User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:53 am

9Patch wrote:
planecane wrote:
As far as Congress acting, I'd be happy to place a friendly wager on that. Politicians primarily push legislation that will help them get reelected. Giving the FAA the necessary funding to improve aircraft certification isn't a popular issue since none of the crashes happened in the US or on a US airline.

Again, pure speculation on your part. Please provide some evidence funding to improve aircraft certification isn't a popular issue.
Voters will support safety regardless of where the recent crashes happened. Eight Americans died on Ethiopian Flight 302.

Nothing specific to the USA. Most probably voter will support safety if there can vote on that precise question (object). But most political systems, even with the "democracy" tag, have laws modified by elected peoples from majors parties. Those parties have long learned how to creatively mix incentives and public expectations so that incentive are satisfied to give money and enough public is satisfied to vote for. The reality of those political systems is that the money is the empowering part and the vote is just the marketing part. In that context, the politic is how to do marketing for a different target than the buyer, that in fine keep the real control. This explain a lot of irrational political positions mixed together. Aircraft safety is actually more likely to be in the marketing part than in the empowering part. I strongly support effective direct democracy instruments that allow peoples to routinely vote on laws objects. I my experience, those instruments help to balance on the people side.
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:54 am

planecane wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Seattle Times? version of MCAS design and development story, subtly different to the NYT version. Apologies if already posted.
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/t ... Q9DdfZFw2x

Ray


Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek says "MCAS on the KC-46 has two sensors and the system compares the two readings."

Boeing's proposed update to MCAS for the MAX will have the same.



The fixes include relying on two sensors rather than one, limiting MCAS to one rather than multiple activations, and revising the software.


So a 2nd sensor is about to be introduced as part of the fix.

That would directly contradict those who expected a simple software tweak, and probably cost quite a bit to design and implement on all aircraft.


The second sensor is already on the aircraft (as it has been on every 737 since 1967). The software tweak will now compare them instead of just using one or the other.


Thought about a whole new sensor.
That is a less scary perspective then, thanks for the correction.
Last edited by AirwayBill on Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:55 am

uta999 wrote:
Interested wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

What are the airlines supposed to do? The precedent would be that every time an airliner is involved in an accident, the airline tells people when they book or board that plane?


Why does there have to be an accident to make it clear and easy to the public in the booking process what plane you will be flying on

Also when you buy a car now it has a safety rating - why not have the same for planes?


BA sub aircraft all the time, from A319/A320 to A321 or NEO, NB sometimes even use a 777/787/77W. Then there's 777 to 744 or 77W, and 777 to 787. How are airlines supposed to keep their customers updated and for what purpose?


Same way they warn you if your plane is going to be delayed

Let's not pretend it's hard in this day and age to keep customers informed

It's a shame we have got to the stage where the make of plane we are flying on becomes such a concern. And hopefully in the future the concern disappears.

Right now purely speaking for myself I would choose not to fly on max 737 out of principle to send a message to Boeing

If last minute my choice of plane was switched to max 737 I would like the choice of refund or stay on the plane

At that stage I probably stay on the plane as swapping too disruptive for me
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:04 am

planecane wrote:
Interested wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

What are the airlines supposed to do? The precedent would be that every time an airliner is involved in an accident, the airline tells people when they book or board that plane?


Why does there have to be an accident to make it clear and easy to the public in the booking process what plane you will be flying on

Also when you buy a car now it has a safety rating - why not have the same for planes?


It is pretty clear on every airline website I've used if you view flight details or seat maps. The exception is Southwest where clicking on the flight number will show the information. However, with the MAX8 and -800 they probably have a decent number of on the fly swaps since that is the whole point of their fleet commonality.

As far as a safety rating, what would it be based on? Automobile safely ratings are based upon survivability in a crash, not the likelihood to be in a crash.

For aircraft you can't use hull loss rate because most are caused by factors other than the aircraft. You can't really try to do it based on design issues because all certified aircraft are supposed to meet the same safety requirements. After MCAS 2.0, the MAX won't be any less safe than the NG which has proven to be extremely safe.

Now I'm sure you will bring up the scenario of needing MCAS when it is disabled. The chain of events that would have to take place would be unbelievably unlikely. The pilots would have to be forced into an edge of envelope maneuver while diverting when they will know MCAS is unavailable and be told (by whatever NNC is created for the warning) not to perform the maneuvers that would require it.

Also, I'm 99% sure the regulations say a stall has to be recoverable. Even if lack of MCAS leads to a stall in some crazy chain of events, the pilots will be able to get out of the stall.

I would expect that after MCAS 2.0 there will never be a serious incident related to MCAS either activating erroneously or not being available. This includes the infinitesimal possibility of dual AoA failure where they are both reading an AoA below the activation trigger AND the pilots end up doing an edge of envelope maneuver. Even in that probably 1 in 10 billion scenario, a stall should still be recoverable.


If both planes and airlines had to publish their past/recent safety record highly and prominently with every flight price it sure as hell would have them giving safety more priority

They simply couldn't afford mistakes

No disrespect but I'm not trusting a word from a Boeing supporter or anyone to do with Boeing that this plane will be as safe as the one it replaced. It's already proved its not and it's a flawed design

It's on a loser already that it's target right now is purely to aim to become as safe as the plane it replaced

Boeing need to suffer very badly as a result of their failings with this plane. Short term they already have -they need to long term as well to keep them focussed on the fact that safety should over ride all other considerations
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:21 am

Interested wrote:
planecane wrote:
Interested wrote:

Why does there have to be an accident to make it clear and easy to the public in the booking process what plane you will be flying on

Also when you buy a car now it has a safety rating - why not have the same for planes?


It is pretty clear on every airline website I've used if you view flight details or seat maps. The exception is Southwest where clicking on the flight number will show the information. However, with the MAX8 and -800 they probably have a decent number of on the fly swaps since that is the whole point of their fleet commonality.

As far as a safety rating, what would it be based on? Automobile safely ratings are based upon survivability in a crash, not the likelihood to be in a crash.

