hivue
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:52 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
My claim was that the ap could no longer fly the plane. you're saying this is wrong???


Say what? The bird strike occurred less than 4 minutes after departure. The AP would not have been on in the first place.

The crew made 2 decisions that likely save everyone on board: ditch in the Hudson instead of returning to LGA or going to Teterboro, and turn on the APU out of sync with the checklist they used. The latter allowed the airplane to remain in normal law with all envelope protections in place. The airplane likely would have stalled during the ditching if this hadn't been the case.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:04 pm

kalvado wrote:
As for engine failure at takeoff, at least from the formal perspective, what is the probability of failure within those 3-5 critical minutes? Optimistically, I assume less than 1e-6 - although 1 in 100k hours for ETOPS180 means just about 1e-6. If you will, there are 2.5k flights daily at ATL and 2.4k at ORD. That is more than 1.5 M annually in those 2 airports alone, and when was last case of takeoff failure in US?
Then.. Drill in sim for better response rate. Overrun protection at runway end. Probably checking engine parameters before releasing brakes is another piece of the puzzle. Oh, and pray hard. Even if you're not religious, that wouldn't hurt.


Failure at takeoff thrust depends on the engine architecture. Newer engines are under the most stress at the beginning of cruise. This hasn't always been the case. For decades, takeoff thrust was the high stress point for engines. The 3-5 minutes of takeoff thrust was where most serious engine failures occurred (blade failures, combuster burn throughs etc) that lead to "hard" shutdowns. At one point, the industry was doing some soul searching about the viability of twins due to the probability of a dual engine failure at takeoff.

Checking engine parameters prior to takeoff won't help much. Idle is a poor failure predictor.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:09 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
As for engine failure at takeoff, at least from the formal perspective, what is the probability of failure within those 3-5 critical minutes? Optimistically, I assume less than 1e-6 - although 1 in 100k hours for ETOPS180 means just about 1e-6. If you will, there are 2.5k flights daily at ATL and 2.4k at ORD. That is more than 1.5 M annually in those 2 airports alone, and when was last case of takeoff failure in US?
Then.. Drill in sim for better response rate. Overrun protection at runway end. Probably checking engine parameters before releasing brakes is another piece of the puzzle. Oh, and pray hard. Even if you're not religious, that wouldn't hurt.


Failure at takeoff thrust depends on the engine architecture. Newer engines are under the most stress at the beginning of cruise. This hasn't always been the case. For decades, takeoff thrust was the high stress point for engines. The 3-5 minutes of takeoff thrust was where most serious engine failures occurred (blade failures, combuster burn throughs etc) that lead to "hard" shutdowns. At one point, the industry was doing some soul searching about the viability of twins due to the probability of a dual engine failure at takeoff.

Checking engine parameters prior to takeoff won't help much. Idle is a poor failure predictor.

Sure, but I was trying to figure out actual RTO rate these days.
I assume big part of remedy is running scenario every sim session, and actually being prepared for that particular failure within those minutes. V1 calculation and awareness is actually a part of that preparation.
Problem is that you cannot equally drill all possible scenarios nor be on high alertfor a few hours every day.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:43 pm

kalvado wrote:
Sure, but I was trying to figure out actual RTO rate these days.

Seem to be very roughly in the order of once per week when looking at AH:
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=rejec ... search.y=0
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Yes, would the NG need MCAS if it were certified today? Since MCAS was designed to meet a force gradient spec., what is the force gradient of the -700, -900, MAX 7 to MAX 10? That would explain a lot.


you find it dozens of dozens times explained here in the thread

its all about the size of the engines
they don't fit under the wings because the wings have less clearance below the wings than other planes like the bus 320 and others

B extended the landing gear once to fit the larger engines on the NG years ago
but they can't extend it any more now

so they needed to move the engines in front of the wing to get them fixed on that bird
and that is the problem

I am pretty sure there is no aircraft designer who would fix engines like that if he had the choice
because it makes the planes flight characteristic questionable

some say its all only about certification
others say its simply not safe

fact is B needs on the MAX electronic aids to compensate the momentum which arises because of that not suitable position of the engines - not below but - in front of the wings

all the other stuff like MCAS, AOA-problems, AOA-indicator, to less elevator authority and else are simply a result of the engines, fixed at a unsuitable point because they would not have enough ground clearance otherwise


You have to take a look at the 787 vs MAX then - they are mounted roughly in the same way/spot.

You can't generalize about aerodynamics like you have - they are way too complex - and it's not about creating momentum - the controls just get lighter than allowed by the FAR's in certain situations which in normal airline operations would be few and far between.

That’s right. You can’t generalize about aerodynamics, such as “roughly” comparing the 787 to the 737MAX engine placement. Besides, if you’re going to go down that road… from a visual inspection, the engine positioning on the NG vs the MAX is as “roughly” similar as between MAX and 787.

I find your posts are generally pretty well thought out, even if I sometimes disagree with you. So, I was surprised at this post.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:51 pm

planecane wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
planecane wrote:

If that's the case then why didn't the Lion Air and ET crews throw the switches right away? By your statement surely they shouldn't have allowed the trim to run away for 10 seconds. You are saying that they never should have known MCAS wasn't continuous since "as fast as you can" would certainly be under 10 seconds.


Because very simply said, the procedure advertised by Boeing does not work or only very badly. The trim wheel does not work, apart from when the frame is nearly in trim anyway.

In a real runaway trim, you do not have the option of using the manual electrical trim before throwing the switch. It is just the hope that you are still not so far out of trim that you can still use the wheel. If you are to far out of trim and out of height you are dead.

If the automatic is going berserk you still have the possibility of using electrical trim with the manual switches. With the qualification, that nothing else is keeping you from trimming back.

That is also why one should keep apart if there is an automatic going berserk, or if you have a runaway trim. But wise Boeing tells you to look at it being the same event, even if the same procedures do not work.


You are starting to just make stuff up and put out contradictory arguments. So you are saying that a runaway stabilizer requires flipping the switches as quickly as possible but neither crash crew did that because the procedure doesn't work even though they wouldn't have known if it would have worked or not?

Do you have facts to support that in a "real runaway" you don't have the option of using manual electric trim? The NNC says to use it and only use the cutoff switches if the runaway continues.

Also, you state that the trim wheel does not work apart from when the frame is nearly in trim. Do you have facts to support that statement? At what point out of trim does it become difficult to turn the wheel? We know it is near impossible when extremely out of trim AND at high speed but we don't know how far out of trim you can be and have it be relatively easy. It's hard to tell exactly due to the scaling and unlabeled axis but JT043 seems to have been pretty far out of trim when they cut off electric trim and used the trim wheel.


