Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:51 pm

smartplane wrote:
hivue wrote:
There a lot of undelivered MAXs parked at Boeing Field and Everett. Obviously they were not trucked there from Renton. What are the precise circumstances under which the FAA allows MAXs to be flown (aside from test/certification flights)? Can Boeing move undelivered frames out of Washington state for storage (Victorville, Tucson,...)? Could they be delivered to airlines and the airlines would then store them (not that any airline would agree to do that).

When an aircraft model is grounded, it loses it's hull & flying insurance - ground cover only.

Presumably, Boeing are delivering frames to storage facilities under experimental / test cover, with test crew (probably a record number of test crew at work). Interesting to know if FAA consent to permit this, has been influenced politically.

Strategically, if Boeing are required to update software, and other elements of the aircraft, keeping undelivered aircraft close, will speed the process.

There is also an issue with technical delivery. Would a customer want to take delivery, as this is a significant financial and insurance milestone? Let Boeing manage the storage, funding and insurance.


Deliveries can’t happen because the airplane does not have a valid type certificate since it was suspended. Without a type certificate, airworthiness certificates for each airplane produced can’t be issued. Therefore no deliveries can be made. The airworthiness certificate (which is posted in the flight deck of the airplane) is usually issued about one day before the airplane delivers after completing test flights. That is the technical reason deliveries cannot happen, not insurance.

Before an individual airplane has its airworthiness ticket, airplanes can be flown under the production certificate. This is not because of political influence. Airplanes need to fly prior to the type and airworthiness certificates. There are still requirements and approvals needed before planes can fly but it is covered under a different set of regulations. New features, designs, modifications etc are always being made and flown prior to final approval of the certification plans. There are certification plans required, which require FAA approval.

Insurance and Political Influence of the FAA aren’t technically accurate assertions regarding why airplanes can’t be delivered, so please do not spread inaccurate information when you don’t understand the process.
Last edited by Weatherwatcher1 on Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
sealevel
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 9:57 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:52 pm

Just a question - with B ferrying aircraft after production to storage, would they take the opportunity to run the new software package for those flights to mitigate (if it gets approved) the upgrade scenario that needs to happen on the original grounded aircraft?
 
kalvado
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:57 pm

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
planecane wrote:

I don't disagree and that is why procedures and training must be developed to deal with the situation. The MCAS off NNC could be something as simple as slow to flaps 1 speed and set flaps 1 and divert to nearest airport. MCAS seems to have been determined not to be needed with flaps deployed since it was designed not to activate.

It would seem that the most likely time for an AoA sensor failure would be soon after takeoff. Either it will have been damaged on the ground, from FOD or a bird strike. I don't foresee a very high failure rate where suddenly a sensor goes whacko during cruise.

If I was in charge of Boeing, I would do what it takes to get the MAX back in the air now with MCAS 2.0 and procedures that will minimize the likelihood of a dangerous situation. Then, I would design the addition of a 3rd (or 3rd and 4th) AoA sensor to make a truly robust system with voting and prediction capability for a truly robust system and roll it into production and begin a retrofit program.

They could add a standalone AoA processor that takes the 4 inputs, processes them and outputs the result to the FCC using the current inputs. The FCC wouldn't need to be modified. The "AoA processor" could intentionally feed divergent results if it is unable to determine the AoA with enough reliability. Then, based on MCAS 2.0, the FCC would just disable MCAS and display an AoA disagree warning.

And how slowing down to flaps1 speed works with ETOPS?


It will need to be analyzed for sure. If it is determined that it is an exceedingly rare event for an AoA sensor to fail above 10,000 ft. I don't think it would be an issue since below that flight level the aircraft will either be very close to the departure airport or very close to the destination.

You need to establish (1) that is indeed a rare event (2)sam is true for AoA associated electronics.

I am pretty sure that FAA would find such interrogation pretty amateurish, nothing more than an introduction to the real thing...
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:13 pm

LH452 wrote:
IF the FAA deemed the 737 Max too unstable to be used as a passenger aircraft and requested Boeing to come with a solution that later became the MCAS, how is the FAA going to accept a situation of AOA disagree that disables MCAS?


There will be a NNC to follow with MCAS disabled. Probably something similar to the Yaw Damper disengaged NNC except with parameters to avoid the need for MCAS. For reference, the Yaw Damper disengaged NNC states:


3 Avoid areas of predicted moderate or severe
turbulence. If turbulence is encountered and
passenger comfort becomes affected, reduce
airspeed and/or descend to a lower altitude.

4 Do not exceed flaps 30 if the crosswind exceeds 30
knots.


An instruction in the MCAS disengaged NNC would probably be something like:

Do not exceed a pitch attidue of 15 while flaps UP is seected.

I just made up the pitch attitude because I don't know at what point MCAS is needed in normal operation. The NNC may include an instruction to return to nearest airport. I'd think it likely will due to the other things like single side stick shaker happening due to the AoA sensor failure.
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:19 pm

sealevel wrote:
Just a question - with B ferrying aircraft after production to storage, would they take the opportunity to run the new software package for those flights to mitigate (if it gets approved) the upgrade scenario that needs to happen on the original grounded aircraft?


I doubt it. I don't think it would be worth the complication of installing a yet uncertified software build. It's probably logistically easier just to install the final, certified software on all aircraft before delivery. In the process to get a MAX ready for service, the software installation will be very little of the required time.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:41 pm

planecane wrote:
LH452 wrote:
IF the FAA deemed the 737 Max too unstable to be used as a passenger aircraft and requested Boeing to come with a solution that later became the MCAS, how is the FAA going to accept a situation of AOA disagree that disables MCAS?


There will be a NNC to follow with MCAS disabled. Probably something similar to the Yaw Damper disengaged NNC except with parameters to avoid the need for MCAS. For reference, the Yaw Damper disengaged NNC states:


3 Avoid areas of predicted moderate or severe
turbulence. If turbulence is encountered and
passenger comfort becomes affected, reduce
airspeed and/or descend to a lower altitude.

