Boeing to be shuttered and 737 Max-8 banned?

[USincognito]

From what I have read, there is no market for jumbo jets. Carriers prefer more efficient, two engine jets such as the 777 (777x to be released soon), 787 and A350.

747 will always have a role in the cargo market. I believe that most flying today are in that role.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The crash happened (shortly after take off) where the captain should be actively managing the flight and controlling the plane.

In a plane's cockpit, the flight management and control suite is either duplicated or accessible to either pilot. They both see the same information concerning the flight and during emergency, the captain still has to make the big decisions.

It's also the captain's responsibility to report any sign of incompetence of the co-pilot.

This is why the co-pilot is seldom blamed in accidents regardless of experience (except for deliberate acts of sabotage!) . It's also not uncommon to expect co-pilots to still be learning the intricacies of commercial flight, especially dealing with difficult / dangerous situations.

Yeah you are right. But we do not know what the protocols and procedures were for that particular airline, or how strict they were followed. We only know how things should happen. I wonder how much training either pilot had on the plane.Now, I hope that they do a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the crash.

 

[timewerx]

I wonder how much training either pilot had on the plane.

I think Boeing already provides training as part of the procurement package. Ironically, even if the airline decided to skip training, Boeing would still be held accountable for not doing enough to communicate the "life and death" importance of the plane's new operational procedures.

Also imagine if the plane just came out of the market, not a single pilot (except for test pilots) would have many hours on the plane. About two years ago when the 737 Max got out in the market, the vast majority of its pilots only had low hours on it. It's a risk we all have to deal with. New is not always better!

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I think Boeing already provides training as part of the procurement package. Ironically, even if the airline decided to skip training, Boeing would still be held accountable for not doing enough to communicate the "life and death" importance of the plane's new operational procedures.

That is a shame imho.I have heard some stories that have caused some pilots to quit their employment with some airlines because of lax procedural consistency. It is a shame that the manufacturer would be held accountable for that.

 

[timewerx]

That is a shame imho.I have heard some stories that have caused some pilots to quit their employment with some airlines because of lax procedural consistency. It is a shame that the manufacturer would be held accountable for that.

Unless manufacturer can prove having effectively communicated the life and death importance of gaining proficiency with the new procedures. If they did, the airline would be accountable.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Unless manufacturer can prove having effectively communicated the life and death importance of gaining proficiency with the new procedures. If they did, the airline would be accountable.

Now that makes better sense.

 

[Ironhold]

Boeing produces a whole host of military and civilian aircraft.

The only way they'd go out of business over this is if the lawsuits against them (which, let's face it, are inevitable) lead to such absolutely huge decisions they go bust.

 

[Desk trauma]

Boeing produces a whole host of military and civilian aircraft.

The only way they'd go out of business over this is if the lawsuits against them (which, let's face it, are inevitable) lead to such absolutely huge decisions they go bust.

They would need to be in the tens of billions.

 

[mukk_in]

Update

US has grounded all Max 8 jets pending investigations by NTSB and FAA. No country is now flying the Max 8 jets. Hopefully, they'll get to the bottom of this quickly.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

It's not the first time Boeing has had issues with 737s that have resulted in crashes either

Boeing 737 rudder issues - Wikipedia

But no -Boeing won't be going under. It, like Airbus, are too big to fail.

 

[timewerx]

Boeing has not been doing good lately, product-wise. Their much publicized V-22 Osprey "tilt rotor" has been called "flying coffin" or "widowmaker" due to very high fatality rates in the type, the vast majority (probably all) due to accidents that can't be blamed on the pilot nor the crew, not even maintenance.

The tilt rotor is already proven decades ago to be a flawed concept (due to presence of far better alternatives)

I think Boeing went with "appearance" or pleasing their customers against better engineering judgement.

Sadly, most manufacturers do the same in dealing with their airline customers. There are aircraft designs that are in fact, proven to be considerably safer. They look a lot different than the planes we fly on.... They fear that people may not want to fly on them or the research costs will be higher.