Yes a real run away, like for example the relay controlling the trim motor is stuck, That will give you all the indication marking a real runaway. The switches on the column will not stop the runaway. The runaway is continuous. The only action is throwing the switches to cut the power. And than you will even need to hold the wheel to stop the runaway. And when the airplane is than seriously out of trim and flying low, that is it, because the backup, the trimming wheel, will not budge and you have no height above the ground for the roller coaster maneuver.

If you have not got it, that is impossible to turn the wheel, when the trim is serious off, you have not followed the thread, or you read over what you do not like.

The saving grace for the NG, is that a trim runaway hardly ever happens.
 
planecane
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:00 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
planecane wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Because very simply said, the procedure advertised by Boeing does not work or only very badly. The trim wheel does not work, apart from when the frame is nearly in trim anyway.

In a real runaway trim, you do not have the option of using the manual electrical trim before throwing the switch. It is just the hope that you are still not so far out of trim that you can still use the wheel. If you are to far out of trim and out of height you are dead.

If the automatic is going berserk you still have the possibility of using electrical trim with the manual switches. With the qualification, that nothing else is keeping you from trimming back.

That is also why one should keep apart if there is an automatic going berserk, or if you have a runaway trim. But wise Boeing tells you to look at it being the same event, even if the same procedures do not work.


You are starting to just make stuff up and put out contradictory arguments. So you are saying that a runaway stabilizer requires flipping the switches as quickly as possible but neither crash crew did that because the procedure doesn't work even though they wouldn't have known if it would have worked or not?

Do you have facts to support that in a "real runaway" you don't have the option of using manual electric trim? The NNC says to use it and only use the cutoff switches if the runaway continues.

Also, you state that the trim wheel does not work apart from when the frame is nearly in trim. Do you have facts to support that statement? At what point out of trim does it become difficult to turn the wheel? We know it is near impossible when extremely out of trim AND at high speed but we don't know how far out of trim you can be and have it be relatively easy. It's hard to tell exactly due to the scaling and unlabeled axis but JT043 seems to have been pretty far out of trim when they cut off electric trim and used the trim wheel.


Yes a real run away, like for example the relay controlling the trim motor is stuck, That will give you all the indication marking a real runaway. The switches on the column will not stop the runaway. The runaway is continuous. The only action is throwing the switches to cut the power. And than you will even need to hold the wheel to stop the runaway. And when the airplane is than seriously out of trim and flying low, that is it, because the backup, the trimming wheel, will not budge and you have no height above the ground for the roller coaster maneuver.

If you have not got it, that is impossible to turn the wheel, when the trim is serious off, you have not followed the thread, or you read over what you do not like.

The saving grace for the NG, is that a trim runaway hardly ever happens.


Please quote an official certified document that defines a "real runaway" because the way the NNC is written indicates that something like a stuck relay is not the only, or primary, cause of a runaway stabilizer.

I don't have access to the part specifications but I'd have to assume that the relay has some type of internal redundancy and is designed that if it fails, it will fail NOT outputting voltage to run the motor. I would have trouble believing that they would go through the effort to make the thumb switch be two switches pressed simultaneously but then just use a single relay with no redundancy.

You have also not provided any facts that say at what speed (in combination with altitude) and how far out of trim the wheel becomes difficult to turn. I don't know the answer but JT043 was definitely out of trim when they started using it.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:11 pm

aerolimani wrote:
morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:

you find it dozens of dozens times explained here in the thread

its all about the size of the engines
they don't fit under the wings because the wings have less clearance below the wings than other planes like the bus 320 and others

B extended the landing gear once to fit the larger engines on the NG years ago
but they can't extend it any more now

so they needed to move the engines in front of the wing to get them fixed on that bird
and that is the problem

I am pretty sure there is no aircraft designer who would fix engines like that if he had the choice
because it makes the planes flight characteristic questionable

some say its all only about certification
others say its simply not safe

fact is B needs on the MAX electronic aids to compensate the momentum which arises because of that not suitable position of the engines - not below but - in front of the wings

all the other stuff like MCAS, AOA-problems, AOA-indicator, to less elevator authority and else are simply a result of the engines, fixed at a unsuitable point because they would not have enough ground clearance otherwise


You have to take a look at the 787 vs MAX then - they are mounted roughly in the same way/spot.

You can't generalize about aerodynamics like you have - they are way too complex - and it's not about creating momentum - the controls just get lighter than allowed by the FAR's in certain situations which in normal airline operations would be few and far between.

That’s right. You can’t generalize about aerodynamics, such as “roughly” comparing the 787 to the 737MAX engine placement. Besides, if you’re going to go down that road… from a visual inspection, the engine positioning on the NG vs the MAX is as “roughly” similar as between MAX and 787.

I find your posts are generally pretty well thought out, even if I sometimes disagree with you. So, I was surprised at this post.


It's hard to tell how high they are on the 787 as it's harder to find a picture of the 787 from Engine mounting height. Some look the same as the MAX some don't.

I think I was remembering an article about how they got the idea for mounting the MAX engines that high from the Development Work on the 787 and the cruise penalty being insignificant.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:19 pm

Interested wrote:
Thorkel wrote:
planecane wrote:

However, in the hypothetical situation where they had a runaway stabilizer on the NG along with the other parameters, I believe that they still would have crashed. I don't think you can say that they were well trained for the safe operation of the NG. I think the few orders of magnitude higher incidence of runaway stabilizer on the MAX due to MCAS makes it appear that your statement is true.


I wouldn’t trivialise a ‘few orders of magnitude incidence’ of runaway trim. Functional Safety analysis is all probabilistic - we rarely talk in absolutes.

Let’s say you’re doing a Layers Of Protection Analysis or bow tie. You have an initiating event frequency, which is where the Max appears to differ significantly from the NG. You then have risk controls which have an associated Probability of Failure on Demand (PFD - For a low demand application) - these reduce the risk level. The risk controls can be split into two types - those that prevent Loss Of Control (on the left hand side of the bow tie) and those that mitigate or prevent a Loss Of Control turning into a hazard (the right hand side of the bow tie). You want sufficient independent layers of risk controls that a) ultimately get the residual risk down to an acceptable risk level and b) are demonstrably As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

Looking at this from my armchair, there are big issues here:
1. An initiating event frequency going up by several orders of magnitude is a real problem. It will likely drag any residual risk out of the acceptable or tolerable residual risk zone, and if that’s an increase in comparison with a previous model you’ll have a hard time proving ALARP. You need to get the risk back down, either by reducing the initiating event frequency, by beefing up risk controls to make them more effective (lower PFD) or by introducing more independent risk controls.

