Ethiopian plane crash

[skwdenyer]

tobinen said:

lost in espace said:

Is the real problem that Boeing can remove MCAS altogether but you have to train thousands of pilots to fly the Max?

That's my understanding. It's only there to avoid another type-approval for pilots.

It is there for FAA certification, not to avoid pilot training.

[768]

captain_cynic said:

Anyone with any experience running production computing knows that you can't fix hardware with software because the software relies on consistent and accurate results from the hardware.

That's eventually true. I spend a lot of time writing software to tolerate hardware (or software) faults, but there are practical limits and safe(r) ways for software to fail.

I'm not sure differentiating between it being a software or hardware fault is particularly useful. It's an issue in the system as a whole as I see it, there seem to be steps you can take in hardware and software to improve the current situation. Neither should be ignored.

[Lemming Train]

https://twitter.com/FAANews/status/111931996836820...

"The team is scheduled to first meet on April 29 and its work is expected to take 90 days."

So the Max will be out of action until July-August it would seem.

They're still storing them locally for now at Paine Field and Boeing Field. They are utilising the old sizeable parking lot across the street at BFI next to the Duwamish River for a lot (currently 22 there at last count) and the rest of the overspill have been ferried up to PAE, mostly parked on the disused runway which in previous years was used for unfinished KC-46As and 787s requiring rework. There's a lot of space at PAE so imo it'll be a while yet before they need to look at desert storage.

[M4cruiser]

768 said:

I'm not sure differentiating between it being a software or hardware fault is particularly useful. It's an issue in the system as a whole as I see it, there seem to be steps you can take in hardware and software to improve the current situation. Neither should be ignored.

This just reminds me of the best definitions of hardware and software:
"Hardware breaks if you play with it for long enough; Software works ... if you play with it for long enough."

[snake_oil]

Lemming Train said:

https://twitter.com/FAANews/status/111931996836820...

"The team is scheduled to first meet on April 29 and its work is expected to take 90 days."

So the Max will be out of action until July-August it would seem.

They're still storing them locally for now at Paine Field and Boeing Field. They are utilising the old sizeable parking lot across the street at BFI next to the Duwamish River for a lot (currently 22 there at last count) and the rest of the overspill have been ferried up to PAE, mostly parked on the disused runway which in previous years was used for unfinished KC-46As and 787s requiring rework. There's a lot of space at PAE so imo it'll be a while yet before they need to look at desert storage.

So - that's a whole load of planes just gathering dust somewhere for how long - 6 months or more? Sounds expensive.

I wonder if anyone knows - are they still churning them off the production line awaiting the outcome of this process?

[Lemming Train]

snake_oil said:

So - that's a whole load of planes just gathering dust somewhere for how long - 6 months or more? Sounds expensive.

I wonder if anyone knows - are they still churning them off the production line awaiting the outcome of this process?

Yes, they are. But they had a 3 day stoppage a short while ago to catch up on some jobs (they've had engine supply issues for quite some time meaning they've rolled out engineless and then had to go back inside some time later for the engines to be installed) and they also announced a temporary reduction in the production rate from mid April by 10 frames per month (52 > 42) whilst the Max issues are ongoing, however the suppliers are maintaining their existing rates which means that some of the fuselages are being temporarily parked up in rail yards on their rail cars until Renton is ready to receive them.

https://twitter.com/mlanger/status/111853154812955...

[George Smiley]

Bad news for Boeing today over shoddy quality issues on the 787 line

Karma for their trying to stifle dornier

[Starfighter]

skwdenyer said:

tobinen said:

lost in espace said:

Is the real problem that Boeing can remove MCAS altogether but you have to train thousands of pilots to fly the Max?

That's my understanding. It's only there to avoid another type-approval for pilots.

It is there for FAA certification, not to avoid pilot training.

It is both.

Boeing wanted to maintain the same flight characteristics as 737NG aircraft to minimise pilot training tome / coats and make Max an easier transition for airlines.

FAA agreed to this on the condition that the MCAS system was mandatory for commercial flight operations. If that system does not work the flight cannot take off. It can we switched off in flight because you need to be able to override it in case of failure.

The first broken link in the chain is a crappy AOA sensor. That is hardware fault and needs a hardware fix.

The software failures all follow from this. Single sensor input, maximum trim angle adjustment and the reset = move more are all outside the system design parameters proposed by Boeing based on risk category and agreed with the FAA and not verified. This is all software.

[mcdjl]

George Smiley said:

Dvs_dave did you give your kids beef burgers during the bse crisis? Are you sponsored by Boeing?

It is a hardware fault
It is. A result of using an airframe years beyond the best before date
It is a result of using software to overcome hardware and that always results in failure
Will you take your family on the first max flight?

Does your car have traction control/stability control? Does the fact that it has it mean that the hardware is rubbish?

