morrisond
Posts: 1171
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:18 pm

aaexecplat wrote:
What I find fascinating is the belief held by some here that just because MCAS is now more limited in its authority, that this makes the plane automatically 100% safe. We still don't know what caused the stickshaker, unreliable airspeed and AOA readings. The assumption around these parts is that any pilot can handle that scenario just fine without MCAS activating.

I am personally not so sure. Both accidents occurred during the day in good weather. Let's add bad weather and/or nighttime flying conditions (easier to lose situational awareness), and a MAX throwing a hissyfit like this could still end up with lots of fatalities. I won't set foot on any of these anytime soon.

A half hour online training course? Are you kidding me? That is shorter than my last legal/compliance training and test that my EMPLOYER mandated in the Financial Services Industry. Embarrassing what Boeing is trying to do here. If another MAX crashes after this display lacking concern, they deserve everything that is coming to them.


As long as the pilots know to turn off the electric trim everything should be fine even if the redesign of MCAS is botched. I will have no fear of flying it - assuming pilots know that one basic thing - which if they don't know by now they do not belong in a cockpit.
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:
What I find fascinating is the belief held by some here that just because MCAS is now more limited in its authority, that this makes the plane automatically 100% safe. We still don't know what caused the stickshaker, unreliable airspeed and AOA readings. The assumption around these parts is that any pilot can handle that scenario just fine without MCAS activating.

I am personally not so sure. Both accidents occurred during the day in good weather. Let's add bad weather and/or nighttime flying conditions (easier to lose situational awareness), and a MAX throwing a hissyfit like this could still end up with lots of fatalities. I won't set foot on any of these anytime soon.

A half hour online training course? Are you kidding me? That is shorter than my last legal/compliance training and test that my EMPLOYER mandated in the Financial Services Industry. Embarrassing what Boeing is trying to do here. If another MAX crashes after this display lacking concern, they deserve everything that is coming to them.


As long as the pilots know to turn off the electric trim everything should be fine even if the redesign of MCAS is botched. I will have no fear of flying it - assuming pilots know that one basic thing - which if they don't know by now they do not belong in a cockpit.


I don't think you understood what I was saying...even IF Boeing solves MCAS issue with software fix, we don't understand yet what caused the starting conditions in both crashes and those by themselves may be enough to down an airplane if the environmental conditions are bad enough. I have moved past MCAS in my thought exercise.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:27 pm

speedbored wrote:
Using both sensors will actually double the likelihood of MCAS failing to properly carry out the task it was implemented for. The difference, though, is that a sensor failure now will mean that MCAS will simply fail to operate when it is needed, instead of the previous failure mode of making it difficult to impossible for pilots to fly the plane.


Yeah, I too fail to understand the logic of this so called fix. I mean, MCAS was deemed critical enough to the safety of the plane that it was designed and implemented in the first place. But now the fix basically self-disables the system every time there is AoA disagreement, or the pilot counters its actions. And now we are flying without the critical system. Some fix...
 
StTim
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:30 pm

morrisond wrote:
vfw614 wrote:
How is the fix really a fix?

If MCAS is switched off automatically, we have an aircraft without MCAS. Apparently MCAS is good for something in the first place, otherwise it would not be there. So the aircraft will then be operating at the brink of a stall and the pilots need to keep it in the air? Sounds as relaxed as running at high speed balancing an egg on a teaspoon....


I've copied my response from above. A MAX will fly absolutely fine without MCAS - it just helps prevent a stall - however if a plane get's in a stall (which it should never if the pilot is half competent) it's not really a big thing - spins are a different matter though.

My Repsonse:

What problem exactly are you talking about? That a MAX can obtain an AOA that it stalls like all other airplanes ever built or certified? That is absurd. Yes the design of the MAX may cause it to pitch up more in certain flight regimes (take off when fully loaded at high AOA's) but that doesn't make it unsafe or unique. MCAS was designed to help the MAX never get in that situation - maybe because Boeing (as well as Airbus) apparently are concerned about declining pilot standards. However exiting a stall is the most basic thing a pilot is taught to do.

As long as the pilot can maintain a consistent climb AOA in Manual mode (this should not be considered a difficult skill in any plane - if you can't do that you should not be in a cockpit) MCAS will never be activated. This will never happen when the Autopilot is active as the AP does a pretty good job at maintaining a consistent climb.

If MCAS fails again (which it can again even with two sensors as two sensors can go bad at the same time - but they seemed to have dumbed it down so it can't put the plane in a nose down situation so crashes should be avoided and no pilot should have missed the memo on to hit the trim cut-off switches if MCAS or Electric Trim starts doing weird things again) and does nothing to limit the flight envelope and the plane enters a stall then that is no big problem - lower the nose or add power to exit the stall - the plane will not fall out of the air - there will be lots of warnings (stick shakers etc..) that will alert the pilot that they are about to enter a stall.

If the pilots are so incompetent to allow a plane that is in a stall to enter a spin yes then it could crash - but then you would be talking about Pilot incompetence so bad that they should not have even passed basic flight training or be allowed to even fly a Cessna.

I have no way of knowing for sure - but I would have to guess that the more forward COG of the Max would help it exit the stall sooner as it would help to pull the nose down.

The MAX will be fine after this fix - no better or worse than any other Commercial airplane out there. In fact I will feel safer on a MAX due to the fact that it actually has physical connections to it's primary flight surfaces in the case of a full electric failure.


So why did Boeing implement it if any competent pilot does not require MCAS in order to be able to fly safely?

AFAIK they did it to be able to remain on the same type certificate as the NG.

