Quantcast

Boeing - Design Issues...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

AdrianS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
547
Location
Australia
The 737 Max "presently enjoys" roughly a zero chance of killing passengers because it isn't in commercial service. When it returns it will be after a complete revision of the single system on the plane (MCAS) that everyone agrees is at the root of the problem, as well as training to address the clear deficiencies in the actions of some crews flying this type. This isn't an unfixable problem (wings falling off, etc), it is a relatively straightforward one.
Yes, the problem has highlighted problems at Boeing and at the FAA. Good!
It's not just MCAS, it's the reason MCAS is necessary. As I understand it, at a certain point the stick pressure required decreases as AOA increases. This is a no-no as far as passenger aircraft are concerned.
MCAS is a bandaid covering a design flaw.
 

Niels

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2019
Messages
56
VW made some software that could detect when vehicle was on a test plant measuring NOx.
Boing put in software to mask a fundamental flaw.
What is most deplorable?
What fines are reasonable?
 
Last edited:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,051
Location
Clatsop, Or
There are no large airliners flying by 'stick forces'
All use amplification circuits/devices/systems.
Flight controls need to go to lockstep computing,
With barrel processor. Not 'lock programming'
which is difficult to remove. There are five codes,
which is the correct concurrancy method.
One is the upgraded C another python variety.

MCAS is super skat that is good only on paper.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,055
Location
US
VW made some software that could detect when vehicle was on a test plant measuring NOx.
Boing put in software to mask a fundamental flaw.
What is most deplorable?
What fines are reasonable?
The VW instance was clearly a case of massive fraud--a deliberate intent to deceive for criminal purposes. That has been proven. How many people were harmed/killed by the excess pollution from the vehicles? The lack of dead bodies at a crash site, the fact that the victims died in many places and times, doesn't change the fact that many people have died and will die as a result of the fraud committed by VW. One study indicates the excess pollution from these vehicles will lead to premature death for 1200 people in Europe alone.
Boeing had many choices to make when designing this plane-- clean sheet design? Major structural revision to allow longer gear? Keep basic structure and use software to provide handling like the existing 900 series? No one should imagine that a clean-sheet redesign or a major structural change to the center wing box and landing gear would have been risk free. Everything about airplane design caries risk. In retrospect, everyone is an expert. And in retrospect it is clear that the basic choice was not the best and/or the implementation (AoA agreement alerts, persistency of the software "nose down" interventions, training and documentation, etc) was poor. Boeing clearly made improper assumptions about the way some crews would react to various indications. Poor choices and poor implementation are not necessarily "negligence," and "negligence" is a long way from "fraud."

Electronic "fixes" to adjust airliner handling are on virtually every large plane. For example, many aircraft cannot fly safely under cruise conditions without the stability augmenter ("stab aug"). Are these planes defective because they have a control system more complex than a C-150?
Was there fraud at Boeing? There are a lot of people who would like to prove that. All these experts claiming, in retrospect, that they knew things were amiss will get their chance to be heard in court. In the case of VW, we already know the answer, and have a good idea that the damage caused far exceeds anything that resulted from the 737 Max design/implementation issues.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,055
Location
US
We've made such progress in air safety. People can and should expect flying to be very safe. The 707 and now-retired airliners had lifetime hull loss rates of about 9 per million departures. These planes were considered fantastic and much safer than driving, which was true.
The 737 Max and the system it operates in (training, maintenance, etc) has gained a lot of attention due to two horrific crashes. Good, it is right to fully investigate, make fixes, hold people accountable. And take stock on how far we've come. After both crashes, the Max has a hull loss rate of about 10 per million departures, so within about 10% of the rate that the 707 and other aircraft maintained for decades.
A lot of great progress, and it is right to demand continued improvement.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,055
Location
US
Now it appears they can't assemble planes properly.

Structural Worries
787 rear fuselage assembly join is out of tolerance on 8 recently manufactured acft. The problem was found by Boeing, which notified the FAA. Boeing will fix the planes, they'll be down for an estimated 2 weeks.
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,778
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Slight OT, but I'll bring it back into relevance in a moment...

We now live in an era that has been dubbed "Cancel Culture", such that the penalty for making a mistake (sometimes even the first mistake) results in you being put out of business.

