EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: windsmurf on June 27, 2019, 12:29:06 am
-
You're not Boeing to believe this, but... Another deadly 737 Max control bug found
Sim uncovers code-triggered hardware failure that pitches jetliner nose down
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/27/boeing_737_max_control_bug_found/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/27/boeing_737_max_control_bug_found/)
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48752932 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48752932)
-
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so serious.
But that's what these tests are for.
And who did the sim tests? Was it the FAA or was it Boeing? If it was Boeing you'd think that this would have been kept internal and just quietly fixed as part of the software testing?
-
This (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/06/26/2146206/new-flaw-discovered-on-boeing-737-max) mentions government pilots.
Microprocessor... could be anything.
-
If the flight control computer crashed, it might be an older CPU out of RAM... due to new features. Fault tolerant, redundant processor systems take years to engineer and test and we all know the 737 max. is a rush job.
When Muilenburg announced the MCAS fix is using three timers i.e. triple-redundant S/W I had to cringe because this is so stupid.
Boeing couldn't even deal with two sensors, let alone three timers. It's a noob fix, those have psychological value but no real value adding safety.
I'm sure there's an AoA sensor failure that can cut in and out at a rate that new MCAS will screw up on.
I can't see the planes being up in the air this year.
-
I do hope BA got a hell of a discount on the recent order of 200pcs of these things...
-
In the Lion Air crash they had just replaced the AoA sensors, so there has to be something else.
-
In the Lion Air crash they had just replaced the AoA sensors, so there has to be something else.
Because new parts are never faulty out of the box and maintenance activities never introduce faults?
-
I would think they don't just plug it in (the new thing) and move on. You mean they don't test/verify it works?
-
I'm not a programmer, so forgive me if this is a naive statement, but how is it possible in this day and age for a processor to simply lock up or get stuck in some kind of loop without triggering some kind of watchdog timer (which I'm sure exists) much sooner? In a real-time system such as those found in aircraft, why can't a pilot assume control much sooner?
Even with computer "over loads" and resets during Apollo 11, the spacecraft didn't dive rapidly and crash.
-
I'm not a programmer, so forgive me if this is a naive statement, but how is it possible in this day and age for a processor to simply lock up or get stuck in some kind of loop without triggering some kind of watchdog timer (which I'm sure exists) much sooner? In a real-time system such as those found in aircraft, why can't a pilot assume control much sooner?
Even with computer "over loads" and resets during Apollo 11, the spacecraft didn't dive rapidly and crash.
A (hardware) watchdog timer usually has to restart the whole system, and I'd imagine that's not a trivial thing in a plane (that likely takes a lot of time). So you likely have to rely on the RTOS to handle that sort of stuff.
IIRC the Apollo computer would effectively cold reset every few milliseconds due to those overload errors, and it still managed to land them on the moon.
-
I do hope BA got a hell of a discount on the recent order of 200pcs of these things...
I can't help but visualise a Digikey order cart...
-
It's possible that the lockup fires the watchdog, but then you have to restart the system, then the system must recognize and correct the current situation, could take a dozen of seconds or more, enough to put the plane in the dangerous zone.
Even if the watchdog is quick enough to recover, it's an unacceptable situation, especially in this case.
-
I've haven't followed the issue close enough for the past two months, are they still trying to avoid re-certification of the aircraft and new training of the pilots, by using SW to mimic the 737 dynamics?
If so, that would explain lack of watchdog trigger...
I do hope BA got a hell of a discount on the recent order of 200pcs of these things...
I can't help but visualise a Digikey order cart...
well ordering 200 of something with such a hefty price tag, that has a very uncertain future, seems a bit irresponsible, more appropriate for a personal order on DigiKey... Heck, even for a personal project I'd think twice about ordering an IC with a suspicious EoL date. I'm certain they made sure they can opt out without consequences if something goes wrong with the "fix", but still has to be one hell of a bargain
-
The toyota unintended acceleration issue/bug didn't trigger any watchdog either.
-
It's possible that the lockup fires the watchdog, but then you have to restart the system, then the system must recognize and correct the current situation, could take a dozen of seconds or more, enough to put the plane in the dangerous zone.
Even if the watchdog is quick enough to recover, it's an unacceptable situation, especially in this case.
If it's a system that only auto-drives stab trim, I'd think that dozens of seconds would not be a flight safety risk. (It's a jackscrew, so removing power just leaves the trim as-is, which is almost surely safe.)
-
Dozens of seconds is an eternity to boot an RTOS. Or is it a Linux?
-
Too bad they can't add a toggle switch in the cockpit to cut power from the pin on the micro that controls the specific part the computer is trying to control , something like a auto/manual option.
I'm sure it is more complicated than that, but something along the lines of how a car cruise control disengages with the brake pedal.
-
Too bad they can't add a toggle switch in the cockpit to cut power from the pin on the micro that controls the specific part the computer is trying to control , something like a auto/manual option.
It did/does actually have a switch that disables MCAS, and it could have saved those flights if they had been trained to use it.
-
Yes they can, just have to 1) have RTFM well and thoroughly and 2) put the flaps into position 1...
-
Dozens of seconds is an eternity to boot an RTOS. Or is it a Linux?
It isn't just one OS, they use modular systems so you could have multiple different processor architectures all running their own firmware or OS, so you could restart systems without restarting the entire avionics system.
-
A (hardware) watchdog timer usually has to restart the whole system, and I'd imagine that's not a trivial thing in a plane (that likely takes a lot of time). So you likely have to rely on the RTOS to handle that sort of stuff.
Those are the finer details of these state machines, if they are well designed, they need to be very specific about the validity of the data and which component can render which data invalid - and when. Now you add certain operating modes (like autopilot or partial autopilot-functions) to this and although switching between these modes the system as a whole still needs to work properly.
I´d consider this to be a solved problem in aeronautical engineering, with very specific requirements on startup values, validity thresholds and sanity checks. Usually such sanity checks would require a more or less sophisticated physical model to be calculated in the background and by comparison of the sensor data to this model it is able to spot a problem (hopefully), but if any component can fail, so can the calculation of the model.
-
Too bad they can't add a toggle switch in the cockpit to cut power from the pin on the micro that controls the specific part the computer is trying to control , something like a auto/manual option.
It did/does actually have a switch that disables MCAS, and it could have saved those flights if they had been trained to use it.
There's a pair of switches in all 737s that cutout power to the stab trim and all 737 pilots have been trained to use that as a memory item (must be recalled without reference to a printed checklist) in the event of stab trim runaway.
-
I do hope BA got a hell of a discount on the recent order of 200pcs of these things...
I can't help but visualise a Digikey order cart...
Just for clarification what was agreed at the Paris Air Show was a 'Letter of Intent to Order' by IAG (International Airlines Group, BA's parent) rather than a firm order. No hard contract to purchase. The delivery dates for the 200 aircraft would be between 2023 and 2027 so IAG would expect any of the current AoA-related problems to be sorted out by then.
The list price is US$24B but big forward orders get good discounts and I would expect IAG pushed even harder on price since they were allowing Boeing to announce a first bit of 'good news' at Paris amid all return-to-flight questions and some big Airbus orders.
Also I would expect some clauses in the agreement around delivering a bug-free product with clawbacks/cancellations if not.
rt
-
It's possible that the lockup fires the watchdog, but then you have to restart the system, then the system must recognize and correct the current situation, could take a dozen of seconds or more, enough to put the plane in the dangerous zone.
Even if the watchdog is quick enough to recover, it's an unacceptable situation, especially in this case.
It's very unlikely that any warm reset would take dozens of seconds on a control system like this one. No way. The core control functionality probably takes much less time to reset--I'd be surprised if it took more than a few hundred milliseconds.
Watchdogs aren't always effective in resetting hung systems if not used correctly. I saw one product in which the watchdog was kicked in a timer interrupt. The rest of the firmware could hang up tight and as long as that timer interrupt still fired the watchdog would be happy and not reset the system.
-
Those special computer with possibly some extra HW to check for faults can be difficult to program. It's likely not a normal OS - if at all a more special RTOS variant. So it would be difficult to get programmers not used to this likely rather old system. I would not be surprised to see something like Motorola's old 88K (not 68 K, but not that much newer) or similar.
Todays programmers tend to not really care much about computer resources and this could be a problem to an old system. Running out of computer power sounds a little like out of memory, out of stack space, interrupt saturation, latency violations or similar. A watchdog could in same cases even cause a hung system, e.g. if constantly triggered. It may only take a little more interrupt load to slow down old code to trigger the watchdog from time to time. This is kind of a hard to find error.
Still odd that the problem was found in the more official tests and not with Boing internal ones. Though it might even be a good idea to no have internal tests - so the programmers have to make sure the program works without actually testing it without the public noticing failures. However I don't think Boing is going this far, especially not if in a hurry.
-
Still odd that the problem was found in the more official tests and not with Boing internal ones. Though it might even be a good idea to no have internal tests - so the programmers have to make sure the program works without actually testing it without the public noticing failures. However I don't think Boing is going this far, especially not if in a hurry.
Could be a case of Boing technical folks still in the mindset of business as usual with the FAA, while the FAA suddenly feel the need to look really good at their job.
Their next design is really going to be under the microscope, regardless.
-
A (hardware) watchdog timer usually has to restart the whole system, and I'd imagine that's not a trivial thing in a plane (that likely takes a lot of time). So you likely have to rely on the RTOS to handle that sort of stuff.
IIRC the Apollo computer would effectively cold reset every few milliseconds due to those overload errors, and it still managed to land them on the moon.
I have written programs like that for real time systems. What has to happen is retention of state between resets such that the system can continue executing tasks and bypass the task which caused the problem if necessary.
-
Watchdogs aren't always effective in resetting hung systems if not used correctly. I saw one product in which the watchdog was kicked in a timer interrupt. The rest of the firmware could hang up tight and as long as that timer interrupt still fired the watchdog would be happy and not reset the system.
I have seen that multiple times now.
Another one I remember was discovered by UL when testing a garage door opener. The Zilog Z8 microcontroller had an unnoticed design flaw where the watchdog timer ran off of the crystal clock so if the crystal failed, the processor stopped but so did the watchdog timer which would otherwise have issued a reset which would have set the output ports to a known and safe state. (1)
The UL test included crushing the crystal with pliers while the door was closing. My guess is that they had seen this safety issue before in designs which did not include a watchdog timer.
(1) There are other ways to handle this like AC coupling the output control signals so if the processor stops, the controls return to a safe state.
-
Finding things in testing is why you test, but the fact it was not a Boeing pilot is a bit troubling.
