Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
- Rwy in Sight
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 6740
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
- Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
- Gender:
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
It might have been mentioned beforehand but I failed to spot it so I am pleading any kind soul to explain it to me: what was the reasoning behind the installation of a single sensor vs a more reliable structure?
-
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 14669
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:17 am
- Location: Gravity be the clue
- Gender:
- Age: 80
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
Probably in TGGs link. I would guess economy.
- Undried Plum
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 7308
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
- Location: 56°N 4°W
- boing
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:32 am
- Location: Beautful Oregon USA
- Gender:
- Age: 77
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
As reported in another article, linked by TGG I think, adding a second AoA vane could have then meant that a third vane would be needed as a tie-breaker - so over triple the expense. The clutz solution was to simply use a light to tell the pilots there was an AoA discrepancy, it still did not tell them which one had failed and this system did not activate until 400 feet after take-off because AoA vanes commonly flop all over the place until they feel some airflow. So you get airborne then when you are busy shortly after take-off the damn light comes on. Thanks.
.
.
the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.
- Rwy in Sight
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 6740
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
- Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
- Gender:
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
I am not sure I understand the economy, in hindsight I must add. A Max is around what 80 mil? Even if the additional equipment (two more vanes) cost a 5 figure sum it wouldn't make a difference on the final price tag and maintenance cost. Obviously currently Boeing wish they offered the full set for free.boing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:54 amAs reported in another article, linked by TGG I think, adding a second AoA vane could have then meant that a third vane would be needed as a tie-breaker - so over triple the expense. The clutz solution was to simply use a light to tell the pilots there was an AoA discrepancy, it still did not tell them which one had failed and this system did not activate until 400 feet after take-off because AoA vanes commonly flop all over the place until they feel some airflow. So you get airborne then when you are busy shortly after take-off the damn light comes on. Thanks.
- TheGreenGoblin
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 17596
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
- Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
The whole AoA vane solution, even triply redundant with electronic discrepancy and tie -break voting, due to an intrinsic design problem with the aircraft, smacks of being an unholy kludge!boing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:54 amAs reported in another article, linked by TGG I think, adding a second AoA vane could have then meant that a third vane would be needed as a tie-breaker - so over triple the expense. The clutz solution was to simply use a light to tell the pilots there was an AoA discrepancy, it still did not tell them which one had failed and this system did not activate until 400 feet after take-off because AoA vanes commonly flop all over the place until they feel some airflow. So you get airborne then when you are busy shortly after take-off the damn light comes on. Thanks.
Yep I know that many aircraft have had analogue or electronic fixes to help "iron out" unpleasant or potentially deadly handling issues (think stick shaker on the BAC One-Eleven for example) but this AoA vane remediation seems so totally crass. How any engineer could have felt comfortable with it just boggles the mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_BAC_ ... test_crash
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
I don't know how many of you follow Juan Browne's series of youtube videos on the max problems, but his latest on the Max hearing is well worth watching.
- TheGreenGoblin
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 17596
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
- Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
+1
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
- boing
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:32 am
- Location: Beautful Oregon USA
- Gender:
- Age: 77
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
I have flown two "antique" aircraft that had stability augmentation so the concept is not new, in fact the systems I am thinking of would now be considered crude but they were "safe".
This disaster boils down to the interpretation of what constitutes a new aircraft type as far as certification is concerned because a new aircraft type involves increased manufacturing costs and increased operating costs. In my experience the "similar type" philosophy first appeared with the 767 where two similar variants of the aircraft were covered by one type rating even though the aircraft had different engines, originally a different number of crew members and many different check-list procedures. There may have been earlier examples. Since then the concept of "new model but same type" has been a prime approach in the industry to reduce costs and the interpretation of "similar" has been stretched considerably. The result has been pushing the boundary between "similar type" and "new type".
And herein lies the 737MAX problem. If the 737MAX certification had crossed the line into requiring full certification it would have been a more expensive aircraft for the airlines to buy and operate. So Boeing simply hid the triggers that MAY have required re-certification and MCAS was apparently, based on Boeing's obfuscation, a sensitive item.
Boeing made a business decision. Whoops, we have a problem, the new design either needs longer gear legs to fit the engines in the optimum place under the wings or we will have to go with some sort of stability augmentation to make it behave like the older 737s. A new design was out of the question because structural changes would certainly need re-certification so lets go with the stab. system. The result was that they went with a cheap and nasty stab. system and tried to hide it in case it led to extra crew training requirements that may have led to the aircraft being considered as a separate type.
Now, much has been done in the area of pilot training to reduce it to a matter of sitting down in front of a computer, listening to the course material and then taking the multiple choice test but Boeing could not guarantee to themselves that even the FAA would buy into this training when immediate check-list actions and flying procedures were involved so they simply hid the problem. They hid the problem since the extra training would remove the 737MAX from the "similar" aircraft provision and require that it only be flown by suitably trained pilots which meant that an airline would have to train ALL of its 737 pilots on the MAX or create a special group of MAX only pilots. This would lead to increased crewing and training costs.
The rest is history still in the making.