For aircraft you can't use hull loss rate because most are caused by factors other than the aircraft. You can't really try to do it based on design issues because all certified aircraft are supposed to meet the same safety requirements. After MCAS 2.0, the MAX won't be any less safe than the NG which has proven to be extremely safe.

Now I'm sure you will bring up the scenario of needing MCAS when it is disabled. The chain of events that would have to take place would be unbelievably unlikely. The pilots would have to be forced into an edge of envelope maneuver while diverting when they will know MCAS is unavailable and be told (by whatever NNC is created for the warning) not to perform the maneuvers that would require it.

Also, I'm 99% sure the regulations say a stall has to be recoverable. Even if lack of MCAS leads to a stall in some crazy chain of events, the pilots will be able to get out of the stall.

I would expect that after MCAS 2.0 there will never be a serious incident related to MCAS either activating erroneously or not being available. This includes the infinitesimal possibility of dual AoA failure where they are both reading an AoA below the activation trigger AND the pilots end up doing an edge of envelope maneuver. Even in that probably 1 in 10 billion scenario, a stall should still be recoverable.


If both planes and airlines had to publish their past/recent safety record highly and prominently with every flight price it sure as hell would have them giving safety more priority

They simply couldn't afford mistakes

No disrespect but I'm not trusting a word from a Boeing supporter or anyone to do with Boeing that this plane will be as safe as the one it replaced. It's already proved its not and it's a flawed design

It's on a loser already that it's target right now is purely to aim to become as safe as the plane it replaced

Boeing need to suffer very badly as a result of their failings with this plane. Short term they already have -they need to long term as well to keep them focussed on the fact that safety should over ride all other considerations


For the millionth time, the MCAS issue was a result of very bad assumptions, not a disregard for safety. There is no evidence from the investigative reporting by either the New York Times or Seattle Times that indicates anybody thought there would be a safety issue.

Despite the conspiracy theories of some posters, neither the FAA nor any other regulator is going to unground the MAX unless they determine that MCAS will no longer lead to unsafe situations.

Why do you keep insisting that it is unacceptable that the goal is to be as safe as the NG? There has not been any fatality that I know of on a 737-600/700/800/900 that was caused by a design inadequacy. How can the safety of MAX be better than the NG safety record? Even if you go by misleading hull loss statistics, the NG is "safer" than the A320CEO series. Airbus didn't make any safety improvements on the NEO. If you want to use hull loss statistics then the argument can be made that the 737NG is safer than the A320 series so if the MAX is as safe as the NG then it is safer than the A320 NEO series. Of course this isn't a valid safety analysis but neither is your contention that the MAX being a only as safe as the NG is somehow not good enough.
 
StTim
Posts: 3346
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:51 am

When they add in the second AoA sensor it does mean that both will need to be operative for a plane to depart - whereas at present a flight could be operated with one inoperative. Whether this change to the MEL will impact reliability of the frame is to be seen.
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:42 am

planecane wrote:
Please provide evidence that it is a popular issue. If you can't find polling (either media or done by politicians) about it that means it isn't. Which member of Congress has announced they are sponsoring a bill related to the FAA certification process?

If you can't find polling it simply means no one has done any. That tells you nothing about whether it's popular or not.
Which member of Congress has announced they are opposed to a bill related to the FAA certification process?
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 am

aerolimani wrote:
packsonflight wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
No doubt that Boeing can do FBW the right way. Boeing's FBW system is used in the 777, 787 and 747-8.
In practice, the 737 and 767 are the last Boeing Commercial Airplanes non FBW design still sold today.


According to the article Boeing went with one sensor system in order not to lessen the dispatch reliability of the aircraft, and keep it simple.
If MCAS is dual sensor system and one AOA sensor fails the aircraft is AOG. if one sensor fails the aircraft can still be dispatched since one is enough according to MEL. If the MCAS sensor (the left one) fails, it is always the possibility to swap sensors so MCAS has the good one and the aircraft can stillfly.

this is according to normal aircraft design philosophy, if you need one system or part you put in two, so you can fly if one fails. If you need minimum 2 parts to fly, put in three so you can still fly if one fails.

At least it seems that Boeing had different ideas about redundancy or failure rate of the AOA sensors regarding dispatch reliability, than when they calculated the reliability of the MCAS system as a whole. I don't comprehend the calculated reliability of the MCAS system, to me it looks like it is more likely to win the jackpot three times in a row on your birthday, than a single failure of the MCAS system.

To me it looks like Boeing assessed the MCAS system a thousand times more reliable that the weakest link, the AOA senso.r

That’s an interesting takeaway. So, is it safe to assume that MCAS v2.0 is going to reduce the dispatch reliability of the MAX (of versions with MCAS)? If so, I wonder if any of the sales contracts have clauses regarding reliability expectations.

Putting a crimp in an otherwise fine theory, the MAX MMEL does not include AOA Sensor and therefore one sensor down is a 'no despatch'. (Single AOA sensor despatch was in the NG MMEL).
fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/mmel/b-737_max_rev_1.pdf

I would assume the intent was that AOA sensor for the FCC in control for the flight would always be available at T/O, so if a AOA failure was flagged on power up (not AOA Disagree, since this not checked until 400ft agl) e.g. AOA signal failure, then the A/C was not despatched. This would of course mean that if Lion Air had paid for AOA Disagree alert, it would have been posted on the JT043 PFD and would likely have been noted in the pilots reports and then would have obliged MX to address it and likely would have identified the AOA sensor as faulty and/or if MX had consulted the on board maintenance system, AOA Disagree would have been seen present and similarly required action. (ET302, of course, both AOA sensors were operative on T/O as far as we know).

As regards the reliability numbers, for MCAS 0.0 (pre development mod) this would have likely been something like the frequency expected for wind-up turn* the calculated MTBF for 'g' sensor* the calculated MTBF for AOA Sensor. However, as we know, the AOA Sensor MTBF as supplied by the contractor is directly related to internal failures of the AOA sensor and would likely not include externally induced failure such as FOD/Bird Strike or installation error. So unless, an additional factor was included in the calculation, they are ignored.

