Jump to content

New software update for 737 MAX

LukeSavenije

Figured I'd bump this one.

 

The MAX is still grounded ... and it looks like there's more trouble for the 737 in general. 

More than three hundred 737s could have a manufacturing defect in the slats on the front of the wings, causing them to fail prematurely. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/02/boeing-notifies-faa-of-737-max-parts-that-may-be-susceptible-to-failure.html

 

If you're flying anywhere this summer and the airline has 737s, you may want to consider a parachute as carry-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2019 at 2:50 AM, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's absolutely baffling to me how this was a problem in the first place.  It doesn't seem like this was a highly complex or nuanced issue with a difficult solution.  From what I can tell, some common sense in the design, and/or some actual testing, would have avoided the crashes.  How about a redundant sensor, and/or being able to detect when there's an issue?  More importantly though, and really this is all you would need I think, how about just having the system auto disable itself when "extreme" inputs are made (pulling up or down by more than 80%, lets say).  Am I crazy or is it just common sense to not have a software system put in place that would override and lessen the magnitude of a significant control input?  I've had a very good opinion of Boeing for a long time but this has really shattered that.  Given the circumstances around this whole thing I have no confidence that this issue is fixed, or that there aren't others waiting in the wings (no pun intended).

I am very concerned that they weren't grounded after the first crash. If a plane crashed due to a simple malfunction in a system on the plane then it needs to be addressed before they are sent out again. It's horrible that more than one plane had to crash before the issue was properly addressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

I am very concerned that they weren't grounded after the first crash. If a plane crashed due to a simple malfunction in a system on the plane then it needs to be addressed before they are sent out again. It's horrible that more than one plane had to crash before the issue was properly addressed. 

Although plane crashes are rare, they are still common enough that it's not reasonable to ground every model of a plane when one crashes on the off-chance that there's a fundamental flaw.  More often than not, the cause is problems with maintenance, weather, pilot error, etc. - a random event that wouldn't make it more likely for others of that type to fail.

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt trust this shit for a while. GLHF CEO guy or whoever is going on the first flight.

MOAR COARS: 5GHz "Confirmed" Black Edition™ The Build
AMD 5950X 4.7/4.6GHz All Core Dynamic OC + 1900MHz FCLK | 5GHz+ PBO | ASUS X570 Dark Hero | 32 GB 3800MHz 14-15-15-30-48-1T GDM 8GBx4 |  PowerColor AMD Radeon 6900 XT Liquid Devil @ 2700MHz Core + 2130MHz Mem | 2x 480mm Rad | 8x Blacknoise Noiseblocker NB-eLoop B12-PS Black Edition 120mm PWM | Thermaltake Core P5 TG Ti + Additional 3D Printed Rad Mount

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Although plane crashes are rare, they are still common enough that it's not reasonable to ground every model of a plane when one crashes on the off-chance that there's a fundamental flaw.  More often than not, the cause is problems with maintenance, weather, pilot error, etc. - a random event that wouldn't make it more likely for others of that type to fail.

If I remember correctly they had identified the issue with the first crash. It was a sensor issue combined with the automated system that caused the issue. Normally planes don't crash from one single issue because redundancy. The fact that this issue was caused by a single failure like that is pretty significant. When an issue like that was identified they should have grounded them to fix the issue. The likelyhood of a sensor malfunctioning isn't low enough to think it wouldn't happen again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

If I remember correctly they had identified the issue with the first crash. It was a sensor issue combined with the automated system that caused the issue. Normally planes don't crash from one single issue because redundancy. The fact that this issue was caused by a single failure like that is pretty significant. When an issue like that was identified they should have grounded them to fix the issue. The likelyhood of a sensor malfunctioning isn't low enough to think it wouldn't happen again. 

I am currently sat in a room full of ex commercial pilots and aircraft engineers. They see things very differently to many of the people on here. Most think this is more of a lack of training coupled with cost cutting. A sensor failing should not cause an aircraft to crash, unless the correct training is lacking. The chaps here feel many pilots need to go back to basics and re-learn seat of the pants flying regularly rather than add more technical gadgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I am currently sat in a room full of ex commercial pilots and aircraft engineers. They see things very differently to many of the people on here. Most think this is more of a lack of training coupled with cost cutting. A sensor failing should not cause an aircraft to crash, unless the correct training is lacking. The chaps here feel many pilots need to go back to basics and re-learn seat of the pants flying regularly rather than add more technical gadgets.