2. Risk controls are never assumed to be perfect, and in the industry I work in we’d rarely consider people (no matter how well skilled and educated) as a sole safety critical risk control. A person based control must be part of a series of layers that ultimately result in the residual risk being acceptable. That means we typically allow, at best, a PFD of 0.1 for a human based risk control - in other words we expect people, at best, to get a risk control wrong once in every ten attempts when they’re required to do that task in an emergency to prevent a problem turning into something worse. The human based risk control should be just one in many layers of risk controls so that failure shouldn’t always result in a significant consequence by itself.

We would have a hard time justifying a human based control having a PFD of less than 0.1. If the safety case has a low initiating event frequency, multiple layers of protection, and you end up with an acceptable residual risk then that’s fine - in other words, in the NG case, people can be a long way from perfect in conducting the manual trim checklist and there is still an acceptable safety argument.

However, if your initiating event frequency goes up by an order of magnitude or more, we’d have an extremely hard time making a safety argument that a human based control could be beefed up sufficiently to still argue the system is safe - legislation, best practice and precedent would likely prevent that argument being accepted.

If you’ve got a situation when an initiating event has gone up by several orders of magnitude, your main solutions for making a successful safety argument from my perspective are to either get the initiating frequency back down, or introduce additional safety-rated engineering risk controls. Expecting people to have a PFD of 0.01 or 0.001 conducting a safety critical risk control in an emergency situation is just not done - I’ve never seen it accepted.


Exactly why I don't really care that much for the pilot training element

I want it but it's just icing on the cake for me. I don't want them facing these issues full stop. And thats exactly what aviation safety should be aiming for before we even worry about their training

I fear to get MACS safe then Max 737 may have to compromise elsewhere and we bring more risk in elsewhere as a result

And the plane is a compromise and a flawed design


I'm curious. What are your qualifications to make such claims?
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:33 pm

hivue wrote:

Say what? The bird strike occurred less than 4 minutes after departure. The AP would not have been on in the first place.

The crew made 2 decisions that likely save everyone on board: ditch in the Hudson instead of returning to LGA or going to Teterboro, and turn on the APU out of sync with the checklist they used. The latter allowed the airplane to remain in normal law with all envelope protections in place. The airplane likely would have stalled during the ditching if this hadn't been the case.


[/quote]

the AP can be on from the start. it's common to do so. et had ap engaged from the getgo and tried to reengage after it cut out

the crew made decisions that were good for 1529. for et, they didn't. this is my point. if the crew doesn't make the right decisions. if scully doesn't turn on the apu right away, everyone dies

but that said. they simmed this flight. most pilots crashed it. exceptional pilots take extreme system failures to positive conclusions. the rest, the bottom 9x% fail and crater

you keep citing that alpha prot was engaged, and so? nobody stalled any of these frames. had it NOT been engaged, had he been facing total systems failure, even sully would have cratered. but most pilots in his shoes would anway. do you actually think the copilot on lion could have landed this plane in the Hudson??? or et's guys? they didn't even keep their speed under control

1529 didn't kill everyone because the pilot was exceptional. he took a failed aircraft that could not pilot itself and put it down gently on a river. because he's like skygod level pilot. the other guys weren't and we saw what happened. the captain on lion was doing just fine with the thumbswitch for several minutes. he had even mcas failure under control. his copilot crashed the plane. had af447 not been flown by a dunce it likely survives too.

the qf fights with the stuck aoas, you put a lion copilot on those, do they survive? I doubt it. et? probably not. they didn't control their speed how are they going to cope with the plane trying to fly them into the dirt even from cruise?

the atr icing...ap kicks off and pilots fail immediately, a sequence of mistakes, an automation failure...the ap on that flight was keeping a dangerously iced and unstable aircraft aloft for some time before it could no longer cope, good luck humans. and they rolled it immediately toward earth.

this isn't blame the pilots, it's just an admission of reality. exceptional skygod pilots are not common. when the plane hands control to the humans it is because things have gone very left and few pilots have or ever will have the sheer ability to be able to save it

mcas was a f-d up software system written by idiots that went into infinite loop nose down, not a trim runaway but a trim hop-away. this has been morphed into wild conjecture and absolutely baseless supposition about whether the 737 is a safe plane or the max did something extreme with engine placement that caused actual flow separation around the wings nad a whole ton of other issues that are completely made up, even up to and including boing intentionally cut corners and puts out products that are risky when we have a 50 year track record of the 737 to look at. this wasn't rocket science it was a bigger engine

failures happen and often because people in the chain did really stupid things such as if(true) MCAS.nosedown(); it blows the mind but humans fail and sometimes spectacularly. more training can't fix this and certainly not on a system that was literally *never* supposed to be active. no pilot should have ever been in the flight control regime where mcas would even be on in anything other than crazy circumstances so what *specific* training do you guys think was going to help out??? if your point is that they should have been trained that mcas is a bad system depending on a faulty sensor and will go into infinite loop...sheesh, really? the planemaker would have fixed it if they realized this
 
planecane
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:46 pm

morrisond wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
morrisond wrote:

You have to take a look at the 787 vs MAX then - they are mounted roughly in the same way/spot.

You can't generalize about aerodynamics like you have - they are way too complex - and it's not about creating momentum - the controls just get lighter than allowed by the FAR's in certain situations which in normal airline operations would be few and far between.

That’s right. You can’t generalize about aerodynamics, such as “roughly” comparing the 787 to the 737MAX engine placement. Besides, if you’re going to go down that road… from a visual inspection, the engine positioning on the NG vs the MAX is as “roughly” similar as between MAX and 787.

I find your posts are generally pretty well thought out, even if I sometimes disagree with you. So, I was surprised at this post.


It's hard to tell how high they are on the 787 as it's harder to find a picture of the 787 from Engine mounting height. Some look the same as the MAX some don't.

I think I was remembering an article about how they got the idea for mounting the MAX engines that high from the Development Work on the 787 and the cruise penalty being insignificant.


Probably the ACAP diagrams are the best way to try and see it. They look kinda sorta similar in those diagrams. Honestly, the MAX engines don't look THAT much further forward in the ACAP diagrams. I think probably the bigger issue leading to MCAS is the nacelle size and shape. I suspect that a similar issue might have existed if the engines were mounted in the same position as the NG with taller gear.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:30 pm

Has this been posted already? 7 hrs ago..

