Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

[pipoz4444]

Sorry STWW, but 9 months on and Boeing (with all the resources they have at their disposal) can't fix the problem

That's because it is not just limited to MCAS

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

[sometimewoodworker]

Sorry STWW, but 9 months on and Boeing (with all the resources they have at their disposal) can't fix the problem

That's because it is not just limited to MCAS

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

It isn’t that they haven’t been able to propose solutions (haven’t got a fix) for the MCAS as it was designated in the original certification, they had that some time ago (probably months), however the FAA changed (correctly in most people’s opinion) the goal posts so needing something more involved.

I don’t see anything that is suggesting other design issues, if you do could you please point them out, communication issues sure, but structural or design?

It is that the FAA has upgraded the importance of the system (to a level it probably should have had) and that requires much more redundancy, integration with other systems and a completely different level of testing and probably a different solution than would have been the case if the original designation been correct. The FAA has also had such a black eye that I’m reasonably sure they are going over everything with a fine toothed comb and they may not have had the spare manpower to do a fast thorough job that I’m sure that they’re doing now.

[pipoz4444]

I realize that I am probably flogging a dead horse, and few might care anymore, but this Article McKechnie Aviation is interesting as it goes to the core of the real issue and what I refer to as a Design Flaw.

By the way the McKechnie Aviation Article, is recent (one of several) and guess what, Boeing are not suing them or objecting to its content. This silence from Boeing, suggests the Articles are factually correct.

Part Extract:
It was never going to be an easy fix. As a result of the accidents in 2018 and 2019 the FAA discovered that the Boeing 737 MAX did not comply with the stability requirements for a large aeroplane. This wasn’t a minor detail or a software problem. Aerodynamic stability is a function of the basic design of the aeroplane, i.e. its shape.

Stability: In order for an aircraft to be safe and controllable it must have longitudinal stability. If the aircraft is flying level and something makes the aircraft pitch up and start climbing, then it should naturally pitch down and return to level flight. If the pilot pulls back on the control column then the nose of the aircraft pitches up but when the pilot lets go the nose drops back to where it was before. On the B737 MAX there is a point where if the pilot pitches up and then let’s go the nose will continue pitching up. If this pitch-up is unchecked then the aeroplane will slow down, stall and stop flying. If an issue like this was discovered during the design of a new aircraft, then you’d expect the designers to go back to the drawing board and fix the design. The issue with the MAX is that it wasn’t designed as a new aircraft.

Derivative Design: The B737 MAX is the latest derivative of a design that started flying in 1967. The original B737 had engines with a diameter of 125cm that were mounted underneath the wings. The aircraft was 30m long and had great longitudinal stability. The MAX is 39m long and has engines with a diameter of 176cm. To fit these big engines on they had to be mounted further forward and higher up. The position of the engines on the MAX means that at a certain ‘angle of attack’ the engine nacelles generate a lift component that is forward of the center of gravity. This produces the undesirable pitch up. To fix this problem Boeing came up with the ‘Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System’ (MCAS). If MCAS detects that the aircraft is approaching a dangerous angle of attack, then it activates the stabilizer trim.

Whilst I am not an aviation expert, to me the primary issue comes back to the initial "Design Flaw or Design Principle" of trying to modify/develop an older style plane, by strapping two whopping great oversized engines onto that plane, in an incorrect position on that wing, for that plane (so that they wouldn't drag on the tarmac).

This is a bit akin to dropping a 454 big block Chevy Engine, into one of those Thai Toyota Pic- ups and hoping that the Thai driver can go round the corner, at a high speed.

The only difference is that in the Thai Pick-up case there are 8 people sitting in the back of the Pick-up, who know the Thai Driver is half pissed, whereas in the Boeing 737 Max there are some 150 people sitting in the back and the actual Driver is sober.

