B737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q1 2019

vahancrazy · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:27 pm

oldannyboy wrote:

I hope not, but on the other hand we should de-stigmatize a "cautionary grounding". In this regard Boeing should have behaved much more maturely, and immediately propose themselves a grounding of the MAX variant. Thing is, at the end of the day, the MAX was going to end up grounded anyway [it was pretty evident from the onset], and they should/could have handled this a lot better. This is not only proving to be a technical nightmare (with seemingly financial and image repercussions), but also a PR disaster - which was ultimately not necessary.

This is the only confirmed story!

BTW, in nowadays safe airline industry, 2 similar enough accidents for the same very new model are suspect. Also, accidents are usually not 1 factor only.
Assuming the pilots (both JT and ET) were not intoxicated nor distracted by external factors, my non expert guess is:
Lack of sufficient 737max training <airline procedures and/or Boeing manuals
Some defective components < Boeing/supplier

I wonder if the change NG>MAX also was a factor

Look forward to hear the analysis result and hope it can be easily fixed without judgments to the parts involved.

Finn350 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:34 pm

LTC8K6 wrote:
It will be leaked...

Not likely. Nobody has leaked the satellite ADS-B data, although several aviation accident organisations have it.

Magog · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:41 pm

People seem to ignore the fact that 2 MAXs went down based on an airframe that has been tested and proven since the early 1960s, with over 10,000 in production. That is circumstantial evidence that there is something inherently wrong with the MAX.

sadiqutp · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:50 pm

Veigar wrote:
Not sure if posted before, but WN released a video regarding this:

https://youtu.be/XZypk-1HZGs

That's quite the statement. I don't know what it is in response to: bookings decline given the hysteria about 737? Or is it being encouraged by faa since they pressured to take action? I noticed he mentioned the "little information" they were provided twice in the video..

flee · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:51 pm

Picture of the FDR:
https://twitter.com/BEA_Aero/status/1106221599735332864

mrbots · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 pm

sadiqutp wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Not sure if posted before, but WN released a video regarding this:

https://youtu.be/XZypk-1HZGs

That's quite the statement. I don't know what it is in response to: bookings decline given the hysteria about 737? Or is it being encouraged by faa since they pressured to take action? I noticed he mentioned the "little information" they were provided twice in the video..

They took quite a lot of verbal beating after grounding it and posting their over the top "We care about you" statement yesterday. Basically along the lines of everyone pointing out that "If you cared about our safety, why did you have to wait for the FAA to ground it."

sadiqutp · Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:57 pm

mrbots wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Not sure if posted before, but WN released a video regarding this:

https://youtu.be/XZypk-1HZGs

That's quite the statement. I don't know what it is in response to: bookings decline given the hysteria about 737? Or is it being encouraged by faa since they pressured to take action? I noticed he mentioned the "little information" they were provided twice in the video..

They took quite a lot of verbal beating after grounding it and posting their over the top "We care about you" statement yesterday. Basically along the lines of everyone pointing out that "If you cared about our safety, why did you have to wait for the FAA to ground it."

That makes a lot of sense and if I were in their shoes I wouldn't have grounded them either..
I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this incident for Faa and Boeing PR wise

dtw2hyd · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:01 pm

flee wrote:
Picture of the FDR:
https://twitter.com/BEA_Aero/status/1106221599735332864

That is in decent shape. Can someone explain the emojis in the tweet?

BAeRJ100 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:06 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
flee wrote:
Picture of the FDR:
https://twitter.com/BEA_Aero/status/1106221599735332864

That is in decent shape. Can someone explain the emojis in the tweet?

The flag is for the language of the tweet. They use a UK flag when posting in English. I take the exclamation point as denoting importance.

remcor · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:11 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
DL717 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

This kind of puff pieces will cause more damage than good. Seriously, blaming human pilots.

He’s actually talking about aircraft architecture design around the pilot.

Did the world miss the memo? Designs always considered the human element. What has changed?

I'm almost positive you didn't read the article. Because I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. The article discussed certification rules, test procedures and human-centered design, in the context of how airplane systems have evolved.

Strato2 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:19 pm

Veigar wrote:
Not sure if posted before, but WN released a video regarding this:

https://youtu.be/XZypk-1HZGs

Nasty video. By praising US regulators, pilots and MAX itself the message comes through between the lines that this happened because Africa.