Incidentally, the AOA sensor failure modes, co-incident with the MTBF, supplied may also have been for internal failures only. There was a reference a read a little while ago that I can no longer put my fingers on, that would seem to confirm this and did not seem to include external induced failures. The list was suggested that used in the safety analysis and test flight regime development. So, it would seem it is possible that AOA failed high, either due to installation error or bird strike was not actually considered in either or in the design decisions.

Ray
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:26 pm

9Patch wrote:
planecane wrote:
Please provide evidence that it is a popular issue. If you can't find polling (either media or done by politicians) about it that means it isn't. Which member of Congress has announced they are sponsoring a bill related to the FAA certification process?

If you can't find polling it simply means no one has done any. That tells you nothing about whether it's popular or not.
Which member of Congress has announced they are opposed to a bill related to the FAA certification process?

I never said they were opposed. I said the political will isn't there to do anything useful. Anything useful would require a bigger budget for the FAA, which would mean taking funds from somewhere else, raising taxes or borrowing more and increasing the debt.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:27 pm

planecane wrote:
Interested wrote:
planecane wrote:

It is pretty clear on every airline website I've used if you view flight details or seat maps. The exception is Southwest where clicking on the flight number will show the information. However, with the MAX8 and -800 they probably have a decent number of on the fly swaps since that is the whole point of their fleet commonality.

As far as a safety rating, what would it be based on? Automobile safely ratings are based upon survivability in a crash, not the likelihood to be in a crash.

For aircraft you can't use hull loss rate because most are caused by factors other than the aircraft. You can't really try to do it based on design issues because all certified aircraft are supposed to meet the same safety requirements. After MCAS 2.0, the MAX won't be any less safe than the NG which has proven to be extremely safe.

Now I'm sure you will bring up the scenario of needing MCAS when it is disabled. The chain of events that would have to take place would be unbelievably unlikely. The pilots would have to be forced into an edge of envelope maneuver while diverting when they will know MCAS is unavailable and be told (by whatever NNC is created for the warning) not to perform the maneuvers that would require it.

Also, I'm 99% sure the regulations say a stall has to be recoverable. Even if lack of MCAS leads to a stall in some crazy chain of events, the pilots will be able to get out of the stall.

I would expect that after MCAS 2.0 there will never be a serious incident related to MCAS either activating erroneously or not being available. This includes the infinitesimal possibility of dual AoA failure where they are both reading an AoA below the activation trigger AND the pilots end up doing an edge of envelope maneuver. Even in that probably 1 in 10 billion scenario, a stall should still be recoverable.


If both planes and airlines had to publish their past/recent safety record highly and prominently with every flight price it sure as hell would have them giving safety more priority

They simply couldn't afford mistakes

No disrespect but I'm not trusting a word from a Boeing supporter or anyone to do with Boeing that this plane will be as safe as the one it replaced. It's already proved its not and it's a flawed design

It's on a loser already that it's target right now is purely to aim to become as safe as the plane it replaced

Boeing need to suffer very badly as a result of their failings with this plane. Short term they already have -they need to long term as well to keep them focussed on the fact that safety should over ride all other considerations


For the millionth time, the MCAS issue was a result of very bad assumptions, not a disregard for safety. There is no evidence from the investigative reporting by either the New York Times or Seattle Times that indicates anybody thought there would be a safety issue.

Despite the conspiracy theories of some posters, neither the FAA nor any other regulator is going to unground the MAX unless they determine that MCAS will no longer lead to unsafe situations.

Why do you keep insisting that it is unacceptable that the goal is to be as safe as the NG? There has not been any fatality that I know of on a 737-600/700/800/900 that was caused by a design inadequacy. How can the safety of MAX be better than the NG safety record? Even if you go by misleading hull loss statistics, the NG is "safer" than the A320CEO series. Airbus didn't make any safety improvements on the NEO. If you want to use hull loss statistics then the argument can be made that the 737NG is safer than the A320 series so if the MAX is as safe as the NG then it is safer than the A320 NEO series. Of course this isn't a valid safety analysis but neither is your contention that the MAX being a only as safe as the NG is somehow not good enough.


So making a safe plane safer is not a valid aim after all?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12930
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:40 pm

Look on how the Lionair crash was handled.

- the media was succesfully put on a track (pilot, Lionair operational record, aircraft airworthy)
- any disruptive conclusions moved out a year (let's not speculate, but wait for the final investigation report (late 2019)
- Boeing got away with it, stock reached all time high in months after the Oct 29th crash.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/worl ... lures.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46121127
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... c267d645c4

Should (fully independent) authorities revisit past accidents, to check if they managed in the same way?
Maybe safety improvement opportunities where missed, because of conflicts of interests.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:58 pm

More than 400 pilots have joined a class action against American plane manufacturer Boeing, seeking damages in the millions over what they allege was the company's "unprecedented cover-up" of the "known design flaws" of the latest edition of its top-selling jet, the 737 MAX.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-23/ ... x/11238282
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:19 pm

planecane wrote:
9Patch wrote:
planecane wrote:
Please provide evidence that it is a popular issue. If you can't find polling (either media or done by politicians) about it that means it isn't. Which member of Congress has announced they are sponsoring a bill related to the FAA certification process?

If you can't find polling it simply means no one has done any. That tells you nothing about whether it's popular or not.
Which member of Congress has announced they are opposed to a bill related to the FAA certification process?

I never said they were opposed. I said the political will isn't there to do anything useful. Anything useful would require a bigger budget for the FAA, which would mean taking funds from somewhere else, raising taxes or borrowing more and increasing the debt.

You said a lot more than that. You said:

It would take a bi-partisan effort. Since neither crash occurred on US soil or a US airline, the political will for that type of bi-partisan agreement does not exist.

If a bi-partisan agreement can't be reached, someone must be opposed to it.
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:21 pm

AirwayBill wrote:
More than 400 pilots have joined a class action against American plane manufacturer Boeing, seeking damages in the millions over what they allege was the company's "unprecedented cover-up" of the "known design flaws" of the latest edition of its top-selling jet, the 737 MAX.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-23/ ... x/11238282

This article has already been posted. Regardless, class action suits end up making the plaintiff's attorneys a lot of money when they are successful but the plaintiffs, other than the lead plaintiff, don't tend to get all that much.

