BajaNomad

Mexico restricts Boeing 737 max flights

LancairDriver - 3-13-2019 at 10:43 AM

Looks like Mexico has joined the crowd in suspending flights of the 737Max until an investigation of the conditions causing the two recent crashes is complete. Boeing has some 5,000 pending orders for the airplane so it must be the highest priority.

Since Fishbuck was a recent Boeing employee maybe he has some inside info?

Bajazly - 3-13-2019 at 11:36 AM

Just read something about this and the US is allowing business as usual and says it doesn’t have enough data to take any action.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 11:40 AM

This is why I retired.
In the past few years there has been alot of movement at the top of the company.
Let's say the the MBAs have gained more influence in the company than the Quality professions.
Think Winnebago.
Winnebago does not do any quality inspections before the product leaves the factory.
They rely on single verification (the mechanic) to verify conformiry to design.
Ofcourse they miss things.
They are counting on the "owner" to catch the defects in service and return to the dealer for warranty work.
Good luck with the dealer.
Boeing likes this quality model.
Boeing delivered a record amount of 737s last year with a huge end of year push.
The planes in question are part of that batch.
You can now see why the Winnebego model does not work for airliners.
The people killed thought Boeing did a good job.
These airplanes are so heavily electric now it is extremely difficult to get every connection and ground installed properly.
An intermitant ground is causing these crashes.
The autopilot gets bad info and pushes the nose straight down
On takeoff.
Our guys are ready for it when it goes wrong.
There is no time to figure this out realtime.
Have you finger on that trim disconnect switch until you have fat altitude.
There is no reason for these accidents.
But you can now see why our guys are all "Sullys".
The foreign pilots haven't seen the movie "Sully" yet.
But the problem is a quality issue from the factory.
That is where this problem will be solved by guys like me... if the company will let them.




[Edited on 3-13-2019 by fishbuck]

bajabuddha - 3-13-2019 at 11:41 AM

Just saw a blurb that BLOATUS is ordering grounding of the fleet. Then again, was gone as fast as it was posted, so no link .... yet.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 11:42 AM

They only person in the US with balls on this issue.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 11:54 AM

The flipside is to watch for Boeing stock to bottom out and buy as much as you can! It will bounce back quick.
It has been diving in post and premarket.
So be a good pilot and keep you eyes peeled and you head in the mission at all times.
Stay alert... stay alive..

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 12:01 PM

This is what you get with " We sure hope we get lucky" quality system (current trend)
Versus "send the inspector in and find everything wrong before it leaves" quality system.
No one likes to hear they did it wrong. Even when it's true.
It blows their illusion of themselves that they are actually good at what they do.
You see that the Company is still in denial on this and they bullied the FAA into not grounding the fleet.
These guys are stupidly dangerous...



[Edited on 3-13-2019 by fishbuck]

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 12:06 PM

I would have grounded both of these planes. They had this issue on prior flights. An intermittent problem.
Boeing should have flown those until they could duplicate the discrepancy and figure out what is wrong.
The software fix is a bandaid to change the emergency checklist so the pilots can react quick enough to save their lives.
But doesn't address the core issue at all...

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 12:09 PM

The other answer is that almost everyone in Washington is an idiot.
The other reason I retired.
Keep in mind that the last model 787 was grounded after it entered service. And none of them has crashed.. yet.
Boeing is getting better at making money but are losing their airplane building skills. Guys like me are fading just like the California aviation industry has.
Because the wrong people run the company now.