FlyingElvii · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:33 pm

seahawk wrote:
maint123 wrote:
If the Max is found to have serious design issues and too unsafe for passengers, maybe use them for cargo, courier service ? Can these 400 odd max be absorbed for cargo operations.?

The MAX is not unsafe, at worst one flight control system needs to be improved or re-designed (using 2 AoA sensors and turning off when noticing a sensor data difference - like it always should have been).

I believe they were designed with a second life as a cargo hauler already envisioned.

Bradin · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:36 pm

flee wrote:
Picture of the FDR:
https://twitter.com/BEA_Aero/status/1106221599735332864

Wow. That took quite a beating. No wonder it's being rushed to Germany (or France) to be recovered.

EvanWSFO · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:40 pm

Strato2 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Not sure if posted before, but WN released a video regarding this:

https://youtu.be/XZypk-1HZGs

Nasty video. By praising US regulators, pilots and MAX itself the message comes through between the lines that this happened because Africa.

Nasty? I don't know what video you watched, but I don't get nasty out of it, and I certainly don't see your perceived "between the lines" message about Africa.

remcor · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:55 pm

Interesting new commentary today by aviation analyst Leeham News:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/13/comme ... nsparency/

Interested · Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:57 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
There are 2 documented incidents reported in the NASA database peior to the Lion Air crash. It has been documented.

I highly doubt that a group of pilots dislike a particular type that they would collude to making fictitious statements to a reporting agency in an effort to ground it.

No, those are not documented incidents. Again, be careful not to assume those were factual events than can be documented.

Go talk to pilots. You wouldn't believe the opinions for and against certain types are.

We also have the Canadian transport minister stating that flights in Canada on these planes have experienced similar flight issues?

Do we trust him?

PixelPilot · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:04 pm

Strato2 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Not sure if posted before, but WN released a video regarding this:

https://youtu.be/XZypk-1HZGs

Nasty video. By praising US regulators, pilots and MAX itself the message comes through between the lines that this happened because Africa.

What?
This video only backs their previous statement that with over 90K hours in the air they find this plane safe and reliable.

**Confucius said "When the wise man points at the moon..."

rj777 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:07 pm

Saw this on the BBC website.. looks like the MAX will be on the ground until at least May at the earliest!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47567039

MSPNWA · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:13 pm

Interested wrote:
We also have the Canadian transport minister stating that flights in Canada on these planes have experienced similar flight issues?

Do we trust him?

We do? Where is that article?

Interested · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:22 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Interested wrote:
We also have the Canadian transport minister stating that flights in Canada on these planes have experienced similar flight issues?

Do we trust him?

We do? Where is that article?

From BBC website this morning:

"Earlier in the day, Canada grounded the planes after its transport minister Marc Garneau said he had received new evidence about the crash. He said that satellite data showed possible similarities between flight patterns of Boeing 737 Max planes operating in Canada and the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed."

Chrisgoodwin82 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:33 pm

Why does Flightradar24 still show 4 American and 2 WN 737 max flying??

JetBuddy · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:35 pm

remcor wrote:
Interesting new commentary today by aviation analyst Leeham News:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/13/comme ... nsparency/

Yes very good article. And it's worrying that Boeing CEO allegedly tried to lobby the President to not allow FAA to ground the type.

"Reports of a phone call between Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg and US President Donald Trump reportedly imploring the latter not to allow the FAA to ground the MAX provides additional reason for doubt. To wit, why lobby the White House to override the FAA if the technical evidence is clearly on Boeing’s side? This flies in the face of any Boeing public statements about putting safety first."

dampfnudel · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:36 pm

Bradin wrote:
flee wrote:
Picture of the FDR:
https://twitter.com/BEA_Aero/status/1106221599735332864

Wow. That took quite a beating. No wonder it's being rushed to Germany (or France) to be recovered.

It could’ve been much worse. The CSMU where the data is located appears to be okay.

PixelPilot · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:38 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
remcor wrote:
Interesting new commentary today by aviation analyst Leeham News:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/13/comme ... nsparency/

Yes very good article. And it's worrying that Boeing CEO allegedly tried to lobby the President to not allow FAA to ground the type.

