Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:53 am

Skywatcher wrote:
I had no idea the numbers were that bad (2 losses out of 370=0.5%) after so few total hours flown. That's like 1950's failure rates. Many people I talk to say they will never fly a MAX. Even though I'm an aviation geek I would pause before flying on one as well. There is no question in my mind that the grounding prevented further loss of life.


You are either being terribly naive or are intentionally trying to mislead people. MCAS was dangerously flawed but it didn't just kick in randomly. Improper maintenance of the aircraft and its input devices is what started the chain of events.

I challenge you to find any manual belonging to a complicated piece of machinery that doesn't include a disclaimer such as ~"failure to properly maintain equipment could lead to failure, injury, or death".

The operator has a duty to properly maintain their equipment according to OEM specs. But simple-minded people just scream what the media tells them. McDonnell-Douglas took the blame for AA 191 even though it was a maintenance practice that McDonnell-Douglas explicitly prohibited that caused the accident.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:59 am

prebennorholm wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Absheim is a very good example why deny it?

Habsheim was another sad accident, but there all similarities end. Nothing can be more different than 737MAX and Habsheim.

Habsheim was controlled flight into terrain with a perfectly good plane, 737MAX was uncontrolled flight into terrain due to technical failure.

Therefore after Habsheim, the pilot was grounded. After 737MAX accidents the plane was grounded.

In the perfect world the MCAS flaw would have been correctly classified already after the JT43 incident where the "jump seat pilot" saved the plane, and it would have been grounded right there. We would still be waiting impatiently for modifications and ungrounding, but the MAX would still have a statistically clean safety record, just like the 787 after the battery incident related temporary grounding.


Not what I read. Airbus made changes to A320 software. Why would they do such a thing if the plane was perfect from conception?
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:09 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:
I had no idea the numbers were that bad (2 losses out of 370=0.5%) after so few total hours flown. That's like 1950's failure rates. Many people I talk to say they will never fly a MAX. Even though I'm an aviation geek I would pause before flying on one as well. There is no question in my mind that the grounding prevented further loss of life.


You are either being terribly naive or are intentionally trying to mislead people. MCAS was dangerously flawed but it didn't just kick in randomly. Improper maintenance of the aircraft and its input devices is what started the chain of events.

I challenge you to find any manual belonging to a complicated piece of machinery that doesn't include a disclaimer such as ~"failure to properly maintain equipment could lead to failure, injury, or death".

The operator has a duty to properly maintain their equipment according to OEM specs. But simple-minded people just scream what the media tells them. McDonnell-Douglas took the blame for AA 191 even though it was a maintenance practice that McDonnell-Douglas explicitly prohibited that caused the accident.


But the maintenance for one of the two Max crashes - ET302 - has no reports of issues. And besides, we already concluded a properly maintained AOA sensor will still fail once every 40,000 hours of operation. So a properly maintained Max with MCAS 1.0 is still unsafe.

And if we're going to talk about operator responsibility, what about the manufacturer's responsibility to disclose the full functionality of the product in the operators manual? Doesnt that figure into safety?
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7079
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:56 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Not what I read. Airbus made changes to A320 software. Why would they do such a thing if the plane was perfect from conception?

Then you read something wrong. Airbus made several updates over the 31 years since Habsheim, but none Habsheim related. Read the report. Everything is pretty clear unless you believe in the conspiration theories following issue of the report - tampering FDR data.

Yes, the pilot said some strange things as he was dissatisfied with losing profession, pilot's license, and going to jail. All a couple of decades before retirement age.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7079
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:28 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I challenge you to find any manual belonging to a complicated piece of machinery that doesn't include a disclaimer such as ~"failure to properly maintain equipment could lead to failure, injury, or death".

Here you are exactly touching the real MAX issue, which is:

Failure to properly maintain (and manufacturing error, bird strike, wear and tear, etc.) on a single AoA sensor shall not lead to injury or death. It shall inform the flight crew about reduced redundancy.