In a potentially related story three managers at the FAA that are responsible for monitoring Southwest Airways were reassigned as subordinates complained that they were punished for finding problems at Southwest.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-faa-southwest-safety/faa-reassigns-three-in-office-overseeing-southwest-airlines-source-idUSKCN1TR011 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-faa-southwest-safety/faa-reassigns-three-in-office-overseeing-southwest-airlines-source-idUSKCN1TR011)
There is a mindset in certain political circles that regulation is bad and that regulations should be rolled back or eliminated to the greatest extent possible -- decades of this mindset and the consequent reduction or elimination of regulations are now rearing there head. That Boeing was able to 'self certify' due to these weakened regulations is certainly a factor in the deaths of 346 people. So, to Boeing and other companies looking to reduce or eliminate regulations I would like to say ... be careful what you ask for because you might get it and then live or die with the consequences.
Brian
-
"During the FAA’s review of the 737 Max software update and recent simulator sessions, the Federal Aviation Administration identified an additional requirement that it has asked the company to address through the software changes that the company has been developing for the past eight months.
Boeing agrees with the FAA's decision and request, and is working on the required software. Addressing this condition will reduce pilot workload by accounting for a potential source of uncommanded stabilizer motion.
In light of the problems and they want to reduce pilot workload.
I thought there were at least two pilots in there but is that that the issues with stabilizer motion was causing them a lot of problems.
-
Too bad they can't add a toggle switch in the cockpit to cut power from the pin on the micro that controls the specific part the computer is trying to control , something like a auto/manual option.
It did/does actually have a switch that disables MCAS, and it could have saved those flights if they had been trained to use it.
There's a pair of switches in all 737s that cutout power to the stab trim and all 737 pilots have been trained to use that as a memory item (must be recalled without reference to a printed checklist) in the event of stab trim runaway.
They modified the switch functionality with the 737 max.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/)
-
But on the Ethiopian Airlines flight, the pilots appear to have recognized the errant MCAS problem and flipped the cutoff switches as descrbed in the checklist. But then it appears that the pilots were unable to move the manual wheel, likely because the forces on the tail made it physically challenging to turn.
After failing to manually control the stabilizer, the Ethiopian Airlines pilots appear to have flipped the cutoff switches back on, which awakened the MCAS system. It soon sent the plane diving to Earth.
Lemme said he’s surprised that Boeing made the change to take away the functionality that could have allowed the pilots to shut off MCAS without shutting off the electric switches at their thumbs.
So turn off the cutout switches and it cuts out the controls turn it back on and the MCAS overrides the pilots control and controls the plane based on some faulty sensor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System
Boeing and the FAA decided that the AOA display and an AOA disagree light, which signals if the sensors give different readings, were not critical features for safe operation.[42] Boeing charged extra for the addition of the AoA indicator to the primary display.[43][44]. In November 2017, Boeing engineers discovered that the standard AoA disagree light cannot independently function without the optional AoA indicator software, affecting 80% of the global fleet which had not ordered the option.[45][46][47] The software remedy was scheduled to coincide with the roll out of the elongated 737 MAX 10 in 2020, only to be accelerated by the Lion Air accident. Furthermore, the problem had not been disclosed to the FAA until 13 months after the fact. Although it is unclear whether the indicator could have changed the outcome for the ill fated flights, American Airlines said the disagree indicator provided the assurance in continued operations of the airplane. "As it turned out, that wasn't true." [48]
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has stated that there was "no surprise, or gap, or unknown here or something that somehow slipped through a certification process."[49] On April 29, 2019 he stated the design of the aircraft was not flawed and reiterated that it was designed per Boeing's standards.[50] In a May 29 interview with CBS, Boeing admitted that it had botched the software implementation and lamented the poor communications. [51]
It looks like some things were also missing and the airlines wanted save money.
-
I knew this would happen as soon as a second thread started - go and look at the original thread, there is a lot of relevant information already covered there, I suggest starting at the last page and working backwards!
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/lion-air-crash-jakarta-boeing-737-had-prior-instrument-error/1075/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/lion-air-crash-jakarta-boeing-737-had-prior-instrument-error/1075/)
It looks like some things were also missing and the airlines wanted save money.
Irrc, that AOA disagree indicator was a $80k per plane option and Boeing couldn't make it work.
-
I knew this would happen as soon as a second thread started - go and look at the original thread, there is a lot of relevant information already covered there, I suggest starting at the last page and working backwards!
Irrc, that AOA disagree indicator was a $80k per plane option and Boeing couldn't make it work.
Sorry about that. I forgot all about the thread.
Lot of money for something they couldn't get working.
-
That doesn't bode well for Boeing. ::)
-
Too bad they can't add a toggle switch in the cockpit to cut power from the pin on the micro that controls the specific part the computer is trying to control , something like a auto/manual option.
It did/does actually have a switch that disables MCAS, and it could have saved those flights if they had been trained to use it.
There's a pair of switches in all 737s that cutout power to the stab trim and all 737 pilots have been trained to use that as a memory item (must be recalled without reference to a printed checklist) in the event of stab trim runaway.
They modified the switch functionality with the 737 max.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/)
No pilots were ever trained to flip just one of those switches. They weren't labeled with different functions, they weren't described with different functions, at least not in the QRH. It was a weird design change, to be sure, but I'm not sure it matters all that much.
I've followed this whole saga pretty closely and I still am not sure I understand what happened. I mean, I get that single AOA + MCAS caused the machine to trim down hard. But that should have been manageable with the standard training. Knowing that MCAS existed would have helped pilots to have a picture of what was happening, but I don't think it would have been necessary.
There was some evidence that once the plane was trimmed down and the pilots were pulling hard to recover, that the load on the stab made it very difficult to turn the trim wheel, at least without the pilots pushing the nose even further over to unload the stab.
If that is the case, I think that's the more serious problem than MCAS, or at least MCAS alone.
-
The trim is hard to run manually when the horizontal stab is biased aircraft nose down, the elevator is deflected aircraft nose up to compensate, and the aircraft flying at high indicated airspeed, that combination making for high loads on the stab jackscrew and following nut. The answer once you've let things evolve to that point is to either rollercoaster the airplane (to periodically unload the elevator and use those moments to manually trim), to take the thrust down and thereby reduce indicated airspeed and trim manually, or to power the electric trim and run the trim nose up electrically.
I don't think that it's a distinct or Max-specific flaw. It's a matter of aerodynamics. While I'm generally critical of the Ethiopian crew, I find it hard to fault the crew for not inventing the rollercoaster solution on the fly [so to speak]. (In particular their decision to leave the engines at a very high thrusts is odd, but most disconcerting is the decision to turn the stab trim back on, momentarily command aircraft nose up trim, and then [inexplicably] leave the stab trim powered but without commanding continued aircraft nose up trim by thumb switch. I think that decision is very hard to understand.)
-
The trim is hard to run manually when the horizontal stab is biased aircraft nose down, the elevator is deflected aircraft nose up to compensate, and the aircraft flying at high indicated airspeed, that combination making for high loads on the stab jackscrew and following nut.
...
I agree with all of that. If the Ethopian crew had gotten the plane trimmed, it's hard to understand why they left the system on. Well, actually, I could see that happening ONCE. But it happened several times, right?
The media has made a huge deal out of the MCAS flaw, but I think most pilots just "get" (or should get) that every so often under the right (wrong) circumstances, the automation is going to try to murder you. That's just life managing a very complex system. That's not to say that such flaws are OK. They are obviously not OK. You probably shouldn't be sitting up front in an airliner if you don't think there's a chance it might actively try to kill you.
The reason this got so deadly is that under the aerodynamics of trying to recover against the pitch, the trim is hard to move. In the heat of the moment, it might be hard to quickly reason out that you need to unload the stabilizer before you can move the wheel, especially if this regime of flight had not been part of your training.
It's the combination that was really deadly, not either in itself.
-
well ordering 200 of something with such a hefty price tag, that has a very uncertain future, seems a bit irresponsible.
With such scrutiny, I would bet B737MAX will be the world's safest plane ever once things are ironed out.
If you put the same amount of scrutiny on any other aircraft, you will find equally hilarious flaws.
Yes, for sure there are other very flawed aircrafts out there flying, but this is more to do with the lack of disclosure and mismanagement of all the attempts of a blame game that followed the series of accidents.
Isn't it concluded that with a proper training and added redundancy this could be a flyable system? But is it still a competitive one after the fixes?
BA (intent to) order does look like a gimmick, but unless there is a discount on other models that are getting ordered, or a restructuring of an ongoing payments to Boing, this really seems just like bad marketing for BA.
-
With such scrutiny, I would bet B737MAX will be the world's safest plane ever once things are ironed out.
If you put the same amount of scrutiny on any other aircraft, you will find equally hilarious flaws.
Too late. The comprehensive scrutiny must have been performed before first commercial flight. Not today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLfyOd3Vedk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLfyOd3Vedk)
-
Too late. The comprehensive scrutiny must have been performed before first commercial flight. Not today.
A320 is to date, the only commercial jetliner crashed on its debut, yet it is still one of the most successful planes among B737 and DC10, which on its own is also riddled with fatalities.
There's always flipside of the coin. Such things like, competition, struggle for the markets, rush... that I mean.
-
Still odd that the problem was found in the more official tests and not with Boing internal ones.
The fact is no different from Boeing bought and used a lot of these similar to those One Hung Low's stuffs ...
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/B-4AAOSw4oNanPGV/s-l500.jpg)
-
Watch from 1:05:00 to 1:06:30, pilot admits Boeing engineers contacted them to tell them that there are "negative dynamic stabilisation problems" with the 737Max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIQTn_Gdsw&t=65m0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIQTn_Gdsw&t=65m0s)
The next 5 minutes following are interesting: The pilots essentially say that they consider the MCAS system without an explanation and extra training more of a problem than a help.
In hind sight this makes absolute sense: even if working as intended the MACS intervention to a pilot who does not know about the system (the initial state) should see this as a system failure / run away trim situation. So it is odd to add such a system to avoid extra training - it is more in the opposite: due to the MACS the pilots would need extra training / simulator hours.
Back to the topic of the new thread: It looks like the new bug found was in the software fix that Boing made in a hurry. So it does not effect the old planes - except that flown by FAA test pilots for real world testing. Odd they found the bug in the simulator now and not before or during flight testing.
-
It's very unlikely that any warm reset would take dozens of seconds on a control system like this one.
Not sure how many systems you need to fly this plane probably the fancy GUI computers are not needed?
Also not sure how accurate the sims are these days but from cold start to having visual GUI displayed takes over one and a half minute
https://youtu.be/vW6gMzDsKCg
-
No no no, they just had to keep pushing the (electric) trim button on the yoke before flipping the stab cutout switch, because that button overrides MCAS. They didn't use it properly, not pressing for long enough. Could also have put the flaps lever to position 1, this disables MCAS and makes the jack screw nut turn faster when trimming with the yokes button.
