Hey, Boeing. Don't celebrate your first post-grounding 737 Max test flight too hard. You just lost another big contract
- Reference: 1593547094
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/06/30/737_max_test_flight/
- Source link:
The Monday test flight flew between America’s Seattle Tacoma airport and Grant County International Airport in Moses Lake, which has an unusually long runway of 4,100 metres. It was one of the alternate landing sites for the Space Shuttle for this reason, and Boeing regularly uses it for testing. The 737 landed safely and uneventfully after two hours aloft.
It's the start of an unusually long road ahead to get the 737 Max airworthy again. Once it passes American certification tests – possibly as early as the autumn if all goes well – Boeing will face separate scrutiny from other regulators around the world. In the past, US Federal Aviation Administration certifications were accepted at face value by other countries, but that is no longer the case, in part due to [1]serious failings highlighted by the 737 Max testing process.
Industry blog The Air Current [2]went into some detail a few weeks ago about the then status of 737 Max flight control software revisions and certification challenges ahead of Boeing.
Author Jon Ostrower noted: “EASA [the EU Aviation Safety Agency] is conducting its own Integrated System Safety Analysis on the 737 Max and its new software, effectively applying a regulatory template intended for Airbus aircraft on top of Boeing,” and repeated Boeing fears that the Max might fail the EU analysis.
If you're wondering what that's all about, bear in mind some years ago Airbus’ mainstay A320 airliner had a potentially serious flaw where if angle-of-attack (AoA) probes became blocked, the aircraft’s control software assumed it had entered a stall (too little speed to maintain height) and automatically applied nose-down trim plus full engine power, a response known as “alpha protection." That trim input pointed the aircraft downwards so it would safely pick up speed and allow the pilots to recover from the stall.
In 2014, an Airbus A321 (an A320 sub-variant) suffered an unexpected alpha protection activation after its AoA probes became blocked. Airbus bulletin OEB48 was [3]issued shortly afterwards, with a similar bulletin, OEB49, issued for A330 and A340 long-range airliners. EASA issued a safety directive, known in its final form as [4]AD-2018-0007R1 , which ordered the installation of a software update that (among other things) stopped Airbuses from applying nose-down trim when alpha protection kicked in. No Airbuses have crashed as a result of alpha protection inappropriately being activated.
Nice test flight, you can keep your planes though
On the same day as the 737 Max test flight took place, Norwegian, a Scandinavian airline, announced it was [5]cancelling its order for 97 737 Maxes and would claim compensation from the airframe maker for the extended grounding of the type.
Boeing, Boeing, gone! CEO Muilenburg quits 'effective immediately' [6]READ MORE
“Norwegian has in addition filed a legal claim seeking the return of pre-delivery payments related to the aircraft and compensation for the company’s losses related to the grounding of the 737 MAX and engine issues on the 787,” the airline said in a statement to financial newswire Reuters.
As the whole world knows, the 737 Max series of airliners was grounded worldwide after two fatal crashes that killed 346 people. Investigations discovered that the Max contained software features that its pilots hadn’t been sufficiently briefed about, including the infamous MCAS automatic trim system.
In desperation to compete with Airbus’ market-share-gobbling A320 Neo, a direct competitor of the 737, Boeing assured airlines that pilots who flew previous 737 models could swap to the new Max with minimal training. This turned out to be a lethal cost-saving shortcut that left pilots unaware of how to shut off MCAS when it kicked in and forced their airplanes to point at the ground instead of the sky.
The entire project has gone down in history as an example of how not to do high-stakes software development: MCAS was a bodge to compensate for changed handling characteristics caused by fitting bigger engines to the 737 airframe as part of the Max design. Rather than pay to recertify the aircraft design from scratch, Boeing hoped [7]the software would compensate for hardware changes and keep it within the existing 737 certification.
