Boeing 737 max MCAS system only connected to ONE sensor - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14994051
I can only find a german source about this, but apparently in the Boeing 737 Max, the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) which exists to avoid dangerous situations due to the increased instability of the design is only connected to a single sensor.

Meaning if that sensor ever fails and starts giving bad data, the MCAS will misbehave, by its very design.

The MCAS system is probably behind the two recent crashes of the new Boeing 737 Max 8 that killed a total of 346 people.

Pilots complained after the first crash that they havent even been made aware of the existence of the MCAS, let alone being informed by Boeing in detail about how to handle it.





German source:

"Bei der Boeing 737-Max hat mich ja umgehauen, dass MCAS nur an einen der beiden Anstellwinkelsensoren angeschlossen ist. Leute, die so was vorschlagen, planen, bauen oder genehmigen haben nichts in der Luftfahrt zu suchen. Werde kein Mitleid haben, wenn Boeing daran pleite geht."

Translation:

"With the Boeing 737-Max I was blown away that MCAS is only connected to one of the two angle of attack sensors. People who suggest, plan, build, or approve of such things should never be involved with aviation. I will not feel sorry for Boeing if this will cause their ruin."
#14995224
Quoting the New York Times, Zero Hedge wrote:Doomed Boeing 737s Lacked 'Optional Safety Features
The two doomed Boeing 737s which crashed under similar conditions lacked optional safety features that the aircraft manufacturer will now make standard, according to the New York Times.

For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons.
...

This is Boeing PR from hell.

The article is suggesting that the reason that Boeings 737 Max planes keep crashing is because the plane-purchasers are too cheap to opt for an additional safety feature.

You know, a little button that says "If all else fails" that would have saved everyone's lives, for a very reasonable $485.65. But no, the article suggests, this was a problem with a cheapling consumer who wasn't wealthy and successful enough to pay for additional air-bags (or a safety button) to protect their loved ones.

We've been conditioned to believe corporations as if they were our grandmother.
#14995274
The MCAS has two sensors, a angle of attack vane on each side of the fuselage. The problem was that the system indicated a higher than normal angle of attack on take off and tried to trim the nose down using the jack screw. The pilot pulled the nose back up leading to a tug of war that the airplane won. This same condition had occurred on the previous flight with a different crew. A deadheading pilot sitting in the jump seat recognized the problem and switched off automatic trim which solved the problem. This incident was reported. The procedure for disabling the MCAS was part of the emergency check list.

The problem is at least partly inexperienced pilots. The captain had no time in the 737 Max 8. The copilot only had 200 hours . . . total. Shit, I have 600 hours. You can carry passengers for hire in a 172 in the U.S. with that few hours.
#14995363
Suntzu wrote:The problem is at least partly inexperienced pilots.

Inexperienced pilots are cheaper than experienced ones.

The problem is the profit motive, and this primary cause will affect a lot more than one model of airplane.

It's already affecting our ability to comprehend the world around us - with corporate PR displacing community discussion and common sense logic.
#14995451
QatzelOk wrote:The article is suggesting that the reason that Boeings 737 Max planes keep crashing is because the plane-purchasers are too cheap to opt for an additional safety feature.


The problem is not that the customers are too "cheap", the problem is that the US is too "cheap." US capitalism is a race to the bottom, profits need to be maximized and costs need to be minimized. Spending money on government or on regulatory agencies such as the FAA is seen as a waste. That's why the FAA has been systematically starved of funding. Without sufficient in-house expertise it relies on external sources to do the checking. In other words, the FAA has become a rubber stamp agency that requires Boeing to checks Boeing aircraft. Boeing is obviously happy to oblige.
Last edited by Atlantis on 23 Mar 2019 15:19, edited 1 time in total.
#14995536
Rancid wrote:Inexperience is certainly a factor, but ultimately the system is too flawed.

Anyway, this may be a time to buy stock in Boeing. This will not bring down the company as some may (funnily) think.


Ofcourse it won't. Boeing and Airbus have almost an absolute monopoly on the market. The rest of the players are pretty irrelevant.
It also doesn't matter if Boeing looses 5-10% to Airbus because the 2 are pretty much a cartel by now who already split most of the markets/orders.
Airbus will probably just give them back to Boeing over time.
#14995548
JohnRawls wrote:Ofcourse it won't. Boeing and Airbus have almost an absolute monopoly on the market. The rest of the players are pretty irrelevant.
It also doesn't matter if Boeing looses 5-10% to Airbus because the 2 are pretty much a cartel by now who already split most of the markets/orders.
Airbus will probably just give them back to Boeing over time.


True, this could change once the Chinese enter the market (which they are actively working on).
#14995556
Rancid wrote:True, this could change once the Chinese enter the market (which they are actively working on).


May be but as time shows this industry is very hard to enter for state run economic efforts. The Soviets tried and spectacurlarly failed. Cost-effective production of aircraft is very hard. That is one of the main reasons why Airbus and Boeing are the 2 main monopolies because not only they are fully privately owned and managed and also feed of military sectors but also they have many private companies servecing their material and production needs.

Just producing a plane is only good enough for the military. Producing it in a cost-effective manner while keeping the maintenance costs reasonable is a different story. Not that many countries can produce modern planes.
#14995666
JohnRawls wrote:May be but as time shows this industry is very hard to enter for state run economic efforts. The Soviets tried and spectacurlarly failed. Cost-effective production of aircraft is very hard. That is one of the main reasons why Airbus and Boeing are the 2 main monopolies because not only they are fully privately owned and managed and also feed of military sectors but also they have many private companies servecing their material and production needs.

