Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28
4079 posts

Uber Geek


  #2228784 1-May-2019 15:08
Send private message

If Boeing installed three AoA sensors, then the plane would have needed to be re-certified.

So the executives took the quick and easy solution, instead of taking the long view to improved safety.

625 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2228856 1-May-2019 16:36
One person supports this post
Send private message

kingdragonfly: If Boeing installed three AoA sensors, then the plane would have needed to be re-certified.

So the executives took the quick and easy solution, instead of taking the long view to improved safety.

 

And neither the B737NG nor the B737MAX are certifiable against current certification requirements: Boeing relies on "grandfathering" rights that go back to the original B737-100 certification (on 21st December 1967).

 

A major change such as a re-architecture of the flight control systems might induce at least some certification authorities to actively reconsider whether the grandfathering criteria still apply.
And that would be catastrophic for Boeing


 
 
 
 


56 posts

Master Geek


  #2229311 2-May-2019 11:29
Send private message

Technofreak:

 

...

 

Boeing should have been more upfront about the inclusion of the MCAS, there's no doubt about that. However in my opinion if the crew had used standard procedures for AoA miscompare alerts and electric trim problems they should have been able to handle the MCAS failures.

 

 

 

 

I thought the AoA miscompare alert was an extra-cost option that wasn't present on the aircraft in question?


3630 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #2229340 2-May-2019 12:01
Send private message

DonH:

 

Technofreak:

 

...

 

Boeing should have been more upfront about the inclusion of the MCAS, there's no doubt about that. However in my opinion if the crew had used standard procedures for AoA miscompare alerts and electric trim problems they should have been able to handle the MCAS failures.

 

 

 

 

I thought the AoA miscompare alert was an extra-cost option that wasn't present on the aircraft in question?

 

 

You may be right. I was a bit generic with my use of the term AoA miscompare alerts. I was considering an inadvertent operation of the sticker shaker when the indicated airspeed was above stalling speed as one form of miscompare alert, (something which I understand can/will happen with a faulty AoA output). It did happen in both crash flights.

 

On at least one of the flights in question there was mention on the CVR of unreliable airspeed readings which I understand was a reference to the stick shaker operating while the indicated airspeed was well above the stalling speed. I understand the correct procedure in this scenario is to set a certain power setting and nose attitude, the combination of which will always give a safe airspeed, (not too slow and not too fast) this was never done.





Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


625 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2229345 2-May-2019 12:17
Send private message

DonH:

 

I thought the AoA miscompare alert was an extra-cost option that wasn't present on the aircraft in question?

 

 

It wasn't supposed to be, but it actually was, because according to Boeing it "was tied or linked into the angle of attack indicator, which is an optional feature on the MAX".
South West Airlines, the largest MAX operator, said "the airplane maker’s documentation incorrectly claimed that its aircraft had operable angle-of-attack disagree warning lights. But Boeing informed Southwest that the AoA function was actually inoperative only after the Lion Air crash in Indonesia last October."

 

 

 

From http://flash.avweb.com/eletter/4324-full.html?ET=avweb:e4324:2450082a:&st=email#232723: Boeing said "the disagree alert was not operable on all airplanes because the feature was not activated as intended.The disagree alert was tied or linked into the angle of attack indicator, which is an optional feature on the MAX. Unless an airline opted for the angle of attack indicator, the disagree alert was not operable."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: include attribution


8302 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #2229553 2-May-2019 16:41
2 people support this post
Send private message

Interesting YT video as to why Boeing built the 737 Max rather than a completely new plane.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I





Regards,

Old3eyes


3093 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #2229668 2-May-2019 19:00
Send private message

old3eyes:

Interesting YT video as to why Boeing built the 737 Max rather than a completely new plane.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I

 

 

So Boeing released a new (old) plane that is more likely to stall mid air than the variant it replaced?! No worries, they threw in some software to correct this increased risk of stall. Problem is, the software didn't quite work as intended and contributed to, not one, but two, fatal air crashes. But, hey, not to worry, there's revised software on the horizon to correct the higher stall risk again; second time lucky.

