Search found 109 matches: dangerous

Searched query: dangerous

by XRAYretired
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:54 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... ion-grows/

~3000 pilots from 12 airlines have now signed up to the class action that includes a number accusations:

-'The claim filed with the court said the pilots relied on Boeing’s representations that the 737 MAX series aircraft was not only “safe” but offered the “greatest flexibility, reliability and efficiency in the single-aisle market.”
“In reliance on those representations, the plaintiffs and the members of the respective classes sought or chose employment with and trained to fly the MAX as employees or contractors of 12 international airlines,” the court documents said.
Further, it claims: “The plaintiffs’ personal and professional lives were devastated when Boeing and the FAA engaged in “an unprecedented cover-up of known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide.”
“As a result, the plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer significant lost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages, when the MAX was grounded with no end in sight,” the court documents said.
It also said the plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and mental distress when they were effectively compelled to fly the MAX – placing their lives and the lives of the crews and passengers in danger – despite the growing awareness of the dangerous nature of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and other problems that Boeing had previously concealed or failed to disclose to the plaintiffs both before and after a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed in October 2018.'-

Yes, I think most understand its legalese. No, I don't need some remark that it is in someway retroactive and I should be looking to the sunny uplands, nor to be told what my opinion should be. Yes, they are anonymous necessarily so to avoid censure. No, I don't believe they are all just after a fast buck. And finally, yes, I do perceive there is some significance to so many signing up to the accusations made.

Ray
-->

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... ion-grows/

~3000 pilots from 12 airlines have now signed up to the class action that includes a number accusations:

-'The claim filed with the court said the pilots relied on Boeing’s representations that the 737 MAX series aircraft was not only “safe” but offered the “greatest flexibility, reliability and efficiency in the single-aisle market.”
“In reliance on those representations, the plaintiffs and the members of the respective classes sought or chose employment with and trained to fly the MAX as employees or contractors of 12 international airlines,” the court documents said.
Further, it claims: “The plaintiffs’ personal and professional lives were devastated when Boeing and the FAA engaged in “an unprecedented cover-up of known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide.”
“As a result, the plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer significant lost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages, when the MAX was grounded with no end in sight,” the court documents said.
It also said the plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and mental distress when they were effectively compelled to fly the MAX – placing their lives and the lives of the crews and passengers in danger – despite the growing awareness of the dangerous nature of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and other problems that Boeing had previously concealed or failed to disclose to the plaintiffs both before and after a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed in October 2018.'-

Yes, I think most understand its legalese. No, I don't need some remark that it is in someway retroactive and I should be looking to the sunny uplands, nor to be told what my opinion should be. Yes, they are anonymous necessarily so to avoid censure. No, I don't believe they are all just after a fast buck. And finally, yes, I do perceive there is some significance to so many signing up to the accusations made.

Ray

Jump to post
by RickNRoll
Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:33 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Revelation wrote:
A300 flies to this day with a vertical stab you can rip off just by stomping on the rudder pedal above a certain speed.

Anyone can crash any aircraft by doing inappropriately, no even need of any training for that. :tombstone:
As for the American Airlines Flight 587:
The vertical stabilizer's structural performance was determined to be consistent with design specifications and exceeded certification requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587#Findings


I smell hypocrisy. Some of you claimed Boeing was at fault for making planes too complicated for the average pilot. So why should Airbus be let off the hook for designing a plane that allowed the rudder to travel beyond design limits?
The pilots were trained to do this. Not by Airbus. Of you are going to train pilots to perform a dangerous manoeuvre, make sure that the plane can do it safely. No other pilots with standard training crashed this way.

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:53 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

MrBretz wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
The problem that caused the crash was poorly written software. The problem it was implemented to correct was NOT a fundamentally dangerous problem, and would not have led to a crash by itself. So why would a strictly software fix to a strictly software problem lead to another crash? Your logic escapes me.

Whilst MrBretz post is not supported. MCAS V1.0 was the result of incompetent System Design and SSA - not a software implementation problem.

Ray


Ray, I was quoting asdf. I think you meant his post was not supported. He eventually said his statistic was his estimate.

Profound apologies. My error.

Ray

Jump to post
by MrBretz
Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:41 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

XRAYretired wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
asdf said "if they really unground the MAX only with some minor software changes ...... statistics says that we will see the next crash within 18 month ..."

You can make any statement you want but you don't offer an iota of statistical(it is mathematical, you know) proof. Why not say 18 hours, weeks, years, etc. ??? Show me how you got your number. Throw in some standard deviations or other apropos terms like normal distribution, etc. and I might listen.

The problem that caused the crash was poorly written software. The problem it was implemented to correct was NOT a fundamentally dangerous problem, and would not have led to a crash by itself. So why would a strictly software fix to a strictly software problem lead to another crash? Your logic escapes me.

Whilst MrBretz post is not supported. MCAS V1.0 was the result of incompetent System Design and SSA - not a software implementation problem.

Ray


Ray, I was quoting asdf. I think you meant his post was not supported. He eventually said his statistic was his estimate.

Jump to post
by uta999
Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:20 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

SEPilot wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
asdf said "if they really unground the MAX only with some minor software changes ...... statistics says that we will see the next crash within 18 month ..."

You can make any statement you want but you don't offer an iota of statistical(it is mathematical, you know) proof. Why not say 18 hours, weeks, years, etc. ??? Show me how you got your number. Throw in some standard deviations or other apropos terms like normal distribution, etc. and I might listen.

The problem that caused the crash was poorly written software. The problem it was implemented to correct was NOT a fundamentally dangerous problem, and would not have led to a crash by itself. So why would a strictly software fix to a strictly software problem lead to another crash? Your logic escapes me.


Because Boeing rushed out an unstable, non-FBW MAX without thinking anything through, cut corners and costs, hid new 'features' and claimed it was an NG equivalent both training and flying wise. Turns out it was not. They didn't even bother creating a MAX sim. What else have they hidden and failed to disclose. We won't know till the next thread, when something happens.

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:18 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

SEPilot wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
asdf said "if they really unground the MAX only with some minor software changes ...... statistics says that we will see the next crash within 18 month ..."

You can make any statement you want but you don't offer an iota of statistical(it is mathematical, you know) proof. Why not say 18 hours, weeks, years, etc. ??? Show me how you got your number. Throw in some standard deviations or other apropos terms like normal distribution, etc. and I might listen.

The problem that caused the crash was poorly written software. The problem it was implemented to correct was NOT a fundamentally dangerous problem, and would not have led to a crash by itself. So why would a strictly software fix to a strictly software problem lead to another crash? Your logic escapes me.

Whilst MrBretz post is not supported. MCAS V1.0 was the result of incompetent System Design and SSA - not a software implementation problem.

Ray

Jump to post
by SEPilot
Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:09 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

MrBretz wrote:
asdf said "if they really unground the MAX only with some minor software changes ...... statistics says that we will see the next crash within 18 month ..."

You can make any statement you want but you don't offer an iota of statistical(it is mathematical, you know) proof. Why not say 18 hours, weeks, years, etc. ??? Show me how you got your number. Throw in some standard deviations or other apropos terms like normal distribution, etc. and I might listen.

The problem that caused the crash was poorly written software. The problem it was implemented to correct was NOT a fundamentally dangerous problem, and would not have led to a crash by itself. So why would a strictly software fix to a strictly software problem lead to another crash? Your logic escapes me.

Jump to post
by planecane
Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:17 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

asdf wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
asdf said "if they really unground the MAX only with some minor software changes ...... statistics says that we will see the next crash within 18 month ..."

You can make any statement you want but you don't offer an iota of statistical(it is mathematical, you know) proof. Why not say 18 hours, weeks, years, etc. ??? Show me how you got your number. Throw in some standard deviations or other apropos terms like normal distribution, etc. and I might listen.


with "statistic" I expressed that it is unavoidable that an airplane which does not give the pilot the usual return signals on the stick is more difficult to control in the event of an incident than a plane which gives adequate return signals.

boeing has always emphasized that its 737 series are particularly safe because they give this feedback and the pilot knows exactly what the aircraft is doing, and he can fly it intuitively.

in the case of MAX, this feedback for certain maneuvers is not what the pilot would expect. his experience and his feeling for the reaction of MAX are distorted.
because MCAS can only kick in once, then there is no augmentation on the sticks load.

pilots "train" practically their lives long if they handfly for those moments in which something is not going on as it should.