That they botched the implementation of it, hid changes (allegedly) from the FAA and did not openly inform airlines or pilots of its existence is the issue.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
As long as the pilots know to turn off the electric trim.... ....assuming pilots know that one basic thing - which if they don't know by now they do not belong in a cockpit.


This is still assuming that they can diagnose any issue is trim related in the first place within a few seconds, then flip down the locking t-bars and flip the switches, then get out the manual crank handle and crank that unwanted trim back to reality, potentially with lots of other stuff going on in the cockpit.

As has been mentioned before, there is no visual indication that trim is moving except for the trim wheels, which one 737 driver (and no others have yet to contradict) says is just not in his field of vision.

Now moving forward, all 737 drivers are probably going to be giving the trim wheels a lot more attention than before. Is that a good thing?

If I get a chance to get back into a Level D sim in the next few weeks I'm going to make a video of a level flight at 2000ft, then manually trim to full nose down, then flick those switches, then manually crank and see if altitude is still on my side.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:40 pm

osiris30 wrote:

Also legal ain't letting anyone say squat with an active investigation from the DOJ and FBI. This doesn't mean guilt. They could all be saints and 100% without sin and legal would still say STFU.


I wish legal had told them that before the now "making an already safe airplane safer" comment, but of course that was before the investigation was announced (yet almost immediately after a second crash).
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:43 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
If I get a chance to get back into a Level D sim in the next few weeks I'm going to make a video of a level flight at 2000ft, then manually trim to full nose down, then flick those switches, then manually crank and see if altitude is still on my side.

In the absence of a full MAX simulator, what you need is for the guy in the other seat to quietly (and without warning) trim nose down using the thumb switches, whilst innocently looking at the scenery out of the window. See how long it takes you to notice and counter-act his action.

Remember, he is not going to warn you what he is doing - it's up to you to notice the difference between normal trim wheel movement, and this extreme case.

Your plan to trim full down should not really happen without you noticing something and interrupting the procedure.

.....unless you are also distracted by a stick shaker, and a clutch of random warning lights ….. :scratchchin:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:56 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In the absence of a full MAX simulator......


Zero chance for me unfortunately. Quite possibly an NG or failing that a 3/4/500 classic. What I will 100% guarantee though is that I wont read the MCAS section of the documentation before I do it ;)

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Remember, he is not going to warn you what he is doing - it's up to you to notice the difference between normal trim wheel movement, and this extreme case.


Exactly
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:00 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Aviation Week is reporting that the FAA is seeking consensus on lifting the MAX ban.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... f4fd51701a
WASHINGTON—FAA does not want to be the first regulator to lift its 737 MAX operations ban and is working with other agencies to find consensus on joint approval of the model’s return to service, but the agency is prepared to act alone if the authorities cannot agree, sources with knowledge of the agency’s thinking tell Aviation Daily.

“The world thinks FAA is in Boeing’s pocket,” said one source, who requested anonymity due to the issue’s sensitivity. “FAA does not want to be first to lift the grounding.”


Quite telling, IMHO.


"but the agency is prepared to act alone if the authorities cannot agree"

Is it me or are they continuing to dig the hole?

Paraphrasing the FAA..... "We know our motives are being questioned so we want other agencies to approve the MAX fix at the same time as we do, but if they refuse then we'll approve it anyway...."

You can't make this stuff up.


I believe the FAA is obligated to act. In other words it must either approve the changes Boeing has proposed, require more changes or ask for more evidence, or disapprove the proposal. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to explain this more accurately. The FAA would like EASA and other agencies to do this at the same time. EASA may require more that what Boeing proposed, and if/when Boeing agrees then FAA and EASA can approve simultaneously. It is in the interest, in general, for the various international agencies on aviation safety to act together, and generally they do act together.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Virtual737
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:04 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I believe the FAA is obligated to act. In other words it must either approve the changes Boeing has proposed, require more changes or ask for more evidence, or disapprove the proposal.


Aha thanks for the clarification. I read "act" as "approve" when it might be nothing of the sort. In that case my previous comment holds no merit. Thanks again.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
AFAIK we don't know this to be fact, beyond what was published in the Seattle Times, which was based on interviews with unnamed sources.

We don't know if some or any or all of this part of the story is true.

If it were untrue, I would have expected a fairly vigorous denial from Boeing since it paints them in a very poor light.

I think Boeing knows pretty much anything they say will touch nerves. I think they are making blanket statements about confidence in their products and their safety culture, and won't expect them to engage in a media fray, there's no upside in doing so since the media has many more voices with the ability to say pretty much whatever they want to say.

As I've written before, there's a lot of parallels between how VW handled Dieselgate and how Boeing is acting with regard to MAX. VW knew they had a huge problem but did not try to go toe to toe with the media, they just issued blanket statements of confidence in their products and allowed the media to flail away with stories that covered the entire spectrum from falseness to truthfulness.

There is a significant difference from the VW situation, though: there was incontrovertible public evidence against VW right from the start. VW was caught cheating, and lying about it to the regulators. A corporate executive signed a statement saying there was no "defeat devices" in their engines, yet there were. At this point we can't say the same of Boeing. We have the media report, but we don't even know if the anonymous report alleging a lack of reporting is true, and if true, we don't know if it is an act of omission or an act of commission.

It seems to me a lot of people are making a lot of extrapolations based on allegations that are not proven to be factual or actionable. Time will tell if we do end up with something actionable or not, anything is possible.


I posted a thread like 2-3 weeks ago comparing the MAX and Boeing to Dieselgate and VW. Guess what? It was locked and deleted.

