Boeing Has So Many Grounded 737 Max Planes Waiting To Be Fixed They're Parking Them in the Employee Parking Lot (jalopnik.com) 129
An anonymous reader shares a report: You may recall that, thanks to an issue with faulty sensors in the Boeing 737 Max flight control systems, those planes have been grounded after multiple crashes were found to be related to the issue. Grounded planes are, by definition, not in the air, and as such need to be stored, on the ground, somewhere. In the case of Boeing's Renton Factory in Washington state, there's so many grounded planes that some of that ground has to be taken from Boeing's employee parking lots. [...] Seattle's King 5 News has some very comprehensive aerial footage of the factory, which gives a sense of just how many of these planes are parked at Boeing's factory right now.
Towed (Score:5, Funny)
I hope they put the little parking stickers on the cockpits' windows so they don't get towed.
Screwed the Pooch (Score:5, Insightful)
Boeing has screwed the pooch from every angle.
1. They implemented a system that has access to the primary flight control services independent of the already well tested and understood FBW system. A bolt on in effect.
2. They did this would any kind of redundancy or fail safes. Their FBW systems employ the same kind of triple (even quadruple) redundancy used by the Space Shuttle. The AOA sensor system consisted exactly one sensor.
3, They obfuscated the existence of this system and the procedures to manage it. They felt the pilots, "didn't need to know".
Hubris on the part of the engineers? Disdain for enhanced safety on the part of the management?
Who knows?
Re:Screwed the Pooch (Score:4, Insightful)
Engineers could do things like this. But managers seem much more likely to have forced engineers to compromise on safety to save costs.
It wasn't engineers who decided to launch Challenger in cold weather -- they warned against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to me like the whole organization from top to bottom was involved in this tragedy, wilfully or not. For example, the MCAS control algorithm with its blatant disregard of limits is on the engineers. Management wouldn't even know how to fuck up that software so badly.
But if you are trying to say that the guys who need to do time for this are mainly management, I'm with you. That's where the obvious money grubbing corruption lies.
Re:Screwed the Pooch (Score:5, Interesting)
From what has leaked out, it's looking like everyone that worked on this system didn't know what it was for. They weren't allowed to see beyond their given task or how it fit in the bigger picture.
This is horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
When in doubt: blame management.
Engineers could do things like this. But managers seem much more likely to have forced engineers to compromise on safety to save costs.
It wasn't engineers who decided to launch Challenger in cold weather -- they warned against it.
Pretty much this.
I'm sure Engineers told managers the larger engines wouldn't fit the current 737 (root cause of the problem). Management said do it or start looking for another job.
I'm sure the test pilots said the engines are too high and far forward so it won't fly like a current 737 and couldn't use the same type certification (reason why MCAS was implemented). Management told engineers to fudge the input or start looking for another job.
When it came to certification, the FAA just took Boeing's wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Screwed the Pooch (Score:1)
Re:Screwed the Pooch (Score:4, Insightful)
You are incorrect on a number of levels, most notably the fact that the 737 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft. I suggest you read the recent Seattle PI article about what happened.
Essentially, the system was initially designed to only engage in a high-speed turn maneuver with low authority, and all the hazard assessments were based on that condition. It was vetted for this case and considered to be very effective. During flight testing, they discovered another low-speed region that needed additional nose-down attitude, which required greater authority and could not use the high-g turn safeties, so they were removed, and the maximum trim was increased.
It appears that Boeing did not do flight tests to validate the FAA assumption of diagnosing a trim problem within three seconds with a failed AOA sensor. Testing appears to have been done by simulation only.
Re: (Score:3)
1: The 737 actually isn't flown by an FBW system as it's from before they became commonplace and Boeing avoided putting one into newer model as it would have been expensive and added considerably to type certification training for pilots transferring over to newer models. Lacking fly-by-wire controls is the actual reason why MCAS was tacked on the way it did as the kinds of handling characteristics that MCAS was made to mitigate are usually handled by the plane's fly-by-wire system.