[Edited on 3-13-2019 by fishbuck]

LancairDriver - 3-13-2019 at 12:25 PM

I think Fishbuck hit it on the head about intermittent electrical connection problems. These are the most difficult to isolate and correct. All latest automobiles, rv’s and private aircraft are increasingly computerized with the pesky intermittent problems with some worse than others. You just need to be lucky to avoid most of it.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 12:32 PM

When you have me doing the inspections... you already got lucky.
It happens on takeoff.
And anyone who has ridden on a jet knows takeoff is somewhat hard on the plane... full throttle, bumpy runway, high angle of attack during intial climb-out.
The wires shake a bit and the loose ground or connection starts to fail. The flight computer gets bad readings and panics.
It can't always be tested for on the ground because it is ok in a static state.

pacificobob - 3-13-2019 at 01:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by fishbuck  
The other answer is that almost everyone in Washington is an idiot.
The other reason I retired


[Edited on 3-13-2019 by fishbuck]

rather than everybody in washington being mentally challenged, i submit that the problem likely has its roots at Honeywell who makes the FMS flight management system. i have many years flying these systems in heavy aircraft. b-747, MD-11 md-10 (updated dc-10) one example i can site is when Mcdonnell Douglass launched the MD-11 620k lb t/o weight. ( any time in those fishbuck?) it took 9 software revisions over many months before landing it no longer had rodeo like qualities.
these problems seldom boil down to a short/open circuit. i also doubt that issues found in winnabagos have much overlap with those found in transport catagory a/c.

David K - 3-13-2019 at 01:30 PM

Mike, isn't it possible to put an override on the system until the altitude justifies nose-down? I understand that this problem-system is an anti-stall device.. and if you are 10,000 feet up, going nose down to increase airspeed, to prevent a stall, works... but at 1,000 feet AGL, it is a death sentence...???

LancairDriver - 3-13-2019 at 01:48 PM

There is a world of difference between modern day largely composite construction and fly by wire aircraft complexity compared to the old “steam gauge” aircraft such as the early DC10’s and B747s. There are thousands of electrical connections requiring thousands of pins to be inserted into connectors flawlessly in modern aircraft. These present a challenging inspection process. The late model RV’s and automobiles particularly have the same problems as they have all gone to touch screen control of all systems with the same challenges. Hard failures are quickly diagnosed with automatic error codes, but the intermittent problem that comes and goes presents problems. My late model Dodge pickup had an intermittent electrical problem that the dealer finally pulled out a wiring harness with at least 10 connectors attached and replaced the entire harness. That’s today’s world. Solved the problem.

David K - 3-13-2019 at 01:52 PM

I look forward to when the miles of copper wire are replaced with fiber optics or ?? The future will be something to behold.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 02:03 PM

Copper is much tougher and lighter that a glass fiber. We only use fiber optic cable when neccesary. Huge volumes of data for a single purpose. Copper for all other.
The company solution is thiner and thinner copper wire. And more of it.
And one bad connection... out of millions maybe, thousands forsure.

[Edited on 3-13-2019 by fishbuck]

David K - 3-13-2019 at 02:14 PM

Interesting that copper is lighter than a fiber cable if sized for the same amount of power or data transfer! Thanks!

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 02:16 PM

Quote: Originally posted by pacificobob  
Quote: Originally posted by fishbuck  
The other answer is that almost everyone in Washington is an idiot.
The other reason I retired


[Edited on 3-13-2019 by fishbuck]

rather than everybody in washington being mentally challenged, i submit that the problem likely has its roots at Honeywell who makes the FMS flight management system. i have many years flying these systems in heavy aircraft. b-747, MD-11 md-10 (updated dc-10) one example i can site is when Mcdonnell Douglass launched the MD-11 620k lb t/o weight. ( any time in those fishbuck?) it took 9 software revisions over many months before landing it no longer had rodeo like qualities.
these problems seldom boil down to a short/open circuit. i also doubt that issues found in winnabagos have much overlap with those found in transport catagory a/c.


Since you know the MD-11 saga you may know that is what lead to the the demise of the MD-11 and Douglas Aircraft.
Boeing is making identical mistakes but on a much larger scale.
That is Hubris.
The think they are soo much smarter... in Washington... and nearly 400 people are dead because of it.
I was there for the last commercial DC-10 and the KC-10 and the MD-11.
And the demise of Douglas Aircraft.