Of course Google can still find the thread and the link: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... &t=1417555
© 2019. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
trigged
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:25 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:13 pm

I was looking at Flightaware and noticed United has a Max 9 flying to IAH from SAL. I thought all MAX aircraft were grounded. UAL1467. Is this just a software /info glitch?
 
maint123
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:17 pm

737 Max in Mr wonderful's words should be 'taken behind the barn and shot'.
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:30 pm

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
vfw614 wrote:
How is the fix really a fix?

If MCAS is switched off automatically, we have an aircraft without MCAS. Apparently MCAS is good for something in the first place, otherwise it would not be there. So the aircraft will then be operating at the brink of a stall and the pilots need to keep it in the air? Sounds as relaxed as running at high speed balancing an egg on a teaspoon....


I've copied my response from above. A MAX will fly absolutely fine without MCAS - it just helps prevent a stall - however if a plane get's in a stall (which it should never if the pilot is half competent) it's not really a big thing - spins are a different matter though.

My Repsonse:

What problem exactly are you talking about? That a MAX can obtain an AOA that it stalls like all other airplanes ever built or certified? That is absurd. Yes the design of the MAX may cause it to pitch up more in certain flight regimes (take off when fully loaded at high AOA's) but that doesn't make it unsafe or unique. MCAS was designed to help the MAX never get in that situation - maybe because Boeing (as well as Airbus) apparently are concerned about declining pilot standards. However exiting a stall is the most basic thing a pilot is taught to do.

As long as the pilot can maintain a consistent climb AOA in Manual mode (this should not be considered a difficult skill in any plane - if you can't do that you should not be in a cockpit) MCAS will never be activated. This will never happen when the Autopilot is active as the AP does a pretty good job at maintaining a consistent climb.

If MCAS fails again (which it can again even with two sensors as two sensors can go bad at the same time - but they seemed to have dumbed it down so it can't put the plane in a nose down situation so crashes should be avoided and no pilot should have missed the memo on to hit the trim cut-off switches if MCAS or Electric Trim starts doing weird things again) and does nothing to limit the flight envelope and the plane enters a stall then that is no big problem - lower the nose or add power to exit the stall - the plane will not fall out of the air - there will be lots of warnings (stick shakers etc..) that will alert the pilot that they are about to enter a stall.

If the pilots are so incompetent to allow a plane that is in a stall to enter a spin yes then it could crash - but then you would be talking about Pilot incompetence so bad that they should not have even passed basic flight training or be allowed to even fly a Cessna.

I have no way of knowing for sure - but I would have to guess that the more forward COG of the Max would help it exit the stall sooner as it would help to pull the nose down.

The MAX will be fine after this fix - no better or worse than any other Commercial airplane out there. In fact I will feel safer on a MAX due to the fact that it actually has physical connections to it's primary flight surfaces in the case of a full electric failure.


So why did Boeing implement it if any competent pilot does not require MCAS in order to be able to fly safely?

AFAIK they did it to be able to remain on the same type certificate as the NG.

That they botched the implementation of it, hid changes (allegedly) from the FAA and did not openly inform airlines or pilots of its existence is the issue.

I would add not informing the 737 simulator makers about how, when, and how much the MCAS can alter trim.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:35 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Aviation Week is reporting that the FAA is seeking consensus on lifting the MAX ban.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... f4fd51701a


Quite telling, IMHO.


"but the agency is prepared to act alone if the authorities cannot agree"

Is it me or are they continuing to dig the hole?

Paraphrasing the FAA..... "We know our motives are being questioned so we want other agencies to approve the MAX fix at the same time as we do, but if they refuse then we'll approve it anyway...."

You can't make this stuff up.


I believe the FAA is obligated to act. In other words it must either approve the changes Boeing has proposed, require more changes or ask for more evidence, or disapprove the proposal. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to explain this more accurately. The FAA would like EASA and other agencies to do this at the same time. EASA may require more that what Boeing proposed, and if/when Boeing agrees then FAA and EASA can approve simultaneously. It is in the interest, in general, for the various international agencies on aviation safety to act together, and generally they do act together.

May well be out of FAA hands.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/faa-h ... 019-03-27/
House Transportation Chair writes letter to FAA head
In a letter to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acting Administrator Daniel K. Elwell, Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Oregon, the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, requested an independent, third-party take control of the review of any technical modifications being proposed for the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft.
DeFazio's letter comes as the public has become increasingly concerned about the airworthiness of the 737 Max 8 aircraft. The plane has been grounded worldwide.
"In order to provide this level of assurance, we urge you to engage an independent, third-party review composed of individuals with technical skills and expertise to objectively advise on any measures being considered requiring the safety certification of new and novel technology, as recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board," DeFazio wrote. "To be clear, we believe this proposed third-party review should be separate from the recently established Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee, which Congress required in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018."

Ray
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:54 pm

kelvin933 wrote:
StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I've copied my response from above. A MAX will fly absolutely fine without MCAS - it just helps prevent a stall - however if a plane get's in a stall (which it should never if the pilot is half competent) it's not really a big thing - spins are a different matter though.

My Repsonse:

What problem exactly are you talking about? That a MAX can obtain an AOA that it stalls like all other airplanes ever built or certified? That is absurd. Yes the design of the MAX may cause it to pitch up more in certain flight regimes (take off when fully loaded at high AOA's) but that doesn't make it unsafe or unique. MCAS was designed to help the MAX never get in that situation - maybe because Boeing (as well as Airbus) apparently are concerned about declining pilot standards. However exiting a stall is the most basic thing a pilot is taught to do.

As long as the pilot can maintain a consistent climb AOA in Manual mode (this should not be considered a difficult skill in any plane - if you can't do that you should not be in a cockpit) MCAS will never be activated. This will never happen when the Autopilot is active as the AP does a pretty good job at maintaining a consistent climb.