It will be quite difficult for the pilots to win this suit. The pilots didn't have a contract with Boeing. The argument is analogous to employees of an electronics retailer sueing Microsoft because they weren't able to supply the next XBOX during Christmas season so the employees got less hours.

The airlines can certainly get compensation from Boeing based upon their purchase contracts. The pilots might be able to get compensation from their employer but I doubt that either. Unless the pilot's contract has a guaranteed minimum hours in it.
 
travelsonic
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:59 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:34 pm

planecane wrote:
This article has already been posted. Regardless, class action suits end up making the plaintiff's attorneys a lot of money when they are successful but the plaintiffs, other than the lead plaintiff, don't tend to get all that much.


Maybe - but I wonder if the goal is just to get compensation, or to also make Boeing hurt a little (irrespective of if this would be a good means to achieving that or not).
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2922
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:52 pm

If the two AOA sensors disagree would it actually be dangerous simply to:
disable MCAS
Notify the pilots of the condition?

Second, wouldn't it be fairly simple to determine which AOA has quit working?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:12 pm

9Patch wrote:
planecane wrote:
9Patch wrote:
If you can't find polling it simply means no one has done any. That tells you nothing about whether it's popular or not.
Which member of Congress has announced they are opposed to a bill related to the FAA certification process?

I never said they were opposed. I said the political will isn't there to do anything useful. Anything useful would require a bigger budget for the FAA, which would mean taking funds from somewhere else, raising taxes or borrowing more and increasing the debt.

You said a lot more than that. You said:

It would take a bi-partisan effort. Since neither crash occurred on US soil or a US airline, the political will for that type of bi-partisan agreement does not exist.

If a bi-partisan agreement can't be reached, someone must be opposed to it.

Opposed to the concept of improving the certification process, no. Opposed to coming up with the necessary funding, most definitely. You won't find more than a handful of Democrats willing to take funding from anywhere but the military or border wall for the FAA (which is a no go for Republicans). You won't find more than a handful of Republicans willing to raise taxes or increase the debt ceiling to provide additional funding for the FAA.

If it was a US airline that experienced a MAX crash or the crash was on US soil then the political will would exist to reach a bipartisan compromise. In the reality that currently exists that will isn't there.
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:18 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
If the two AOA sensors disagree would it actually be dangerous simply to:
disable MCAS
Notify the pilots of the condition?

Second, wouldn't it be fairly simple to determine which AOA has quit working?

The Boeing info about the software update states "An indicator on the flight deck display will alert the pilots."

I don't know if that means just the AoA disagree warning or a specific MCAS inop warning. Either way the pilots will be notified as I assume that the AoA disagree NNC will include a statement that MCAS is inoperable.

It should be fairly simple to determine which AoA sensor is malfunctioning but nothing that Boeing has released indicates they will do that and have MCAS use the assumed good sensor.
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:27 pm

It appears that the certification test flight with the FAA has occurred without much publicity. The overview on Boeing's website now states:

The software was put through hundreds of hours of analysis, laboratory testing, verification in a simulator and two test flights, including an in-flight certification test with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives on board as observers.


I don't remember this the last time I looked at it. Also Doug Parker told AA employees that the reentry into service might be delayed further due more to the politics of the FAA not wanting to certify the fix alone. According to this article, it seems his opinion is that the fix is good to go and could be certified soon by the FAA but for reasons other than safety there could be further delays.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/american-airlines-ceo-politics-a-factor-in-return-of-boeings-737-max.html
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:56 pm

planecane wrote:
If it was a US airline that experienced a MAX crash or the crash was on US soil then the political will would exist to reach a bipartisan compromise. In the reality that currently exists that will isn't there.

In reality, there's no reality--it's all speculation on your part.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:01 pm

planecane wrote:
It appears that the certification test flight with the FAA has occurred without much publicity. The overview on Boeing's website now states:

The software was put through hundreds of hours of analysis, laboratory testing, verification in a simulator and two test flights, including an in-flight certification test with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives on board as observers.


I don't remember this the last time I looked at it. Also Doug Parker told AA employees that the reentry into service might be delayed further due more to the politics of the FAA not wanting to certify the fix alone. According to this article, it seems his opinion is that the fix is good to go and could be certified soon by the FAA but for reasons other than safety there could be further delays.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/american-airlines-ceo-politics-a-factor-in-return-of-boeings-737-max.html


Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:16 pm

Elementalism wrote:
planecane wrote:
It appears that the certification test flight with the FAA has occurred without much publicity. The overview on Boeing's website now states:

The software was put through hundreds of hours of analysis, laboratory testing, verification in a simulator and two test flights, including an in-flight certification test with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives on board as observers.


I don't remember this the last time I looked at it. Also Doug Parker told AA employees that the reentry into service might be delayed further due more to the politics of the FAA not wanting to certify the fix alone. According to this article, it seems his opinion is that the fix is good to go and could be certified soon by the FAA but for reasons other than safety there could be further delays.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/american-airlines-ceo-politics-a-factor-in-return-of-boeings-737-max.html


Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.


I'm afraid you're right , but of course Boeing doesn't dare complain for obvious reasons.

As for the FAA validation flight (s) , I think those will be flown by FAA pilots , not Boeing .
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:27 pm

Sooner787 wrote:



As for the FAA validation flight (s) , I think those will be flown by FAA pilots , not Boeing .


I'd be curious to know if you are correct. The way the Boeing website is worded seems to say otherwise.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:28 pm

planecane wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
If the two AOA sensors disagree would it actually be dangerous simply to:
disable MCAS
Notify the pilots of the condition?

Second, wouldn't it be fairly simple to determine which AOA has quit working?

The Boeing info about the software update states "An indicator on the flight deck display will alert the pilots."

I don't know if that means just the AoA disagree warning or a specific MCAS inop warning. Either way the pilots will be notified as I assume that the AoA disagree NNC will include a statement that MCAS is inoperable.

It should be fairly simple to determine which AoA sensor is malfunctioning but nothing that Boeing has released indicates they will do that and have MCAS use the assumed good sensor.