That's also what MCAS 2.0 is all about.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
WIederling
Posts: 9312
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:26 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
But simple-minded people just scream what the media tells them.


In scope of the rest of your screed that is a pretty rich statement.
i.e. I'd call it Astro Turfing to the benefit of Boeing.
Murphy is an optimist
 
marcelh
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:29 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
MCAS was dangerously flawed but it didn't just kick in randomly. Improper maintenance of the aircraft and its input devices is what started the chain of events.


So both planes went down primairily because of inproper maintenance? Would a NG with exactly the same level of improper maintenance also have been become a lawn-dart?
Last edited by marcelh on Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:32 am

Boeing Fears 737 Worker Exodus in Tightest Job Market in Decades
By Julie Johnsson and Jeff Kearns
August 29, 2019, 5:00 AM EDT
In high demand, experienced engineers could switch industries
Planemaker considers temporary closure of Max factory lines

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... in-decades
 
marcelh
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:38 am

flyingphil wrote:
Boeing Fears 737 Worker Exodus in Tightest Job Market in Decades
By Julie Johnsson and Jeff Kearns
August 29, 2019, 5:00 AM EDT
In high demand, experienced engineers could switch industries
Planemaker considers temporary closure of Max factory lines

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... in-decades

Just pay enough (or a bit more) to ensure that those engineers are doing your job.
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:07 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Improper maintenance of the aircraft and its input devices is what started the chain of events.


In the preliminary report, there are NO statements as to whether or not the service was carried out in consultation with Boeing and according to Boeing's rules.

This discussions about inadequate maintenance and non professional pilots in my opinion only should heavy distract from the fact that the 737 MAX has a insufficient aerodynamic flow characteristics because of the assembly of the too large engines at a position where no human beeing would ever fix them since the wright brothers. it does not meet basic aerodynamic requirements of a transport category aircraft in this millennium.

THIS is the first and biggest hole in the cheese ...

if those planes would have been NGs with the normal engine size, there would never have been any deaths at those scenes
 
jmry888
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:24 am

I tried posting this earlier but it seems it did not work so I will try again

Head of Maintenance
My friends and I are wondering how the appontiment of Heads of Maintenance are made in carriers like Lion Air. On Oct 31st 2018 The Head of Maintenance at Lion Air was dismissed on the orders of the country’s transport minister. So the country’s transport minister decides who is or is not the Head of Maintenance at carriers like Lion Air ? Could someone inform us we understand better ? Thanks for your time in advance.
 
Alfons
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:25 am

sgrow787 wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Sgrow787, you said “They're sorry for the loss of life. But its just business.”. Did you just see The Godfather?

And if you're trying to get me to buy the myth that sacrificing safety is equivalent to a conspiracy to commit murder, I'm not biting.


If you knowingly sacrifice safety, knowingly deteriorate the statistics of a possible crash tenfold or more and therefore the death of your consumer, for cause of a better balance sheet, without telling your consumer this change of custom for him to approve, then yes, I do hope you will be tried for premeditated murder (if massively earlier crashes in multitude happen).
 
WIederling
Posts: 9312
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:38 am

jmry888 wrote:
I tried posting this earlier but it seems it did not work so I will try again

Head of Maintenance
My friends and I are wondering how the appontiment of Heads of Maintenance are made in carriers like Lion Air. On Oct 31st 2018 The Head of Maintenance at Lion Air was dismissed on the orders of the country’s transport minister. So the country’s transport minister decides who is or is not the Head of Maintenance at carriers like Lion Air ? Could someone inform us we understand better ? Thanks for your time in advance.


decides who does not qualify .

Just like with other work environments: if your qualification is voided you no longer can do that job.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:54 am

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
statements 100%
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the post-MCAS MAX to have a safety record that meets or exceeds NG.

MCAS was a tragic, epic screw up but despite what many think here, tragedies can be overcome.

I agree with both statements 100%.

