Lion Air Flight 610 Crash

[Glom]

The FAA needs breaking up clearly. It will require a Congressional enquiry that ends up echoing the Cullen Report into Piper Alpha. Lord Cullen said a major factor that led Piper to becoming so bad was that regulation was schizophrenic. The Department of Energy was responsible for both promoting North Sea exploitation as well as regulating its safety. That had to change so an outcome was the Department of Energy was broken up with the HSE taking over safety while the promotion bit was handed over to some economic/business department that has had more regenerations since then than the Doctor.

[swampyankee]

I'm not so sure that breaking up the FAA would preclude a large player from cheating again; it was done recently by Boeing, but it's also been done by GE (they did not do their bird ingestion tests on the CF-6, the engine on the DC-10, but used "similarity" from the engine on the C-5, which had a similar core but a completely different fan). I'm sure that there are other occurrences. The FAA's regulatory model works best with smallish companies run by people who actually believe that human life is more important than the bottom line; it fails when the companies are willing spend more money bribing politicians donating to political campaigns than not killing people.

[headrush]

Not strictly relevant to the topic but still Boeing.

The new 777x has folding wingtips, apparently to allow it to use normal gates but still get enough lift from the wings. These wingtips fold up.

Surely a better failsafe would have been to have the tips fold down as needed. That way if something breaks in flight the plane will still have enough lift to fly, as the air would keep the tips in the up position.

Thoughts?

[Trebuchet]

Too close to the ground. Could run into service vehicles, etc. The pilot wouldn't be able to see them.
Folding wingtips were an option on the 777 when it was first introduced, to allow it to fit into gates used by 767's. Nobody bought it.

[headrush]

I can see the potential issues when on the ground. I just hope they have a good plan for a failure. I would imagine they have potential buyers lined up or the plane would not have got this far.

[profloater]

Maximum lift is at take off, after that a failed folding wing tip would be unlikely to crash the plane. I guess such a failure is less likely than turbine surge during take off, birdstrike or runway debris. As a passenger, it’s best not to know too much! Until this debacle I thought the safety testing of aircraft was exemplary, as a past aircraft apprentice this has shaken my confidence because it was not new materials, new designs or new atmosphere conditions, just suppression of well established safety procedures.

[Trebuchet]

The Prime Directive:
No single failure, or combination of failures more probable than one in a billion flight hours, may result in a catastrophic accident.

I'm pretty sure a wingtip failure on takeoff would be catastrophic, so they'll have been working VERY hard to prevent it.

[Extravoice]

Naval aviation has been using folding wings for decades. That includes Boeing-designed aircraft.

They know how to it right, if they choose to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swampyankee]

I can see the potential issues when on the ground. I just hope they have a good plan for a failure. I would imagine they have potential buyers lined up or the plane would not have got this far.

A number of naval aircraft -- most notable the F-8 Crusader -- have taken off and landed with its wings folded. See, for example, https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/

[headrush]

A number of naval aircraft -- most notable the F-8 Crusader -- have taken off and landed with its wings folded. See, for example, https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/

Cool story, thanks for the link.

[Extravoice]

Mentour Pilot has an interesting podcast regarding the change of culture at Boeing and the decisions that led to the 737-Max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_zn_x2JK5Q

[headrush]

The bad news never stops coming - -
https://www.theguardian.com/business...rounded-planes

Now there's debris in the fuel tanks of the max. By debris they mean old rags and metal shavings from during production.
Quality stuff.

[Trebuchet]

They've had the same problem with the 767 tanker.

[Roger E. Moore]

Old computers were good computers, but they're old.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/9/21...uter-fcc-crash
https://www.engadget.com/boeing-737-...145605938.html
https://seekingalpha.com/article/433...x-cancellation
https://www.cnet.com/news/faa-737-ma...puter-changes/

[Swift]

All

I see several posts with links that have little or no description of what is contained in them. We frown on this. Please at least give a one sentence description, or a small quote, from each link you post.

Thanks,

[Roger E. Moore]

Old computers were good computers, but they're old.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/9/21...uter-fcc-crash
https://www.engadget.com/boeing-737-...145605938.html
https://seekingalpha.com/article/433...x-cancellation
https://www.cnet.com/news/faa-737-ma...puter-changes/

QUOTE: "A brand-new Boeing 737 Max gets built in just nine days. In that time, a team of 12,000 people turns a loose assemblage of parts into a finished $120 million airplane with some truly cutting-edge technology: winglets based on ones designed by NASA, engines that feature the world’s first one-piece carbon-fiber fan blades, and computers with the same processing power as, uh, the Super Nintendo.

"The Max has been grounded since March 2019, after some badly written software caused two crashes that killed 346 people. And while Boeing has received plenty of scrutiny for its bad code, it’s the Max’s computing power — or lack thereof — that has kept it on the ground since then."

The hardware was kept simple to reduce error. But the software cannot be fixed simply because the hardware is too simple.

