Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

[sometimewoodworker]

Let me paraphrase one more time... The 737 MAX vertical stabilizer trim system was altered and this should have been passed on to pilots in a better way, but the 3rd world airlines and their inadequately trained pilots were still responsible for the crashes.

It is interesting that very few pilots (if any), most if not all who were first world have survived a simulator version of one of the flights and they all knew what problems were going to happen. The NTSB Hearing in the Sully movie, while of course not a documentary, is accurate in relation to simulation flights after a bad accident.

I'm in complete agreement on the appalling bad choices made to modify the system and not retrain or inform pilots.

However throwing pilots under the bus before the final results of the accident investigation is disingenuous. If the pilots made bad choices it will come out, certainly from the Ethiopian case, the preliminary report has already been published. However those choices may have been forced on them by the Boeing hardware.

Please wait before deciding where to assign Blair and what percentage of blaim applies to whome

Do you know that there are only 2 737Max simulators? And that Ethiopia airlines has one with Boeing having the other?

[mech_401]

interesting read but a strange piece . reads almost
like a paid-for boeing damage control missive.

because the indonesians werent ex-navy fighter jocks learned in acrobatics, this contributed to
the cockpit confusion? hardly seems fair premise

[papafarang]

Funny really ,if a car was badly designed and crashes occured causing deaths would we blame the drivers. It would be easy to recover in a flight simulator if you already knew about previous crashes and are told how to get out of it. But no one went through the same situation untill after the fact.it was a plane fault that caused it, faulty equipment and a modified plane design that shouldn't have been allowed. But yes throw the driver under the bus and get back to making

[tamada]

US FAA requiring inspections for cracks on some 737 NG planes

https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/faa- ... 27378.html

Better pack a spare pickle fork!

[sometimewoodworker]

It never rains but it pores. Emirates has recently cancelled its current orders for 777 aircraft and others as the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 TEN engines are failing in service.

Emirates which has a fleet of very young aircraft so is replacing planes at around 10 years old has stopped buying until the aircraft supplied are not going to breakdown in service. So both Airbus and Boeing are going to be hurting from that.

[laksnrub]

Singapore moved several jets 737 to Alice Springs for storage last week, due to high humidity in Singers, the Ozzie desert is better for long term storage

[tamada]

How much of a smoking gun does the FAA really need?

Messages show Boeing employees knew in 2016 of problems that turned deadly on the 737 Max

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... story.html

[tamada]

US FAA requiring inspections for cracks on some 737 NG planes

https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/faa- ... 27378.html

Better pack a spare pickle fork!

Nine out of nineteen Korean operated NG's pulled for structural cracks. Almost a 50% failure rate there.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sout ... X40B1?il=0

[mech_401]

was it thai airways that had a 777 with an
uncontained engine failure on runup the other
day. probably safer just to drive home

[Barney]

Another possible root cause for evolution of the 737MAX.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/eco-m ... ax-safety/

[RLTrader]

Boeing’s deadly mistake explained, CEO disgraced

feeling that this plane will never be trusted, pass time to scrap it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr_uum_ ... e=youtu.be

[tamada]

Boeing’s deadly mistake explained, CEO disgraced

feeling that this plane will never be trusted, pass time to scrap it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr_uum_ ... e=youtu.be

Scrap from the 737NG onwards.

Both the NG and the MAX are old designs with heavily compromised design engineering demanded by the industry's new, bigger, cost saving and allegedly more environmentally friendly engine options.

Airbus air frames are forward engineered; a common air frame that was designed from the get-go to be stretched and/or lengthened. Boeing can only reverse-engineer things and they do it very badly.

[pipoz4444]

pipoz4444
[/quote]

For all those who were suggesting that Boeing didn't have a real problem with the 737 Max and or that Pilot error was part of the problem, "Think Again".

Boeing are now months down the track and are now predicting that they will present to the FFA ,their proposed "Mr Fix It" (be it Software or whatever else they have stumbled across in recent months), in SEPTEMBER or possibly in OCTOBER 2019, and "if accepted by the FFA" will be Airbone again, with the 737 Max in the last Quater of 2019. Let hope the at least got the "Year" correct??

