Ed 737 Max Crashes (was Shutdown caused Boeing crash.)

[jeremyp]

OK, so "technically" MCAS is not an anti-stall system; its a system that alters the aircraft's handing characteristics so that the pilots don't inadvertently put it into a stall.

Well the official reason is to make it handle like the older Boeing 737. However, I've read elsewhere that, with the larger engines mounted further forwards, the extra lift generated by the engine nacelles causes a kind of positive feedback at high angles of attack, which means the aircraft does not behave linearly with stick pressure. MCAS is needed to fix that so that the aircraft can be certified.

Frankly, I don't see any thing here that could not be accomplished by the regular method of the pilot (or in more complex A/C, the FMS) calculating the necessary take off trim setting. In most flight management systems I have ever encountered, the pilot can input the zero fuel weight, the fuel on board, the take-off flap settings, V1, Vr, V2 and well as the C of G from the load sheet, and the FMS will calculate the trim setting required. The pilots preset that manually. IMO, there is no reason why the aircraft's tendency to nose up at TOGA could not also be a factor that the FMS takes into account to reach the correct trim setting.

MCAS is disabled when the flaps are deployed.

I have a real issue with A/C systems that take autonomous control from the pilot in low speed/low altitude flight modes and then actively making control inputs. Pointing the nose down at 450 AGL and V2+15 is a really, really, really BAD idea!

These crashes were not low speed incidents. In fact, for the second, it appears that the crew re-engaged the electronic trim, probably because the airspeed was too high to let them trim manually.

It seems obvious to me (with my 20/20 hindsight) that a means of disabling MCAS was needed that didn't also disable the normal electronic trim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I didn't disagree with any of that. I said it was a concise summary for people who hadn't dug any deeper than the short news reports.

We seem to be in agreement on that point.

But it wasn't needful for someone to be "very intelligent" to learn more, just take the time to look for a little bit more information.

It isn't like it was carefully hidden. A few clicks, maybe scanning beyond the first couple of google hits.

This would have quickly revealed everything that was in that clip.

So tough luck the news media didn't cover it, people could have found out if they tried?


I don't understand the sentiment in your post:

No real surprises. I didn't see anything in it that wasn't already available for anyone who had tried to read more deeply on the subject than headlines and short news blurbs, but it did summarize the most salient points succinctly.

To me that says, meh, nothing worthwhile there, move along.

My post:

... (5 minutes) and uses every minute explaining what I didn't see in any news reports. It wasn't the shutdown but rather an attempt to compete with Airbus by copying some very specific elements.

And position of the engines aside, the warped attempt to compete with Airbus was the real problem, IMO.


Oh, and BTW, my point about the intelligent people in this forum, there are a bunch of air travel experts and I was merely noting their expertise. I should have said knowledgeable.

 

[quadraginta]

So tough luck the news media didn't cover it, people could have found out if they tried?

MFM news reports can only do so much with the sixty seconds or so they devote to presenting any story. I don't blame them for that.

Nor do I expect nuance or in-depth details. I expect to have to look a bit harder for that.

I don't understand the sentiment in your post:To me that says, meh, nothing worthwhile there, move along.

Then you read more into my post than I put there. I wasn't being disparaging about the clip. I said it was concise and informative for people who hadn't followed the issue in detail.

Your post suggested it was somehow revelatory. It really wasn't. Just a well done explanation of facts that were already known.

My post:

And position of the engines aside, the warped attempt to compete with Airbus was the real problem, IMO.

It is hardly warped for a company to work on products with a demonstrated demand. That's what any company that wants to stay competitive has to do.

If you mean they were warped because of the way they tried to rush the product without more thorough testing of the new systems and without ensuring proper pilot training, I agree.

Oh, and BTW, my point about the intelligent people in this forum, there are a bunch of air travel experts and I was merely noting their expertise. I should have said knowledgeable.

Okay.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

MFM news reports can only do so much with the sixty seconds or so they devote to presenting any story. I don't blame them for that.

Nor do I expect nuance or in-depth details. I expect to have to look a bit harder for that.

I expect them to cover an underlying attempt to produce something similar to Airbus that led to the initial problem.

