Where is the Outrage over Boeing 737-MAX?

[Fergasun]

USAToday.com: FBI Joins Criminal Probe over Boeing 737 Max [Link?]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/20/fbi-joins-criminal-probe-into-boeing-737-max-8-crashes-ethiopia-indonesia/3228382002/

 

It's interesting that a Grand Jury panel was already in the works.... after the first crash?

Is linking broken? 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21 by Fergasun

[AsburySkinsFan]

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

 

 

You all realize the military has more than just fighters and stealth planes, right?  Many military aircraft are extremely similar to their civilian counterpart.  One reason is it keeps the costs down and availability up on replacement parts.  P-8 vs 737 being the best example.  Also the C-9 that was retired a bit ago was basically just a DC-9 will military paint.

 

Edit:  So it is hard to find statistics for aircraft with things like SAS because everything is about the current 737 issues.  But here is a link that at least explains some of the systems.  SAS is about halfway down.

Ok, NONE of the aircraft you cited, C-9 or P-8 are fly-by-wire because they are unstable platforms, and yes I am acutely aware of what the military flies other than fighters, and all of those other aircraft if they utilize fly-by-wire it is for accuracy of flight controls and not because the aircraft is inherently unstable. Some other military aircraft you missed the have civilian versions KC-10, KC-135, not to mention the host of personnel aircraft such as the models used to fly President's and other government officials. Again, theses may ALL have upgraded fly-by-wire avionics but NOT because the aircraft itself is unstable. You could be in flight with any of these and switch off the fly-by-wire and never know because they aircraft is an aeronautically stable platform. 

 

Fly-by wire control systems were specifically developed for airccraft such as the X-29 that aeronautically is impossible for a pilot to fly stick & rudder. The FBW system makes the thousand corrections persecobd to literally keep the aircraft flying. If you turned it off, the plane would crash because it is compketely unstable. Same goes for nearly EVERY modern fighter because it's the inherent instability in the aeronautics that provides for the greatest agility. Think of it like balancing a teacup on a piece of dental floss vs putting it on the table. The second you let go on the dental floss the cup will fall, whereas on the table you can walk away and forget it. Fly-by-wire systems are not autopiloting systems.

 

As to what @twa was yammering about in the other thread before this one was created the 737-max anti-stall system is apparently more akin to a fly-by-wire protective flight system than it is an auto-piloting system. Auto-pilot is a system that literally flies a programed flight, direction, altitutude, speed etc. This is NOT fly-by wire and it is NOT the anti-stall system. The anti-stall system is a safety system that automatically overrides the autopiloting system and apparently the manual controls until it is specifically shut off. And from what I'm reading it was placed on these aircraft because they are unstable aeronautically. Which as was already stated, perfect for fighters, not so much for a bus.

8 hours ago, twa said:

 

it is not logical or appropriate to the computer though (which is getting feedback telling it the AOA is too steep and approaching stall).

 

Is it a 15 point procedure if the pilot recognizes the problem??

 

It is when that pilot isn't informed that there is additional software overriding his controls. These computers are ****ing up (Boeings fault) and the pilots aren't being trained (airline's fault).

 

I know you want to give a pass to Boeing, but it's clear that their system has an unaddressed problem that has crashed at least two aircraft full of people.

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I’m not sure outrage is warranted. Or, at least that Boeing deserves the outrage.

 

 

 The crashes seem to be related pilot over reliance on on automated systems on the plane.

 

The MCAS bug is likely a contributing factor, not the factor. Previous pilots on the plane involved in the lion air crash reported similar uncommanded pitch down aboard the air crafts but were competent enough to avoid a crash. Then the plane wasn’t taken out of service.

 

I would be outraged in Boeing hid something, or cut corners, but accidents happen.

 

How about fix your ****ing software!?