If MCAS fails again (which it can again even with two sensors as two sensors can go bad at the same time - but they seemed to have dumbed it down so it can't put the plane in a nose down situation so crashes should be avoided and no pilot should have missed the memo on to hit the trim cut-off switches if MCAS or Electric Trim starts doing weird things again) and does nothing to limit the flight envelope and the plane enters a stall then that is no big problem - lower the nose or add power to exit the stall - the plane will not fall out of the air - there will be lots of warnings (stick shakers etc..) that will alert the pilot that they are about to enter a stall.

If the pilots are so incompetent to allow a plane that is in a stall to enter a spin yes then it could crash - but then you would be talking about Pilot incompetence so bad that they should not have even passed basic flight training or be allowed to even fly a Cessna.

I have no way of knowing for sure - but I would have to guess that the more forward COG of the Max would help it exit the stall sooner as it would help to pull the nose down.

The MAX will be fine after this fix - no better or worse than any other Commercial airplane out there. In fact I will feel safer on a MAX due to the fact that it actually has physical connections to it's primary flight surfaces in the case of a full electric failure.


So why did Boeing implement it if any competent pilot does not require MCAS in order to be able to fly safely?

AFAIK they did it to be able to remain on the same type certificate as the NG.

That they botched the implementation of it, hid changes (allegedly) from the FAA and did not openly inform airlines or pilots of its existence is the issue.

I would add not informing the 737 simulator makers about how, when, and how much the MCAS can alter trim.


Do you think this statement is 'econmical with the truth' then? I would not think the sim runs would have included AOA sensor fail high as a scenario either.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/faa-h ... 019-03-27/
FAA head: "Flight training was not needed"
Senator Krysten Sinema, D-Arizona, asked why information about the MCAS system was not required in pilot training materials for the Boeing 737 Max 8.
The FAA's Elwell began by answering that during new certification there is a Flight Standardization Board of experts, pilots and engineers whose responsibility is to determine if the handling characteristics of a new aircraft require flight training. Elwell said, "What the MCAS did was correct for some very slight modification that the Max had. The Max has slightly larger diameter engines," compared to earlier Boeing 737 models.

The FAA "put pilots in these simulators and fly the aircraft that's being amended and the new aircraft and after many scenarios, flights in all regimes of these pilots, there was a consensus opinion from the pilots, European, American and Canadian pilots, that there was no market difference in the handling characteristics of these two aircraft," he said.
"That is what we need to determine what kind of flight training was not or needed. And there was by the recommendation of the Flight Standardization Board -- understand this is a board that has been used dozens and dozens of times -- their unanimous opinion was flight training was not needed, and they didn't flight test the MCAS per say because the MCAS is a device that is supplement to another system."

Ray
 
WIederling
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:44 pm

seahawk wrote:
It is the old conflict between safety and innovation, so I have more a problem with the installation than they type of battery.


787 batteries and our new case on the block the 737MAX MCAS are not about a tradeoff "safety versus innovation".

Both are perfect examples of unthinking engineers doing a compromised design.
cubicle minds. never look left or right.

Difference to older stuff is that that phase has passed some time ago.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8489
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:38 pm

WIederling wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is the old conflict between safety and innovation, so I have more a problem with the installation than they type of battery.


787 batteries and our new case on the block the 737MAX MCAS are not about a tradeoff "safety versus innovation".

Both are perfect examples of unthinking engineers doing a compromised design.
cubicle minds. never look left or right.

Difference to older stuff is that that phase has passed some time ago.


Imho it is totally different. There was not much experience using the new batteries, while it is good practice to use more than one sensor for flight relevant systems.
 
dakota123
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:40 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
dakota123 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:

Are you sure those contractual liability clauses would stand up if there is clear evidence of negligence?


Not a lawyer, but from UAL’s 2010 purchase of A350s that would seem to be the case — and it’s blanket, not for various situations. Boeing’s agreements read basically the same, except that I did see a couple that imply negotiated, confidential terms.

SELLER HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND RENOUNCES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS, GUARANTEES AND LIABILITIES OF THE SELLER AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND REMEDIES OF THE BUYER AGAINST THE SELLER, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY CONTRACT, TORT, OR STATUTORY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY NONCONFORMITY OR DEFECT OR PROBLEM OF ANY KIND IN ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY, PART, SOFTWARE, DATA OR SERVICE DELIVERED BY THE SELLER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR ANY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR PURPOSE;
ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY ARISING FROM COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR TORT, UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, HOWEVER ALLEGED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIONS AND/OR CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL ACTS, WILLFUL DISREGARD, IMPLIED WARRANTY, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY OR FAILURE TO WARN;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR ANY OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER ANY REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS IMPOSED BY ANY INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, STATE OR LOCAL STATUTE OR AGENCY;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY TO RECOVER OR BE COMPENSATED FOR:
LOSS OF USE OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;
(i) LOSS OF, OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND TO, ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;

53
(ii) LOSS OF PROFITS AND/OR REVENUES;
(iii) ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE.
THE WARRANTIES AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY PROVIDED BY THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE EXTENDED, ALTERED OR VARIED EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THE BUYER. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY PROVISION OF THIS CLAUSE 12 SHOULD FOR ANY REASON BE HELD UNLAWFUL, OR OTHERWISE UNENFORCEABLE, THE REMAINDER OF THIS CLAUSE 12 WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE 12.5, “SELLER” WILL BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE THE SELLER, ITS AFFILIATES AND SUPPLIERS

You can find this particular agreement here; there are many others on the SEC site as well. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex1027.htm


Is this a US thing, being able to demand that a client waives a right to recompense against criminal activity? (hence the wording of my original question to include negligence).