You and me both looked at the Boeing website much the same time. Anyway, the implication is that AOA Disagree remains the only alert. The supplementary question I would have is - have they changed it? We know that the MCAS 2.0 cross check for AOA disagree is 5.5deg. We know that the existing AOA Disagree is 10deg for 10sec i.e. will they now make it as per MCAS 2.0?

Regarding determination of which sensor is at fault, it may be possible, but you make the MCAS software much more complex since it will have to decide what to do in the event of AOA Disagree and decide if it should or not re-initiate MCAS etc. and you run into what if you select the wrong one and what if that one then fails as well. You are almost back to square 1 single sensor system losing the dependability of a two sensor system.

Ray
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:14 pm

Elementalism wrote:
planecane wrote:
It appears that the certification test flight with the FAA has occurred without much publicity. The overview on Boeing's website now states:

The software was put through hundreds of hours of analysis, laboratory testing, verification in a simulator and two test flights, including an in-flight certification test with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives on board as observers.


I don't remember this the last time I looked at it. Also Doug Parker told AA employees that the reentry into service might be delayed further due more to the politics of the FAA not wanting to certify the fix alone. According to this article, it seems his opinion is that the fix is good to go and could be certified soon by the FAA but for reasons other than safety there could be further delays.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/american-airlines-ceo-politics-a-factor-in-return-of-boeings-737-max.html


Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.

I wouldn't call this politics. There are flaws in trim system exposed by the situation; there is no assurance that no other glitches related to upgrade will pop up. Boeing seems to believe there is no reason to question the rest of MAX - I 'm afraid those questions sholuld be asked, and Boeing will not be willing to answer. Boeing believe FAA approval is everything - but FAA no longer has the trust required.
So yes, grounding is a good way to apply thumbscrews to Boeing's hands to make sure nothing is held back. No, this is not politics - this is safety and Boeing playing politics around it.
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:36 pm

kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
planecane wrote:
It appears that the certification test flight with the FAA has occurred without much publicity. The overview on Boeing's website now states:



I don't remember this the last time I looked at it. Also Doug Parker told AA employees that the reentry into service might be delayed further due more to the politics of the FAA not wanting to certify the fix alone. According to this article, it seems his opinion is that the fix is good to go and could be certified soon by the FAA but for reasons other than safety there could be further delays.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/american-airlines-ceo-politics-a-factor-in-return-of-boeings-737-max.html


Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.

I wouldn't call this politics. There are flaws in trim system exposed by the situation; there is no assurance that no other glitches related to upgrade will pop up. Boeing seems to believe there is no reason to question the rest of MAX - I 'm afraid those questions sholuld be asked, and Boeing will not be willing to answer. Boeing believe FAA approval is everything - but FAA no longer has the trust required.
So yes, grounding is a good way to apply thumbscrews to Boeing's hands to make sure nothing is held back. No, this is not politics - this is safety and Boeing playing politics around it.


Well, it is politics if Boeing has disclosed all differences from the NG to MAX to the worldwide authorities and showed documentation and test results that show the other changes were designed and tested properly.

If all the other regulators are doing is causing a delay for the sake of show then it is politics. If the FAA is ready to certify MCAS 2.0 in July and the other regulators haven't asked for additional information or testing by then, I would conclude that it is just politics. I don't think (aside from China) it is politics as in trying to gain something. I just think it is other authorities wanting to show their citizens that they aren't being bullied by the FAA.

Delay for the sake of delay isn't going to do anything for safety. With respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests you can run. Will it make anything safer if the EASA demands that Boeing flight test every degree of AoA disagree from 5 to whatever the max would be to prove that it works at every possible reading? If the software is designed to trigger on disagree >5, testing every combination of >5 doesn't improve safety or prove anything more than testing just at the trigger point.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:42 pm

planecane wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.

I wouldn't call this politics. There are flaws in trim system exposed by the situation; there is no assurance that no other glitches related to upgrade will pop up. Boeing seems to believe there is no reason to question the rest of MAX - I 'm afraid those questions sholuld be asked, and Boeing will not be willing to answer. Boeing believe FAA approval is everything - but FAA no longer has the trust required.
So yes, grounding is a good way to apply thumbscrews to Boeing's hands to make sure nothing is held back. No, this is not politics - this is safety and Boeing playing politics around it.


Well, it is politics if Boeing has disclosed all differences from the NG to MAX to the worldwide authorities and showed documentation and test results that show the other changes were designed and tested properly.

If all the other regulators are doing is causing a delay for the sake of show then it is politics. If the FAA is ready to certify MCAS 2.0 in July and the other regulators haven't asked for additional information or testing by then, I would conclude that it is just politics. I don't think (aside from China) it is politics as in trying to gain something. I just think it is other authorities wanting to show their citizens that they aren't being bullied by the FAA.

Delay for the sake of delay isn't going to do anything for safety. With respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests you can run. Will it make anything safer if the EASA demands that Boeing flight test every degree of AoA disagree from 5 to whatever the max would be to prove that it works at every possible reading? If the software is designed to trigger on disagree >5, testing every combination of >5 doesn't improve safety or prove anything more than testing just at the trigger point.

I am not aware of a total disclosure by Boeing. In fact, even MCAS information seems to be coming in tiny droplets.
And just differences are nowhere near enough - since it is design process that was compromised, entire design process needs to be examined. Boeing will fight tooth and nail under "trade secret" banner...
If you will, there is a similar approach at NASA: rocket for human flight must be designed to human flight guidelines; as Delta was not designed is such a way - it will never fly people, despite being a good and reasonably safe vehicle (safe for space and safe for commercial airplane are different things, apparently); while Falcon is OK for humans despite so-so safety record.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:48 pm

This is not politics. We can start talking about politics when plane is flying everywhere except for China. For now it is due process. The fix is not straightforward, or it would've been finished well before March. And there are other issues, too. For example emergency procedures inherited from NG which were assumed adequate and simply not looked at. And deficiency of the certification process that failed to catch MCAS, which now triggered rechecking everything. And then there is an issue of pilot training. And god knows what else that we don't know about.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:52 pm

planecane wrote:
Delay for the sake of delay isn't going to do anything for safety. With respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests you can run. Will it make anything safer if the EASA demands that Boeing flight test every degree of AoA disagree from 5 to whatever the max would be to prove that it works at every possible reading? If the software is designed to trigger on disagree >5, testing every combination of >5 doesn't improve safety or prove anything more than testing just at the trigger point.