Damn why is it ya'll want to shield Boeing from their responsibility? I ALREADY said the airlines have partial blame but you and @twa for some reason think that Boeing is free from blame because an airline didn't educate their pilots about a KNOWN flaw in Boeing's flight avionics. 

It's THEIR avionics that are WRONGLY sensing flight stall and their avionics that are crashing these planes.

And it's the airline's responsibility to communicate this to pilots, but that does not excuse Boeing from culpability due to the failure of tgeir equipment package.

[AsburySkinsFan]

11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I dont get how those two things can be described as "versus".  They go hand and hand.

No they don't. The system responsible for these crashes is an emergency system not a system that makes the aircraft flight stable.

Again please refer to my dental floss vs table top analogy. The normal 737 aircraft is a stable aircraft (table top) the 737-max is apoarently not (dental floss) so it needs fly by wire to keep it in the air. 

A piece of emergency equipment that does not subjugate itself to manual pilot input is bad, seen at least twice now. Because when that equipment incorrectly diagnoses a situational problem (like stall) bad things happen. This responsible software is not fly by wire software otherwise it would have nosed up and powered out of the stall, instead it ONLY noses up and wouldn't let the pilots power out of what one computer thought was a stall.

Edited March 21 by AsburySkinsFan

[AsburySkinsFan]

The more I think about this the more annoyed I get at Boeing and those looking to cover their culpability with blame shifting.

If Boeing discovered a flaw that would cause a wing to fall off midflight during normal operations, but they found out that if the pilot went into the storage area and replaced a bolt when it started to fall off EVERYONE would tell Boeing to fix their ****. But here we have a predictable duo pretending that the REAL blame is that the airlines didn't sufficiently train their flight crews about the bolt.

It's not like these planes were actually in a stall, the system screwed up and crashed the planes because it is a flawed system. Fix the ****ing system and the rest takes care of itself.

[twa]

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

 

I know you want to give a pass to Boeing, but it's clear that their system has an unaddressed problem that has crashed at least two aircraft full of people.

 

I'm not giving Boeing a pass at all. 

 

The system pretty clearly has problems.....one that competent and trained pilots can overcome when problems arise(which is their job)

 

Putting pilots that do not know when and how to take manual control of a airframe is on the airlines though.

[TheGreatBuzz]

@AsburySkinsFan how exactly are you defining "fly by wire"?  And how exactly are you determing if an aircraft is "stable" or not?  Lastly, what is the source of your information?  

 

I feel like these are important questions if we are going to continue the conversation.

 

EDIT:  One other question, how would you classify boost into the discussion?

Edited March 21 by TheGreatBuzz

[AsburySkinsFan]

24 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I'm not giving Boeing a pass at all. 

 

The system pretty clearly has problems.....one that competent and trained pilots can overcome when problems arise(which is their job)

 

Putting pilots that do not know when and how to take manual control of a airframe is on the airlines though.

"Hey boy, better go tighten that bolt!"

The training is a SECONDARY issue, the primary cause of these crashes is the system malfunction.

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

@AsburySkinsFan how exactly are you defining "fly by wire"?  And how exactly are you determing if an aircraft is "stable" or not?  Lastly, what is the source of your information?  

 

I feel like these are important questions if we are going to continue the conversation.

 

EDIT:  One other question, how would you classify boost into the discussion?

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I have been an airplane enthusiast since I was in high school, had dreams of being a fighter pilot, too bad I didn't study algebra as much as I did the Janes Encyclopedia of Aviation.

Fly-by-wire, instability etc are common terms in aviation.

 

As for boost, this provides as good a definition as I can describe.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47337/what-is-boost-super-boost-in-the-pw127m-n

Edited March 21 by AsburySkinsFan

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

"Hey boy, better go tighten that bolt!"

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I have been an airplane enthusiast since I was in high school, had dreams of being a fighter pilot, too bad I didn't study algebra as much as I did the Janes Encyclopedia of Aviation.

Fly-by-wire, instability etc are common terms in aviation.