How's that self-certification working out for you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like Boeing's decision to change FAA regulations to allow for self-certification didn't work out well combined with their decisions to produce and sell unsafe airplanes.
It's nice to see a physical manifestation of the consequences or unbridled greed and corruption every once in a while.
Meanwhile Airbus is producing airplanes under European regulations and they don't have to ground the entire fleet of their newest plane. Interesting....
Re:How's that self-certification working out for y (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing I don't particularly get is the solution they chose to their engineering problem.
The problem: 737 is short. This is good in the sense that it's an easier sale to less-developed places where they're going to service the plane from a ladder. But it's short enough that you can't fit the bigger, more fuel-efficient engines under the wings.
So they put the engines higher and further forward, which then required their fucked-up software to compensate.
Why not address the problem more directly? Put taller landing gear on the 737MAX so it's tall enough to fit the engines? It could still be shorter than the Airbus.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing I don't particularly get is the solution they chose to their engineering problem.
The problem: 737 is short. This is good in the sense that it's an easier sale to less-developed places where they're going to service the plane from a ladder. But it's short enough that you can't fit the bigger, more fuel-efficient engines under the wings.
So they put the engines higher and further forward, which then required their fucked-up software to compensate.
Why not address the problem more directly? Put taller landing gear on the 737MAX so it's tall enough to fit the engines? It could still be shorter than the Airbus.
The amazing thing is they put out this dog's breakfast of an airplane, with an unstable airframe, and a bad software solution to keep it in the air....
To save money. I wonder how much money they have saved since the inevitable has happened, and they are sitting on the tarmac, rotting?
Re: (Score:1)
Rotting they are, but there's a nice big tax deduction behind those "losses", if not an outright bailout in a few years. They'll have to time that after the elections probably. It's all insured by, guess who
Re:How's that self-certification working out for y (Score:4, Interesting)
Landing is dangerous, and raising the center of balance on the ground would make that worse.
The thing about this software compensating for a design flaw is bullshit you're repeating because it is popular on the internet, it is not a real thing.
The software compensates for a minor problem that lots of planes experience, it is a lot more analogous to an automated cruise control braking feature with a bug that accidentally creates a new hazard state. The increased need for the software is about the increased power of the engines, not anything about being poorly positioned.
Re:How's that self-certification working out for y (Score:4, Insightful)
The increased need for the software is about the increased power of the engines, not anything about being poorly positioned.
Sources? By the way, I never heard about the "poorly positioned" part. Usually they say that engines are "differently positioned", so the airplane behaves differently and pilots should need full retraining, unless you use that botched software relying on one sensor.
Re:How's that self-certification working out for y (Score:5, Interesting)
The increased need for the software is about the increased power of the engines, not anything about being poorly positioned.
Um, not exactly.. The issue IS with the size of the engines and that they are positioned further forward. This creates an increase in lift as the angle of attack goes up (nose up) and because the engines are forward it creates a nose up tendency as AOA increases. The FAA requires that the pilots must feel an increase in control pressure as they approach a stall, but with this nose up tendency at high AOA's the MAX didn't meet the requirement. So, Boeing "fixes" this minor problem with a system that applies nose down trim input when the AOA is high and the pilots are flying manually. This is great, a long as the system is getting good AOA information, or if the pilots are trained to recognize the problem and deal with it by using the trim controls to fix the trim then flipping the "STAB TRIM" switches to "CUT OUT"
Boeing's issue was to rely on existing pilot training as sufficient, not using the additional sensor information to cross check the AOA sensor, and failing to document all this prior to the first crash (which they DID document before the second one). There is nothing really wrong with the MAX's design overall, and this one edge case failure mode will be dealt with in a couple of ways. First, pilots will be trained how to deal with the possible failure of the MCAS system, not just this one failure mode, but others. Second, the "AOA Disagree" indicator will now be standard in the primary display, instead of a separately priced option. Third, the MCAS will now cross check other available sensor data and be a bit more careful about when and how much it applies nose down trim. The MAX will be recertified and flying by the time winter rolls around, again.
