• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,541
Reaction score
19,318
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From MSN

Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max
​

Hundreds of 737 Max jets are sitting, grounded, as Boeing awaits approval from aviation regulators for the troubled plane to return to flight. But now, the company has discovered yet another potential hurdle.

The plane was grounded worldwide in March after two crashes that killed 346 people. The company determined a software fix was likely to correct the issue with the automatic safety feature that caused the crashes.

However, as part of a December audit of the plane's safety ordered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing found "previously unreported concerns" with wiring in the 737 Max, according to a report earlier Sunday from the New York Times. The company informed the FAA last month that it is looking into whether two sections of wiring that control the tail of the plane are too close together and could cause a short circuit — and potentially a crash, if pilots did not react appropriately -— the Times reported, citing a senior Boeing engineer and three people familiar with the matter.

A Boeing spokesperson confirmed the report to CNN Business on Sunday, saying the issue was identified as part of a "rigorous process" to ensure the plane's safety.

COMMENT:-

Oops!

Why do I think that the "Boeing definition" of "rigourous process" is "Don't look for problems but if you find any don't tell anyone about them and if you get caught look surprised."?
​
 
What is the appropriate reaction when when the pilot loses control of the tail, (rudder/elevator,) during flight?
 
Rexedgar said:
What is the appropriate reaction when when the pilot loses control of the tail, (rudder/elevator,) during flight?
Click to expand...

Far as I know, in a commercial heavy aircraft the pilot can still have use of engine throttles on either side of the craft, but that doesn't help with elevator flap controls at all, just the directional heading. And steering a plane by throttle is rather limited.
With loss of tail controls, the only elevators left are the wing flaps.

It is possible to land an aircraft that way but I sure wouldn't want to attempt it.
 
If I ran Boeing, I'd write off the entire 737-Max program. The problems are increasingly expensive and the public has lost confidence in the plane -- not to mention the government.

It's far better to design a plane with a new sheet of "paper" than to try to retrofit an existing design to do things it wasn't intended upon doing.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Far as I know, in a commercial heavy aircraft the pilot can still have use of engine throttles on either side of the craft, but that doesn't help with elevator flap controls at all, just the directional heading. And steering a plane by throttle is rather limited.
With loss of tail controls, the only elevators left are the wing flaps.

It is possible to land an aircraft that way but I sure wouldn't want to attempt it.
Click to expand...

I’ve only soloed in a Cessna and left a few in flight. I was taught that the wing flaps were only used on TO, to increase surface area, and on landing to get a higher rate of descent without increasing speed.
 
MTAtech said:
If I ran Boeing, I'd write off the entire 737-Max program. The problems are increasingly expensive and the public has lost confidence in the plane -- not to mention the government.

It's far better to design a plane with a new sheet of "paper" than to try to retrofit an existing design to do things it wasn't intended upon doing.
Click to expand...

You're probably right but that makes the 737-Max a huge black eye on Boeing.
And in the case of the 737-Max, it's not just poor public perception arising from a minor issue, like for instance the Chevy Corvair's tail wagging and understeer, both brought on by poor choice of shocks and tires and incorrect inflation, which were easily corrected.
It's not a Ford Pinto with weak gas tank protection in the stern, which was finally reinforced.
Nope, these problems are systemic and structural, if the reports are the least bit credible.

The 737-Max isn't a Corvair or a Pinto, it's a Chevy Vega.
Does Boeing want the image of producing the air version of a Chevy Vega as its legacy?
Probably already too late to shed that image at this point.
 
Rexedgar said:
I’ve only soloed in a Cessna and left a few in flight. I was taught that the wing flaps were only used on TO, to increase surface area, and on landing to get a higher rate of descent without increasing speed.
Click to expand...

I am not a pilot but having spent a good deal of time in aircraft anyway, that's also what I have heard as well, which is why I said I would never want to be faced with such a situation. But I have heard of pilots who were able to land with no tail control.
Hard landing, to be sure, and in most cases I heard it was more than hard, it was very messy, and only on very rare occasions did people walk away unscathed, more like a miracle.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're probably right but that makes the 737-Max a huge black eye on Boeing.
And in the case of the 737-Max, it's not just poor public perception arising from a minor issue, like for instance the Chevy Corvair's tail wagging and understeer, both brought on by poor choice of shocks and tires and incorrect inflation, which were easily corrected.
It's not a Ford Pinto with weak gas tank protection in the stern, which was finally reinforced.
Nope, these problems are systemic and structural, if the reports are the least bit credible.