Personally, I would take my chances with the Thai pick-up Driver

https://mckechnie-aviation.com/2019/12/ ... fly-again/

pipoz4444

[tamada]

When the mechanics couldn't keep up with Toyota BJ47 ute diesel engine rebuilds up in China back in 1983, we toyed with slinging spare Chrysler V8 gasoline engines from the unusable portable drill rigs into them. It took about 3 weeks and we only ever built the one as it proved very hard to handle and probably deadly on old desert tap lines and rig roads. Sure was fun to get it up to about 80 MPH though only for a few minutes before bits started rattling loose and falling off, like mufflers, fuel filters, fenders and teeth.

Anyway, it's all been done before.

Bond Bug dragster

Back on topic, if they canned the product line, Boeing would go broke and Airbus would reign supreme. That will NEVER be allowed to happen.... unless, God forbid, one of Southwest's or American's 787MAX's falls out of the sky.

[pipoz4444]

When the mechanics couldn't keep up with Toyota BJ47 ute diesel engine rebuilds up in China back in 1983, we toyed with slinging spare Chrysler V8 gasoline engines from the unusable portable drill rigs into them. It took about 3 weeks and we only ever built the one as it proved very hard to handle and probably deadly on old desert tap lines and rig roads. Sure was fun to get it up to about 80 MPH though only for a few minutes before bits started rattling loose and falling off, like mufflers, fuel filters, fenders and teeth.

Anyway, it's all been done before.

metronome.jpg

Back on topic, if they canned the product line, Boeing would go broke and Airbus would reign supreme. That will NEVER be allowed to happen.... unless, God forbid, one of Southwest's or American's 787MAX's falls out of the sky.

Off the topic, but, I saw this the other day on You Tube, then he does the quarter mile in 4.4 sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28KR02QoTvA Murder Nova Makes 3200hp on the dyno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCWHHPocCM

[sometimewoodworker]

Stability: In order for an aircraft to be safe and controllable it must have longitudinal stability. If the aircraft is flying level and something makes the aircraft pitch up and start climbing, then it should naturally pitch down and return to level flight. If the pilot pulls back on the control column then the nose of the aircraft pitches up but when the pilot lets go the nose drops back to where it was before. On the B737 MAX there is a point where if the pilot pitches up and then let’s go the nose will continue pitching up. If this pitch-up is unchecked then the aeroplane will slow down, stall and stop flying. If an issue like this was discovered during the design of a new aircraft, then you’d expect the designers to go back to the drawing board and fix the design. The issue with the MAX is that it wasn’t designed as a new aircraft.

An interesting read, however it leaves quite a bit of information out that would enable a non specialist to judge if the statement is either factual (Quite possibly) or relevant (maybe yes or maybe no). Such as if the engine thrust is increased to compensate or assist the climb, if all commercial airliners will auto compensate at all climb angles short of a stall, at what angle of attack the pitching up will continue without increase in thrust, how far that is from the stall point etc.

I certainly don’t have the training, skills or knowledge to judge the accuracy of those statements. Without it being a peer reviewed article there is no support for it being a completely true representation of the design or just a Trump style claim.

The writers resume while impressive does not suggest that the statement he made

It was never going to be an easy fix. As a result of the accidents in 2018 and 2019 the FAA discovered that the Boeing 737 MAX did not comply with the stability requirements for a large aeroplane. This wasn’t a minor detail or a software problem. Aerodynamic stability is a function of the basic design of the aeroplane, i.e. its shape.

is supported by his own knowledge and experience.
It certainly could be true but again it could be a misinterpretation of others information.

Should the FAA re-certification happen, there is no suggestion that it will not, and his claims prove true then the aircraft and flying industry will have future deadly incidents with the MAX and that will set flying back decades.

[pipoz4444]

STWW, you must have shares in Boeing, that you are trying to protect. I am like you, in that I go on what I read and research.

It may be an interesting read and undoubtably others will read it as well. It points to a “Lack of Stability resulting from erors or oversights in the Design process”, the way I read it and I don’t think this point has been contradicted by Boeing, so far. This is not the only Article on and or Forum that is questioning the Design Stability of the the 737 Max.