Further, the FAA will likely review Boeing's self certification ability and process controls. Some heads will roll, perhaps in both the FAA and Boeing ranks and likely past decisions on aircraft certification will be reviewed and reconsidered as necessary. But in the end Boeing aircraft will be MUCH safer and the process will be much tighter. Which to me, is more important than the specific issue with the MAX. It scares me that something seemingly this obvious slipped through both Boeing's process and FAA oversight and didn't get caught before 2 aircraft crashed. But this is NOT the first time we've lost aircraft to design flaws that looked obvious in hindsight. It will happen again, I just hope it's a long time before it does.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I understand how this happened. It was obviously an oversight but it makes a bit of sense.
Consider this.. A lot of things mess with the Stab Trim which are automated to reduce pilot workload. The autopilot does this all the time. When you put the gear down, this applies a trim correction. Moving the flaps changes trim settings, then there are the thumb switches on the control yoke that manually does this and the control wheel in the engine console provide manual control of trim. All these syst
Re: (Score:2)
For me the important question is this: if something this big slipped through Boeing's quality control, what other timebombs are hidden in there?
You could also look at Boeing's overall accident history and see the important question stand out, "Maybe this was a genuine mistake that normally would have been caught by the process, and instead of looking for giant problems in Boeing's quality control we should look at what small differences there were in this case, like self-certification?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're wrong about a bunch of it, you're just repeating what others on the internet are already repeating.
The problem the new software addresses isn't a specific thing about this aircraft, that's the part you're confused about. This is just one of the difficult parts of flying. Stalling is a real risk in various circumstances. Boeing attempted to improve safety with an automated tool. The tool turned out to be way more hazardous than the problem it was designed to address.
What you and others are sayin
Re: (Score:2)
Landing is dangerous, and raising the center of balance on the ground would make that worse.
They did make the landing gear taller while fitting it into the existing space because of handling during landing and takeoff.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/... [geekwire.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that they did a bunch of engineering to determine the correct height, they didn't just glance at it and redesign it like the person above claims is better.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem was that then they would've had to make space to retract that landing gear
Or they could have designed a more complex, collapsible landing gear that would fit in the existing structure. But not in the time frame available to compete with the A320neo.
Problem is: Airbus caught Boeing with it's pants down around it's ankles. Boeing culture (since the takeover by McDonnell Douglas) has been to push a design out to the factory and then disband engineering. They should have had a group doing ongoing product development. They could draw a graph and see the inevitable increase in engine
Re: (Score:2)
They should have had a group doing ongoing product development two decades ago.
Re:How's that self-certification working out for y (Score:4, Insightful)
They were not trying to solve an engineering problem.
They were trying to solve a cost and profitability problem. Specifically, the cost of re-certifying pilots and the opportunity to charge more for an upgrade.
They should have got the aircraft certified in a way that would have required re-training the pilots. This would have increased the costs of the aircraft for their buyers, which would have ultimately resulted in a profit hit for Boeing.
The solution that they adopted flowed naturally from the cost and profit issues above.
Re: (Score:2)
They were trying to solve a cost and profitability problem. Specifically, the cost of re-certifying pilots and the opportunity to charge more for an upgrade.
I'd expect taller landing gear would have also not required a re-certification. Plane still handles the same way, just ends up slightly taller when sitting on the ground. But I'm not a pilot that's mostly an assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
"They were not trying to solve an engineering problem.
They were trying to solve a cost and profitability problem."
