Back to Squawk list
  • 24

Boeing found another software bug on the 737 Max

Boeing is working to fix yet another software bug on its 737 Max, Bloomberg reports. The glitch involves an indicator light for the "stabilizer trim system," which helps raise and lower the plane's nose. The light was turning on when it wasn't supposed to. Boeing is already resolving the problem, and it still expects the 737 Max to resume flying by mid-2020. But this is the third software flaw to be discovered and reported since the 737 Max crashes, which killed 346 people.… ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Go watch the MAX-8 vertical take off and power reduction to zero gravity video. Unless there is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, I do not feel like we are getting the entire story. I'm not saying that Boeing hasn't effed-up with what they have allowed from a quality control standpoint, but I have a hard time thinking that we are dealing with a Soviet-type maintenance issue here. Spilled coffee that shuts down engines on the A350 sounds just as bad, to me.
Jim Goldfuss 16
Flight Safety Detectives have 3 interesting podcasts on the Lion Air 737 MAX accident. Far different story from what is reported (They are reading directly from FDR and Cockpit Recorder transcripts. Make your own decisions, but do so from a position of knowledge and insight :-)
Coalora 4
Thank you very much for posting this. I listened to all the Lion Air podcasts as I worked today. Good God Almighty does it put a new light on the Lion Air crash. No CRM, no situational awareness, no aircraft awareness, the FO seemingly being completely incompetent, the A/C being poorly maintained and the maintainers falsifying records, crews and maintainers ignoring no go faults on previous flights... you could go on and on.

MACS has a role in the incident, yes. However, it seems like one more niggling background distraction on a bird not fit for flight, and sadly the crew drove a flyable A/C into the ground.
MrTommy 4
I just listened to that podcast. It was interesting!
It begs the question as to just how "idiot proof" aircraft designs are expected to be. Regardless of the regulatory procedure failures discovered, does the particular case discussed in the podcast hold Boeing to an unrealistic standard for guaranteeing multiple crew and equipments failures won't result in an accident?
Why isn't anyone mentioning the thousands of successful MAX flights completed by mostly U.S. pilots? I think most travelers that have flown on a MAX will do it again when the planes are released.
I know my wife and I will.
i don't want my pilot to have to fight the aircraft / aircraft's software to keep it in the air
Rob Gartley 3
Can someone just cue the Curb Your Enthusiasm Theme song please?
I think chirping crickets would be more appropriate; this is getting boring now.
Don Quixote 4
Boeing is already resolving the problem, nothing to see here.
Hmmm, once you cheat on your partner, it's kinda difficult to trust them when they keep showing up with the suspicious hair on the shoulder . . .
Mark Weiser 2
That's not a fair comparison, we've been Boeing around the world a long time, time for the family to get together, acknowledge no on is perfect, compensate for the tragedy and get on with life!
n9341c 1
What the....? HUH?
Greg S 0
That fact alone is not a reason to ignore the report. There are plenty of other reasons to ignore the report, but the fact that Boeing is fixing the bug is not one of them.
Not fixing, its already been fixed.
Well, looking for an inop light bulb put a 1011 into the swamp. Seriously, are we seeing the results of a regulator being found to be stupid, and lazy? Enough fox/henhouse drama. Get this aircraft back into revenue flight, and stop posturing....
Forgetting something here, the MAX was designed to not need type training. Boeing even failed at that and I am supposed to trust them ? ? ? We will not mention the shoddy work done on the new Tankers (OH, guess the Air Force already did) . . .
The Max is nothing like the classic. Any reasonable person would know that. The new landing gear and pitch rate make it stand alone. That said, it is up to the FAA to mandate a new Type rating, something they should not farm back to Boeing.
Rob Smith 0
Train for the differences. The rest if the 98% is the same.
Much ado about nothing that's been fixed already
cowboybob 2
blahblahblah....more tabloid fear mongering. Every aircraft in the world is constantly getting modifications for all manner of things...some routine, some not. Why don't all you Boeing trolls go dig into the Airbus bribery scandal and see how much dirt you can mine out of that. I expect there is Plenty based on the amount of the fine.
And what dog do you have in this fight?
Could be he's just annoyed by our bullshit-driven internet outrage cancel culture.
This is getting boring now.
Boeing has been guilty of some stinky engineering before. I refer to the introduction of the 727 which quietly had been given the allowance for a small number of crashes, called its learning curve, and the plane did indeed have crashes , resulting in fixes and eventually a more predictable aircraft. No more do we hear, with each new model introduction, the concept of learning curve, but with questionable construction and engineering, there seems to be learning curves to be had out there from Boeing.
I have a very clear memory of the entry into service of the B-721.
For a huge number of pilots this was their first jet experience. Many had never even flown a turbine powered aircraft before. Even those pilots who had transitioned from Pistons to the L-188's had to get used to it. The L-188 could create almost instantaneous lift over its wings for a TOGA. Even those pilots had to learn the habits of jet engines and their inability to spool-up quickly. Combine that with a 50 degree flap setting and even an experienced pilot can find themselves backed into a corner. The UA crash at SLC and the AA crash fall into that category. You have to keep in mind where the technology was back in the early 1960's.
Over time the early jet pilots finally learned to stay ahead of the airplane, but it took a while. They had no experience with full flaps and 80% N1.

