Back to Squawk list
  • 14

Software Won’t Fix Boeing’s ‘Faulty’ Airframe

In essence, these critics say, Boeing’s response to the challenge posed by Airbus was bumping passenger safety to a middle seat in economy class while financial considerations were upgraded to First Class. Boeing denies this ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

So how would you like Boeing to fix the issue? By retiring 737 MAX altogether and or declare 737MAX a new type and ask airlines speed weeks if not month to retrain the pilots? Not happening.

This article have 0 common sense when talking (s**t) about 737’s engine placement. ALL aircraft pitch up when accelerating, this is due to wing aerodynamic tendency to pitch up when the wings generate lift (the airfoils commonly used on wings will generate a positive pitch moment, aka pitch up. You will need special airfoil to prevent it happening to flying wings like B-2 bomber) the tail plane is there to generate a normally negative force to balance it out, even in level flight. In addition, on aircraft with engines mounted on wing pylons, the engine will pull forward and try to rotate upward, just like if you have a pen laying on the table and push the tail perpendicularly to the pen, the pen will rotate upward...

The second effect is actually why most airplanes have their engines under and forward of the wing, because this way when the engines are running like in cruise conditions, there would be less stress and twisting in the wings, lightening wing structures.

As for 737 MAX, to make room for the larger LEAP engine, the engine mounting puts the engine higher further FORWARD makes it have LESS tendency to pitch with same thrust settings...Yes there will be some changes to the handling characteristics, but the general layout, dimensions, control characteristics are similar to NG, heck even 757 and 767 are sharing the same type rating and one of them is a wide body and the other is a narrow body... you don’t need to get a new license when you buy a new car do you? (Think type rating like this, you don’t need a new license when switching form a Civic to a Grand Cherokee, but you will need a new license to drive a Semi-truck if you never done so)

The problem why these 2 planes crashed are simple, poor machine-human integration and poor training. The former is Boeing’s fault for not indicating MCAS was activated (unlike stick shaker and stick pusher which have very physical indication when the yoke is shaking/moving). The latter is airlines’s (as well as Boeing’s) fault, pilots should actively disconnect all automated control/stability systems and revert to flying the aircraft themselves (If they done that they would disabled the auto trim, which will disables MCAS), and Boeing should have emphasized the MCAS addition to MAX when doing the “upgrade” training, especially when it is part of flight control system. (I think Boeing left out troubleshooting MCAS in flight manual because they expect the pilots will disable auto-trim when the plane’s nose started to dip unexpectedly.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Why would they when they are already losing sales from Airbus?
And where do you base your claim? I would believe it when brand new 777s falling out of sky due to Boeing cheap out on material and installing old parts on new planes and selling those as new.

Boeing however made a mistake on thinking pilots would fall back to non-computer assisted flying, which in both crash case the crew didn’t or mistakenly thought disabling autopilot will disable auto-trim. And turns out later both 737 doesn’t have AOA indicator or instrument disagree indicator which may warned the pilots to give them situation awareness, both were options that those AIRLINES CHEAPED out on.

Boeing have faults, they tried to rush 737 into the market and in service, not because of money but because they are fighting to stay relevant to Airbus. FAA on the other had is doing the same, because Boeing jet is one of America’s biggest export, especially to countries like China they can’t sell missiles to. I am not saying that is the right thing to do, but they don’t exactly have a choice when someone else is taking away their bread and butter.

Last but not lest, in the end it was a software issue (unlike claimed by this “news article”), heck Airbus had a more prominent software error when their A320 “Landed” in the woods during an air show...
To Boeing’s defense, an aircraft’s computer system is always patched and way more complicated than your phone or your Audi Q7, when was the last time you heard Windows or your IPhone is new perfect and no longer need any updates? It will never happen until they decided no longer support your device.
MSM is blaming MCAS when in reality the question that should be asked is "Why are AOA probes failing on basically new airframes?". This and why did the pilots not pull the trim circuit breaker when the indications are awfully similar to a run away trim motor.

A faulty pitot probe was the mechanical factor in the crash of Air France flight 447. Resulting in a fleet wide replacement of the part

Interestingly enough one of the post investigation sugestions of AF447 was to add AOA indicators to the instrument panel but ultimately this was not mandated.
I agree with your opinion as it reflects what I was concluding also.

I agree as well... I think they need some hardware design changes.. 1 in particular, A guarded push off switch for starter on the Glare Shield in easy reach of both crew members!
Dont forget the only thing "new" on the 737 Max is the engines and software, some cockpit instruments (part of the issue I guess), everything else is the same old plane. They did not do a build from scratch because Southwest did not want to wait another 5 yrs for them to do it and needed to order hundreds of them...So, some spit and tape and new engines and you "almost" have a new airplane...
If you had been following the 737 MAX development, you would know it is hardly old except for the engines. Hesitating to rely on memory, it was June, 2015 when assembly started on the new wing design, designed for the increased engine weight and also to incorporate the blended winglet. New design upper and lower skins, stringer and spars - isn't that really a new wing? Tail may look the same but Boeing states redesigned tail and tail cone. History also shows the fuselage has changed considerably from the -200, partly due to lessons learned from the Aloha incident. As a person reads the details there seems to be very little carry over except for the basic design parameters. Marketing hypes the stubby landing gear limited engineering to install an engine with a fan that has less wind resistance than the larger fan A320 so one needs to separate the marketing hype from oh darn, we're screwed on that. From project initiation in 2011 to first flight at the end of 2015 doesn't sound rush rush when one compares to neo project starting 8 months earlier and neo first flight 15 months earlier. In other words the neo, by the numbers, was the more rushed program especially considering the neo needed to work in 2 different engines, one of those being much heavier requiring significantly more wing structure.
chalet 1
I have been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to find out if pilots flying the Max 8 in the United States, Continental, Delta, American, Southwest, etc. have experienced the same damn crazy MCAS induced pitch down as Lion Air and Ethiopian and if so what actions they took to save crew, passengers and plane, and what prompted them to take those actions.
bbabis -1
The airframe is not faulty. Boeing made the mistake of trying to make one airplane "FEEL" like it flew like another instead of simply saying this one has different characteristics and pilots need to be aware of this. A C182 has a heavier more powerful engine up front than a C172. Part of transitioning from a C172 to a C182 has always been making pilots aware that if you trim off control pressure during low power such as approach and landing, be very careful applying power and be ready on the trim. The plane can pitch up severely. No MCAS needed on C182s to make them fly like 172s, just pilot training!


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..