U.S grounds ALL 737 Max
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Norway
Age: 57
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is my understanding too, I am just starting to think that I have reached that understanding by just assuming MCAS works the way the rest of the 737 FCC stuff does and not from actual released information.
MCAS clearly used same AOA source on consecutive LionAir flights, the reason for that has not yet been confirmed.
MCAS clearly used same AOA source on consecutive LionAir flights, the reason for that has not yet been confirmed.
So one sees that there is a 50 percent chance that two consecutive flights will use the same FCC/AoA if the power to the FCC was cycled when on the ground.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one segment used AoA1/FCC1, the arcraft landed, power to the FCC was cycled, then upon power up the AoA1/FCC1 would be active, as this FCC is always the active one after a power cycling regarding computing MCAS.
So one sees that there is a 50 percent chance that two consecutive flights will use the same FCC/AoA if the power to the FCC was cycled when on the ground.
So one sees that there is a 50 percent chance that two consecutive flights will use the same FCC/AoA if the power to the FCC was cycled when on the ground.
If one segment used AoA1/FCC1, the arcraft landed, power to the FCC was cycled, then upon power up the AoA1/FCC1 would be active, as this FCC is always the active one after a power cycling regarding computing MCAS.
So one sees that there is a 50 percent chance that two consecutive flights will use the same FCC/AoA if the power to the FCC was cycled when on the ground.
So one sees that there is a 50 percent chance that two consecutive flights will use the same FCC/AoA if the power to the FCC was cycled when on the ground.
Two questions:
1: How often is FCC power cycled?
2: If it is important to alternate AoA/FCC, why is this alternation interrupted by power cycling?
It seems to me, if power cycling can interrupt the alternation of sources/computers, then the alternation is not important at all.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the convening of a grand jury in D.C. and the broad supoena issued by a federal criminal prosecutor to obtain Boeing corporate communications potentially slow down the safety process of finding out what happened and the best way to fix the issues? It cannot be helpful, IMO.
While Boeing and the FAA may eventually be found to have been negligent, the threat of criminal negligence cannot be helpful in the accident investigation process.
While Boeing and the FAA may eventually be found to have been negligent, the threat of criminal negligence cannot be helpful in the accident investigation process.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For as long as the 737 MAX are grounded, and assuming other models are not affected by the same issue, the slowing down of the safety process actually seems more helpful than not, especially if the planes would otherwise be sent up soon with another quick software hack.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the current trade issues being perused across the globe, it could be more than Europe that requires recertification. With Huawei in the crosshairs, I would expect China to be playing a hard line on recertification
For as long as the 737 MAX are grounded, and assuming other models are not affected by the same issue, the slowing down of the safety process actually seems more helpful than not, especially if the planes would otherwise be sent up soon with another quick software hack.
Considering how blame tends to be assigned, I wouldn’t want to be an FAA or Boeing certification engineer right now. When the delegation and oversight processes are scrutinized, management (current and retired) will skillfully deflect responsibility.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally, I think, the grounding reduces immediate risk, but the pressure to approve a fix and get the airplanes flying is stronger than ever. Not sure, but I feel encouraged that the third party scrutiny by DOJ and DoT investigations might make things a bit more transparent. We’ll see.
Considering how blame tends to be assigned, I wouldn’t want to be an FAA or Boeing certification engineer right now. When the delegation and oversight processes are scrutinized, management (current and retired) will skillfully deflect responsibility.
Three hundred counts of manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder, ....do we really want to go there?
The aviation world might be better served in terms of transparency if the involved players were not under threat of criminal prosecution which will cause them to lawyer up more than they already have, allow them to clam up for fear of self-incrimination, and overall delay discovery that would enable a safer future. There may well have been profound negligence on the part of BA and the FAA, but short of a smoking gun email, I would doubt criminal intent.
Three hundred counts of manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder, ....do we really want to go there?
Three hundred counts of manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder, ....do we really want to go there?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reads/hears the mantra “Safety is our no. 1 concern”. from airlines and aircraft manufacturers so it is with some head scratching as to why why the AoA disagree light is just an option.
I treat this mantra with a touch of disbelief.
I read that Boeing say they will now provide these items free of charge. Shameful they weren’t included as a basic safety feature Boeing say is their number 1 concern. I think my cynicism on that mantra used by anyone is justified.
I treat this mantra with a touch of disbelief.
I read that Boeing say they will now provide these items free of charge. Shameful they weren’t included as a basic safety feature Boeing say is their number 1 concern. I think my cynicism on that mantra used by anyone is justified.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reads/hears the mantra “Safety is our no. 1 concern”. from airlines and aircraft manufacturers so it is with some head scratching as to why why the AoA disagree light is just an option.
I treat this mantra with a touch of disbelief.