It could well be a different between B2B and B2C contracts and I could just be plain wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in Europe the law trumps a contract.


Elsewhere I believe the agreement states that the parties agree that the contract has been fully negotiated and agreed to, specifically including liability limits. (If it’s not in this one, it’s definitely in some of the others I looked at.). But yes, law trumps contracts, and there’s a statement somewhere that if a particular clause is contrary to law, all other provisions remain in effect.

In any case, this being the good ole’ USA, anybody can sue anybody at any time for any reason. Cue Wiederling in 3, 2, 1... ;-)
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
AviationBob
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:14 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:52 pm

maint123 wrote:
737 Max in Mr wonderful's words should be 'taken behind the barn and shot'.


It likely will be, but just the name.

I'm guessing Boeing will likely introduce a new model name after implementing the fixes. The new/improved 737-sonething!

All of the hubbub will die down and it will be back to business as usual.....
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:03 pm

AviationBob wrote:
maint123 wrote:
737 Max in Mr wonderful's words should be 'taken behind the barn and shot'.


It likely will be, but just the name.

I'm guessing Boeing will likely introduce a new model name after implementing the fixes. The new/improved 737-sonething!

All of the hubbub will die down and it will be back to business as usual.....

I can see it go to just -7 -8 -9 -10, without giving it specific new name after dropping the MAX brand.
 
dakota123
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:49 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
If I get a chance to get back into a Level D sim in the next few weeks I'm going to make a video of a level flight at 2000ft, then manually trim to full nose down, then flick those switches, then manually crank and see if altitude is still on my side.

In the absence of a full MAX simulator, what you need is for the guy in the other seat to quietly (and without warning) trim nose down using the thumb switches, whilst innocently looking at the scenery out of the window. See how long it takes you to notice and counter-act his action.

Remember, he is not going to warn you what he is doing - it's up to you to notice the difference between normal trim wheel movement, and this extreme case.

Your plan to trim full down should not really happen without you noticing something and interrupting the procedure.

.....unless you are also distracted by a stick shaker, and a clutch of random warning lights ….. :scratchchin:


The sim operator can simulate failed AOA/simulate MCAS activation from his console pretty easily, I would imagine. No MAX sim needed (for failure scenario anyway).
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
WIederling wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is the old conflict between safety and innovation, so I have more a problem with the installation than they type of battery.


787 batteries and our new case on the block the 737MAX MCAS are not about a tradeoff "safety versus innovation".

Both are perfect examples of unthinking engineers doing a compromised design.
cubicle minds. never look left or right.

Difference to older stuff is that that phase has passed some time ago.


Imho it is totally different. There was not much experience using the new batteries, while it is good practice to use more than one sensor for flight relevant systems.


The batteries were bad enough. I am astonished that still somebody tries to find excuses for that disaster of bad engineering. Just the simple fact that a lithium ion battery is based on a hydrocarbon solvent, aka highly flammable when heated, should have given an engineer a pause while planing to stuff it in an electrical cabinet.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:58 pm

dakota123 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
If I get a chance to get back into a Level D sim in the next few weeks I'm going to make a video of a level flight at 2000ft, then manually trim to full nose down, then flick those switches, then manually crank and see if altitude is still on my side.

In the absence of a full MAX simulator, what you need is for the guy in the other seat to quietly (and without warning) trim nose down using the thumb switches, whilst innocently looking at the scenery out of the window. See how long it takes you to notice and counter-act his action.

Remember, he is not going to warn you what he is doing - it's up to you to notice the difference between normal trim wheel movement, and this extreme case.

Your plan to trim full down should not really happen without you noticing something and interrupting the procedure.

.....unless you are also distracted by a stick shaker, and a clutch of random warning lights ….. :scratchchin:


The sim operator can simulate failed AOA/simulate MCAS activation from his console pretty easily, I would imagine. No MAX sim needed (for failure scenario anyway).


Not on the max simulators sold to customers. Could have clued in pilots about the information that MCAS existed.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:24 pm

I am not surprised by US members thinking that The FAA can blackmail the EASA (dream on). You should remember that Airbus had to wait 6 weeks for the FAA to green light the A 350, a plane with extensive certification campaign and no grandfathering shortcut.
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
WIederling
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:26 pm

seahawk wrote:
Imho it is totally different. There was not much experience using the new batteries, while it is good practice to use more than one sensor for flight relevant systems.


If you look around there was quite a bit of exerience with new tech non NiCad batteries.
Longstanding experience in the automotive domain.
( actually the box Airbus uses has pronounced similarity to what for example Daimler Benz showcased and tested
extensively in the early 90ties. thermal management, robust packaging and sophisticated
storage management.)
Airbus had LiIon in the emergeny opening mechanism for the doors, emergency lighting,
Lange Aviation had used the same cells for an electric propulsion autostart capable glider.
The Saft cells we are talking about have a history in military high energy densitiy applications ...

There was zero technical reason to not only take the more volatile chemistry
but also botch the batteries and charger design on the 787 in general.
( IMHO and afaics were the batteries another "in the drawer" solution from the fife/ten years older Sonic Cruiser project.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:47 pm

ssteve wrote:
SurlyBonds wrote:
Absolutely this. The point of MCAS is that it was supposed to compensate for *fundamental flight instability* issues. Ponder that for a moment.


I have pondered. What's the threshold? The planes should be impossible to stall?