I didn't ask you to do homework for me.  I asked you what your definitions were.  I appreciate that you are an airplane enthusiast, I've been working on them for 17+ years including instructing and running a maintenance control.  I also have met all the criteria for my A+P license (I just haven't mailed it in because I don't plan on doing this when I retire so there is no point).  So now that both of our resumes have been laid out, I ask again your definitions.

 

Fly by wire can mean different things.  Would you consider an aircraft where pilot input is transfered by a system of bellcranks, pullys, and cables that connect to an electro-hydraulic servo that augments the pilot's input to be fly by wire?  Or only where pilot inputs send an electrical signal to servos?

 

And stability, are you judging that based on how far an aircraft could glide without power?  Or by weight distribuition?  Or be controlled with a catostrophic event like loss of all hydraulic power?

 

Making sure we are both on the same page with regard to the terms we are using seems like an important step in a discussion of a technical nature.

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I didn't ask you to do homework for me.  I asked you what your definitions were.  I appreciate that you are an airplane enthusiast, I've been working on them for 17+ years including instructing and running a maintenance control.  I also have met all the criteria for my A+P license (I just haven't mailed it in because I don't plan on doing this when I retire so there is no point).  So now that both of our resumes have been laid out, I ask again your definitions.

 

Fly by wire can mean different things.  Would you consider an aircraft where pilot input is transfered by a system of bellcranks, pullys, and cables that connect to an electro-hydraulic servo that augments the pilot's input to be fly by wire?  Or only where pilot inputs send an electrical signal to servos?

 

And stability, are you judging that based on how far an aircraft could glide without power?  Or by weight distribuition?  Or be controlled with a catostrophic event like loss of all hydraulic power?

 

Making sure we are both on the same page with regard to the terms we are using seems like an important step in a discussion of a technical nature.

 

Fly-by-wire: An electronic control system that independently maintains a stable flight attitude on an aircraft that where pilot controls would be unable to do so; see X-29 and subsequent fighters. 

No I do not consider fly-by-wire to be synonymous with digital flight controls as opposed to cable/pully controls.

 

Stability of flight platform: 

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types-of-static-and-dynamic-stability-in-aircraft/

 

[Larry]

1)  Freely recognizing that there's a lot I don;t know about this.  

 

2)  In illustration of #1, thanks to the people in this thread who've made me slightly less ignorant.  

 

3)  One of the things that I wish I knew was, when this system began commanding the aircraft's nose down, was the aircraft actually near stall?  Or was the system falsely detecting a near stall?  

 

Seems to me that, if these were actual near stall conditions, then maybe things aren't as simple as "just override the system".  Maybe overriding the system would have resulted in real stalls, instead of the uncommanded nose-downs.  

 

(It also makes me wonder if maybe the reason the system keeps kicking in, over and over, might be because the pilots are over-compensating for the system, and are actually causing near stall conditions, thus causing another override.)  

 

It also makes me wonder, if these are actual near-stall events - As I understand it, stall is a function, not only of AOA, but also of speed.  If the pilots had simply increased the throttle a bit, and raised the aircraft's speed, would that have cured the near-stall condition?  (Or would the increased thrust have caused a greater tendency to pitch upward, simply triggering the override again?)  

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Fly-by-wire: An electronic control system that independently maintains a stable flight attitude on an aircraft that where pilot controls would be unable to do so; see X-29 and subsequent fighters. 

No I do not consider fly-by-wire to be synonymous with digital flight controls as opposed to cable/pully controls.