McDonnel (St Louis) is still in business with Boeing.
We were McDonnell Douglas.
Now it's McDonnell Boeing. They don't use the name. Just Boeing.
And the same St Louis mistakes that ruined the MD-11 program. That is where the MBA ideas come from.
And ruined Douglas.
We should have never merged.
But it was inevitable.



fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 02:24 PM

Quote: Originally posted by LancairDriver  
There is a world of difference between modern day largely composite construction and fly by wire aircraft complexity compared to the old “steam gauge” aircraft such as the early DC10’s and B747s. There are thousands of electrical connections requiring thousands of pins to be inserted into connectors flawlessly in modern aircraft. These present a challenging inspection process. The late model RV’s and automobiles particularly have the same problems as they have all gone to touch screen control of all systems with the same challenges. Hard failures are quickly diagnosed with automatic error codes, but the intermittent problem that comes and goes presents problems. My late model Dodge pickup had an intermittent electrical problem that the dealer finally pulled out a wiring harness with at least 10 connectors attached and replaced the entire harness. That’s today’s world. Solved the problem.


When we have time constrants we don't trouble shoot either.
We replace the entire system where possible and sometimes never know exactly what was wrong.
It's an expensive way to fix it.
We send the conponents back to the vendor.
He bench tests them and returns them to stock.
Sometimes we get the same faulty parts back.
They get "damaged" when we get them back so they are never seen again after that.
You can't teach this in a classroom.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 02:32 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Mike, isn't it possible to put an override on the system until the altitude justifies nose-down? I understand that this problem-system is an anti-stall device.. and if you are 10,000 feet up, going nose down to increase airspeed, to prevent a stall, works... but at 1,000 feet AGL, it is a death sentence...???


Your idea is excellent.
The system in question is actually an automated system to make the airplane easier to fly.
The policy would be to have all those systems activated before takeoff.
Since we know there is a problem be ready for it when it happens and turn a switch of very quicly and then carefully hand fly the airplane back to the runway.
Twice that did not happen.
Are you a good enough pilot to compensate...
Or should we just ground the fleet and not test your inner "Sully".
The decision to fly belongs to the "Pilot in Command".
But his job and life hang in the balance.
He will be fired if he doesn't fly it.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 02:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Interesting that copper is lighter than a fiber cable if sized for the same amount of power or data transfer! Thanks!

Fiber uses light. Much quicker and no friction.
Copper uses electrons. Lots of heat and friction.

norte - 3-13-2019 at 03:29 PM

Military A/C are much more complex, yet their safety record is much better. SAme manufacturers in many cases. If the the gov't can buy lawn darts with a much better safety record, why can't the airlines with heavies.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 03:36 PM

 "it took 9 software revisions over many months before landing it no longer had rodeo like qualities."

The longer an airplane gets the more risk for a tail strike on takeoff and landing.
There were many tail strikes before the pilots got good and the softwhere help.
It happened on the MD-90 to but less tail strikes.
The plane had reached or exceeded it stabily limits and an automated system was need to keep flying good.
At the begginning the auto-system burned out almost right away because they were working so hard.
The aerodynamics were wrong.
The MD-11 never performed as advertised.
No amount of software fixes can make a lie come true...


[Edited on 3-14-2019 by fishbuck]

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 05:19 PM

Different regulatory agency.
But be aware thet the Air Force is refusing delivery of anymore KC-46 aircraft after the 1st few delivered were full of manufacturing debris in the fuel tanks and other areas of the plane.
We simply can not allow that.

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 05:28 PM

A KC-46 is a Boeing 767.

norte - 3-13-2019 at 06:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by fishbuck  
Different regulatory agency.
But be aware thet the Air Force is refusing delivery of anymore KC-46 aircraft after the 1st few delivered were full of manufacturing debris in the fuel tanks and other areas of the plane.
We simply can not allow that.