The 737-Max isn't a Corvair or a Pinto, it's a Chevy Vega.
Does Boeing want the image of producing the air version of a Chevy Vega as its legacy?
Probably already too late to shed that image at this point.
Click to expand...

Neither one of these issues is structural.
 
Moon said:
Neither one of these issues is structural.
Click to expand...

I can't argue because I am not an aviation expert, certainly not knowledgeable enough to state whether or not it's structural.
That said, I did also use the word "systemic".
Do you also disagree that the flaws are systemic as well?

If yes, tell me why, maybe I can learn something from you.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From MSN

Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max
​

Hundreds of 737 Max jets are sitting, grounded, as Boeing awaits approval from aviation regulators for the troubled plane to return to flight. But now, the company has discovered yet another potential hurdle.

The plane was grounded worldwide in March after two crashes that killed 346 people. The company determined a software fix was likely to correct the issue with the automatic safety feature that caused the crashes.

However, as part of a December audit of the plane's safety ordered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing found "previously unreported concerns" with wiring in the 737 Max, according to a report earlier Sunday from the New York Times. The company informed the FAA last month that it is looking into whether two sections of wiring that control the tail of the plane are too close together and could cause a short circuit — and potentially a crash, if pilots did not react appropriately -— the Times reported, citing a senior Boeing engineer and three people familiar with the matter.

A Boeing spokesperson confirmed the report to CNN Business on Sunday, saying the issue was identified as part of a "rigorous process" to ensure the plane's safety.

COMMENT:-

Oops!

Why do I think that the "Boeing definition" of "rigourous process" is "Don't look for problems but if you find any don't tell anyone about them and if you get caught look surprised."?
​
Click to expand...

The 737 max was a rush job is why.
boeing got behind schedule on the replacements for the 737. it didn't help that Northern grumman had already produced their new
airliner and was beating out boeing big time.

the max is a rush job in which people failed their QA control of the product.
more than likely the risks that were submitted were deemed possible to be fixed
in after production.

like the safety issue. was probably scheduled for a post launch release in which they would say they discovered a small bug that would do this here is the fix.
same goes with the wiring. well it is within X micrometers vs Y micrometers it should be ok, but not with all the pressure they are simply ensuring that none of the
risks could affect any of the other systems.

This is the cost of non-compliance.

sometimes it is bad other times it can cost millions.
 
MTAtech said:
If I ran Boeing, I'd write off the entire 737-Max program. The problems are increasingly expensive and the public has lost confidence in the plane -- not to mention the government.

It's far better to design a plane with a new sheet of "paper" than to try to retrofit an existing design to do things it wasn't intended upon doing.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is cheaper to fix it at this point that delay and come out with a new design testing etc ...
although you are probably right they should dump this line and put all their effort on their max 2 or whatever they are calling it.

They are not so much retrofitting designs as they are fixing possible risks.
i am sure they have the space to fix the wiring it is simply a matter of cost.

the other issue that they have is they would lose all of the contract money awarded for the max
that airlines bought.

all in all this is still bad for boeing. people are going to be hesitant to get on those jets and airlines are not going to accept them unless
major tests done and completed by the FAA.
 
MTAtech said:
If I ran Boeing, I'd write off the entire 737-Max program. The problems are increasingly expensive and the public has lost confidence in the plane -- not to mention the government.

It's far better to design a plane with a new sheet of "paper" than to try to retrofit an existing design to do things it wasn't intended upon doing.
Click to expand...

That was a decision best made long ago....And it's also a good reminder as to what happens when pencil pushing business types overrule sound technical decisions.

Now, I don't think they can just abandon the aircraft. Development cost them 2-3 Billion. Right now they have 800 grounded aircraft at a cost of at least $100M each and another 4200 in sales. That's $83 Billion sitting on the ground and half a trillion in lost revenue. Boeing has $100 billion in annual revenue. So far they've eaten $9Billion. That's 10% loss in revenue and more than 100% profit. Not to mention that the whole program was a response to the A320 Neo. Without anything comparable in the fleet, Boeing would be essentially ceding the single aisle market to Airbus.

