Boeing sold 737 Max 8 safety features as extras

moklet

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
3,726
#3
I can see the car industry hatching on to this. The basic car cost X, if you want brake lights it will cost you so much. Need a hooter that is x amount extra.

So i can see the taxi industry not paying for the brake lights, but they need the hooter of course.

How the hell can you make critical safety features an optional extra. Hope the families sue the **** out of Boeing and airlines
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,134
#5
Yes we knew that! Another clickbait thread on the B737 MAX.

Most low-cost arline pilots are trained to use the flight computers, and do not know how to fly using AOA displays.

Adding the AOA disagree light is a necessary change as part of the recertification process, and was never available previously.

The article conflates two different issues to sensationalise the story.
 
Last edited:

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
15,150
#8
They built a plane to MEL for compliance, added a feature to compensate for its shortcomings, but instead of making it standard, they adopted the micro-transactions model.
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,797
#9
Yes we knew that! Another clickbait thread on the B737 MAX.

Most low-cost arline pilots are trained to use the flight computers, and do not know how to fly using AOA displays.

Adding the AOA disagree light is a necessary change as part of the recertification process, and was never available previously.

The article conflates two different issues to sensationalise the story.
I don't see how it is clickbait at all.

Let's run through why the planes almost certainly crashed:

1. Boeing wanted to be cheap with the development of a new 737
2. Existing engines used too much fuel, so Boeing went with efficient ones with big fans.
3. New engines couldn't fit normally on existing airframe without taller landing gear, which wasn't possible.
4. New engines therefore mounted high and forward on the wings
5. Aerodynamic problem created as a result. Planes not certifiable with unstable handling at high angle of attack.
6. MCAS system developed to correct for aero problem.
7. MCAS based on non-redundant sensor performance and capable of making huge nose down trim changes.
8. Safety equipment that would almost guarantee that MCAS not perform incorrectly not treated as standard equipment for 737 MAX planes.

Do you now see that Boeing needs the book thrown at them for points 7 and 8? It is irrelevant what equipment pilots are used to using. The 737 MAX is a deathtrap without an AoA disagree light.


Edit: Oh, and Boeing didn't make it crystal clear to buyers of the 737 MAX that the plane's new MCAS system can wreck havoc on a flight if the pilots have not had training on how to recognise issues with it and how to deal with those issues. Another massive point in this whole ordeal.
 
Last edited:

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,740
#10
I don't see how it is clickbait at all.

Let's run through why the planes almost certainly crashed:

1. Boeing wanted to be cheap with the development of a new 737
2. Existing engines used too much fuel, so Boeing went with efficient ones with big fans.
3. New engines couldn't fit normally on existing airframe without taller landing gear, which wasn't possible.
4. New engines therefore mounted high and forward on the wings
5. Aerodynamic problem created as a result. Planes not certifiable with unstable handling at high angle of attack.
6. MCAS system developed to correct for aero problem.
7. MCAS based on non-redundant sensor performance and capable of making huge nose down trim changes.
8. Safety equipment that would almost guarantee that MCAS not perform incorrectly not treated as standard equipment for 737 MAX planes.

Do you now see that Boeing needs the book thrown at them for points 7 and 8? It is irrelevant what equipment pilots are used to using. The 737 MAX is a deathtrap without an AoA disagree light.


Edit: Oh, and Boeing didn't make it crystal clear to buyers of the 737 MAX that the plane's new MCAS system can wreck havoc on a flight if the pilots have not had training on how to recognise issues with it and how to deal with those issues. Another massive point in this whole ordeal.
The point is all of this has been covered in the MULTIPLE Boeing 737 max threads that keep popping up.
 

Lew Skannen

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
2,903
#11
Fu**ers! This should have been part and parcel part of the plane. You do not sell safety as an additional option.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
14,552
#13
Fu**ers! This should have been part and parcel part of the plane. You do not sell safety as an additional option.
then how will we make money?

I mean there are thousands of 737's flying all over the world,

Boeing has to sell them "something"
to get them to pay for all the factories and workers and share price.