Boeing 737 Max to be flying again by December, FAA official says


https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/boeing-737-max-be-flying-again-december-faa-official-says

If that will be the case w'll see further production cuts. Unless you can build and store 400 aircraft.

Probably this is not about the MCAS software fix.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:42 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
hivue wrote:
Say what? The bird strike occurred less than 4 minutes after departure. The AP would not have been on in the first place.

the AP can be on from the start.

Except that AP was never engaged in the US1549. I have searched into the final report and failed to find even a single word about AP.
Last edited by PixelFlight on Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3016
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:50 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
hivue wrote:

Say what? The bird strike occurred less than 4 minutes after departure. The AP would not have been on in the first place.

The crew made 2 decisions that likely save everyone on board: ditch in the Hudson instead of returning to LGA or going to Teterboro, and turn on the APU out of sync with the checklist they used. The latter allowed the airplane to remain in normal law with all envelope protections in place. The airplane likely would have stalled during the ditching if this hadn't been the case.


the crew made decisions that were good for 1529. for et, they didn't. this is my point. if the crew doesn't make the right decisions. if scully doesn't turn on the apu right away, everyone dies
but that said. they simmed this flight. most pilots crashed it. exceptional pilots take extreme system failures to positive conclusions. the rest, the bottom 9x% fail and crater



If you're talking about 1549, to my knowledge when they simmed the flight most if not all pilots had a successful ditching -- if you call that "crash" okay. In fact I believe most actual "controlled" ditchings by large aircraft (including military) have been successful -- one in particular a P-3 off ADAK in extremely bad weather/wave conditions. Also with prior knowledge some of the pilots doing the simulation even made it back to LGA or on to TEB for successful landings, but that was an experiment. Sully was a very good pilot but no "skygod". I'd trust most of the pilots I've flown with to accomplish what Sully did under those conditions.

As for starting the APU as soon as the engine failed it's not that out of the ordinary -- seen it done year after year in sim sessions, it's just good headwork.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:34 pm

keesje wrote:
Has this been posted already? 7 hrs ago..

Boeing 737 Max to be flying again by December, FAA official says

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/boeing-737-max-be-flying-again-december-faa-official-says

Four hours ago: Reuters: American Airlines CEO sees Boeing 737 MAX flying by mid-August says:

On Sunday, American extended cancellations of about 115 daily flights until Sept. 3, but Parker said that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew.

“No one should take that as some indication that we don’t think the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19,” Parker said during the company’s annual shareholders meeting.

We wouldn’t be selling seats today if we didn’t think it was a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3,” he added.

So either AA's CEO and the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety have two wildly different ideas about when MAX will be flying again, or they're talking about two different things.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:50 pm

keesje wrote:
Has this been posted already? 7 hrs ago..

Boeing 737 Max to be flying again by December, FAA official says


https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/boeing-737-max-be-flying-again-december-faa-official-says

If that will be the case w'll see further production cuts. Unless you can build and store 400 aircraft.

Probably this is not about the MCAS software fix.

Probably? Then what is it? Maybe you can support your post with something more tangible than baseless supposition.
 
smartplane
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:56 pm

planecane wrote:
Also, you state that the trim wheel does not work apart from when the frame is nearly in trim. Do you have facts to support that statement? At what point out of trim does it become difficult to turn the wheel? We know it is near impossible when extremely out of trim AND at high speed but we don't know how far out of trim you can be and have it be relatively easy. It's hard to tell exactly due to the scaling and unlabeled axis but JT043 seems to have been pretty far out of trim when they cut off electric trim and used the trim wheel.

Why are Boeing insiders so knowledgeable when it comes to proof of pilot and MX incompetence in other countries, yet unwilling to divulge actual information like trim wheel loads at various speeds and loads? This information exists at Boeing for real world classic, NG and MAX, likely all different, and then simulator values. Do simulators even correlate with real world aircraft?

Put these arguments to rest - publish and be damned.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Has this been posted already? 7 hrs ago..

Boeing 737 Max to be flying again by December, FAA official says

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/boeing-737-max-be-flying-again-december-faa-official-says

Four hours ago: Reuters: American Airlines CEO sees Boeing 737 MAX flying by mid-August says:

On Sunday, American extended cancellations of about 115 daily flights until Sept. 3, but Parker said that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew.

“No one should take that as some indication that we don’t think the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19,” Parker said during the company’s annual shareholders meeting.

We wouldn’t be selling seats today if we didn’t think it was a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3,” he added.

So either AA's CEO and the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety have two wildly different ideas about when MAX will be flying again, or they're talking about two different things.


Let's put his statements into proper context: he was addressing shareholders. His explanation for canceling fights till Sep 3 makes zero sense.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:11 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
His explanation for canceling fights till Sep 3 makes zero sense.

What part of "the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19", "a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3" and "that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew" doesn't make sense?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
His explanation for canceling fights till Sep 3 makes zero sense.

What part of "the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19", "a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3" and "that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew" doesn't make sense?


Maybe Parker will sign off release to service then. Seriously..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:59 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
What part of "the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19", "a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3" and "that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew" doesn't make sense?

Maybe Parker will sign off release to service then. Seriously..

Maybe AA's CEO or the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety is a part of an effort to grab headlines, avoid topics, deflect attention, move goal posts, pre-empt the mainstream media?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
What part of "the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19", "a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3" and "that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew" doesn't make sense?

Maybe Parker will sign off release to service then. Seriously..

Maybe AA's CEO or the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety is a part of an effort to grab headlines, avoid topics, deflect attention, move goal posts, pre-empt the mainstream media?


? Don't you trust the FAA ?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3244
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
So either AA's CEO and the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety have two wildly different ideas about when MAX will be flying again, or they're talking about two different things.


I agree with talking about two different things. One is a conservative, firm "goal" or "deadline" that is released publicly. The other is the more realistic timeline of what is being communicated to the airlines.
 
downdata
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
What part of "the aircraft will be ready by Aug 19", "a highly likely possibility (...) that we’d be able to provide that service by Sept. 3" and "that decision merely reflected monthly scheduling plans for crew" doesn't make sense?

Maybe Parker will sign off release to service then. Seriously..

Maybe AA's CEO or the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety is a part of an effort to grab headlines, avoid topics, deflect attention, move goal posts, pre-empt the mainstream media?