I think they **have** to fix it. And they should fire the entire corporate leadership. Its difficult to see how they could have made worse decisions.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I can't argue because I am not an aviation expert, certainly not knowledgeable enough to state whether or not it's structural.
That said, I did also use the word "systemic".
Do you also disagree that the flaws are systemic as well?

If yes, tell me why, maybe I can learn something from you.
Click to expand...

Depends on what system you’re talking about. The software issue with the MCAS was a bad decision that should have been eliminated before first delivery. If you have two data inputs for angle of attack which directly impacts the software’s ability to correct a stall, it only makes sense to use both. What really needs to be looked at here in my opinion, is how the internal decision process works and why did it fail.

As for the wiring issue, nothing I’ve read has labeled the issues as definitely being a problem, but they are looking into it. On the face of it, it doesn’t sound like a major problem, but we don’t know all the facts yet.

Boeing doesn’t build airplanes to crash. Like any company they’re worried about their bottom line, but they aren’t going to deliberately make decisions that will put people at risk.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're probably right but that makes the 737-Max a huge black eye on Boeing.
And in the case of the 737-Max, it's not just poor public perception arising from a minor issue, like for instance the Chevy Corvair's tail wagging and understeer, both brought on by poor choice of shocks and tires and incorrect inflation, which were easily corrected.
It's not a Ford Pinto with weak gas tank protection in the stern, which was finally reinforced.
Nope, these problems are systemic and structural, if the reports are the least bit credible.

The 737-Max isn't a Corvair or a Pinto, it's a Chevy Vega.
Does Boeing want the image of producing the air version of a Chevy Vega as its legacy?
Probably already too late to shed that image at this point.
Click to expand...
From my retail experience: take your loss early. In this case earlier.
 
Rexedgar said:
What is the appropriate reaction when when the pilot loses control of the tail, (rudder/elevator,) during flight?
Click to expand...

Personally I would think that "involuntary defecation" would NOT be outside of the range of "appropriate reactions".
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're probably right but that makes the 737-Max a huge black eye on Boeing.
And in the case of the 737-Max, it's not just poor public perception arising from a minor issue, like for instance the Chevy Corvair's tail wagging and understeer, both brought on by poor choice of shocks and tires and incorrect inflation, which were easily corrected.
It's not a Ford Pinto with weak gas tank protection in the stern, which was finally reinforced.
Nope, these problems are systemic and structural, if the reports are the least bit credible.

The 737-Max isn't a Corvair or a Pinto, it's a Chevy Vega.
Does Boeing want the image of producing the air version of a Chevy Vega as its legacy?
Probably already too late to shed that image at this point.
Click to expand...

There is a problem with "writing off the 737-Max" program since it is going to be somewhat difficult to do that on any BELIEVABLE grounds other than "this aircraft is NOT safe to fly" and that would expose Boeing to a horrendous level of legal liability (read as "it would cost Boeing BILLIONS to settle all the damage actions arising from the claim that "Boeing built and marketed an aircraft that it knew, or ought reasonably knew, was so defective that it was unsafe to fly.".

Since the actions could be spread around the world (depending on where the sales contracts were actually signed) the legal costs involved in simply engaging counsel would be very high as well.

For the actions in the US, the propensity of juries to award damages in (to my mind) profoundly stupid amounts (and by that I mean so incredibly high that they are ridiculous) raises the stakes even further.

Quite frankly Boeing would be better advised to "continue manufacturing" the 737-Max but slapping a $10,000,000,000 price tag on it and insisting on payment in full before construction is even started (with the sales contract having a delivery date of "whenever completed and tested to Boeing's satisfaction"). There is absolutely no need to assign more than one person to build each aircraft.
 
ludin said:
The problem is that it is cheaper to fix it at this point that delay and come out with a new design testing etc ...
although you are probably right they should dump this line and put all their effort on their max 2 or whatever they are calling it.