Where did you get that definition?  I've had many debates about what is technically FBW but never heard someone use that description.  Here is where I'm at:

 

Quote

As the term implies, fly by wire (FBW) replaces conventional mechanical flight controls with an electronic interface. The pilot’s movements of the flight controls are converted to electrical signals, which are interpreted by the flight control computers. They, in turn, determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to make the airplane do what the pilot commands. FBW offers a variety of benefits, the most obvious being a marked reduction in mechanical complexity, as aircraft designers are no longer forced to route control cables through pulleys and cranks to the control surfaces way out on the wing or tail.

https://www.flyingmag.com/g00/aircraft/jets/fly-by-wire-fact-versus-science-fiction?i10c.ua=1&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=7

 

Seems to me that you may be confusing FBW with a type of autopilot.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

As for stability, I wouldn't call the Max-8 unstable, only that it has an undesirable stability.  Though I acknowledge this is only based on the little bit I have read of the max8 system.

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

3)  One of the things that I wish I knew was, when this system began commanding the aircraft's nose down, was the aircraft actually near stall?  Or was the system falsely detecting a near stall?  

 

From what I've read about the flight data recorders no, these flights were not stalling. The anti-stall system incorrectly detected a stall and tried to fix by nosing down (increasing air speed under wing) when the pilots tried to pull up they were fighting the system because it thought they were making the wrong choice.

[TheGreatBuzz]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

3)  One of the things that I wish I knew was, when this system began commanding the aircraft's nose down, was the aircraft actually near stall?  Or was the system falsely detecting a near stall?  

My understanding is no.  But there is also a lot to be investigated.  It seems that especially when climbing it thinks it is a lot closer to stall than it actually is.  

 

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

Seems to me that, if these were actual near stall conditions, then maybe things aren't as simple as "just override the system".  Maybe overriding the system would have resulted in real stalls, instead of the uncommanded nose-downs.  

 

(It also makes me wonder if maybe the reason the system keeps kicking in, over and over, might be because the pilots are over-compensating for the system, and are actually causing near stall conditions, thus causing another override.)  

I don't believe this is what happened but again, much investigating to do.

 

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

As I understand it, stall is a function, not only of AOA, but also of speed.  If the pilots had simply increased the throttle a bit, and raised the aircraft's speed, would that have cured the near-stall condition?  (Or would the increased thrust have caused a greater tendency to pitch upward, simply triggering the override again?)

This is something I'm waiting for to come out.  What was their pitch rate compared to power setting and actual airspeed.

 

EDIT:  I have to go do some work now.  Interestingly enough, I'm finishing up a report on a mishap (involving an engine repair on the ground, nothing exciting).

Edited March 21 by TheGreatBuzz

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

1)  Freely recognizing that there's a lot I don;t know about this.  

 

2)  In illustration of #1, thanks to the people in this thread who've made me slightly less ignorant.  

 

3)  One of the things that I wish I knew was, when this system began commanding the aircraft's nose down, was the aircraft actually near stall?  Or was the system falsely detecting a near stall?  

 

Seems to me that, if these were actual near stall conditions, then maybe things aren't as simple as "just override the system".  Maybe overriding the system would have resulted in real stalls, instead of the uncommanded nose-downs.  

 

(It also makes me wonder if maybe the reason the system keeps kicking in, over and over, might be because the pilots are over-compensating for the system, and are actually causing near stall conditions, thus causing another override.)  

 

It also makes me wonder, if these are actual near-stall events - As I understand it, stall is a function, not only of AOA, but also of speed.  If the pilots had simply increased the throttle a bit, and raised the aircraft's speed, would that have cured the near-stall condition?  (Or would the increased thrust have caused a greater tendency to pitch upward, simply triggering the override again?)  

 

 

 

The planes are not near stall,nor a too steep AoA, BUT a sensor is giving the signal to the MCAS that it is.

 

this results in mcas trimming the plane to descend to correct the non existent approaching stall.

 

rather than disconnecting(or knowing how)  and taking manual control the pilots tried to work within the system(which kept over correcting their corrections) till the ground impact

[HOF44]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

.  

 

3)  One of the things that I wish I knew was, when this system began commanding the aircraft's nose down, was the aircraft actually near stall?  Or was the system falsely detecting a near stall?  

