TriX wrote:
No question Airbus and the potential move by American Airlines to Airbus caused Boeing to retrofit the existing 737 with larger, more fuel efficient engines, rather than design a new aircraft, a change that could cause the aircraft to pitch up in some situations, and which the now infamous MCAS system was designed to counteract. Unfortunately, since it was designed to work in the background, pilots of many airlines were not trained on it’s operation, and unlike other flight control systems which employed redundancy, the MCAS relied on a single sensor, resulting (as I understand it) in the two 737Max crashes and in the end, caused the grounding and non-delivery of new 737Max aircraft and a huge monetary and reputational loss to Boeing
So, in actuality, it was competitive pressure that caused Boeing to retrofit larger engines to an existing aircraft rather than design a new one and compensate for the altered flight characteristics in SW. It really is always about quarterly sales/profit numbers first and foremost, but the non redundant design of the MCAS system and the lack of pilot training were design and training failures.
No question Airbus and the potential move by Ameri... (
show quote)
The highly publicized crashes only happened with certain third-world airlines which had previously been criticized for using flight crews that US and European airlines would not allow to fly. But that got hushed up in the third-world country's investigation of its own airline. Everyone involved wanted to avoid legal and financial liability, so they stuck it to "deep pockets" Boeing.
In fact, the MCAS is only an adjunct to the autopilot. And the autopilot is not needed to safely fly the plane. It is merely a convenient feature, like the cruise control in a car. But a normal person who discovers the cruise control is not working would simply turn it off and not keep turning it back on until he finally crashes into a tree.
When any kind of failure occurs, all pilots are taught to solve the problem by isolating and turning off whichever system caused the problem. The ordinary "redundant design" for an autopilot failure (in all planes) is for the pilot to simply turn off the autopilot and fly the airplane manually, the way they were taught in flight school. In both the crashes, the foreign pilots successfully isolated the failure when they switched off the autopilot. Once they did that the planes flew normally. But they just wouldn't leave well enough alone. Instead of flying the plane manually (which all pilots are taught to do), once the problem went away, they stupidly turned the autopilot back on, thus reinitiating the failure. I understand they did it multiple times and each time were "surprised" that the autopilot didn't work correctly. (Remember what Einstein said was the definition of "insanity"?)
In the Boeing engineers' minds (and of the FAA Engineers who examined and approved the initial MCAS design), it was inconceivable that any intelligent person (much less a supposedly professionally trained pilot) would keep turning back on an autopilot system that wasn't working properly. So, now they have had to redesign the system to anticipate really dumb decisions by poorly trained and experienced pilots of some third-world airlines.
Would I fly on a 737 Max? Absolutely, if it were flown by a major airline. Would I fly any plane of a third-world airline? Nope!
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
SteveFranz wrote:
How about this alternative view of reality: Boeing took a tested, reliable, airframe and upgraded it with newer, more efficient engines. (rather than trying to design a new airframe for those engines.)
Completely agree, but that upgrade changed the flight characteristics in a way that required SW compensation in some circumstances, and the design of that compensation had a potential flaw that was not adequately communicated to the operators of the aircraft. Is that incorrect?
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
ecblackiii wrote:
The highly publicized crashes only happened with certain third-world airlines which had previously been criticized for using flight crews that US and European airlines would not allow to fly. But that got hushed up in the third-world country's investigation of its own airline. Everyone involved wanted to avoid legal and financial liability, so they stuck it to "deep pockets" Boeing.
In fact, the MCAS is only an adjunct to the autopilot. And the autopilot is not needed to safely fly the plane. It is merely a convenient feature, like the cruise control in a car. But a normal person who discovers the cruise control is not working would simply turn it off and not keep turning it back on until he finally crashes into a tree.