Eh. Muilenburg himself said the 737max will fly by year end.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icial-says
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:13 am

Just on the "return to service" date. I believe this is driven by greater considerations than the MCAS issue and it's resolution, which may well favour a return in the summer. At stake is the global regulatory and certification environment that is tied up in bilaterals between the EU, the US, Canada and Brazil. This has driven the incredible improvements in airline safety but also acts as a massive barrier to entry to those nations outside the "gang of four" - witness China's struggles with its domestic aircraft programs. The problem is, the FAA's inability to provide effective oversight to Boeing has put this in jeopardy. It was interesting to me to watch the order in which the various aviation authorities grounded the Max: China led the way, the US, Brazil and Canada brought up the rear. EASA was in the middle, but it had its hand forced the EU member states in that regard, with the CAA starting things off. It's pretty clear that these bodies recognise the benefits (to them) of the status quo and were reluctant to rock the boat in-spite of the magnitude of the American bungling becoming apparent.

I think we'll see a lot of choreographing with the return to service. The likes of EASA will be seen to be tough - in public at least. The FAA will be seen to do penance - and be seemingly subject to a good deal of scrutiny. Boeing may have to suffer longer than strictly necessary, but that might be a price they have to pay. Because certification spinning out of Western hands might be worse for them. China's soft power is something to see these days - I was in Kenya recently, and the place is swarming with their road and rail construction projects. If we see these unaligned nations deferring to Chinese approval via working agreements it will make life more difficult in the long term for Airbus, Boeing et al.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:49 am

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Maybe AA's CEO or the FAA associate administrator for aviation safety is a part of an effort to grab headlines, avoid topics, deflect attention, move goal posts, pre-empt the mainstream media?

Don't you trust the FAA ?

I don't trust the media.

And it turns out I was right, because the link you provided was click bait.

It said:

    FRANKFURT (June 12): Boeing Co’s 737 Max aircraft, grounded since March after two fatal crashes in five months, will be back in the air by December, according to a top Federal Aviation Administration safety official.

    It’s not possible to give an exact date as work progresses on safety fixes to the aircraft, Ali Bahrami, the U.S. regulator’s associate administrator for aviation safety, said on Wednesday in interview at an aviation safety conference in Cologne, Germany. While the FAA is “under a lot of pressure,” he said the Max will be returned to service “when we believe it will be safe.”

Yet the full context is the Bloomberg report that is the source everyone else is regurgitating:

    While the FAA is “under a lot of pressure,” he said the Max will be returned to service “when we believe it will be safe,” following reviews of the design, flight testing and other checks. Bahrami was reluctant to provide a timeline, but asked whether the plane would resume service this year or next, he said remarks by Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg projecting a return by the end of 2019 sounded correct.
    ( Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icial-says )

Note how both articles have the EXACT SAME text in yellow, whereas the click bait article makes an inaccurate and misleading statement "will be back in the air by December" in red and totally drops the part where the source article says "a return by the end of 2019 sounded correct" from the source article in green.

Note how the click bait article says December and does not report the reluctance to specify a timeline, whereas the source article just says by the end of 2019.

Thus AA CEO Doug Parker's statement does not conflict with the source article because Aug/Sept is before December, but without the context one could easily reach the conclusion that it did.

Thus we have "an effort to grab headlines, avoid topics, deflect attention, move goal posts, pre-empt the mainstream media" by "TheEdge" which clearly is not a part of the mainstream media.

Note that I questioned it right from the start since if the associate administrator for aviation safety dropped the kind of news the click bait article implied he'd get a severe bollocking from his boss the head of the FAA who in turn would get a severe bollocking from the head of the DoT who in turn would get a severe bollocking from one of the administration's henchmen or perhaps from the henchman in chief himself.

TL;DR: Nothing in Keesje's click bait link ruled out Parker's statement about a highly likely return to service by Sept 3rd.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:13 am

Revelation wrote:
[


I think you need a lot of text & colour to explain the scandalous FAA / AA media differences between end year and December. :bigthumbsup:
December is all over the place & Boeing keeps quiet. Did you even check? https://www.google.com/search?q=737MAX+boeing+FAA+december&rlz=1C1GCEA_enNL772NL772&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtrpPS8uXiAhVQKawKHcBHD3kQpwUIJg&biw=1222&bih=864

And yes, Ali Bahrami is a way, way more credible source on this topic than an airline excutive talking to a stock holders. https://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
snasteve
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:31 am

Dutchy wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.


Agreed - but does the MAX now carry more economic risk than A32x?

i.e. When making a decision on what to buy will an airline ponder "what if MAX has another accident, regardless of the reason, is there a significantly greater risk of it being grounded - even if just a few days - by regulators than A32x?"

The 737 will do fine - the point I'm really wondering is - will this leave a long term material impact on the 737 beyond just essentially an "order pause" during the grounding.


I think not. In fact, pure from a risk point of view, the chances of a grounding happening is remote. Chances of this happening again are astronomical. If the 737 is ever grounded again, I doubt it will be for an issue related to the MCAS, it will be tested and tested again by Boeing and the regulators of different countries. It will be much more scrutinized by say the European Aviation Safety Agency than last time. So this decreases risk.

The major problem will be costumers perception. We have seen it with the 787-grounding, the public forgets quite fast. So I don't think there will be a real problem there. If Boeing gets the green light to put the 737Max in the air by August, I think the public will forget this grounding by next year, so orders should pick up at the end of the year as well.

The investors are another matter, I think the CEO should leave his post after this has been resolved. Under his watch the company lost 1bn every month of the grounding, so the tally could be as high as 3/4bn and that is quite some money lost due to this. It is part of his job to take responsibility for this incident, that's why he is getting paid the big bucks.


At 23 million annual salary I would assume the current CEOs parachute is gold.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:45 am

Bricktop wrote:
Maybe you can support your post with something more tangible than baseless supposition.


Most of this entire thread is baseless supposition. It hasn't stopped anyone so far.

snasteve wrote:
At 23 million annual salary I would assume the current CEOs parachute is gold.


It's debatable if someone earning $23million per year actually needs a parachute. But if he has one, you can be sure it will be of a golden hue.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
planecane
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:49 am

scbriml wrote:
It's debatable if someone earning $23million per year actually needs a parachute. But if he has one, you can be sure it will be of a golden hue.


If you can't create your own parachute taking home $1 million a month after taxes then you are very bad with money!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:00 am

Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
Has this been posted already? 7 hrs ago..

Boeing 737 Max to be flying again by December, FAA official says


https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/boeing-737-max-be-flying-again-december-faa-official-says

If that will be the case w'll see further production cuts. Unless you can build and store 400 aircraft.