4 Do not exceed flaps 30 if the crosswind exceeds 30
knots.


An instruction in the MCAS disengaged NNC would probably be something like:

Do not exceed a pitch attidue of 15 while flaps UP is seected.

I just made up the pitch attitude because I don't know at what point MCAS is needed in normal operation. The NNC may include an instruction to return to nearest airport. I'd think it likely will due to the other things like single side stick shaker happening due to the AoA sensor failure.

Avoid is a weak measure. MCAS apparently may be needed in case of evasive maneuvers, so "request clear-out of airspace" is more like it. JFK and LGA controllers will certainly LOVE these requests.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20955
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:43 pm

LH452 wrote:
IF the FAA deemed the 737 Max too unstable to be used as a passenger aircraft and requested Boeing to come with a solution that later became the MCAS,


It did not go down that way. Boeing itself found the issue in simulation. FAA did not request a solution, but of course it had baseline rules regarding stick force at onset of stall that all planes need to comply with. Boeing chose MCAS as a way to gain compliance.

LH452 wrote:
how is the FAA going to accept a situation of AOA disagree that disables MCAS?

planecane has the answer. It will be just one more system that has rules for its use and procedures to follow when it is disabled.
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
 
 
kalvado
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
LH452 wrote:
how is the FAA going to accept a situation of AOA disagree that disables MCAS?

planecane has the answer. It will be just one more system that has rules for its use and procedures to follow when it is disabled.

Pretty much every system on the airplane may - and does - fail once in a while. Certification (and common sense) requirement is that after such an event everyone walks away from the aircraft. With medical assistance in some rare cases.
Or - you overdo the part with plenty of margin, see wing breaking tests.
The tricky part is considering all failure scenarios and their combinations and making sure things actually work, and crash probability is low enough. Current problem is that AoA sensor failure wasn't properly analyzed, which lead to some undesired consequences (aka 2 crashes)
 
Virtual737
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:13 pm

kalvado wrote:
Current problem is that AoA sensor failure wasn't properly analyzed, which lead to some undesired consequences (aka 2 crashes)


I like the wording. It reminds me of the boat that had above optimal bilge ingress. Titanic I think it was called ;)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8681
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:31 pm

sealevel wrote:
Just a question - with B ferrying aircraft after production to storage, would they take the opportunity to run the new software package for those flights to mitigate (if it gets approved) the upgrade scenario that needs to happen on the original grounded aircraft?

Each aircraft has its own maintenance logs and physical / software updates to the a/c have to be logged, so Boeing engineers would upload the fix to the a/c but not update the a/c log until the FAA approves the fix?
What happens if the existing fix is not approved and version +XX is approved version, do they then uninstall the old version, load the new version then enter the date?
Highly illegal, a/c and airlines have been grounded and banned for not having proper maintenance logs, not going to happen like that.
Proper audit trails are not just an accounting issue.....
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:27 pm

planecane wrote:
An instruction in the MCAS disengaged NNC would probably be something like:

Do not exceed a pitch attidue of 15 while flaps UP is seected.

Yet the most probable cause of disabling MCAS v2 will be an AoA disagree. In that situation, measuring the pitch attitude will be an issue to ensure to not stall on some low speed. Maybe it's left to the pilot's evaluation, but in this case I seriously think that a predictor algorithm will be able to do a better job (and will not disable MCAS v2 in the first place, nor disturb MCAS v1 up to killing).
 
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:36 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
planecane wrote:
An instruction in the MCAS disengaged NNC would probably be something like:

Do not exceed a pitch attidue of 15 while flaps UP is seected.

Yet the most probable cause of disabling MCAS v2 will be an AoA disagree. In that situation, measuring the pitch attitude will be an issue to ensure to not stall on some low speed. Maybe it's left to the pilot's evaluation, but in this case I seriously think that a predictor algorithm will be able to do a better job (and will not disable MCAS v2 in the first place, nor disturb MCAS v1 up to killing).


Pitch attitude is displayed on the PFD and has nothing to do with AoA sensors.

I do agree that 3 or more AoA sensors with a predictor algorithm would be the ideal solution.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:48 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
I'm expecting some very public Max cancellation announcements at Paris.

Not a fan, but seriously Boeing will make almost anything to avoid that, and considering there good financial health there still have large capabilities to find customers approbation. Airbus can't substantially increase his production in time for a potential new demand and that production could be risky to fill in the long term.

I would love to be in the room where each airlines will negotiate with Boeing :listen:
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:05 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
Airbus can't substantially increase his production in time for a potential new demand and that production could be risky to fill in the long term.


They could lease production facilities from BA :)
Seriously though they sure can increase production in 3 years. Long term risky, I agree.
 
starrion
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:08 pm

sealevel wrote:
Just a question - with B ferrying aircraft after production to storage, would they take the opportunity to run the new software package for those flights to mitigate (if it gets approved) the upgrade scenario that needs to happen on the original grounded aircraft?


Boeing isn't going to modify any production aircraft until the fix is certified. If changes had to be made, they would have to go back and change all the aircraft again. If something happened to a modified but un-certified aircraft, it would be grim.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
miegapele
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:15 pm

I would tend to think FAA has little say in this Boeing fiasco. It would unground them day after grounding. However, Boeing wants plane flying in all countries simultaneously. And given current situation with China, the cards are at their hands. So currently all this waiting could be just to get some sort of the deal with China. However, we are unlikely to ever know.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8681
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:29 pm

miegapele wrote:
I would tend to think FAA has little say in this Boeing fiasco. It would unground them day after grounding. However, Boeing wants plane flying in all countries simultaneously.

Problem with that theory is that those numbers per some countries may be very small, how many frames does Lion Air have versus WN or AA for example.
The numbers deployed world wide may be high, but if that is spread across 12 countries not including the USA, telling carriers in one or two countries who make up the bulk of the deployed fleet that they have to wait until third countries unground the a/c is not viable.
My opinion, Boeing would like the FAA to unground as soon as possible, in this environment that means once the FAA can show to the worldwide regulators that they have done due diligence on this fix and will be having ongoing investigations on how this mishap happened. Closer scrutiny or the extent of outsourcing is a national issue which may not be up for negotiation with foreign entities, I expect some nationalism will always be in play.
It would then be up to other nations regulators to determine whether they also need to include some political payback, hold Boeing hostage for additional payments to their national and or private carriers, or they just want to sit and see if any USA carriers runs into any additional problems.
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:46 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
I'm expecting some very public Max cancellation announcements at Paris.