You are not saying that it takes a regulatory agency to make a difference in an aircraft manufacturers quality are you?

fishbuck - 3-13-2019 at 08:04 PM

The Air Force grounded the KC-46 aircraft immediately after they flew a few of them home and got a close look. They were p'd off too.
It took a ballsy President of the United States of America to overcome... "inappropriate pressure or influence" that Boeing may have been using to cloud peoples judgement with...
The FAA acted after the prez ordered it.
They are probably still saying it safe and it was the presidents fault that the planes can't fly.
That is your FAA.

Getting Control

MrBillM - 3-14-2019 at 01:13 PM

As the discussion often sinks knee-deep in the weeds and while there exists nothing more than (to varying degrees informed) speculation at present regarding the actual "technical" fault(s) that may have arisen, there is reason to believe that this (and the previous) incident may fall into another of many wherein those (sort of) at the controls failed to correctly assess the nature of the problem and take corrective actions.

As noted early on, IF an incorrect sensor input was causing the MCAS to wrongly adjust the attitude nose-down, the immediate beginning remedy was to disable the system and assume control. The (doubly ?) redundant c-ckpit instrumentation is sufficient for the flight crew to determine the actual (airspeed/attitude) flight conditions.

The increasing dependence on automated flight systems has placed an equally increasing necessity for more comprehensive crew information and training.

Earlier on the news, Christopher Hart (former NTSB chairman) noted that a disturbing percentage of pilots interviewed were unaware of the functioning of this or other automated systems. He also mentioned that 95 percent of pilots reacting to unexpected critical failures initially reacted incorrectly.

Time and again, technical shortcomings which would have been overcome without loss IF properly recognized and countered, resulted in disaster. Ironically, it has been found that extensive previous experience on a prior model of the same aircraft which is assumed to be an advantage necessitating less training can actually have the opposite effect with so many system changes:

------https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/opinion/business-economics/boeing-737-max.html

Article incorporating a graph of airspeed/altitude for the doomed flight:

------https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/faa-acting-chief-says-satellite-data-provided-link-between-boeing-crashes/

JoeJustJoe - 3-14-2019 at 01:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by fishbuck  
The Air Force grounded the KC-46 aircraft immediately after they flew a few of them home and got a close look. They were p'd off too.
It took a ballsy President of the United States of America to overcome... "inappropriate pressure or influence" that Boeing may have been using to cloud peoples judgement with...
The FAA acted after the prez ordered it.
They are probably still saying it safe and it was the presidents fault that the planes can't fly.
That is your FAA.


I would not give the President that much credit.

The USA was one of the last countries to ground the Boeing airplane in question, and pressure was growing that the US should join the party.

What the President did was jump in front of the story to take credit and act tough.

I'm sure there was also inappropriate pressure or influence, and you have to wonder why the President was talking to the CEO of Boeing a few days before, isn't that the FAA's job?

The story goes there was new information learned and that lead the FAA to finally ground the fleet of airplanes.

Trumpy Tantrum

MrBillM - 3-14-2019 at 02:56 PM

It's pretty clear why the Big Orange was so aggressive in keeping his grades hidden.

He's also likely Pissed over the FAA since he was lampooned after his proposal to nominate his personal pilot to head the FAA because he thought he was a "REALLY good pilot".

fishbuck - 3-14-2019 at 03:23 PM

I or anyone else doesn't know what happened yet. We may never know.
I'm sure even some of my counterparts may have a different explanation.
The tough part of any of this and life in gerneral is to predict a sucessful future without enough info.
So caution is indicated in this situation.
The is probably more than one cause and the system in question is a symptom of a larger issue or issues.
The plane flies fine with the system off and a decent capable pilot with his hand controlling the aircraft.
This is a quality escape of some kind. The problem is in the factory.
And this is also the hard way to find problems with the quality system.
As an aircraft inspector I consider myself the "pre-accident investegator". I thouroughly visually inspect it at the factory and get it fixed and make sure it doesn't happen again. There is no accident.
That is prevention based inspection.
The guys at the crash scene are "post accident investigators.
We call that "detection based inspection".
If there is a large smoking hole in the ground... something was wrong with the plane... and maybe the crew... and maybe both...