No one is able to bear higher initial costs so that everyone has safer flying experience! Apparently, saving money is more important than saving people's lives!

They don't realize, once the lines are setup and this becomes standard in the future, the cost will be the same as airplanes we have today (adjusting for inflation of course).

 

[dgiharris]

I think Boeing went with "appearance" or pleasing their customers against better engineering judgement.
....

Having worked on both the engineering side and executive business weenie side in Silicon Valley and the Government, it absolutely amazes me the amount of power that non-engineers have in making engineering related decisions.

You have the business weenies, sales, and marketing talking to the customer about their needs and oftentimes there is no engineer in the room. Then once the customer says, "Oh yeah I'd like that" then the business weenies get the engineers involved. Now, the engineers are getting brow beaten with "Well, this is what the customer wants make it work..."

It is my opinion that companies need to do a better job of communicating with the customer even to the point of telling the customer "Look, that is wrong, you do NOT want that, trust us..."

Not only should the engineering team be part of the initial process when determining customer needs, but you need the end use operators there as well.

Regarding the Max 8... I'm not a big fan at all of using software to fix design flaws or engineering problems.

If the engine weight/location was making the nose pitch down, I wonder why they didn't use canards to correct and add lift to the nose/front of the plane to counteract the forward center of gravity?

 

[mukk_in]

Additional flow enablers, even streamlined canards, would have increased the drag making the Max less fuel efficient. But, I agree, software fixes to counter design flaws (assuming that's what took place) is a poor choice.

 

[timewerx]

Having worked on both the engineering side and executive business weenie side in Silicon Valley and the Government, it absolutely amazes me the amount of power that non-engineers have in making engineering related decisions.

You have the business weenies, sales, and marketing talking to the customer about their needs and oftentimes there is no engineer in the room. Then once the customer says, "Oh yeah I'd like that" then the business weenies get the engineers involved. Now, the engineers are getting brow beaten with "Well, this is what the customer wants make it work..."

Money makes the rules in our fallen world - not what is right.

Ironically, I've read in a software engineering book, one of the best practices of software design is not to let your clients dictate the technical aspects of the design (as presumably, the engineer should know what is best).

It is my opinion that companies need to do a better job of communicating with the customer even to the point of telling the customer "Look, that is wrong, you do NOT want that, trust us..."

Perhaps in very large companies like Boeing, the engineers never deals with the clients themselves. They would probably have customer relations group who are expected to be less knowledgeable about the engineering side of things.

Often, large companies in USA who deals with the US gov quite lot (Boeing is one due to large numbers of military contracts) are also highly politicized. Some people running the biz and dealing with customers may not be knowledgeable in the technical aspects and that can be a problem.

Their V-22 Tilt Rotor produced a poor outcome due to poor decisions. The only way they managed to solve the problems (partially) is to fly it in a manner that made it a lot less effective in battlefield utility than a helicopter which is ironic and fails the fundamental design objective which is to outperform helicopters.

Regarding the Max 8... I'm not a big fan at all of using software to fix design flaws or engineering problems.

If the engine weight/location was making the nose pitch down, I wonder why they didn't use canards to correct and add lift to the nose/front of the plane to counteract the forward center of gravity?

I don't think increase in engine weight is the cause of the problem. Jet airline design is fairly standard. And the engines are mounted very close to the longitudinal center of gravity.

So even if the engine weight is increased, it shouldn't be a problem.

Aircraft engine R&D by large engine companies uses "testbeds" or simply taking an existing aircraft and swapping its engine out for their test prototype engine that is often of different size and weight.

It's a routine testing activity throughout history. Well-adopted practice and is proven safe and effective. And often, civilian aircraft that can be adopted into military use must be able to upgrade its engines at some point. So changes in engine weight must be accounted for and must not endanger handling characteristics. In emergency situations that the engines are shed, the plane must remain controllable.