Not to mention an estmated cost to date of 3.0 Billion to their Company/Shareholders and still counting, as I understand it.

Well done, Mr Boeing Management, (pack of A..holes) who implemented a deliberate miss-information strategy at the initial start, to continually target and suggest Pilot error.

I would move to sack the whole Board of Directors & CEO at the next Shareholders Meeting, if I was a controlling major Shareholder, for their absolute incompetence/ineptitude, in the way they have handled this to date. But that is just me

pipoz4444

[/quote]

Boeing Fires C.E.O. Dennis Muilenburg - Thats one down

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/busi ... nburg.html

Now the BOD

pipoz4444

[RLTrader]

Been in the news, they are thinking of rebranding the 737-Max to 737-8200

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-rename/

[tamada]

Been in the news, they are thinking of rebranding the 737-Max to 737-8200

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-rename/

Cynical and thoughtless.

Scrap the damn things.

[sometimewoodworker]

Been in the news, they are thinking of rebranding the 737-Max to 737-8200

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-rename/

Cynical and thoughtless.

Scrap the damn things.

In point of fact the plane is not a bad design nor is it intrinsically unsafe, and it will fly again. (Actually it is flying now, without passengers, to get planes to parking places)

Boeing was stupid, greedy and criminally negligent in its mid production design decisions to allow the MCAS to have the virtually unlimited power along with the other bad choices. That was all done to maintain the type rating and to give the same feel as previous models so allowing pilots with 737 type ratings to fly it without simulator training and without telling the pilots of its existence.

Without MCAS (or with a very limited version) and with a different type rating (which would be expensive for the airlines as all pilots would need to be certified for it) pilots would have been trained for the different feel of the plane and almost certainly neither of the accidents would have happened. But then Boeing would not have had the fast uptake of the plane.

The production line is now shut down (Boeing shut it down last week) as the FAA is in once bitten twice shy mode so will not certify the plane until sometime between February to May next year and there is a probability that other countries will not be willing to simply accept the U$ certification any more so it may not be flying on it’s international routes even then.

This is a tremendous black eye (deservedly so) for the FAA and the USA with regard to the airworthiness certification process. So the FAA is not willing to accept a simple software fix and is upgrading MCAS to (I’m not sure of the exact term ) a critical system. So that is requiring far more work, testing and time than was previously predicted.

[pipoz4444]

Re: In point of fact the plane is not a bad design nor is it intrinsically unsafe, and it will fly again. (Actually it is flying now, without passengers, to get planes to parking places)

[/quote]

Have to disagree STWW, as Boeing appear to have had other design issues with 737 Max. From the Reports that are starting to surface, Boeing new that the the 737 Max Design, lacked stabilty (and so did the FAA) in certain operational modes. It would also appear that MCAS was then introduced in part to counteract and or in an attempt to correct this, aswell. In other words, the planes apparent Base Design had a flaw in it, that needed to be fixed.

It will be interesting when the get Mr. Mark Forkner and Others, before a Grand Jury, only a matter of time. Extract for Reuters Business news: Forkner then says MCAS was “running rampant in the sim on me”. He describes what he experienced: “I’m leveling off at like 4000 ft, 230 knots and the plane is trimming itself like craxy (sic). I’m like, WHAT?

I suspect that there is more under the surface, regarding the truth of planes base design, rather than simply just blaming the MCAS system - there always is when you dig deep and it will come out over time.

Someone has suggested "There is a straightforward solution for all the 737 Max’s problems: that being to reduce the plane’s pitch up tendency, and that Boeing could lengthen the landing gear and move the engines further back under the wing and then to increase stability, it could increase the size of the tail. - but that there is a reason that Boeing doesn’t want to do that - Because it would be considered a New Aircraft". - Meaning another 5 years plus to get Certificed

Do I here Chapter 11, calling.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethi ... SKBN1WX2RD

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasqui ... 1598614407

[tamada]

So only after the embarrassment of an unmanned space ship ejaculating prematurely, Boeing have fired Dennis Muilenburg. Seems like he'll still pocket around US$39 for letting the doorknob bang his ass.

So mostly Indonesians died on the first crash and 55 Africans died along with only 8 Americans on the latter. Boeing and the FAA are maybe still breathing a sigh of relief that they weren't Southwest or United crashes.