"Reports of a phone call between Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg and US President Donald Trump reportedly imploring the latter not to allow the FAA to ground the MAX provides additional reason for doubt. To wit, why lobby the White House to override the FAA if the technical evidence is clearly on Boeing’s side? This flies in the face of any Boeing public statements about putting safety first."

How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

Fact is that we don't have many facts and people keep adding stuff like that to the ever growing pile of fantasy.

I just hope they do some sort of exception and start releasing the data sooner than later so we can stop speculating before serious damage gets done to the reputation of the airlines, pilots, manufacturer and ultimately the people that paid the highest price and their families in pain.

MSPNWA · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:47 pm

Interested wrote:
From BBC website this morning:

Earlier in the day, Canada grounded the planes after its transport minister Marc Garneau said he had received new evidence about the crash.

He said that satellite data showed possible similarities between flight patterns of Boeing 737 Max planes operating in Canada and the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed.

I believe that's a bad quote of what Garneau said yesterday. He said there there was possible similarities between the Lion Air And Ethiopian crashes.

I've yet to find any documented incidents of this abnormal behavior. Anonymous online postings don't qualify.

remcor · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:49 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

I mean... Boeing confirmed it.

'A spokesman for Boeing confirmed the conversation and said Muilenburg "made clear to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe."'
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... fe-1218439

Interested · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:51 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Interested wrote:
From BBC website this morning:

Earlier in the day, Canada grounded the planes after its transport minister Marc Garneau said he had received new evidence about the crash.

He said that satellite data showed possible similarities between flight patterns of Boeing 737 Max planes operating in Canada and the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed.

I believe that's a bad quote of what Garneau said yesterday. He said there there was possible similarities between the Lion Air And Ethiopian crashes.

I've yet to find any documented incidents of this abnormal behavior. Anonymous online postings don't qualify.

Theres a 45 minute press conference with the minister online. I've watched a very small part. In it a guy starts asking about satellite data. The minister doesn't appear to satisfactorily answer the questions and then offers to give more detail to the questioner direct after the press conference. So it's hard to really know what he's actually said in full. Would be poor and incompetent of BBC to get something so wrong though.

In the small part I did watch he said there had been no reports from Canadian pilots themselves about issues

PixelPilot · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:53 pm

remcor wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

I mean... Boeing confirmed it.

'A spokesman for Boeing confirmed the conversation and said Muilenburg "made clear to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe."'
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... fe-1218439

And where does that statement in anyway implies that he was "trying to lobby the president not to follow FAA and ground the max"??

English is only my 3rd language but I don't see what you are saying no matter which way I look at it. All I see the guy said is "we stand behind our plane. It is safe to fly."

asdf · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:54 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
Fact is that we don't have many facts and people keep adding stuff like that to the ever growing pile of fantasy.
I just hope they do some sort of exception and start releasing the data sooner than later so we can stop speculating ...

great idea
lets do it

whats about starting with coming up with facts about the lion air disaster?
- was there a MX flaw or did they repair that bird accordingly to the MX handbook?
- what expierienced that crew during their fight with the controlls?

the CVR is aviable
the FDR is aviable
why bothered the regulator for months to give informations out
they could have saved a 150 other lives, couldnt they?

YoungDon · Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:57 pm

remcor wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

I mean... Boeing confirmed it.

'A spokesman for Boeing confirmed the conversation and said Muilenburg "made clear to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe."'
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... fe-1218439

Right, as if Muilenburg just called Trump to discuss the grandkids or something
Many people have decided not to trust the source of any story they don't like these days, its common. Best to just ignore them and move on.

RickNRoll · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:02 pm

From the Lion Air thread

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/

Boeing has an OPTIONAL module that will warn the pilots while they are still on the ground that the AoA sensors are not in agreement with each other. MCAS depended on AoA being correct. The reason the module is optional is to get around grandfathering laws. This was done even though the AoA is essential for the MCAS to work safely and Boeing did not provide adequate information on how MCAS worked and what the depencies were for it to work safely.

The fix for MCAS is to make it use more than one AoA sensor and not make the AoA a single point of failure.

Why did Boeing implement MCAS in the first place with such a basic safety weakness? The engineers must have known this was inherently flawed.

The culture at Boeing, as created by the management, is probably to blame and needs to be investigated.