When any kind of failure occurs, all pilots are taught to solve the problem by isolating and turning off whichever system caused the problem. The ordinary "redundant design" for an autopilot failure (in all planes) is for the pilot to simply turn off the autopilot and fly the airplane manually, the way they were taught in flight school. In both the crashes, the foreign pilots successfully isolated the failure when they switched off the autopilot. Once they did that the planes flew normally. But they just wouldn't leave well enough alone. Instead of flying the plane manually (which all pilots are taught to do), once the problem went away, they stupidly turned the autopilot back on, thus reinitiating the failure. I understand they did it multiple times and each time were "surprised" that the autopilot didn't work correctly. (Remember what Einstein said was the definition of "insanity"?)
In the Boeing engineers' minds (and of the FAA Engineers who examined and approved the initial MCAS design), it was inconceivable that any intelligent person (much less a supposedly professionally trained pilot) would keep turning back on an autopilot system that wasn't working properly. So, now they have had to redesign the system to anticipate really dumb decisions by poorly trained and experienced pilots of some third-world airlines.
Would I fly on a 737 Max? Absolutely, if it were flown by a major airline. Would I fly any plane of a third-world airline? Nope!
The highly publicized crashes only happened with c... (
show quote)
BUT, every other part of the autopilot, flight director, auto throttle, flight controls and communication systems of the aircraft had mechanical/electrical redundancy (that does not involve manually flying the aircraft). If the MCAS system had multiple sensors as do all of the other systems I mentioned, it may be that the issue might not have occurred. I agree that if the auto throttle and autopilot had been disengaged, the aircraft might have been able to be recovered. But it does seem that the Boeing bears SOME responsibility for the design of the system and documentation.
The NTSB response to Ethiopia’s investigation attributed the cause to:
1) “the uncommanded nose down input from the MCAS due to erroneous AOA value” and
2) “the flight crew’s inadequate use of manual electric trim and management of thrust to maintain airplane control.”
I agree. if I were still flying regularly, I’d have no qualms about flying ANY Boeing aircraft, and I would avoid third world small airlines like the plague.
TriX wrote:
BUT, every other part of the autopilot, flight director, auto throttle, flight controls and communication systems of the aircraft had mechanical/electrical redundancy (that does not involve manually flying the aircraft). If the MCAS system had multiple sensors as do all of the other systems I mentioned, it may be that the issue might not have occurred. I agree that if the auto throttle and autopilot had been disengaged, the aircraft might have been able to be recovered. But it does seem that the Boeing bears SOME responsibility for the design of the system and documentation.
The NTSB response to Ethiopia’s investigation attributed the cause to:
1) “the uncommanded nose down input from the MCAS due to erroneous AOA value” and
2) “the flight crew’s inadequate use of manual electric trim and management of thrust to maintain airplane control.”
I agree. if I were still flying regularly, I’d have no qualms about flying ANY Boeing aircraft, and I would avoid third world small airlines like the plague.
BUT, every other part of the autopilot, flight dir... (
show quote)
That’s a common misconception. The “redundancy” for an autopilot is simply the basic piloting skill of flying the aircraft manually, as one must be able to do in order to obtain a license. In the case of the Flight Director, the redundancy is in the six specialized “basic flight instruments” that all instrument-rated aircraft must have. These are the airspeed indicator, altimeter, vertical speed indicator, attitude indicator, heading indicator, turn and bank indicator (turn coordinator). The first three are powered by air pressure while the others are powered by gyroscopes. A backup to the heading indicator is the magnetic compass. With just those instruments, the plane can be safely flown to its destination.
There are really no backups to the pilot’s flight control column, rudder pedals, or engine throttles per se, but it’s hard to conceive of a pilot breaking them off. If the rudder fails, the pilot can normally control the aircraft direction with ailerons and differential engine power. In the case of hydraulic-driven systems, each engine has a hydraulic pump. Likewise, in the case of electricity there are usually multiple redundancies. Boeing planes have quintuplicate electrical redundancy—at least two generators (one on each engine), an auxiliary power unit (generator) in the tail section (normally only used on the ground), the large battery pack itself, and, if all else fails, a “pop-out” wind-driven emergency generator that normally hides within the fuselage.
