Boeing 737 MAX - software wouldn't fix faulty airframe

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,479
Wasn't it reported earlier in this thread that the FAA allowed Boeing to do their own evaluation of the plane, because FAA couldn't be bothered? Wouldn't that if true make it the FAA's fault?
The fault IMO is shared. The FAA trusted Boeing and Boeing management shafted them. That's trust is unlikely to happen again for a long time.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,479
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/nasa-declares-starliner-mishap-a-high-visibility-close-call/
In this, Loverro referred to two software errors that occurred during the two-day flight. The first problem occurred when Starliner captured the wrong "mission elapsed time" from its Atlas V launch vehicle—it was supposed to pick up this time during the terminal phase of the countdown, but instead it grabbed data 11 hours off of the correct time. This led to a delayed push to reach orbit. The second error, caught and fixed just a few hours before the vehicle returned to Earth through the atmosphere, was due to a software mapping error that would have caused thrusters on Starliner's service module to fire in the wrong manner.
 

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
29,521
It is entirely Boeings fault our inexperienced, poorly trained and inept pilots could not fly that plane!
Also that they installed software that would try to fly the plane into the ground if one sensor failed, and the pilots were not made fully aware of that.
 

Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
0
An old thread, but I'll waste peoples time.

Once back , when I was a lot more agile,

and was on a consultancy in the states,

flew back over night , got up graded to Business,

sat next to a great guy, working for Boeing, in the high up in the quality department.

he was well chuffed that they had saved a years work on verification of hardware by simulating, no more need to break carbon composite wings,

Also over moon at his pay rise / bonus due to cutting years off the software verification and by out sourcing it to a much cheaper country.

It worried me ever since.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,479
If I ever fly on a 737 Max - I will shiver with fear the entire flight.

An unstable deathtrap tamed with software- what could go wrong?
People think the 737 Max is a deathtrap?

Transportation modeDeath index
Airlines1
Intercity rail (Amtrak)20.0
Scheduled charter flights34.3
Mass transit (rail and bus)49.8
Non-scheduled charter flights59.5
Non-scheduled helicopter flights63.0
General aviation (like private planes)271.7
Driving or riding in a car/SUV453.6
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
True, but GA and particularly cars are generally used for shorter trips. Scheduled airlines and trains are longer trips. In other words, the 737 Max was relatively safe once you got to 10,000 ft altitude.

To me, deaths per trip (or fatal accidents per trip) are more meaningful from an anxiety standpoint. Then when looking at GA and automobile and others, I would have a second column that is corrected to exclude clearly avoidable causes, such as alcohol or running out of fuel. That is, the idiots getting in auto accidents at 2 AM Sunday morning are drawn from the same population as GA draws its pilots.

Of course, those arguments can go on and on, but for going to work every day, scheduled airlines are not a practical option for most of us.
 

Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
0
To inject , my other side of work over the years has been more military
In military jets, they are inherently unstable, without the computer, they can not be hand flown,

Look at the space shuttle, that was the same, no computer, impossible to control in the atmosphere above Mach 1 , "glide" slope of around 20 degrees, all but a crash.

Nothing inherently wrong with a software controlled plane,
OK, most military planes you have the chance of getting out,
unlike the shuttle or passenger planes,

But the idea that s/w can be just used to patch a problem it was not designed for, can just be outsourced to the cheapest bidder with minimal oversite / control , as seems to be the case in Boeing, is just crazy. ..

How did they ever get away with the redundant tubes sensors being an optional at cost extra ?
How did they get away with the optional readout to indicate that the sensors might be wrong as an optional at cost extra !!
 

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
29,521
How did they ever get away with the redundant tubes sensors being an optional at cost extra ?
Yes that's the most important question to me.
I would have thought that a first rule of aircraft design is that any sensor that could cause a malfunction of the primary flight controls should be mandatory at least double, if not triple redundant.
It should not be up to the pilot to try to determine, in a short period of time, why the software is trying to fly the plane into the ground due to the failure of one sensor.
It's obvious that profits overrode safety in this case.
 
Top