Not a fan, but seriously Boeing will make almost anything to avoid that, and considering there good financial health there still have large capabilities to find customers approbation. Airbus can't substantially increase his production in time for a potential new demand and that production could be risky to fill in the long term.

I would love to be in the room where each airlines will negotiate with Boeing :listen:


I'm sure that there are contractual obligations that Boeing has in a case like this. The paperwork of an airline (or lessor) purchasing an aircraft from Boeing is going to be a lot more than somebody purchasing an automobile.

I agree with your statment about Airbus. As long as the MAX is going to return to service within 6 months (very likely despite the psychics and tarot card readers on here), the airlines don't have as much negotiating strength as you think. Airbus can not possibly supply any of the MAX backlog within that time frame. Boeing can't piss off the airlines too much because they will put future orders at risk but the airlines can't just say to give them $100 million compensation or they will cancel their MAX orders and switch to the A320.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:26 pm

par13del wrote:
miegapele wrote:
I would tend to think FAA has little say in this Boeing fiasco. It would unground them day after grounding. However, Boeing wants plane flying in all countries simultaneously.

Problem with that theory is that those numbers per some countries may be very small, how many frames does Lion Air have versus WN or AA for example.
The numbers deployed world wide may be high, but if that is spread across 12 countries not including the USA, telling carriers in one or two countries who make up the bulk of the deployed fleet that they have to wait until third countries unground the a/c is not viable.
My opinion, Boeing would like the FAA to unground as soon as possible, in this environment that means once the FAA can show to the worldwide regulators that they have done due diligence on this fix and will be having ongoing investigations on how this mishap happened. Closer scrutiny or the extent of outsourcing is a national issue which may not be up for negotiation with foreign entities, I expect some nationalism will always be in play.
It would then be up to other nations regulators to determine whether they also need to include some political payback, hold Boeing hostage for additional payments to their national and or private carriers, or they just want to sit and see if any USA carriers runs into any additional problems.

few agencies have manpower and expertise for actual analysis (for one, FAA doesn't have those, if you think about it). Having several major players on board (EASA, China, Canada) for same-day announcement is as good as it can get, and as convincing to the rest of the world as it can get. Having one of those publicly expressing dissatisfaction with FAA return-to-flight will be a big thing.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:34 pm

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ax-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

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

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:38 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Jamie514 wrote:


If only you applied that type of critical thinking to the statements from Boeing that you treat as gospel.


I'm not treating them as Gospel - I said they might be lying.

However I'm pretty sure the Lawyers would never have allowed Mullenburg to say what he did the other day unless they were sure they designed to the existing standards and requirements. Were those existing standards and requirements sufficient - Obviously no as they also assumed a basic level of Pilot competency that does not exist.

The Shareholders lawsuits will be massive if he is intentionally found to be lying.


Right.

I'm pretty sure Ethiopians lawyers would never have allowed their official twitter to say what it did in March unless they were sure the training delivered was to the existing standard and requirement. Were those existing standards and requirements sufficient? Probably not. According to Reuters (which has a sterling reputation) the APA have the nerve to be calling for more training than what is being proposed now let alone what Boeing offered in MCAS for Dummies last fall.

Has AVHerald actually concluded that Pilot training provided by Ethiopian was the primary cause of the crash? Far as I could see, he only sees it as a POSSIBLE contributing factor, which I would agree with.


Boeing are still only proposing ipad training for MCAS based on what I've read in recent weeks

So they wants think that training is a major reason for the crash
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:40 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray


There's no surprise
 
snowkarl
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 7:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Interested wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray


There's no surprise


Still 100% the pilot's fault though...

Pretty much establishes that it's 100% Boeing's design issue that was the cause for the crash, let's stop blaming the pilots and end that discussion.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:39 pm

planecane wrote:
I'm sure that there are contractual obligations that Boeing has in a case like this. The paperwork of an airline (or lessor) purchasing an aircraft from Boeing is going to be a lot more than somebody purchasing an automobile.

I agree with your statment about Airbus. As long as the MAX is going to return to service within 6 months (very likely despite the psychics and tarot card readers on here), the airlines don't have as much negotiating strength as you think. Airbus can not possibly supply any of the MAX backlog within that time frame. Boeing can't piss off the airlines too much because they will put future orders at risk but the airlines can't just say to give them $100 million compensation or they will cancel their MAX orders and switch to the A320.

Yes. A possible similar situation was maybe the A380 multiple years retard of his delivery to the airlines. I't's the closest situation that I can remember without doing a search on the subject.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:12 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray


Yeah, and it's easier to turn than in a real aircraft in some circumstances.

If anything that article suggests the potential issue between sim and real is less than had been speculated.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:20 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
hivue wrote:
There a lot of undelivered MAXs parked at Boeing Field and Everett. Obviously they were not trucked there from Renton. What are the precise circumstances under which the FAA allows MAXs to be flown (aside from test/certification flights)? Can Boeing move undelivered frames out of Washington state for storage (Victorville, Tucson,...)? Could they be delivered to airlines and the airlines would then store them (not that any airline would agree to do that).

When an aircraft model is grounded, it loses it's hull & flying insurance - ground cover only.

Presumably, Boeing are delivering frames to storage facilities under experimental / test cover, with test crew (probably a record number of test crew at work). Interesting to know if FAA consent to permit this, has been influenced politically.

Strategically, if Boeing are required to update software, and other elements of the aircraft, keeping undelivered aircraft close, will speed the process.

There is also an issue with technical delivery. Would a customer want to take delivery, as this is a significant financial and insurance milestone? Let Boeing manage the storage, funding and insurance.