It cost lives due to lack of redundancy and testing.

It cost Boeing billions.

But it taught airframes not to ever cut such a corner again. It taught Boeing to verify logic.

Lightsaber


With 103 years of experience in the aviation industry, being arguably the most successful airplane manufacturer in history, lessons in verification, redundancy, testing and logic have long since been learned at Boeing. This epic 737 MAX screw-up did not teach Boeing anything they don't already know.

The engineers at Boeing are not picking up the lesson about redundancy, in the wake of this double tragedy.

The decision was made to make the 737 MAX because management believed it to be the economically and logistically safer option, as well as being the cheaper and faster option, compared to a clean sheet design. Jim McNearney, perhaps the most incompetent CEO Boeing has ever had, was convinced of this. After all he had an MBA degree.

He was wrong. Again.

He cost Boeing billions. Again.

Not to mention huge reputation cost. That's what happened.

Engineering issues, such as engine size, were designed around as much as could be done with the 737 airframe. The peg was almost round, so it was just hammered slightly to fit the round hole. Any issues with this compromise were considered solved and the solutions considered non-critical, both by Boeing and the FAA.

Creating good and safe airframes isn't magic and making the 737 MAX airframe safe, despite it's original engineering compromises, is easily achieved - there's no need to affirm "belief" in that, that's just going to happen. As mentioned, this isn't magic, it's just a question of compromises. There's no need for belief or faith here.

I'm just shocked to read that you think Boeing is learning these lessons now. Boeing engineers did the absolute best they could with the mission they were given, i.e. put these huge engines on a 737 airframe and don't come back until you've done it.
Tonight we fly
 
jmry888
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:01 am

Now I am really confused. What does " Just like with other work environments : if your qualification is voided you no longer can do that job " mean ? I live in the United States and the descriptions use different words here. How does that explain how the "Technical Director " / Head of Maintenance is hired. It was published that the " Technical Director " / Head of Maintenance was dismissed on the orders of the country's transport minister. Just trying to find out these folks are hired , who approves them and such. Seems it is different where Lion Air is than from United States , again just trying to understand.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:17 am

It shouldn't come as any surprise Indonesian works 'differently' than what you see in EASA or FAA land.

But, in general terms, it works along these lines
* The regulator will stipulate a number of requirements for certain positions. In EASA language they're post holders, and among them are the director or flight operations, director of maintenance and the safety manager
* The AOC holder will hire the person they believe fits the role best, and submit the name to the regulator for approval
* The regulator will scrutinise the CV and licenses of the nominee, and invite him/her for an interview
* If approved by the regulator, the person can assume the role

It's therefore perfectly possible, even in EASA land, that a regulator can pull their approval of a person. It's highly irregular, and in almost all cases the airline will realise what's coming and dismiss the person before the regulator has to take action. One reason for pulling the approval could be loss of license, e.g. if the DFO looses his medical he can no longer fly commercially and is therefore unable to maintain the obligations of post holder, flight operations. If an AOC holder would refuse to voluntarily replace such a person, the regulator would have to step in. But, as said earlier, that almost never happens in this part of the world.
Signature. You just read one.
 
jmry888
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:35 am

Ok now I have an understanding of how that works. Thank you for your explanation.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:17 pm

jmry888 wrote:
Ok now I have an understanding of how that works. Thank you for your explanation.

Recommend go and read the Lion Air crash thread. It was established that the Technical Director was suspended (not dismissed) as is normal practice in the event of an incident whilst the investigation is completed.

Ray
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1850
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:23 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Skywatcher wrote:
I had no idea the numbers were that bad (2 losses out of 370=0.5%) after so few total hours flown. That's like 1950's failure rates. Many people I talk to say they will never fly a MAX. Even though I'm an aviation geek I would pause before flying on one as well. There is no question in my mind that the grounding prevented further loss of life.