Now you are just talking nonsense. Nobody is testing things like you describe.

Anyway, your view is extremely myopic. MCAS and the fix is not even half of the problem.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3245
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:05 pm

9Patch wrote:
In reality, there's no reality--it's all speculation on your part.


Of course there's speculation. If every post could only contain opinions completely based on "evidence" or "sources", we wouldn't have a forum. Instead of being disruptive, how about you challenge the opinion?

Elementalism wrote:
Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.


I agree. It's been politicized from day one, so it will be to the end. Instead of just worrying about what the FAA did with the MAX, we should be seriously concerned that the FAA and other agencies are now being compelled by outside influences.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8533
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:34 pm

Hopefully, the FAA is not of the opinion that by delaying the return to flight of the MAX they will be gaining friends in the international community.
All they can do is their job, review the fix, test it in a simulator, conduct their flight test, review the data, request adjustments if required, retest, review the result and if in sync with all regulations, submit the records to the international panel they constituted and give them a period of time to review, comment, suggest amendments, approve or reject.
If no technical disagreements, advise Boeing of the approval and commence the restart process.
Those who are anti-Boeing will never be convinced if the grounding goes another 6 months or a year, they will takes years, those who believe the entire FAA certification process is screwed up needs to push for grounding all Boeing a/c, after all, its the same process being used on all Boeing a/c.
So there are two lines travelling in parallel, and the point is arriving where they will have to diverge, the MAX and the FAA certification. A review and adjustments of the certification process is larger than the MAX, and ultimately, as much as some would like it to happen, the MAX cannot be held hostage to the process that has the 787 flying but the MAX grounded. Once the issue that created the MAX grounding has been addressed, the a/c should be released to return to flight.

The trust of the international community that the FAA lost can only be regained over time, in the interim, they are recognized as the USA regulator and other countries have to deal with them as such.
 
planecane
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:59 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
planecane wrote:
Delay for the sake of delay isn't going to do anything for safety. With respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests you can run. Will it make anything safer if the EASA demands that Boeing flight test every degree of AoA disagree from 5 to whatever the max would be to prove that it works at every possible reading? If the software is designed to trigger on disagree >5, testing every combination of >5 doesn't improve safety or prove anything more than testing just at the trigger point.

Now you are just talking nonsense. Nobody is testing things like you describe.

Anyway, your view is extremely myopic. MCAS and the fix is not even half of the problem.


MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX. That and investigating if there were other "additions" to the MAX vs. the NG that weren't disclosed or properly certified. The entire design does not need to be reviewed an that has not been suggested by any authority.

My testing example was an exaggeration to show that, with respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests to run. It doesn't require months on end of testing.
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:08 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
9Patch wrote:
In reality, there's no reality--it's all speculation on your part.

Of course there's speculation. If every post could only contain opinions completely based on "evidence" or "sources", we wouldn't have a forum. Instead of being disruptive, how about you challenge the opinion?

Perhaps you should review the forum rules:

1. e. Factual Statements vs. Opinion
1. When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication.
2. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:37 pm

planecane wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
planecane wrote:
Delay for the sake of delay isn't going to do anything for safety. With respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests you can run. Will it make anything safer if the EASA demands that Boeing flight test every degree of AoA disagree from 5 to whatever the max would be to prove that it works at every possible reading? If the software is designed to trigger on disagree >5, testing every combination of >5 doesn't improve safety or prove anything more than testing just at the trigger point.

Now you are just talking nonsense. Nobody is testing things like you describe.

Anyway, your view is extremely myopic. MCAS and the fix is not even half of the problem.


MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX. That and investigating if there were other "additions" to the MAX vs. the NG that weren't disclosed or properly certified. The entire design does not need to be reviewed an that has not been suggested by any authority.

My testing example was an exaggeration to show that, with respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests to run. It doesn't require months on end of testing.

I would say that biggest problem is the understanding what the problem is.
Option 1: MCAS is the only issue. Fix is relatively straightforward; if approved then that's the end of the story, grounding can be lifted any moment now.
Option 2: Trim system needs extra work, including trim on NG. May take time, but scope of work is more or less understood.
Option 3: due to loss of design control, MAX possibly introduced unknown unkowns; and MCAS is possibly only first one of multiple problems. It is not very clear how to proceed.

I am somewhat inclined to consider option 3, but it is not a good approach to work with - it is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room; especially if there is no cat there. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some regulators consider that is the way things should be handled, though

PS. apparently, personal or political preferences can push one's opinion towards one of those options. I wouldn't call those purely political; it is a valid technical opinion after all. But it may (and probably sometimes is) influenced by political aspects
 
DenverTed
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:46 pm

kalvado wrote:
planecane wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
Now you are just talking nonsense. Nobody is testing things like you describe.

Anyway, your view is extremely myopic. MCAS and the fix is not even half of the problem.


MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX. That and investigating if there were other "additions" to the MAX vs. the NG that weren't disclosed or properly certified. The entire design does not need to be reviewed an that has not been suggested by any authority.

My testing example was an exaggeration to show that, with respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests to run. It doesn't require months on end of testing.

I would say that biggest problem is the understanding what the problem is.
Option 1: MCAS is the only issue. Fix is relatively straightforward; if approved then that's the end of the story, grounding can be lifted any moment now.
Option 2: Trim system needs extra work, including trim on NG. May take time, but scope of work is more or less understood.
Option 3: due to loss of design control, MAX possibly introduced unknown unkowns; and MCAS is possibly only first one of multiple problems. It is not very clear how to proceed.

I am somewhat inclined to consider option 3, but it is not a good approach to work with - it is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room; especially if there is no cat there. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some regulators consider that is the way things should be handled, though

PS. apparently, personal or political preferences can push one's opinion towards one of those options. I wouldn't call those purely political; it is a valid technical opinion after all. But it may (and probably sometimes is) influenced by political aspects

How do you date Option 3 at Boeing? 2005? Should the 787 and MAX be grounded for unknown unknowns, or is it provable that 2011 is about the timeframe when things went sour in designland?
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:14 pm

planecane wrote:
MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX.