Boeing [8]recently announced layoffs of 6,700 employees. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/11/boeing_737_max_emails/
[2] https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeings-737-max-software-done-but-regulators-plot-more-changes-after-jets-return/
[3] https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/overspeed-event-with-crew-take-over-and-oeb49-application/
[4] https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2018-0007R1
[5] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norwegianair-boeing-idUSKBN2402X2
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2019/12/23/boeing_boeing_gone_ceo_muilenburg_quits_effective_immediately/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/09/boeing_737_max_software_fixes/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/28/737_max_production_resumes/
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
FAA's Fall
"In the past, US Federal Aviation Administration certifications were accepted at face value by other countries, but that is no longer the case, in part due to serious failings highlighted by the 737 Max testing process."
This is one of remarkable effects of this whole issue, the loss of trust in the FAA. It's probably going to take years to rebuild their reputation. I wonder if you're let's say the Australian or Zambian aerospace regulator and you don't have the capacity to test every new plane or significant modification you're now going to rely more on the EASA, even for non-European aircraft.
Re: FAA's Fall
Or if you are feeling nasty - await certification from the Chinese equivalent of the FAA. (With the current trade war being promoted by Trump this could be a very long time coming!!!)
Re: FAA's Fall
"This is one of remarkable effects of this whole issue, the loss of trust in the FAA. It's probably going to take years to rebuild their reputation."
I think there is a bigger picture here. Although their is no direct correlation between Boeing/FAA and the Trump Vs Huawei fight, I think worldwide trust in taking any American company/organisation at face value is seriously waning at the moment. And that will take generations to recover. Trump and his attitude may be putting America first, but the rest of the world will not settle for being second.
One question
Will the 737 Max be inherently stable and flyable in the event the software fails completely and safe flight is dependent on the pilot's skills alone?
If not it shouldn't be flying as a passenger aircraft, that goes for any other aircraft too. The safety of people should come a long way before any profit.
Re: One question
Flyable yes - but there is a part of the flight regime where the throttles have an unusual effect on the pitch. If the pilots are trained for this then no problem. However Boeing as part of its sales pitch to airlines said that no training was needed and the MCAS software would do the pitch correction automatically. We all know what happened then.
(Because the engines were moved far forward of their position in previous 737 aircraft, when the throttles are advanced the nose tends to pitch up - for part of the normal climb if uncorrected by either MCAS or the pilot then the plane could stall. Normally for all civil aircraft it is a certification requirement for there to be no such condition. Boeing might have got a waiver by requiring pilots to be properly trained for the changed handling - but then it would not have been able to sell it as "just a better 737". Instead by doing a sloppy job it killed over 300 people and cost the company many billions of dollars.)
Re: One question
Several exposés on the incident noted that Southwest Airlines included a clause in a purchase agreement that rewarded Boeing with a bonus if no simulator training was required for the 737 Max for existing 737 pilots. Since the FAA was known for being rather arbitrary in deciding what triggers additional training, Boeing made every effort to keep potential triggers in check. So all of those people died due to the mere possibility of losing money.
Re: One question
"The safety of people should come a long way before any profit."
This is pretty much the principal that the FAA and the airline industry in general lives by.
As a result, if a plane has a design problem, or if any aircraft crashes for ANY reason, it's HUGE news and a lot of effort goes into finding out WHY and then doing something about it to keep it from happening AGAIN. End result, best safety record EVAR.
So I'd say the answer to your question is 'yes'. (I'm pretty confident the 737 Max will end up with a much better safety record than anything else on the planet, simply so that Boeing can compensate for their complete screwup and re-prove themselves to the world)
I would have sympathy for Norwegian if they hadn't cancelled my boyfriend's flight this morning, leaving us with no choice but to find an alternative at short notice....and of course they claim it can take up to 2 months to refund me even though the CAA makes it clear 2 weeks is the limit.
So, I don't care if they go bankrupt any more.
awww, so unfair
Waiting 3 months for a refund from Lufthansa. Filed a dispute with their regulator this morning.
Twunts.
One word - chargeback!!! Worked for me with Aer Lingus - my bank took back the money from them :-D Worth noting that the rules say that you have 120 days to make a claim and that clock only starts running from the date of your first flight.
when it comes to credit cards, in the USA credit sales can be reversed within 30 days [as I recall]. Debit cards can NOT, however (which is why I use no debit cards online). in the EU and UK I understand that there's more of an "all sales are final" approach, but I'm not that familiar. Still I think it's a function of the banking laws as to whether a 'charge back' or 'reversal' is even possible. An associate of mine worked in the banking industry and explained it to me a few years back, but I'm certainly no expert, IANAL, YMMV, and all that. So yeah check your local banking laws to see what rights you have for getting stiffed on payments without goods delivered...
My chargeback refund was on a DEBIT card and not a CREDIT card. It's a common misnomer that you only have protection if you use a Mastercard or something like that. Now I cannot speak for the USA as often the rules there are quite different but in Europe chargeback is very feasible as I can vouch for. Perhaps that's a bad choice of word as several of the scumbag airlines are trying to fob people off with vouchers and basically cheat them out of their legal right to a refund.
Learn from the smaller world...
My hobby is building radio controlled models, and in particular helicopters. My son has flown at World Championship events for helicopter aerobatics, and made it into the fly-offs. Modern RC gear is heavily computerised, but this is not the same as having any form of auto-pilot system. It is intended to make the setting up and trimming of the aircraft simpler.
Some years ago, at a World Champs event, I attended a lecture by one of the top Japanese Pilots (The Japanese and Americans dominated this sport for many years). He was adamant that the computerised radio should ONLY be used for "fine tuning" the aircraft, and that it was vitally important to get everything *mechanically* right first. This was a philosophy with which I wholeheartedly agreed - as well as being one which I had indoctrinated into my son!
If only Boeing had followed this basic principle, they would not be in their current predicament!
First Flight Since The Grounding?
My understanding was that there have been some limited flights (without passengers of course) to allow for planes to be stored in more sensible places. Is this true or did I just imagine it?
It worked once, ship it!
I see no getting away from computers in the future. The next step in flight efficiency is going to require different methods of thrust and dramatically different body shapes. Not all of that will be controllable from a hydraulic line.
The change will be testing electronics systems with as much detail as the critical mechanical parts. Stress test them, peer review them, test coping with their failure, routinely inspect them for malfunction, and replace anything that's not performing well. If tech companies did this more often in general I'd be in heaven.
Finally some real consequences
First, Boeing is facing an uphill climb to get its 737 Max re-certified and, given the amount of deaths due to beancounter cost-cutting measures, that is perfectly normal.
Second, the FAA has lost its prestige and now international bodies are setting up their own certification procedures. The buddy contract between Boeing and the FAA has backfired so spectacularly that the costs for Boeing are going to climb much higher to get itself certified on the international scene.
Good. The rot that has settled in the top layers of US government agencies has come to light and now no one will trust the FAA on its word. I feel really sorry for the good people that I am sure work there, but their negligence and laissez-faire attitude is also responsible for the unacceptable amount of deaths that are due to the simple fact that the FAA couldn't be bothered to set up an actual test for that cursed model.
The FAA is going to spend many, many years regaining its credibility - if that ever happens.
All right now
So:
“We made a very complex machine that also had some complex software to make the machine behave like something it wasn’t
We’re sorry about the accidents
We’ve re-written the software (which still makes the machine behave like something it isn’t) and, working with a mate, found a couple of other glitches that shouldn’t have been there [1]
It’s all good to go now, and we’re not quite sure why the world’s regulators don’t just get in line with our pet here...”
[1] From the Air Current blog:
“[Boeing...] was forced to tackle further changes to the software, including adjusting tolerances on sensors that were erroneously activating cockpit indications that the jet’s horizontal stabilizer was not properly configured.“