Eco Madness: Cause of 737max Crashes?

Whether one titles "cause" or "reason", a bit of spin appears to be present.

By several means, commercial airlines endeavor to reduce fleet operating costs. One of these also reduces CO2 emissions. That one might cause a particular design aircraft to tragically fail. While not having such an effect on competing designs.

I have no doubt their are shakier chains of logic but I'll not seek them out.

 

As one who has experience in aerodynamics, the issue has very little to do with the subject of this article, but from the design of the 737Max. Boeing designed it on the cheap. To accommodate the larger engines, the plane was not designed from the ground up. The engines were moved up and forward of the wings so that the standard landing gear can be used. This changed the handling and flight characteristics of the airplane completely. To compensate, computerized 'fly by wire" software was implemented to handle the wholly unstable design. This is OK for a fighter plane with built in instability to improve performance in aerobatics, but a disaster in an airliner meant to fly over long distances without second to second intervention by the pilot.

 

Climate deniers are mixing up their arguments again. I thought the eco-conscious options were suppose to expensive boondoogles nobody in their right mind would pay for unless forced too, not a prudent decision by Airlines wanting to cut one of their biggest costs: paying for fuel.

And the fact that other aircraft manufacturers (including Boeing itself!) can make fuel efficient aircraft that don't have enormous safety design flaws, means the problem isn't with eco-consciousness, but Boeing itself. They cut corners and their paying the price for it.

 

Plane crashes. Fatalities and design failure all are very bad things nobody wants.
But I don't like the spin of the article.

It takes specific realities, true and well to be reported, but frames them IMO in an unfair attack against ecological approach and thinking.
It starts clearly with the headline. " Eco Madness may be reason for disastrous Boeing 737 Max safety issues".
Calling the whole operation, an act of "Eco Madness" is leading with prejudice. True, in the article itself the more complex and complete reasons why the plane was designed and built are brought forth, a little more detailed and fairly, but it never misses a chance to cast the horrific failure of design and the software as being a direct offshoot of ecological thinking and ecological thinking as a clear negative.

To simplify...whatever opinion you hold about "global warming" and ecological stewardship, and the importance or lack of importance there is absolutely NOTHING "mad" or wrong about building planes that are more fuel efficient and leave a smaller carbon footprint. There's absolutely nothing wrong with airlines coveting them. It's called "evolution".

The fact that the re-design appears to have a dangerous and unacceptable fatal flaw, is a tragic truth, but it's a failure on the testing and design side of the equation. That's bad. Very bad. Unacceptable. But IMO doesn't need to be framed or couched against a clear not so subtle attack on prioritizing the environment.

This is pure personal opinion but the cynic in me believes the redesign from Boeings perspective was a clear act of keeping up with future demands and standards but also a competitor that was offering a product that met those goals. Building this plane was not an act of "madness" it was an act of business evolution and survival.

Further possibly cynicism on my behalf , but it's easy for airlines to want products like this, not only to grasp advertising green cred but also because better fuel efficiency allows for greater profits. So for them it's a win/win.

But the only thing that should be looked at closely and with a critical eye, is the dangerous design failure.
Not the fact that Boeing wanted to build a more fuel efficient commuter plane. Nor the fact that airlines also covet them. That's not madness, that's good.

But if you read the article with it's spin, you'd think fuel efficiency. smaller carbon footprint, and ecological awareness were all toxic players in a game of Clue...as in "Colonel Mustard did it with a smaller carbon footprint in the Boeing Factory! ". And that just isn't a fair and balanced presentation.
It's IMO not fair to the passengers that lost their lives on those flights. They didn't lose their lives because of ecological awareness, concerns about global warming, climate change, or any derivative of supposed "Ecological Madness" ...it appears allegedly that the planes failed because of a fatal flaw between the re-positioned larger engines, and a fatal miscue between redesigned software.This HAS TO BE FIXED. IT SHOULD OF NEVER HAPPENED. BUT...
That all doesn't deserve to be used as weapons in a opinion war about Climate Change.