I read that Boeing say they will now provide these items free of charge. Shameful they weren’t included as a basic safety feature Boeing say is their number 1 concern. I think my cynicism on that mantra used by anyone is justified.
I treat this mantra with a touch of disbelief.
I read that Boeing say they will now provide these items free of charge. Shameful they weren’t included as a basic safety feature Boeing say is their number 1 concern. I think my cynicism on that mantra used by anyone is justified.
1. Did Boeing originally offered these options with some customers choosing them and others declining?
2. Or did Boeing design the 737MAX flight deck without them only to have some customers request them to which Boeing agreed provided those to customers who were willing to pay enough to cover the development costs?
In all the talk about airlines having to pay extra for these AOA displays and AOA disagree message I have not heard how much they cost. Without understanding the full history (which I don't) it seems unfair after seeing these displays only on some 737MAXs to jump to the conclusion that Boeing was using them as a way to get more out of customers willing to pay for them.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Norway
Age: 57
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know the history of these options. I would imagine that this story looks something like one of the two following flavors;
1. Did Boeing originally offered these options with some customers choosing them and others declining?
2. Or did Boeing design the 737MAX flight deck without them only to have some customers request them to which Boeing agreed provided those to customers who were willing to pay enough to cover the development costs?
In all the talk about airlines having to pay extra for these AOA displays and AOA disagree message I have not heard how much they cost. Without understanding the full history (which I don't) it seems unfair after seeing these displays only on some 737MAXs to jump to the conclusion that Boeing was using them as a way to get more out of customers willing to pay for them.
1. Did Boeing originally offered these options with some customers choosing them and others declining?
2. Or did Boeing design the 737MAX flight deck without them only to have some customers request them to which Boeing agreed provided those to customers who were willing to pay enough to cover the development costs?
In all the talk about airlines having to pay extra for these AOA displays and AOA disagree message I have not heard how much they cost. Without understanding the full history (which I don't) it seems unfair after seeing these displays only on some 737MAXs to jump to the conclusion that Boeing was using them as a way to get more out of customers willing to pay for them.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many orders do you have to spread the development costs across? $60K doesn’t seem that high if the non-recurring costa are spread over 30 to 50 planes
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Norway
Age: 57
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But first you have to decide how many aircraft you can sell with this option. Say you think you only can sell one aircraft. Then you must charge say 1 million for that option. Ofc you wont get any sales at that asking price.
Let say you think you can sell 50 airplanes, than the 1 million non-recurring is down to $20K per aircraft. How many will you now sell, might be hard to tell, you think you will get some sales.
What if you think you can sell 6,000 aircraft with that option? Then the non-recurring cost would be only $166 for each aircraft. I think everyone would take that option for such a low cost and you would sell it on the full production run of the aircraft family. You could just as well make it standard.
I suppose the actual recurring cost for this option would be close to zero, isnt that correct?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the cost you use and the logic you use may be correct, (or not), I would hazard a guess and say you aren't an airline beancounter............ "Cost of everything, value of nothing", as the saying goes.
AoA
FCeng #95
Reading between the lines and industry articles, the demand appears to originate from misguided ‘solutions’ for LoC recovery (little consideration of how the situation should have been avoided in the first instance).
Also, perhaps more influential, proposals from eminent safety gurus, Unions, and individual Airlines.
Unfortunately this appears to be the current state of industry knowledge, or the perception of aspects which might previously be taken as known; less so today.
Boeing 737 Max Software Fixes Due to Lion Air Crash Delayed
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...737-max-fleet/
https://thepointsguy.com/news/southw...ion-air-crash/
Related, and relevant:-
A US author, for US audience, about US education; however, if the aspects of IT / web and their effect on thinking - social change, then the world-wide aviation industry might face a greater threat than one errant system design.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...aith-expertise
Reading between the lines and industry articles, the demand appears to originate from misguided ‘solutions’ for LoC recovery (little consideration of how the situation should have been avoided in the first instance).
Also, perhaps more influential, proposals from eminent safety gurus, Unions, and individual Airlines.
Unfortunately this appears to be the current state of industry knowledge, or the perception of aspects which might previously be taken as known; less so today.
Boeing 737 Max Software Fixes Due to Lion Air Crash Delayed
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...737-max-fleet/
https://thepointsguy.com/news/southw...ion-air-crash/
Related, and relevant:-
A US author, for US audience, about US education; however, if the aspects of IT / web and their effect on thinking - social change, then the world-wide aviation industry might face a greater threat than one errant system design.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...aith-expertise
Last edited by PEI_3721; 22nd Mar 2019 at 08:45. Reason: Link Software fixes
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find conspiracy theories about the MAX pretty hard to believe. What is easy to believe is a Boeing management engineering culture that prioritized the absolute minimum changes to the 737 so that Boeing could advertise upgrading to the Max would not incur any training cost to airlines.