Obviously not, but my understanding the 737 MAX is more prone to stalling than earlier 737 version because of the placement of the engines.
 
dakota123
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:47 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
dakota123 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In the absence of a full MAX simulator, what you need is for the guy in the other seat to quietly (and without warning) trim nose down using the thumb switches, whilst innocently looking at the scenery out of the window. See how long it takes you to notice and counter-act his action.

Remember, he is not going to warn you what he is doing - it's up to you to notice the difference between normal trim wheel movement, and this extreme case.

Your plan to trim full down should not really happen without you noticing something and interrupting the procedure.

.....unless you are also distracted by a stick shaker, and a clutch of random warning lights ….. :scratchchin:


The sim operator can simulate failed AOA/simulate MCAS activation from his console pretty easily, I would imagine. No MAX sim needed (for failure scenario anyway).


Not on the max simulators sold to customers. Could have clued in pilots about the information that MCAS existed.


I’m refering to the sim operator failing an AOA (and whatever else was/may have been failed in these cases) and then running trim manually as MCAS would to simulate inappropriate MCAS activation.
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
WIederling
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:57 pm

dakota123 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
dakota123 wrote:

The sim operator can simulate failed AOA/simulate MCAS activation from his console pretty easily, I would imagine. No MAX sim needed (for failure scenario anyway).


Not on the max simulators sold to customers. Could have clued in pilots about the information that MCAS existed.


I’m refering to the sim operator failing an AOA (and whatever else was/may have been failed in these cases) and then running trim manually as MCAS would to simulate inappropriate MCAS activation.

No commercially available simulator for the 737 ( MAX or not ) seems to know about MCAS(yet).
A really well kept secret.
Murphy is an optimist
 
dakota123
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:13 pm

WIederling wrote:
dakota123 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Not on the max simulators sold to customers. Could have clued in pilots about the information that MCAS existed.


I’m refering to the sim operator failing an AOA (and whatever else was/may have been failed in these cases) and then running trim manually as MCAS would to simulate inappropriate MCAS activation.

No commercially available simulator for the 737 ( MAX or not ) seems to know about MCAS(yet).
A really well kept secret.


I’m not making myself clear. Strictly talking about simulating inappropriate MCAS behaviour. The sim operator can do that easily enough in any 737 sim, as he is able to control trim. (The Sheik originally posited that the FO could do this for training; I was just pointing out that the sim operator can do this.)
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:14 pm

PW100 wrote:
I don't think you understand how "Self-Certification" works. BTW, I hate that word, because it does little to describe how the process really works. I'd like to use "delegated authority".

In any case, I believe that even if MCAS was not covered by the "delegated authority" but directly by FAA themselves, even then it might have slipped the mazes of the certification net.

During, and as a result of flight testing, MCAS system parameters and authority level were changed significantly. Those very system parameters were an important input into the risk assessment matrix, to determine system and sensor reliability and required redundancy level. The problem was that the flight-test-changes to those parameters were not reported back to the certification authority. Which in this case was the "delegated authority". But if FAA would have done this themselves, (so no "self-certification"), do we have any evidence to conclude that those parameter changes would have been reported back to FAA? I haven't seen any of that, did you?

More self-certification / delegated authority permitted where grandfathering applies.

MCAS was presumably 'sold' to the FAA as enhanced STS (so grandfathered from NG). Isn't this one of the issues raised by EASA at the time?

Switching from 0.6 to 2.5 degrees flight authority, and multiple / increased force intervention, should have triggered an FAA review and removal of delegated authority in respect to the MCAS system.
 
art
Posts: 2906
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:21 pm

asdf wrote:
do you really think there will ever be a FAA airbus certification again if the EASA now doesnt waive through the MCAS fix within days - never mind what fix they provide?

that's all political
the topic is done.


If FAA signed off an unsafe aircraft, they made a big mistake. Flight safety has nothing to do with politics. I would prefer to get on a plane approved by AESA than get on a plane where FAA gave the certification.
 
RogerMurdock
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:09 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
Yeah, I too fail to understand the logic of this so called fix. I mean, MCAS was deemed critical enough to the safety of the plane that it was designed and implemented in the first place. But now the fix basically self-disables the system every time there is AoA disagreement, or the pilot counters its actions. And now we are flying without the critical system. Some fix...


A multiple sensor failure resulting in reduced flight envelope protections is not some shocking outcome. Indeed, it is exactly how an Airbus would degrade to Alternate Law or Direct Law. It is up to training to inform pilots of how to proceed in such a scenario and be aware of which protections are lost.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:20 pm

RogerMurdock wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
Yeah, I too fail to understand the logic of this so called fix. I mean, MCAS was deemed critical enough to the safety of the plane that it was designed and implemented in the first place. But now the fix basically self-disables the system every time there is AoA disagreement, or the pilot counters its actions. And now we are flying without the critical system. Some fix...


A multiple sensor failure resulting in reduced flight envelope protections is not some shocking outcome. Indeed, it is exactly how an Airbus would degrade to Alternate Law or Direct Law. It is up to training to inform pilots of how to proceed in such a scenario and be aware of which protections are lost.


Yes, but do you really believe that the knowledge and training Boeing provided was sufficient? And the implementation - seems that it needs a fix or two, right? We have to use our discernment to view reality.
 
RogerMurdock
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:29 pm

spinotter wrote:
Yes, but do you really believe that the knowledge and training Boeing provided was sufficient? And the implementation - seems that it needs a fix or two, right? We have to use our discernment to view reality.