Nevertheless, I am sure that Others may view this article and otehr of similar nature, differently from me, as is their right to do so. It will however be interesting to see how the FAA and other Aviation Authorities view this, in time.

Fortunately what the FAA does or certifies, will not immediately translate into an approval for the Max 737 to fly again in other Countries. The FAA and or its Certification process has suffered a significant loss of credibility over this mess and yes their part in it, so there are now a number of other hurdles that Boeing will need to jump over in some of those other Countries, those countries that do not blindly follow the FAA certification.

One hurdle is obviously the respective Aviation Authorities in those other countries and another is the Pilots Association in this countries. The third is the Public perception of the 737 Max or whatever they try and call it next.

Wait until the people surveys start to materialize asking travelers if they will consider flying on a Max 737, then see how it translates into Airlines and Leasing Companies continuously cancelling their orders for any new Boeing 737 Max or Hybrid. Then there is the cost of it all through the various and somewhat numerous Court Lawsuits

I still here Chapter 11 calling in the background.

Personally I am going out to buy shares in Airbus

pipoz4444

[sometimewoodworker]

STWW, you must have shares in Boeing, that you are trying to protect. I am like you, in that I go on what I read and research.

Not at all. Boeing and the FAA are completely culpable. Boeing probably more so than the FAA who may have been constrained by the US funding restrictions.

The decisions made by Boeing should have many of its executives in jail and all of them should be having their pay cut to the bone to pay reparations to the victims of their greed. The fact that they may not have been directly involved should not protect them from losing money. They did not stop the rot so are responsible.

However that said there needs to be more than a few claims none of them that I can see are peer reviewed before throwing designs or pilots under the bus.

Irresponsible claims that the pilots, because they were not American trained, were at fault. Since probably been debunked by the US trained, and other, pilots all reportedly crashed in the simulator when they knew what was coming.

So it is possible that the plane design is so badly flawed that the claim is true. It is equally possible that he may be vastly exaggerating or just not have enough information.

If he is correct do you think that the FAA and all other regulatory bodies could possibly certify it as flight worthy without major structural changes?

Think what will happen if there’s another fatal 737 MAX crash

[Udon Map]

It's not quite as simple as blaming everything on Boeing and the FAA.

"With Boeing in Cross Hairs, Lion Air Gets a Pass on Poor Safety Record"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/worl ... nesia.html

[Earnest]

Boeing are OK but they screwed up big style with these Cabs and the associated certification so old Dennis Muilenburg had to go.

What galls me is the sales advantage Airbus will gain by default, which is essentially the same argument that Udon Map is pressing when it comes to Lion Air and their dodgy safety history. Airbus is nowhere near as good as Boeing but maybe I'm just a little biased.

[sometimewoodworker]

It's not quite as simple as blaming everything on Boeing and the FAA.

"With Boeing in Cross Hairs, Lion Air Gets a Pass on Poor Safety Record"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/worl ... nesia.html

Sorry my point is that until there are reports on the complete causes of both crashes second guessing cause is not helpful

I’ve just skimmed the official Lion air report and none official bodies the JATR(technical representatives from the FAA, NASA, EASA and the Civil Aviation Authorities of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates), NTSB or the KNKT suggest anything other than correct reporting and action on safety measures related to the crash.

It looks as if the above linked article is suggesting cause and effect to try to divert a lot of the blame. That Lion air and other airlines are overworking their staff is true, that it was a major cause seems to be untrue, that they should reform and that we should pay more for our flights is also true.

The JATR report is quite clear that the FAA has to clean up.

The review

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/The ... rol_System

was commissioned by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a direct consequence of their recognition in the aftermath of the two fatal accidents to Boeing 737 MAX-8 aircraft in Indonesia on 29 October 2018 and in Ethiopia on 10 March 2019, that the type certification process as applied to the flight control system of the 737 MAX-8 and MAX-9 was likely to have played a significant part in their causation.