Then you read more into my post than I put there. I wasn't being disparaging about the clip. I said it was concise and informative for people who hadn't followed the issue in detail.

Your post suggested it was somehow revelatory. It really wasn't. Just a well done explanation of facts that were already known.

Fair enough about misreading, but how is the video not revelatory to those of us who didn't look much further than the news? And not everyone has read this thread, or for that matter, all the tedious air crash threads with TMI?

So why do you need to dismiss something because it didn't surprise you?

...It is hardly warped for a company to work on products with a demonstrated demand. That's what any company that wants to stay competitive has to do.

If you mean they were warped because of the way they tried to rush the product without more thorough testing of the new systems and without ensuring proper pilot training, I agree.

Yes I mean the latter. It's warped to compete by copying when you can see the larger engines really needed a different plane.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Fair enough about misreading, but how is the video not revelatory to those of us who didn't look much further than the news?

<snip>

Anything can be revelatory by that standard.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anything can be revelatory by that standard.

So?

The whole point of my post was, here was something I thought the news media was missing.

 

[banquetbear]

So?

The whole point of my post was, here was something I thought the news media was missing.

...but the news media didn't miss anything. You missed it. It isn't particularly revelatory that you happened to miss something.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...but the news media didn't miss anything. You missed it. It isn't particularly revelatory that you happened to miss something.

I have yet to see this in a link to the mainstream news, TV or print media.

By all means find one. Thank you.

 

[banquetbear]

I have yet to see this in a link to the mainstream news, TV or print media.

By all means find one. Thank you.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-boeing-737-max-lion-air-crash-idUSKCN1NK2BE

WHAT IS NEW ON THE 737 MAX?
The most hyped features of the 737 MAX compared with its predecessor, the 737NG, are more fuel-efficient engines.

But as a result of the larger engines, which are placed higher and further forward of the wing, the jet’s balance changed. To address that, Boeing put in place more anti-stall protections, Leeham Co analyst Bjorn Fehrm said in an online post.

Posted November 16, 2018 by Reuters, generally regarded as "mainstream media".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-boeing-737-max-lion-air-crash-idUSKCN1NK2BE

Posted November 16, 2018 by Reuters, generally regarded as "mainstream media".

Thank you that's half of it, but not one mention of competing with Airbus underlying the change.

 

[banquetbear]

Thank you that's half of it, but not one mention of competing with Airbus underlying the change.

...you want me to provide a cite that Boeing and Airbus are competing?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...you want me to provide a cite that Boeing and Airbus are competing?

I believe that is called a straw man.

First you don't have to provide me with anything. Obviously.

I posted a video explaining step by step how corporate profit motives led to the changes on the Boeing jet which were eventually responsible for the defects that resulted in two fatal crashes and the shortfalls of selling the 'no new training needed' talking point.

I noted I didn't think the news media was paying enough attention to the reason behind Boeing's trying to fit a too-big engine on a too-low wing. They did pay attention to the 'no new training' and from your link, to the problem of the engine size.

That still leaves not pointing out the details of the Airbus advances Boeing was trying to emulate.

I think that sums up why your link about the engine size was a bit off the mark.

 

[banquetbear]

I think that sums up why your link about the engine size was a bit off the mark.

...you just finished telling me that my link was "half of it."

So now we've gone from "half of it" to "a bit off the mark."

Have you finished shifting the goalposts, or do you want me to wait a few more posts for everything to settle down?

I mean, how far back do you want me to go? Here's a cite from last month titled "Boeing Was ‘Go, Go, Go’ to Beat Airbus", are you going to count that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html

I see you have completely rewritten your original reply to me, however I'm not going to bother responding to whatever you've decided to write to me now. However:

I believe that is called a straw man.

I believe you don't understand what a strawman is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure what your word twisting is on about. I do believe my posts have been fairly clear.

 

[banquetbear]

I'm not sure what your word twisting is on about. I do believe my posts have been fairly clear.

...I haven't twisted any words.

...but the news media didn't miss anything. You missed it. It isn't particularly revelatory that you happened to miss something.

I have yet to see this in a link to the mainstream news, TV or print media.