I prefer a prevention based quality system.

BajaTed - 3-14-2019 at 03:24 PM

Per Boeing, its a 3 to 6 month fix.
Not a piece of hardware will be touched or modified in the end.
Its all about software glitches.
Military grade G&C software remembers where it was and where its going much better. By design it has the capability to be interrupted. MX missiles have this capability @ mach 5 . The 737 Max doesn't @ Mach .7

Retired Rockwell/Boeing IT, the guys who made rockets and got bought by Boeing.
BTW, the MacDac & Boeing merger was to save them both from each other and to bring in the other unions beside the IAM

fishbuck - 3-14-2019 at 03:36 PM

Quote: Originally posted by BajaTed  
Per Boeing, its a 3 to 6 month fix.
Not a piece of hardware will be touched or modified in the end.
Its all about software glitches.
Military grade G&C software remembers where it was and where its going much better. By design it has the capability to be interrupted. MX missiles have this capability @ mach 5 . The 737 Max doesn't @ Mach .7

Retired Rockwell/Boeing IT, the guys who made rockets and got bought by Boeing.
BTW, the MacDac & Boeing merger was to save them both from each other and to bring in the other unions beside the IAM


No amount of software fixes can make a lie come true.
That is Boeings method of lie on top of lie to confuse people into thinking they did someting to fix it. They think if you tell enough lies it will equal the truth.
They did something to make you think they fixed it. And you do...
And how does something you have known about for months take more months to fix?
It will take months to get the quality back in the factory and the product.
The FAA will impliment much tougher scrutiny in the factory, in the engineering offices etc.
They can go as far as pulling the PC700. The production certificate.
If that happens every inspection is done by actual FAA.
That would kill the program.

David K - 3-14-2019 at 03:44 PM

Careful what you post on the Internet...

fishbuck - 3-14-2019 at 03:52 PM

Every piece of hardware will be touched. The planes are in production. We litterally take everything out of a box and touch it.
The ones in the field will be gone over with the perverbial "fine tooth comb" before Return to Service. An inspector will sign it off (approve) for flight and turn it over to the flight crew. They will sign for it if they feel it is airworthy and safe.
Hardware and software. The work together to keep the airplane flying.

fishbuck - 3-14-2019 at 03:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Careful what you post on the Internet...

Understood

David K - 3-14-2019 at 05:47 PM

I want you to have a long and happy retirement!

LancairDriver - 3-15-2019 at 10:32 AM

Pretty detailed article with airline pilots opinions on cause of crashes. Of course wait for “official” final report.

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/71567/boeing-the-faa...

John Harper - 3-15-2019 at 11:07 AM

Interesting article. We shall see what evidence comes forth.

John

BajaTed - 3-15-2019 at 02:31 PM

The larger more powerful forward mounted engine on the 737 max can cause the nose to pitch up. They have been writing control software to compensate for it since its roll out. Its an old design pushed to far, peace out from a rocket guy

Old Times

MrBillM - 3-17-2019 at 05:23 PM

One of the two articles in Friday's L.A. Times focused on a major (now unimportant) legacy consideration in designing the 737.

The desire to have the (then common) passenger boarding via stairways as short as possible.

Which, in the newest rendition with much larger (60 inch versus 29 inch) diameter engines, resulted in the problematic relocation. The MCAS being described as the result of a parallel goal to give the redesign unchanged (for the pilot) handling characteristics relative to the earlier models.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the L.A. Times. File under the heading that "It pays to pay attention" ..................

Off-duty pilot hitching a ride saved Lion Air 737 Max 8 one day before its deadly crash

As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.

That extra pilot, seated in the cockpit jump seat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia's investigation.

The so-called deadhead pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize.



[Edited on 3-24-2019 by MrBillM]