Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4664
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

Post by LaCroix » 2019-03-15 08:34am

Broomstick wrote:
2019-03-14 03:01pm
Government agencies pressured by the public, who are ignorant when it comes to aviation.
That's not how it works. Aviation agencies are not responding to public pressure, but to facts. One plane crashed, Boeing said they fixed it.

Now another plane of the same model crashes (a plane type that is pretty much brand new, instead of a worn out clanker) under pretty much the same circumstances as the last one.

So, apparently, the bug was not fixed. Or there are other issues at work, which are not connected to the bug they claimed to have fixed. And on top, it is a brand-new plane for which technically, no pilot is certified, since the whole problem is about a feature that was meant to remove the need to recertify.

Why do you think it is unjustified to ground these planes until they know what happened?
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 26063
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-03-15 09:18am

Yes, aviation agencies ARE subject to public and political pressure. They are usually somewhat resistant to it, but the pressure exists.

And the problem is the ASSUMPTION that what happened is actually known. Yes, there are parallels between the two crashes but they haven't finished investigating the first one, much less the second. You are ASSUMING it is a "bug", and the same bug that was supposedly fixed when it could be a different bug, or an engine problem (software problems don't usually cause smoke to trail behind an airplane, as multiple witnesses to the Ethiopian crash reported)

Yes, there are questions about software. There are also questions about the engines, which are larger, heavier, required a re-design of the 737 nose struct to maintain a safe ground clearance. This results in a more forward CG in the airframe and a stronger tendency to nose-down with or without software involved. If the root of the problem is a fundamental flaw in the airframe design that needs to be addressed (probably by scrapping the model, or redesigning it to such a degree that it's essentially a different airplane) in the material world rather than tinkering with software.

My problem is the kneejerk reaction of "oh, these two accidents are the same and we know what the problem is without even finishing the investigation on the first, or even starting the second". If it later turns out that the Ethiopian airplane sucked up debris from the runway (like the Concorde) and there's not a damn thing wrong with the current iteration of the 737 then you've grounded airplanes for no good reason, inconvenienced thousands of people, and damaged the operations of a dozen or more companies around the world. The grounding is NOT from "an abundance of caution", it's from people assuming they already know what the problem(s) were. The media has decided it wants a story about bad software and the evils of automation and that's what they're reporting. I dislike the rush to judgement. I dislike that the TV news has described the 787 Max and as a "de Haviland Comet" and a deathtrap without proof.

I also find it VERY weird the delay on analyzing the contents of the black boxes. Ethiopia had them and was sitting on them. While I, personally, don't think the NTSB would have been biased in analyzing them I understand why Ethiopia or another country might have that concern, but the Germans refused to look at them. What? The French are a fine neutral party for that task, but really, those boxes should have been looked at a couple days ago.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4664
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

Post by LaCroix » 2019-03-15 10:55am

Nobody is saying the accidents are the same apart from "Both planes fell outof the sky in a similar manner".

There is a strong assumption that it is due to a new system, because these planes evidently did not fall out of the sky until that system was changed.
2 out of 376 airplanes had a similar accident, with causes yet unknown.

Boeing acknowledged an existing problem and patched the reason THEY believed to cause the issues (multiple reports of nosdowning, autothrottle and trim issues) after the LION crash. Boeing agreed that there was a bug in the system. Nobody is just assuming there was one - Boing said they found and fixed it.

Still, this second plane crashed in pretty much the same way as the first, showing a persistent problem. So, either they didn't find the bug, or it is a flawed design that can't be fixed. In both cases, a reasonable person would retire the system until the analysis is completed. I have personally killed a software rollout for less than that, and in most cases, there would only have been money, and not lives on the line.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

User avatar
Jub
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3178
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

Post by Jub » 2019-03-15 11:14am

From a layman's point of view Lion Air Flight 610 never should have happened, whatever was wrong with that plane started on a previous flight and whoever said it was fine to go back out again should be liable. I know they did some maintenance and based on the then current material from Boeing were legally fine to fly, but it sounds like that plane had issues on multiple fronts and it would have been safer for all involved to ground it until a proper investigation of the issues from its previous flights could be analyzed.