[sometimewoodworker]

Re: In point of fact the plane is not a bad design nor is it intrinsically unsafe, and it will fly again. (Actually it is flying now, without passengers, to get planes to parking places)

Have to disagree STWW, as Boeing appear to have had other design issues with 737 Max. From the Reports that are starting to surface, Boeing new that the the 737 Max Design, lacked stabilty (and so did the FAA) in certain operational modes. It would also appear that MCAS was then introduced in part to counteract and or in an attempt to correct this, aswell. In other words, the planes apparent Base Design had a flaw in it, that needed to be fixed.

Someone has suggested "There is a straightforward solution for all the 737 Max’s problems: that being to reduce the plane’s pitch up tendency, and that Boeing could lengthen the landing gear and move the engines further back under the wing and then to increase stability, it could increase the size of the tail. - but that there is a reason that Boeing doesn’t want to do that - Because it would be considered a New Aircraft". - Meaning another 5 years plus to get Certificed

The problem was that Boeing was desperate to avoid a new aircraft designation, as you mentioned, and that with the original MCAS they argued that it felt and performed virtually the same as the previous planes so enabling it to keep the same type rating, though during testing the original SW model of MCAS didn’t quite do enough.

It was this and the terrible decisions that caused the problems. The “design flaw” only exists in that they wanted to maintain the type rating, get the planes out quickly, screwed with computer settings, didn’t properly test them, mis designated the system importance to get it accepted etc

Had they not so aggressively tried to get to perform as the previous planes and accepted it as a new type there was and is no base design flaw. They may have had to introduce a 3rd angle of attack vane and computer systems. But if you listen to pilots they will tell you that with correct training on the extra lift characteristics of the engine in that particular wing position at high angles of attack with high thrust is not problematic and would be covered in normal training.8

FWIW MCAS isn’t a new system it is in previous Boeing planes and in those it is virtually unnoticeable.

So the question now is can they do enough to maintain the type rating. The answer is that they almost certainly can and as I mentioned it’s certification likely to come in first half of 2020 from the FAA.

Though other Aviation authorities could have a different view.

[RLTrader]

Re: In point of fact the plane is not a bad design nor is it intrinsically unsafe, and it will fly again. (Actually it is flying now, without passengers, to get planes to parking places)

Have to disagree STWW, as Boeing appear to have had other design issues with 737 Max. From the Reports that are starting to surface, Boeing new that the the 737 Max Design, lacked stabilty (and so did the FAA) in certain operational modes. It would also appear that MCAS was then introduced in part to counteract and or in an attempt to correct this, aswell. In other words, the planes apparent Base Design had a flaw in it, that needed to be fixed.

Someone has suggested "There is a straightforward solution for all the 737 Max’s problems: that being to reduce the plane’s pitch up tendency, and that Boeing could lengthen the landing gear and move the engines further back under the wing and then to increase stability, it could increase the size of the tail. - but that there is a reason that Boeing doesn’t want to do that - Because it would be considered a New Aircraft". - Meaning another 5 years plus to get Certificed

The problem was that Boeing was desperate to avoid a new aircraft designation, as you mentioned, and that with the original MCAS they argued that it felt and performed virtually the same as the previous planes so enabling it to keep the same type rating, though during testing the original SW model of MCAS didn’t quite do enough.

It was this and the terrible decisions that caused the problems. The “design flaw” only exists in that they wanted to maintain the type rating, get the planes out quickly, screwed with computer settings, didn’t properly test them, mis designated the system importance to get it accepted etc

Had they not so aggressively tried to get to perform as the previous planes and accepted it as a new type there was and is no base design flaw. They may have had to introduce a 3rd angle of attack vane and computer systems. But if you listen to pilots they will tell you that with correct training on the extra lift characteristics of the engine in that particular wing position at high angles of attack with high thrust is not problematic and would be covered in normal training.8

FWIW MCAS isn’t a new system it is in previous Boeing planes and in those it is virtually unnoticeable.

So the question now is can they do enough to maintain the type rating. The answer is that they almost certainly can and as I mentioned it’s certification likely to come in first half of 2020 from the FAA.

Though other Aviation authorities could have a different view.