Deliveries can’t happen because the airplane does not have a valid type certificate since it was suspended. Without a type certificate, airworthiness certificates for each airplane produced can’t be issued. Therefore no deliveries can be made. The airworthiness certificate (which is posted in the flight deck of the airplane) is usually issued about one day before the airplane delivers after completing test flights. That is the technical reason deliveries cannot happen, not insurance.

Before an individual airplane has its airworthiness ticket, airplanes can be flown under the production certificate. This is not because of political influence. Airplanes need to fly prior to the type and airworthiness certificates. There are still requirements and approvals needed before planes can fly but it is covered under a different set of regulations. New features, designs, modifications etc are always being made and flown prior to final approval of the certification plans. There are certification plans required, which require FAA approval.

Insurance and Political Influence of the FAA aren’t technically accurate assertions regarding why airplanes can’t be delivered, so please do not spread inaccurate information when you don’t understand the process.

Aren't technically accurate?

New build aircraft do not NEED to fly when the model type has been suspended. Boeing have made the decision to continue manufacturing and to store remotely.

Boeing will have extended their existing insurance cover to fly aircraft for which airworthiness certificates CANNOT be issued, very different than awaiting airworthiness certificates, as part of a defined process of manufacture through to delivery.

To fly, operate or land in European airspace, a commercial aircraft requires hull and liability insurance. Only an OEM would have this cover for an aircraft pre-issue of an airworthiness certificate.

There are technical distinctions between a commercial aircraft which has never had an airworthiness certificate issued but is in process, has not had an airworthiness certificate issued and cannot have one issued because of a global grounding, and has had an airworthiness certificate issued which has been suspended due to a global grounding.

Surely a global grounding trumps delivery flights, so now only 1-2 aircraft should be flying to develop solutions? If the MAX was also assembled in China and Europe, would they be permitting storage flights? The fact storage flights are possible, suggests political interference.

Ferrying new builds seems to make a mockery of the intent of a grounding, and certainly changes the meaning we understood post 9/11.
Last edited by smartplane on Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:37 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
planecane wrote:
I'm sure that there are contractual obligations that Boeing has in a case like this. The paperwork of an airline (or lessor) purchasing an aircraft from Boeing is going to be a lot more than somebody purchasing an automobile.

I agree with your statment about Airbus. As long as the MAX is going to return to service within 6 months (very likely despite the psychics and tarot card readers on here), the airlines don't have as much negotiating strength as you think. Airbus can not possibly supply any of the MAX backlog within that time frame. Boeing can't piss off the airlines too much because they will put future orders at risk but the airlines can't just say to give them $100 million compensation or they will cancel their MAX orders and switch to the A320.

Yes. A possible similar situation was maybe the A380 multiple years retard of his delivery to the airlines. I't's the closest situation that I can remember without doing a search on the subject.

There will be customers with A & B options, contemplating which to firm. There will be sales contests suspended when the groundings were announced. There will be customers with say 2x tranches delivered and 2x to go, wanting to cancel, but insisting they earn retrospective credits as if all were delivered. There will be customers wanting guaranteed buybacks, in case MAX residuals are impacted.

Onlookers and other airlines will never know the full financial impact. All settlements will be subject to confidentiality agreements. Widespread industry use of retrospective credits is for the opposite of publicity. The credits may be sweetened - for example if currently 90% cash, 100% spares and services and 110% new aircraft, those percentages could be increased, and/or the base values themselves increased.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8681
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:47 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray

So is someone suggesting grounding the NG until the sims can be updated and pilots adequately trained?
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:53 pm

par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray

So is someone suggesting grounding the NG until the sims can be updated and pilots adequately trained?



No. Since it hasn't led to an issue with the NG with over 7,000 examples in service over the course of over 20 years this would be an insane suggestion. What would "adequately trained" even mean? Will the pilots that can't turn it start a special workout to get strong enough to do it? The training manual for the NG informs what needs to be done when the stabilzer is under extreme loads. It is just more technically worded than the step by step "rollercoaster" procedure that was in the 737-200 training manual.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:09 pm

planecane wrote:
par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray

So is someone suggesting grounding the NG until the sims can be updated and pilots adequately trained?



No. Since it hasn't led to an issue with the NG with over 7,000 examples in service over the course of over 20 years this would be an insane suggestion. What would "adequately trained" even mean? Will the pilots that can't turn it start a special workout to get strong enough to do it? The training manual for the NG informs what needs to be done when the stabilzer is under extreme loads. It is just more technically worded than the step by step "rollercoaster" procedure that was in the 737-200 training manual.

FBI, NTSB and others are searching for NG certification irregularities, including over reaching self-approval.
 
SEU
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:13 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray


Yeah but if the pilots did the correct pro......Sorry I cant. Pilots were never at fault RIP.

Cant wait for Morris to completely ignore this.
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:43 pm

smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
par13del wrote:
So is someone suggesting grounding the NG until the sims can be updated and pilots adequately trained?



No. Since it hasn't led to an issue with the NG with over 7,000 examples in service over the course of over 20 years this would be an insane suggestion. What would "adequately trained" even mean? Will the pilots that can't turn it start a special workout to get strong enough to do it? The training manual for the NG informs what needs to be done when the stabilzer is under extreme loads. It is just more technically worded than the step by step "rollercoaster" procedure that was in the 737-200 training manual.

FBI, NTSB and others are searching for NG certification irregularities, including over reaching self-approval.


So? Even if they find that Boeing faked all of the flight test data in 1997 and the FAA never looked at anything, there is still no justification whatsoever to ground the NG 22 years later with no design related incidents occurring over what has to be 40 million flights by now. The NG certified itself with its own safety record.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3038
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:34 am

planecane wrote:
smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:


No. Since it hasn't led to an issue with the NG with over 7,000 examples in service over the course of over 20 years this would be an insane suggestion. What would "adequately trained" even mean? Will the pilots that can't turn it start a special workout to get strong enough to do it? The training manual for the NG informs what needs to be done when the stabilzer is under extreme loads. It is just more technically worded than the step by step "rollercoaster" procedure that was in the 737-200 training manual.