This "training" is largely worthless if the MAX does not behave as one would expect from airplanes built in the last 80 years.

the general mistake was to believe that one can "partially automate" a manually controlled aircraft

this is not possible because the trim can not be considered separately from pitch and climb and descent and steering left and right.

you can build what is certifiable (ok, they didnt make it on the first try) but if you want to do it properly (three sensors, three flight computers, different operating systems, different development teams for each of the three controls) then you are not far away from the development of a full FBW plane.

where do the "statistical" 18 months come from?
to be honest: estimate
estimate how often sharp turns or other manouvers - related with possible loss of control because of inadequate stick feelings - will happen on MAX after the ungrounding (TCAS, last minute change of course, depressurizings, engine failure ...)
some of them will lead to dangerous situations because of the lack of stick feeling
a few will be close to a disaster
and at some point of time statistic makes shure that one will not be recoverable in the last second

like one of the three testpilots in the simulatur run a few months ago
he knew the problem
he knew how to react
but he crashed it ....

the new small MAX trim wheel, build and intented to trim the plane manual, that can not be rotated by the MAX flightcrew because of the high loads if the plane is on the ege of the envelope doesent help either ...

i hope that i guess too bad and the influence of the awkwardly implemented flight control on the MAX can be compensated by good training and excellent pilots and the MAX in the future will not have a much higher damage rate than other airplanes
only in all honesty: I do not believe it.


You are severely misunderstanding MCAS only activating once. It isn't once per flight, it is once per event. From the Boeing official statement:

If MCAS is activated in non-normal conditions, it will only provide one input for each elevated AOA event.


Once it activates, it provides the necessary force increase for those conditions. Then, once the conditions have been exited, it can activate again.

I don't know what test pilot you are talking about that crashed in a simulator. It doesn't really matter because MCAS 2.0 will not be able to do what MCAS 1.0 did. Even if BOTH AoA sensors fail within 5.5 degrees of each other and are both above the trigger AoA for MCAS, the authority limits now placed on MCAS will ensure that the pilots can control the aircraft, even if they don't counteract MCAS.

Where on earth are you pulling these situations from where MCAS is needed? You use "TCAS, last minute change of course, depressurizings, engine failure" as examples. I don't think that it is standard procedure to approach a stall under any of these situations. I honestly don't think you understand what angle of attack means.

Jump to post
by asdf
Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:36 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

MrBretz wrote:
asdf said "if they really unground the MAX only with some minor software changes ...... statistics says that we will see the next crash within 18 month ..."

You can make any statement you want but you don't offer an iota of statistical(it is mathematical, you know) proof. Why not say 18 hours, weeks, years, etc. ??? Show me how you got your number. Throw in some standard deviations or other apropos terms like normal distribution, etc. and I might listen.


with "statistic" I expressed that it is unavoidable that an airplane which does not give the pilot the usual return signals on the stick is more difficult to control in the event of an incident than a plane which gives adequate return signals.

boeing has always emphasized that its 737 series are particularly safe because they give this feedback and the pilot knows exactly what the aircraft is doing, and he can fly it intuitively.

in the case of MAX, this feedback for certain maneuvers is not what the pilot would expect. his experience and his feeling for the reaction of MAX are distorted.
because MCAS can only kick in once, then there is no augmentation on the sticks load.

pilots "train" practically their lives long if they handfly for those moments in which something is not going on as it should.

This "training" is largely worthless if the MAX does not behave as one would expect from airplanes built in the last 80 years.

the general mistake was to believe that one can "partially automate" a manually controlled aircraft

this is not possible because the trim can not be considered separately from pitch and climb and descent and steering left and right.

you can build what is certifiable (ok, they didnt make it on the first try) but if you want to do it properly (three sensors, three flight computers, different operating systems, different development teams for each of the three controls) then you are not far away from the development of a full FBW plane.

where do the "statistical" 18 months come from?
to be honest: estimate
estimate how often sharp turns or other manouvers - related with possible loss of control because of inadequate stick feelings - will happen on MAX after the ungrounding (TCAS, last minute change of course, depressurizings, engine failure ...)
some of them will lead to dangerous situations because of the lack of stick feeling
a few will be close to a disaster
and at some point of time statistic makes shure that one will not be recoverable in the last second

like one of the three testpilots in the simulatur run a few months ago
he knew the problem
he knew how to react
but he crashed it ....

the new small MAX trim wheel, build and intented to trim the plane manual, that can not be rotated by the MAX flightcrew because of the high loads if the plane is on the ege of the envelope doesent help either ...

i hope that i guess too bad and the influence of the awkwardly implemented flight control on the MAX can be compensated by good training and excellent pilots and the MAX in the future will not have a much higher damage rate than other airplanes
only in all honesty: I do not believe it.

Jump to post
by planecane
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:41 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

sgrow787 wrote:
planecane wrote:
They believed that the updated description and procedures in the EAD would prevent a crash. Why they didn't in the ET crash will be known after the final report on the crash. For opinions about it look at the old threads and the beginning of this one. I don't want to start arguments again.


But you nor anyone else knows what Boeing believes. Certainly there's been enough information obtained after the two crashes, from ex-Boeing employees, insiders, and industry professionals, to suggest something nefarious was/is going on within Boeing and the Max certification.

The 787 battery issue is not in the ballpark of what we're seeing with the Max design issues and certification decisions and process. That was a supplier issue.

I won't comment on whether you like to create arguments.


Pot calling the kettle black? It doesn't matter what I post, you (and others) will try and figure out a way to argue over it.

My response had NOTHING TO DO WITH CERTIFICATION. It had to do with responding to the suggestion that they "hoped" they could get the fix done "before the next crash." Do you really believe this was the case and that they didn't think the procedures and documentation updated by the EAD would prevent "the next crash" while they finished the updates to MCAS that they started after Lion Air?

The battery issue on the 787 was certainly a miss during certification. I would argue that a high capacity lithium ion battery catching fire in flight is far more dangerous than MCAS causing a runaway stabilizer. Had a 787 battery caused an uncontrollable fire at altitude, it could easily have caused an unrecoverable event, meaning no matter what the pilots did there would be no way to save the aircraft. With the information known to date, the MCAS runaways were recoverable. I will hold that educated opinion unless the final reports indicate that the manual electric trim was not able to return to an in-trim condition. As long as it was, it was possible to recover.

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:38 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Aviation737 wrote:
I would like to ask why didn't the solution proposed by Boeing after the Lion Air crash work?

There are rumors that Boeing was working on MCAS changes after Lion crash. They hoped to complete the work before the next crash, and that manual trim procedure would avert the crash in case of another MCAS runaway. Both assumptions proved wrong...

I don't think they are rumors. I think they were solid reports. At least as "official" as the other reports about the microprocessor issue.

I also don't think they "hoped" to finish before the "next crash." They believed that the updated description and procedures in the EAD would prevent a crash. Why they didn't in the ET crash will be known after the final report on the crash. For opinions about it look at the old threads and the beginning of this one. I don't want to start arguments again.

From the credible reports, post Lion Air, Boeing/FAA new the system was 'dangerous', was at 'high risk' of recurrence of the problem and must be addressed. The FAA cold calculation indicated that they had ~10 months before the collateral damage numbers became unacceptable (another catastrophic event) how they included entirely random bird strike in this calculation is any ones guess. Boeing started a program that would get the fix done in 4/5 months. EAD was a stopgap and it was a gamble the fix would be in before another event. They were wrong.

Not much difference between hoped and gambled.

Ray

Jump to post
by aerolimani
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:29 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0

Since this post seems to be controversial, I would like to point out:

1) If you want to claim that this post is about American Exceptionalism, this post doesn't say the US and Canada are the only places where training standards are rigorous

2) If you want to suggest that Boeing is using poor pilot training as an excuse for the MAX situation, then you need to explain why Airbus's says head of global flight training says similar things in AvWeek: Airbus Takes Aim At Inconsistent Pilot Training Quality without having any recent tragic losses in its history.

A direct quote from the AvWeek article:

Beyond the numbers, a qualitative problem is becoming a concern, according to Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus. “A looming pilot shortage is coupled with variation in the level of training worldwide,” he tells Aviation Week.

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting.”

And, once again, we are derailed with pilot training and first world vs first world.

PLEASE, let’s not start playing lawyer. If the original poster wants to defend themselves, fine. We don’t need advocates extending the off-topic debates with semantics.

This thread is supposedly about the 737MAX grounding. And, why is it grounded? Is it because pilots are poorly trained, and we need this break so that all commercial pilots can go through more training? Is the grounding continuing because the training is not complete yet?