.
This disaster boils down to the interpretation of what constitutes a new aircraft type as far as certification is concerned because a new aircraft type involves increased manufacturing costs and increased operating costs. In my experience the "similar type" philosophy first appeared with the 767 where two similar variants of the aircraft were covered by one type rating even though the aircraft had different engines, originally a different number of crew members and many different check-list procedures. There may have been earlier examples. Since then the concept of "new model but same type" has been a prime approach in the industry to reduce costs and the interpretation of "similar" has been stretched considerably. The result has been pushing the boundary between "similar type" and "new type".
And herein lies the 737MAX problem. If the 737MAX certification had crossed the line into requiring full certification it would have been a more expensive aircraft for the airlines to buy and operate. So Boeing simply hid the triggers that MAY have required re-certification and MCAS was apparently, based on Boeing's obfuscation, a sensitive item.
Boeing made a business decision. Whoops, we have a problem, the new design either needs longer gear legs to fit the engines in the optimum place under the wings or we will have to go with some sort of stability augmentation to make it behave like the older 737s. A new design was out of the question because structural changes would certainly need re-certification so lets go with the stab. system. The result was that they went with a cheap and nasty stab. system and tried to hide it in case it led to extra crew training requirements that may have led to the aircraft being considered as a separate type.
Now, much has been done in the area of pilot training to reduce it to a matter of sitting down in front of a computer, listening to the course material and then taking the multiple choice test but Boeing could not guarantee to themselves that even the FAA would buy into this training when immediate check-list actions and flying procedures were involved so they simply hid the problem. They hid the problem since the extra training would remove the 737MAX from the "similar" aircraft provision and require that it only be flown by suitably trained pilots which meant that an airline would have to train ALL of its 737 pilots on the MAX or create a special group of MAX only pilots. This would lead to increased crewing and training costs.
The rest is history still in the making.
.
the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.
- TheGreenGoblin
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 17596
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
- Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1
Ryanair grounds three 737's due to cracks...
Cracks between the wing the fuselage
At least three Ryanair Boeing 737s have been grounded due to cracks between the wing and fuselage but this was not disclosed to the public, the Guardian can reveal.
The budget Irish airline is the latest to be affected by faults in the “pickle fork” structure, which has sparked an urgent grounding of 50 planes globally since 3 October.
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
..and the woeing for Boeing goes on https://samchui.com/2019/11/20/ntsb-sug ... dUKUdXgqcQ
- ian16th
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 10029
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:35 am
- Location: KZN South Coast with the bananas
- Gender:
- Age: 87
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
That'll cost a few bob!Boac wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:45 am..and the woeing for Boeing goes on https://samchui.com/2019/11/20/ntsb-sug ... dUKUdXgqcQ
Cynicism improves with age
- TheGreenGoblin
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 17596
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
- Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
An excellent article. Many thanks for posting that.
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
- Fox3WheresMyBanana
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 12987
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
- Location: Great White North
- Gender:
- Age: 61
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
Staggering really, that a bunch of financiers thought they could run a major aerospace company from a thousand miles away. In the simplest terms, it is rocket science.
The history of business is that you can turn engineers into financiers. Indeed, one third of my fellow engineering graduates went straight off to do finance, as usual.
You cannot turn accountants into anything, not even bankers.
And certainly not lion tamers
The history of business is that you can turn engineers into financiers. Indeed, one third of my fellow engineering graduates went straight off to do finance, as usual.
You cannot turn accountants into anything, not even bankers.
And certainly not lion tamers
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
But one should encourage them to try...Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:15 pmYou cannot turn accountants into anything, not even bankers.
And certainly not lion tamers
- Fox3WheresMyBanana
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 12987
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
- Location: Great White North
- Gender:
- Age: 61
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
Bit unfair on the lions, nasty taste
-
- Capt
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:31 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Gender:
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
Thanks for posting that article from the Atlantic, Capt Slasher.
In the article and in others I have read, there is mention of acolytes of Jack Welch who came over or were recruited by Boeing.
I worked for GE in the late 90s during a period of rapid expansion. Not a nice outfit to work for in so many ways. Back then it was a ruthless business with what seemed to be just the one objective: to drive up the share price.
'Tis a great shame what has happened.
The only Boeing product I've flown was the Stearman and my memory is that Boeing had sold off production to Stearman. Still, a great fun aircrafts.
In the article and in others I have read, there is mention of acolytes of Jack Welch who came over or were recruited by Boeing.
I worked for GE in the late 90s during a period of rapid expansion. Not a nice outfit to work for in so many ways. Back then it was a ruthless business with what seemed to be just the one objective: to drive up the share price.
'Tis a great shame what has happened.
The only Boeing product I've flown was the Stearman and my memory is that Boeing had sold off production to Stearman. Still, a great fun aircrafts.
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Boeing in yet another technical pickle!
777X FOLDING WINGTIPS! !
The military had many interesting experiences with these devices, mostly fatal.
Is this yet another tech pickle in gestation?
The military had many interesting experiences with these devices, mostly fatal.
Is this yet another tech pickle in gestation?