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

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But this will relieve the pain a bit: https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/82115-united-states-imposes-10-tax-on-airbus-aircraft

[SiliconWizard]

At this point, we just don't know what Boeing's strategy is going to be, and we don't know whether they can regain trust on this model.
The whole point will be whether it's economically viable for Boeing to do whatever it takes to make the 737 MAX fly again AND regain enough trust. Then again, if they give up on this model, their credibility (which is already damaged) will go down the drain... very challenging times for Boeing. We'll see if Boeing's current management is up to the task... but I have some doubts.

[iMo]

At this point, we just don't know what Boeing's strategy is going to be, and we don't know whether they can regain trust on this model.
The whole point will be whether it's economically viable for Boeing to do whatever it takes to make the 737 MAX fly again AND regain enough trust. Then again, if they give up on this model, their credibility (which is already damaged) will go down the drain... very challenging times for Boeing. We'll see if Boeing's current management is up to the task... but I have some doubts.

They may re-buy, upgrade and sell all the planes to military, still making $$.

[SilverSolder]

Even if the MAX is abandoned, any new model from Boeing would still be going on a trip through the X-ray machine.   Whereas if they fix the MAX and restore credibility all round, they may be able to launch a few more derivatives of that model in future, based on the work being done now - making it an investment for the future as well as recovering from a serious error.

[Gyro]

I wonder how much it would take to get all of those planes back into the air now. It must be getting on for a year now. There are too many of them for airlines to have stored them in ideal 'laid-up' condition.

Most must have been sat completely unpowered on the tarmac (not to mention Boeing's car park) out in all sorts of weather, getting damp and musty. Taking a car as a trivial example, it's at least a new set of tyres, brake disks and batteries all round, before you even get started on the hydraulic systems and the engines. 

[BravoV]

Imo, up to this stage, the only possible to fly is thru political maneuvers and backup by politicians, of course, compromises included ... nasty. 

Unless Boeing turning into non profit organization. 

[Gyro]

Imo, up to this stage, the only possible to fly is thru political maneuvers and backup by politicians, of course, compromises included ... nasty. 

Unless Boeing turning into non profit organization. 

You have to factor in Trump's new tariffs on Airbus too, with it's consequential knock on effect on Scotch Whisky exports (Huh?).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49915034

[floobydust]

Those 3 year old text messages tanked the stock almost 10% and pissed off the FAA.
Boeing's blowing it off as old simulator software. The Board met yesterday, and Muilenburg is in front of Congress in a couple weeks. He's only worried about eluding criminal charges.

They're going to have to halt production, can the CEO and conduct an enema of the corporation.
The fiasco has cost 346 lives and $8B so far.

It's the worst possible scenario- making an existing design safe and wonderful is usually impossible. You can't add in safety if fundamentally the plane's aerodynamics are unstable.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You can't add in safety if fundamentally the plane's aerodynamics are unstable.

In that regard all the fighter planes are much much worse, and fly wonderfully. Let's not forget what the problem's been: 50% software bug + 50% incompetence in the cockpit.

[tom66]

If the 737 Max doesn't fly, it'll cost Boeing ...

$100 million per aircraft, 387 aircraft = ~$38.7 billion in sales...

...in addition to unrealised support/parts revenue, loss of sales to Airbus and reduced customer confidence, cost of recycling the parts, plus the unrealised assembly & manufacture costs (they suddenly aren't making 5000 aircraft with those tools), and the entire program will be written off.

Could be a $100 billion write down once it is all considered... equal to their yearly revenue.

I don't think it will happen but it could easily sink the company or force a split/merger.

The US would never let Boeing properly fail (with Trump who knows, but in normal times it wouldn't happen) but it sure is going to be painful.

[G7PSK]

You can't add in safety if fundamentally the plane's aerodynamics are unstable.

In that regard all the fighter planes are much much worse, and fly wonderfully. Let's not forget what the problem's been: 50% software bug + 50% incompetence in the cockpit.

Fighter aircraft are deliberately made unstable so that they can maneuver faster, they then have computer control systems to stop them crashing but they still fall out of the sky, it is just that they dont get so fussed about that as it is normally over terrain where there is no one underneath and the pilot can bail out.
Not many passengers would fly again if the plane they were on got junked around the sky in the fashion a fighter plane does.

[iMo]

You also need to have some thrust to weight ratio handy with those unstable planes. The fighter jets get the T/W around 1.0, the passengers planes 0.2-0.3..

[mtdoc]

You can't add in safety if fundamentally the plane's aerodynamics are unstable.

And that is exactly the problem. No matter how many software fixes or hardware safety system bodges, the design is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed - the result of corporate greed overshadowing engineering common sense.

If they somehow convince/connive/bribe the FAA/politicians into allowing it to fly again with new and approved bodges, it will be a ticking time bomb.

[sokoloff]

The 737-Max is aerodynamically stable. It does not diverge from controlled flight in pitch on its own.

What it fails to pass is the certification requirement for sufficiently linear stick control forces.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.175

The requirements have the form of "In configuration <XYZ>, the stick force curve must have a stable slope at all speeds within a range which is the greater of <range definition> above and below the trim speed."

It is this linear stick force curve requirement that was failing that MCAS was implemented to address. The airplane still has positive aerodynamic stability even with MCAS disabled.

[KL27x]

^That's another way of saying "unstable."
Unstable doesn't necessarily mean the plane can't be flown without electronic aid, requiring 50 corrections per second. Instability can be slow/gradual.

The airplane still has positive aerodynamic stability even with MCAS disabled.

The MAX is unstable at higher AOA. It will fly just fine, as long as the pilot keeps one eye on his pitch/AOA while doing w/e else he has to do. When things go wrong, you don't want to have to juggle so many things, and it's during takeoff and landing that you generally have things going wrong and are flying at a high AOA. It would also come into play in bad weather with shifting up/down drafts.

Test pilots complained for reasons. No matter how you want to word it, the plane doesn't behave as well after the modification. "Requiring more corrective force" sounds benign, but the plane can even run out of elevator range (no matter how hard he presses on the stick? Still not enough!) before the pilot realizes it, which is what MCAS is for. MCAS adjusts the stabilizer to get the elevators back into range for condition, but then the hydraulics can become the weak link. The elevator didn't need to do as much in the original design. It didn't have this additional nose up force that appears and gets even stronger at higher AOA.

Ideally, horizontal stabilizer adjustment would be for convenience. It was never meant to be a main maneuvering surface. Once adjusted, the plane should be able to fly to its limits without having to touch it, again. For the MAX, this is apparently not the case. 

[floobydust]

"Instability" might be the wrong word for it - the nacelle's lift and mounting the engine in front of the wing, ahead of the plane's center of gravity -  a positive feedback loop leading to a stall. How bad is it?

Some team at Boeing was in charge of MCAS, identifying the need for it, flew the plane with those settings and changes, and put that behavior into the flight sim, as well as the transgressions.

[sokoloff]

The horizontal stab trim is not a “merely for convenience” flight control in an airliner, but is rather a control surface that is trimmed for each substantial airspeed change. (It’s the “raar-raar-raar” spinning crank sound that you hear periodically on every approach as the aircraft slows. You can also sometimes hear it on takeoff and climb out, but there other noises sometimes dominate.)

[sokoloff]

^That's another way of saying "unstable."

No, it’s not.

Aerodynamic stability has a defined meaning.

At most, it’s insufficiently positive stable, but it still exhibits positive stability (does not go neutral or negatively stable) throughout its flight envelope.

The airplane still has positive aerodynamic stability even with MCAS disabled.

The MAX is unstable at higher AOA.

No, it’s not. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Boeing-737-MAX-aerodynamically-unstable-I-have-read-that-the-new-heavier-and-higher-mounted-engines-have-changed-its-center-of-gravity/answer/Alan-Dicey

[KL27x]

Apologies for stating opinion like fact. "Lower margin of stability," per the link. But still stable. And with the suggestion that it is perfectly airworthy, EXCEPT that it doesn't meet original cert? Ok, that sounds reasonable.

Per link, the higher the AOA, the more force the pilot has to exert in the original 737 (and is the goal in all planes). But in the MAX the force decreases. According to him, it doesn't increase less. It decreases from the force required at a more moderate AOA.

Unless the pilot has freak proprioception of large muscle groups, he can't tell the exact location of the yoke so much as how much force he is putting on it. In turbulence or extreme corrective maneuvering, it might even be hard to feel if/when the yoke is (net) moving. So while the plane might still be "aerodynamically stable," this is obviously undesirable for any plane, even if it were a new design. IMO.

[BravoV]

Imo, up to this stage, the only possible to fly is thru political maneuvers and backup by politicians, of course, compromises included ... nasty. 

Unless Boeing turning into non profit organization. 

You have to factor in Trump's new tariffs on Airbus too, with it's consequential knock on effect on Scotch Whisky exports (Huh?).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49915034

Afraid those are just precursors, more are coming like a carpet bombing the whole Europe.

Not sure bout you Brits though, assuming once you're detached from EU as in Brexit, the bargaining power will not be as strong as EU as the whole, like below "opinionated" column ...

Read thoroughly here -> China tariff deal was easy compared to the EU’s bazooka-proof trade walls

Ok, enough off topics. 

[dzseki]

But this will relieve the pain a bit: https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/82115-united-states-imposes-10-tax-on-airbus-aircraft

What a coincidence...

[SiliconWizard]

I won't discuss the merits of tariffs or lack thereof (another topic entirely), but I just think, given the whole context, that it actually won't help Boeing whatsoever. It just conveys the idea that the only way to save Boeing now is to artificially help it through State meddling. Not something most Americans are fond of, AFAIK.

[SiliconWizard]

Actually the reason for the Airbus tariffs don't have to do anything with the 737Max, seriously, but with EU subsidies.

I beg to differ. It has everything to do with it IMO, on several levels.

First, it's obvious that it comes from Boeing difficulties, which ARE related (even though not only, I admit) to the 737 MAX debacle.
Second, the whole history of the 737 MAX itself mainly comes from the harsh competition with Airbus. Had Airbus not threatened Boeing as it does, the 737 MAX would never have seen the light.
What Boeing had done to counter Airbus on a significant market, namely the 737 MAX, has become a curse: worse than the previous state of things. So for the time being, and until things get ironed out, they are worse off than they were before.

The subsidies is just a pretext. As you just said, Boeing has been getting subsidies in various forms for decades. The US economic model may be a bit different, but the amounts, I'm not sure. I'd even venture that Boeing may have gotten more public money than Airbus from the start, but this is just a guess (don't have the figures). Just saying - this is all a pretext to try and save Boeing IMO. Sure it also comes from a general "economic war", but with a very concrete basis here.

[SilverSolder]

The elephant in the room (re. tariffs) is that the USA has an unsustainable trade deficit  -  and has only recently woken up to the need for import tariffs to help manage the problem.  Now that they have been implemented, we can be pretty confident that they are never going away again...

[SiliconWizard]

Oh, yeah. But since I don't really buy the "recently woken up", the interesting part is understanding why the trade deficit is suddenly becoming a problem.