There are usually multiple radios operating on different frequencies, but they normally are used for different purposes and are not really redundancies, per se. Should all radios fail, pilots are trained to use “dead reckoning” in flying the currently approved flight plan and making an approach to landing at the time specified in that flight plan.
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
ecblackiii wrote:
That’s a common misconception. The “redundancy” for an autopilot is simply the basic piloting skill of flying the aircraft manually, as one must be able to do in order to obtain a license...
Does the 737 not have 2 separate autopilot computers, each with an engage switch?
Ever get the feeling that the goal of the media is to put Boing and a lot of others out of business so you know who can take over.
As I said earlier, my grandson is a UK pilot and the pre crash information about how to fly the plane he was given was contained in one A4 sheet of paper which stipulated NO simulator training was needed. Post crash when the planes were allowed to fly again, Boeing advocated two days of simulator training.
You need to watch the film Downfall, which explains Boeing’s awful inadequacy in this situation.
Blaming the problem on foreign pilots is both ignorant and disgraceful.
TriX wrote:
Does the 737 not have 2 separate autopilot computers, each with an engage switch?
The same sensor input goes into each of them. So, if the input sensor for pitch is bad, both autopilots are immediately affected with the same failure. So, both should be shut off and the pilot should fly the plane manually, as taught to do in flight training.
Canonuser wrote:
As I said earlier, my grandson is a UK pilot and the pre crash information about how to fly the plane he was given was contained in one A4 sheet of paper which stipulated NO simulator training was needed. Post crash when the planes were allowed to fly again, Boeing advocated two days of simulator training.
You need to watch the film Downfall, which explains Boeing’s awful inadequacy in this situation.
Blaming the problem on foreign pilots is both ignorant and disgraceful.
Facts are Facts!
• There are 1,126 commercial airlines in the world today.
• In the last 25 years, there have been 23 fatal crashes of 737s in the world.
• Not one of them was a passenger aircraft operated by a U.S., European, or Japanese airline!
Please learn the truth before casting stones.
Lively discussion! I guess I’m a good example of how to apply it to camera.
I normally shoot jpeg (although not normally the automatic setting). So I’m basically turning the driving over to the camera. There are times when it isn’t able to give me what I want, so I turn the knob to manual to make it do what I want it to do. I don’t want to have to make manual adjustments for every shot like in the so called good old days, but knowing what to do in those instances sure helps.
Adjusting a camera isn’t a life or death situation like it is for airline passengers, but if the automatic controls aren’t doing what they need to do, then you turn them off and do it by hand. You don’t repeatedly stick your finger into a fan and get the end chopped off, even if the guard does have holes big enough to do so. Sound like some pilots need to relearn the “once burned, twice shy” lesson.
Latsok
Loc: Recently moved to Washington State.
jerryc41 wrote:
Sure, Boeing has messed up, but every time a Boeing plane has a problem, it's not the fault of the company. A Boeing jet recently lost a wheel just after take-off, and another one ran off the runway after landing. Headlines are emphasizing the fact that there was another Boeing problem. I can understand this because of the problems caused by company decisions, but not every problem is caused by the company.
On the other hand, Boeing has still not turned over any information about the plug door to the NTSB - after two months. Either they don't have the paperwork that they're supposed to have, or the paperwork is not what it should be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COAUDEnlD5oSure, Boeing has messed up, but every time a Boein... (
show quote)
The wheel falling off, and the plane veering off the runway are not Boeing problems; rather these are symptoms of dangerously sloppy and unprofessional maintenance procedures at United Airlines. There were other United airlines problems in the near recent times.
Apparently it did not work that way, which of course resulted in the problem. It was not possible to switch MCAS off. Clearly if returning controls to manual, which these pilots tried to do worked, the planes would not have crashed.
The film Downfall, makes this very clear.
MCAS is not a piece of hardware. It is a subset of computer code within the autopilot's overall software code. Turning off the autopilot turns off all its code, including the part called MCAS.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.