Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,155 posts)
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 02:59 PM Apr 2019

Boeing's 'single point failure': Why was there no backup system on 737 Max jet?

When it comes to safety, modern commercial aircraft are known not only for having back-up systems, but in some cases, back-ups of their back-ups.

So even as Boeing has taken responsibility for a fatal flaw in a key anti-stalling system in its 737 Max 8, mystery still surrounds why the software was designed to be dependent on a single outside sensor, though it was equipped with two, triggering a chain of events that led to the crashes of Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines jetliners less than five months apart.

Boeing "violated a basic principle of aircraft design by allowing a single point failure to trigger a sequence of events that could result in a loss of control," said Brian Alexander, an attorney for a law firm specializing in aviation accidents, Kreindler & Kreindler in New York, that is contemplating lawsuits on behalf of victims' families in the Ethiopian Airlines crash.

Based on an initial report from crash investigators, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg acknowledged Thursday that erroneous data sent to the system led to the Lion Air crash off Indonesia in October that killed 189 passengers and crew and the Ethiopian Airlines disaster in Africa that took 157 lives on March 10, both in the 737 Max 8. He vowed Boeing would fix the problem.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boeings-single-point-failure-why-was-there-no-backup-system-on-737-max-jet/ar-BBVGj06?li=BBnbcA1

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Boeing's 'single point failure': Why was there no backup system on 737 Max jet? (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2019 OP
I suspect that this aircraft is going the same way as the Concord malaise Apr 2019 #1
The De Havilland Comet came to mind for me. Sherman A1 Apr 2019 #2
Thanks for that malaise Apr 2019 #3
Checking Wiki it looks like it was a noise issue Sherman A1 Apr 2019 #5
Only been around for 50 years Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2019 #4
The basic design 737 certainly has been around awhile Sherman A1 Apr 2019 #6
Read an interesting story about the modifications BootinUp Apr 2019 #7
From my understanding Sherman A1 Apr 2019 #8
Greed malaise Apr 2019 #9
Because we now upsell on planes. Corgigal Apr 2019 #10

malaise

(269,157 posts)
1. I suspect that this aircraft is going the same way as the Concord
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 05:06 PM
Apr 2019

I doubt we'll see this aircraft fly again. I know that I will never ever fly on this aircraft

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
2. The De Havilland Comet came to mind for me.
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 05:09 PM
Apr 2019

The de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the world's first commercial jet airliner. Developed and manufactured by de Havilland at its Hatfield Aerodrome in Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, the Comet 1 prototype first flew in 1949. It featured an aerodynamically clean design with four de Havilland Ghost turbojet engines buried in the wing roots, a pressurised cabin, and large square windows. For the era, it offered a relatively quiet, comfortable passenger cabin and was commercially promising at its debut in 1952.

However, within a year of entering airline service, problems started to emerge, with three Comets lost within twelve months in highly publicised accidents, after suffering catastrophic in-flight break-ups. Two of these were found to be caused by structural failure resulting from metal fatigue in the airframe, a phenomenon not fully understood at the time. The other one was due to overstressing of the airframe during flight through severe weather. The Comet was withdrawn from service and extensively tested. Design and construction flaws, including improper riveting and dangerous concentrations of stress around some of the square windows, were ultimately identified. As a result, the Comet was extensively redesigned, with oval windows, structural reinforcements and other changes. Rival manufacturers meanwhile heeded the lessons learned from the Comet while developing their own aircraft.

Although sales never fully recovered, the improved Comet 2 and the prototype Comet 3 culminated in the redesigned Comet 4 series which debuted in 1958 and had a productive career of over 30 years. The Comet was also adapted for a variety of military roles such as VIP, medical and passenger transport, as well as surveillance. The most extensive modification resulted in a specialised maritime patrol variant, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, which remained in service with the Royal Air Force until 2011, over 60 years after the Comet's first flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Accidents_and_incidents

The 737 Max 8 needs to go to the scrap yards before anyone else is killed.

malaise

(269,157 posts)
3. Thanks for that
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 05:11 PM
Apr 2019

I know I won't by on the 737 Max 8.

By the way what ever happened to the 727? I liked that aircrat

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
5. Checking Wiki it looks like it was a noise issue
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 05:23 PM
Apr 2019

The pylon engines could be replaced with quieter versions but the central one that was integrated into the fuselage was unable to retrofitted to accommodate airport noise requirements and this led to it being replaced by the 737 and 757. I too thought it was a nifty looking aircraft, not Lockheed Constellation nifty, but still nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727

BootinUp

(47,179 posts)
7. Read an interesting story about the modifications
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 05:52 PM
Apr 2019

to the wings and engines. It discussed why such an old design is being tweaked instead of starting from scratch which would make more sense from an aircraft design perspective.

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
8. From my understanding
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 07:21 PM
Apr 2019

The change in the engine placement changed the center of gravity affecting the performance of the aircraft. This required the MCAS system and software to overcome the tendency to pitch up and stall the wing. It seems to be just very badly cobbled together.

Corgigal

(9,291 posts)
10. Because we now upsell on planes.
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 08:48 PM
Apr 2019

It worked on extra large fries, why not a tube traveling 500 miles an hour, at 36 thousand feet.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Boeing's 'single point fa...