You are either being terribly naive or are intentionally trying to mislead people. MCAS was dangerously flawed but it didn't just kick in randomly. Improper maintenance of the aircraft and its input devices is what started the chain of events.


That is a flat out lie and/or conjecture!

We don't even know for sure what caused the high AoA reading which kicked everything off, let alone that it was the result of "improper maintenance".
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24396
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:15 pm

Asturias wrote:
With 103 years of experience in the aviation industry, being arguably the most successful airplane manufacturer in history, lessons in verification, redundancy, testing and logic have long since been learned at Boeing. This epic 737 MAX screw-up did not teach Boeing anything they don't already know.

The engineers at Boeing are not picking up the lesson about redundancy, in the wake of this double tragedy.

The decision was made to make the 737 MAX because management believed it to be the economically and logistically safer option, as well as being the cheaper and faster option, compared to a clean sheet design. Jim McNearney, perhaps the most incompetent CEO Boeing has ever had, was convinced of this. After all he had an MBA degree.

He was wrong. Again.

He cost Boeing billions. Again.

Not to mention huge reputation cost. That's what happened.

Engineering issues, such as engine size, were designed around as much as could be done with the 737 airframe. The peg was almost round, so it was just hammered slightly to fit the round hole. Any issues with this compromise were considered solved and the solutions considered non-critical, both by Boeing and the FAA.

Creating good and safe airframes isn't magic and making the 737 MAX airframe safe, despite it's original engineering compromises, is easily achieved - there's no need to affirm "belief" in that, that's just going to happen. As mentioned, this isn't magic, it's just a question of compromises. There's no need for belief or faith here.

I'm just shocked to read that you think Boeing is learning these lessons now. Boeing engineers did the absolute best they could with the mission they were given, i.e. put these huge engines on a 737 airframe and don't come back until you've done it.

I'm not sure we can go with the idea that institutional knowledge going back to the wooden sea planes built by Bill Boeing 103 years ago is substantial.

Instead I would use the model that one US General said of Vietnam: It wasn't a nine year war, it was nine one year wars.

I don't get the point about the managers abusing the engineers by making them adapt more powerful engines to the airframe.

In the end if this is not feasible it is the engineer's job to push back and say we need to do something else.

Yet it certainly was feasible, we can now see that same airframe with those same engines doing test flights with a properly functioning MCAS.

It was just that the MAX engineers let a seriously flawed design on to the aircraft despite (presumably) having the knowledge to know the ramifications of doing so.

Pushing back at management rather than caving to unrealistic expectations by producing unsafe designs is a big part of an engineer's job.

It's my understanding that the engineers literally sign off on safety documents, the system counts on them to have enough pride of ownership to not allow unsafe designs.

As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

As flyingphil's article above says, the US labor market is as tight as it ever has been.

There are plenty of other things for a qualified engineer to do with their career other than taking on excessive amounts of pressure from overly aggressive managers.

In the end it is those engineers who have to try to sleep at night knowing the body count that people here cite over and over again.
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
 
bob75013
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:32 pm

flyingphil wrote:
Boeing Fears 737 Worker Exodus in Tightest Job Market in Decades
By Julie Johnsson and Jeff Kearns
August 29, 2019, 5:00 AM EDT
In high demand, experienced engineers could switch industries
Planemaker considers temporary closure of Max factory lines

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... in-decades


And yet we had a report on Wednesday that Boeing is planning to increase MAX production to 47/month in October, 52/month in February, and 57/month by summer 2020.

So which is it: close the Max lines or ramp up production?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:45 pm

bob75013 wrote:
And yet we had a report on Wednesday that Boeing is planning to increase MAX production to 47/month in October, 52/month in February, and 57/month by summer 2020.

So which is it: close the Max lines or ramp up production?

The article on the increased production clearly stated if the a/c is returned to flight as they expect in the 4th qtr. However, I thought the A.Net experts already dismissed the article as the Boeing PR department trying to put pressure on the FAA to unground the MAX, but thankfully, EASA would be the pax saving grace as they would not cave to Boeing pressure.