Of course, the training and implementation of MCAS (and certification) were woefully insufficient. I'm just saying that with a better implementation and better training, MCAS is basically a FBW-like envelope protection.
 
akb88
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:44 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:34 pm

As an already nervous flier and an IT professional the words "software fix" doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. If it's a hardwar fault or a design flaw then I don't think anyone will ever feel comfortable boarding a MAX
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:57 pm

speedking wrote:
I don't trust in any corporation or need any government to tell me what to do. Do you?
In the end only the ones who know how to think for themselves, survive.


Let me guess: You're a doomsday prepper. :bored:
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:59 pm

akb88 wrote:
As an already nervous flier and an IT professional the words "software fix" doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. If it's a hardwar fault or a design flaw then I don't think anyone will ever feel comfortable boarding a MAX


Roughly, what Boeing proposes appears to be a number of system design changes that will be predominantly implemented in software in the MCAS. some level of cabling change may also be necessary related to signals to MCAS but suspect its is all databus stuff. Addtionally, an existing option for a AOA disagree indicator will also be implemented on A/C that dont already have it (This design is already available). Associated updates to documentation and training will be necessary.
 
jollo
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:26 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/faa-h ... 019-03-27/
FAA head Elwell: "Flight training was not needed"

"...And there was by the recommendation of the Flight Standardization Board -- understand this is a board that has been used dozens and dozens of times -- their unanimous opinion was flight training was not needed, and they didn't flight test the MCAS per say because the MCAS is a device that is supplement to another system."


Can someone please explain this to me? I'm not a native English speaker... is "per say" a misspeling of latin "per se", meaning they didn't specifically test MCAS while deciding if flight training was needed?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:27 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
akb88 wrote:
As an already nervous flier and an IT professional the words "software fix" doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. If it's a hardwar fault or a design flaw then I don't think anyone will ever feel comfortable boarding a MAX


Roughly, what Boeing proposes appears to be a number of system design changes that will be predominantly implemented in software in the MCAS. some level of cabling change may also be necessary related to signals to MCAS but suspect its is all databus stuff. Addtionally, an existing option for a AOA disagree indicator will also be implemented on A/C that dont already have it (This design is already available). Associated updates to documentation and training will be necessary.


Will this patch also show the "little bits of turning the screws tighter" that the initial "flying with customers" MCAS setup shew
in relation to the config that passed the FAA "officially"? :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:32 pm

jollo wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/faa-h ... 019-03-27/
FAA head Elwell: "Flight training was not needed"

"...And there was by the recommendation of the Flight Standardization Board -- understand this is a board that has been used dozens and dozens of times -- their unanimous opinion was flight training was not needed, and they didn't flight test the MCAS per say because the MCAS is a device that is supplement to another system."


Can someone please explain this to me? I'm not a native English speaker... is "per say" a misspeling of latin "per se", meaning they didn't specifically test MCAS while deciding if flight training was needed?


Correct. it should be per se. Some people at CBS not so good at latin?


Ray
 
akb88
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:44 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:38 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
akb88 wrote:
As an already nervous flier and an IT professional the words "software fix" doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. If it's a hardwar fault or a design flaw then I don't think anyone will ever feel comfortable boarding a MAX


Roughly, what Boeing proposes appears to be a number of system design changes that will be predominantly implemented in software in the MCAS. some level of cabling change may also be necessary related to signals to MCAS but suspect its is all databus stuff. Addtionally, an existing option for a AOA disagree indicator will also be implemented on A/C that dont already have it (This design is already available). Associated updates to documentation and training will be necessary.


Which means what in relation to the safety of the aircraft?
 
cainanuk
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 4:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:47 pm

Driving by MAN today, I watched a Max-8 depart at around 1530.. it was a TUI aircraft.. Was definitely a Max-8. What gives, I thought they were all still grounded.
Cainan Cornelius
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:49 pm

cainanuk wrote:
Driving by MAN today, I watched a Max-8 depart at around 1530.. it was a TUI aircraft.. Was definitely a Max-8. What gives, I thought they were all still grounded.
Ferry flights are allowed.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:55 pm

trigged wrote:
I was looking at Flightaware and noticed United has a Max 9 flying to IAH from SAL. I thought all MAX aircraft were grounded. UAL1467. Is this just a software /info glitch?

Ferry flights are allowed.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3717
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:12 pm

morrisond wrote:
vfw614 wrote:
How is the fix really a fix?

If MCAS is switched off automatically, we have an aircraft without MCAS. Apparently MCAS is good for something in the first place, otherwise it would not be there. So the aircraft will then be operating at the brink of a stall and the pilots need to keep it in the air? Sounds as relaxed as running at high speed balancing an egg on a teaspoon....


I've copied my response from above. A MAX will fly absolutely fine without MCAS - it just helps prevent a stall - however if a plane get's in a stall (which it should never if the pilot is half competent) it's not really a big thing - spins are a different matter though.

My Repsonse:

What problem exactly are you talking about? That a MAX can obtain an AOA that it stalls like all other airplanes ever built or certified? That is absurd. Yes the design of the MAX may cause it to pitch up more in certain flight regimes (take off when fully loaded at high AOA's) but that doesn't make it unsafe or unique. MCAS was designed to help the MAX never get in that situation - maybe because Boeing (as well as Airbus) apparently are concerned about declining pilot standards. However exiting a stall is the most basic thing a pilot is taught to do.

As long as the pilot can maintain a consistent climb AOA in Manual mode (this should not be considered a difficult skill in any plane - if you can't do that you should not be in a cockpit) MCAS will never be activated. This will never happen when the Autopilot is active as the AP does a pretty good job at maintaining a consistent climb.