I had thought they said that the automated system was hard to override which is why it crashed. Again I completely agree that a single sensor failure shouldnt result in a plane crashing. Airplanes are engineered to not crash based on one thing failing especially something as small as a sensor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If I remember correctly they had identified the issue with the first crash. It was a sensor issue combined with the automated system that caused the issue. Normally planes don't crash from one single issue because redundancy. The fact that this issue was caused by a single failure like that is pretty significant. When an issue like that was identified they should have grounded them to fix the issue. The likelyhood of a sensor malfunctioning isn't low enough to think it wouldn't happen again. 

Hm I hadn't heard that. Well then in that case I'd say you're right on all accounts

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you guys should trust ANYTHING Boeing tells you about their crash-8 aircraft, and don't even trust the FAA To do their jobs!
Watch this video and see for yourself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I had thought they said that the automated system was hard to override which is why it crashed. Again I completely agree that a single sensor failure shouldnt result in a plane crashing. Airplanes are engineered to not crash based on one thing failing especially something as small as a sensor. 

Not quite, it is possible to over-ride it, popping the breaker as last resort. Problem again seems to stem from lack of training. Had all the pilots been placed in a simulator and trained how to deal with MCAS as the implications of it causing issues then we may not have seen casualties. At least that is what the pilots here have said after himself speaking to pilots who are still flying, ex-colleagues. 

 

When something goes wrong in a high stress situation it is hard to work out what the problem is. This has been the outcome of many crashes, the Air France one springs to mind here. In that case sensors were feeding incorrect information so the pilots were trying to react to it. By the time they realised what was in fact going on it was too late. In that case lots of recommendations were made. This apparently has a similar vibe to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Not quite, it is possible to over-ride it, popping the breaker as last resort. Problem again seems to stem from lack of training. Had all the pilots been placed in a simulator and trained how to deal with MCAS as the implications of it causing issues then we may not have seen casualties. At least that is what the pilots here have said after himself speaking to pilots who are still flying, ex-colleagues. 

 

When something goes wrong in a high stress situation it is hard to work out what the problem is. This has been the outcome of many crashes, the Air France one springs to mind here. In that case sensors were feeding incorrect information so the pilots were trying to react to it. By the time they realised what was in fact going on it was too late. In that case lots of recommendations were made. This apparently has a similar vibe to it.

The problem in the Ethiopia crash is that the auto throttles were on !  The pilots didn't turn off the autothrottles when MCAS first activated (First thing on the memory checklist to do is turn OFF autothrottles!) so the plane was going faster than it was supposed to.  When they deactivated MCAS, the plane was going too fast for the manual trim wheel to work and the roller coaster method wouldn't work as they were too low to the ground :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Falkentyne said:

The problem in the Ethiopia crash is that the auto throttles were on !  The pilots didn't turn off the autothrottles when MCAS first activated (First thing on the memory checklist to do is turn OFF autothrottles!) so the plane was going faster than it was supposed to.  When they deactivated MCAS, the plane was going too fast for the manual trim wheel to work and the roller coaster method wouldn't work as they were too low to the ground :(

Yep, again a better trained crew would have had more time to realise what was going wrong. I am not saying it is the fault of the crew, but the fault of Boeing for trying to circumvent type rules etc. Had they gone the whole hog, done things properly then they would probably not be in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2019 at 2:37 PM, Phill104 said:

I am currently sat in a room full of ex commercial pilots and aircraft engineers. They see things very differently to many of the people on here. Most think this is more of a lack of training coupled with cost cutting. A sensor failing should not cause an aircraft to crash, unless the correct training is lacking. The chaps here feel many pilots need to go back to basics and re-learn seat of the pants flying regularly rather than add more technical gadgets.

Lack of training ... well ... the crew from the Ethiopia crash wasn't even informed that the MCAS was installed or what it did, so it's not like they could have just trained more.  Boeing simply didn't communicate about the feature they added, so most airlines and pilots were unaware of it.  https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/business-military/faa-probes-potential-737-max-design-flaw/

 

It was only after the crash that pilots who flew the 737 MAX were briefed about its existence.   

After the first crash several American Airlines pilots tried to pressure Boeing into actually fixing the problem, but Boeing refused because that would mean grounding the planes for a while.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/boeing-reportedly-resisted-pilots-angry-calls-for-737-max-fix-last-fall.html

 

Regardless of how you look at it, hanging those big engines on to that airframe resulted in an aircraft that is fundamentally unstable while climbing.  That's just bad design and should not be tolerated.  Instability by design is okay in fighter jets, not in airliners. 

