Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max

[JustHanging]

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.

I'm not sure. I have no problems with their other planes, they've proven they are air worthy. I'm flying on a Boeing to and from Europe this summer and I feel just as safe as I would on an Airbus.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I'm not sure. I have no problems with their other planes, they've proven they are air worthy. I'm flying on a Boeing to and from Europe this summer and I feel just as safe as I would on an Airbus.

I think the question it raises is around the safety QA of their future products. I'm sure this situation will change that around and we won't have a repeat of this, but trust in a safety process is important for a commercial airplane manufacturer.

 

[danielpalos]

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."?
​

Yet, the right wing would have us believe freer markets would be better than well regulated Commerce.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

But, apparently, Boeing (if Boeing didn't know about the "glitch" [such a nice, warm fussy term for "lethal defect"] right from the start) didn't actually bother to tell the FAA about it after Boeing discovered it (which was PRIOR to the two fatal crashes which the "glitch" caused).

However, what that means is that, now, non-American (at least) customers are going to be reluctant to accept the word of EITHER Boeing or the FAA that a Boeing manufactured aircraft is actually safe to fly.

The additional costs of testing (which the non-American (at least) customers are going to insist on are most likely to be tacked onto the cost of the aircraft and that means that the Boeing aircraft will be less "price competitive".

 

[ludin]

But, apparently, Boeing (if Boeing didn't know about the "glitch" [such a nice, warm fussy term for "lethal defect"] right from the start) didn't actually bother to tell the FAA about it after Boeing discovered it (which was PRIOR to the two fatal crashes which the "glitch" caused).

However, what that means is that, now, non-American (at least) customers are going to be reluctant to accept the word of EITHER Boeing or the FAA that a Boeing manufactured aircraft is actually safe to fly.

The additional costs of testing (which the non-American (at least) customers are going to insist on are most likely to be tacked onto the cost of the aircraft and that means that the Boeing aircraft will be less "price competitive".

they did test it and somehow it passed in testing but they didn't put proper training in the manuals in how to deal with it.
but you are right. i wouldn't trust the max at this point. i fly a bit for work. even if they fix it would try to avoid it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yet, the right wing would have us believe freer markets would be better than well regulated Commerce.

I saw this editorial cartoon the other day

​

and your "Yet, the right wing ..." comment reminded me of it.

Can you guess what country it came from?

 

[Mithros]

What is the appropriate reaction when when the pilot loses control of the tail, (rudder/elevator,) during flight?

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.

From my understanding, all Boeing airliners sans the 777 are are controlled through mechanical linkages directly operating the hydraulics. Instead of fly by wire, the rudder pedals on the pilot and copilot are mechanically linked both together and to cables which run through the fuselage to the Rudder Feel and Centering mechanism. This converts mechanical motion into hydraulic actuation which deflects the rudder. There are similar systems for the elevator and ailerons. I believe that the rudder and aileron trim trim operations are fully electric, while the elevator trim is both electric assist, but the tail jackscrew is manually connected to the the trim wheels on either side of the throttle.

There are electrical systems which modify the feel of the hydraulic system, ie the elevator feel shift and speed trim system, Stall management yaw dampers, etc.. So I think a short could change the way the controls feel and could cause runaway trim (aka what essentially brought down the 2 max's) But my guess is that we're looking at an increased risk of pilots encountering a situation which they fail to correctly identify and take proper action.

At least this is my understanding.