Says who? Two suspiciously similar crashes are the problem with respect to the grounding, and hence ungrounding of the MAXes. Investigation into those uncovered issues with MAX and now other issues.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:35 pm

DenverTed wrote:
kalvado wrote:
planecane wrote:

MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX. That and investigating if there were other "additions" to the MAX vs. the NG that weren't disclosed or properly certified. The entire design does not need to be reviewed an that has not been suggested by any authority.

My testing example was an exaggeration to show that, with respect to MCAS 2.0, there are only so many tests to run. It doesn't require months on end of testing.

I would say that biggest problem is the understanding what the problem is.
Option 1: MCAS is the only issue. Fix is relatively straightforward; if approved then that's the end of the story, grounding can be lifted any moment now.
Option 2: Trim system needs extra work, including trim on NG. May take time, but scope of work is more or less understood.
Option 3: due to loss of design control, MAX possibly introduced unknown unkowns; and MCAS is possibly only first one of multiple problems. It is not very clear how to proceed.

I am somewhat inclined to consider option 3, but it is not a good approach to work with - it is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room; especially if there is no cat there. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some regulators consider that is the way things should be handled, though

PS. apparently, personal or political preferences can push one's opinion towards one of those options. I wouldn't call those purely political; it is a valid technical opinion after all. But it may (and probably sometimes is) influenced by political aspects

How do you date Option 3 at Boeing? 2005? Should the 787 and MAX be grounded for unknown unknowns, or is it provable that 2011 is about the timeframe when things went sour in designland?

That is a billion dollar question! I would say (personal opinion) that 787 suffered from same problems, but worst of them were worked out before deliveries started. Statistically, 787 and NG should be good, with some lookback for possible issues (which is an ongoing process in the industry anyway). I am really glad my opinion on MAX bothers exactly nobody with any sort of power on the matter, so that I am not held responsible either way.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:39 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
planecane wrote:
MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX.

Says who? Two suspiciously similar crashes are the problem with respect to the grounding, and hence ungrounding of the MAXes. Investigation into those uncovered issues with MAX and now other issues.

What other issues? Ones that affect the 787 and 737NG as well? If so, the FAA better ground those aircraft. Or do they just keep the MAX grounded as punishment for the problems with those other two? That would even make more of a mockery of safety, than the debacle already.
MCAS is what the MAX is grounded for, that's it. If there is another reason, they better come out with it after 15 weeks.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:48 pm

DenverTed wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
planecane wrote:
MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX.

Says who? Two suspiciously similar crashes are the problem with respect to the grounding, and hence ungrounding of the MAXes. Investigation into those uncovered issues with MAX and now other issues.

What other issues? Ones that affect the 787 and 737NG as well? If so, the FAA better ground those aircraft. Or do they just keep the MAX grounded as punishment for the problems with those other two? That would even make more of a mockery of safety, than the debacle already.
MCAS is what the MAX is grounded for, that's it. If there is another reason, they better come out with it after 15 weeks.
.
A bit of bureaucratic thinking: (un)grounding is an action one can be held responsible for; keeping things as-is calls for way less responsibility.
MAX is grounded, and issues with trim are identified. Lets keep it as-is until everything is ironed out. 787 and NG are flying, statistically look good and there is no specific issues; so lets keep it as-is until (and if ever) there is a reason for an action.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:26 pm

scbriml wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
Well, Capt. Sullenberger did a complete 180 on his initial reaction after the ET crash.


Unlike 90% of a.netters, maybe he can rationally change his mind and see things differently once more information becomes available?



It's weird. When Capt Sullenberger spoke negativity of the FO's experience, all the people currently complaining about him were cheering him on strongly. Suddenly they've all seemed to abandon ship. Many of whom were the same folks who didn't think the plane needed to be grounded in the first place. Probably just a coincidence, right? :scratchchin:
First to fly the 787-9
 
Elementalism
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:32 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
planecane wrote:
MCAS and the fix is THE problem with respect to ungrounding the MAX.

Says who? Two suspiciously similar crashes are the problem with respect to the grounding, and hence ungrounding of the MAXes. Investigation into those uncovered issues with MAX and now other issues.


What other flight safety issues?
 
stratclub
Posts: 1241
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:36 pm

planecane wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:



As for the FAA validation flight (s) , I think those will be flown by FAA pilots , not Boeing .


I'd be curious to know if you are correct. The way the Boeing website is worded seems to say otherwise.

Why would the test flights necessarily be flown by the FAA? Actual flying of the aircraft is a small part of the validation process. By the time we get to wheels in the well, Boeing and the FAA already knows with a high degree of certainty what the results will be. In most cases Flight Testing is a required step that validates what is already known.

Having flown two flights could mean that the aircraft had to be reconfigured (CG, weight, test conditions etc) to capture all the required test conditions making a 2nd flight profile necessary, or that the first flight did find problems that needed to be addressed. If it is true that only two validation flights were flown, Boeing must have got it right to the FAA's satisfaction.

Also, the second flight could have been flown by FAA pilots as part of the FAA's oversight function. I remember a 777 flight were an FAA pilot flew as PM from the left seat observing the PF in the right seat. :scratchchin:
 
Elementalism
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:37 pm

kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
planecane wrote:
It appears that the certification test flight with the FAA has occurred without much publicity. The overview on Boeing's website now states:



I don't remember this the last time I looked at it. Also Doug Parker told AA employees that the reentry into service might be delayed further due more to the politics of the FAA not wanting to certify the fix alone. According to this article, it seems his opinion is that the fix is good to go and could be certified soon by the FAA but for reasons other than safety there could be further delays.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/american-airlines-ceo-politics-a-factor-in-return-of-boeings-737-max.html


Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.

I wouldn't call this politics. There are flaws in trim system exposed by the situation; there is no assurance that no other glitches related to upgrade will pop up. Boeing seems to believe there is no reason to question the rest of MAX - I 'm afraid those questions sholuld be asked, and Boeing will not be willing to answer. Boeing believe FAA approval is everything - but FAA no longer has the trust required.
So yes, grounding is a good way to apply thumbscrews to Boeing's hands to make sure nothing is held back. No, this is not politics - this is safety and Boeing playing politics around it.