-
Could also have put the flaps lever to position 1, this disables MCAS and makes the jack screw nut turn faster when trimming with the yokes button.
At that time perhaps this was a lesser known fact, also not sure how the flaps would have behaved at that high speed they were at, flaps is not meant for cruising.
-
Could also have put the flaps lever to position 1, this disables MCAS and makes the jack screw nut turn faster when trimming with the yokes button.
At that time perhaps this was a lesser known fact, also not sure how the flaps would have behaved at that high speed they were at, flaps is not meant for cruising.
Well, we wouldn't want to damage the flaps (by extending them at speeds over Vfe), now would we... ;)
-
In the future, all planes will be flown remotely by armchair experts on the internet. :-DD
-
In the future, all planes will be flown remotely by armchair experts on the internet. :-DD
Sorry, but that is just a dumb argument.
I do not see anything wrong with anyone (even laymen) pointing to more or less obvious design flaw.
-
classic
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/06/29/1555243/boeing-falsified-records-of-a-new-787-that-leaked-fuel
indian contractors writing aerospace software for EIGHT dollars an hour
-
classic
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/06/29/1555243/boeing-falsified-records-of-a-new-787-that-leaked-fuel
indian contractors writing aerospace software for EIGHT dollars an hour
I used to work for IBM and when I did the workforce totaled about 400,000 worldwide with about 250K in the USA -- today IBM employs more Indians than Americans. Hiring them in India avoids the H1b visa problems and limits and you can hire them at the prevailing Indian wage level for similar work.
Do you use Adobe products -- check out the splash screen next time you launch a product from them.
Brian
-
-> New flaw discovered on Boeing 737 Max, sources say (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/26/politics/boeing-737-max-flaw/index.html)
Quote : "In simulator tests, government pilots discovered that a microprocessor failure could push the nose of the plane toward the ground. It is not known whether the microprocessor played a role in either crash."
Cmiiw, so the 737 Max, aerodynamically by design is unstable like fighter jets do that need "constant" corrections, in order just to fly straight ?
All this time I always assume at every civilian's plane design, that is the basic 101 when starting the plane design from the scratch, guess I'm wrong. ::)
-
Like other passenger planes the 737 max is stable by itself and does not need the constant corrections from the computer. However like in many other planes there are computer systems that make the life easier to the pilots (e.g. automatic trim and auto-pilot) and some that should prevent some possible pilot errors (e.g. ground approach warning and the MACS to avoid to high an angle of attack). If they don't work right these systems have the power to make like life of the pilot hard and possibly crash the plane.
-
Cmiiw, so the 737 Max, aerodynamically by design is unstable like fighter jets do that need "constant" corrections, in order just to fly straight ?
All this time I always assume at every civilian's plane design, that is the basic 101 when starting the plane design from the scratch, guess I'm wrong. ::)
The 737 Max was not designed from scratch. The primary objective was to modify the existing design to meet the new requirements.
I was going to say that the instability is not of the kind normally considered but that is not really the case, is it? Moving the larger engines forward to increase ground clearance moved the center of lift *forward* of the center of gravity making the plane unstable on its pitch axis preventing passive recovery from stall. To correct this, the wings would have needed to be moved back or the fuselage extended forward of the wings.
-
Cmiiw, so the 737 Max, aerodynamically by design is unstable like fighter jets do that need "constant" corrections, in order just to fly straight ?
All this time I always assume at every civilian's plane design, that is the basic 101 when starting the plane design from the scratch, guess I'm wrong. ::)
The 737 Max was not designed from scratch. The primary objective was to modify the existing design to meet the new requirements.
The 737 Max is not negatively (nor neutrally) stable in pitch. What it is is "not high enough yoke force curve with high pitch and high power to meet certification requirements". In other words, it's still positively stable in pitch, but not by enough with the Max engines' power, location, and aerodynamic lift from the engine nacelles.
-
The toyota unintended acceleration issue/bug didn't trigger any watchdog either.
It did... which led to $2.4 billion+ in fines and settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration
-
The toyota unintended acceleration issue/bug didn't trigger any watchdog either.
It did... which led to $2.4 billion+ in fines and settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration
I thought a significant concern in the Toyota unintended acceleration case was that the watchdog system did not detect all task failures and specifically did not detect the failure of the task that calculated throttle angle.
-
The toyota unintended acceleration issue/bug didn't trigger any watchdog either.
It did... which led to $2.4 billion+ in fines and settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration
I thought a significant concern in the Toyota unintended acceleration case was that the watchdog system did not detect all task failures and specifically did not detect the failure of the task that calculated throttle angle.
Different types of watchdogs being discussed here (regulatory vs system). Generally the system watchdog is a crude "is the main task still running" type of thing. Detecting if all individual tasks are still running - and running correctly - is another thing all together.
It's hard to write correct software in the first place, writing software that monitors itself and corrects errors is a magnitude or two harder.
-
Watchdog does nothing for scambled variables that are out of range, or a task that is hung. Toyota had insufficient room for the stack which caused much drama.
You have to add more sophisticated algorithms that are not taught in university for fault detection and recovery.
Toyota's are more than happy to engage into Reverse while moving forward. The engine literally leaps out of the engine compartment, close to breaking something.
It's just idiot embedded software again, clown forgot to check for zero speed before engaging. Even a 1970 Chevy with hydraulic computer in a TH350 would refuse such a command.
-
Even a 1970 Chevy with hydraulic computer in a TH350 would refuse such a command.
LOL I have one of those... Are you sure?
-
“sure” and “correct” are largely orthogonal.
-
The whole point of the 737 MAX new MCAS system was to make up for the possibility of stall in some situations, due to the characteristics and location of the new engines.
Could have Boeing decided to release the plane without this new MCAS (letting pilots handle the trim under such situations)? Maybe, I don't have enough info to know that it would have been acceptable. But it would have at least made the plane look unattractive to pilots, with maybe a feeling of something not quite right about its design. Would it have been safer without it at this point? I'd say yes at the moment, but of course it's always easy to say that afterwards. Could Boeing have decided to modify the plane's design further to compensate for the new engines, instead of adding this software "fix"? Probably. Obviously, it would have made the plane's design and certification much longer.
And then, could the pilots have handled the MCAS fuck-up correctly? Looks like it's again a yes, but listing the fuck-ups on each side with the information we have now, looks like the list is much longer on Boeing's side.
Of course this is not the first time in history that a new plane is released with issues. But to put that in perspective, the point here is that the 737 MAX was never designed or marketed as a brand *new* plane, but merely an evolution of an existing and successful one, and this is the whole point, and the main factor leading to this disastrous start.
-
Could have Boeing decided to release the plane without this new MCAS (letting pilots handle the trim under such situations)? Maybe, I don't have enough info to know that it would have been acceptable.
If they could have, they probably would have.
The plane would have failed certification for insufficient stability of control force with increasing angle of attack.
See FAR 14§25.173 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173).
-
Even a 1970 Chevy with hydraulic computer in a TH350 would refuse such a command.
LOL I have one of those... Are you sure?
As a teenager, anything to get burn rubber in a V8 car.
"Neutral drops" - rev high in Neutral and drop it into Drive... a Powerglide will do anything, a TH350 had some logic and would not engage until RPM's dropped to something reasonable. I thought it will not go into reverse "at speed". Like deploying the flaps at high airspeed.
My point is Toyota's embedded software is doing worse than an old hydraulic computer. It allows autodestruct by shifting into anything anytime. But there may be a partial reason for it.
Honda had to change their transmission software after people got stuck in the snow/ice and could not rock the car back and forth (drive, reverse, drive, reverse etc.) to get out. The transmission controller was slow and would not allow it.
If the transmission controller software was smarter, compares front/rear wheel speeds, it can know you are stuck in snow, mud, ice etc. and let you shift at speed without damage.
Sometimes an embedded system just needs more smarts to work - the rule is use the available sensors to make the best decision possible. If a sensor is invalid, ignore it and still make the best decision possible.
-
Sometimes an embedded system just needs more smarts to work - the rule is use the available sensors to make the best decision possible. If a sensor is invalid, ignore it and still make the best decision possible.
Yes. But frankly, the simplest option I see is that it allows the user to disable the automation altogether, so they can do whatever they like, but knowing they have explicitely switched to this mode.
Just make it CLEAR to the user how to disable it (without them having to go through hundreds of pages), and give a CLEAR visual cue whether it's engaged or not. If it can allow the user to do something risky, also warn them clearly. Cars and planes both have been having nice displays and all for a while now, and even vocal messages - there is ample room to give useful tips and warnings to the user. Doing things behind their backs, even if that's claimed to be for their own good, is never acceptable IMO. Most automated systems are not giving enough information to the users IMO - that would already make a world of difference.
-
Honda had to change their transmission software after people got stuck in the snow/ice and could not rock the car back and forth (drive, reverse, drive, reverse etc.) to get out. The transmission controller was slow and would not allow it.
If the transmission controller software was smarter, compares front/rear wheel speeds, it can know you are stuck in snow, mud, ice etc. and let you shift at speed without damage.
Old style systems have a transmission output speed sensor only (also used for the speedometer), so only driven wheel speed is available. Newer ones can get the info over the ABS wheel speed sensors for all wheels.
Anyway it doesn´t need to, under a certain speed it might be irrelevant, except parts might get damaged by doing so.
If switching gears takes too much hydraulic pressure off the system it might need a while to build it up again in idle, especially in cold weather (snow), when the car (and it´s transmission fluid) is not yet on operating temperature.
The problem is that everyone has his/her own understanding of how high the snow should allowed to be without packing a shovel and using it.
-
Imagine never having driven a car (piloted an airplane) and writing control software for it.
-
Imagine never having driven a car (piloted an airplane) and writing control software for it.
This is why state machines need a really thorough documentation.
-
Most automated systems are not giving enough information to the users IMO - that would already make a world of difference.
Simplistic at best and leads to UI clutter, that 'important' indicator not seen because of 1,000 other indicators. The user needs an indication of the unexpected/abnormal not every time an automated system performs a routine action. In some cases, there is difficulty is in deciding if the action being performed is 'routine' and therefore warrants attention.
20/20 hindsight. This lecture on the 3 Mile Island incident is a really good overview of 1st Story bias - 'Sitting in my armchair I would have known' vrs 2nd Story fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xQeXOz0Ncs&t=8s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xQeXOz0Ncs&t=8s)
Well worth watching but Skip to 24:30 for the 2nd story summary.
-
For great grand big sale .. cheap ... great discount ... NOS (New Old Stock) ... The Flying "Nodding" Coffin ...
For sure they're running out of storage parking space for the unsold merchandises, looks pretty bad, especially at the huge idling capital sitting doing nothing on the tarmac.
I'm guessing the management would love to have them stack up vertically like ordinary boxes in warehouse.