I don't know what SOP is for a plane that called in a pan-pan for technical issues usually is, but would it have been unusual for Lion Air to pull that plan for extended maintenance after such an event?

Sky Captain
Jedi Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: 2008-11-14 12:47pm
Location: Latvia

Re: Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

Post by Sky Captain » 2019-03-18 03:36pm

From what I read on this I get that modifications made to accomodate bigger engines caused 737 MAX to be unstable when at low speed and high angle of attack flight regime. To counteract that Boeing added a system that automaticaly trims the stabilizers in a nose down position to avoid stall. It is suspect that this system caused aircraft to nosedive into the ground when it erroneusly thought a stall is about to happen because of faulty sensors and/or software bug.

It is also said that pilots were not sufficiently informed about this new system and what to do if it fails. I think it is prudent to ground the MAX fleet until everything is sorted out. Two similar crashes of brand new plane are suspicious and may point to a common cause affecting all 737 MAX planes.

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 26063
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 MAX model involved in Ethiopian Airlines crash banned from European airspace.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-03-19 09:04am

I stayed away from this thread for a few days until more facts came out.

Now, based on evidence it does seem that the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes had many similarities, but also based on facts brought to light I don't think this is a software issue, it's a hardware issue.

With the usual disclaimer that the following is subject to change with more information.

The first Boeing 737 launched in the late 1960's - that's fifty years ago, about halfway point in the entire history of powered flight. The fact it has lasted this long and become the Cessna 172 of commercial aviation (ubiquitous - I think it's still regarded as the best-selling most-total-units type of aircraft in the commercial passenger category) indicates that it started as a good, safe design. Over the years it has been repeatedly tweaked, hence the -100, -200, -NG, etc. suffixes to various versions.

However, the Max line - the newest version - wasn't just "tweaked" from what is coming out. You see, Boeing concluded it needed new, more efficient engines to stay competitive and chose the LEAP engine from CFM international. There was a problem in that mounting these engines where prior 737 engines were mounted on the wing would result in inadequate ground clearance. In order to fix that, they mounted the nacelles further forward on the wing, also lengthened the nose strut, and modified a few more bits and bobs as needed to make it all work. Even so, those engines have a mere 43 cm ground clearance on the Boeing 727 Max line.

But in flight the nose strut doesn't really matter. What matters is that the engine sits further forward relative to the CG of the airframe and is in a slightly different relationship to the rest of the wing and airframe. This results in both a stronger-than-normal nose-up tendency AND a stronger than normal nose-down tendency in the airplane depending on the situation. So strong, in fact, that it caused issues with the airworthiness of the aircraft. The MCAS reaction to these conditions is likewise stronger than normal in order to made the airplane flyable. The airframe of the Boeing Max is less stable than any other 737.

This was "solved" not by actually fixing the weight-and-balance problem in the hardware but by attempting to write software to fix the problems by having a computer modify the pilot's control inputs.
This is something we have been doing routinely with fighter aircraft which are arguably inherently unstable in current designs and require a functioning computer to be flown. However, the "solution" to lose of control in a fighter jet is to have the pilot eject from the aircraft. This is not a feasible "solution" in an airliner facing a loss-of-control situation. Airliners should be designed to be inherently stable (to the extent that is physically possible), not unstable, because airliners don't have to perform dogfight maneuvers or other edge-of-the-envelope stuff. Indeed, passenger airliners should as much as possible stay firmly in the middle of the envelope.