FBI, NTSB and others are searching for NG certification irregularities, including over reaching self-approval.


So? Even if they find that Boeing faked all of the flight test data in 1997 and the FAA never looked at anything, there is still no justification whatsoever to ground the NG 22 years later with no design related incidents occurring over what has to be 40 million flights by now. The NG certified itself with its own safety record.


In 1997 the FAA has a lot more oversight and those Boeing DER’s had the FAA backing them up. Any issues you go to the FAA not your Boeing boss.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1726
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:45 am

planecane wrote:
smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:


No. Since it hasn't led to an issue with the NG with over 7,000 examples in service over the course of over 20 years this would be an insane suggestion. What would "adequately trained" even mean? Will the pilots that can't turn it start a special workout to get strong enough to do it? The training manual for the NG informs what needs to be done when the stabilzer is under extreme loads. It is just more technically worded than the step by step "rollercoaster" procedure that was in the 737-200 training manual.

FBI, NTSB and others are searching for NG certification irregularities, including over reaching self-approval.


So? Even if they find that Boeing faked all of the flight test data in 1997 and the FAA never looked at anything, there is still no justification whatsoever to ground the NG 22 years later with no design related incidents occurring over what has to be 40 million flights by now. The NG certified itself with its own safety record.

Post hoc is not how a quality system works. That is the issue. Making sure there is a working quality system that has not been compromised by managment.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:59 am

Not to be too, too cynical, but we always had a quality group and a test group which reported to different levels at the companies I did software development for. Management ran all over those groups when I worked in the commercial space. When I worked in aerospace, they had more leverage and there were more of them. But I recall at least one instance where they were over ridden. It was something trivial that didn’t work and we shipped and fixed in the next release. I don’t recall even telling the client.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:45 am

smartplane wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
When an aircraft model is grounded, it loses it's hull & flying insurance - ground cover only.

Presumably, Boeing are delivering frames to storage facilities under experimental / test cover, with test crew (probably a record number of test crew at work). Interesting to know if FAA consent to permit this, has been influenced politically.

Strategically, if Boeing are required to update software, and other elements of the aircraft, keeping undelivered aircraft close, will speed the process.

There is also an issue with technical delivery. Would a customer want to take delivery, as this is a significant financial and insurance milestone? Let Boeing manage the storage, funding and insurance.


Deliveries can’t happen because the airplane does not have a valid type certificate since it was suspended. Without a type certificate, airworthiness certificates for each airplane produced can’t be issued. Therefore no deliveries can be made. The airworthiness certificate (which is posted in the flight deck of the airplane) is usually issued about one day before the airplane delivers after completing test flights. That is the technical reason deliveries cannot happen, not insurance.

Before an individual airplane has its airworthiness ticket, airplanes can be flown under the production certificate. This is not because of political influence. Airplanes need to fly prior to the type and airworthiness certificates. There are still requirements and approvals needed before planes can fly but it is covered under a different set of regulations. New features, designs, modifications etc are always being made and flown prior to final approval of the certification plans. There are certification plans required, which require FAA approval.

Insurance and Political Influence of the FAA aren’t technically accurate assertions regarding why airplanes can’t be delivered, so please do not spread inaccurate information when you don’t understand the process.

Aren't technically accurate?

New build aircraft do not NEED to fly when the model type has been suspended. Boeing have made the decision to continue manufacturing and to store remotely.

Boeing will have extended their existing insurance cover to fly aircraft for which airworthiness certificates CANNOT be issued, very different than awaiting airworthiness certificates, as part of a defined process of manufacture through to delivery.

To fly, operate or land in European airspace, a commercial aircraft requires hull and liability insurance. Only an OEM would have this cover for an aircraft pre-issue of an airworthiness certificate.

There are technical distinctions between a commercial aircraft which has never had an airworthiness certificate issued but is in process, has not had an airworthiness certificate issued and cannot have one issued because of a global grounding, and has had an airworthiness certificate issued which has been suspended due to a global grounding.

Surely a global grounding trumps delivery flights, so now only 1-2 aircraft should be flying to develop solutions? If the MAX was also assembled in China and Europe, would they be permitting storage flights? The fact storage flights are possible, suggests political interference.

Ferrying new builds seems to make a mockery of the intent of a grounding, and certainly changes the meaning we understood post 9/11.


Did you read the regulations? It isn’t a mockery

Close reading of the emergency grounding order issued by the FAA on Wednesday shows the order specifically provides for the FAA potentially to allow such flights. “Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CPR. 21.197 and 21.199, including to allow non-passenger carrying flights, as needed, for purposes of flight to a base for storage, production flight testing, repairs, alterations, or maintenance,” the order’s second page reads. “Experimental airworthiness certificates may be issued in accordance with 14 CPR 21.191 to support certification of design changes.”


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ts-737-max

Ferry flights and test flights are covered under different regulations. The article quotes the actual regulations. Ferry flight permits are issued all the time including in Europe and China for airplanes not in an airworthy condition to transport passengers. Again, please don’t spread inaccurate information suggesting there is political influence if you haven’t actually read the regulations.
 
planecane
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:06 am

RickNRoll wrote:
planecane wrote:
smartplane wrote:
FBI, NTSB and others are searching for NG certification irregularities, including over reaching self-approval.


So? Even if they find that Boeing faked all of the flight test data in 1997 and the FAA never looked at anything, there is still no justification whatsoever to ground the NG 22 years later with no design related incidents occurring over what has to be 40 million flights by now. The NG certified itself with its own safety record.

Post hoc is not how a quality system works. That is the issue. Making sure there is a working quality system that has not been compromised by managment.

I understand that but Boeing was not under the same management in 1997. There would be absolutely no justification to ground the NG fleet at this point no matter what the certification process was like. Grounding orders are given when the aircraft in question has a high risk of a serious incident. Based on the NG service history no case can be made that it is a high risk.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:29 am

planecane wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
planecane wrote:

So? Even if they find that Boeing faked all of the flight test data in 1997 and the FAA never looked at anything, there is still no justification whatsoever to ground the NG 22 years later with no design related incidents occurring over what has to be 40 million flights by now. The NG certified itself with its own safety record.