(https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20190709&t=2&i=1406233050&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=2019-07-09T194009Z_12328_MRPRC1781F19900_RTRMADP_0_BOEING-DELIVERIES)
(https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20190709&t=2&i=1406233054&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=2019-07-09T194009Z_12328_MRPRC18CF54C5E0_RTRMADP_0_BOEING-DELIVERIES)
(https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20190709&t=2&i=1406233048&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=2019-07-09T194009Z_12328_MRPRC15BB18D070_RTRMADP_0_ETHIOPIA-AIRPLANE-BOEING-SENSOR)
Details -> HERE (https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/grounded-boeing-737-max-planes-from-abov-idUSRTS2LKPL)
-
Simplistic at best and leads to UI clutter, that 'important' indicator not seen because of 1,000 other indicators. The user needs an indication of the unexpected/abnormal not every time an automated system performs a routine action. In some cases, there is difficulty is in deciding if the action being performed is 'routine' and therefore warrants attention.
Relevant event in the Apollo 13 incident:
The Mission Operations Report Apollo 13 recounts how the master caution and warning alarm had been turned off for a previous low-pressure reading on hydrogen tank 2, and so it did not trigger to call attention to the high oxygen pressure reading.
-
Imagine never having driven a car (piloted an airplane) and writing control software for it.
This is why state machines need a really thorough documentation.
And why machines for which the state cannot be documented due to things like heap allocation should not be used in safety critical applications. This also makes processor features which contain unknown state like caches, speculative execution, and multi-threading less desirable.
-
And why machines for which the state cannot be documented due to things like heap allocation should not be used in safety critical applications. This also makes processor features which contain unknown state like caches, speculative execution, and multi-threading less desirable.
And then someone dropped "AI" in the room :-DD
-
And why machines for which the state cannot be documented due to things like heap allocation should not be used in safety critical applications. This also makes processor features which contain unknown state like caches, speculative execution, and multi-threading less desirable.
That ship has sailed. Literally. They use Windows to run warships.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/)
-
And why machines for which the state cannot be documented due to things like heap allocation should not be used in safety critical applications. This also makes processor features which contain unknown state like caches, speculative execution, and multi-threading less desirable.
That ship has sailed. Literally. They use Windows to run warships.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/)
Back in the mid 1980s, a Ticonderoga class cruiser off of San Diego lost all power to this problem. The only illumination they had was flashlights and they had to be towed back to port.
-
American Airlines and United Airlines extend 737 Max grounding through at least early November
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-max-american-united-grounding-20190714-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-max-american-united-grounding-20190714-story.html)
-
That's 8,000 flights for United Airlines $185M revenue. I say the 737 max won't be flying until well into 2020.
I wonder if the money and lives lost will ever be a motivator to do it right, or will it be just investor's cash being burned for a little "hiccup".
Instead of parking lots full, maybe Boeing could turn the planes into condos? Just park under the wings.
-
Looks like there's a rebranding exercise going on: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995509 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995509)
-
Not sure if it's a knock-on but Ryanair are now saying that they will have to cut flights and possibly bases next year as a result of the delay...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49000796 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49000796)
It would be amazing if they were actually trying to get away with rebranding the Max. Ryanair have a pretty poor reputation.
-
And why machines for which the state cannot be documented due to things like heap allocation should not be used in safety critical applications. This also makes processor features which contain unknown state like caches, speculative execution, and multi-threading less desirable.
Except that pretty much any non-trivial system will use heap allocation - but it will be called something else, typically a buffer pool or the like. Try, for example, implementing a comms protocol without one. These pools will be safer than a global heap because (at least):
a) They typically will use fixed size allocations (or a limited number of fixed sizes from different pools) so should be free from heap fragmentation which is one of the bigger problems with heaps.
b) They will also be shared between a limited subset of the whole application.
Typically this managed memory will be passed between tasks/processes/subsystems - eg. between different layers in a comms stack, including device drivers, with all the attendant risks due to the distance and time seperating the allocator of the memory, the users and the consumer that has to de-allocate the memory.
By distance, I mean between developers, who may be in different teams, requiring coordination/documentation and suitable development tools to try to ensure that problems such as memory leaks, accessing free'd off memory etc. are minimized (I'd say eliminated if that were possible).
You can improve things by copying buffers between tasks/subsystems if you can afford the performance and memory cost - but how many systems have the luxury? If you have finite resources someone has to decide how to allocate it. More stack or more buffer space? In the case of Toyota, they didn't allocate enough for stack space but had they increased the stack allocation something else would have less memory available - ok if you can determine in advance the worst case memory usage but there are many times when static analysis tools can't be used and it comes down to the skill of the developers to work out the worst cases.
For safety critical applications you obviously must be able to guarantee the behaviour of the critical parts of the system and isolate them from less trusted subsystems. The reality is that tradeoffs between cost, development time/effort (re-certifying a 737 MAX), functionality and safety are always being made - there rarely absolutes - if ever. No point in a seven-nines reliability requirement if it costs ten trillion dollars. Or a car ECU which costs $1500 and can't do MP3. An aeroplane with enough redundancy to be guaranteed never to fail is probably too heavy to fly. Software that takes longer to develop than the life cycle of the product it's used on is pointless.
-
...
...
Software that takes longer to develop than the life cycle of the product it's used on is pointless.
I think software problem is more because of it being "lower entry barrier." Anyone with enough money to buy a cheap laptop can start developing software. Compare the cost of starting a new software development company to say cost of starting a company to develop a new video chip to compete with NVIDIA. The ratio of the two cost-of-entry would (with exaggeration) overflow a typical calculator.
This low entry cost of software development leads to the average quality of the developer, quality of the development shop, experience of the development shop all correspondingly lowered. You could, in theory, have people writing software for a washing machine who has never seen a working washing machine, and they are writing their washing machine software in a shed next to a river bank next to the bunch of people washing their cloths on the river shore. You could do software in that environment, but you are not going to develop any new IC's of complexity sitting in shed with bathrooms in the out-house.
Yeah, I exaggerated. I exaggerate to point out how the lower entry barrier can bring in much lower caliber teams.
...
I wonder if the money and lives lost will ever be a motivator to do it right, or will it be just investor's cash being burned for a little "hiccup".
Instead of parking lots full, maybe Boeing could turn the planes into condos? Just park under the wings.
They will remember it for a while, sack some of the ones involved (who merely followed order too do everything needed to reduce cost), and bring in new blood. Hiring these new blood will be announced as investment to make sure such problem will be fixed and make sure such fiasco will never happen again. As their stock improves (even if the stock price increase is due to improvement in the general economy or due to inflation), their memory fade as the stock price rises...
The incoming new blood will of course hire more new guys. Most important of the new hires will be the ones for the new marketing team - the team that will do magic to wash off the stain of "sins of prior management team" in the public's (and the customer's) eyes. But, the new marketing drive needs funding. So, budget cut for the development groups to fund the new marketing drives. They did a bad job that caused the problem, so they deserve to have their budget cut to the bone and then some. They will be told to find ways to do software development "smarter". That is to say, do it faster, better, and with even less money. If the development team(s) can't do that, we fire the whole lot and outsource the whole darn thing.
-
You could do software in that environment, but you are not going to develop any new IC's of complexity sitting in shed with bathrooms in the out-house.
Look: youtube.com/watch?v=QqxThgLTLyk&t=7m54s :-)
Part one: youtube.com/watch?v=jhwwrSaHdh8 and part two: youtube.com/watch?v=re5xAqgKqc0
-
And why machines for which the state cannot be documented due to things like heap allocation should not be used in safety critical applications. This also makes processor features which contain unknown state like caches, speculative execution, and multi-threading less desirable.
Except that pretty much any non-trivial system will use heap allocation - but it will be called something else, typically a buffer pool or the like. Try, for example, implementing a comms protocol without one. These pools will be safer than a global heap because (at least):
...
How complex does a system involving physical control loops need to be? Separate it and stick it on redundant hardware.
Static allocations are wasteful but so what? Memory is cheap.
For safety critical applications you obviously must be able to guarantee the behaviour of the critical parts of the system and isolate them from less trusted subsystems. The reality is that tradeoffs between cost, development time/effort (re-certifying a 737 MAX), functionality and safety are always being made - there rarely absolutes - if ever. No point in a seven-nines reliability requirement if it costs ten trillion dollars. Or a car ECU which costs $1500 and can't do MP3. An aeroplane with enough redundancy to be guaranteed never to fail is probably too heavy to fly. Software that takes longer to develop than the life cycle of the product it's used on is pointless.
I suspect the larger problem is that the programming techniques are no longer taught and the tools are no longer available.
In this case none of that mattered because the system operated exactly as designed. It was just designed ineptly.
-
there is a obsession with memory space in conventional software design that should not be carried over to embedded systems. Even with code clarity.
-
Speaking of memory space, memory overflow is forcing Airbus planes to power cycle the entire avionics suite every 149 hours
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/25/a350_power_cycle_software_bug_149_hours/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/25/a350_power_cycle_software_bug_149_hours/)
-
That reminds me of the accumulation of residual errors causing problems with the Patriot missile system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Failure_at_Dhahran
-
Speaking of memory space, memory overflow is forcing Airbus planes to power cycle the entire avionics suite every 149 hours
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/25/a350_power_cycle_software_bug_149_hours/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/25/a350_power_cycle_software_bug_149_hours/)
I guess Windows 95 or 98 are much better as they only need to be restarted at every 49.7 days. :-DD
-
(2^32)/1000/3600/24= 49.7
-
there is a obsession with memory space in conventional software design that should not be carried over to embedded systems. Even with code clarity.
With modern PC software they don't seem to care abut memory anymore. Software gets bloated so much it no longer runs on older system and update take forever with a slow internet connection. Also the feeling is that software quality tends to go down the larger a program - kind of normal with the time needed for debugging going up usually more like the 3rd power or even exponential with code length.
Software development can be quite different for a modern multi tasking OS, an old PC and embedded systems with OS (e.g. RTOS) and embedded without an OS. Especially for a critical systems things like static memory allocations and maybe not using pointers at all can be a good solution. Dynamic memory can cause odd effects, like fragmented memory or a garbage collector to sometimes take a long time.
Those programmers that started with core rope, mask-ROMs and one time programmable µCs now are retiring.
-
We found an bug in the IP stack of Windows 2000 which slowly leaked memory requiring a reboot about every 2 weeks on a low memory system. Microsoft's only recommendation was to install more memory and they never fixed it.
-
We found an bug in the IP stack of Windows 2000 which slowly leaked memory requiring a reboot about every 2 weeks on a low memory system. Microsoft's only recommendation was to install more memory and they never fixed it.