This is getting to be really silly. What you described is political showboating under the guise of safety.
 
smartplane
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:41 pm

planecane wrote:
9Patch wrote:
planecane wrote:
I never said they were opposed. I said the political will isn't there to do anything useful. Anything useful would require a bigger budget for the FAA, which would mean taking funds from somewhere else, raising taxes or borrowing more and increasing the debt.

You said a lot more than that. You said:

It would take a bi-partisan effort. Since neither crash occurred on US soil or a US airline, the political will for that type of bi-partisan agreement does not exist.

If a bi-partisan agreement can't be reached, someone must be opposed to it.

Opposed to the concept of improving the certification process, no. Opposed to coming up with the necessary funding, most definitely. You won't find more than a handful of Democrats willing to take funding from anywhere but the military or border wall for the FAA (which is a no go for Republicans). You won't find more than a handful of Republicans willing to raise taxes or increase the debt ceiling to provide additional funding for the FAA.

If it was a US airline that experienced a MAX crash or the crash was on US soil then the political will would exist to reach a bipartisan compromise. In the reality that currently exists that will isn't there.

Boeing should 100% fund that aspect of FAA activity.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:45 pm

Elementalism wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

Discussing this topic with friends and family. I told them to expect the delay to be more about politics than safety. The fix seems pretty straight forward. And how MCAS should had been designed out of the gate. But now Boeing and its customers get to sit around while politics takes its course.

I wouldn't call this politics. There are flaws in trim system exposed by the situation; there is no assurance that no other glitches related to upgrade will pop up. Boeing seems to believe there is no reason to question the rest of MAX - I 'm afraid those questions sholuld be asked, and Boeing will not be willing to answer. Boeing believe FAA approval is everything - but FAA no longer has the trust required.
So yes, grounding is a good way to apply thumbscrews to Boeing's hands to make sure nothing is held back. No, this is not politics - this is safety and Boeing playing politics around it.


This is getting to be really silly. What you described is political showboating under the guise of safety.

Or this is trying to involve politics into purely technical matter. Is that glass half-empty or half-full?
Boeing did very little to convince me, Kalvado Q. Public, that MCAS was a strictly isolated problem.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:06 pm

smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
9Patch wrote:
You said a lot more than that. You said:


If a bi-partisan agreement can't be reached, someone must be opposed to it.

Opposed to the concept of improving the certification process, no. Opposed to coming up with the necessary funding, most definitely. You won't find more than a handful of Democrats willing to take funding from anywhere but the military or border wall for the FAA (which is a no go for Republicans). You won't find more than a handful of Republicans willing to raise taxes or increase the debt ceiling to provide additional funding for the FAA.

If it was a US airline that experienced a MAX crash or the crash was on US soil then the political will would exist to reach a bipartisan compromise. In the reality that currently exists that will isn't there.

Boeing should 100% fund that aspect of FAA activity.

Yes, including hiring decisions and reporting to Boeing management.
Oh, wait...
 
smartplane
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:24 pm

kalvado wrote:
smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
Opposed to the concept of improving the certification process, no. Opposed to coming up with the necessary funding, most definitely. You won't find more than a handful of Democrats willing to take funding from anywhere but the military or border wall for the FAA (which is a no go for Republicans). You won't find more than a handful of Republicans willing to raise taxes or increase the debt ceiling to provide additional funding for the FAA.

If it was a US airline that experienced a MAX crash or the crash was on US soil then the political will would exist to reach a bipartisan compromise. In the reality that currently exists that will isn't there.

Boeing should 100% fund that aspect of FAA activity.

Yes, including hiring decisions and reporting to Boeing management.
Oh, wait...

No.

Reporting to, hired by, and on the payroll of the FAA.

Boeing can either fund lump sum up front for every new model or mod requiring oversight, or levy across all ongoing production.

Either way Boeing pays.

Based on the MAX, Boeing haven't been paying enough for the right outcomes. Time to make good.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:27 pm

kalvado wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I wouldn't call this politics. There are flaws in trim system exposed by the situation; there is no assurance that no other glitches related to upgrade will pop up. Boeing seems to believe there is no reason to question the rest of MAX - I 'm afraid those questions sholuld be asked, and Boeing will not be willing to answer. Boeing believe FAA approval is everything - but FAA no longer has the trust required.
So yes, grounding is a good way to apply thumbscrews to Boeing's hands to make sure nothing is held back. No, this is not politics - this is safety and Boeing playing politics around it.


This is getting to be really silly. What you described is political showboating under the guise of safety.

Or this is trying to involve politics into purely technical matter. Is that glass half-empty or half-full?
Boeing did very little to convince me, Kalvado Q. Public, that MCAS was a strictly isolated problem.


You will have to expand on what other safety issues you have uncovered? Because the FAA and Boeing would like to know.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:53 pm

How much training? Explain MCAS and how it works, more 'runaway trim' practice on the NG and MAX in the next several years?
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:54 pm

Interested wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
I agree strongly on this one, but a lot of people on this site seem fine with dupeing customers and being untransparent about what aircraft type they're flying on.

At the end of the day, whether you think the MAX is safe or not, I don't see why anyone shouldn't support passengers being informed. And it's not even specific to the MAX, but should apply to all flights in general.

It sickens me to think that this might impact the reputation of the NG.


What are the airlines supposed to do? The precedent would be that every time an airliner is involved in an accident, the airline tells people when they book or board that plane?


Why does there have to be an accident to make it clear and easy to the public in the booking process what plane you will be flying on



No not at all. I'm just advocating for airlines to transparently label what equipment is going to operate a flight on their websites. After one of the MAX crashes, somebody mentioned that a carrier had changed their website so that all MAX flights were operated by "B737".

I like what Lufthansa does whereby A320 flights are labelled as either "A320", "A320 Sharklets" or "A320 neo".

I'm not advocating this for safety reasons, just transparency. I want to know what plane is operating my flight.
First to fly the 787-9

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