Post hoc is not how a quality system works. That is the issue. Making sure there is a working quality system that has not been compromised by managment.

I understand that but Boeing was not under the same management in 1997. There would be absolutely no justification to ground the NG fleet at this point no matter what the certification process was like. Grounding orders are given when the aircraft in question has a high risk of a serious incident. Based on the NG service history no case can be made that it is a high risk.


This just underlines to me that training isn't the issue

It's the safe design of the plane so we don't rely on pilots to have to save it that is 99.9 per cent of the issue

Extra training is purely icing on the cake. We NEVER want them to need that training in a passenger flight

Surely that's the simple target if we don't want another disaster

We don't deign planes to create more problems for pilots than the previous one
 
bgm
Posts: 2101
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:05 am

Interested wrote:
We don't deign planes to create more problems for pilots than the previous one


Yet that’s exactly what Boeing did in this case.
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:09 am

bgm wrote:
Interested wrote:
We don't deign planes to create more problems for pilots than the previous one


Yet that’s exactly what Boeing did in this case.


And it's clearly proving a big problem to solve

This plane simply can't be as safe as the one it grandfathered

That's where it's at

What a situation to end up in

If they got the design right in the first place we would never even be discussing pilots or extra training etc
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:25 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Deliveries can’t happen because the airplane does not have a valid type certificate since it was suspended. Without a type certificate, airworthiness certificates for each airplane produced can’t be issued. Therefore no deliveries can be made. The airworthiness certificate (which is posted in the flight deck of the airplane) is usually issued about one day before the airplane delivers after completing test flights. That is the technical reason deliveries cannot happen, not insurance.

Before an individual airplane has its airworthiness ticket, airplanes can be flown under the production certificate. This is not because of political influence. Airplanes need to fly prior to the type and airworthiness certificates. There are still requirements and approvals needed before planes can fly but it is covered under a different set of regulations. New features, designs, modifications etc are always being made and flown prior to final approval of the certification plans. There are certification plans required, which require FAA approval.

Insurance and Political Influence of the FAA aren’t technically accurate assertions regarding why airplanes can’t be delivered, so please do not spread inaccurate information when you don’t understand the process.

Aren't technically accurate?

New build aircraft do not NEED to fly when the model type has been suspended. Boeing have made the decision to continue manufacturing and to store remotely.

Boeing will have extended their existing insurance cover to fly aircraft for which airworthiness certificates CANNOT be issued, very different than awaiting airworthiness certificates, as part of a defined process of manufacture through to delivery.

To fly, operate or land in European airspace, a commercial aircraft requires hull and liability insurance. Only an OEM would have this cover for an aircraft pre-issue of an airworthiness certificate.

There are technical distinctions between a commercial aircraft which has never had an airworthiness certificate issued but is in process, has not had an airworthiness certificate issued and cannot have one issued because of a global grounding, and has had an airworthiness certificate issued which has been suspended due to a global grounding.

Surely a global grounding trumps delivery flights, so now only 1-2 aircraft should be flying to develop solutions? If the MAX was also assembled in China and Europe, would they be permitting storage flights? The fact storage flights are possible, suggests political interference.

Ferrying new builds seems to make a mockery of the intent of a grounding, and certainly changes the meaning we understood post 9/11.


Did you read the regulations? It isn’t a mockery

Close reading of the emergency grounding order issued by the FAA on Wednesday shows the order specifically provides for the FAA potentially to allow such flights. “Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CPR. 21.197 and 21.199, including to allow non-passenger carrying flights, as needed, for purposes of flight to a base for storage, production flight testing, repairs, alterations, or maintenance,” the order’s second page reads. “Experimental airworthiness certificates may be issued in accordance with 14 CPR 21.191 to support certification of design changes.”


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ts-737-max

Ferry flights and test flights are covered under different regulations. The article quotes the actual regulations. Ferry flight permits are issued all the time including in Europe and China for airplanes not in an airworthy condition to transport passengers. Again, please don’t spread inaccurate information suggesting there is political influence if you haven’t actually read the regulations.

Not always as straight forward as it might be perhaps!

'It seems France and Germany changed their rules in a hurry while the plane was in the air, as Norwegian said it had permission to reposition the empty plane from EU air traffic organisation Eurocontrol and the European Aviation Safety Agency, but explained: "Just before entering German airspace both the German and French authorities sent a notice that prohibited repositioning flights of the Boeing 737 MAX in their airspace.'
https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/06/germa ... ly-over-it

Ray
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9375
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:52 am

XRAYretired wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Aren't technically accurate?

New build aircraft do not NEED to fly when the model type has been suspended. Boeing have made the decision to continue manufacturing and to store remotely.

Boeing will have extended their existing insurance cover to fly aircraft for which airworthiness certificates CANNOT be issued, very different than awaiting airworthiness certificates, as part of a defined process of manufacture through to delivery.

To fly, operate or land in European airspace, a commercial aircraft requires hull and liability insurance. Only an OEM would have this cover for an aircraft pre-issue of an airworthiness certificate.

There are technical distinctions between a commercial aircraft which has never had an airworthiness certificate issued but is in process, has not had an airworthiness certificate issued and cannot have one issued because of a global grounding, and has had an airworthiness certificate issued which has been suspended due to a global grounding.

Surely a global grounding trumps delivery flights, so now only 1-2 aircraft should be flying to develop solutions? If the MAX was also assembled in China and Europe, would they be permitting storage flights? The fact storage flights are possible, suggests political interference.

Ferrying new builds seems to make a mockery of the intent of a grounding, and certainly changes the meaning we understood post 9/11.


Did you read the regulations? It isn’t a mockery

Close reading of the emergency grounding order issued by the FAA on Wednesday shows the order specifically provides for the FAA potentially to allow such flights. “Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CPR. 21.197 and 21.199, including to allow non-passenger carrying flights, as needed, for purposes of flight to a base for storage, production flight testing, repairs, alterations, or maintenance,” the order’s second page reads. “Experimental airworthiness certificates may be issued in accordance with 14 CPR 21.191 to support certification of design changes.”


