Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
Back to Squawk list
  • 22

Boeing meets another software issue

Seattle - After two crashes of its 737 MAX 8 jets in less than half a year, the American manufacturer has been struggling to mitigate the safety concerns surrounding its new generation single-aisle planes. But, things are not going well for Boeing. The manufacturer spotted an additional problem in the software of the 737 MAXs during the revision of the controversial Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System known as MCAS. The problem is said to be independent of the updated anti-stall… (airlinerwatch.com) Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

The public does not need to know anything about the nature of this other “minor problem” that is “critical to flight safety” since we can be confident that, except for the occasional crashes, everything is just fine.
Kobe Hunte 7
I don't really agree.. I think the public should know about these things.
No kidding.
Wolfgang Prigge 14
We really need that sarcasm font. Too many people don’t get it without.
lynx318 1
Or at least emojis.
Matt West 1
Yeah, I hit the down vote before I realized the sarcasm and then fixed it. I’m one of the most sarcastic people I know but I still miss it at times
Kobe Hunte 6
lol we really do need the Sarcasm font
Bernie20910 2
You mean the one Boeing describes as a "relatively minor problem"? That critical to flight safety issue?
sparkie624 3
Just a minor misunderstanding!
lynx318 2
Minor issue. "In case of imminent emergency, plane automatically ejects landing gear to lighten load."
chalet 4
All the automation system installed on airliners intend to make flight safer and more efficient starting with the ubiquitous Auto-Pilot, and the well known FMS, TCAS, EICAS and the entire soup alphabet but the damn MCAS was invented to try to rectify freak flying characteristics derived from a faulty if not aberrant aerodynamic design of the 737 Max 8.
Kevin Barbee 2
I really think when software is needed to keep the plane from diving, you've more than MAX'd out the 60's airframe. It's time to resurrect the 757. Why they killed it is beyond logical.
chalet 2
If the stick shaker starts doing its thing and the pilots are not capable to understand that a stall is imminent and that they have to drop the nose and rev up the engines, all in a couple of seconds without the need of any MCAS crap, they are not worth the wings they were given years before for STALL RECOVERY is one of the most important things they teach you when one enter into flight school and log the very first 5-6 hours dual.
lecompte2 2
Reading the comments here since the first crash it's pretty obvious that the Max has many more problems hidden and obvious. Boeing being coy about information to PASSENGERS will only result in no one wanting to board this plane. Without delay a replacement should be planned and until then airlines can buy other planes.
Gary Bain 2
....and your source that the Max has "MANY more problems"?
lecompte2 3
The pilots that fly it and the 6 foot tall passengers that have to go to the bathroom
Gary Bain 1
Totally disagree. The pilots love it (at least the ones who know how to fly it) and the lavs are no smaller than any other single aisle. Hardly qualify as "problems".
lecompte2 1
Guess you have not been in one Gary ?
Gary Bain 1
Actually I have.
sparkie624 2
Glad they found it now, before worse issues arrive.
This article tells us nothing new. There aren't any software programs that don't have a list of changes to be incorporated in the next revision. Software is continually evolving and when a "review" is initiated it opens the door to find additional changes, related or not, that are added when the fix for the initial issue is incorporated. The fact that the Washington Post (that highly respected technical and scientific authority) is reporting sources without any other description or additional information means they are still just trolling.


Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!