Welcome to actual engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have been a better solution, but also much more costly. Taller gear means more space needed for it, which means major changes to the airframe. It also means less commonality with existing 737s which would mean pilots would need training to fly on the new aircraft. Instead Boeing minimized the changes so they could claim 'this is just another 737' which made certification cheaper and meant pilots could convert with minimal training.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about a large change in the height through. I'd expect it would fit with losing a little bit of the hold. Flight characteristics should be nearly the same, except it touches the ground from a few feet higher on landing....which strikes me as just as minor as the changes they did make. (Disclaimer: not a pilot)
So I'd expect they'd be able to ram through a similar self-certification that they did, at the cost of slightly different landing gear parts...on a plane with already slightly diff
Re: (Score:2)
No. The main gear retracts toward each other, it looks like they're only separated by the keel. So in order to lengthen it, they'd have to move the attachment points outwards, which means a major change to the wing structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Or retract in a different direction (eg forward instead of inward), which presumably also requires significant structural changes depending on what's in that direction from the landing gear.
Re:How's that self-certification working out for y (Score:4, Interesting)
Airplanes are designed to pretty tight tolerances. You can't just stick longer landing gear on them because there has to be space for it to retract.
Boeing realized the 737 design was at the end of it's life and started looking at doing the redesign that would lead to a 737-like plane with things like more ground clearance, but they needed a competitor for the A320 right away so they decided to try and squeeze out another generation of 737.
Then they did it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Put taller landing gear on the 737MAX so it's tall enough to fit the engines?.
THEY DID... The landing gear IS taller on the 737MAX. I believe the nose gear is 9" longer. But there is MORE to this than just putting the aircraft on stilts and moving the engines down and back, A lot more. Engineering an aircraft is an exercise in making tradeoffs and the engine placement in this case was done in consideration of a whole pile of issues, the least of which is the needed MCAS system, or so they thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Put taller landing gear on the 737MAX
That's a major structural redesign. If you just make the struts longer, the wheels will collide in the middle when they retract. So you have to move the pivot points outboard and change all the internal load-bearing members that transfer the load to the wing spar. Probably have to make the spar bigger too, because the new attach points will have more leverage from the wing root.
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 was designed to be easy loading, without needing expensive equipment to access the cargo bay. This led the aeroplane to be low to the ground.
Now Airbus comes in with a more fuel efficient version of its A320, partly via an an engine with a larger diameter. Since the plane had space to put a larger engine under the wing there wasn’t any real change to the center of mass, relative to the center of pressure. Because there were basically no handling changes, pilots didn’t need retraining.
Now
Re: (Score:2)
The thing I don't particularly get is the solution they chose to their engineering problem.
The problem: 737 is short. This is good in the sense that it's an easier sale to less-developed places where they're going to service the plane from a ladder. But it's short enough that you can't fit the bigger, more fuel-efficient engines under the wings.
So they put the engines higher and further forward, which then required their fucked-up software to compensate.
Why not address the problem more directly? Put taller landing gear on the 737MAX so it's tall enough to fit the engines? It could still be shorter than the Airbus.
Two reasons, 1. cost, 2. they market the 737 as being able to use airports without boarding infrastructure.
You can't just stick taller landing gear onto an aircraft, at the very least you need to redesign the wing box and nose section they go into. That means money, Airbus blindsided Boeing with the A320neo, so they wanted the MAX out the door as fast and cheaply as possible.
An arguably legacy, but sometimes still used feature of the 737 is that is can land at regional airports without boarding gates,
Re: (Score:1)
Because there are absolutely no EU corporations that have sidestepped regulations in order to make a buck when the regulation was "too hard" to comply with.
Certainly not Volkswagen AG and basically every one of their subsidiary brands that used the "clean" diesel motor.
Your undeserved smugness is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile Airbus is producing airplanes under European regulations and they don't have to ground the entire fleet of their newest plane. Interesting....
Type groundings, in which all aircraft of one model have to be taken out of service, are very rere here too. But they can happen in either place. Remember the Comet?
Use Them To House Homeless?- (Score:2)
Can we use them to house the homeless; especially if this lockdown goes into the cold months of winter??-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we use them to house the homeless; especially if this lockdown goes into the cold months of winter?
If this goes into the cold months of winter 2037, then yes.
Or zombies [wikipedia.org]. That dead guy (literally) named "R" will appreciate it. .
Re: (Score:2)
Just use the SWA and AA pilots who kept insisiting the planes are safe to fly even after China grounded them.