One well-known "domestic goddess" and comedic actress made a public comment that was admittedly insensitive, but well within her rights to free speech; 48 hours later, a billion dollar hit TV show, and the 200 or 400 jobs that go with it, were cancelled.

(Admittedly inappropriate) behavior that was a fundamental reality in that same industry for 100 years was made a "hanging offense" overnight, without any semblance of due process, proof, a trial, or a defense for the accused : "Oscar-winning film producer Burt Dirtbag has been let go from &#%# Studio amid accusations of inappropriate behavior..."

Last I heard, you need to convict someone before sentencing. (Or do we now have lyrics from Pink Floyd as our Constitution... "there's no need for the jury to retire!")

So within this new (and wrongful) paradigm, I'm guessing the airliner division of Boeing can withstand far far fewer mistakes before the world's airlines and insurance companies "cancel" it. Regardless of the differences in technology and hardware, the environment in which the 737 is operating is not the same as it was. That is a separate problem from engineering, although perhaps equally as risky.
 

AdrianS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
547
Location
Australia
At the risk of straying into areas forbidden on HBA - losing a lucrative TV show isn't remotely like being penalised for building faulty aircraft.

The fact that Boeing has humiliating QC issues after all the fuss about the MCAS fiasco shows that they have a very serious, company-wide problem.

This is going to hurt them, and it bloody well should.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,476
Location
Memphis, TN
Always people expect more. Cancel Cultural unchecked is bad. Boeing did exactly what the stock holders wanted. Building airplanes is a sideline. For a public company, making money is always number one. Distilled to basics. Companies have no conscience literally and figuratively. Borg drones to make money.

Today we have had it so good, any scratch or fever and we could call in sick. In the 70s, Boeing wished they had it so good. There was a reason Southwest originally took to 737s. They were considered junk and were practically free. When was the last stove pipe 737 last flown by them? They flew some junk and they got good at making it work.

It is a political problem and a money problem. The engineers are only told what to do. My dad worked at Lockheed in the 60s. A friend of his was the duty engineer one weekend. He was from a different section so he had never seen all the stuff. He found a flaw and stopped everything. He was 10 minutes from being fired but was found to be right. Today you are just fired. Today you are messing up profits. Back then you were potentially messing up an airplane. Different focus. Outside of Boeing has to be fixed first. Think of all the other brands that are scurrying around looking for the same flaws before they get caught. They saved those jobs.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,528
Location
Seattle, WA
787 rear fuselage assembly join is out of tolerance on 8 recently manufactured acft. The problem was found by Boeing, which notified the FAA. Boeing will fix the planes, they'll be down for an estimated 2 weeks.
The other factor to be mindful of is that Boeing is contemplating shutting down 787 construction in Washington state and making them all in North Carolina. The affected planes were all made in South Carolina.

[Edit: Changed "North" to "South".]

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,055
Location
US
The other factor to be mindful of is that Boeing is contemplating shutting down 787 construction in Washington state and making them all in North Carolina. The affected planes were all made in North Carolina.

Ron Wanttaja
Just to check, the Boeing factory is in North Charleston, South Carolina, right?

The Everett, WA factory is unionized, the South Carolina facility is largely non-union. There are some very strong vested interests that want that 787 work sent to Everett. And, I'm sure, some strong incentives to send the work to South Carolina. Lots of agendas and knife fighting. It is a PR, management, and morale nightmare.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,571
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Yup. Pretty soon, airlines around the world will cancel orders for Boeing aircraft and place orders for Australian airliners.


BJC
 

BrianW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2018
Messages
58
Location
Altus SW Oklahoma
Slight OT, but I'll bring it back into relevance in a moment...

/snip/
I'm guessing the airliner division of Boeing can withstand far far fewer mistakes before the world's airlines and insurance companies "cancel" it. Regardless of the differences in technology and hardware, the environment in which the 737 is operating is not the same as it was. That is a separate problem from engineering, although perhaps equally as risky.
Too big to fail; though like Airbus, the stock price halved this year.

Brian w
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,055
Location
US
Boeing has QC problem at least since the early 2000s....



..this stinks!! All about making money - forget QC!
Congratulations, you've re-posted the very screed that started this thread. Did you get a chance to read any of the posts here? Plenty of worthwhile comments already on this poorly researched Al Jazeera hit piece.
 
Last edited:
Top