PixelPilot · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:05 pm

YoungDon wrote:
remcor wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

I mean... Boeing confirmed it.

'A spokesman for Boeing confirmed the conversation and said Muilenburg "made clear to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe."'
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... fe-1218439

Right, as if Muilenburg just called Trump to discuss the grandkids or something
Many people have decided not to trust the source of any story they don't like these days, its common. Best to just ignore them and move on.

And again, where does that statement say that he was "LOBBYING" the president?

RickNRoll · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:07 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
remcor wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

I mean... Boeing confirmed it.

'A spokesman for Boeing confirmed the conversation and said Muilenburg "made clear to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe."'
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... fe-1218439

And where does that statement in anyway implies that he was "trying to lobby the president not to follow FAA and ground the max"??

English is only my 3rd language but I don't see what you are saying no matter which way I look at it. All I see the guy said is "we stand behind our plane. It is safe to fly."

That is what lobbying is. Using your position of privelige to get to the top to try to directly influence an outcome without relying on the process to handle the matter

This just makes Boeing management look worse and worse. Bringing out a deliberately but unnecessarily unsafe MCAS system, trying to hide it's flaws, rorting the grandfathering system, not informing airlines that the "optional" AoA warning system was really essential.

DL757NYC · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:16 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
DL757NYC wrote:
Do you guys think WN will drag out of the desert the stores 737’s that don’t require a heavy maintenance check. I know the MAX is a small part of their fleet but I would imagine they don’t have too much slack in the fleet

You all just think you fly a plane back?

1. The airline normally doesn’t own nor lease the plane anymore.
2. It’s not on the Operating Certificate anymore.
3. It’s normally stripped of its interior and multiple parts.
4. It’s usually not maintenance revenue airworthy anymore.
5. Not qualified crews anymore.

I never said that they just go pick up the plane and start flying you are putting words in my mouth. However if this grounding last for a significant amount of time they will have to do something. Not all of WN storesd 737’s are stripped. When Delta had a damaged 747 they brought another one back that was stored within a relatively short amount of time.
I made no comment about the technical aspect of bringing a plane back. I simply asked a question and you decided to talk down to me.

Bradin · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:17 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
From the Lion Air thread

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/

Boeing has an OPTIONAL module that will warn the pilots while they are still on the ground that the AoA sensors are not in agreement with each other. MCAS depended on AoA being correct. The reason the module is optional is to get around grandfathering laws. This was done even though the AoA is essential for the MCAS to work safely and Boeing did not provide adequate information on how MCAS worked and what the depencies were for it to work safely.

The fix for MCAS is to make it use more than one AoA sensor and not make the AoA a single point of failure.

Why did Boeing implement MCAS in the first place with such a basic safety weakness? The engineers must have known this was inherently flawed.

The culture at Boeing, as created by the management, is probably to blame and needs to be investigated.

Presumptuous to know what was management or engineering thinking? We've had engineering failures befores, and it was engineers who took great risks without understanding the risks. We've also had management make decisions that overrode engineers.

jreuschl · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 pm

Why are we still waiting for more info on the Lion Air crash?

cledaybuck · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:21 pm

747megatop wrote:
Gonzalo wrote:
I can not understand the attitude of some members who claim this grounding is a political decision without any technical background to support the decision. Air travel is by far the most safe and efficient way of travel precisely because the safety first culture and the redundancy of critical systems, this is the standard in the industry today precisely after several decades of accidents and learning process as a result of those tragedies. I can't imagine a single person - with common sense - thinking all Boeing products are unsafe or refusing to fly a Dreamliner or a 737NG due to this grounding. Yes, this grounding will be a big hit in the Boeing histroy, yes, will cause a big damage financially and will make the present times hard, but even if this investigations end in the worst case scencario, this is, both recent crashes being Boeing's responsibility, even then, this will have a positive result : the future decisions regarding design or implementation of new systems will be taken more carefully, improving the overall safety of the industry.
I was very critic about the soft response by Boeing in the first hours after the ET tragedy, I still think they could handle the situation better, but that being said, I will fly any Boeing product in the future, including the MAX, once this investigations/conclusions/improvements process are completed.

This worldwide grounding was the correct decision, no matter by whom or how the decision was made.

Rgds.
G.