Re: (Score:2)
SF will have to build their own planes, just like Russia does, sorry Ivan.
There's a big elephant in that parking lot (Score:1)
They have lots of time. They should be checking the damn things for bogus parts.
Big (and very old) business gets a big coverup [nbcbayarea.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At least you know it's not going to door ding you, since the door is 20 feet above your car's roof...
Re: (Score:2)
Coverup not working (Score:3)
Boeing tried hard including bribing a US Senator to state in Congress that the problem was with foreign pilots and not American planes but noones buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am convinced that we're getting a new press secretary to replace the previous one who quit -- because someone asked her to tell a lie so big that even she wouldn't tell it.
So a crime so big that no bribe can fix it?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the Congressman (Sorry it was a Congressman not Senator) did go ahead and spout the bullshit [aopa.org] in Congress.
Its just that noone believes him
Bribery will buy you a Congressman who will tell lies for you but not all Congressmen are believed when telling lies
Re: (Score:2)
Congresspersons come much cheaper than Senators - that comes with more availability due to district size, and more frequency of elections.
Average winning house candidate balance two weeks before election: $1.8 million
Average winning senate candidate balance two weeks before election: $10.4 million. Does not include outside spending in the Citizens United era which brings the cost up to around $19.4 million.
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/ne... [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:1)
psst, hey, don't give the orange guy ideas
Re: (Score:1)
The coverup that is working is about counterfeit parts. You can bet these sensors fit into that category.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a bad design to give suicide authority to a computer based upon a part that is well known in the industry to fail. Before the max this part was only an indicator and pilots flew all the time with broken AoA sensors. Now its a mission critical part with no redundancy but its reliability is still the same
Boeing may have lots of avail parking spots soon (Score:2)
the "parking lot" (Score:1)
the "parking lot" in question is in front of the giant final assembly buildings. to park there you're required to leave your car unlocked and keys in the vehicle. So anytime an aircraft needs to come out, others move your car. failing that, a forklift is brought in and the vehicle moved. Unless you're a big enough supervisor, and then you got crew in the back of this unmoved truck pushing up on the wing to get the motor nacelle to clear by an inch or two. As a contractor, I didn't even bother to park there
For a joke (Score:2)
Boeing should be paying for all of this (Score:3)
Just like the diesel scandal, Boeing should pay for all airline associated costs and lost revenue or buy back the planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the diesel scandal, Boeing should pay for all airline associated costs and lost revenue or buy back the planes.
Airlines don't want to give the planes back, they want them back in the air.
Its not like you can pop down to Dave's Quality Airliners and get a new 180 seater fly away with 2K down on a 48 month contract... You need to order them months in advance and I'm talking more than 12 in some cases. Airbus's order books are closed for the A320 family as well. 150-200 seat airliners are in huge demand at the moment and there is no way Airbus can supply the market alone, so almost everyone wants to see the 737 back
Parking pet peeve (Score:5, Funny)
twitter.com/superzar2000 (Score:1)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22683/boeing-reportedly-blocks-competitor-from-israeli-air-force-tanker-competition
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/18275736/boeing-737-max-plane-crashes-grounded-problems-info-details-explained-reasons
A couple months after Boeing turned down Israel's request for refueling tankers Boeing jets started having computer problems and crashing in muslim countries. The result messed up Boeing's MAX jet program and resulted in layoffs. But now Israel has their Pegasus refueli
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Rumor is Steve Jobs used to park his Learjet such.
Somebody stuck a sticker on it: "Park Different"
Re: (Score:2)
Should've said: "you're parking it wrong"
Re: (Score:2)
The reference is to Apple's logo "Think Different"
Re: (Score:1)
No, if the employee complains he took up spare parking spaces, he tells them they are "commuting wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
And he also refused to put the Aircraft Identification Number anywhere on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Pure black, like his helicopter.