Come on, folks. Let’s try and keep this thread on topic.
-->

Revelation wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The Max will crash again at some point. It's statistically inevitable. But I seriously doubt it will be due to design error. Not after being under the microscope for so long. But it is being sold to airlines in countries who do not have any sort of quality training standards and where corruption runs rampant. We all heard about the hundreds of pilots in third world countries with falsified certificates and degrees. Ab initio training is not comparable to the rigorous standards found in the US, Canada, etc. I was shocked to see an Easy Jet documentary (clip below) with an FO who was part of on the job training. The captain took the controls away about 10 ft above the ground on landing. That's a huge no no in the US. You go around. You don't try to salvage a bad approach. That captain is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0

Since this post seems to be controversial, I would like to point out:

1) If you want to claim that this post is about American Exceptionalism, this post doesn't say the US and Canada are the only places where training standards are rigorous

2) If you want to suggest that Boeing is using poor pilot training as an excuse for the MAX situation, then you need to explain why Airbus's says head of global flight training says similar things in AvWeek: Airbus Takes Aim At Inconsistent Pilot Training Quality without having any recent tragic losses in its history.

A direct quote from the AvWeek article:

Beyond the numbers, a qualitative problem is becoming a concern, according to Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus. “A looming pilot shortage is coupled with variation in the level of training worldwide,” he tells Aviation Week.

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting.”

And, once again, we are derailed with pilot training and first world vs first world.

PLEASE, let’s not start playing lawyer. If the original poster wants to defend themselves, fine. We don’t need advocates extending the off-topic debates with semantics.

This thread is supposedly about the 737MAX grounding. And, why is it grounded? Is it because pilots are poorly trained, and we need this break so that all commercial pilots can go through more training? Is the grounding continuing because the training is not complete yet?

Come on, folks. Let’s try and keep this thread on topic.

Jump to post
by Revelation
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:13 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0

Since this post seems to be controversial, I would like to point out:

1) If you want to claim that this post is about American Exceptionalism, this post doesn't say the US and Canada are the only places where training standards are rigorous

2) If you want to suggest that Boeing is using poor pilot training as an excuse for the MAX situation, then you need to explain why Airbus's says head of global flight training says similar things in AvWeek: Airbus Takes Aim At Inconsistent Pilot Training Quality without having any recent tragic losses in its history.

A direct quote from the AvWeek article:

Beyond the numbers, a qualitative problem is becoming a concern, according to Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus. “A looming pilot shortage is coupled with variation in the level of training worldwide,” he tells Aviation Week.

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting.”
-->

TTailedTiger wrote:
The Max will crash again at some point. It's statistically inevitable. But I seriously doubt it will be due to design error. Not after being under the microscope for so long. But it is being sold to airlines in countries who do not have any sort of quality training standards and where corruption runs rampant. We all heard about the hundreds of pilots in third world countries with falsified certificates and degrees. Ab initio training is not comparable to the rigorous standards found in the US, Canada, etc. I was shocked to see an Easy Jet documentary (clip below) with an FO who was part of on the job training. The captain took the controls away about 10 ft above the ground on landing. That's a huge no no in the US. You go around. You don't try to salvage a bad approach. That captain is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0

Since this post seems to be controversial, I would like to point out:

1) If you want to claim that this post is about American Exceptionalism, this post doesn't say the US and Canada are the only places where training standards are rigorous

2) If you want to suggest that Boeing is using poor pilot training as an excuse for the MAX situation, then you need to explain why Airbus's says head of global flight training says similar things in AvWeek: Airbus Takes Aim At Inconsistent Pilot Training Quality without having any recent tragic losses in its history.

A direct quote from the AvWeek article:

Beyond the numbers, a qualitative problem is becoming a concern, according to Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus. “A looming pilot shortage is coupled with variation in the level of training worldwide,” he tells Aviation Week.

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting.”

Jump to post
by freakyrat
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:40 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0


Agreed, The plane in the video is an Airbus A320. Just being a small plane pilot and the first time I flew a landing in an FDS A320 Simulator It got a little tricky for me getting my sight picture right and being patient plus using a side stick took getting use to. I was much better the second time. They should have went around and tried the second time. The big thing for me and looks like it was for Stuart is just relax. I found if I gently hold the side stick and make small corrections like the Captain told him to do I do fine.
-->

TTailedTiger wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
freakyrat wrote:

The FAA want's to be absolutely sure that the aircrsft is safe. However the new FAA Administrator comes from Delta who doesn't operate the MAX so the delay in recertification while necessary actually benefits airlines that do not operate the MAX.



The new head of the FAA has a lot of pressure not only because of Boeing wanting the aircraft back into service but because he will be the face of disaster or success of the "new" Max. If he gives a green light and 1-24 months down the line a MAX crashes due to bad design approved by the FAA he is done and possibly branded as the worst head of the FAA. His career in aviation is over. If he approves and the 737 Max is the safest aircraft ever to be flown, as Boeing hopes and states, he will be linked to this re-certification and that the FAA did everything right under his guidance. So he needs to get this right even if it takes 12 months from now instead of 3, because it is his head that will be cut off if it is not done right.


The Max will crash again at some point. It's statistically inevitable. But I seriously doubt it will be due to design error. Not after being under the microscope for so long. But it is being sold to airlines in countries who do not have any sort of quality training standards and where corruption runs rampant. We all heard about the hundreds of pilots in third world countries with falsified certificates and degrees. Ab initio training is not comparable to the rigorous standards found in the US, Canada, etc. I was shocked to see an Easy Jet documentary (clip below) with an FO who was part of on the job training. The captain took the controls away about 10 ft above the ground on landing. That's a huge no no in the US. You go around. You don't try to salvage a bad approach. That captain is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0


Agreed, The plane in the video is an Airbus A320. Just being a small plane pilot and the first time I flew a landing in an FDS A320 Simulator It got a little tricky for me getting my sight picture right and being patient plus using a side stick took getting use to. I was much better the second time. They should have went around and tried the second time. The big thing for me and looks like it was for Stuart is just relax. I found if I gently hold the side stick and make small corrections like the Captain told him to do I do fine.

Jump to post
by TTailedTiger
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:18 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0


Oh really? How do you explain this?

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwYmMG61VDk

http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158

On Jul 23rd 2015 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the accident was:

The captain's attempt to recover from an unstabilized approach by transferring airplane control at low altitude instead of performing a go-around. Contributing to the accident was the captain's failure to comply with standard operating procedures.


Which country did this event happen? Remind me again?


I am well aware of that accident. That captain was also fired. She violated mutliple company policies and acted in an unprofessional manner that is not tolerated. You do not take control from another pilot on landing. If it's an unstable approach then the pilot monitoring has the responsibility to call for a go around. And in the US either crew member can call for it and it must be done.

I'm not sure what sort of point you are trying to make. All you did was prove my point that what the Easy Jet captain did was very dangerous.
-->

bgm wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The Max will crash again at some point. It's statistically inevitable. But I seriously doubt it will be due to design error. Not after being under the microscope for so long. But it is being sold to airlines in countries who do not have any sort of quality training standards and where corruption runs rampant. We all heard about the hundreds of pilots in third world countries with falsified certificates and degrees. Ab initio training is not comparable to the rigorous standards found in the US, Canada, etc. I was shocked to see an Easy Jet documentary (clip below) with an FO who was part of on the job training. The captain took the controls away about 10 ft above the ground on landing. That's a huge no no in the US. You go around. You don't try to salvage a bad approach. That captain is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0


Oh really? How do you explain this?

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwYmMG61VDk

http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158

On Jul 23rd 2015 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the accident was:

The captain's attempt to recover from an unstabilized approach by transferring airplane control at low altitude instead of performing a go-around. Contributing to the accident was the captain's failure to comply with standard operating procedures.


Which country did this event happen? Remind me again?


I am well aware of that accident. That captain was also fired. She violated mutliple company policies and acted in an unprofessional manner that is not tolerated. You do not take control from another pilot on landing. If it's an unstable approach then the pilot monitoring has the responsibility to call for a go around. And in the US either crew member can call for it and it must be done.

I'm not sure what sort of point you are trying to make. All you did was prove my point that what the Easy Jet captain did was very dangerous.

Jump to post
by bgm
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:08 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0


Oh really? How do you explain this?

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwYmMG61VDk

http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158

On Jul 23rd 2015 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the accident was:

The captain's attempt to recover from an unstabilized approach by transferring airplane control at low altitude instead of performing a go-around. Contributing to the accident was the captain's failure to comply with standard operating procedures.