Grounding was the right decision. No matter what, some folks won't be convinced; rest of us will have to just ignore them and move on. The most amazing part is when some folks say "media furor and social media frenzy put pressure on authorities to ground the plane". This is pretty much like a very popular person currently in the WH dismissing anything as "FAKE NEWS" if he doesn't agree with it or does not understand the logic behind it. Social media pressure is the dumbest excuse i have heard being given as the basis of grounding!!!

Are you trying to say public pressure didn’t play a role in the grounding? Because it absolutely did. That doesn’t make it the wrong decision, but it is a reality.

RickNRoll · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:23 pm

Bradin wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
From the Lion Air thread

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/

Boeing has an OPTIONAL module that will warn the pilots while they are still on the ground that the AoA sensors are not in agreement with each other. MCAS depended on AoA being correct. The reason the module is optional is to get around grandfathering laws. This was done even though the AoA is essential for the MCAS to work safely and Boeing did not provide adequate information on how MCAS worked and what the depencies were for it to work safely.

The fix for MCAS is to make it use more than one AoA sensor and not make the AoA a single point of failure.

Why did Boeing implement MCAS in the first place with such a basic safety weakness? The engineers must have known this was inherently flawed.

The culture at Boeing, as created by the management, is probably to blame and needs to be investigated.

Presumptuous to know what was management or engineering thinking? We've had engineering failures befores, and it was engineers who took great risks without understanding the risks. We've also had management make decisions that overrode engineers.

Engineers don't decide to work around grandfathering rules, that is policy.

Finn350 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:48 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
From the Lion Air thread

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/

Boeing has an OPTIONAL module that will warn the pilots while they are still on the ground that the AoA sensors are not in agreement with each other. MCAS depended on AoA being correct. The reason the module is optional is to get around grandfathering laws. This was done even though the AoA is essential for the MCAS to work safely and Boeing did not provide adequate information on how MCAS worked and what the depencies were for it to work safely.

AoA sensors need air flow around them to enable correct operation. Therefore, AoA disagree can be established only after the plane is airborne and at a sufficient altitude where ground effect and crosswinds do not affect the sensor reading.

RickNRoll · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:50 pm

According to this https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/ it works during taxi.

freakyrat · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:53 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
[photoid][/photoid]
dc10lover wrote:
Not all max are grounded
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA ... /KMDW/KONT

Fair to say Flightaware has the wrong aircraft type listed.

The Max's are being allowed to be ferried to airline's maintenance bases.

AA appears to be moving their birds to Tulsa.

Not sure where Southwest big MX bases are other then DAL and HOU.

I am curious if Boeing can keep up pre delivery flights for the multitude
of Max's piling up at Renton and Boeing Field?

Southwest also has a big maintenance base in PHX.

JetBuddy · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:56 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
remcor wrote:
Interesting new commentary today by aviation analyst Leeham News:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/13/comme ... nsparency/

Yes very good article. And it's worrying that Boeing CEO allegedly tried to lobby the President to not allow FAA to ground the type.

"Reports of a phone call between Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg and US President Donald Trump reportedly imploring the latter not to allow the FAA to ground the MAX provides additional reason for doubt. To wit, why lobby the White House to override the FAA if the technical evidence is clearly on Boeing’s side? This flies in the face of any Boeing public statements about putting safety first."

How can we know what they talked about over the phone?
This is reaching the "because Russia" territory.

Fact is that we don't have many facts and people keep adding stuff like that to the ever growing pile of fantasy.

I just hope they do some sort of exception and start releasing the data sooner than later so we can stop speculating before serious damage gets done to the reputation of the airlines, pilots, manufacturer and ultimately the people that paid the highest price and their families in pain.

I think the whole "Russia" narrative is hyperbole. But that's irrelevant here.

I don't blame the President for picking up the phone when the CEO of the world's largest aerospace company calls. He should take the call. What I care about is if Boeing tried to lobby the White House into not letting FAA ground the plane. That would be insane.

I'm sure we'll get to the truth eventually.

jetmechanicdave · Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:56 pm

Chrisgoodwin82 wrote:
Why does Flightradar24 still show 4 American and 2 WN 737 max flying??

They are ferry flights with no passengers. 8000-9000 series numbers are ferry flights in this case.