Probably this is not about the MCAS software fix.

Probably? Then what is it? Maybe you can support your post with something more tangible than baseless supposition.


As you know, it is not about the software fix alone, but how the h.ll this solution passed all checks and balances. Was everybody informed properly, how independent was the FAA, were the right priorities set and, most importantly: is this an isolated event, or do we need re-check the total MAX certification package or even more. One thing is clear the outcome of the current 737MAX certification process of Boeing and FAA was devastating for more than 350 individuals.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/who-is-looking-into-the-boeing-737-max/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
smartplane
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:18 am

BaconButty wrote:
Just on the "return to service" date. I believe this is driven by greater considerations than the MCAS issue and it's resolution, which may well favour a return in the summer. At stake is the global regulatory and certification environment that is tied up in bilaterals between the EU, the US, Canada and Brazil. This has driven the incredible improvements in airline safety but also acts as a massive barrier to entry to those nations outside the "gang of four" - witness China's struggles with its domestic aircraft programs. The problem is, the FAA's inability to provide effective oversight to Boeing has put this in jeopardy. It was interesting to me to watch the order in which the various aviation authorities grounded the Max: China led the way, the US, Brazil and Canada brought up the rear. EASA was in the middle, but it had its hand forced the EU member states in that regard, with the CAA starting things off. It's pretty clear that these bodies recognise the benefits (to them) of the status quo and were reluctant to rock the boat in-spite of the magnitude of the American bungling becoming apparent.

I think we'll see a lot of choreographing with the return to service. The likes of EASA will be seen to be tough - in public at least. The FAA will be seen to do penance - and be seemingly subject to a good deal of scrutiny. Boeing may have to suffer longer than strictly necessary, but that might be a price they have to pay. Because certification spinning out of Western hands might be worse for them. China's soft power is something to see these days - I was in Kenya recently, and the place is swarming with their road and rail construction projects. If we see these unaligned nations deferring to Chinese approval via working agreements it will make life more difficult in the long term for Airbus, Boeing et al.

Excellent description.

China is likely involved in model strategic alliances with A & B, so another bargaining element in the mix.

Both China and Japan want grandfathering capped or eliminated (though Japan has to be careful due to sub-contractor work for A & B), as they both view as a trade barrier to entry managed by the 'gang of 4'.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:47 am

China (CAAC) put another $30B on the table. The 737MAX and 777X are on the table. Maybe EK, FAA and UA can join for a few wines at the chalet next week. An opportunity for everyone to show how tough they are at this stage. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3013289/boeing-and-chinese-airlines-talks-us30-billion-mega-deal-trade-war-could
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:50 am

keesje wrote:
I think you need a lot of text & colour to explain the scandalous FAA / AA media differences between end year and December. :bigthumbsup:
December is all over the place & Boeing keeps quiet. Did you even check? https://www.google.com/search?q=737MAX+boeing+FAA+december&rlz=1C1GCEA_enNL772NL772&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtrpPS8uXiAhVQKawKHcBHD3kQpwUIJg&biw=1222&bih=864

And yes, Ali Bahrami is a way, way more credible source on this topic than an airline excutive talking to a stock holders. https://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/

Welcome to the new era, where we don't dig to get to the source of a story, we just count how many times a dodgy rendition was repeated.

Note I never said anything about Bahrami's credentials, I said the media the media selectively quoted him for their benefit, and showed exactly where this happened. I also said I thought he'd be smarter than to make such a potentially impactful comment to a random media member from "TheEdge" which is a compliment to him, and it turns out I am right.

With regard to Parker vs Bahrami it's not an either/or situation, what both men said is entirely consistent, as I showed.

TL; DR: The media used selective prejudicial quoting to sex up the "Boeing is doomed" narrative and ran with it, sucking up people predisposed to believe this in its wake.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:59 am

Revelation wrote:
Thus AA CEO Doug Parker's statement does not conflict with the source article because Aug/Sept is before December, but without the context one could easily reach the conclusion that it did.

I suppose if Parker said that Max will return to service tomorrow, you still would not see a contradiction, because tomorrow is technically "before December".
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:01 pm

keesje wrote:
China (CAAC) put another $30B on the table. The 737MAX and 777X are on the table. Maybe EK, FAA and UA can join for a few wines at the chalet next week. An opportunity for everyone to show how tough they are at this stage. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3013289/boeing-and-chinese-airlines-talks-us30-billion-mega-deal-trade-war-could

Interesting that you are going with the money, power and politics angle instead of the doing the right thing from an aviation safety point of view angle. Let's see what the next post brings.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:05 pm

keesje wrote:
China (CAAC) put another $30B on the table. The 737MAX and 777X are on the table. Maybe EK, FAA and UA can join for a few wines at the chalet next week. An opportunity for everyone to show how tough they are at this stage. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3013289/boeing-and-chinese-airlines-talks-us30-billion-mega-deal-trade-war-could


I did not find anything about the MAX that sounds positive but about the 787:

The discussions centre on about 100 twin-aisle jets: 787 Dreamliners as well as 777X planes, the newest long-range aircraft in Boeing’s line-up, said one of the people, who asked not to be named as the talks are private.


China initially considered putting the 737 MAX on a draft list of products the country would buy to reduce its trade surplus with the US, but then changed its mind amid safety concerns over the aircraft, people familiar with the matter said in March.


Sounds more like no more MAX for China. At least for now
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
I suppose if Parker said that Max will return to service tomorrow, you still would not see a contradiction, because tomorrow is technically "before December".

Nope, if that happened I would say it was inconsistent with everything else we know about the timeline, just like I did with Bahrami's statement.

Can't we all just apply a bit of critical thinking?


We all do know the FAA's official party line on this, right?

If not, I'll provide it, right from an official spokesman:

FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the agency has “no timetable” for allowing the 737 MAX to resume flying and will act “only when it is safe to return to service”.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icial-says

In the face of this, do you really think the associate administrator for aviation safety would issue a timeline from a conference in Cologne, Germany?

Especially after his boss's boss's boss's boss, the Tweeter In Chief, has shown personal interest in this topic?

Yet that's what the click bait article suggested.

However, when you dig in to it you find a reporter pressured Bahrami and only reluctantly he said let's go with what the Boeing CEO said.

In turn, the Boeing CEO was being pressured by a reporter after a long on-camera interview ( ref: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/03/cnbc-tr ... hange.html ) which ended with:

EVANS: AND BEFORE I LET YOU GUYS TOTALLY GO, DENNIS, MY LAST QUESTION ON THIS IS DO YOU THINK THAT 737 MAX IS GOING TO BE BACK UP IN THE SKIES BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AT THIS POINT?