Which country did this event happen? Remind me again?
-->

TTailedTiger wrote:
The Max will crash again at some point. It's statistically inevitable. But I seriously doubt it will be due to design error. Not after being under the microscope for so long. But it is being sold to airlines in countries who do not have any sort of quality training standards and where corruption runs rampant. We all heard about the hundreds of pilots in third world countries with falsified certificates and degrees. Ab initio training is not comparable to the rigorous standards found in the US, Canada, etc. I was shocked to see an Easy Jet documentary (clip below) with an FO who was part of on the job training. The captain took the controls away about 10 ft above the ground on landing. That's a huge no no in the US. You go around. You don't try to salvage a bad approach. That captain is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0


Oh really? How do you explain this?

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwYmMG61VDk

http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158

On Jul 23rd 2015 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the accident was:

The captain's attempt to recover from an unstabilized approach by transferring airplane control at low altitude instead of performing a go-around. Contributing to the accident was the captain's failure to comply with standard operating procedures.


Which country did this event happen? Remind me again?

Jump to post
by TTailedTiger
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:50 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0
-->

FluidFlow wrote:
freakyrat wrote:
planecane wrote:
Where do you get that form that report? The FAA has been saying the same thing for months.


The FAA want's to be absolutely sure that the aircrsft is safe. However the new FAA Administrator comes from Delta who doesn't operate the MAX so the delay in recertification while necessary actually benefits airlines that do not operate the MAX.



The new head of the FAA has a lot of pressure not only because of Boeing wanting the aircraft back into service but because he will be the face of disaster or success of the "new" Max. If he gives a green light and 1-24 months down the line a MAX crashes due to bad design approved by the FAA he is done and possibly branded as the worst head of the FAA. His career in aviation is over. If he approves and the 737 Max is the safest aircraft ever to be flown, as Boeing hopes and states, he will be linked to this re-certification and that the FAA did everything right under his guidance. So he needs to get this right even if it takes 12 months from now instead of 3, because it is his head that will be cut off if it is not done right.


The Max will crash again at some point. It's statistically inevitable. But I seriously doubt it will be due to design error. Not after being under the microscope for so long. But it is being sold to airlines in countries who do not have any sort of quality training standards and where corruption runs rampant. We all heard about the hundreds of pilots in third world countries with falsified certificates and degrees. Ab initio training is not comparable to the rigorous standards found in the US, Canada, etc. I was shocked to see an Easy Jet documentary (clip below) with an FO who was part of on the job training. The captain took the controls away about 10 ft above the ground on landing. That's a huge no no in the US. You go around. You don't try to salvage a bad approach. That captain is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/sd4hSipKPh0

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:50 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-h ... ax-scandal

A change in leadership is overdue at Boeing
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... at-boeing/



These articles could have been written by stitching together a lot of the posts in this thread (and its predecessors).

Regardless, they should at least get the facts correct. The first article blames Muilenburg for oversight of the MAX development when he wasn't on the commercial side until he became CEO (with responsibility for the whole company), which was less than a year before the first flight and many years past when the decisions were made that led to the necessity of MCAS.

The second article says that aerodynamics caused by the engine placement causes the "potential for the plane to stall during a climb" which is incorrect. That statement insinuates that there could be stalls during routine operations. The truth is that there is the potential for it to be easier to enter a stall during certain, very rare extreme maneuvers at the edge of the certified flight envelope.

Had Boeing just put the MCAS software in for the certification flights and then removed it before the model entered service, it is very likely that issue caused by the engine size and placement would have never led to a stall. The WSJ (I think) report detailed that the "old school" test pilot that wasn't happy that software would be used to solve the issue indicated that he was OK with MCAS because he felt that the situations where it would activate were so rare that it might never activate in service.

I have no view on when Muilenburg should go . However, I would make the following points for balance:

Muilenburg was the incumbent when MCAS V1.0 was designed, the SSA was not updated and when MCAS was not disclosed. Muilenburg was the incumbent when the dangerous nature of the system was exposed by the first crash and the A/C was not grounded. Muilenburg was the incumbent when the A/C was not grounded immediately following the second crash. Muilenburg is the incumbent and it is the incumbent that carries the can. It is quite likely that Muilenburg will go, with the usual golden handshake, when MAX is back flying and the new man can come in with a clean slate, and not because his hands are clean.

On your second paragraph, its just splitting hairs and don't forget, with AOA failed high, MCAS is active in any manual, flaps up regime.

On the final paragraph you are suggesting illegally removing functionality instead of just being incompetent. The 'old school' test pilot reported comment was in relation to the satisfactorily implemented MCAS version 0.0. At least one test pilot appeared to be horrified by V1.0 implementation.

Ray
-->

planecane wrote:
flyingphil wrote:
I have been wondering about this myself..

“346 People Have Died on Boeing’s Newest Jet. Why the Hell Does the CEO Still Have a Job?”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-h ... ax-scandal

A change in leadership is overdue at Boeing
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... at-boeing/



These articles could have been written by stitching together a lot of the posts in this thread (and its predecessors).

Regardless, they should at least get the facts correct. The first article blames Muilenburg for oversight of the MAX development when he wasn't on the commercial side until he became CEO (with responsibility for the whole company), which was less than a year before the first flight and many years past when the decisions were made that led to the necessity of MCAS.

The second article says that aerodynamics caused by the engine placement causes the "potential for the plane to stall during a climb" which is incorrect. That statement insinuates that there could be stalls during routine operations. The truth is that there is the potential for it to be easier to enter a stall during certain, very rare extreme maneuvers at the edge of the certified flight envelope.

Had Boeing just put the MCAS software in for the certification flights and then removed it before the model entered service, it is very likely that issue caused by the engine size and placement would have never led to a stall. The WSJ (I think) report detailed that the "old school" test pilot that wasn't happy that software would be used to solve the issue indicated that he was OK with MCAS because he felt that the situations where it would activate were so rare that it might never activate in service.

I have no view on when Muilenburg should go . However, I would make the following points for balance:

Muilenburg was the incumbent when MCAS V1.0 was designed, the SSA was not updated and when MCAS was not disclosed. Muilenburg was the incumbent when the dangerous nature of the system was exposed by the first crash and the A/C was not grounded. Muilenburg was the incumbent when the A/C was not grounded immediately following the second crash. Muilenburg is the incumbent and it is the incumbent that carries the can. It is quite likely that Muilenburg will go, with the usual golden handshake, when MAX is back flying and the new man can come in with a clean slate, and not because his hands are clean.

On your second paragraph, its just splitting hairs and don't forget, with AOA failed high, MCAS is active in any manual, flaps up regime.

On the final paragraph you are suggesting illegally removing functionality instead of just being incompetent. The 'old school' test pilot reported comment was in relation to the satisfactorily implemented MCAS version 0.0. At least one test pilot appeared to be horrified by V1.0 implementation.

Ray

Jump to post
by Revelation
Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:28 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a meaningful piece of software that was not deficient to some degree or other.

Code errors are a matter of course, and I know full well that aircraft and engines enter services with a raft of minor issues remaining - often remaining throughout service life unfixed - simply as they are instances which should never happen or are nuisance.

But, these are normally small detail issues. Not fundamental safety compromise issues.

Sitting on one is not equivalent to sitting on the other.

If Boeing knew that MCAS was dangerous and knew that the underlying FCS was also dangerous - and were working silently in the background to rectify both - how do they justify insisting the aircraft was safe to fly after Lion Air? [Hence why I cannot believe that they've been beavering away at this for months before the SHTF.]

I'm not trying to be adversarial, but am wondering why you make distinctions between classes of defects, then you lump MCAS (clearly a botched design and implementation) together with the FCC issue (not seen after 200M flight hours on 737NG, generated by toggling five bits all at the same time in locations chosen for the greatest impact rather than randomly, odds suggested to be on the order of one in ten trillion).

Obviously the former (MCAS) falls in to the 'must fix now' bucket as soon as its scope is understood, the later (FCC) could initially have fallen in to the bucket 'wait till next major release' and then the failed test moves it in to the 'must fix now' bucket.

As for the Watergate question (what did the CEO know, and when did he know it?), none of us know the answer, regardless of the disappearing AFP story. If the answer is the same as Watergate, so will be the response. Excessive greed is typically forgivable, cover ups / egregious dishonesty is not.

Jump to post
by Amiga500
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:23 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Revelation wrote:
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a meaningful piece of software that was not deficient to some degree or other.


Code errors are a matter of course, and I know full well that aircraft and engines enter services with a raft of minor issues remaining - often remaining throughout service life unfixed - simply as they are instances which should never happen or are nuisance.

But, these are normally small detail issues. Not fundamental safety compromise issues.

Sitting on one is not equivalent to sitting on the other.