[Composite Guru]

George Smiley said:

Dvs_dave did you give your kids beef burgers during the bse crisis? Are you sponsored by Boeing?

It is a hardware fault
It is. A result of using an airframe years beyond the best before date
It is a result of using software to overcome hardware and that always results in failure
Will you take your family on the first max flight?

I agree. As soon as they fitted the CFM56 and had to flatten the intake showed the design was no good for large fan engines.
Boeing are just flogging a dead horse imo.

[George Smiley]

mcdjl said:

Does your car have traction control/stability control? Does the fact that it has it mean that the hardware is rubbish?

In most cases no but in a 600 bhp car it is there to overcome a hardware issue

[TeamD]

George Smiley said:

mcdjl said:

Does your car have traction control/stability control? Does the fact that it has it mean that the hardware is rubbish?

In most cases no but in a 600 bhp car it is there to overcome a hardware issue

But do you only have one wheel sensor?

[George Smiley]

TeamD said:

George Smiley said:

mcdjl said:

Does your car have traction control/stability control? Does the fact that it has it mean that the hardware is rubbish?

In most cases no but in a 600 bhp car it is there to overcome a hardware issue

But do you only have one wheel sensor?

Just reminded me of a time I was reported for dangerous driving after doing a 360 after exiting a side road

500bhp and tc was on

Turned out a abs sensor had a pinched wire (new car) and this triggered some active yaw bks or something by applying the individual wheel brake and diverting power to outside wheel

Fortunately no one hurt and charges dropped but software caused that failure based on hardware

With so much power and torque you need these aids on road cars but when they go wrong you end up with YouTube videos of fun

[eccles]

Composite Guru said:

George Smiley said:

Dvs_dave did you give your kids beef burgers during the bse crisis? Are you sponsored by Boeing?

It is a hardware fault
It is. A result of using an airframe years beyond the best before date
It is a result of using software to overcome hardware and that always results in failure
Will you take your family on the first max flight?

I agree. As soon as they fitted the CFM56 and had to flatten the intake showed the design was no good for large fan engines.
Boeing are just flogging a dead horse imo.

Considering how long it's been around with squashed engine nacelles, they seem to be flogging that dead particularly well!

[TeamD]

eccles said:

Considering how long it's been around with squashed engine nacelles, they seem to be flogging that dead particularly well!

A bodge too far?

[TeamD]

George Smiley said:

TeamD said:

George Smiley said:

mcdjl said:

Does your car have traction control/stability control? Does the fact that it has it mean that the hardware is rubbish?

In most cases no but in a 600 bhp car it is there to overcome a hardware issue

But do you only have one wheel sensor?

Just reminded me of a time I was reported for dangerous driving after doing a 360 after exiting a side road

500bhp and tc was on

Turned out a abs sensor had a pinched wire (new car) and this triggered some active yaw bks or something by applying the individual wheel brake and diverting power to outside wheel

Fortunately no one hurt and charges dropped but software caused that failure based on hardware

With so much power and torque you need these aids on road cars but when they go wrong you end up with YouTube videos of fun

So a limited slip diff is a hardware solution vs traction control based upon the abs sensors being a software solution in the ecu. Which one bit you in that ass?

[George Smiley]

You decide

[Munter]

Starfighter said:

.

The first broken link in the chain is a crappy AOA sensor. That is hardware fault and needs a hardware fix.

Why not just have the software use both AOA sensors to tell if one has failed. The hardware backup is already there, and working. Just being ignored. Why not solve that problem?

[TeamD]

Munter said:

Starfighter said:

.

The first broken link in the chain is a crappy AOA sensor. That is hardware fault and needs a hardware fix.

Why not just have the software use both AOA sensors to tell if one has failed. The hardware backup is already there, and working. Just being ignored. Why not solve that problem?

Normally 3(minimum) sensors would be the best option for a software based fix. Let's face it, even if you have two sensors, which one is wrong? You, I, the computer, cannot make this determination, it's a coin toss.

[kev1974]

TeamD said:

Munter said:

Starfighter said:

.

The first broken link in the chain is a crappy AOA sensor. That is hardware fault and needs a hardware fix.

Why not just have the software use both AOA sensors to tell if one has failed. The hardware backup is already there, and working. Just being ignored. Why not solve that problem?

Normally 3(minimum) sensors would be the best option for a software based fix. Let's face it, even if you have two sensors, which one is wrong? You, I, the computer, cannot make this determination, it's a coin toss.

You could make a very educated guess by looking at historic data for the two sensors and seeing if one had suddenly changed or gone unstable?

If you had three you'd want them to be in physically distinct locations as much as possible to avoid the possibility of a truck on the ground bashing or stoving two of them in unnoticed, and causing them to give similar but incorrect readings.