What went wrong with the Boeing 737 Max

[robbelg]

A very readable article on what went wrong with the Boeing 737 Max and how it happened.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/avi ... -developer


Rob

[staffordian]

Yes, I read that yesterday.

Quite damning IMHO, of both Boeing and the FFA.

The incompetence of software designers in not appreciating the consequences of the single points of failure in their work is matched only by that of those who accepted it as satisfactory.

[Lootman]

Nice article. Boeing's decision to scrap the 757 is looking rather silly right now, especially as they kept production of its sibling plane - the 767.

The 757 did exactly what the 737-Max is supposed to do - fly more people across the Atlantic and similar distances in a narrow-body, single-aisle aircraft, which is cheaper to operate than a wide-body "heavy". It was reliable, safe and over-engineered in a good way, whereas the Max is over-engineered in a bad way.

I guess the real gainer is Airbus which now has a monopoly on long-range single-aisle aircraft - the A321-LR and A321-neo. The irony is that Airbus has often been criticised for over-automating their planes whereas Boeing stuck with giving the pilots more control and more "feel" of the aircraft. Until the Max anyway.

I was due to fly a Max next month but it has now been swapped out by a Dreamliner. I feel better for that.

[Dod101]

Surely the 737Max should never have passed muster. Boeing deliberately weakened what we might call its fly ability and compensated for that with the MACS software. That is completely crazy. Obviously the 737 fuselage was built for certain engines and those only. And what is more no one in the US wanted to ground these aircraft. I wonder if our CAA is any better than the FAA appears to be? Let's hope so.

If it ever flies again with a 'modified' MACS system passengers should avoid them with their feet and it should be scrapped or at least fitted with the original engines.

Dod

[staffordian]

Surely the 737Max should never have passed muster. Boeing deliberately weakened what we might call its fly ability and compensated for that with the MACS software. That is completely crazy. Obviously the 737 fuselage was built for certain engines and those only. And what is more no one in the US wanted to ground these aircraft. I wonder if our CAA is any better than the FAA appears to be? Let's hope so.

If it ever flies again with a 'modified' MACS system passengers should avoid them with their feet and it should be scrapped or at least fitted with the original engines.

Dod

It looks like at least part of the issue is the FAA's "contracting out" of their safety remit to Boeing, so the latter were effectively certifying their own work, from all accounts.

As we don't make much that flies these days I guess there isn't the same sort of issue with the CAA.

[ReformedCharacter]

I've been following the Boeing 737 Max saga with growing disbelief. It seems that the day before the first crash:

An off-duty pilot in the cockpit of a Boeing 737 Max 8 jet jumped in to help crew disable a malfunctioning flight-control system as it experienced difficulties in October, according to Bloomberg.

The next day, with a different crew, the same plane crashed into the sea off Jakarta, killing all 189 people on board.

I can't believe how it could be that the information wasn't passed on.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia ... index.html

It also seems that some of the 'safety devices' were optional!

The “angle of attack (AOA) disagree” light warns the pilot when the plane is about to stall based on factors such as the airflow and nose direction, but this does not come as standard when airlines purchase the aircraft.

https://www.rt.com/news/454489-boeing-7 ... al-extras/

Incredible.

RC