If Boeing knew that MCAS was dangerous and knew that the underlying FCS was also dangerous - and were working silently in the background to rectify both - how do they justify insisting the aircraft was safe to fly after Lion Air? [Hence why I cannot believe that they've been beavering away at this for months before the SHTF.]

Jump to post
by planecane
Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:21 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Planetalk wrote:
planecane wrote:
9w748capt wrote:

Right - because Boeing had been so forthcoming and transparent with max pilots about mcas, which would have helped them diagnose the problem in the first place. What a joke!


Some of you are truly unbelievable. First, Seahawk I never said anything about crew incompetence. And 748capt I hope your user name isn't your occupation. Neither crew needed to diagnose the problem. They needed to recognize the symptoms and determine what NNC to perform. It doesn't matter to the crew if the runaway is caused by MCAS or a flying unicorn living in the trim motor.

For all the nitpicking about what a "real" runaway stabilizer is vs an MCAS runaway, I am willing to bet money that neither final report contains a conversation amongst the crew where they bring up the possibility of runaway stabilizer but determine that it isn't because of MCAS behavior.

I don't blame the crews, I blame inadequate training on runaway stabilizer. Boeing shares that blame because they introduced a new cause for runaway stabilizer but didn't alert the customer airlines. This disclosure may have led to it being more of a focus in differences training.


But we know a pilot who knew about both accidents, had all the information on MCAS, and knew exactly what to expect, still lost the plane in the simulator during the FAA trials. Which would suggest the problem was always more than training on runaway stabiliser, MCAS was fundamentally dangerous.


Please link to this story because I haven't seen any report of this happening. The only similar simulator session I know of was done with the aircraft already severely out of trim and the electric trim cut off.

Jump to post
by Planetalk
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:48 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

planecane wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
seahawk wrote:

You are right. I did overlook this. Clear cut case of crew incompetence indeed.


Right - because Boeing had been so forthcoming and transparent with max pilots about mcas, which would have helped them diagnose the problem in the first place. What a joke!


Some of you are truly unbelievable. First, Seahawk I never said anything about crew incompetence. And 748capt I hope your user name isn't your occupation. Neither crew needed to diagnose the problem. They needed to recognize the symptoms and determine what NNC to perform. It doesn't matter to the crew if the runaway is caused by MCAS or a flying unicorn living in the trim motor.

For all the nitpicking about what a "real" runaway stabilizer is vs an MCAS runaway, I am willing to bet money that neither final report contains a conversation amongst the crew where they bring up the possibility of runaway stabilizer but determine that it isn't because of MCAS behavior.

I don't blame the crews, I blame inadequate training on runaway stabilizer. Boeing shares that blame because they introduced a new cause for runaway stabilizer but didn't alert the customer airlines. This disclosure may have led to it being more of a focus in differences training.


But we know a pilot who knew about both accidents, had all the information on MCAS, and knew exactly what to expect, still lost the plane in the simulator during the FAA trials. Which would suggest the problem was always more than training on runaway stabiliser, MCAS was fundamentally dangerous.

Jump to post
by SelseyBill
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:32 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
Andy33 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.


Bullying EASA is likely to prove counter-productive, and of course bullying China, or India, or Australia etc would have no effect since nobody is asking the FAA to allow planes built in these countries into US airspace.


The scope of the FAA is limited to the criteria they have set for the 73M. If Boeing satisfies them then the FAA will have no legal authority to keep it grounded. "But the other countries are still pouting" won't be a valid reason. An injunction or executive order would hit the FAA so fast it would make their heads spin. And if the agencies of other countries keep it grounded after Boeing has made all required fixes then you can bet those airlines will take them to court.
The 'fix' as you put it is much more than engineering, programming and retraining. Part of this process for non-USA authorities is asking the question, can we trust Boeing and the FAA as a partnership? If the FAA are seen to be flagging the MAX through, or forcing the issue at all, other authorities will not be so quick to clear MAX. Other authorities will want tp know the FAA are doing their job thoroughly......

I know that doesn't suit your narrative, but it is a vital part of rebuilding trust worldwide.

Jump to post
by TTailedTiger
Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:34 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Andy33 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Francoflier wrote:

Hmmm... I believe the EASA, CAAC, CASA, et. al. will very much have a material opinion. I'm pretty certain that the FAA will not clear the MAX until all other agencies are happy with it too. The optics of an FAA-only clearance would be interesting, to say the least, in light of the loss of trust.

Not to mention that without a Worldwide thumbs up, no airline would take delivery and no one would insure it.


Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.


Bullying EASA is likely to prove counter-productive, and of course bullying China, or India, or Australia etc would have no effect since nobody is asking the FAA to allow planes built in these countries into US airspace.


The scope of the FAA is limited to the criteria they have set for the 73M. If Boeing satisfies them then the FAA will have no legal authority to keep it grounded. "But the other countries are still pouting" won't be a valid reason. An injunction or executive order would hit the FAA so fast it would make their heads spin. And if the agencies of other countries keep it grounded after Boeing has made all required fixes then you can bet those airlines will take them to court.

Jump to post
by Andy33
Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:15 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing is able to satisfy all established FAA requirements then the FAA will have no choice but to put it back on the air. What you or anyone else thinks is immaterial.


Hmmm... I believe the EASA, CAAC, CASA, et. al. will very much have a material opinion. I'm pretty certain that the FAA will not clear the MAX until all other agencies are happy with it too. The optics of an FAA-only clearance would be interesting, to say the least, in light of the loss of trust.

Not to mention that without a Worldwide thumbs up, no airline would take delivery and no one would insure it.


Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.


Bullying EASA is likely to prove counter-productive, and of course bullying China, or India, or Australia etc would have no effect since nobody is asking the FAA to allow planes built in these countries into US airspace.

Jump to post
by sharpley
Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:03 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
sharpley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.

Those agencies were quite rightly grounding the aircraft whilst the FAA was saying its a safe plane. Other agencies will have every right to not just unground the Max just on the say so of the FAA / Boeing without doing their own due diligence. The FAA would be very foolish to get into some tit-for-tat retaliation without good reason as well.


Why would I trust the EASA when they didn't ground the ATR after the American Eagle crash and its aileron reversal issue was discovered? Aerospatiale even refused to fix the problem and the US had to ban them from operating in cold weather here. So you can get off your high horse. The EASA only cares when it's a product of another country apparently.

Thats quite a sweeping statement considering you've used a 25 year old example. The FAA has lost a lot of respect with this Max debacle, its not just technical things that need to be fixed with the worldwide aviation authorities.

Jump to post
by PW100
Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:34 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
sharpley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.

Those agencies were quite rightly grounding the aircraft whilst the FAA was saying its a safe plane. Other agencies will have every right to not just unground the Max just on the say so of the FAA / Boeing without doing their own due diligence. The FAA would be very foolish to get into some tit-for-tat retaliation without good reason as well.


Why would I trust the EASA when they didn't ground the ATR after the American Eagle crash and its aileron reversal issue was discovered? Aerospatiale even refused to fix the problem and the US had to ban them from operating in cold weather here. So you can get off your high horse. The EASA only cares when it's a product of another country apparently.


EASA did not exist at the time . . .

It has been 25 years since. EASA is a totally different body from what was in order at the time. Don't think such comparison would be valid in today's world. But if it helps you get over this, by all means keep on doing what's helping you . . .

Jump to post
by PW100
Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:21 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

par13del wrote:
StTim wrote:
It is also a dangerous game for the FAA to certify if the other agencies are not ready to also certify. I do not think (at least from EASA) that there will be pettiness but I also do not think they will be bullied into certification.

We are an internet site and we speculate, but where is the idea coming from that the FAA is trying to bully other nations?


Some posters seem to suggest that, or that such should be their line of action. See post #1448.

Jump to post
by par13del
Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:06 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

So who were the whistle blowers who provided fake news, obviously they were close enough to be dangerous.

Jump to post
by PW100
Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:03 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing is able to satisfy all established FAA requirements then the FAA will have no choice but to put it back on the air. What you or anyone else thinks is immaterial.


Hmmm... I believe the EASA, CAAC, CASA, et. al. will very much have a material opinion. I'm pretty certain that the FAA will not clear the MAX until all other agencies are happy with it too. The optics of an FAA-only clearance would be interesting, to say the least, in light of the loss of trust.

Not to mention that without a Worldwide thumbs up, no airline would take delivery and no one would insure it.


Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.


If the FAA feels that such action would be to the benefit of safety of the flying public, by all means, let them have a go at the A320neo.