 

Somebody else was just trying to blame it all on former Southwest Airlines CEO Herb Kelleher. Historically, Kelleher insisted that each new version of the 737 be operable by pilots already qualified on earlier models without retraining.

I was already satisfied with the notion that this all came from Boeing’s internal re-structuring in the late 1990s. Now the boardroom is trying to dictate physics.

 

All makers and users want lower operating costs. Eco madness may or may not exist.

Boeing made this plane with MCAS relying on a single angle-of-attack sensor. Without consideration of lightly retrained pilots doing exactly the right (odd) thing during a high-workload phase of flight. By industry practice and with regulatory oversight, that was unusual. The good news is that similar poor decisions are much less likely in future. Bad news is dead people.

 

An airplane "stalling" has nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

Some computer system erroneously reporting a stall condition and trying to automatically correct for it........has nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

This "theory" is ridiculous.

 

If the single angle of attack sensor was the only issue, it would have been a simple fix.

Mowing the engines forward and having the exiting thrust moving past the slats, flaps, ailerons and other wing and tail controls fully changes the flying characteristics of the aircraft.

Likewise, software is so complicated with billions or even trillions of case scenarios that it may be nearly impossible to predict or preclude the onset of a negative outcome.

 

unintended acceleration

 

Ms. Devine does a reasonable job of taking a disastrous corporate decision and trying to attribute it to something she doesn't like.

A case can be made that this was a result of regulatory failure in federal oversight of the company, specifically allowing them to self-certify safety compliance.

A stronger case can be made that it was the result of the company twisting itself around to avoid expensive regulatory issues that arise if it admits that this is a redesign, but don't if it is considered a minor update of an existing design.

One can also make a reasonable case that this decision traces back to changes in upper management, to the rising dominance of people who have zero engineering or aviation background, who think that making planes is no different than making soda or shoes or any other consumer product.

I will give Ms. Devine points for effort, but cannot say that she is convincing.

 

More like EcoNOMIC madness.....

 

Or perhaps ECOnonsense?

Bob Wilson

 

stock is up

 

May be. I own it as part of my Vanguard S&P 500 fund, but I'm not buying any individual shares.

I recall reading about the DE Havilland Comet. DE Havilland went out of business. Boeing learned from the mistakes of the Comet and used their experience with the 707. The rest is history.

 

i remember audi u/a

 

It’s good to learn from your mistakes.

It’s cheaper to learn from your competitors’ mistakes.

Airbus (and their new Bombardier subsidiary) stand to learn a lot from Boeing. I can picture quite a few C300 aka A220-300 sales ahead for would’ve-been 737 M7 buyers.

As a frequent business flyer I’m happy to have found a few ticket search engines that allow me to exclude trips on the 737 max. I do have faith that it will eventually be a safe airplane, but I appreciate having a consumer tool to punish Boeing for their dirty tricks.

 

The DE Havilland Comet never again regained the flying public's confidence although it served into the 21st Century in the RAF variant Nimrod.

I have less confidence that the 737 Max than Boeing and the airline industry does.

I will also be concerned about the design life of the 787 Dreamliner. Plastic composites do not have the same proven track record as T2024 and T7075 aluminum alloys. Only time will tell.

 

I admit I’m less positive about the 787, despite already having done about 35k miles aboard them. I understand it’s the first one they didn’t design in-house. For the longhaul routes it serves I’d rather be in the 777 or a trusty old A340.

 

Aluminum is more likely to experience ductile fracture, whereas rigid composite structures containing carbon fiber and epoxide matrixes are more likely to experience brittle fracture. Even fiber composite cars use aluminum or steel as crushable energy absorbing structures.

Ductile fracture occurs over an extended time period and can be detected before catastrophic failure.

Brittle fracture occurs suddenly like the cracking of an egg shell. Catastrophic failure occurs suddenly without warning.

Stress and vibration tests can be speeded up to estimate design life, but aging of composite materials can't be replicated in the lab beyon thermal heating and cooling testing. Only time will tell how long composites will last. Also, all materials are not homogenous. There are voids and weaknesses caused by poor mixing of epoxides. These are possible weakness that can only be experience as these material age.

On that account, the age of a composite airframe matters more than an aluminum one.