Using software to work around the problem simply adds more complexity and chances of something going wrong, especially if it's implemented as poorly as MCAS is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

Lack of training ... well ... the crew from the Ethiopia crash wasn't even informed that the MCAS was installed or what it did, so it's not like they could have just trained more.  Boeing simply didn't communicate about the feature they added, so most airlines and pilots were unaware of it.  https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/business-military/faa-probes-potential-737-max-design-flaw/

 

It was only after the crash that pilots who flew the 737 MAX were briefed about its existence.   

After the first crash several American Airlines pilots tried to pressure Boeing into actually fixing the problem, but Boeing refused because that would mean grounding the planes for a while.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/boeing-reportedly-resisted-pilots-angry-calls-for-737-max-fix-last-fall.html

 

Regardless of how you look at it, hanging those big engines on to that airframe resulted in an aircraft that is fundamentally unstable while climbing.  That's just bad design and should not be tolerated.  Instability by design is okay in fighter jets, not in airliners. 

Using software to work around the problem simply adds more complexity and chances of something going wrong, especially if it's implemented as poorly as MCAS is. 

MCAS was implemented to get around rules, to make the plane feel to the pilots like older 737s and therefore require less training. The 13 seconds reset loop they got into says a lot. The fact "Options" were also there to set the horn off should two sensors become out of whack takes the biscuit.

 

I am not blaming the Airline for the lack of training, that has to be filtered down from Boeing. To me the debacle is firmly in the court of Boeing. I think we are both agreeing, just maybe I didn't make myself clear. The training has to come from the manufacturers, to the individual airlines trainers and then on to the pilots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can fly them all they want, but people are going to cancel their flights as soon as they find out they are on that plane...

 

assuming they don't live under a rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Prariedog13 said:

they can fly them all they want, but people are going to cancel their flights as soon as they find out they are on that plane...

 

assuming they don't live under a rock.

Thing is, it may end up a very safe plane because of the problems so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2019 at 9:38 PM, Phill104 said:

Thing is, it may end up a very safe plane because of the problems so far.

Sadly, PR damage takes quite a bit to turn around 

The Workhorse (AMD-powered custom desktop)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | GPU: MSI X Trio GeForce RTX 2070S | RAM: XPG Spectrix D60G 32GB DDR4-3200 | Storage: 512GB XPG SX8200P + 2TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Compute | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro

 

The Portable Workstation (Apple MacBook Pro 16" 2021)

SoC: Apple M1 Max (8+2 core CPU w/ 32-core GPU) | RAM: 32GB unified LPDDR5 | Storage: 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD | OS: macOS Monterey

 

The Communicator (Apple iPhone 13 Pro)

SoC: Apple A15 Bionic | RAM: 6GB LPDDR4X | Storage: 128GB internal w/ NVMe controller | Display: 6.1" 2532x1170 "Super Retina XDR" OLED with VRR at up to 120Hz | OS: iOS 15.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wouldn't fly on a 737 Max. 

CPU: Ryzen 9 5900 Cooler: EVGA CLC280 Motherboard: Gigabyte B550i Pro AX RAM: Kingston Hyper X 32GB 3200mhz

Storage: WD 750 SE 500GB, WD 730 SE 1TB GPU: EVGA RTX 3070 Ti PSU: Corsair SF750 Case: Streacom DA2

Monitor: LG 27GL83B Mouse: Razer Basilisk V2 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red Speakers: Mackie CR5BT

 

MiniPC - Sold for $100 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i3 4160 Cooler: Integrated Motherboard: Integrated

RAM: G.Skill RipJaws 16GB DDR3 Storage: Transcend MSA370 128GB GPU: Intel 4400 Graphics

PSU: Integrated Case: Shuttle XPC Slim

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

Budget Rig 1 - Sold For $750 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i5 7600k Cooler: CryOrig H7 Motherboard: MSI Z270 M5

RAM: Crucial LPX 16GB DDR4 Storage: Intel S3510 800GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 980

PSU: Corsair CX650M Case: EVGA DG73

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

OG Gaming Rig - Gone

Spoiler

 

CPU: Intel i5 4690k Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 Motherboard: MSI Z97i AC ITX

RAM: Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3 Storage: Kingston Fury 240GB GPU: Asus Strix GTX 970

PSU: Thermaltake TR2 Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ITX

Monitor: Dell P2214H x2 Mouse: Logitech MX Master Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×