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ts-737-max

Ferry flights and test flights are covered under different regulations. The article quotes the actual regulations. Ferry flight permits are issued all the time including in Europe and China for airplanes not in an airworthy condition to transport passengers. Again, please don’t spread inaccurate information suggesting there is political influence if you haven’t actually read the regulations.

Not always as straight forward as it might be perhaps!

'It seems France and Germany changed their rules in a hurry while the plane was in the air, as Norwegian said it had permission to reposition the empty plane from EU air traffic organisation Eurocontrol and the European Aviation Safety Agency, but explained: "Just before entering German airspace both the German and French authorities sent a notice that prohibited repositioning flights of the Boeing 737 MAX in their airspace.'
https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/06/germa ... ly-over-it

Ray

That’s what happens when not everyone (Eurocontrol, EASA, and the individual governments) are not on the same page. But the European FAA equivalent (EASA) allowed it. Political interference??? ;)

As part of the EASA approval apparently the plane flies at flap 1, so MCAS can’t activate. Is it the same with FAA storage flights?

The reality is with Boeing and Airbus being high profile and valuable exporters their host country will always try and accommodate them. If this was occurring with the A320neo you can be assured that France and Germany would be allowing storage flights, citing EASA approval for any justification they feel they would need to give.

All the talk about liability/insurance is just bolstering to appear more informed about the specific matter. Boeing or the airlines are not going to fly the planes, even on ferry/storage flights, without insurance, so obviously someone is covering them.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:23 am

Polot wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Did you read the regulations? It isn’t a mockery



https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ts-737-max

Ferry flights and test flights are covered under different regulations. The article quotes the actual regulations. Ferry flight permits are issued all the time including in Europe and China for airplanes not in an airworthy condition to transport passengers. Again, please don’t spread inaccurate information suggesting there is political influence if you haven’t actually read the regulations.

Not always as straight forward as it might be perhaps!

'It seems France and Germany changed their rules in a hurry while the plane was in the air, as Norwegian said it had permission to reposition the empty plane from EU air traffic organisation Eurocontrol and the European Aviation Safety Agency, but explained: "Just before entering German airspace both the German and French authorities sent a notice that prohibited repositioning flights of the Boeing 737 MAX in their airspace.'
https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/06/germa ... ly-over-it

Ray

That’s what happens when not everyone (Eurocontrol, EASA, and the individual governments) are not on the same page. But the European FAA equivalent (EASA) allowed it. Political interference??? ;)

As part of the EASA approval apparently the plane flies at flap 1, so MCAS can’t activate. Is it the same with FAA storage flights?

The reality is with Boeing and Airbus being high profile and valuable exporters their host country will always try and accommodate them. If this was occurring with the A320neo you can be assured that France and Germany would be allowing storage flights, citing EASA approval for any justification they feel they would need to give.

All the talk about liability/insurance is just bolstering to appear more informed about the specific matter. Boeing or the airlines are not going to fly the planes, even on ferry/storage flights, without insurance, so obviously someone is covering them.


An educated guess here: Boeing and Airbus have special Insurance for any test/ferry/experimental/whatever flight. This insurance most probably only covers third party liability and is relatively expensive. For the airlines itself I think that A&B would actually give a guarantee to cover if something happens. No insurance company would have their name or their money on a flight like this. Thats a hot potato, likeü a coverage for a nuclear power plant.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9375
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:48 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Polot wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Not always as straight forward as it might be perhaps!

'It seems France and Germany changed their rules in a hurry while the plane was in the air, as Norwegian said it had permission to reposition the empty plane from EU air traffic organisation Eurocontrol and the European Aviation Safety Agency, but explained: "Just before entering German airspace both the German and French authorities sent a notice that prohibited repositioning flights of the Boeing 737 MAX in their airspace.'
https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/06/germa ... ly-over-it

Ray

That’s what happens when not everyone (Eurocontrol, EASA, and the individual governments) are not on the same page. But the European FAA equivalent (EASA) allowed it. Political interference??? ;)

As part of the EASA approval apparently the plane flies at flap 1, so MCAS can’t activate. Is it the same with FAA storage flights?

The reality is with Boeing and Airbus being high profile and valuable exporters their host country will always try and accommodate them. If this was occurring with the A320neo you can be assured that France and Germany would be allowing storage flights, citing EASA approval for any justification they feel they would need to give.

All the talk about liability/insurance is just bolstering to appear more informed about the specific matter. Boeing or the airlines are not going to fly the planes, even on ferry/storage flights, without insurance, so obviously someone is covering them.


An educated guess here: Boeing and Airbus have special Insurance for any test/ferry/experimental/whatever flight. This insurance most probably only covers third party liability and is relatively expensive. For the airlines itself I think that A&B would actually give a guarantee to cover if something happens. No insurance company would have their name or their money on a flight like this. Thats a hot potato, likeü a coverage for a nuclear power plant.

Agreed. Like I said someone is obviously covering them, and it is no doubt much more expensive that usual, but bringing up uncertainty about it is just a red herring.

To be clear I don’t think there is any political interference or nefarious actions involving ferry/storage flights. I do think there are some people here who want to push that narrative as an opportunity to bash Boeing/FAA/US government some ;)

In the case of the recent Norwegian Max ‘incident’ I suspect that resulted more from confusion than anything else. Someone in Germany probably saw the flight and was unsure if it was allowed and asked supervisor who was unsure and so on so they took the safe route and denied entry. Obviously there isn’t a clear consensus in Europe-Spain and France obviously had no issue with the storage flight, and EASA and Eurocontrol approved it.

If this was happening with Airbus the storage flights would still occur. Not because of political interference but because since it is in Germany/France’s backyard there will be a greater dialog as Airbus presses EASA/Germany/France about what they are actually allowed to do and this there is a greater understanding amongst all parties, even the little guy (ie the ATC controller sitting in the tower), on how to handle this situation.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:11 am

Polot wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Polot wrote:
That’s what happens when not everyone (Eurocontrol, EASA, and the individual governments) are not on the same page. But the European FAA equivalent (EASA) allowed it. Political interference??? ;)

As part of the EASA approval apparently the plane flies at flap 1, so MCAS can’t activate. Is it the same with FAA storage flights?

