Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
prozac

Chinese carriers, Ethiopian Airlines suspend use of Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft after crash

Recommended Posts

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China’s aviation regulator on Monday grounded nearly 100 Boeing Co 737 MAX 8 aircraft operated by its airlines, more than a quarter of the global fleet of the jets, after a deadly crash of one of the planes in Ethiopia.

 

An Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX 8 bound for Nairobi crashed minutes after take-off on Sunday, killing all 157 people on board and prompting the carrier to ground the rest of its fleet of the jets.

It was the second crash of the 737 MAX 8, the latest version of Boeing’s workhorse narrowbody jet that first entered service in 2017. 

The CAAC said it would notify airlines as to when they could resume flying the jets after contacting Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure flight safety.

“Given that two accidents both involved newly delivered Boeing 737-8 planes and happened during take-off phase, they have some degree of similarity,” the CAAC said, adding that the order was in line with its principle of zero-tolerance on safety hazards. The 737 MAX 8 is sometimes referred to as the 737-8.

A Boeing spokesman declined to comment.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airlines-china/china-orders-its-airlines-to-suspend-use-of-boeing-737-max-aircraft-media-idUSKBN1QS01Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/

Boeing has long embraced the power of redundancy to protect its jets and their passengers from a range of potential disruptions, from electrical faults to lightning strikes.

The company typically uses two or even three separate components as fail-safes for crucial tasks to reduce the possibility of a disastrous failure. Its most advanced planes, for instance, have three flight computers that function independently, with each computer containing three different processors manufactured by different companies.

So even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor — a type of sensor that was known to fail. Boeing’s rival, Airbus, has typically depended on three such sensors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody asked for self-drive cars......rather be in control, like few like to be driven would rather drive themselves, after full training and test passed of course.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the max was a bodge up of a standard 737 with bigger heavier fuel efficient engines which made the plane less stable and pitch up on takeoff so they put that system in to level out the plane without pilot assistance.  but the warning light was optional 😄 so the pilot did not know it was active. 

NUTS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, longgone said:

Apparently the max was a bodge up of a standard 737 with bigger heavier fuel efficient engines which made the plane less stable and pitch up on takeoff so they put that system in to level out the plane without pilot assistance.  but the warning light was optional 😄 so the pilot did not know it was active. 

NUTS 

According to sully changing/upgrading the software will not make the plane work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinfoil hat may be singing here, but could it be industrial sabotage? Like sophisticated malware introduced by a corporate rival or hostile power to disrupt the US aerospace industry? 

Either way through incompetence or malice, the Boeing computer systems are dangerously flawed.

Edited by Big Orange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

Tinfoil hat may be singing here, but could it be industrial sabotage? Like sophisticated malware introduced by a corporate rival or hostile power to disrupt the US aerospace industry? 

Either way through incompetence or malice, the Boeing computer systems are dangerously flawed.

Boeing would flag that up if it were the case. 

Be far easier for them to say "nothing wrong with the plane, but the software was hacked by the evil X" then "our plane is faulty, and the software we made to cover those faults is also faulty". Because that last one kills the company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, prozac said:

Yes, but that is going to be very expensive, but it is the only way forward 

Indeed the physical design of the 737 was never designed for bigger circumference engines as the wing is mounted lower. It's a corner cut with a software bodge to counteract physics. 

As a flying passenger would you want to fly on it. Reminds me of the VW scandal along side platform sharing to build cars cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, longgone said:

Indeed the physical design of the 737 was never designed for bigger circumference engines as the wing is mounted lower. It's a corner cut with a software bodge to counteract physics. 

As a flying passenger would you want to fly on it. Reminds me of the VW scandal along side platform sharing to build cars cheaper.

The losses are going to run into many billions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Big Orange said:

Tinfoil hat may be singing here, but could it be industrial sabotage? Like sophisticated malware introduced by a corporate rival or hostile power to disrupt the US aerospace industry? 

Either way through incompetence or malice, the Boeing computer systems are dangerously flawed.

I don't think so, complacency more like. There should be a comprehensive safety assessment covering all aircraft systems, failure modes and their severity. It will be easy to determine how, and by who, this issue was missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, btd1981 said:

I don't think so, complacency more like. There should be a comprehensive safety assessment covering all aircraft systems, failure modes and their severity. It will be easy to determine how, and by who, this issue was missed.

Probably by someone who said it would take so long to do properly, was given half the time and money he said was needed, then got sacked for going over budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, longgone said:

better than a flying death trap 

It’s not something that can be swept underneath the carpet 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Probably by someone who said it would take so long to do properly, was given half the time and money he said was needed, then got sacked for going over budget.

Tsk, time and money worth around 400 lives, it's pretty terrifying about corner cutting and denial over a vital transport vehicle. 

Yeah, internal company botching leading to hundreds of unnecessary deaths is worse for Boeing than external sabotage.

Edited by Big Orange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

Tsk, time and money worth around 400 lives, it's pretty terrifying about corner cutting and denial over a vital transport vehicle. 

Yeah, internal company botching leading to hundreds of unnecessary deaths is worse for Boeing than external sabotage.

If Monsanto has to cough up $289m for probably causing one person's cancer, then how much for definitely causing 400 deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason for planes to exist anyway. People don't belong in the sky, thousands of metres above even the flight of birds. Sail or rail is good enough for long distances.

Edited by EnglishinWales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎03‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 21:34, longgone said:

The plane should be scrapped.

There's no need to scrap the whole plane - but they clearly need to redesign this component completely, introducing either redundancy or easier manual override in the event of failure.

I heard on the news this morning that they would be rolling out a software upgrade to fix the bug...well that's a good start but doesn't seem sufficient to allay concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

There's no need to scrap the whole plane - but they clearly need to redesign this component completely, introducing either redundancy or easier manual override in the event of failure.

I heard on the news this morning that they would be rolling out a software upgrade to fix the bug...well that's a good start but doesn't seem sufficient to allay concerns.

The software is there in the first place because the whole design of the plane i.e the fuselage and wing position was never designed for bigger heavier engines.  The software exits to get over a physical design problem because they did not want to design an entire plane in the first place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 293 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.