IMO, Boeing did an excellent job with this design.
Randy Marco 1
Fact. Boeing greed and unbridled capitalism = fbar then covered up as long as possible.

Boeing used to be proudly run by engineers and hard working Americans that were concerned with building the best planes in the world; then, unbridled capitalism came to fruition all though America in the 80's thanks the political party in control which was only concerned with deregulation and corporate profits.

Corporate Raiders sold off company assets to Out Source everything to the detriment of the middle class.

Virtually All the caring engineers have left the Boeing because their moral compass did not align with building shortcut systems or have been driven out if they weren't complicit with shortcut solutions.

America has reaped what it sowed.... AND people are still clueless why it happened and think a conman and his corrupt party can magically undo the harm... when that party is only exacerbating it exponentially.

The future is fbar as most all American large corporations are in bed with the pluocrates, so expect receiving more barbwire enemas!
ADXbear 1
The pilots unions have open law suits not to fly that aircraft.

Continued software discoveries does not bode well for them changing their minds.
lecompte2 2
The pilots must fight to keep the final decision on the safety of their flight and passenger, this authority and responsibility is constantly under attack by many usually for the purpose to make money.
Rob Smith 0
They will lose their legal action.
Yes, they will. I don’t like the sole source AoA data, but the fix is as with any trim runaway. Disable the trim motors.
Confidence and competence should be on every checklist.
Coalora -1
Both accident aircraft had two AoA vanes.
Yes, but the MCAS only used input from one AoA vane.
And now there are multiple problems with Boeing's Starliner software coming to light.

Makes you wonder if Boeing hasn't bitten off more than it can chew, trying to write, test, and install software all by its lonesome.

I'll stick with older Boeing aircraft for now, thanks.
Flying death trap! Retire it!
Craig Good 0
"This is the last bug."

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Brilliant reply, it speaks highly of your intelligence.
Given the name of this poster, one would think he has a working knowledge of the English language. He certainly doesn't have command of it. This post is an inncoherent run-on that makes no sense.
trentenjet -9
hi Hitler next time I'll write it in German so you can understand it
Gee...thanks. I guess I'll need to learn German then. Oh wait...were you trying to be funny?
trentenjet -7
max is a POS
n9341c 2
Ladies and Gentlemen, the above post is yet another BRILLIANT, intelligent, thoughtful comment brought to you by 21st century social media - the place where idiots can believe they have a serious shot at stardom.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

linbb -9
Thanks for playing, now return to your work screen and get back to work. Dumb statement about anything do you really belong on here or just trolling another site because work is sooo boaring???????????????
n9341c 0
Ever heard of....SARCASM ? Look it up one time.
Jim Ward -4
Not to change the subject. Any new info on the what
Went wrong with the Kobe Bryant copter incident?


還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!