By all means find one. Thank you.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-boeing-737-max-lion-air-crash-idUSKCN1NK2BE

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html

...are my links unclear to you? Can you accept that the news media did cover it, but you just happened to have missed it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's no big argument here. I felt that quadraginta dissed my link. It was mostly a misunderstanding. My issue with the video was showing the corporate competing with Airbus.

I thought the news media also underreported the problem with the engine size. Turned out that was reported after all.

So we are left with a good 5-minute video in my post and the news media not paying much attention to the Airbus competition driving the bad outcome. And I complimented all the knowledgeable people in this forum who know their stuff about air crashes.


There is no big forum fight here.

 

[banquetbear]

There's no big argument here. I felt that quadraginta dissed my link. It was mostly a misunderstanding. My issue with the video was showing the corporate competing with Airbus.

I thought the news media also underreported the problem with the engine size. Turned out that was reported after all.

So we are left with a good 5-minute video in my post and the news media not paying much attention to the Airbus competition driving the bad outcome. And I complimented all the knowledgeable people in this forum who know their stuff about air crashes.


There is no big forum fight here.

...so thats a "yes, I did miss it" right? There are shorter and less dramatic ways to concede than pretending that our exchange was some "big forum fight."

The claim that "the news media not paying much attention to the Airbus competition driving the bad outcome" is nothing more than an opinion that isn't supported by the facts. Its obvious that you didn't pay attention. But the media certainly did, I've cited one article showing that they did, but I won't cite more because its become clear that you will just keep pretending they don't exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What did I miss that I didn't already talk about?

Looks to me like you did quite a bit of confirmation-bias cherry-pickin' there, the things that were no longer in question.

Did you link to the MSN report on the competition with AirBus that was at the root of the rest?

 

[banquetbear]

What did I miss that I didn't already talk about?

...you asked me for a cite, I provided that cite. You accepted that cite, then you didn't accept that cite, then you asked for more cites, then you pretended we were having a "big forum fight", and now you are asking what it is you missed? Did you miss the part where you already asked that question, I answered it, and you accepted that answer?

Looks to me like you did quite a bit of confirmation-bias cherry-pickin' there, the things that were no longer in question.

...but the news media didn't miss anything. You missed it. It isn't particularly revelatory that you happened to miss something.

I have yet to see this in a link to the mainstream news, TV or print media.

By all means find one. Thank you.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-boeing-737-max-lion-air-crash-idUSKCN1NK2BE

Posted November 16, 2018 by Reuters, generally regarded as "mainstream media".

Thank you that's half of it, but not one mention of competing with Airbus underlying the change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html

...what part of any of that exchange could be characterized as "confirmation-bias cherry-pickin'?" You even acknowledge that I provided "half" of the citations that you needed. How did I not directly answer your question? You asked me to "find one." I found two.

Did you link to the MSN report on the competition with AirBus that was at the root of the rest?

The "the competition with Airbus was at the root of the rest" is an assertion. Its supported by plenty of evidence, but there are many other other factors at play as well. So the Vox reporting is neither unique, nor particularly revelatory. It frames the story in a particular way, but that doesn't exclude that other "narratives" exist.

Plenty of other parts of the MSN reported on this. Including the New York Times, which I cited for you, in an article titled "Boeing Was ‘Go, Go, Go’ to Beat Airbus With the 737 Max" that was dated March the 25th and is entirely about the competitive pressure with AirBus. From that article:

Months behind Airbus, Boeing had to play catch-up. The pace of the work on the 737 Max was frenetic, according to current and former employees who spoke with The New York Times.

...

“They weren’t going to stand by and let Airbus steal market share,” said Mike Renzelmann, an engineer who retired in 2016 from Boeing’s flight control team on the 737 Max.

...

But a main selling point of the new A320 was its fuel-efficient engines. To match Airbus, Boeing needed to mount the Max with its own larger and powerful new engines.

Just as Mr. Albaugh had predicted for Airbus, the decision created a cascade of changes. The bigger engines altered the aerodynamics of the plane, making it more likely to pitch up in some circumstances.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html

So what part of that cite doesn't answer your question?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh good. Maybe now you can go to bed and sleep peacefully.