Re: (Score:1)
Grammar Different
Food planes, then what next? (Score:5, Funny)
Regardless how this all spins out for Boeing and the MAX, seeing that parking lot gave me an idea for how they can monetize the situation for awhile. Food planes. Like food trucks but with wings. It will get people coming far and wide to sample gourmet airplane food. A Starbucks plane as well, and rock and grunge bands in the background - a happening food fest. Washington State's new Air and Entertainment Park.
Okay, it's a stupid idea, but here's a real question. What if the plane remains grounded or uncertified, or even if certified customers renege or don't buy? What then does Boeing do with those already built units? Scrap them? Repurpose them for something kitschy like food planes or office space or classrooms or a theme hotel? Redesign and selectively rebuild parts of the wings and engines (would the FAA even allow that)? Last I heard, they keep building them in anticipation of ultimately fulfilling orders, but is that a fool's errand?
Re: (Score:2)
It's Seattle. Homeless shelters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have wings, but this is pretty close to your idea:
Airplane Restaurants and Hotels around the World Slideshow [thedailymeal.com]
(scroll all the way down)
One of the coolest aspects of the Space Shuttle Caf is that it is a DC 3 airplane licensed to drive on the street. The Space Shuttle Cafe is a mobile commercial food kitchen that was built from a DC-3 airplane fuselage that was built in 1944 and flew during the last year of World War II. It is painted black and white in the Space Shuttle theme.
The fuselage on wheels was moved in 2001 after it had sat in a field for about 10 years. Over four-and-a-half-years, the owners completely stripped it down to the frame. put in a new motor and built the completely self-contained commercial kitchen.
The Space Shuttle Cafe is used for serving food at car shows, airshows, and local community events around southern California. The Space Shuttle Cafe also does private catering and school events. After being in the food service business for about 20 years and operating the Space Shuttle Cafe for about the last seven years, the owners have decided to slow down and semi-retire. The Space Shuttle Caf is for sale for $150,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless how this all spins out for Boeing and the MAX, seeing that parking lot gave me an idea for how they can monetize the situation for awhile. Food planes. Like food trucks but with wings. It will get people coming far and wide to sample gourmet airplane food. A Starbucks plane as well, and rock and grunge bands in the background - a happening food fest. Washington State's new Air and Entertainment Park.
Not so much of a joke. Old airliners are sometimes turned into attractions. Restaurants, hotels, et al. The only reason it's not as wide spread is that it's expensive and they have a very distinctive foot print that isn't regularly found with the way we design our cities.
THAT isn't that many (Score:2)
Strange (Score:2)
Because Boeing can get permission to ferry airplanes between airports with the shitty MCAS software. Just not carrying passengers.
I see lots of green (unpainted) planes parked everywhere. The potential MCAS fix will only involve new software. And, at worst, rewiring the horizontal stabilizer cutout switch logic. Nothing that would prevent them from being painted and otherwise completely finished. What I think I see here is cancelled orders. You can't paint a plane (and install interiors) until you know who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A painted plane takes up as much space as a green one. But parking them unfinished is going to seriously mess up the production schedule once they have to go back and perform out of sequence work. Furthermore, if the MCAS fix is quickly implemented (software and maybe some minimal h/w mods), having them ready to deliver is going to clear the backlog (and get payments rolling in) much faster. And if they finish them and can get a conditional airworthiness certificate, they can fly them to off site storage an
Solution (Score:2)
Solution: park those prehistoric Max 8 deathtrap airframes in a landfill. Solved.
Paint the Rudders first? (Score:2)
LOL, saw this the other day (Score:2)
Heh, a friend of mine was driving by the other day, saw the airplane parked in the employee lot, and he thought he was hallucinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this as strange as a prostate screenings in Church parking lots?
That's a special sacrament, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... does the thumb count as a finger?
Re: (Score:2)
So... does the thumb count as a finger?
It and even all of the toes are referred to as phalanges, so I'll say yes.
Re: (Score:2)
While the medical texts call it a digital prostate exam, it is only a special sacrament if you use an appendage which is not one of your ten fingers on your hands to do the 'exam'.
We used to call it "Helping Father O'Malley make white wee-wee".