Here are some extracts from the comprehensive report on the Indonesian crash.

This puts the major contributor as Boeing and their deliberate exclusion of any MCAS information together with hiding of an AOT disagreement warning from the pilots and ground crew.

NB I do not support Lion Air, Ethiopian airlines, the pilots, the FAA or Boeing. I want to know the truth. So far the majority of fault seems to fall on Boeing then the FAA with other causes a long way down on the list.
Are there other factors? Certainly.
Are they significant? Yes.
Is the significance major? No, as far as I can see at the moment.
Should everyone improve? Yes.
Who needs to improve the most (in relation to the crashes)? Boeing and the FAA, this is absolutely correct from all information I can find.

[tamada]

It's not quite as simple as blaming everything on Boeing and the FAA.

"With Boeing in Cross Hairs, Lion Air Gets a Pass on Poor Safety Record"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/worl ... nesia.html

Awesome, lengthy deflection effort by the NYT. Dated in November last year, it obviously wasn't enough to let the Boeing CEO keep his job. But its highly likely he'll get his $39 m payoff so never mind, no harm done eh?

Yes, Indonesia's corruption issues are the stuff of legend. It's apparent that Boeing and the FAA are beginning to squirm at the suggestions that they worked hand in glove to enable the 737MAX to be approved. To me, a government regulatory body citing budgetary and drafting constraints as the reason Boeing were allowed to self-certify is more of an admission of corruption than it is an excuse.

After that long-winded article, it closes with:

"The Takeaway: After a crash, a company — and a government — deny problems, deflect blame and drag their feet on improvements."

To me, there doesn't seem to be too much difference between what they claim happened in Jakarta and what is still happening in Washington.

[sometimewoodworker]

A little more, there are continuing problems found both with the 737 MAX and in the planes. This goes along with the 4/5 software problems, wiring that could cause a similar crash to the 2 previous ones, workers grinding through the lightning insulation, and faulty engine turbine blades.

The latest that isn’t uniquely a MAX problem is that there is foreign material/objects being discovered in some (all?) of the fuel tanks.

This suggests that quality control is poor to non existent and certainly not up to the job.

Delivery is now being suggested as summer but most major airlines are not scheduling them until autumn at the earliest.

[mech_401]

that story certainly went quiet . i think it's the
flight channel on utube that has a series/ documentary style on accident analysis- findings

while boeings stance on this was egregious on
many levels, when you look back at the hundreds
yes hundreds of commercial jet crashes over 30yr

( when all this automated comp technology started) over and over pilots confused- disoriented by automatic systems malfunctioning
auto throttle, auto land, auto pilot, auto correction
it's no wonder they get overwhelmed. and it still
goes on, with other planes as the 737m grounded

[FrazeeDK]

looks like Boeing is moving along with fixes and FAA re-cert along with other countries aviation authorities recerts of the 737 Max

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/3/21353 ... fatal-mcas

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/when ... ming-back/

[mech_401]

T.C.A.S. traffic collision avoidance system

using transponders supposed to stop mid-air
accidents & ground collisions but it still happens

i'll be 1st one to admit , boeing was running amok
with self-certifications etc. classic flying too close
to sun hubris " they're beyond mistakes" so wrong

[Udon Map]

T.C.A.S. traffic collision avoidance system

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.

[mech_401]

traffic collision avoidance system or traffic alert
and collision avoidance system

both abbreviated as T.C.A.S.

[Udon Map]

traffic collision avoidance system or traffic alert and collision avoidance system

both abbreviated as T.C.A.S.

Sorry, I thought that you were talking about the actual system used by the FAA, which is called Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... ooklet.pdf

[mech_401]

the faa is not a manufacturer, but a regulating body. the actual system was developed by bendix/
honey well in the late 80's ,when it was called tcas