But if they (by their own admission) are not sufficiently staffed (not to mention insufficiently paid) to do all of the oversight themselves on the MAX (delegating *a lot* of that to Boeing), then surely they would not be able to do that on the A320 in parallel. Or would you perhaps suggest they delegate that to Boeing as well? Now that would definitely stir things up . . . :-)

PS. Since no 320neo's have crashed (let alone in in short succession), there does not seem to be any pressing reasons to ground it awaiting such review.

Jump to post
by TTailedTiger
Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:16 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

sharpley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Francoflier wrote:

Hmmm... I believe the EASA, CAAC, CASA, et. al. will very much have a material opinion. I'm pretty certain that the FAA will not clear the MAX until all other agencies are happy with it too. The optics of an FAA-only clearance would be interesting, to say the least, in light of the loss of trust.

Not to mention that without a Worldwide thumbs up, no airline would take delivery and no one would insure it.


Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.

Those agencies were quite rightly grounding the aircraft whilst the FAA was saying its a safe plane. Other agencies will have every right to not just unground the Max just on the say so of the FAA / Boeing without doing their own due diligence. The FAA would be very foolish to get into some tit-for-tat retaliation without good reason as well.


Why would I trust the EASA when they didn't ground the ATR after the American Eagle crash and its aileron reversal issue was discovered? Aerospatiale even refused to fix the problem and the US had to ban them from operating in cold weather here. So you can get off your high horse. The EASA only cares when it's a product of another country apparently.

Jump to post
by par13del
Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:33 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

StTim wrote:
It is also a dangerous game for the FAA to certify if the other agencies are not ready to also certify. I do not think (at least from EASA) that there will be pettiness but I also do not think they will be bullied into certification.

We are an internet site and we speculate, but where is the idea coming from that the FAA is trying to bully other nations?
The FAA has been working with other regulators, the FAA not EASA when testing the MCAS fix deliberately crippled a computer to test a fault scenario which when failed became a critical item to be fixed, the FAA accepted the EASA list and added them to the critical must fix and or address before approval to fly. In all of that, have we seen or heard anyone at the FAA, Boeing, EASA or other regulators leaking any information that the FAA or US Congress are pressuring anyone to short cut the process and approve the a/c for flight? Based on the number of whistle blowers coming out of the woodwork from Boeing should be no shortage coming from the FAA.

Jump to post
by sharpley
Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:08 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

TTailedTiger wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing is able to satisfy all established FAA requirements then the FAA will have no choice but to put it back on the air. What you or anyone else thinks is immaterial.


Hmmm... I believe the EASA, CAAC, CASA, et. al. will very much have a material opinion. I'm pretty certain that the FAA will not clear the MAX until all other agencies are happy with it too. The optics of an FAA-only clearance would be interesting, to say the least, in light of the loss of trust.

Not to mention that without a Worldwide thumbs up, no airline would take delivery and no one would insure it.


Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.

Those agencies were quite rightly grounding the aircraft whilst the FAA was saying its a safe plane. Other agencies will have every right to not just unground the Max just on the say so of the FAA / Boeing without doing their own due diligence. The FAA would be very foolish to get into some tit-for-tat retaliation without good reason as well.

Jump to post
by StTim
Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:46 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

It is also a dangerous game for the FAA to certify if the other agencies are not ready to also certify. I do not think (at least from EASA) that there will be pettiness but I also do not think they will be bullied into certification.

Jump to post
by TTailedTiger
Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:41 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Francoflier wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
If Boeing is able to satisfy all established FAA requirements then the FAA will have no choice but to put it back on the air. What you or anyone else thinks is immaterial.


Hmmm... I believe the EASA, CAAC, CASA, et. al. will very much have a material opinion. I'm pretty certain that the FAA will not clear the MAX until all other agencies are happy with it too. The optics of an FAA-only clearance would be interesting, to say the least, in light of the loss of trust.

Not to mention that without a Worldwide thumbs up, no airline would take delivery and no one would insure it.


Those agencies would be very foolish to withhold certification if Boeing fixes all issues. The FAA could turn around and do the same thing. Maybe the FAA would decide they need to go over the A320neo again since they missed things on the 73M. What you are suggesting is a dangerous game.

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:40 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/car ... ns-recall-
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1533 ... s-scandal/

XRAYretired wrote:
Except. You have reduced the deaths of 346 people to 'a couple of issues that need to worked out'. I'm sure that was not your intent.


It was, actually. 346 people died due to a few issues that need to be worked out. Welcome to safety-critical engineering performed by humans. The same number of people died at once due to "an issue that needed to be worked out" with some cargo door locking actuators (TK 981), which to me is an even more stupid reason for 346 people to die than the chain of events that needed to crash two separate MAX's. It was just some stupid clasps and rods on the DC-10. So yes, little issues have big effects, and all the more ironic because often the fix for a little issue is not a big deal to accomplish. I'm certain Boeing wishes it could go back in a time machine and do the simple little things that would have prevented this disaster...but nobody gets that luxury.

XRAYretired wrote:
Secondly, from reports we can concluded Boeing introduced a major change in design and minimised it such that it did not receive second party review, let alone a third party. They did not update the SSA, as they should have, which would have required FAA review so it didn't get reviewed by FAA. The FAA were not adequately appraised of how the 'new' system worked. References to the system were physically removed from at least one manual. The system, or even reference to modification of STS, were not included in the FSB. All chances of the problem being caught by 2nd or 3rd parties were removed. I.e. Boeing did not live up their side of the bargain. This a lot more significant than 'something slipped through'.


I agree that both sides did not live up to their side of the bargain. Boeing let slip a dangerous scenario and FAA didn't pay enough attention. Now the consequences get to be experienced. I expect to see the FAA riding their backs for a long time to come.

Please accept my apologies for giving the benefit of the doubt.

Flight test problem potentially preventing certification is a biggie. Implementing a major change in the system design to fix it is a biggie. Dismissing either as little things to be worked out, either during or after the fact, is unacceptable and dangerous. Welcome to the consequences of lack of integrity in safety critical system design.

Ray
-->

smithbs wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
smithbs wrote:

For the VW scandal, the fix was also easy - software and/or parts, depending on the model. The buy-backs were optional for owners - owners could either have the fix made or have their car bought back by VW.


False. The only car that was fixable was the Passat. I know, I had to sell back my Jetta for which there was no fix, my son still has his Passat. I would have gladly held on to the car had they been able to fix it.


I'm not entirely clear on the terms of the VW fiasco. From the consumer reports and Car-and-Driver articles I read, it appeared that mandatory buy-back did not occur. Maybe some were "highly encouraged?"

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/car ... ns-recall-
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1533 ... s-scandal/

XRAYretired wrote:
Except. You have reduced the deaths of 346 people to 'a couple of issues that need to worked out'. I'm sure that was not your intent.


It was, actually. 346 people died due to a few issues that need to be worked out. Welcome to safety-critical engineering performed by humans. The same number of people died at once due to "an issue that needed to be worked out" with some cargo door locking actuators (TK 981), which to me is an even more stupid reason for 346 people to die than the chain of events that needed to crash two separate MAX's. It was just some stupid clasps and rods on the DC-10. So yes, little issues have big effects, and all the more ironic because often the fix for a little issue is not a big deal to accomplish. I'm certain Boeing wishes it could go back in a time machine and do the simple little things that would have prevented this disaster...but nobody gets that luxury.

XRAYretired wrote:
Secondly, from reports we can concluded Boeing introduced a major change in design and minimised it such that it did not receive second party review, let alone a third party. They did not update the SSA, as they should have, which would have required FAA review so it didn't get reviewed by FAA. The FAA were not adequately appraised of how the 'new' system worked. References to the system were physically removed from at least one manual. The system, or even reference to modification of STS, were not included in the FSB. All chances of the problem being caught by 2nd or 3rd parties were removed. I.e. Boeing did not live up their side of the bargain. This a lot more significant than 'something slipped through'.


I agree that both sides did not live up to their side of the bargain. Boeing let slip a dangerous scenario and FAA didn't pay enough attention. Now the consequences get to be experienced. I expect to see the FAA riding their backs for a long time to come.

Please accept my apologies for giving the benefit of the doubt.

Flight test problem potentially preventing certification is a biggie. Implementing a major change in the system design to fix it is a biggie. Dismissing either as little things to be worked out, either during or after the fact, is unacceptable and dangerous. Welcome to the consequences of lack of integrity in safety critical system design.

Ray

Jump to post
by smithbs
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:01 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/car ... ns-recall-
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1533 ... s-scandal/

XRAYretired wrote:
Except. You have reduced the deaths of 346 people to 'a couple of issues that need to worked out'. I'm sure that was not your intent.