MUILENBURG: I DO BUT AGAIN I CAN’T GIVE YOU THE SPECIFIC TIMELINE ON IT
WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE REGULATORS THIS IS DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES WE ARE WORKING WITH THE RIGHT PACE BUT ALL OF THIS WILL BE GAGED BY THE INVESTMENT WE ARE MAKING IN SAFETY. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS SAFETY AND WE WILL BE BACK UP AND FLYING WHEN WE ARE READY AND WE WILL DO THAT JOINTLY WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AND WITH THE REGULATORS

Again, context matters.

The "before the end of the year" comment is explicitly NOT a "specific timeline".

The media gets paid by the click and has no penalty for deceptive reporting so they turn something that explicitly is not a timeline into a timeline.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
airlinepeanuts
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:16 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
I suppose if Parker said that Max will return to service tomorrow, you still would not see a contradiction, because tomorrow is technically "before December".

Nope, if that happened I would say it was inconsistent with everything else we know about the timeline, just like I did with Bahrami's statement.

Can't we all just apply a bit of critical thinking?


We all do know the FAA's official party line on this, right?

If not, I'll provide it, right from an official spokesman:

FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the agency has “no timetable” for allowing the 737 MAX to resume flying and will act “only when it is safe to return to service”.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icial-says

In the face of this, do you really think the associate administrator for aviation safety would issue a timeline from a conference in Cologne, Germany?

Especially after his boss's boss's boss's boss, the Tweeter In Chief, has shown personal interest in this topic?

Yet that's what the click bait article suggested.

However, when you dig in to it you find a reporter pressured Bahrami and only reluctantly he said let's go with what the Boeing CEO said.

In turn, the Boeing CEO was being pressured by a reporter after a long on-camera interview ( ref: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/03/cnbc-tr ... hange.html ) which ended with:

EVANS: AND BEFORE I LET YOU GUYS TOTALLY GO, DENNIS, MY LAST QUESTION ON THIS IS DO YOU THINK THAT 737 MAX IS GOING TO BE BACK UP IN THE SKIES BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AT THIS POINT?

MUILENBURG: I DO BUT AGAIN I CAN’T GIVE YOU THE SPECIFIC TIMELINE ON IT
WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE REGULATORS THIS IS DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES WE ARE WORKING WITH THE RIGHT PACE BUT ALL OF THIS WILL BE GAGED BY THE INVESTMENT WE ARE MAKING IN SAFETY. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS SAFETY AND WE WILL BE BACK UP AND FLYING WHEN WE ARE READY AND WE WILL DO THAT JOINTLY WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AND WITH THE REGULATORS

Again, context matters.

The "before the end of the year" comment is explicitly NOT a "specific timeline".

The media gets paid by the click and has no penalty for deceptive reporting so they turn something that explicitly is not a timeline into a timeline.


If you’re the CEO of a large aerospace company and can cave to a reporter you should quit. Come on, no one forced that answer from either of them.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8529
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:17 pm

airlinepeanuts wrote:
If you’re the CEO of a large aerospace company and can cave to a reporter you should quit. Come on, no one forced that answer from either of them.

Remind me again what's the problem here, what the individual actually said or the liberty that the so called Fifth Estate took, I guess these are the same people who think FAKE NEWS does not exist since they did not invent it.
Hmmm.....
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:52 pm

While the FAA is “under a lot of pressure,” he said the Max will be returned to service “when we believe it will be safe,” following reviews of the design, flight testing and other checks. Bahrami was reluctant to provide a timeline, but asked whether the plane would resume service this year or next, he said remarks by Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg projecting a return by the end of 2019 sounded correct.


We can try to divert, distract, generalize, ask for proof of a undetermined schedule, but the FAA boss said a return to service for the 737MAX by the end of 2019 sounded correct.
So far Boeing has been quiet about that. If they expect / believe something else, they would have responded. And lets stop accepting what a Boeing person said as a fact, pls.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8529
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:13 pm

keesje wrote:
We can try to divert, distract, generalize, ask for proof of a undetermined schedule, but the FAA boss said a return to service for the 737MAX by the end of 2019 sounded correct.
So far Boeing has been quiet about that. If they expect / believe something else, they would have responded. And lets stop accepting what a Boeing person said as a fact, pls.

Remind us again who the special people are who state that Boeing is the regulator who will return the MAX to service?
Perhaps it does not suit the narrative that the Boeing tells the FAA what to do?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:18 pm

par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
We can try to divert, distract, generalize, ask for proof of a undetermined schedule, but the FAA boss said a return to service for the 737MAX by the end of 2019 sounded correct.
So far Boeing has been quiet about that. If they expect / believe something else, they would have responded. And lets stop accepting what a Boeing person said as a fact, pls.

Remind us again who the special people are who state that Boeing is the regulator who will return the MAX to service?
Perhaps it does not suit the narrative that the Boeing tells the FAA what to do?


We can't say that, it is under investigation by authorities, for the period up to the second MAX crash.

The FAA has been acting at the direction of Congress, amid pressure from industry players like Boeing to help them compete with foreign rivals by speeding up approvals of new aircraft. The agency maintains that it has used its cooperation with industry to make air travel safer. But government watchdogs have raised red flags about the FAA’s oversight of the program, which puts companies in charge of duties such as doing inspections and vetting engineering designs, with the agency’s supervision.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/congress-faa-boeing-oversight-1287902
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8529
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:36 pm

Does not change the fact that the FAA is mandated by the US Congress to be the regulator for the airline industry, Boeing cannot unground the MAX, so those choosing to sit on every word that Boeing gives and report it as go live dates are FAKE NEWS experts.

As for the congress, no amount of diversion or distraction can eliminate their role in this whole fiasco, the FAA as a federal body had to have approval for the outsourcing that was done, after all, it was all about money and safety right?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:18 pm

This is just a reminder to keep the thread on topic without getting too political. Obviously the discussion is somewhat inherently political in nature at this point, but please try to be objective with the discussion.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:23 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Interested wrote:
Thorkel wrote:

I wouldn’t trivialise a ‘few orders of magnitude incidence’ of runaway trim. Functional Safety analysis is all probabilistic - we rarely talk in absolutes.