QUOTE: "Boeing could have fixed this aerodynamic anomaly with a hardware change: “adaptive surfaces” on the engine housing, resculpted wings, or even just adding a “stick pusher” to the controls that would push on the control column mechanically at just the right time. But hardware changes added time, cost, and regulatory scrutiny to the development process. Boeing’s management was clear: avoid changes, avoid regulators, stay on schedule — period."

ALSO: "Though an FAA certification flight for the Max has yet to be scheduled, Boeing said in January that it could resume Max flights by June or July of this year. But the company hasn't said whether the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused it to shut down its factories, might affect that schedule."

[profloater]

QUOTE: "A brand-new Boeing 737 Max gets built in just nine days. In that time, a team of 12,000 people turns a loose assemblage of parts into a finished $120 million airplane with some truly cutting-edge technology: winglets based on ones designed by NASA, engines that feature the world’s first one-piece carbon-fiber fan blades, and computers with the same processing power as, uh, the Super Nintendo.

"The Max has been grounded since March 2019, after some badly written software caused two crashes that killed 346 people. And while Boeing has received plenty of scrutiny for its bad code, it’s the Max’s computing power — or lack thereof — that has kept it on the ground since then."

The hardware was kept simple to reduce error. But the software cannot be fixed simply because the hardware is too simple.

QUOTE: "Boeing could have fixed this aerodynamic anomaly with a hardware change: “adaptive surfaces” on the engine housing, resculpted wings, or even just adding a “stick pusher” to the controls that would push on the control column mechanically at just the right time. But hardware changes added time, cost, and regulatory scrutiny to the development process. Boeing’s management was clear: avoid changes, avoid regulators, stay on schedule — period."

ALSO: "Though an FAA certification flight for the Max has yet to be scheduled, Boeing said in January that it could resume Max flights by June or July of this year. But the company hasn't said whether the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused it to shut down its factories, might affect that schedule."

What about using a single vulnerable sensor? That’s already unforgivable... No warning light?.

[Roger E. Moore]

What about using a single vulnerable sensor? That’s already unforgivable... No warning light?.

Article on proposal to use two sensors, but Europe is not buying off on it.
https://www.industryweek.com/leaders...ing-max-return

[profloater]

Article on proposal to use two sensors, but Europe is not buying off on it.
https://www.industryweek.com/leaders...ing-max-return

The standard trouble with two, is knowing which is wrong. Three is better, but only two sides to the plane!

[swampyankee]

Naval aviation has been using folding wings for decades. That includes Boeing-designed aircraft.

They know how to it right, if they choose to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As an aside, of the serving naval aircraft, only the F-18E/F can be considered a Boeing product, and it's based on a McDonnell/Douglas design. Before this aircraft, the last Boeing-designed carrier aircraft to enter service was the F4B, a biplane in the 1920s.

[Trebuchet]

As an aside, of the serving naval aircraft, only the F-18E/F can be considered a Boeing product, and it's based on a McDonnell/Douglas design. Before this aircraft, the last Boeing-designed carrier aircraft to enter service was the F4B, a biplane in the 1920s.

F-18 is actually based on the Northrop YF-17! Somehow the government made them turn it over to McDonnell.

[Roger E. Moore]

Boeing will open soon, but no one wants its jets. Or any jets.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/18/busin...rus/index.html

[21st Century Schizoid Man]

Boeing will open soon, but no one wants its jets. Or any jets.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/18/busin...rus/index.html

Well that's for commercial jets. Boeing also makes military jets. So it will be possible to attack the virus.

[Extravoice]

The military hasn’t been too happy with Boeing’s offerings of late, either.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...paying-for-it/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[profloater]

It’s the same problem from the top, replacing engineering with schedule discipline. It is well established that the only way to predict reliability is to test. This can mean with any new design, iteration, change, test again. Schedules can get lost. My rule of thumb from being in development is actual time is six times reasonable predicted time! Sometimes you can get away with field correction, with aircraft, that’s a very dangerous gamble.

[21st Century Schizoid Man]

The military hasn’t been too happy with Boeing’s offerings of late, either.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...paying-for-it/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How rare is that firm that can keep all of its customers unhappy at once.

[Trebuchet]

It's the legacy of Jack Welch, who destroyed a great company without ever working there. Several companies, in fact.

[headrush]

Europe’s top aviation regulator said he’s satisfied that changes to Boeing Co.’s 737 Max have made the plane safe enough to return to the region’s skies before 2020 is out, even as a further upgrade his agency demanded won’t be ready for up to two years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...tion-regulator

But...

The FAA must act before EASA and other agencies around the world can lift the grounding, under international law.

[schlaugh]

And the FAA is about to approve the 737 Max return to service...not that many folks are flying.

Exclusive: FAA in final stages of Boeing 737 MAX review; could approve as early as Nov. 18
https://reut.rs/3n2g2Iy

[Van Rijn]

Yes, it’s amusing how quickly this went from a major news item to pretty much a “Who Cares?” Item. Well, I suppose it is still important to Boeing, anyway.