Is that what we call being "practical"? ;D
-
How complex does a system involving physical control loops need to be? Separate it and stick it on redundant hardware.
Static allocations are wasteful but so what? Memory is cheap.
Yeah I agree. Control loops in avionics are still based on pretty simple algorithms. No need for any dynamic allocation.
MISRA-C is clear about that.
https://www.misra.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1233 (https://www.misra.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1233)
I believe the rules are, or at least should reasonably be the same in avionics software.
If using dynamic allocation, you would at least have to justify that thoroughly. So I'm wondering what kind of arguments could be used here.
I know some teams heavily rely on automated tools (such as dynamic code analysis), so that if the tools don't catch any potential memory leak, the team considers the code OK. That gives them a feeling of a safety net and gives them the possibility of using dynamic allocation without having to think twice about it (thinking the tools will catch all problems). This is bad.
On a general level, following no or fewer rules just because there are machines or people that are going to check an engineer's work is a recipe for bad design...
-
UK TV tomorrow night.
Boeing's Killer Planes
Panorama
The Boeing 737 Max was set to dominate the skies, but two deadly crashes have left the aircraft grounded and the company in crisis. Both flights were forced down by software specially designed for the new aircraft. Reporter Richard Bilton investigates the plane’s fatal flaws and asks whether Boeing should have done more to protect passengers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00077cw (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00077cw)
-
How did that tittle even pass BBC program board executives? ;D BBC seams desperate these days yet again connected to pedophilia and all!
-
The BBC culture of old appears to have been left behind in London when it sold up and moved to Manchester.
I am sure Trump will have an interesting tweet about the program...
-
The BBC culture of old appears to have been left behind in London when it sold up and moved to Manchester.
I am sure Trump will have an interesting tweet about the program...
His team is already looking for variants on helping to Boeing corporation to overcome the crisis, I believe.
-
A former Boeing engineer has told the BBC's Panorama programme that work on the production line of the 737 Max plane was not adequately funded.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49142761 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49142761)
-
A former Boeing engineer has told the BBC's Panorama programme that work on the production line of the 737 Max plane was not adequately funded.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49142761 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49142761)
:palm: Shoked by details revealed. That's deadly side effect of capitalism.
-
Well I dunno. "Killer planes" seems like an appropriate pun here. Sure at Boeing they are not going to like the humor.
-
A former Boeing engineer has told the BBC's Panorama programme that work on the production line of the 737 Max plane was not adequately funded.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49142761 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49142761)
:palm: Shoked by details revealed. That's deadly side effect of capitalism.
It can be, but it doesn't have to be. One would think that if a CEO had created or overseen a project where the engineers (or marketing people...) pt money over lives... more than once, that CEO/management/engineers would be arrested and tried for hundreds of counts of murder. The same goes for felony charges with investment and other fraud. But, time and time again these laws are not enforced. The CEO of Boeing still has his job and is still making millions. All that does is encourage the behavior. The real root cause is a complete lack of accountability, and these events will happen until that changes. Judging by the long history of similar events, I'm not going to hold my breath.
-
The real root cause is a complete lack of accountability, and these events will happen until that changes. Judging by the long history of similar events, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Well, I'm not sure there is a complete lack of accountability. A CEO is still responsible for anything unlawful that could happen in their company (at least in many countries). The problem is that there is never FULL accountabilty, so it's always limited in some way. Then it can be very hard to formally prove there was a chain of bad decisions that led to the deadly situation. I have no figures, but I'd venture that most cases of CEOs getting tried are for financial/fiscal fraud, and not for bad management leading to bad product design...
-
pt money over lives... more than once, that CEO/management/engineers would be arrested and tried for hundreds of counts of murder. The same goes for felony charges with investment and other fraud. But, time and time again these laws are not enforced. The CEO of Boeing still has his job and is still making millions.
The irony is that Boeing is likely extremely bloated and wasteful, and CEO probably has a lot of ways to improve efficiency and reduce wasteful spending. But budget cuts can be as much to do with politics as common sense. Where can we cut spending WITHOUT suffering major resistance and backlash?
I think the personality type that pursues and achieves political influence is not often coincidental with engineering proficiency. Even though their opinion and thoughts on things like airplanes should have some weight, they are not necessarily the squeakiest wheel in the grand scheme of running a company.
There are only so many ways you can tell nicely someone you're right they they're wrong before you just accept they are gonna do what they are going to do, and good luck with that.
It's the folks that project 100% confidence and persistence that get listened to. A good engineer knows he's human and it's possible someone else either knows more or can get lucky. So he's never going to be as convincing or persuasive.
Steve Jobs was successful because Woz could actually back up him up and deliver.
-
It's interesting a cannabis grower just fired their CEO and board chairman (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/canntrust-ceo-loses-job-6-million-in-options-cannabis-weekly) over unlicensed growing of marijuana in 5 unapproved rooms.
Nobody died, they just broke the rules for extra product and lied about them to Health Canada. Stock plummets 50% and CEO tossed and loses his $6.2M in stock options.
But here Dennis Muilenburg makes killer airplanes and keeps rolling along as CEO and chairman, $24M in compensation, $1.7M salary, as if nothing has happened. Imagine offering a paltry $50M for the victim fund. 40% of the price of a single aircraft, not even half a plane's worth.
I feel a lot for the dozens of engineers with ruined careers at Boeing and the FAA, after this criminal approach to steamroller the 737 max through approvals.
Boeing fully deserves to go down the shitter and take its investors with it. But they can afford the best lawyers in America, I expect nothing to happen.
There is no deterrence to being a crook CEO.
-
unlike cannabis growers, boeing is in bed with the military industrial complex. license to do anything until congressional hearing
Some man with some astrophysical shapes on his green uniform came in and asked "this won't effect our new missile project will it guys? Dennis has a way of meeting our dead lines and keeping this nation safe.... we can't afford to stir the pot with this little mishap with everything that's going on around the world right now.. "
I know its military branch is theoretically separated, but its all connected in reality I am sure.
-
Ahah, for some reason that reminded me of one episode of The Big Bang Theory...
-
"You sure you guys are smart?"
I don't watch this show, but then again I hardly watch any show on TV. I think this episode was on last night, in fact. Just happened to see this 2 minutes.
-
Ryanair now expecting Jan. 2020 as return date for 737 Max; issues profit warning and possible layoffs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/07/29/ryanair-adjusts-expectations-for-737-max-return-to-january-resulting-in-cost-savings-delays (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/07/29/ryanair-adjusts-expectations-for-737-max-return-to-january-resulting-in-cost-savings-delays)
Southwest Airlines cancels all service to Newark, NJ, lays off staff due to 737Max grounding
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/26/8931447/southwest-airlines-leaving-newark-airport-boeing-737-max-grounded (https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/26/8931447/southwest-airlines-leaving-newark-airport-boeing-737-max-grounded)
-
I think Ryanair are too optimistic. Their Max 8200s are a different version, which will require additional/separate certification from the normal smaller Max 8. According to the article the delay will reduce growth, not lead to layoffs. The Max was grounded a couple of weeks before their first one was due to arrive, they are not struck with them on the ground. As announced yesterday, Mick is planning on reducing UK flights, which will free up aircraft to expand other routes.
-
I think Ryanair are too optimistic. Their Max 8200s are a different version, which will require additional/separate certification from the normal smaller Max 8. According to the article the delay will reduce growth, not lead to layoffs. The Max was grounded a couple of weeks before their first one was due to arrive, they are not struck with them on the ground. As announced yesterday, Mick is planning on reducing UK flights, which will free up aircraft to expand other routes.
Yes you're right, forgot to add this link:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/29/ryanair-boeing-737-max-job-cuts-michael-oleary-brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/29/ryanair-boeing-737-max-job-cuts-michael-oleary-brexit)
-
UK TV tomorrow night.
Boeing's Killer Planes
Panorama https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00077cw (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00077cw)
Program was a waste of time for anyone who's read these threads, nothing new in it.
-
I think Ryanair are too optimistic. Their Max 8200s are a different version, which will require additional/separate certification from the normal smaller Max 8. According to the article the delay will reduce growth, not lead to layoffs. The Max was grounded a couple of weeks before their first one was due to arrive, they are not struck with them on the ground. As announced yesterday, Mick is planning on reducing UK flights, which will free up aircraft to expand other routes.
Ryan is always too optimistic, he thinks he can treat his passengers like cattle and his pilots and cabin crew like shit and get away with it long term. I doubt he has is overly worried about cutting his routes as long as he keeps raking in the money. EDIT: Or loose sleep over planes he hasn't paid for.
-
Those 100+ Max 8200s are probably already generating income for him from Boeing, as they payout for non delivery.
It would not be first time Mick 'raped the f*ckers', to use his own words.
-
[attach=1]
-
Nothing in that article about the flight computer issue (286 not powerful enough and bit swapping), which is probably an even bigger job to fix.
-
Boeing is redesigning the 737 max flight control software to dual-channel, as it should have been starting decades ago.
Some of us know safety-critical dual-channel systems take time to code and test. This "extra 3 month delay"... Muilenburg may have problems finding competent engineers to write this software. You decimate your engineering staff and then expect magic software finished in 3 months to get the planes back in the air? :palm:
I am pretty skeptical Boeing has the capability to even write and test this software, and on a 3 month schedule is absurd. The FAA and then European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have to do their tests. It seems surreal, and high risk if an old CPU is tasked with more work and less memory. You never rush and push safety software/hardware engineering.
source: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/newly-stringent-faa-tests-spur-a-fundamental-software-redesign-of-737-max-flight-controls/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/newly-stringent-faa-tests-spur-a-fundamental-software-redesign-of-737-max-flight-controls/)
-
I would not be surprised if the 3 months become 3 years, unless they can reuse an existing system from another aircraft. Even then it has to be fully recertified and this is not some 'simple' control loop which just controls the trim.
Actually sounds like a meeting I attended yesterday.
Management wants it done in 2 years. Was not amused when I estimated taking 16++ man years. Which has based on the actual time it took 3 other very similar projects. But two years it is, going live with a big bang. Time to jump ship.
-
11 out of 17 Air Safety Inspectors working for the FAA’s Seattle-based Air Evaluation Group either did not have the right classroom training or the required on-the-job training to perform their duties correctly.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/25/faa_737_max_inspectors/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/25/faa_737_max_inspectors/)
-
Boeing’s 737 Max flight tests underestimated risks, U.S. investigators say
Testing should be done with "average" pilots, says NTSB
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-26/boeings-737-max-flight-tests-underestimated-risks-u-s-investigators-say (https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-26/boeings-737-max-flight-tests-underestimated-risks-u-s-investigators-say)
-
This is a disaster... I was anticipating almost right from the start that this case would not be as anecdotical as it first appeared...
-
Good summary on why the 737MAX won't be flying again soon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvUpSFGRqEo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvUpSFGRqEo)
-
Additionally, it is bad timing for re-entry because of reduced travel demand over the coronavirus situation.
-
I would not be surprised if the 3 months become 3 years, unless they can reuse an existing system from another aircraft. Even then it has to be fully recertified and this is not some 'simple' control loop which just controls the trim.
Actually sounds like a meeting I attended yesterday.
Management wants it done in 2 years. Was not amused when I estimated taking 16++ man years. Which has based on the actual time it took 3 other very similar projects. But two years it is, going live with a big bang. Time to jump ship.
This sounds like the company that I used to work for. We called it "having Martin babies", i.e. 9 women and 1 month.
-
Also have a look at blancolirio youtube for his comments on the MAX, - worth noting was the estimated time to train pilots for the plane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fkCWPq9dNM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fkCWPq9dNM)
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
Oh really.
Trust has been damaged way too much for this to happen IMO.
Besides, supposing there would be enough people ready to forget about the debacle just because prices are low - that would be putting the burden of operating the 737MAX on the shoulders of the airline companies! That's non-sense. They already lost significant money with the 737MAX so far, how can you think they'll be OK with further cutting their prices just to be able to use the planes? Many would probably rather sue the ass off Boeing until they get compensated rather than lose more money. Just a thought, but what makes you think that getting companies to lower their prices due to Boeing's fuck-up could be acceptable for them?
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
Oh really.
Trust has been damaged way too much for this to happen IMO.
Besides, supposing there would be enough people ready to forget about the debacle just because prices are low - that would be putting the burden of operating the 737MAX on the shoulders of the airline companies! That's non-sense. They already lost significant money with the 737MAX so far, how can you think they'll be OK with further cutting their prices just to be able to use the planes? Many would probably rather sue the ass off Boeing until they get compensated rather than lose more money. Just a thought, but what makes you think that getting companies to lower their prices due to Boeing's fuck-up could be acceptable for them?
It is in everyone's interests to fill the planes... the airlines as well as Boeing. So, they will sell cheap tickets and make sure some pictures/clips appear in the newsfeeds / social media showing MAX aircraft full of smiling passengers, pretty stewardesses, and handsome pilots. You know this works, you've seen it many times in your life, I'm sure!
When the FAA and other international bodies finally approve the MAX, I think it will probably be as safe or safer than most other aircraft out there. Can they really afford any screw-ups? So - I would personally be happy to buy the cheap tickets, should they be offered!
-
Just a thought, but what makes you think that getting companies to lower their prices due to Boeing's fuck-up could be acceptable for them?
Supply and demand?
When they start flying routes again, each plane represents a certain number of seats/tickets.
If/when people start to avoid flying on the MAX, the other planes will fill up. Lots of empty seats on the MAX. Prices drop.
It's not rocket science.
-
Quotes :
"Boeing and the FAA first said in early January they were reviewing a wiring issue that could potentially cause a short circuit on the 737 MAX, and under certain circumstances lead to a crash if pilots did not react in time.
Last month, Boeing told the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) it does not believe it needs to separate or move wiring bundles on its grounded 737 MAX jetliner that regulators have warned could short circuit with catastrophic consequences.
The source said the FAA told Boeing on Friday that it did not agree with the planemaker’s argument that the planes’ wiring bundles meet safety standards and now it is up to Boeing to decide how to proceed."
Source -> Boeing proposal to avoid MAX wiring shift does not win U.S. support (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/boeing-proposal-to-avoid-max-wiring-shift-does-not-win-u-s-support-idUSKBN20W018)
-
Seriously guys. :-DD
How come the whole upper management level has not exploded yet at Boeing?
-
You called that a management ? :palm:
They look more like a bunch of stock trader's employees, that their employer is taking a short position at the Boeing's stock. >:D
-
When it rains, it pours... really pours...
-
You called that a management ? :palm:
That's what they seem to be positioned at. Not my fault. :-DD
They look more like a bunch of stock trader's employees, that their employer is taking a short position at the Boeing's stock. >:D
Now that you mention that, it's starting to look so bad that you may wonder if some people are not trying to prepare some nasty insider trading or something.
-
You called that a management ? :palm:
That's what they seem to be positioned at. Not my fault. :-DD
They look more like a bunch of stock trader's employees, that their employer is taking a short position at the Boeing's stock. >:D
Now that you mention that, it's starting to look so bad that you may wonder if some people are not trying to prepare some nasty insider trading or something.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, 12% share value drop in a single day is a really-really serious number. >:D
-> Boeing shares plunge on coronavirus, 737 MAX wiring bundle setback (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-hot/boeing-shares-plunge-on-coronavirus-737-max-wiring-bundle-setback-idUSKBN20W210)
-
Boeing is a major, MAJOR defense and aerospace contractor for the US government.
It is too big and too important to allow it to fail. It will be bailed out.
-
boeing has two divisions, military and civilian, they are isolated. or should be.
the problem is however split, since the air force found booties in tanker aircraft, which should go through the boeing military channels, and also the FAA found stuff in civilian planes.
This traces the bug to some thing shared. the two divisions should not reuse each others policies and develop independent policies so this kind of thing can be root cause analyzed to a management decision problem. to me this seems like a sign of poor isolation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Security
the two divisions are clearly sharing something bad and there is a leakage between them some where. you would think military standards would be tighter and the issue would be isolated to civilian aircraft. So, it seems like metastasis. are they both fucking the same (sub) contractor and sharing fake cribnotes about vendor reliability rather then checking ? (division transfer, 'off the books' information on how to save money because 'those guys are good'?) evil consultants being used to control both divisions by one party?
or was the shoe issue related to civilian aircraft that was just used by military (I assume they have private jumbo jets for troop transports to non front line bases possibly, to reduce cost since military planes are not necessary for sending technicians to friendly nations?)
-
Boeing is a major, MAJOR defense and aerospace contractor for the US government.
It is too big and too important to allow it to fail. It will be bailed out.
The famous "too big to fail"...
Thing is, the company could well be split into two completely separate entities, the defense/aerospace one still Boeing, and the commercial aircraft one... either bankrupt or sold to some other manufacturer. Maybe a chinese one. ::)
-
Boeing is a major, MAJOR defense and aerospace contractor for the US government.
It is too big and too important to allow it to fail. It will be bailed out.
The famous "too big to fail"...
Thing is, the company could well be split into two completely separate entities, the defense/aerospace one still Boeing, and the commercial aircraft one... either bankrupt or sold to some other manufacturer. Maybe a chinese one. ::)
both divisions appear to have a quality problem based on reports of the airforce matching the problems in the civilian one.
so it can't just be split more to clean it up.. problem is not isolated. you would need to keep the machines and burn all the paperwork that is shared between both companies and rewrite it to see if the problem goes away (or fire everyone and get new people if that does not work).. the processes are bad
-
You could split up Boeing into 100 pieces, how does that really help with corruption?
Old monopoly corporations, once their culture is driven into a dive by a bad CEO, I have never seen them recover. You can't mandate safety or good design or even honesty.
The FAA has told Boeing the wiring bundles are "not compliant" and it did not agree with the planemaker's argument that the planes' wiring bundles meet safety standards. Let's see how Boeing worms its way out of this one.
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
Oh really.
Trust has been damaged way too much for this to happen IMO.
Engineers trust in the planes has been damaged yes, company trust in them sure.
But i dunno about the general public.
I'd say over 60% of people buying plane tickets don't even look at their ticket to see what class of plane they will be flying on.
Even the ones who saw the news about the 737 Max issues, 90% of them have forgot what plane that was and wouldn't make the link even if they did read their ticket and saw 737 max on it.
Most people just buy a ticket and think the safety of the plane is someone else's job.
They assume if a plane is in service then it must be safe.
-
I agree with Psi.
We in these forums are "geeks" and are interested in everything technical. Not everyone is the same.
My wife wouldn't distinguish an Antonov from a Cessna, and she does fly a lot. International and domestic.
Of course I'm exaggerating, but as long as she is comfortable in her window seat, and arrives to the destination on time, everything else are "details".
-
Boeing is a major, MAJOR defense and aerospace contractor for the US government.
It is too big and too important to allow it to fail. It will be bailed out.
The famous "too big to fail"...
Thing is, the company could well be split into two completely separate entities, the defense/aerospace one still Boeing, and the commercial aircraft one... either bankrupt or sold to some other manufacturer. Maybe a chinese one. ::)
both divisions appear to have a quality problem based on reports of the airforce matching the problems in the civilian one.
so it can't just be split more to clean it up..
Oh if that ever happens, that won't be for cleaning it up, but just because there is no other choice left.
-
You could split up Boeing into 100 pieces, how does that really help with corruption?
Old monopoly corporations, once their culture is driven into a dive by a bad CEO, I have never seen them recover. You can't mandate safety or good design or even honesty.
The FAA has told Boeing the wiring bundles are "not compliant" and it did not agree with the planemaker's argument that the planes' wiring bundles meet safety standards. Let's see how Boeing worms its way out of this one.
boeing has multiple ceo's, one for each division, I assume. The BCA is being investigated/restructured, I don't know anything about the BDS. I would assume the BDS has the same problem as BCA if they both find shit in the fuel tanks.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA)
Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS)
Phantom Works
Boeing Global Services
Boeing Capital
Engineering, Test & Technology
Boeing Shared Services Group
Boeing NeXt - explores urban air mobility
I thought about drawing a managment flow chart but it starts to feel like a mafia bust (bafia)
-
Boeing will have to separate the wiring harnesses on the 737 Max to meet the 2009 safety standard. WTF boneheads ignored that regulation after the Swissair 111/TWA800 disasters and the FAA is not letting that slide. Stock plummeted down to $189 today, back to what it was three years ago or a loss of 50% from the good old days last year. I think that's $120B market cap lost so far?
What usually happens next is investors get fed up and bail, the company can't service its debt load, announces they are losing money, borrows even more money and then the cuts start happening. Layoffs coming.
It seems like insanity because the new CEO will surely get $millions for a yearly bonus, worth say 100 engineer's wage. Imagine putting that to work developing aircraft.
But they wonder why they can't build new airplanes in less than 10 years, it seems like peak stupidity of the MBA management style.
edit: with my luck the stock is a strong buy, because a war will start over the crude oil market-share battle between Russia and Saudia Arabia.
-
Boo hoo ... gimme money pleaseee ....
-> Boeing in talks for short-term U.S. government assistance (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-boeing/boeing-in-talks-for-short-term-u-s-government-assistance-idUSKBN2133WX)
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
Oh really.
Trust has been damaged way too much for this to happen IMO.
They'll just rename it.
I believe at least one airline has already done this on their decals.
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
Oh really.
Trust has been damaged way too much for this to happen IMO.
They'll just rename it.
If they do, the info will spread in a matter of a few hours on all media and social networks. Everyone will know it's just the same.
I believe at least one airline has already done this on their decals.
What exactly did they do and how did that work out?
-
If the tickets are cheap enough on the Max... they will fill the planes. Passenger anxiety will drop off quickly and disappear entirely, and the fixed Max will eventually be a success... provided there are no accidents!
Oh really.
Trust has been damaged way too much for this to happen IMO.
They'll just rename it.
I believe at least one airline has already done this on their decals.
That is probably exactly what is going to happen - they are actually making a lot of changes so it is almost reasonable to claim it is no longer the same plane...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change)
No, far from everybody will know the name changed.
-
They'll just rename it.
If they do, the info will spread in a matter of a few hours on all media and social networks. Everyone will know it's just the same.
Unlikely. i think you are making the assumption that the general public care about stuff the way engineers do.
They would wait a little while and do a strategic re-brand. Now would be the perfect time to do it, while the news is all just coronavirus.
-
Boeing stock is getting destroyed down 68% in a month over the coronavirus crisis, erasing all Muilenburg's gains over the past three years.
“Yes, I think we have to protect Boeing,” Trump said. “We have to absolutely help Boeing.”
They are crying to Congress for a $60 billion bailout package for the industry :palm:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-and-the-airlines-seek-massive-bailout-critics-ask-about-sharing-the-benefit/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-and-the-airlines-seek-massive-bailout-critics-ask-about-sharing-the-benefit/)
-
They are crying to Congress for a $60 billion bailout package for the industry :palm:
I wonder who would be getting the larges cut of that industry wide bailout package.
-
I would have thought it would have given them a bit of breathing space to get their act together. It takes the pressure off the grounded 737Max's a bit when the airlines haven't actually got any passengers to fly in them!
Still, any excuse for a handout! ::)
-
Of course it would help them, but the question is should they be helped?
Sounds awfully like socialism, which of course is a big no no.
Also, what about 101 other niche industry that is affected just as much?
-
Whenever companies cry for a bailout because they are facing hard times, but lobby for tax cuts and reduction worker/union rights, and refuse to increase the pay of their employees, I can't help but think: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
-
They'll just rename it.
If they do, the info will spread in a matter of a few hours on all media and social networks. Everyone will know it's just the same.
Unlikely. i think you are making the assumption that the general public care about stuff the way engineers do.
They would wait a little while and do a strategic re-brand. Now would be the perfect time to do it, while the news is all just coronavirus.
Uh huh. The Boeing disaster has been on all media for months. Even if you don't care about that, you're very likely to have heard about it. You probably also underestimate the "power" of social networks these days. Sure the attention is currently on the virus, but since it's very unlikely at this point Boeing is going to get approval before the end of the year, by then it'll make a lot of fuss again IMO.
Heck, we don't even know whether Boeing is going to stay alive at this point. And you're like it will just be a matter of a name change? I have no clue what is going to happen exactly, but it's time for a reality check IMO. No one expected the situation to get this bad.
As to airlines - it's obvious this causes a big problem. Those that placed large orders are basically trapped. Even if they wanted to cancel the orders - which they would have all ground to do IMO - they probably just could not, due to the very long lead times, so I can see why they would try and stick to it the longest they can as long as they are reasonably sure that the 737 MAX will be able to fly again before they could get a chance to have an equivalent order to a competitor get delivered. So yeah, they are basically screwed up, and if it ever happened that Boeing was eventually unable to deliver, said airlines would likely be in big trouble as well for lack of planes.
So yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to end up exactly, but I'm just seeing a possible scenario in which it won't end well. Meanwhile, others are more optimistic.
-
Life was, is and will be really good at Boeing's management and share holders. :clap:
-> Boeing calls for $60 billion lifeline for U.S. aerospace industry (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-boeing/boeing-calls-for-60-billion-lifeline-for-u-s-aerospace-industry-idUSKBN2143TR)
Quotes ...
Congressional officials are reviewing Boeing’s cash needs as Congress considers a stimulus and rescue package that could top $1 trillion. :scared:
-
Life was, is and will be really good at Boeing's management and share holders. :clap:
-> Boeing calls for $60 billion lifeline for U.S. aerospace industry (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-boeing/boeing-calls-for-60-billion-lifeline-for-u-s-aerospace-industry-idUSKBN2143TR)
Quotes ...
Congressional officials are reviewing Boeing’s cash needs as Congress considers a stimulus and rescue package that could top $1 trillion. :scared:
Boeing can ask... but in an environment where so many industries will need a bailout... will they get everything they ask for?
-
I'm all for saving the US aerospace industry, but 1/ the US aerospace is not just all about Boeing (or is it? if it is, it's a big problem), and 2/ Boeing is trying to mix up the difficulties it has gone through with the Coronavirus - not saying it won't damage things further, of course, but that almost sounds "convenient" here.
-
Life was, is and will be really good at Boeing's management and share holders. :clap:
-> Boeing calls for $60 billion lifeline for U.S. aerospace industry (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-boeing/boeing-calls-for-60-billion-lifeline-for-u-s-aerospace-industry-idUSKBN2143TR)
Quotes ...
Congressional officials are reviewing Boeing’s cash needs as Congress considers a stimulus and rescue package that could top $1 trillion. :scared:
Boeing can ask... but in an environment where so many industries will need a bailout... will they get everything they ask for?
Of course, I guess you are too young to understand on what happened in 2008 crisis.
Here what was happening on a phone conversation .... "... mark up your number will ya ? So that leaves me/us a leeway and save our faces when we finally make a discounted figure on it, say it will end up just 10% (100B >:D) ? How bout that sounds ? Ok, deal, and make sure do not forget my/our cut will ya ... " .... phone hang up ... done deal. >:D
Thats the reality.
-
There's a lot of grumbling about how Boeing and the airlines spent a huge chunk of their free cash on stock buybacks.
Article (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/airlines-and-boeing-want-a-bailout-but-look-how-much-theyve-spent-on-stock-buybacks-2020-03-18)
As a group, the six airlines spent 96% of their free cash flow on stock buybacks over the past 10 full years through 2019.
Boeing’s free cash flow for 10 years totaled $58.37 billion, while the company spent $43.44 billion, or 74% of free cash flow, on stock repurchases.
So, basically, that money artificially propped-up share prices and made investors and executives handsome profits. They blew their wads and are now having liquidity problems and need a handout. They saved nothing for a "rainy day."
I don't know if the airlines are worth saving. Someone from the private sector could likely give Boeing a big cash injection--in exchange for preferred-stock.
...such as the one Berkshire did with Goldman Sachs GS during the 2008 financial crisis. Berkshire had $125 billion in cash and short-term investments in U.S. Treasury bills as of Dec. 31
-
Oh, and stock buybacks should be illegal again...
Article (https://wolfstreet.com/2020/03/17/after-blowing-4-5-trillion-on-share-buybacks-corporate-america-airlines-boeing-other-culprits-want-taxpayer-fed-bailouts-for-these-shareholders/)
Share buybacks were considered a form of market manipulation and were illegal under SEC rules until 1982, when the SEC issued Rule 10b-18 which provided corporations a “safe harbor” to buy back their own shares under certain conditions. Once corporations figured out that no one cared about those conditions, and that no one was auditing anything, share buybacks exploded. And they’ve have been hyped endlessly by Wall Street.
-
Uh huh. The Boeing disaster has been on all media for months. Even if you don't care about that, you're very likely to have heard about it. You probably also underestimate the "power" of social networks these days. Sure the attention is currently on the virus, but since it's very unlikely at this point Boeing is going to get approval before the end of the year, by then it'll make a lot of fuss again IMO.
Heck, we don't even know whether Boeing is going to stay alive at this point. And you're like it will just be a matter of a name change? I have no clue what is going to happen exactly, but it's time for a reality check IMO. No one expected the situation to get this bad.
As to airlines - it's obvious this causes a big problem. Those that placed large orders are basically trapped. Even if they wanted to cancel the orders - which they would have all ground to do IMO - they probably just could not, due to the very long lead times, so I can see why they would try and stick to it the longest they can as long as they are reasonably sure that the 737 MAX will be able to fly again before they could get a chance to have an equivalent order to a competitor get delivered. So yeah, they are basically screwed up, and if it ever happened that Boeing was eventually unable to deliver, said airlines would likely be in big trouble as well for lack of planes.
So yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to end up exactly, but I'm just seeing a possible scenario in which it won't end well. Meanwhile, others are more optimistic.
I don't disagree with anything you said.
I agree that most people will have heard of the issue but if you asked 100 random people in the street what company it was and what plane it was i don't think you'd get over 20% knowing even one answer.
Most people don't fly much, if at all, and don't care enough about the issue to remember the details.
Once it dies down in mainstream news they forget it in a week.
You could argue that if these people never fly then they don't count because they're not part of the system.
But, if they're a big percentage of the general pubic then they dilute the issue in the public eye and less people talk about it.
-
I was listening to a radio interview with the boss of Easyjet this morning...
We need government assistance, Covid, blah blah
... but you're about to hand out a £180M dividend to your shareholders!
Oh yes, but we're legally obliged to do that... |O
-
Uh huh. The Boeing disaster has been on all media for months. Even if you don't care about that, you're very likely to have heard about it. You probably also underestimate the "power" of social networks these days. Sure the attention is currently on the virus, but since it's very unlikely at this point Boeing is going to get approval before the end of the year, by then it'll make a lot of fuss again IMO.
Heck, we don't even know whether Boeing is going to stay alive at this point. And you're like it will just be a matter of a name change? I have no clue what is going to happen exactly, but it's time for a reality check IMO. No one expected the situation to get this bad.
As to airlines - it's obvious this causes a big problem. Those that placed large orders are basically trapped. Even if they wanted to cancel the orders - which they would have all ground to do IMO - they probably just could not, due to the very long lead times, so I can see why they would try and stick to it the longest they can as long as they are reasonably sure that the 737 MAX will be able to fly again before they could get a chance to have an equivalent order to a competitor get delivered. So yeah, they are basically screwed up, and if it ever happened that Boeing was eventually unable to deliver, said airlines would likely be in big trouble as well for lack of planes.
So yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to end up exactly, but I'm just seeing a possible scenario in which it won't end well. Meanwhile, others are more optimistic.
(...)
I agree that most people will have heard of the issue but if you asked 100 random people in the street what company it was and what plane it was i don't think you'd get over 20% knowing even one answer.
Most people don't fly much, if at all, and don't care enough about the issue to remember the details.
(...)
Many people fly these days thanks to low-cost companies. Air trafic has increased tremendously. And many of these airlines ordered a lot of 737MAX planes due to the promised lowered operating cost, so there is a direct impact here. I don't know what you mean in terms of figures by "most people don't fly much", but the very existence of all the low-cost airlines shows something else. A lot of flights and a lot of people.
We'll see. I'm much less optimistic than some of you guys are. See ya by the time the 737MAX gets approved, if it ever does, and we'll talk again. ::)
-
I was listening to a radio interview with the boss of Easyjet this morning...
We need government assistance, Covid, blah blah
... but you're about to hand out a £180M dividend to your shareholders!
Oh yes, but we're legally obliged to do that... |O
Ah well, that sucks, but yes they are.
Unless maybe there was an exceptional law voted in emergency to prevent that temporarily - which would have a major impact on the world's economy (think about it, but it could lead to a crash in no time.)
-
Aren't dividends paid out of profit?
-
Aren't dividends paid out of profit?
On profit ALREADY made. It has to be evaluated through a rather complex accounting process (yuck I don't like it), so current and future losses can't determine what the current dividends are at any given time.
-
I don't like accounting either, so I'll just accept that dividends must be paid, as much as I don't like it. Doesn't change the sentiment that I wouldn't give them a penny for bailout.
In other news, Boeing somehow managed to do it again. This time it's not 737 related, but 787. Potentially just as deadly, though.
https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/faa-addresses-potential-data-display-fault-in-787-avionics/137403.article (https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/faa-addresses-potential-data-display-fault-in-787-avionics/137403.article)
If you leave the 787 (8, 9 and 10 variants) turned on for more than 51 days they will start to display, what FAA mildly puts, "misleading attitude, altitude, airspeed and engine operation data". Basically, the fundamental flight data the pilots (and autopilot) see is wrong.
Now, it might seem like an edge case, after all who leaves the plane turned on for more than 51 days, right? Well, it does actually happen, but regardless, the bug should not have been there more so because that exact type of bug has been encountered (in aviation) at least twice before.
First time I'm aware it was encountered was in 2004 when air traffic control lost radio communication with all 400 of the planes in southwestern USA. Luckily no one died that day.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/lost-radio-contact-leaves-pilots-on-their-own (https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/lost-radio-contact-leaves-pilots-on-their-own)
The second time is the doozy, though. If you left your airplane turned on for 248 days, you would lose all electrical power, regardless of what was the plane doing at the time (that is you could lose power mid flight). It's the same time keeping overflow mishandling. Now would you care to guess what airplane was afflicted with this bug? If your guess is Boeing 787, you get a cookie.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/787_software_bug_can_shut_down_planes_generators/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/787_software_bug_can_shut_down_planes_generators/)
-
So they use windoze ? Also watch the article's date ... :-DD
https://www.cnet.com/news/windows-may-crash-after-49-7-days/ (https://www.cnet.com/news/windows-may-crash-after-49-7-days/)
-
Doesn't change the sentiment that I wouldn't give them a penny for bailout.
I understand the frustration, but I'm not sure I quite agree here. The purpose of private companies is to make profits - and distribute them.
If there's an exceptional situation in which some companies' future is at stake, I don't think the fact they made profit before it happened justifies not helping them in times of big trouble like this. It has almost nothing to do.
The only way you could discuss this IMHO is if a company makes large profits AND doesn't invest enough when it would be needed (meaning, net result is "artificially" high as the company cuts on investments). But you can't blame a company here for not making investments - they are just losing money for sudden lack of activity. Completely different thing.
-
Let me try to explain then.
I, as a private individual, have a job that provides me with certain income. That income is nowhere near the amount needed to cover all my desires, so I have to budget it. After I pay for my food, clothes, electricity bills and housing, I have some left over that I can either spend on fun stuff, or tuck away in some sort of savings (stocks, socks, doesn't matter). It's usually a bit of both fun and savings. That savings is used for times when I need to buy a new washing machine, fix the car or I lose a job. I need to cut back on my pleasure spending so I have a safety net during the rainy days, because the government will not bail me out. With businesses, it's the same thing. No one will help a business overcome sudden loss of activity.
Unless they are a huge corporation that is just "too big to fail". Boeing will happily pay out hundreds of millions in bonuses per year to their senior management, but will not set aside anything for rainy days. When those rains come, they expect others to pull them out of the muck. I certainly can blame the management for prioritizing their private interests over the interests of the business and the employees.
-
Let me try to explain then.
I, as a private individual, have a job that provides me with certain income. That income is nowhere near the amount needed to cover all my desires, so I have to budget it. After I pay for my food, clothes, electricity bills and housing, I have some left over that I can either spend on fun stuff, or tuck away in some sort of savings (stocks, socks, doesn't matter). It's usually a bit of both fun and savings. That savings is used for times when I need to buy a new washing machine, fix the car or I lose a job. I need to cut back on my pleasure spending so I have a safety net during the rainy days, because the government will not bail me out. With businesses, it's the same thing. No one will help a business overcome sudden loss of activity.
Unless they are a huge corporation that is just "too big to fail". Boeing will happily pay out hundreds of millions in bonuses per year to their senior management, but will not set aside anything for rainy days. When those rains come, they expect others to pull them out of the muck. I certainly can blame the management for prioritizing their private interests over the interests of the business and the employees.
As a private individual, you have social insurance (unemployment insurance) and health care, nobody is going to be left starving.
Not that I disagree with you, though, when corporations go down because of mismanagement (e.g. the Boeing Max scandal). They might try to sweep that little booboo up under cover of the corona thing.
-
Let me try to explain then.
I, as a private individual, have a job that provides me with certain income. That income is nowhere near the amount needed to cover all my desires, so I have to budget it. After I pay for my food, clothes, electricity bills and housing, I have some left over that I can either spend on fun stuff, or tuck away in some sort of savings (stocks, socks, doesn't matter). It's usually a bit of both fun and savings. That savings is used for times when I need to buy a new washing machine, fix the car or I lose a job. I need to cut back on my pleasure spending so I have a safety net during the rainy days, because the government will not bail me out. With businesses, it's the same thing. No one will help a business overcome sudden loss of activity.
As SilverSolder said, in many countries you have some kind of social insurance.
What you're saying here is that you are blaming some companies not to build enough "cushion" (I think this is the proper financial term). Thing is, first, you'd always have to determine how much - and in case of a major downtime, any amount you have decided on will probably not be enough to save much. Second, once a private company goes public, major decisions like this can't be made by the company's executives only. Major shareholders will get to eventually decide on things like this. Shareholders will usually prevent any company from building up too much cushion - because this is just "sleeping" cash.
You're probably hoping for a complete change of system here...
-
As a private individual, you have social insurance (unemployment insurance) and health care, nobody is going to be left starving.
As SilverSolder said, in many countries you have some kind of social insurance.
Sure, but since we're talking about Boeing and USA bailout, let's take a look at US numbers. There are 34 million people in US that live below poverty line (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/06/united-states-poverty-rate-for-every-group/40546247/). There were more than half a million people that were homeless in 2018 (https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/).
Social insurance does exist in theory, but it's not nearly as farm and fuzzy as the bailouts for big companies, which are sized to produced "business as usual" effect. Personal social insurance is of much lower quality.
Boeing is asking for "a minimum of 60 billion for aerospace manufacturing industry", of course they are the biggest player.
Not that I disagree with you, though, when corporations go down because of mismanagement (e.g. the Boeing Max scandal). They might try to sweep that little booboo up under cover of the corona thing.
Seems like, for Boeing, corona is the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Thousand new airplanes are grounded, but airlines are not, or barely, operating anyway, so no pressure.
What you're saying here is that you are blaming some companies not to build enough "cushion" (I think this is the proper financial term). Thing is, first, you'd always have to determine how much - and in case of a major downtime, any amount you have decided on will probably not be enough to save much.
About three months worth of operation should do it.
Second, once a private company goes public, major decisions like this can't be made by the company's executives only. Major shareholders will get to eventually decide on things like this. Shareholders will usually prevent any company from building up too much cushion - because this is just "sleeping" cash.
Open market will regulate that. If your company doesn't prepare for an unforeseen event as well as competition, you'll be taken over. If you prepare better than competition, you can take them over.
You're probably hoping for a complete change of system here...
Sure. I'd like to see some changes.
-
Seems like, for Boeing, corona is the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Thousand new airplanes are grounded, but airlines are not, or barely, operating anyway, so no pressure.
Yep :phew:
Well, at least for those involved in the 737MAX.
Uncle Sam will helicopter drop in some free cash, and they get oodles more time to solve the problems.
-
Seems like, for Boeing, corona is the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Thousand new airplanes are grounded, but airlines are not, or barely, operating anyway, so no pressure.
Yep :phew:
Well, at least for those involved in the 737MAX.
Uncle Sam will helicopter drop in some free cash, and they get oodles more time to solve the problems.
I would say no, it compounds their cash flow problem. Before the pandemic the Airlines were trapped. The order book for the main competitor the Airbus A321 Neo is full to 10 years out and the order book for the MAX is also full. Now Airlines who were/are skating on thin ice already will go bankrupt and the ordered aircraft backlog will shrink dramatically. There will also be many aircraft on the used market. It is going to be a bloodbath for commercial aviation.
-
Now Airlines who were/are skating on thin ice already will go bankrupt and the ordered aircraft backlog will shrink dramatically.
Yup. Some people seem to think airlines can keep going for weeks with almost no activity and will be back to normal when the crisis is over. Keep on dreaming.
This is not going to be pretty for some of them, and I bet that a few won't be able to honor the orders they have passed - or only partially for those that will survive.
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/27/business/boeing-bailout-government-stake/index.html
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun was asked earlier this week about how he felt about the prospect of the government taking a stake in his company in return for help, he said he was not in favor of such a move.
In an interview on Fox Business, he said that if the government required an equity in exchange for help, that Boeing would "look at all the other options, and we've got plenty of them."
I guess they don't really need help.
-
If the people (taxpayers) are going to bail out a company the *least* they deserve is some share in return of that company.
I'd rather let these companies go bust that just give them money with no conditions attached. Boeing can go ... well, you know.
-
Easy, just make a stealhty request to Chinese conglomerats , asking a favour that they will pretend that they are going to inject fresh cash into Boeing, pretty sure that will be the wake up call for the gov and senates to bring more money without too demanding on the terms. >:D
-
And the cancellations gather steam
quote:
Boeing customers cancelled 150 orders for the 737 MAX in March, and the plane maker’s commercial backlog fell by a net 307 planes in the first quarter as it accounted for orders that airlines are now unlikely to take delivery of as they struggle to survive a steep drop-off in travel amid the coronavirus pandemic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2020/04/14/boeing-backlog-shrinks-by-300-planes-as-more-737-max-orders-cancelled/#3a6ec7091c7c (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2020/04/14/boeing-backlog-shrinks-by-300-planes-as-more-737-max-orders-cancelled/#3a6ec7091c7c)