 

 

 

 

From everything I’ve read these flights were going fine. If not for the interference of the automated systems the flight would have continues in a boring manner. So some sort of either a sensor or software issue. 

Edited March 21 by HOF44

[Fergasun]

I am going to simplify what I felt happened using a car analogy.

Hondyota, a car manufacturer has a well understood car design called a Belantra. They upgrade it to the Belantra-MAX, but have redesigned the body in subtle ways that change how it turns, accelerates and brakes. They compensate for this in software thst is disclosed to drivers, but poorly designed... in that in some cases the car indicates it is going to get rear ended, so it accelerates, but doesn't sense the fact it could accelerate the car directly into a wall, killing all passengers. You can buy an option with better sensors that could better prevent this is happening - but some customers are too price sensitive to pay for the option.

After this flaw happens on two cars, people blame the drivers for not turning off the flawed features rather than the poorly designed flaw.

The crashes scream that the engineering was wrong. The question is how much Boeing knew about it (I think they did!) and if planes were sold (and FAA certified) was it criminal to put business and money over safety.

I already know how this will end, Boeing and FAA get wrist slaps (and some Congressional law with payout to victims that prevents them from suing in court). No one gets fired or goes to jail. It's the new American Way....

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Some other military aircraft you missed the have civilian versions KC-10, KC-135, not to mention the host of personnel aircraft such as the models used to fly President's and other government officials.

Oh and I didn't "miss" these.  My list was never meant to be all inclusive.  It was meant to use examples that the common civilian with not much interest in aviation could understand.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

How about fix your ****ing software!?

Damn why is it ya'll want to shield Boeing from their responsibility? I ALREADY said the airlines have partial blame but you and @twa for some reason think that Boeing is free from blame.

 

Not blame, but outrage.. I’m not outraged at Boeing. The software they create makes planes safer. Endstop.  They are having an issue with software (that capable pilots should be able to manage.  Boeing’s faulty software is the partially to blame and Boeing has a responsibility to fix the software.  The fact that there is only one aoa sensor attached to MCAS is also an issue... but I’m not outraged at Boeing... 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Not blame, but outrage.. I’m not outraged at Boeing. The software they create makes planes safer. Endstop.  They are having an issue with software (that capable pilots should be able to manage.  Boeing’s faulty software is the partially to blame and Boeing has a responsibility to fix the software.  The fact that there is only one aoa sensor attached to MCAS is also an issue... but I’m not outraged at Boeing... 

 

You should be, and that's the problem. These were capable pilots. You are making assumptions that you cannot substantiate, and that makes you look foolish.

5 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Where did you get that definition?  I've had many debates about what is technically FBW but never heard someone use that description.  Here is where I'm at:

 

https://www.flyingmag.com/g00/aircraft/jets/fly-by-wire-fact-versus-science-fiction?i10c.ua=1&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=7

 

Seems to me that you may be confusing FBW with a type of autopilot.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

As for stability, I wouldn't call the Max-8 unstable, only that it has an undesirable stability.  Though I acknowledge this is only based on the little bit I have read of the max8 system.

If the plane will not maintain straight and level flight hands off without FBW computer management then it is considered unstable.

 

Fly by wire, there is digital controls included in this category but when we're talking about a system like the stall prevention it is also included in the Fly-by-wire system. It just has a computer that makes more decisions without the pilot's input. This is NOT an autopilot.

 

[China]

35 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You should be, and that's the problem. These were capable pilots. You are making assumptions that you cannot substantiate, and that makes you look foolish.

If the plane will not maintain straight and level flight hands off without FBW computer management then it is considered unstable.

 

 

Capable, maybe, but according to reports, not trained properly:

 

Ethiopia crash captain did not train on airline's MAX simulator: source

 

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight did not get a chance to practice on his airline’s new simulator for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 before he died in a crash with 157 others, a pilot colleague said.