It was, actually. 346 people died due to a few issues that need to be worked out. Welcome to safety-critical engineering performed by humans. The same number of people died at once due to "an issue that needed to be worked out" with some cargo door locking actuators (TK 981), which to me is an even more stupid reason for 346 people to die than the chain of events that needed to crash two separate MAX's. It was just some stupid clasps and rods on the DC-10. So yes, little issues have big effects, and all the more ironic because often the fix for a little issue is not a big deal to accomplish. I'm certain Boeing wishes it could go back in a time machine and do the simple little things that would have prevented this disaster...but nobody gets that luxury.

XRAYretired wrote:
Secondly, from reports we can concluded Boeing introduced a major change in design and minimised it such that it did not receive second party review, let alone a third party. They did not update the SSA, as they should have, which would have required FAA review so it didn't get reviewed by FAA. The FAA were not adequately appraised of how the 'new' system worked. References to the system were physically removed from at least one manual. The system, or even reference to modification of STS, were not included in the FSB. All chances of the problem being caught by 2nd or 3rd parties were removed. I.e. Boeing did not live up their side of the bargain. This a lot more significant than 'something slipped through'.


I agree that both sides did not live up to their side of the bargain. Boeing let slip a dangerous scenario and FAA didn't pay enough attention. Now the consequences get to be experienced. I expect to see the FAA riding their backs for a long time to come.
-->

sillystrings wrote:
smithbs wrote:

For the VW scandal, the fix was also easy - software and/or parts, depending on the model. The buy-backs were optional for owners - owners could either have the fix made or have their car bought back by VW.


False. The only car that was fixable was the Passat. I know, I had to sell back my Jetta for which there was no fix, my son still has his Passat. I would have gladly held on to the car had they been able to fix it.


I'm not entirely clear on the terms of the VW fiasco. From the consumer reports and Car-and-Driver articles I read, it appeared that mandatory buy-back did not occur. Maybe some were "highly encouraged?"

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/car ... ns-recall-
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1533 ... s-scandal/

XRAYretired wrote:
Except. You have reduced the deaths of 346 people to 'a couple of issues that need to worked out'. I'm sure that was not your intent.


It was, actually. 346 people died due to a few issues that need to be worked out. Welcome to safety-critical engineering performed by humans. The same number of people died at once due to "an issue that needed to be worked out" with some cargo door locking actuators (TK 981), which to me is an even more stupid reason for 346 people to die than the chain of events that needed to crash two separate MAX's. It was just some stupid clasps and rods on the DC-10. So yes, little issues have big effects, and all the more ironic because often the fix for a little issue is not a big deal to accomplish. I'm certain Boeing wishes it could go back in a time machine and do the simple little things that would have prevented this disaster...but nobody gets that luxury.

XRAYretired wrote:
Secondly, from reports we can concluded Boeing introduced a major change in design and minimised it such that it did not receive second party review, let alone a third party. They did not update the SSA, as they should have, which would have required FAA review so it didn't get reviewed by FAA. The FAA were not adequately appraised of how the 'new' system worked. References to the system were physically removed from at least one manual. The system, or even reference to modification of STS, were not included in the FSB. All chances of the problem being caught by 2nd or 3rd parties were removed. I.e. Boeing did not live up their side of the bargain. This a lot more significant than 'something slipped through'.


I agree that both sides did not live up to their side of the bargain. Boeing let slip a dangerous scenario and FAA didn't pay enough attention. Now the consequences get to be experienced. I expect to see the FAA riding their backs for a long time to come.

Jump to post
by B777LRF
Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:36 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

JerseyFlyer wrote:
My take on the pilot training theme: if a plane is too dangerous to be flown by certain airlines, it is too dangerous to be sold to them


Great idea; you've just erased 90% of the Max backlog.

Jump to post
by JerseyFlyer
Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:28 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

My take on the pilot training theme: if a plane is too dangerous to be flown by certain airlines, it is too dangerous to be sold to them

Jump to post
by SelseyBill
Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:17 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

XRAYretired wrote:
.........'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know. In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'


.....that fact alone should be setting alarms going. Is the FAA's HQ really in Seattle? The optics here look so bad for both organisations.......

Jump to post
by OEMInsider
Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:20 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

sphealey wrote:
This is the first time I have seen the issue of protection for the rudder cables raised (yes, it's 2019 and Boeing are still using cables like in a Cessna 150)
Electrical control cables can be cut by debris from an engine failure just as easily as wire rope cables - perhaps more easily - as was seen in the Qantas 32 incident.

In general however: is withstanding uncontained engine failure now a design basis requirement? Because if so there are a lot of designs currently flying that are in trouble. The debris from the rotor failure on Qantas 32 came within about 5cm of severing the main wing spar for example. It has always been my understanding that while mitigation of uncontained failure should be included where possible such an incident is not expected to be survivable (though fortunately in practice it almost always has been, thanks to mitigation and redundancy).


Yes, Uncontained Engine Rotor Failure is a key requirement for all large aircraft (CS25/FAR25). In fact its one of the most important considerations when designing an aircraft, particularly the wings. The general rule is that 95% of UERF events must not be Catastrophic (i.e. loss of aircraft). Therefore, only 5% of the possible trajectories of rotors (which are assumed to be 1/3 disc fragments) can cause damage which would cause a crash. Any system (electrical wire, control cable, structural attachment) must either be located outside the zone of possible impacts, have a redundant backup such that only one can be hit at a time or by able to continue to do its job after being hit.

The most dangerous debris (1/3 disc fragment) can leave the engine in any direction (when viewed from the front), but only within a 5degree cone when viewed from the top (due to the axis they were spinning on). Shielding or armour is possible but not used - these fragments have huge energy and are normally considered to destroy everything in their path. It would take several inches of steel to protect against them (think tank armour - literally). Not good for weight optimisation.

Electrical wires, hydraulic and fuel lines are duplicated in the wing - one on the leading edge, one on the trailing edge, to ensure we have redundancy. Anything really close to the engine (where you can't separate them) will be part of the 5% allowed to be catastrophic. One fragment hitting the other engine would also be considered catastrophic.

For the rudder control cables - none of this is new (UERF events used to be much more common). If you look at a front view of an aircraft, to take out the rudder control cables (assuming they are in the bilge area), the same fragment would probably hit the other engine anyway - so already catastrophic. IMO I don't think the cables issue is a big one. It might be catastrophic, but allowed as part of the 5% chance.
https://imgur.com/a/Wrs5lis

Meeting the 95% rule is hard, but that's why not many companies build planes like this. The A380 event revealed a mistake - a few wires in the fuselage were inside the impact zone when thee routes were not segregated (I am told). This has been corrected. These rules have evolved over the years, and new designs have to do things old ones don't (grandfathering again).

Jump to post
by JibberJim
Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:34 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

XRAYretired wrote:
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'


That's an interesting one for the FAA though, did they insist on an immediate proper safety analysis, and if not why not? and if they did, why and how was the conclusion incompatible with the reality given the second crash and the grounding, or if it was appropriate, why were the planes not grounded?

Jump to post
by ArgentoSystems
Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:59 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Ouch. That stinks. Could've just avoid the certification altogether.
-->

XRAYretired wrote:
Latest NYT report. Last two paragraphs tell the story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Ouch. That stinks. Could've just avoid the certification altogether.

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:38 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Perhaps Boeing culture of 'the smartest guys in the room'? Seems like the FAA was seen as a required bureaucratic check off rather than a respected ally in the safety and design process.


I think the most damaging piece for Boeing in the article is the reference to how they overrode FAA engineers' worry about uncontained engine failures cutting the rudder cable lines. According to the article, Boeing didn't want to make a change to the rudder control system for fear of adding cost and reducing commonality. But given the newer, larger engines with larger fans and in a new position, the FAA engineers worried about damage to the rudder cables in the event of an uncontained failure. Boeing self-regulated and left the cables untouched. This reminded me that an uncontained engine failure cut the hydraulic lines on the DC-10 in the UA232 case in 1989, and that McDonnell Douglas had to redesign that system in the wake of the accident. I guess now we just hope there aren't any uncontained failures on takeoff - or that the airplane flies well at low speed and low altitude with asymmetrical thrust and no rudder control.

I would expect if you're still on the ground, its only the rudder that would keep you on the runway. But we are talking extremely remote probabilities here.

Ray-->

TW870 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Latest NYT report. Last two paragraphs tell the story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Perhaps Boeing culture of 'the smartest guys in the room'? Seems like the FAA was seen as a required bureaucratic check off rather than a respected ally in the safety and design process.