I mean an average 737 flies for how long? 20 years?
during those 20 years how much money can they make from it? not much,

so sell them a "similar" aircraft with bits tacked on to it, as a "new" but old airplane.
so they will buy new aircraft, and they can show profitability.

kind of like the Toyota corolla model,
people today still driving quite happily around in 90's corollas.
as they were built to NOT break, and everything was easy to fix, and one had no need to buy another car.

but newer corollas "generally" don't last as long, so people scrap them and get new ones,
so Toyota can sell them a new car every 3 years.

same general idea, planned obsolescence is a killer, not just of bank accounts, but of people in this case.
 

Genghis Khan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
65
#15
I believe Bryn was trying to set the record straight. I agree with Bryn.

Gordon R believes in a conflation of issues and totally misses the point of Bryn's post.

The point is all of this has been covered in the MULTIPLE Boeing 737 max threads that keep popping up.
 

hj2k_x

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
30,795
#17
And I don't read the old threads, so these are good.
Exactly.

I have even read some of them but you can hardly expect people to trawl through literally 1000s of comments to see where this information MIGHT already have been mentioned in less precise detail.

People need to calm down. Not everything is clickbait.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,599
#18
I can see the car industry hatching on to this. The basic car cost X, if you want brake lights it will cost you so much. Need a hooter that is x amount extra.

So i can see the taxi industry not paying for the brake lights, but they need the hooter of course.

How the hell can you make critical safety features an optional extra. Hope the families sue the **** out of Boeing and airlines
What rock have you been living under? Car manufacturers have for yonks been offering safety features as optional add-ons at extra price.

If your car manufacturer doesn't include these safety features as standard, or doesn't even offer them as options, I suppose you'll accuse them of being greedy corporate pigs interested only in profit and cutting corners with safety. Yeah right.

I don't know the exact stats, but I think it's safe to say without fear of contradiction that more than half of car manufacturers in the world also offer safety features as optional add-ons at extra price. And have been doing so for years and years.

The optional safety feature on the B737 MAX here under discussion is the AoA Disagree Indicator. It can optionally be ordered in three forms: 1) In-HUD warning, 2) Main Display warning, or 3) Warning light on panel. An automotive analogy might be a warning that displays when there are differences between the tyre pressures at the front left and front right of your car. Do you have that?

Here's a small partial list of optional safety features only some car manufacturers offer:

* FCW (forward-collision warning): Visual and/or audible warning intended alert the driver and prevent a collision.

* AEB (automatic emergency braking): Brakes are automatically applied to prevent a collision or reduce collision speed. AEB comes in two forms:
- CAEB (city automatic emergency braking): Brakes are automatically applied to prevent a collision or reduce collision severity when traveling at city speed.
- HAEB (high-speed automatic emergency braking): Brakes are automatically applied to reduce collision severity when traveling at highway speeds.

* PD (pedestrian Detection) - The system can detect pedestrians, then issue warning and trigger automatic emergency braking, if necessary. Some can detetect cyclists.

* LDW (lane departure warning): Visual, audible, or haptic warning to alert the driver when they are crossing lane markings.

* LKA (lane keeping assist): Automatic corrective steering input or braking provided by the vehicle when crossing lane markings.

* BSW (blind spot warning): Visual and/or audible notification of vehicle in blind spot. The system may provide an additional warning if you use your turn signal when there is a car next to you in another lane.

* RCTW (rear cross-traffic warning): Visual, audible, or haptic notification of object or vehicle out of rear camera range, but could be moving into it.

* Rear AEB (rear automatic emergency braking): Brakes are automatically applied to prevent backing into something behind the vehicle. This could be triggered by the rear cross-traffic system, or other sensors on the vehicle.

* LCA (lane-centering assist): Continuous active steering to stay in between lanes (active steer, autosteer, etc.)

* ACC (adaptive cruise control): Adaptive cruise uses lasers, radar, cameras, or a combination of these systems to keep a constant distance between you and the car ahead, automatically maintaining a safe following distance. If highway traffic slows, some systems will bring the car to a complete stop and automatically come back to speed when traffic gets going again, allowing the driver to do little more than pay attention and steer.
 
Last edited:

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
6,134
#20
A pair of B737 (non MAX) simulator videos to provide some context about stalling, flight displays, stick shakers, and MCAS, the second about runaway stabiliser trim:



Do you think an extra display saying AOA disagree is going to make any difference with all those alarms and distractions?
 
Top