So... instead of a hardware solution to a hardware problem in this instance Boeing decided to use a software fix for a hardware problem. This apparently resulted in a problem when the software was not up to the problem (if your new iPhone has a software bug worst case you get a different phone. If your aircraft has a software problem worst case is you die a horrible fiery death). Boeing rolled out a "patch" for the software "solution" to the hardware problem. Which didn't seem to work. Because, based on what I've been able to find (with the caveat I'm not an engineer or privy to all the facts), the problem wasn't software, it was hardware. I have serious doubts that patching and re-patching software is going to solve this. I understand the appeal of the attempt - new software is a fuckton cheaper than new hardware in this sort of situation, or having to scrap a design entirely.

In addition, instead of the standard "triple-redundancy" of the aviation industry the MCAS system that is supposed to compensate for the hardware problem relies on not three but only two sensors. Unlike a triple redundant system where if one sensor fails there are two still giving accurate information and a "vote" between sensors yields reliable information, in a double-redundant system if one unit fails you have no way to know which is giving accurate information and which isn't, meaning it's a coin-flip whether the decision system (computer or human) is going to guess right or wrong on what to do. Yes, triple-redundancy costs more, but it's also a fuckton safer. Even on the bottom rungs of aviation where I used to hang out there's an emphasis on multiple inputs and confirmation of information, even more so should there be at the commercial transport level. Who the hell thought giving up triple-redundancy was a good idea? I'm guessing it's someone who spends more time pushing money around than actually traveling in an airplane.

The result of all this is that you have an airplane with a nose-up-down tendency to an unusual degree (which in aviation usually means unsafe, or at least less stable), and a software system that masks this... until it disengages or is turned off or simply can no longer adequately compensate, at which point you have a human pilot called in (because humans are there to handle situations the machines aren't programmed to handle) to deal with an airplane of flight characteristics of such unusual nature as to be dangerous. Remember - Boeing didn't think they could get an airworthiness certificate for the 737 Max without the MCAS software, so if the system disengages or is turned off the human pilot is then dealing with an aircraft of marginal airworthiness at best, and arguably NOT airworthy. Again, with a fighter jet the pilot can eject at that point, and in a modern fighter if there's a computer problem that's what the pilot does: abandon ship. A commercial airliner pilot can't do that, neither can the passengers, and is left to wrestle with something with, arguably, a major design flaw.

This isn't a matter of pilot error or pilot training. You can't train a pilot to deal with an airplane with a design problem that makes the aircraft unairworthy in a particular situation because physics doesn't let you cheat.

There are some software problems here. Inputs that result in the anti-stall system engaging doesn't just result in a nose-down input (which is what you do to prevent a stall) but a very strong nose-down input that is hard for the pilot(s) to fight. In it's first iteration this system would keep re-engaging multiple times which could (and apparently did) result in the up-down-up-down climb/dive seen in both crashes. If the system is turned off - meaning turned off so it won't be automatically re-engaged - then you have the pilot flying a plane of different than typical flight characteristics which can be hazardous. I don't know if this something that can be addressed by specifically training pilots for 737 Max emergency procedures, but Boeing advertised and sold this aircraft as something that didn't require specific training for already certified 737 pilots. Which would only compound any other problems involved with this mess.

It's not "pilot error" if the pilot was told he didn't need any additional training and wasn't informed of unusual flight characteristics.

To further add to the mess - due to the "make government small enough to drown it in a bathtub" meme in the US for the past few decades, FAA funding has been cut back with the result that aircraft manufactures have been given more and more responsibility for making sure their designs are safe. This is no way to run aviation. You need third-party observation to keep honest people honest and to put the dishonest out of business. I suspect an incremental slide to the current design flaws of the 737 Max due to lack of impartial oversight and fact-checking, economic pressures, and bad decisions on the part of the people at that were never questioned and never had to be justified to that third-party impartial outside observer that wasn't there due to budget cuts.

So, at this point, I think the 737 Max shouldn't be grounded, it should be scrapped. Because it looks like this is a hardware design flaw and you don't fix those with software or pilot training, you fix those by either fixing the hardware or getting different hardware.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

Post Reply