 

Captain Yared Getachew, 29, was due for refresher training at the end of March, his colleague told Reuters, two months after Ethiopian Airlines had received one of the first such simulators being distributed.

 

The MAX, which came into service two years ago, has a new automated system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). It is meant to prevent loss of lift which can cause an aerodynamic stall sending the plane downwards in an uncontrolled way.

 

“Boeing did not send manuals on MCAS,” the Ethiopian Airlines pilot told Reuters in a hotel lobby, declining to give his name as staff have been told not to speak in public.

 

“Actually we know more about the MCAS system from the media than from Boeing.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

29 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

If the plane will not maintain straight and level flight hands off without FBW computer management then it is considered unstable.

That's not exactly what your article said.  By your definition, I don't think there is a "stable" aircraft in the world.  But whatever, you want to call the Max8 unstable, go for it.  I'm not even going to bother debating that claim.

 

As for the video, I got like 20 seconds in and was put to sleep.  Sorry but I can't do it.  

 

 

32 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

It just has a computer that makes more decisions without the pilot's input. This is NOT an autopilot.

The article I posted and this statement don't agree.  Maybe your video backed it up but I wasn't sitting through 20 minutes of that voice.  Anyways, your statement is way off mark as were your previous ones.  A computer that makes decisions without the pilot's input is like the definition of autopilot.  This anti-stall program is much closer to autopilot (decision without pilot input) that the definition of FBW.  I get that doesn't line up with your definition.  But that is because your definition is wrong.  

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

That's not exactly what your article said.  By your definition, I don't think there is a "stable" aircraft in the world.  But whatever, you want to call the Max8 unstable, go for it.  I'm not even going to bother debating that claim.

 

As for the video, I got like 20 seconds in and was put to sleep.  Sorry but I can't do it.  

The article I posted and this statement don't agree.  Maybe your video backed it up but I wasn't sitting through 20 minutes of that voice.  Anyways, your statement is way off mark as were your previous ones.  A computer that makes decisions without the pilot's input is like the definition of autopilot.  This anti-stall program is much closer to autopilot (decision without pilot input) that the definition of FBW.  I get that doesn't line up with your definition.  But that is because your definition is wrong.  

 

 

Watch the video.

Autopilot is navigational controls etc, not "keep the damn plane in the air" controls, that's FBW.

Maybe on the civilian side ya'll generalize terms, but this is what it means on the military side.

[twa]

5 hours ago, Fergasun said:

I am going to simplify what I felt happened using a car analogy.

Hondyota, a car manufacturer has a well understood car design called a Belantra. They upgrade it to the Belantra-MAX, but have redesigned the body in subtle ways that change how it turns, accelerates and brakes. They compensate for this in software thst is disclosed to drivers, but poorly designed... in that in some cases the car indicates it is going to get rear ended, so it accelerates, but doesn't sense the fact it could accelerate the car directly into a wall, killing all passengers. You can buy an option with better sensors that could better prevent this is happening - but some customers are too price sensitive to pay for the option.

After this flaw happens on two cars, people blame the drivers for not turning off the flawed features rather than the poorly designed flaw.
 

 

 

Did these paid drivers hit the bake or use the emergency brake?

 

How about turning off the ignition?

 

If my kids are on a bus I expect the driver to do more.

 

The event occurring is certainly the manufacturers fault, allowing fatal results not so much.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Watch the video.

Autopilot is navigational controls etc, not "keep the damn plane in the air" controls, that's FBW.

Maybe on the civilian side ya'll generalize terms, but this is what it means on the military side.

Uhhh.....I'm on the military side.  And no it doesn't.

 

FBW is just a matter of how the flight surfaces get told to move/not move.  It is the manner in which that input is sent, whether initiated via human input or input from a computer that serves as the autopilot function.  And autopilot is more than just navigational controls.  For example, SAS falls under the autopilot umbrella and it just reduces the feeling of buffeting.  I posted a link about it a while back.