If MCAS fails again (which it can again even with two sensors as two sensors can go bad at the same time - but they seemed to have dumbed it down so it can't put the plane in a nose down situation so crashes should be avoided and no pilot should have missed the memo on to hit the trim cut-off switches if MCAS or Electric Trim starts doing weird things again) and does nothing to limit the flight envelope and the plane enters a stall then that is no big problem - lower the nose or add power to exit the stall - the plane will not fall out of the air - there will be lots of warnings (stick shakers etc..) that will alert the pilot that they are about to enter a stall.

If the pilots are so incompetent to allow a plane that is in a stall to enter a spin yes then it could crash - but then you would be talking about Pilot incompetence so bad that they should not have even passed basic flight training or be allowed to even fly a Cessna.

I have no way of knowing for sure - but I would have to guess that the more forward COG of the Max would help it exit the stall sooner as it would help to pull the nose down.

The MAX will be fine after this fix - no better or worse than any other Commercial airplane out there. In fact I will feel safer on a MAX due to the fact that it actually has physical connections to it's primary flight surfaces in the case of a full electric failure.


I thank you for your detailed response. I had read it before, and found it useful to read it again.
It corrected my thinking that the 737 AMX was an unstable plane at those parts of the flight envelope, which it is not. The “issue” is that the natural stability is somewhat reduced (compared to 737NG), where a relatively minor stick force could unintentionally bring it into stall territory.

However I do have some questions with bringing in the ” concern about declining pilot standards”.
It was my understanding (and that I may be incorrect) that main driver for MCAS were some specific FAR requirements, stipulating the amount of stick force at those situations, and more specific the trend of stick force as a function of speed and AoA. Apparently, because of the reduced stability (for reasons mentioned), the MAX would not conform to those FARs, and Boeing had to come up with MCAS to improve the handling characteristics in terms of stick force at that part of the flight envelope. If stick force changes with speed and AoA, than maintain a certain AoA would become (more) difficult.

That said, it may be that those FARs were created to cope with declining pilot standards, but that would be a somewhat odd way to cope with that. FAA must also have regulations on pilot standards, staring and licenses; surely, those would be more appropriate to handle declining pilot standards?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
speedking
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:18 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
speedking wrote:
I don't trust in any corporation or need any government to tell me what to do. Do you?
In the end only the ones who know how to think for themselves, survive.


Let me guess: You're a doomsday prepper. :bored:


Yes, you could say that. If that unfortunate day arrives, it is easy for me though, luckily, to just switch my business to an airline with planes from other manufacturers. How about you?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:04 am

dakota123 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
dakota123 wrote:

Not a lawyer, but from UAL’s 2010 purchase of A350s that would seem to be the case — and it’s blanket, not for various situations. Boeing’s agreements read basically the same, except that I did see a couple that imply negotiated, confidential terms.

SELLER HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND RENOUNCES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS, GUARANTEES AND LIABILITIES OF THE SELLER AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND REMEDIES OF THE BUYER AGAINST THE SELLER, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY CONTRACT, TORT, OR STATUTORY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY NONCONFORMITY OR DEFECT OR PROBLEM OF ANY KIND IN ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY, PART, SOFTWARE, DATA OR SERVICE DELIVERED BY THE SELLER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR ANY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR PURPOSE;
ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY ARISING FROM COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY FOR TORT, UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, HOWEVER ALLEGED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIONS AND/OR CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL ACTS, WILLFUL DISREGARD, IMPLIED WARRANTY, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY OR FAILURE TO WARN;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR ANY OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY ARISING UNDER ANY REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS IMPOSED BY ANY INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, STATE OR LOCAL STATUTE OR AGENCY;
ANY RIGHT, CLAIM OR REMEDY TO RECOVER OR BE COMPENSATED FOR:
LOSS OF USE OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;
(i) LOSS OF, OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND TO, ANY AIRCRAFT, COMPONENT, EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORY OR PART PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;

53
(ii) LOSS OF PROFITS AND/OR REVENUES;
(iii) ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE.
THE WARRANTIES AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY PROVIDED BY THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE EXTENDED, ALTERED OR VARIED EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THE BUYER. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY PROVISION OF THIS CLAUSE 12 SHOULD FOR ANY REASON BE HELD UNLAWFUL, OR OTHERWISE UNENFORCEABLE, THE REMAINDER OF THIS CLAUSE 12 WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE 12.5, “SELLER” WILL BE UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE THE SELLER, ITS AFFILIATES AND SUPPLIERS

You can find this particular agreement here; there are many others on the SEC site as well. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex1027.htm


Is this a US thing, being able to demand that a client waives a right to recompense against criminal activity? (hence the wording of my original question to include negligence).

It could well be a different between B2B and B2C contracts and I could just be plain wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in Europe the law trumps a contract.


Elsewhere I believe the agreement states that the parties agree that the contract has been fully negotiated and agreed to, specifically including liability limits. (If it’s not in this one, it’s definitely in some of the others I looked at.). But yes, law trumps contracts, and there’s a statement somewhere that if a particular clause is contrary to law, all other provisions remain in effect.

In any case, this being the good ole’ USA, anybody can sue anybody at any time for any reason. Cue Wiederling in 3, 2, 1... ;-)

The devil is in the detail. All the relevant parts are covered by side agreements, of which there may be upwards of 40, none of which are disclosed. For example, there is no reference to retrospective credits.
 
dakota123
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:24 am

Definitely true with several of the Boeing contracts readily found. This one is pretty devoid of references to side agreements.
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”
 
AvFanNJ
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:47 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:46 am

maint123 wrote:
737 Max in Mr wonderful's words should be 'taken behind the barn and shot'.

I wish the mods would just delete pointless and unhelpful comments such as this. A big fat zero.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos