Boeing 737 Max 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Boeing 737 Max 8

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
A buddy's flying back from Florida a day late due to the grounding of his Max 8 flight. It seems that thanks to to YouTube everyone on the planet knows how to fly a Max 8 except the airline pilots.

It sounds like a software issue mixed with insufficient training possibly affected by assumptions that the Max 8 was just a re-engined 737.

However if they can screw up a commercial airliner could the same assumptive logic happen with autonomous cars?

I read somewhere that Honda's early attempt to put an automatic transmission in a motorcycle had some glitches. Unexpected downshifting in a turn could get exciting.

There's a thread going about people not knowing how to turn on headlights or dim them.

The lawyers and accountants will be busy for a while figuring out who pays what.
 

JavaFan

gringo diablo
Site Supporter
I flew south on a MAX a week ago, came back on a 737-800
no delays, thankfully

from what I've been reading the larger engine placement is the the issue
mounted higher up into the wing, and forward
during climb-out this can cause a nose-up and stall

Boeing discovered the problem during testing and came up with a fix
software that detects pending stall and pushes the nose down
the input to this system apparently comes from ONE sensor

all of them should have been grounded after the Indonesia crash
Boeing left them flying while working on a software fix
and of course another one has gone down

sounds like the FAA was complicit in this outrageous decision
this is going to cost Boeing a lot of money

edit: pretty go write up here, from November

 
Last edited:

jc100

Well-known member
Aircraft design seems like a fun job. I remember reading about the US's first stealth fighter and how it was purposely designed to be unstable in flight for maximum agility. It needed all the electronic controls in order to fly in a stable fashion.
 

PrivatePilot

Ironus Butticus
Site Supporter
from what I've been reading the larger engine placement is the the issue
mounted higher up into the wing, and forward
during climb-out this can cause a nose-up and stall

Boeing discovered the problem during testing and came up with a fix
software that detects pending stall and pushes the nose down
the input to this system apparently comes from ONE sensor
I concur. Be it a malfunction with that sensor or be it an issue with the MCAS system along with inadequate pilot training (or a combination of both), I think there culprit is going to come back to the MCAS system that was necessary because of the changes.

I suspect in the end it'll be a software change that fixes the issue (coupled with almost certainly some seriously revised pilot training), but I'm also fairly certain the culprit is going to end up being the MCAS system in the end. The two crashes along with other reports from pilots on the Max who have also experienced issues (albeit not ending in crash) are all too similar to be dismissed.
 

PrivatePilot

Ironus Butticus
Site Supporter
I remember reading about the US's first stealth fighter and how it was purposely designed to be unstable in flight for maximum agility. It needed all the electronic controls in order to fly in a stable fashion.
It's not necessarily that they are "intentionally" designed to be unstable, it's that in a military environment the operational requirements often call for a design that simply can't be produced in an inherently stable way. The new F22 Raptor is another great example of an aircraft that can do simply amazing (virtually unbelievable) things due to it's electronics systems, but without such has been declared "virtually un-flyable".

The Concorde is a great example of an aircraft that was inherently unstable for a variety of reasons - albeit crude by todays standards, there were many electronic and electromechanical systems that augmented the pilots controls and managed many flight surfaces and flight controls automatically in order to remove these instabilities. It served perfectly with a stellar safety record up until the big accident...which was a result of debris on the runway, not a stability or flyability issue.

In the end, this is not uncommonly part of normal aircraft design and not really something to fear anymore however.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
Flew on at least 4 of these things during my trip to Africa over the holidays. Yikes.
 

JavaFan

gringo diablo
Site Supporter
several reports from US pilots of problems with the MCAS
one report explains how this could be a big problem for untrained pilots

MCAS initiated a nose down, stick vibrates when system engages as a notification to pilot
nose is going down, co-pilot calls out: DESCENDING
plane's warning system blares out: DON'T SINK DON'T SINK

so you have one system warning of a problem created by another system

you could have a pilot with low hours on the plane
and his only training is on the previous gen that does not have MCAS
system activates, maybe as a malfunction, maybe not
controls are shaking, nose is going down, and the plane blares at him, DON'T SINK DON'T SINK
although they all speak English, it is not their first language

asking for a disaster
 

pfbmgd

Well-known member
Listening to some aircraft expert on AM640 today . It sounds like the training is going to be the big issue with these planes . It sounds like the training was very lacking with this model of plane . Many pilots got their upgrades on some sort of tabled based training program .
 