I think the most damaging piece for Boeing in the article is the reference to how they overrode FAA engineers' worry about uncontained engine failures cutting the rudder cable lines. According to the article, Boeing didn't want to make a change to the rudder control system for fear of adding cost and reducing commonality. But given the newer, larger engines with larger fans and in a new position, the FAA engineers worried about damage to the rudder cables in the event of an uncontained failure. Boeing self-regulated and left the cables untouched. This reminded me that an uncontained engine failure cut the hydraulic lines on the DC-10 in the UA232 case in 1989, and that McDonnell Douglas had to redesign that system in the wake of the accident. I guess now we just hope there aren't any uncontained failures on takeoff - or that the airplane flies well at low speed and low altitude with asymmetrical thrust and no rudder control.

I would expect if you're still on the ground, its only the rudder that would keep you on the runway. But we are talking extremely remote probabilities here.

Ray

Jump to post
by TW870
Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:27 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Perhaps Boeing culture of 'the smartest guys in the room'? Seems like the FAA was seen as a required bureaucratic check off rather than a respected ally in the safety and design process.


I think the most damaging piece for Boeing in the article is the reference to how they overrode FAA engineers' worry about uncontained engine failures cutting the rudder cable lines. According to the article, Boeing didn't want to make a change to the rudder control system for fear of adding cost and reducing commonality. But given the newer, larger engines with larger fans and in a new position, the FAA engineers worried about damage to the rudder cables in the event of an uncontained failure. Boeing self-regulated and left the cables untouched. This reminded me that an uncontained engine failure cut the hydraulic lines on the DC-10 in the UA232 case in 1989, and that McDonnell Douglas had to redesign that system in the wake of the accident. I guess now we just hope there aren't any uncontained failures on takeoff - or that the airplane flies well at low speed and low altitude with asymmetrical thrust and no rudder control.
-->

DenverTed wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Latest NYT report. Last two paragraphs tell the story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Perhaps Boeing culture of 'the smartest guys in the room'? Seems like the FAA was seen as a required bureaucratic check off rather than a respected ally in the safety and design process.


I think the most damaging piece for Boeing in the article is the reference to how they overrode FAA engineers' worry about uncontained engine failures cutting the rudder cable lines. According to the article, Boeing didn't want to make a change to the rudder control system for fear of adding cost and reducing commonality. But given the newer, larger engines with larger fans and in a new position, the FAA engineers worried about damage to the rudder cables in the event of an uncontained failure. Boeing self-regulated and left the cables untouched. This reminded me that an uncontained engine failure cut the hydraulic lines on the DC-10 in the UA232 case in 1989, and that McDonnell Douglas had to redesign that system in the wake of the accident. I guess now we just hope there aren't any uncontained failures on takeoff - or that the airplane flies well at low speed and low altitude with asymmetrical thrust and no rudder control.

Jump to post
by DenverTed
Sat Jul 27, 2019 7:26 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Perhaps Boeing culture of 'the smartest guys in the room'? Seems like the FAA was seen as a required bureaucratic check off rather than a respected ally in the safety and design process.
-->

XRAYretired wrote:
Latest NYT report. Last two paragraphs tell the story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Perhaps Boeing culture of 'the smartest guys in the room'? Seems like the FAA was seen as a required bureaucratic check off rather than a respected ally in the safety and design process.

Jump to post
by XRAYretired
Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:39 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray
-->

Latest NYT report. Last two paragraphs tell the story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/busi ... x-faa.html

'Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.
In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous?'

Ray

Jump to post
by seb76
Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:42 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://extra.ie/2019/07/22/business/ir ... ax-boycott


Sorry, but that must be a joke. Rynair customers avoiding the airline because of safety concerns about a fully certified plane is just laughable. 95% of the customers do not even know that they fly a 737 much less the version of it or that a A320 is not a 737.

This really needs a lot less drama.


Fully agree, flying a potentially dangerous plane would not be a big deal compared to the many other things Ryanair customers accept from their prefered supplier ;-) I expect MOL to solve this with a new additional £££ fee on all routes NOT being served by the 737 MAX... a tickbox you can't uncheck on the reservation page. He can already start charging it on all flights until the 737 is back in the air.
-->

seb76 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
The big question that remains open is how will consumers treat MAX past grounding? This group is making its position clear.

https://extra.ie/2019/07/22/business/ir ... ax-boycott


Sorry, but that must be a joke. Rynair customers avoiding the airline because of safety concerns about a fully certified plane is just laughable. 95% of the customers do not even know that they fly a 737 much less the version of it or that a A320 is not a 737.

This really needs a lot less drama.


Fully agree, flying a potentially dangerous plane would not be a big deal compared to the many other things Ryanair customers accept from their prefered supplier ;-) I expect MOL to solve this with a new additional £££ fee on all routes NOT being served by the 737 MAX... a tickbox you can't uncheck on the reservation page. He can already start charging it on all flights until the 737 is back in the air.

Jump to post
by seb76
Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:41 am
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

https://extra.ie/2019/07/22/business/ir ... ax-boycott


Sorry, but that must be a joke. Rynair customers avoiding the airline because of safety concerns about a fully certified plane is just laughable. 95% of the customers do not even know that they fly a 737 much less the version of it or that a A320 is not a 737.

This really needs a lot less drama.


Fully agree, flying a potentially dangerous plane would not be a big deal compared to the many other things Ryanair customers accept from their prefered supplier ;-) I expect MOL to solve this with a new additional £££ fee on all routes NOT being served by the 737 MAX... a tickbox you can't uncheck on the reservation page. He can already start charging it on all flights for the time being until the 737 is back in the air
-->

seahawk wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
The big question that remains open is how will consumers treat MAX past grounding? This group is making its position clear.

https://extra.ie/2019/07/22/business/ir ... ax-boycott


Sorry, but that must be a joke. Rynair customers avoiding the airline because of safety concerns about a fully certified plane is just laughable. 95% of the customers do not even know that they fly a 737 much less the version of it or that a A320 is not a 737.

This really needs a lot less drama.


Fully agree, flying a potentially dangerous plane would not be a big deal compared to the many other things Ryanair customers accept from their prefered supplier ;-) I expect MOL to solve this with a new additional £££ fee on all routes NOT being served by the 737 MAX... a tickbox you can't uncheck on the reservation page. He can already start charging it on all flights for the time being until the 737 is back in the air

Jump to post
by enzo011
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:13 pm
Forum: Civil Aviation
Topic: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019
Replies: 4380
Views: 663414

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Revelation wrote:
Seems to me the case on Boeing and the FAA was that with the underfunded FAA they trusted Boeing to ensure their aircraft was safe as they couldn't do a thorough testing campaign in the time that OEMs need or want. So until a issue like MCAS comes up the OEM has credit with the regulator. Once the crap hits the fan then all bets are off and this relates to all aspects of certification of a model for an OEM, this generation or previous.

If the issue is the underfunded FAA rather than "grandfathering" itself, how can they be trusted to certificate the clean sheet that so many here want to replace 737?

In my experience fitting stuff in to a mature design has its challenges, but the resulting reviews are easier to do than a clean sheet where everything has to be reviewed from scratch.


Well you must have missed the part where I said, in the time that OEMs need or want. I am sure the FAA can do it but seeing as they have passed on a lot of work to Boeing and are seemingly just ticking boxes if they would do this themselves it would be done but not as quickly. This would cause problems for Boeing as they have set out a timescale for test flights but if this is delayed it delays deliveries which delays cash coming in.

Who knows, you may be better placed to tell me that the FAA is not underfunded?* You could also confirm if they have allowed a lot of the certification work to be done by Boeing as well.* Now I know you could answer that EASA and Airbus, but until the A320 kills more than 300 people in a few months due to features of the aircraft that is not a valid answer.

*The Boeing 737 Max Story Shows That Deregulation Is Dangerous
The FAA has handed an increasing amount of authority over to Boeing to certify the safety of its own planes.


The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes. Early on in certification of the 737 MAX, the FAA safety engineering team divided up the technical assessments that would be delegated to Boeing versus those they considered more critical and would be retained within the FAA.

But several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing. A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA.”


So is it a problem with grandfathering or FAA funding? It is both most likely. The grandfathering of certification allowed for a truncated timescale in certifying the 737MAX and an underfunded FAA was under pressure to pass even more work on to Boeing. If you are a fan of Boeing you should actually hoped that all certification was done by the FAA, that way you would wash your hands from any problems that were not discovered. Now it is a double whammy, Boeing did a lot of the certification which seems to have failed (346 dead) and the FAA is still not properly funded.

Jump to post

Return to “Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019”