Why Are They Still Making The 737 Max?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49026285
Surely no one will ever get on one again anyway.

[ToraToraTora]

mushroom:"there was a faulty sensor. this would not of itself cause loss of the aircraft; what did that was the crew were totally unprepared for the failure and didn't know how to work around it. " - not true, the crew did the correct thing multiple times but the plane believed it was stalling and overrode them, this was, as you say, due to a faulty sensor. Assuming it is otherwise correct, software is only as good as the information it is getting, thus you can never be certain the sensors are correct thus software should always be overridable.

[mushroom25]

//the crew did the correct thing multiple times but the plane believed it was stalling and overrode them//

yes, the crew did what they believed was the correct thing. unfortunately for them, they didn't know that as an automated (silent) corrective measure, the MCAS was given full authority to force the nose down, and further that this could not be overridden by pilot resistance against the trim wheel.

the correct work around would have been to isolate MCAS; however they didn't know what the system was doing, never mind know if it was even possible to isolate. not being trained and appraised on what the MCAS was actually doing is what did for the crew and QED, the aircraft.

[ToraToraTora]

ok faire enough, I see, so if they'd known how, they could have isolated the MCAS and saved the plane?

[mushroom25]

yes. a MAX without MCAS is perfectly flyable, it just needs different techniques training to the crews so that they know how to handle it. as Gromit said Boeing didn't want that because of the potential high cost of transition training from the old fleet and because airlines may potentially need 2 pools of crew.

[ToraToraTora]

ok thanks mush you are clearly clued up on this.

[TonyV]

because they have orders to for fill?

[ToraToraTora]

tony, orders are getting cancelled hand over fist. The damage is done, even if they fix it, many, including me, wont get on one. Remember the DC10?

[mushroom25]

//Remember the DC10? //

the DC10 sustained a number of very high profile accidents in its early days. the cargo door affair was of McDonnell-Douglas's own making; AA191 and united 232 were caused by design flaws exposed by outside events (191 by a non-standard maintenance process, and 232 by a fan blade with a flaw it it - both compromised the hydraulic systems).

by the time of its wholesale retirement by 2014, the DC10's overall safety record was comparable with many second generation jet aircraft. I've flown in them many times and despite their tendency to be slow to take off (just clearing the threshold fence at Calgary on one occasion) they were eventually a fine old workhorse.

[ToraToraTora]

didn't the wings drop off some of them mush?

[mushroom25]

parts of the elevator wings were ripped off a DC10 over Luxembourg in 1979, but this was caused by aerodynamic overloads because the crew didn't realise they'd stalled and then (to compound it) assumed the buffeting was caused by the no3 engine and shut it down. only later did they realise what was really going on and recover the stall.