Dieuwer · Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:11 pm

Der Spiegel - AFAIK a very respectable magazine - is suggesting a conspiracy:

But there was a catch. The engineers who were performing all of these miracles of rejuvenation knew full well that they were making compromises they never would have tolerated in a newer model. The consequences of that corner-cutting may now be revealing themselves.

The pilots wouldn't even notice the software's intervention -- at least that was the idea. In fact, Boeing didn't even consider it necessary to inform pilots about the newfangled MCAS, or "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System."

[my emphasis]

Two words come to mind: "Criminal Negligence".

http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 57608.html

dragon6172 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:14 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
According to this https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/ it works during taxi.

They will send a signal during taxi, but it is not necessarily reliable. If for example there is a strong enough crosswind the AoA vane on the upwind side may read higher due to the effects of the wind. This would cause a disagree between the sensors but it doesn't mean there is a bad sensor.

Finn350 · Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:15 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
According to this https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... e-737-max/ it works during taxi.

I doubt the correctness of that conclusion. AoA sensors are not expected to give correct readings while on ground - there is not sufficent air flow to measure.

remcor · Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:16 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
YoungDon wrote:
remcor wrote:

I mean... Boeing confirmed it.

'A spokesman for Boeing confirmed the conversation and said Muilenburg "made clear to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe."'
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... fe-1218439

Right, as if Muilenburg just called Trump to discuss the grandkids or something
Many people have decided not to trust the source of any story they don't like these days, its common. Best to just ignore them and move on.

And again, where does that statement say that he was "LOBBYING" the president?

Doesn't really much matter does it? The perception is there that the CEO went right over the head of the FAA. And the content of the Leeham article makes clear that perception is just as important here, since we're dealing with the flying public. Trust is sometimes making sure you don't put yourself into situations where others can question your motives, whether they're genuine or not.

StormRider · Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:22 pm

Bradin wrote:
flee wrote:
Picture of the FDR:
https://twitter.com/BEA_Aero/status/1106221599735332864

Wow. That took quite a beating. No wonder it's being rushed to Germany (or France) to be recovered.

The tweet is from the BEA(French agency) , it is already in their possession and they will start working on it Friday apparently

cpd · Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:40 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
747megatop wrote:
Wallhart wrote:

The buck stops at management level as much as they will try to shirk responsibility.

The whole thing is an utter disgrace and the way Boeing have handled the problem in such a cavalier way is atrocious. This isn't the Boeing I know and I csnt help this will end up being indirectly linked to how management are leading. Cost cutting, outsourcing etc. They all have knock on impacts.

If im a major shareholder im having serious chats with the chairman about whether i should have confidence in the culture of the company and whether it is changing to the detriment of the product. A product which has been world class for many many years.

In fact if I was an investor I may have already sold part or all my position.

Boeing seems to be in the unique position of having had 2 types grounded; 1st the 787 and now the 737-MAX. Let's hope they don't make this a habit.

I hope not, but on the other hand we should de-stigmatize a "cautionary grounding". In this regard Boeing should have behaved much more maturely, and immediately propose themselves a grounding of the MAX variant. Thing is, at the end of the day, the MAX was going to end up grounded anyway [it was pretty evident from the onset], and they should/could have handled this a lot better. This is not only proving to be a technical nightmare (with seemingly financial and image repercussions), but also a PR disaster - which was ultimately not necessary.

Finally a couple of people who’ve not been drinking the Kool-Aid. This whole thing is a disaster for Boeing and they should have been more proactive in dealing with it. It’s looking like their version of VW/Audi dieselgate.

I hope they can recover. And with any luck the FDR will yield useful information- despite how smashed up it is.

PixelPilot · Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:05 pm

remcor wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
YoungDon wrote:

Right, as if Muilenburg just called Trump to discuss the grandkids or something
Many people have decided not to trust the source of any story they don't like these days, its common. Best to just ignore them and move on.

And again, where does that statement say that he was "LOBBYING" the president?

Doesn't really much matter does it? The perception is there that the CEO went right over the head of the FAA. And the content of the Leeham article makes clear that perception is just as important here, since we're dealing with the flying public. Trust is sometimes making sure you don't put yourself into situations where others can question your motives, whether they're genuine or not.

That's the problem that I see these days. Not facts but feelings / perception and opinions seem to have greater weight than cold damn truth. Talk about stupid.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net