Why this new article is not also dismissed even as click bait is troubling, after all, also based on A.Net experts we know that Airbus has not increased production due to the MAX grounding, Airbus a/c has a high content of USA sourced parts, so when those workers are laid off, what will happen to Airbus production?
 
kalvado
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
In the end it is those engineers who have to try to sleep at night knowing the body count that people here cite over and over again.

Frankly speaking, any engineer designing large enough systems have to live with the idea some day their design may have a body count number attached to it. Planes do crash. Cars do crash. Buildings burn. Ship sink. You name it. Same likely goes to doctors. That's life... Probably the only way to live with this is to accept the possibility of mistake while doing the best to avoid those.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24396
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:27 pm

kalvado wrote:
Frankly speaking, any engineer designing large enough systems have to live with the idea some day their design may have a body count number attached to it. Planes do crash. Cars do crash. Buildings burn. Ship sink. You name it. Same likely goes to doctors. That's life... Probably the only way to live with this is to accept the possibility of mistake while doing the best to avoid those.

Sure, that's all true.

The issue becomes more charged when you allege that engineers signed their names to safety certification documents knowing they were pushed into questionable compromises by managers more concerned about profit than safety, as ST, NYT and other media outlets have alleged and a large fraction of a.net posters seemingly accept as the true rendition of events.

Personally, I'm dubious about how it all really went down, but hey, media needs their clicks, people have their prejudices and loyalties, rabbles need their rousing, etc.
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
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:16 pm

Asturias wrote:
The decision was made to make the 737 MAX because management believed it to be the economically and logistically safer option, as well as being the cheaper and faster option, compared to a clean sheet design. Jim McNearney, perhaps the most incompetent CEO Boeing has ever had, was convinced of this. After all he had an MBA degree.


And management/McNerney was right. There's no question that the MAX was the right move strategically. An issue in execution doesn't invalidate the decision. Times have changed. You can't engineer your way to success like you could in decades past. That is a good way to go bankrupt.

There's a lot of McNerney hate in the thread, and some of it is clearly not driven by sound reasoning. He's not the cause of this.
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:41 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Asturias wrote:
The decision was made to make the 737 MAX because management believed it to be the economically and logistically safer option, as well as being the cheaper and faster option, compared to a clean sheet design. Jim McNearney, perhaps the most incompetent CEO Boeing has ever had, was convinced of this. After all he had an MBA degree.


And management/McNerney was right. There's no question that the MAX was the right move strategically. An issue in execution doesn't invalidate the decision. Times have changed. You can't engineer your way to success like you could in decades past. That is a good way to go bankrupt.


maybe you should discuss this with the relatives of the killed pax?

there was no „issue in execution“ from my point of view

if you make a decision you have to evaluate a plan B if it turns out that it wont work.

at least at the time as they got the results of the aerodynamic tests they would have to correcct their decition and go for a plan B
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:56 pm

asdf wrote:
maybe you should discuss this with the relatives of the killed pax?

there was no „issue in execution“ from my point of view

if you make a decision you have to evaluate a plan B if it turns out that it wont work.

at least at the time as they got the results of the aerodynamic tests they would have to correcct their decition and go for a plan B


I would have no problem discussing it as I don't have to rely on an appeal to emotion fallacy to show the logic that leads to the conclusion. The decision to build the MAX was not the mistake, period. The facts say it was a failure of execution. MCAS 2.0 is proving the point as we speak. If MCAS 2.0 was 1.0, this thread doesn't exist. Multiple mistakes led to the crashes. That the airplane existed isn't one of them. Blaming McNerney for this doesn't show sound logic.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:58 pm

Alfons wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Sgrow787, you said “They're sorry for the loss of life. But its just business.”. Did you just see The Godfather?

And if you're trying to get me to buy the myth that sacrificing safety is equivalent to a conspiracy to commit murder, I'm not biting.


