tried to compensate by poorly designed electronic system, with a single point of failure.

People died, but instead of recognizing the mechanical design flaw, which would basically ground them all forever, they blame it on software and now propose a software fix, because people know that software can be easily fixed, compared with hardware.

If this drags on, it is the end of that model, as authorities and customers will understand it is a mechanical design issue that can´t be properly compensated by electronics and software.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understood it, It's not even a design flaw, rather just that the aircraft would fly characteristically different from the existing 737s (I don't know if this would have increased the certification time for this aircraft or not) and in order to make it fly in the same way then they included this software system to adjust the aircraft so that Pilots used to the older 737s would not notice any difference.

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

As I understood it, It's not even a design flaw, rather just that the aircraft would fly characteristically different from the existing 737s (I don't know if this would have increased the certification time for this aircraft or not) and in order to make it fly in the same way then they included this software system to adjust the aircraft so that Pilots used to the older 737s would not notice any difference.

 

It is a design flaw, it is not self stabilized as the weight distribution was changed, due to heavier motors.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dj_jay_smith said:

As I understood it, It's not even a design flaw, rather just that the aircraft would fly characteristically different from the existing 737s (I don't know if this would have increased the certification time for this aircraft or not) and in order to make it fly in the same way then they included this software system to adjust the aircraft so that Pilots used to the older 737s would not notice any difference.

 

 

 

 

 

I am no expert but I would say, that putting a system onto an airplane that the pilot cannot override and drives the aeroplane into the ground killing serval hundred people - Is a serious design floor

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

I am no expert but I would say, that putting a system onto an airplane that the pilot cannot override and drives the aeroplane into the ground killing serval hundred people - Is a serious design floor

 

 

All (commercial) planes have such systems and have for years!   

 

Airbuses, which were the first to introduce fly-by-wire and the "flight-envelope" which basically corrects the pilots inputs and does not allow them to do certain things (go outside the envelope).  These systems cannot be turned off or overridden, and they do generally make flight safer.  The problem here is that it did not work correctly and how it should work has not been communicated correctly to pilots.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

This is very simple: there is a huge mechanical design flaw that they tried to compensate by poorly designed electronic system, with a single point of failure.

People died, but instead of recognizing the mechanical design flaw, which would basically ground them all forever, they blame it on software and now propose a software fix, because people know that software can be easily fixed, compared with hardware.

If this drags on, it is the end of that model, as authorities and customers will understand it is a mechanical design issue that can´t be properly compensated by electronics and software.

Not sure if mechanical design flaw is correct. More like, they didn't want to design a new aircraft and so went for the cheaper and quicker option. The thinking was flawed, the mechanics were not as the aircraft could take-off, fly and land which shows the mechanics worked. It was the need for additional software to control the aircraft which was the problem. So, as I said flawed thinking due to being cost driven and wanting to catch up with Airbus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Yes it is correct, please read:

 

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/boeing-737-max-unsafe-to-fly-new-scathing-report-by-pilot-and-software-designer-ed5jwi2s8kCuGTAgFXR0GA/

 

They had bigger engines, so the weight and thrust was shifted, breaking basic airplane design rules!

Never been better explained, bit hard to say the software engineers were arrogant, after all, they would have been given a brief and would have designed a system to work within that brief. A software guy may have said they weren't happy but then someone would have overridden them. The blame lies fairly and squarely with Boeing management.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, French bean said:

Never been better explained, bit hard to say the software engineers were arrogant, after all, they would have been given a brief and would have designed a system to work within that brief. A software guy may have said they weren't happy but then someone would have overridden them. The blame lies fairly and squarely with Boeing management.

The SW guy can´t be blamed for a system where there were no backups for faulty sensors. He can´t be blamed for the design flaw.

Blaming it on Software was the way to save Boeing from a potential bankruptcy.  And FAA and airlines went along, because FAA could be blamed for a design flaw going unnoticed and the airlines could go bankrupt if suddenly part of their fleet would be on the way to the junkyard.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

The SW guy can´t be blamed for a system where there were no backups for faulty sensors. He can´t be blamed for the design flaw.

Blaming it on Software was the way to save Boeing from a potential bankruptcy.  And FAA and airlines went along, because FAA could be blamed for a design flaw going unnoticed and the airlines could go bankrupt if suddenly part of their fleet would be on the way to the junkyard.

 

yes, but as a software engineer myself, I would scream bloody murder if I were tasked with implementing such a critical system with a single point of failure, regardless of whether that single input were notoriously faulty or not (worse that yes, it is highly vulnerable!).  For that reason I would say there is SOME culpability on the SW side.  Definitely not full or final culpability.  As already pointed out it's also very true that software engineers' input/objections/advice are very often ignored and overridden so the net result would remain with this bad design and they would have found someone to implement the doomed to fail software "fix".  

 

With that in mind, of course I too have chosen to shut up and toe the management BS line in many instances, but the worst possible outcome was ending up with the bluescreen of death, not hundreds of people rocketing into the earth at top speed death. 

 

Yes the top level decisions were cash driven, but I find it hard to understand or even fully believe that people who are technically minded could overlook the gross inadequacies of what they were being told to do.  They were basically hacking an airplane.  Not cool.

 

Maybe some engineers did try to blow the whistle on this and were thwarted - we may never know.  

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the system didn't have a single point of failure. There were two sensors.

 

And then Boeing put one of those sensors behind a pay-wall.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lisa13 said:

Yes the top level decisions were cash driven, but I find it hard to understand or even fully believe that people who are technically minded could overlook the gross inadequacies of what they were being told to do.  They were basically hacking an airplane.  Not cool.

 

 

Depends on how it was managed, if all dep'ts were briefed and treated separately, not given the whole picture then there is a chance that they would not fully understand the implications of their actions. I've been told in the past " if you don't like it, the door's there" and "the dole queues are full of people with principles", bit hard to do the right thing if you have a mortgage, kids, debt... Whistleblowers are not known for being greeted with open arms either.

 

The blame has to rest solely with the senior management at Boeing but as we know shit only rolls down hill.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, French bean said:

"the dole queues are full of people with principles"

 

right - conscientious engineers (software or otherwise) are always ending up on the dole ;)  

 

I'm only being a little bit facetious.  I get your points but as I alluded to before, this kind of engineering/dev carries a completely different set of risks than the usual software.  An "oopsie" kills people.  possibly many people.  

 

kind of like having the same bar for conduct and skill for a pilot as you would expect from a taxi driver.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lisa13 said:

 

yes, but as a software engineer myself, I would scream bloody murder if I were tasked with implementing such a critical system with a single point of failure, regardless of whether that single input were notoriously faulty or not (worse that yes, it is highly vulnerable!).  For that reason I would say there is SOME culpability on the SW side.  Definitely not full or final culpability.  As already pointed out it's also very true that software engineers' input/objections/advice are very often ignored and overridden so the net result would remain with this bad design and they would have found someone to implement the doomed to fail software "fix".  

Most likely the SW guys had no insight into the overall system architecture.

This is to blame, on a technical level, on a System Engineer (which might not be a SW engineer), and on other levels on the whole fucking management board!

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now