And if the Center of Gravity is offset too much, the plane would experience higher than normal "trim drag", degrade fuel efficiency which users (airlines) would notice, but this is not the case. It's a misleading info in the article.

So IMO, Boeing's problem is strictly software-side.

 

[wing2000]

I don't think increase in engine weight is the cause of the problem. Jet airline design is fairly standard. And the engines are mounted very close to the longitudinal center of gravity.

So even if the engine weight is increased, it shouldn't be a problem.

I understand that due to their increased size, the engines were moved further forward --which is not likely the optimal center of gravity. They basically took the existing 737-800 airframe and made the larger, more efficient engines fit as noted by this NYT article after the Lion Air crash:

But Boeing’s engineers had a problem. Because the new engines for the Max were larger than those on the older version, they needed to be mounted higher and farther forward on the wings to provide adequate ground clearance.

Early analysis revealed that the bigger engines, mounted differently than on the previous version of the 737, would have a destabilizing effect on the airplane, especially at lower speeds during high-banked, tight-turn maneuvers, Mr. Ludtke said.

The concern was that an increased risk of the nose being pushed up at low airspeeds could cause the plane to get closer to the angle at which it stalls, or loses lift, Mr. Ludtke said.

After weighing many possibilities, Mr. Ludtke said, Boeing decided to add a new program — what engineers described as essentially some lines of code — to the aircraft’s existing flight control system to counter the destabilizing pitching forces from the new engines.

After a Lion Air 737 Max Crashed in October, Questions About the Plane Arose

 

[timewerx]

But Boeing’s engineers had a problem. Because the new engines for the Max were larger than those on the older version, they needed to be mounted higher and farther forward on the wings to provide adequate ground clearance.

Early analysis revealed that the bigger engines, mounted differently than on the previous version of the 737, would have a destabilizing effect on the airplane, especially at lower speeds during high-banked, tight-turn maneuvers, Mr. Ludtke said.

The concern was that an increased risk of the nose being pushed up at low airspeeds could cause the plane to get closer to the angle at which it stalls, or loses lift, Mr. Ludtke said.

That I agree with. I actually got involved for a short period making conceptual designs for "eVTOL" or "electric air taxis".

One of my concepts have ducted pusher propellers and ducts can produce aerodynamic lift in the same fashion as normal airplane wings...

Now here's the important detail. Modern airliner engines are basically ducted fans driven by a gas turbine core. If the ducted part is placed in front of the Center of Gravity, it does have a destabilizing effect.

However, the issue is easily solved by simply adjusting the entire wing assembly a little bit backwards in the design to restore stability.....I assume Boeing already knows they'll be taking a bigger engine during the design phase of the development.

It never should have been an issue unless Boeing did nothing to make physical adjustments to the design. There's only two valid reasons why they might do such thing and that is to either save money on production (less changes to newer model means considerable cost savings on new assembly lines for new model). Another reason is sheer incompetence.

Although software can be called on to make a relatively unstable aircraft more stable. Most modern jet fighters are designed to be a bit unstable to improve agility and uses software assisted stability to make them easy to fly. Ironically, this setup have less aerodynamic drag and achieves better fuel economy when adjusted for cruise.

The principle is applicable to any aircraft, not just fighter planes so it might be possible Boeing deliberately made it part of the design to further improve fuel economy.

And Boeing has lots of experience and expertise making such software for their fighter planes (F-18's). But so far, this design practice has only been implemented on military aircraft where safety is less important (since the crew can simply eject from the aircraft duing a severe malfunction and nobody dies).

In relation to the news, the I still think it's a software malfunction. The plane seemed to have impacted the ground at high speed, nose first.

An unstable plane would be very prone to stalling and/or spinning. Events leading to crash, does not indicate it however. All seems to point the plane deliberately dove into the ground at high speed, either a suicidal pilot or a malfunctioning software or mechanical malfunction.