The reality is with Boeing and Airbus being high profile and valuable exporters their host country will always try and accommodate them. If this was occurring with the A320neo you can be assured that France and Germany would be allowing storage flights, citing EASA approval for any justification they feel they would need to give.

All the talk about liability/insurance is just bolstering to appear more informed about the specific matter. Boeing or the airlines are not going to fly the planes, even on ferry/storage flights, without insurance, so obviously someone is covering them.


An educated guess here: Boeing and Airbus have special Insurance for any test/ferry/experimental/whatever flight. This insurance most probably only covers third party liability and is relatively expensive. For the airlines itself I think that A&B would actually give a guarantee to cover if something happens. No insurance company would have their name or their money on a flight like this. Thats a hot potato, likeü a coverage for a nuclear power plant.

Agreed. Like I said someone is obviously covering them, and it is no doubt much more expensive that usual, but bringing up uncertainty about it is just a red herring.

To be clear I don’t think there is any political interference or nefarious actions involving ferry/storage flights. I do think there are some people here who want to push that narrative as an opportunity to bash Boeing/FAA/US government some ;)

In the case of the recent Norwegian Max ‘incident’ I suspect that resulted more from confusion than anything else. Someone in Germany probably saw the flight and was unsure if it was allowed and asked supervisor who was unsure and so on so they took the safe route and denied entry. Obviously there isn’t a clear consensus in Europe-Spain and France obviously had no issue with the storage flight, and EASA and Eurocontrol approved it.

If this was happening with Airbus the storage flights would still occur. Not because of political interference but because since it is in Germany/France’s backyard there will be a greater dialog as Airbus presses EASA/Germany/France about what they are actually allowed to do and this there is a greater understanding amongst all parties, even the little guy (ie the ATC controller sitting in the tower), on how to handle this situation.



I see it similar. Spain new it as they allowed the start. France did not control and in Germany they did not know and denied it. Then the french took a second look and also were like: hmm that a/c should not fly. Communications issue nothing political. Its easier in the US, its only one country. With an Airbus it could probably happen aswell in Europe. Less in DE and F as they most probably would be involved due to Airbus facilities but a ferry flight from Latvia to Greece? Who knows if all would have informed and acted properly or also just denied the a/c to enter their airspace.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:51 am

FluidFlow wrote:
An educated guess here: Boeing and Airbus have special Insurance for any test/ferry/experimental/whatever flight. This insurance most probably only covers third party liability and is relatively expensive. For the airlines itself I think that A&B would actually give a guarantee to cover if something happens. No insurance company would have their name or their money on a flight like this. Thats a hot potato, likeü a coverage for a nuclear power plant.

Boeing does not need any insurance for these flights. They are big enough to self-insure.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:58 am

ArgentoSystems wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
An educated guess here: Boeing and Airbus have special Insurance for any test/ferry/experimental/whatever flight. This insurance most probably only covers third party liability and is relatively expensive. For the airlines itself I think that A&B would actually give a guarantee to cover if something happens. No insurance company would have their name or their money on a flight like this. Thats a hot potato, likeü a coverage for a nuclear power plant.

Boeing does not need any insurance for these flights. They are big enough to self-insure.


Ah yeah I know that but even companies big like Boeing that can self-insure buy insurance. It is always a calculation by the CFO together with his risk managers how to structure the coverage to get the best solution. There is a total cost of risk and even if you can bear it, it might be cheaper to transfer it.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:59 am

MSPNWA wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/boeing-updates-older-737-simulators-in-wake-of-fatal-max-crashes
Confirmed NG simulator did not accurately reflect manual trim wheel forces.

Ray


Yeah, and it's easier to turn than in a real aircraft in some circumstances.

If anything that article suggests the potential issue between sim and real is less than had been speculated.


It also says the SIM was harder in some situations than real life.

So what is everyone's point? How would that have changed what happened on ET302? It would not have changed what happened on ET302 one iota.

If you take the interpretation from the Pre-lim report that they were actually trying the trim wheels - the Co-pilot if he actually tried the trim and not just Manually flicking the Electric trim - tried in total for maybe 2-3 seconds if you take into account the time it would have taken for the conversation as well.

Here is the relevant part of the prelim report

At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working.

There is only 8 seconds between these two.

Time for yourself how long it takes to ask someone if the trim was working and how long long it takes to ask back - should I try manually - that takes 5-6 seconds especially on headsets where you try not to talk over each other.

That would leave 2-3 seconds for the co-pilot - if he actually did try the Manual trim wheels to extend the handle and try it.

Somehow I think it entirely implausible that he accomplished that task in the time available - and if he did why so little time and effort spent on it or why did he not ask for help from the pilot or why not some remark that it is stuck.

However 2-3 seconds is long enough to try an electric trim switch.

All this however is all irrelevant anyways though as even if he did try the manual trim wheel they were well above Vmo and it's debatable how effective it would have been anyways.

Leaving it in TOGA thrust at this point was a much larger issue to the safe conclusion of the flight than not being able to control the trim.

This all being said - even if the MAX is scrapped (which is highly unlikely - and not necessary - but some on here think it's a good idea) - these Pilot training issues still exist and need to be corrected.

How can anyone on these boards not say that Pilot performance could have been better and training could be beefed up to improve safety?

The 100% it's not the Pilot's fault crowd continues to ignore these training issues and continues to ignore ET409 - a perfectly good airplane (737NG) that was flown into the ground by a Captain who went through primary 737 Training at about the same time as the ET302 Captain.

Then we also have media reports that even if ET did give it's pilot's the MCAS procedure - it was literally in an email and did not even require it's pilots to acknowledge receipt - Yes that is a real safety first culture.

However if you are comfortable flying with ET (or almost any Modern trained pilot) in instrument conditions or even Visual and facing a loss of automation then good for you.

You like gambling with your life a lot more than I like to with mine.

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