 

 

Pass. I'm not boarding a 737 Max if I can avoid it.

 
 
 
 


20017 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2229669 2-May-2019 19:04
Send private message

dafman:
old3eyes:

 

Interesting YT video as to why Boeing built the 737 Max rather than a completely new plane.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I

 

So Boeing released a new (old) plane that is more likely to stall mid air than the variant it replaced?! No worries, they threw in some software to correct this increased risk of stall. Problem is, the software didn't quite work as intended and contributed to, not one, but two, fatal air crashes. But, hey, not to worry, there's revised software on the horizon to correct the higher stall risk again; second time lucky. Pass. I'm not boarding a 737 Max if I can avoid it.

 

I fully agree. Its badly designed, so they use software to stabilise it???? They could use ballast but that would cost fuel money, so better to take the safety risk instead. Poor.


28832 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  #2229728 2-May-2019 20:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

dafman:
old3eyes:

 

Interesting YT video as to why Boeing built the 737 Max rather than a completely new plane.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I

 

So Boeing released a new (old) plane that is more likely to stall mid air than the variant it replaced?! No worries, they threw in some software to correct this increased risk of stall. Problem is, the software didn't quite work as intended and contributed to, not one, but two, fatal air crashes. But, hey, not to worry, there's revised software on the horizon to correct the higher stall risk again; second time lucky. Pass. I'm not boarding a 737 Max if I can avoid it.

 

I fully agree. Its badly designed, so they use software to stabilise it???? They could use ballast but that would cost fuel money, so better to take the safety risk instead. Poor.

 

 

I'm not sure how you think you could use ballast to stabilise a plane - it's not a ship!

 

The plane itself is not unstable. It did however have a tendency to pitch up with an elevated angle of attack which MCAS was their to smooth out.

 

 

 

 

 

 


4079 posts

Uber Geek


  #2229880 3-May-2019 07:19
Send private message

Actually planes do use ballast, both permanent and temporary.

https://www.aol.com/2010/08/20/five-things-airlines-dont-want-you-to-know/


Fewer checked bags means more sandbags in the cargo hold

Next time the pilot makes an announcement that you're being delayed at the gate while a few extra bags are loaded below, consider what might be being hoisted into the cargo holds instead. Adding sandbags to correct weight and balance in an airplane by providing ballast and redistributing weight has long been a common practice in the airline industry. But ever since the new checked bag fees were introduced on many airlines, with fewer passengers checking bags as a result, there's been an upturn in the need to add ballast before takeoff, particularly on smaller commuter flights that are more sensitive to weight issues.

"The weight balance of the aircraft is set up to where they're usually expecting a certain amount of bags to balance out the plane," explains the captain for a major U.S. airline. "So if we have 50 passengers on board, we expect 50 bags and that offsets the weight of the passengers and balances out the aircraft to give it the right center of gravity for take off.

"But what happens now, with charging so much for bags, is that people carry on so there's a weight balance problem. Because of that we end up carrying sometimes 500 or 600 pounds of sand bags to even us out."



http://www.flight-mechanic.com/the-use-of-ballast/

28832 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  #2229881 3-May-2019 07:25
One person supports this post
Send private message

kingdragonfly: Actually planes do use ballast, both permanent and temporary.

https://www.aol.com/2010/08/20/five-things-airlines-dont-want-you-to-know/

 

I'm fully aware of loadings on a plane and pax / weight distribution- it's an every day reality of many flights I fly on (ATR and Q300 often need passengers to move for weight & balance if there are light loading and not many bags). 

 

My point was that that adding "ballast" would not fix the MAX issue as it's not the cause of the problem. 


28832 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  #2229882 3-May-2019 07:27
Send private message

dafman:

 

sbiddle:

 

dafman:

 

sbiddle:

 

To me that's a lot scarier than a 737 MAX doing exactly what it should be doing, and pilots failing to fly it correctly.