Let’s say you’re doing a Layers Of Protection Analysis or bow tie. You have an initiating event frequency, which is where the Max appears to differ significantly from the NG. You then have risk controls which have an associated Probability of Failure on Demand (PFD - For a low demand application) - these reduce the risk level. The risk controls can be split into two types - those that prevent Loss Of Control (on the left hand side of the bow tie) and those that mitigate or prevent a Loss Of Control turning into a hazard (the right hand side of the bow tie). You want sufficient independent layers of risk controls that a) ultimately get the residual risk down to an acceptable risk level and b) are demonstrably As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

Looking at this from my armchair, there are big issues here:
1. An initiating event frequency going up by several orders of magnitude is a real problem. It will likely drag any residual risk out of the acceptable or tolerable residual risk zone, and if that’s an increase in comparison with a previous model you’ll have a hard time proving ALARP. You need to get the risk back down, either by reducing the initiating event frequency, by beefing up risk controls to make them more effective (lower PFD) or by introducing more independent risk controls.

2. Risk controls are never assumed to be perfect, and in the industry I work in we’d rarely consider people (no matter how well skilled and educated) as a sole safety critical risk control. A person based control must be part of a series of layers that ultimately result in the residual risk being acceptable. That means we typically allow, at best, a PFD of 0.1 for a human based risk control - in other words we expect people, at best, to get a risk control wrong once in every ten attempts when they’re required to do that task in an emergency to prevent a problem turning into something worse. The human based risk control should be just one in many layers of risk controls so that failure shouldn’t always result in a significant consequence by itself.

We would have a hard time justifying a human based control having a PFD of less than 0.1. If the safety case has a low initiating event frequency, multiple layers of protection, and you end up with an acceptable residual risk then that’s fine - in other words, in the NG case, people can be a long way from perfect in conducting the manual trim checklist and there is still an acceptable safety argument.

However, if your initiating event frequency goes up by an order of magnitude or more, we’d have an extremely hard time making a safety argument that a human based control could be beefed up sufficiently to still argue the system is safe - legislation, best practice and precedent would likely prevent that argument being accepted.

If you’ve got a situation when an initiating event has gone up by several orders of magnitude, your main solutions for making a successful safety argument from my perspective are to either get the initiating frequency back down, or introduce additional safety-rated engineering risk controls. Expecting people to have a PFD of 0.01 or 0.001 conducting a safety critical risk control in an emergency situation is just not done - I’ve never seen it accepted.


Exactly why I don't really care that much for the pilot training element

I want it but it's just icing on the cake for me. I don't want them facing these issues full stop. And thats exactly what aviation safety should be aiming for before we even worry about their training

I fear to get MACS safe then Max 737 may have to compromise elsewhere and we bring more risk in elsewhere as a result

And the plane is a compromise and a flawed design


I'm curious. What are your qualifications to make such claims?



I've got ZERO qualifications. Everything I say is based on what I read on here and in the media and what I've researched about these planes

Early on I found an FAA report on the future of aviation safety from early 2000s

And in that it was quite clear that human error was the biggest factor in air disasters - pilots, ground crew and air traffic control etc

And something that the FAA knew they couldn't avoid

And so all their guidance was that in the future planes need to be designed to minimise the risks of human error

I don't see the Max 737 design to any way answer that challenge myself

So now it's damage limitation for all concerned

I don't need to be qualified to claim I'm more interested in the planes being made safer than relying on pilots to get us out of a mess
 
DenverTed
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:23 pm

Mid March it was flying at the end of May. Mid June it is end of August. Kind of a rolling two month out. Not much new information right? How much more pilot training will be required. Seems like the answer to that question is part of the critical path. Until some answers come out on the fix, it is still a month or two until it's in service. It's been three months and there are no answers yet. The busy summer season is not going to happen. I would place my bets around November 1 at this point.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3356
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:47 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
hivue wrote:

Say what? The bird strike occurred less than 4 minutes after departure. The AP would not have been on in the first place.

The crew made 2 decisions that likely save everyone on board: ditch in the Hudson instead of returning to LGA or going to Teterboro, and turn on the APU out of sync with the checklist they used. The latter allowed the airplane to remain in normal law with all envelope protections in place. The airplane likely would have stalled during the ditching if this hadn't been the case.


the crew made decisions that were good for 1529. for et, they didn't. this is my point. if the crew doesn't make the right decisions. if scully doesn't turn on the apu right away, everyone dies
but that said. they simmed this flight. most pilots crashed it. exceptional pilots take extreme system failures to positive conclusions. the rest, the bottom 9x% fail and crater



If you're talking about 1549, to my knowledge when they simmed the flight most if not all pilots had a successful ditching -- if you call that "crash" okay. In fact I believe most actual "controlled" ditchings by large aircraft (including military) have been successful -- one in particular a P-3 off ADAK in extremely bad weather/wave conditions. Also with prior knowledge some of the pilots doing the simulation even made it back to LGA or on to TEB for successful landings, but that was an experiment. Sully was a very good pilot but no "skygod". I'd trust most of the pilots I've flown with to accomplish what Sully did under those conditions.

As for starting the APU as soon as the engine failed it's not that out of the ordinary -- seen it done year after year in sim sessions, it's just good headwork.



Regarding the USN P3 off ADAK, it should be noted that the Aircraft Commander was one of the last P5 Marlin pilots prior to his P3 days. This alone made his quasi successful ditching more likely than anything else. Not so sure others would have faired so well under similar circumstances?
 
planecane
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:03 pm

There is the possibility that lifting of the grounding and return to service are separated by weeks or months. The software fix could be approved and the aircraft certified as airworthy but there may (likely will) be additional training requirements for pilots to be allowed to fly it. It will take some time to develop the training and train enough pilots for logistical operation of the fleet.

Hypothetically, the FAA could lift the grounding on 6/30 but it could take until 9/1 for AA, for example, to get the pilots all trained and get it back into service.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20577
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:15 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Mid March it was flying at the end of May. Mid June it is end of August. Kind of a rolling two month out. Not much new information right? How much more pilot training will be required. Seems like the answer to that question is part of the critical path. Until some answers come out on the fix, it is still a month or two until it's in service. It's been three months and there are no answers yet. The busy summer season is not going to happen. I would place my bets around November 1 at this point.

AA's CEO gave a crisp answer yesterday (flying mid August, first scheduled flight Sept 3rd) that some partisans are rejecting in favor of a click bait out of context article that was based on selectively quoting part of a statement made by a FAA official said to be trustworthy which in turn was based on a statement from the Boeing CEO who is now said to be untrustworthy, and every other Boeing employee is also now said to be untrustworthy as well.

Splitting the baby and going with Nov 1st certainly would pass muster here, I imagine.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

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