Just producing a plane is only good enough for the military. Producing it in a cost-effective manner while keeping the maintenance costs reasonable is a different story. Not that many countries can produce modern planes.

This may explain the USA's lack of high-speed rail as well: the immense lobbying of the military and their airplane industry.

After all, you can't bomb third-world countries by electric rail.
#14995691
QatzelOk wrote:This may explain the USA's lack of high-speed rail as well: the immense lobbying of the military and their airplane industry.

After all, you can't bomb third-world countries by electric rail.


I don't think that is the case actually.

US has the largest river network in the world that is even interconnected. Transporting products/goods via waterways is several fold cheaper than train or car but it is relatively the same in speed. There is simply no need for an advanced network of rail anymore because of you water ways.

If you compare it to Russia which has no real navigable cross country water ways or Europe who have water ways but they are not interconnected then you understand US is in a prime position logistics wise.
#14995695
JohnRawls wrote:I don't think that is the case actually.

US has the largest river network in the world that is even interconnected. Transporting products/goods via waterways is several fold cheaper than train or car but it is relatively the same in speed. There is simply no need for an advanced network of rail anymore because of you water ways.

If you compare it to Russia which has no real navigable cross country water ways or Europe who have water ways but they are not interconnected then you understand US is in a prime position logistics wise.

As of yet, high speed rail is barely used for cargo transport, it is overwhelmingly used for passenger transport.

There are a variety of factors involved. The highway system is largely at the center of US mass transportation. The auto and oil lobbies oppose rail development. But also, the population centers are spread out in most places. It's said that high speed rail is most efficacious for service between locations with high population density, and which are too close to make air travel ideal but two distant to make driving ideal. There are of course places in the US where high speed rail would satisfy such conditions, but many which do not.

The recent California fiasco over the planned high speed railway from San Diego to San Francisco demonstrated the political morass which inhibits such projects though, which is probably the biggest factor for the lack of high speed rail development in the US.
#14995701
Crantag wrote:As of yet, high speed rail is barely used for cargo transport, it is overwhelmingly used for passenger transport.

There are a variety of factors involved. The highway system is largely at the center of US mass transportation. The auto and oil lobbies oppose rail development. But also, the population centers are spread out in most places. It's said that high speed rail is most efficacious for service between locations with high population density, and which are too close to make air travel ideal but two distant to make driving ideal. There are of course places in the US where high speed rail would satisfy such conditions, but many which do not.

The recent California fiasco over the planned high speed railway from San Diego to San Francisco demonstrated the political morass which inhibits such projects though, which is probably the biggest factor for the lack of high speed rail development in the US.


Aviation also opposed rail.

South West airlines has killed high speed rail in Texas more than once.
#14995835
JohnRawls wrote:Transporting products/goods via waterways is several fold cheaper than train or car but it is relatively the same in speed. There is simply no need for an advanced network of rail anymore because of you water ways.

This hasn't been true since the mid 1800s.

How long have you been hammering away on your Remington twin-ribbon typewriter, and how did you get it hooked up the the Internet?

High-speed rail is far more environmentally sound than flying. There is enough density of cities to run electic rail from Montreal to Miami, but instead, everyone in that corridor has to fly. New York - Montreal is only one hour by plane, but it would be three by high-speed rail, and would eliminate getting to the airports, and back into the cities. Flying is NO MORE decentralized than high speed rail - they're both station-to-station.

And the millions of SUVs that spend hours and hours commuting between cities is far more expensive and polluting than high-speed rail.

So the lack of development of HSR has everything to do with America's rentier class.

I am forced to fly in situations where I would much prefer to take rail. And most of us our forced to drive to places where we'd be much happier being driven.

Our TV brainwashing (and corporate PR) are what convince us that we have a great transportation network.
#14995866
QatzelOk wrote:This hasn't been true since the mid 1800s.

How long have you been hammering away on your Remington twin-ribbon typewriter, and how did you get it hooked up the the Internet?

High-speed rail is far more environmentally sound than flying. There is enough density of cities to run electic rail from Montreal to Miami, but instead, everyone in that corridor has to fly. New York - Montreal is only one hour by plane, but it would be three by high-speed rail, and would eliminate getting to the airports, and back into the cities. Flying is NO MORE decentralized than high speed rail - they're both station-to-station.

And the millions of SUVs that spend hours and hours commuting between cities is far more expensive and polluting than high-speed rail.

So the lack of development of HSR has everything to do with America's rentier class.

I am forced to fly in situations where I would much prefer to take rail. And most of us our forced to drive to places where we'd be much happier being driven.

Our TV brainwashing (and corporate PR) are what convince us that we have a great transportation network.


Problem with rail and hsr is that it needs to be used for transporting of both goods and services to be decently profitable. I understand that for you it is a nightmare of sorts but if you don't manage to make goods/product shipments cheaper via rail then most of it will go via waterways. This is especially important for agriculture.

You mean the completely avoidable measles outbr[…]

Trump and Russiagate

It's not that the mainstream media and high profi[…]

climbed onto the manmade machans atop the large tr[…]

Honestly I think it can be both. If you believe t[…]