 

 

I said earlier I was bowing out of this discussion, but you remind of Trump trumpeting "no collusion, no obstruction", whereas the facts plainly state the opposite.

 

The official review concluded that the pilots of the Ethiopian flight correctly followed Boeing emergency procedures.

 

I'll trust the official findings over a member of the public independently dreaming up their own theories as to the crash cause.

 

 

The official report is not out, merely a summary of it. That summary very clearly shows the pilots failed at the aviate part of "aviate, navigate, communicate".

 

They flew a plane significantly overspeed and made no attempts to resolve that issue. That is not a case of following emergency procedures to the tee, and is certainly not a case of following Boeing MCAS procedures by reenabling MCAS after failing to regain control.

 

 

Ok, I'll bow out now until the formal report is published. Nothing I have read from numerous credible news agencies aligns with what you and Technofreak assert. The media is clear that initial findings are that the pilots correctly followed Boeing's procedures; the clear implication for fault sitting firmly with Boeing.

 

 

Even the Boeing CEO is now saying the pilots "did not completely follow safety procedures".

 

 


4240 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2229885 3-May-2019 07:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

Except the fact that MCAS is to remedy a dynamic problem caused by differently positioned engines compared to previous versions. Ballast will only fix a static load problem to adjust the balance of the aircraft. Normally only used in smaller commuter aircraft as a last resort.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

3630 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #2230674 4-May-2019 10:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

old3eyes:

Interesting YT video as to why Boeing built the 737 Max rather than a completely new plane.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNEOfEGe3I



That video is interesting and covers some points quite well, but in other areas it's coverage is very superficial.

That video claims the accidents were entirely due to a fault in the MCAS system. The crashes were due to a myriad of factors including mishandling of the situations caused by faulty AoA sensors. Sure the MCAS added complexity to the situations but it wasn't the root cause.

Some people seem fixated on not travelling on the 737 Max, when in fact there are other more important factors when choosing what aircraft to fly on.





Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


4079 posts

Uber Geek


  #2232609 8-May-2019 07:40
Send private message

Rogue Boeing 737 Max planes ‘with minds of their own’
60 Minutes Australia

"Liz Hayes investigates the disaster of Boeing’s 737 MAX jetliner. Why two supposedly state-of-the-art and safe planes crashed killing 346 people; why pilots now fear flying the 737 MAX; & whether Boeing could have averted the catastrophes."



1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Vodafone and Imperial College London invite smartphone users to help fight diseases
Posted 9-Apr-2020 11:09


Unisys Always-On Access Powered by Stealth provides fast, encrypted remote access for workers
Posted 9-Apr-2020 10:00


Intel introduces 10th Gen Intel Core H-series for mobile devices
Posted 2-Apr-2020 21:09


COVID-19: new charitable initiative to fund remote monitoring for at-risk patients
Posted 2-Apr-2020 11:07


Huawei introduces the P40 Series of Android-based smartphones
Posted 31-Mar-2020 17:03


Samsung Galaxy Z Flip now available for pre-order in New Zealand
Posted 31-Mar-2020 16:39


New online learning platform for kids stuck at home during COVID-19 lockdown
Posted 26-Mar-2020 21:35


New 5G Nokia smartphone unveiled as portfolio expands
Posted 26-Mar-2020 17:11


D-Link ANZ launches wireless AC1200 4G LTE router
Posted 26-Mar-2020 16:32


Ring introduces two new video doorbells and new pre-roll technology
Posted 17-Mar-2020 16:59


OPPO uncovers flagship Find X2 Pro smartphone
Posted 17-Mar-2020 16:54


D-Link COVR-2202 mesh Wi-Fi system now protected by McAfee
Posted 17-Mar-2020 16:00


Spark Sport opens its platform up to all New Zealanders at no charge
Posted 17-Mar-2020 10:04


Spark launches 5G Starter Fund
Posted 8-Mar-2020 19:19


TRENDnet launches high-performance WiFi Mesh Router System
Posted 5-Mar-2020 08:48



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.