Boeing 737 Max, software problems and Indian engineers.

I’m curious as to why the believed the MCAS would not be a problem. Were there no simulations as to what would happen if the sensor failed?

 

Saudi Arabia has cancelled its previous order of 50 Planes. It is now going with Airbus.

 

Yes, but how has it affected the pilot's lives?

 

The FAA wasn't involved with the certification process? Unbelievable. Have they EVER been involved with the certification process?

 

Boeing avoided designating the MAX as a new type, WHICH IT ACTUALLY IS, because it wanted to avoid all the testing, including flight testing, that goes with a new type certificate. It wanted to rush the new plane to market, and being honest and professional would have slowed that process. Greed.

 

Good question. And I wonder when Boeing told the FAA the flawed flight characteristics of the new design needed an additional system (MCAS) to correct the problem?

 

Because Boeing cheated and pretended the MAX was a 737, which it was not, the FAA had minimal involvement. Basically Boeing tricked the FAA by 'certifying' it under an existing type certificate.

 

They never told the FAA that. Because there was no flight testing done, MCAS derived from engineering calculations IMO, and the dead passengers and crew were effectively crash test dummies.

 

Was MCAS a legal addition in making the 737 Max fly like the earlier 737s? Did Boeing consult with the FAA when they discovered the unusual flight characteristics of the new design? Boeing must have flight tested the Max or they would not have discovered the need to install MCAS to correct the flaw.

 

When did the FAA know about the design flaw and what did they do about it?

 

Not sure how you know so much about what the FAA knew or didn't know regarding the 737 Max?

 

I can only speculate, like you. But I worked closely with FAA in production of 2 different general aviation aircraft for 2 different companies, so I can only speculate as to what happened based upon how we did it 15 years ago.

MCAS, I'm guessing, was simply a band-aid approach to a stability problem they could predict with engineering drawings and calculations. They knew there was potential for pitch stability issues, and they attempted to prevent it by way of MCAS.

My guess is the FAA knew nothing about the stability issue until after the accidents.

We do know that before those accidents, under the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System ASRS, at least 5 different line pilots wrote up the airplane as having unpleasant issues with the pitch stability. Apparently the ASRS is totally useless, as nothing was done about those reports.

 

In your opinion what is the FAA's responsibility to the taxpayers?

 

You could probably find their version of their "mission statement" at the FAA website. https://www.faa.gov/

I would say their role is to enforce the FARs

 

The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) is part of the Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) and includes more than 1,300 engineers, scientists, inspectors, test pilots and other experts responsible for oversight of design, production, airworthiness certification, and continued airworthiness programs for all U.S. civil aviation products and foreign import products.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/

The FAA failed in it's responsibility to protect the taxpayer when they apparently accepted the word of Boeing the 737 Max was tested and certified airworthy.

 

You're right, but I prefer to be called a citizen instead of a taxpayer, even though both are true and accurate.

 

"Citizens" don't pay Boeing to be the overseer of airworthy certification. The FAA chief blames the pilots for the crashes.

FAA chief says pilot decisions contributed to Boeing 737 Max crashes

Under questioning by lawmakers Wednesday, the outgoing chief of the Federal Aviation Administration said key decisions made by pilots contributed to the crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets in Indonesia and Ethiopia, killing 346 people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tran...s-approach-air-safety/?utm_term=.382efd1384a8

 

Yes, I already knew that. FAA and Boeing attempted to blame the pilots.

Zumwalt and the pilots present rejected that as propaganda. At least a few good guys were present to act like radicals and tell the truth.

 

And as always someone has to die before the "brave" finally come forward and speak out openly against the flawed design. The pilots could have refused to fly the 737 Max when they realized the design was flawed.

 

Yes, well the truth is that the airplane has served well for a number of years.

I think I've mentioned to you that my friend who flies the airplane for a major carrier has told me that under certain light load conditions, the passengers must be loaded in a particular way, for CG purposes. The airline does that to comply with the loading limitations of the aircraft. That there are such limitations suggests an awareness by Boeing that the pitch stability issue is very real.

 

What was it if not a 737?

 

Had the certification been done properly, the actual number of the new model would have been determined by the manufacturer.

738? 739?

Pick a number.

 

Noted.

 

Probably didn't affect their lives much, but Boeing took risk with their lives, and the passengers lives. Not acceptable. They shouldn't have to die in a crash of a Max before they can sue.

Boeing is going to watch the backs of its suppliers in India as Boeing had and has several huge orders from India worth billions of dollars.
Sales are another reason to send the work overseas. In exchange for an $11 billion order in 2005 from Air India, Boeing promised to invest $1.7 billion in Indian companies. That was a boon for HCL and other software developers from India, such as Cyient, whose engineers were widely used in computer-services industries but not yet prominent in aerospace.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-204657048.html
Also, stating that they didn't have anything to do with the poor performance of the planes, HCL, and Cyient--the two engineering companies who supplied the software, are doing the only thing they can. Denying it. But it is well known that the software coming from these companies are to blame for the problems.

 

Like what?