Blackfin

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Amazing to me that this company, with a truly stellar history of innovation and doing amazing things, appears to have ****** this up so badly. I say appears because nothing has been "proven in courts" of course, but suppose the re-engine did result in a torque moment during climb-out that can result in a stall-threatening nose-up attitude that is supposed to be "saved" by automatic stabilizer trim adjustments by the newly-developed MCAS system... Okay, fair enough, I'm okay that such a system exists in the same way I'm okay with autothrottles and ILS systems capable of landing an aircraft in zero-vis.

Boeing has re-engined the basic 737 airframe a few times; anyone else remember the itty-bitty low-bypass JT8D turbofans on the -200? The CFM56 must have been a huge difference compared to its predecessor...

I don't understand how they got this one wrong. It seems like a relatively simple thing and Boeing probably had a hand in literally writing the book on risk management, hazards analysis, system design etc etc,. I wonder what engineering-safety case study will come out of this.

As as aside, is it possible that the accidents that have happened have been in places where pilots are more likely to depend on automation than on stick and rudder flying chops?
 

Wingboy

Well-known member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Waiting for a "pilot" to chime in on this thread.Too easy to armchair this topic.
 

PrivatePilot

Ironus Butticus
Site Supporter
I wonder what engineering-safety case study will come out of this.
It'll probably make Boeing think long and hard about just continuing to upgrade what is effectively a nearly 40 year old design, being forced to effectively bandaid things in order to accomplish such.

Waiting for a "pilot" to chime in on this thread.Too easy to armchair this topic.
/Checks own username.
//Yep, still a pilot.
 

JavaFan

gringo diablo
Site Supporter
reads to me like marketing overruled engineering
but we know who's gonna take the blame
 

Blackfin

Well-known member
Site Supporter
reads to me like marketing overruled engineering
but we know who's gonna take the blame
Or engineering was cool with the benefits of putting new engines but weren't given enough time or resources to fully vet it before releasing it by management. I'm sure there's a (shuttle) Challenger-like chain of memos and emails from within Boeing engineering pleading for more time or questioning the decision to release the system and replies from management saying "Just do it."

The FAA is probably in deep **** for this too since they're supposed to be the ones ultimately overseeing aviation safety and issuing certs.
 

Mad Mike

Well-known member
I'm guessing there are a lot more of these flying with big airlines. Funny how 2 third world airlines with a couple of planes are the ones who crashed? Nobody can rule out systems failures however odds of this happening to a first world pilot are considerably higher based on where these plans are flying. What does that tell you?

I have over 6 million air miles, the scariest moments are with tiny airlines.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Things dont look good for boeing or faa here. Blancolirio on youtube is a commercial pilot (777) that gives interesting commentary from a well-trained and smart person with no inside knowledge.
Pics of ethiopian black box have been published. Damn is it ever crushed. I suspect we will shortly see real-time data transmission become much more common/mandated. At the very least, the data dump could be triggered when a mayday is called (voice recognition on cvr?). This is much cheaper and avoids potential security issues with all planes continuously broadcasting all data.
 

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
It'll probably make Boeing think long and hard about just continuing to upgrade what is effectively a nearly 40 year old design, being forced to effectively bandaid things in order to accomplish such.



/Checks own username.
//Yep, still a pilot.
I got the impression it was a total redesign but they used the 737 number because of the past good reputation. However they apparently don't have simulators. Not having to put pilots through extensive retraining may have appealed to some airlines. Chevy made front and rear wheel drive Malibus. Same name different handling.
 

nhoj

Well-known member
Site Supporter
...just continuing to upgrade what is effectively a nearly 40 year old design..
I got the impression it was a total redesign but they used the 737 number because of the past good reputation.
Its more than 50 years since the original 737 first flew. I had my first flight on a 737 in 1969 going from Cranbrook, BC to Calgary. They had a real scary cowling that came out of the back of the engines to provide reverse thrust on landing.
 

Trials

Well-known member
Waiting for a "pilot" to chime in on this thread.Too easy to armchair this topic.
I know one who is going through 737 training right now, probably would not be allowed to comment because he like his job.
Boing will fix it.
 

Top Bottom