They are not so much retrofitting designs as they are fixing possible risks.
i am sure they have the space to fix the wiring it is simply a matter of cost.

the other issue that they have is they would lose all of the contract money awarded for the max
that airlines bought.

all in all this is still bad for boeing. people are going to be hesitant to get on those jets and airlines are not going to accept them unless
major tests done and completed by the FAA.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but given the demonstrated strictness with which the FAA conducted independent testing to ensure that the 737-Max was fully in compliance with the standards and regulations, some purchasers will be "rather hesitant to accept any finding from the FAA that the defects have been fully rectified and that there are no other unpleasant surprises waiting to be found" (read as "simply will not trust that the FAA certifications are honest").
 
Rexedgar said:
What is the appropriate reaction when when the pilot loses control of the tail, (rudder/elevator,) during flight?
Click to expand...

That depends on the nature of the failure.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not only that, but given the demonstrated strictness with which the FAA conducted independent testing to ensure that the 737-Max was fully in compliance with the standards and regulations, some purchasers will be "rather hesitant to accept any finding from the FAA that the defects have been fully rectified and that there are no other unpleasant surprises waiting to be found" (read as "simply will not trust that the FAA certifications are honest").
Click to expand...
That's already happening. There use to be a gentlemans agreement that anything approved by the FFA or European regulator or Japanese andnso on would only need paperwork to get approval in other jurisdictions. That is gone with the Europeans and others now requiring full testing according to thier standards.

Sent from my Honor 8X
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not only that, but given the demonstrated strictness with which the FAA conducted independent testing to ensure that the 737-Max was fully in compliance with the standards and regulations, some purchasers will be "rather hesitant to accept any finding from the FAA that the defects have been fully rectified and that there are no other unpleasant surprises waiting to be found" (read as "simply will not trust that the FAA certifications are honest").
Click to expand...

Well to my understanding that glitch with the autopilot was not something that was expected and that there was a specific set of circumstances that set it off.
that is not something that the FAA would look for.

I was right so boeing had to shift some things on the max back including the landing gear and the engines to make everything fit.
this would cause a less capable line of attack on take off and possible landings and they were attempting to keep the engines from stalling.

So they implemented a system that would take the nose of the plane down if the take off angle of attack was too high.
the system kicked in automatically without pilots doing anything (never a good idea).

in any even the FAA probably didn't even know about it which is why it wasn't tested.
 
MTAtech said:
If I ran Boeing, I'd write off the entire 737-Max program. The problems are increasingly expensive and the public has lost confidence in the plane -- not to mention the government.

It's far better to design a plane with a new sheet of "paper" than to try to retrofit an existing design to do things it wasn't intended upon doing.
Click to expand...

and no short cuts to save costs
 
MTAtech said:
If I ran Boeing, I'd write off the entire 737-Max program. The problems are increasingly expensive and the public has lost confidence in the plane -- not to mention the government.

It's far better to design a plane with a new sheet of "paper" than to try to retrofit an existing design to do things it wasn't intended upon doing.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's a tainted brand that will be associated with unsafe travel; and I don't see how they recover from that in the public eye.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Yep. It's a tainted brand that will be associated with unsafe travel; and I don't see how they recover from that in the public eye.
Click to expand...

how much will it cost to rewire these aircraft built and the one grounded at delivered to Boeing's partner airlines they will have to literally dismantle the aircraft to re wire them that will mean a long and laborious task as the problem stated seems to be in the wings and then the cost of having to put them back together ... they would be as well as scrapping the 737 max ... it's a heavily tainted aircraft and passengers will be very reluctant to fly in the plane
 
Rexedgar said:
What is the appropriate reaction when when the pilot loses control of the tail, (rudder/elevator,) during flight?
Click to expand...

Kiss your ass goodbye.

This is really bad for Boeing, which is so sad. I grew up just down the road from the original facility, and used to love seeing their new planes out on the tarmac. I'll never forget how ridiculously big the 747 was when it first came out, and I saw it next to a couple of 737s.
 
Godric1970 said:
how much will it cost to rewire these aircraft built and the one grounded at delivered to Boeing's partner airlines they will have to literally dismantle the aircraft to re wire them that will mean a long and laborious task as the problem stated seems to be in the wings and then the cost of having to put them back together ... they would be as well as scrapping the 737 max ... it's a heavily tainted aircraft and passengers will be very reluctant to fly in the plane
Click to expand...

Well said. There is no way I would fly in one until it has established a track record of at least a five years accident free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom