Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'

[chickenHeadKnob]

This isn't failed engineering, needing improving sensors and fault detection.
It's unbridled corporate greed and corruption, at the executive level.

MCAS had already been properly engineered. From Muilenburg's testimony before Congress this week:
"Michigan Republican Representative Paul Mitchell asked why the 737 Max’s version of MCAS had key differences from a midair refueling tanker Boeing supplies to the U.S. Air Force. He pointed out that the Pentagon required that the KC-46 tanker’s MCAS system activate only once, when the civilian application could -- and did -- fire repeatedly, he said.

“Why the difference? What motivated that?” the lawmaker said.

John Hamilton, chief engineer of Boeing Commercial Airplane division, cited specifications set by the Air Force. Muilenburg said the tanker’s MCAS system was designed for different flight scenarios than the 737 Max’s version. The Air Force has said the KC-46’s MCAS systems incorporated data from two angle-of-attack sensors, rather than one sensor as originally designed on the 737 Max."
--snip--

KC-46 pegasus is derived from a B767 and may have other significant mcas and pitch /trim response differences,
P-8  Poseidon is  a more recent issue naval patrol, anti-sub aircraft derived from B737-800ERX, this would be a better comparable but I don't know if it has a modified MCAS.

[BravoV]

After this saga, all fall back to a very simple fundamental question, how is Boeing better than -> Comac ?

Example Comac C919, its intended to compete primarily with the Boeing 737 MAX, pretty confident its darn cheap compared to 737 MAX.

Quote : "In 2012 the C919 order book stood at 380 units worth US$26 billion, and averaging $68.4 million. FlightGlobal's Ascend market values in 2013 were $49.2 million for the Airbus A320neo, 51% less than its $100.2 million list price and $51.4 million for the Boeing 737 MAX-8, 49% less than its $100.5 million list price. In June 2015, the China National Radio predicted a $50 million price, cheaper than the B737 or A320 list prices."



Also if the China's FAA equivalent body is proven to accept bribe or made such mistakes, guilty parties for sure will be executed with death penalty, at least this bring more confident isn't it ? 

[Nusa]

After this saga, all fall back to a very simple fundamental question, how is Boeing better than -> Comac ?

Example Comac C919, its intended to compete primarily with the Boeing 737 MAX, pretty confident its darn cheap compared to 737 MAX.

Quote : "In 2012 the C919 order book stood at 380 units worth US$26 billion, and averaging $68.4 million. FlightGlobal's Ascend market values in 2013 were $49.2 million for the Airbus A320neo, 51% less than its $100.2 million list price and $51.4 million for the Boeing 737 MAX-8, 49% less than its $100.5 million list price. In June 2015, the China National Radio predicted a $50 million price, cheaper than the B737 or A320 list prices."



Also if the China's FAA equivalent body is proven to accept bribe or made such mistakes, guilty parties for sure will be executed with death penalty, at least this bring more confident isn't it ? 

That's easy. The 737 exists. The C919 doesn't, except for a few prototypes being used for testing. FIRST delivery isn't planned until 2021, and it'll take time to ramp up production. China internal customers will dominate the output for the next decade or more, assuming no serious flaws show up in service. Some of that market is built-in, since that's an obvious result of having a state-owned aircraft manufacturer and state-owned airlines. As for mistakes, are you sure we'd ever hear about most of them? Most of the media is state-owned as well.

Also, you stopped copying wiki text too soon. Allow me to continue, directly after what you quoted:

The Chinese airlines that have placed orders for the C919 already have either the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 in their fleets.[66] In 2013, Chinese state-owned newspaper Global Times complained that an Aviation Week editorial about the bleak prospects for the aircraft "maliciously disparaged the future outlook for the C919".[67]

COMAC aims to take a fifth of the global narrowbody market and a third of the Chinese market by 2035.[8] It expects 2,000 sales in the next 20 years.[68] China considers it as a source of national pride.[69] The Financial Times states the C919 is outdated by 10–15 years compared to the latest versions of the A320 and Boeing 737, and will probably cost more to operate.[70] Its range of 2,200–3,000 nmi (4,100–5,600 km) falls short of the 3,400 and 3,550 nmi (6,300 and 6,570 km) of the A320neo and 737 Max 8, the C919 payload-range and economics are similar to the current single-aisles, but it will compete with the Neo and Max. FlightGlobal forecasts 1,209 deliveries: 687 standard and 522 stretched variants, for 85% in China.[31]

[dzseki]

This 737Max saga cannot get any more sad, even if it is allowed to flight it really doesn't comply FAA rules fully, like clearance between control cables,

One issue is how FAA managers agreed during certification of the 737 MAX to give Boeing a pass on complying with a safety rule that requires more separation between duplicate sets of cables that control the jet’s rudder.

This is to avoid the possibility that shrapnel from an uncontained engine blowout could sever all the cables and render the plane uncontrollable.
The requirement was introduced when such a blowout caused the deadly 1989 crash of a United Airlines DC-10 in Sioux City, Iowa. The 737 has never been brought into line with the requirement

.....The story listed a series of legacy design details that have been repeatedly grandfathered into the latest model each time Boeing has updated the 737, which was originally certified more than 50 years ago.
All the issues in the list were flagged by FAA safety engineers as requiring fixes before the MAX could be certified. But each was waved through after managers on the Boeing side of certification insisted that these were non-issues and managers on the FAA side agreed to let it move ahead with the requirement unaddressed.



So basically Boeing is designing non-compliant and unsafe airplanes like nothing but since it is already designed how the hell is it not going to get certified, the costs would be tremendous!!!

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/new-questions-raised-on-safety-of-both-737-max-and-787-dreamliner/

I'd think a big part of this is just pointing fingers by FAA, as they want to appear to be the "good guys" now. The 737 family has an excellent track record in safety, in general.
Now they claim that the 737 does not comply a 30 year old rule, while obviously no accident was contributed to that non-compliance in that 30 years, come on!

[SilverSolder]

[...] they claim that the 737 does not comply a 30 year old rule, while obviously no accident was contributed to that non-compliance in that 30 years [...]

If the rule is incorrect, it should be removed.  Otherwise it should be adhered to. 

There should be no rules that are arbitrarily ignored just because someone thinks not enough accidents are happening!

[BravoV]

The problem now is not Boeing, forget any technicality talks, as its pointless.

Its just natural as they're just maximizing the profit, while the safety part is ignored heavily with the great aid and help by FAA.

For so many decades, can you imagine the bribe that FAA officials took ? And maybe politicians too for being quite all this time ?

And please don't be naive, that FAA didn't get or want any catch all by "surrendering" the certification to the Boeing to be "self-certifying" company.   

Even its pronounced & written as "Boeing" , still it has the meaning of "One Hung Low" brand inside.

[sokoloff]

[...] they claim that the 737 does not comply a 30 year old rule, while obviously no accident was contributed to that non-compliance in that 30 years [...]

If the rule is incorrect, it should be removed.  Otherwise it should be adhered to. 

There should be no rules that are arbitrarily ignored just because someone thinks not enough accidents are happening!

My 1965 Mustang doesn’t meet many current federal safety standards. Nevertheless, I can still drive it on the road. I’ve chosen to make a few upgrades (adding dual circuit brakes, not originally equipped, and will likely add three point belts [lap belts originally an option, shoulder belts not offered]), but didn’t have to.

That does not mean I think the shoulder belt or dual circuit braking or reverse lights requirements are bad laws, just that they don’t apply retroactively to machines certified or built before they were introduced.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

My 1965 Mustang doesn’t meet many current federal safety standards. Nevertheless, I can still drive it on the road.

Lucky you. The bureaucrats in Brussels want to end with that in Europe.

[m98]

Lucky you. The bureaucrats in Brussels want to end with that in Europe.

Rightly so. Why should the community bear the healthcare bills of individuals recklessly injuring themselves and others with unsafe cars?

That does not mean I think the shoulder belt or dual circuit braking or reverse lights requirements are bad laws, just that they don’t apply retroactively to machines certified or built before they were introduced.

This doesn't, shouldn't and has never applied to the aviation industry. As soon as anything is deemed unsafe or outdated, it needs to be changed. Would you let yourself or your loved ones fly on a "no worries mate, she'll be right"-airline?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Lucky you. The bureaucrats in Brussels want to end with that in Europe.

Rightly so. Why should the community bear the healthcare bills of individuals recklessly injuring themselves and others with unsafe cars?

Since when does "the community" pay our cars' insurance bills?

[tom66]

Since when does "the community" pay the insurance bills?

Most Europeans pay taxes that pay for healthcare, a greater number of car accidents mean more hospital visits and greater costs.

Air pollution & climate change also effect everyone.

[G7PSK]

Surely the point here is not that when the car or plane was first manufactured it complied with the relevant regulations then but that when subsequent models are made they comply with the regulations now pertaining, if you go with what Boing have apparently been doing Ford could lable all their cars Model T and forget about all modern regulations.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Since when does "the community" pay the insurance bills?

Most Europeans pay taxes that pay for healthcare, a greater number of car accidents mean more hospital visits and greater costs.

Bollocks. If you have an accident in your "Model T", it's your insurance company that pays the ambulance/hospital/medical care bills, not the NHS.

Air pollution & climate change also effect everyone.

And the polar bears.

[djacobow]

I'm not a pilot and have only rudimentary knowledge about this. Hopefully not too much of a noob question.... but if a Pitot tube or aircraft speed sensor was blocked or malfunctioning, it would tell the pilot the aircraft is going too slow? So wouldn't they speed up the airplane? Wouldn't speeding up help keep it flying in the air? I would imagine the reverse would be worse, where the sensor is telling you that you are going fast and you slow down and stall.

It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a static port and a pitot port. Speed is reported based on the pressure differential between the two.

If the pitot tube is blocked, it will just report the speed it was reporting at the time it became blocked. Unless you descend, in which case it will start to show lower airspeeds, or if you ascend, in which case it will show higher airspeeds -- none of this having anything to do with your actual airspeed.

If the static port is blocked, but the pitot tube is clear, then you will get a indication of air speed, but as you ascend the speed indicated will be lower than your actual airspeed, etc.

It's a lot of "fun" to reason through when you are literally concerned that your pitot system is malfunctioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system#Blocked_static_port

[sokoloff]

That does not mean I think the shoulder belt or dual circuit braking or reverse lights requirements are bad laws, just that they don’t apply retroactively to machines certified or built before they were introduced.

This doesn't, shouldn't and has never applied to the aviation industry. As soon as anything is deemed unsafe or outdated, it needs to be changed.

"Has never applied"? This absolutely does apply to the aviation industry. Today.

The airplane I fly was certificated under CAR-3, which was updated to Part 23 in 1965. My airplane was built in 1997 under a CAR-3 type certificate and the design did not need to be updated to any Part 23 rule changes. On transport jets, the same principle applies. 707s still flying need to meet the 707 type certificate, not any subsequent changes to certification (unless those are made mandatory by special FAR or airworthiness directive.) New 707s could still be built if there was economic demand for them.

Would you let yourself or your loved ones fly on a "no worries mate, she'll be right"-airline?

I don't let us fly on certain foreign carriers with a poor training record. I don't have any issue with any EU flag, Swiss, or CA/US/MX flag carrier and would readily let my family fly on any of those. I made an exception once on vacation for a day VMC flight on a carrier that I would not have been willing to use for a night or IMC flight.

Airline travel is almost incomprehensibly safe, even with the fact that airliners are not required to be continually changed and updated as certification rules evolve.

If they were made to be so, there would be pressure to not make incremental improvements to the certification rules (owing to the economic impact on airlines). It's not particularly different from evolving building codes or vehicle codes. We don't seize or make economically unviable people's old buildings or cars; we also don't do the same to airplanes.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

We don't seize or make economically unviable people's old buildings or cars; we also don't do the same to airplanes.

Hear, hear !!

[SilverSolder]

[...] My 1965 Mustang doesn’t meet many current federal safety standards. Nevertheless, I can still drive it on the road.[...]

Awesome car!

...The 2020 Mustang does obey 2020 regulations, though, and Ford does not pass it off as an extended 1965 model...

Is it not true that planes do get updated from time to time, if there are significant improvements that can be retrofitted?  I seem to recall winglets being added to older planes at some point, for example.

It is pretty rare that cars get updated for current regulations (but it can happen - e.g. lead free gas required updating the older cars in some cases).

[tom66]

Bollocks. If you have an accident in your "Model T", it's your insurance company that pays the ambulance/hospital/medical care bills, not the NHS.

Up to a point in the UK, but only about £300 for emergency treatment and £400 per day in hospital up to £10k maximum. Source: Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act.

That certainly doesn't even begin to cover the cost of specialist emergency care, prosthetics, dental rework, corrective plastic surgery etc.

[sokoloff]

Is it not true that planes do get updated from time to time, if there are significant improvements that can be retrofitted?  I seem to recall winglets being added to older planes at some point, for example.

Yes. There is a generally optional process to modify airplanes such that they differ from their original type certificate. These are “Supplemental Type Certificates” (STCs) and can range from wing mods, avionics, lighting packages, engine modifications or replacements, gross weight increases, or basically anything.

My A36 has several: added turbo, increased gross weight, glass panel PFD/MFD, touch screen WAAS navigators, built-in O2, and probably a few others that I’m forgetting. (Edit to add: tip tanks for 40 gals more fuel and TKS [glycol] anti-ice system)

[StillTrying]

UK Channel 4 9pm tonight.
Boeing's Killer Plane: What Went Wrong?
This documentary unravels the events that led to two modern passenger jets falling out of the sky, and investigates how the fastest-selling aircraft in Boeing's history ended in tragedy
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/boeings-killer-plane-what-went-wrong

[Gyro]

UK Channel 4 9pm tonight.
Boeing's Killer Plane: What Went Wrong?
This documentary unravels the events that led to two modern passenger jets falling out of the sky, and investigates how the fastest-selling aircraft in Boeing's history ended in tragedy
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/boeings-killer-plane-what-went-wrong

Interesting - although of course limited in what it could cover accessibly from a cold start in an hour.

A couple of takeaways that I hadn't heard...

- The AOA sensor vane was apparently taken off by a suspected bird strike before the second crash (not heard that one before!)

- Boeing engineers anticipated that Pilots would recognise an MCAS (trim?) runaway and hit the cutoff switches within 4 seconds in order to be able to manually re-trim the plane in a timely manner (at the specific altitude of the second flight? [EDIT: or just to still be able to overcome the mechanical resistance on the trim wheels?]). Too short given the number of distracting alarms, stick shakers etc.

- In a filmed simulator run of the second crash with a pair of instructors, it was physically impossible for the copilot to mechanically re-trim the plane due to aerodynamic forces on the elevator. The re-engaging of the cutoff switches appeared to be a last ditch dice throw once they were unable to mechanically unable to manually re-trim the plane and were heading into the ground anyway.

As I say, taken from the documentary, but based on the flight recorder data and Sim.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[sokoloff]

It seems that Canadians are keeping a cool head and suggesting to sudo rm -rf MCAS

There are some (including me) who find that the exact opposite of keeping a cool head and acting fully rationally on facts and data. Maybe there’s no way for MCAS to be safe, but given the long successful history on Boeing aerial refueling tankers, I suspect there is a way. To close your mind to that possibility seems unusual and suboptimal, if not outright improper, for a regulator.

[Marco]

I wonder how many months of grounding are equivalent to the cost 737 Max saved on pilot training by introducing MCAS as a hidden feature in the first place.

PS. was MCAS a documented feature on the military planes?

[chickenHeadKnob]

I wonder how many months of grounding are equivalent to the cost 737 Max saved on pilot training by introducing MCAS as a hidden feature in the first place.

PS. was MCAS a documented feature on the military planes?

Both Boeing and the carriers affected  must be in deep negative territory at this point when compared to the upfront spreadsheet savings management calculated when they made the sales pitch to American Airlines.