If you knowingly sacrifice safety, knowingly deteriorate the statistics of a possible crash tenfold or more and therefore the death of your consumer, for cause of a better balance sheet, without telling your consumer this change of custom for him to approve, then yes, I do hope you will be tried for premeditated murder (if massively earlier crashes in multitude happen).


I knew I should have clarified:

They are not the same in the legal sense.

Punishment-wise? Maybe.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:50 pm

asdf wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Asturias wrote:
The decision was made to make the 737 MAX because management believed it to be the economically and logistically safer option, as well as being the cheaper and faster option, compared to a clean sheet design. Jim McNearney, perhaps the most incompetent CEO Boeing has ever had, was convinced of this. After all he had an MBA degree.


And management/McNerney was right. There's no question that the MAX was the right move strategically. An issue in execution doesn't invalidate the decision. Times have changed. You can't engineer your way to success like you could in decades past. That is a good way to go bankrupt.


maybe you should discuss this with the relatives of the killed pax?

there was no „issue in execution“ from my point of view

if you make a decision you have to evaluate a plan B if it turns out that it wont work.

at least at the time as they got the results of the aerodynamic tests they would have to correcct their decition and go for a plan B


Or imagine 797 was designed as a replacement of 737, and due to some stupid decision there were 2 crashes. Lets say batteries were catching fire (that happened in a clean sheet design, right?)
Would you argue that re-engine would be a better option in that case?

MCAS may be a suboptimal solution to a funny problem, but if you think a new design wouldn't have its own funny problems, then you're really optimistic. Clean sheet design may have an advantage of better utilizing latest and bestest tools (just $1M per workstation, that is a steal!) - but that is a whole different story.
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The crash rate of modern standards doesn't come from small fleets flying small numbers of hours with serious flaws then flying in that condition till the end of their service life.

The crash rate of the MAX comes from the MAX flights. The crash rate of modern standards comes from all the aircraft flying. Between the two, there are orders of magnitudes. Therefore the statement ("Fact is theres a death toll and a crash rate orders of magnitude higher than the modern standard.") was 100% correct. The fallacy is on your end.

Go tell this to any statistics teacher and be prepared for them to laugh in your face, or maybe even slap you in your face.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy gives one definition of fallacy as "logically unsound", and that's a perfect fit for this situation.

You can't use a small data set gathered under one set of conditions to compare against a large data set gathered under different conditions and make a conclusion, it's logically unsound.

It's like saying you could use the data set of the Airbus A320 the day after the Habsheim crash to draw conclusions about A320 hull loss relative to the entire set of mature aircraft.


You're wrong here. The Max had enough numbers that the sample size was statistically relevant. And both the crash rate and fatality rate were an order of magnitude off from any aircraft to come into service since the 80s.

I work in a regulator office. When we heard of the second crash, there wasn't a doubt in the room that the Max would be grounded because a simple hand crank stat tells you that the model has issues.

Your Habsheim comparison would be the Lion Air crash. There was enough statistical fuzz and Boeing's coverup on MCAS to at least justify continued ops. That facade definitely crashed with ET302.

Revelation wrote:
I know some think Boeing is in a similar situation but Boeing continues to hold a plausible deniability angle ("we put too much workload on the pilots") and so far no one has undermined that defense, and even if they did, see above.


Let's wait for their defence to be tested in court.
Last edited by TObound on Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
wingman
Posts: 3960
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:57 pm

aerolimani wrote:
As to the plane, first off, we know that AOA sensors are prone to failure at a relatively high rate. Secondly, regardless of what maintenance may or may not have done correctly, a mere faulty AOA sensor should never have been able to put the plane into danger.


Boeing will always shoulder the blame for this MAX design problem, rightly so. But I'd still challenge your description saying "..a mere faulty AOA sensor...". The crew on the prior flight had to hand fly practically the entire flight or die, and even then it was critical input from a random cockpit guest that got them to that conclusion. I still find it incredible that the final crew had zero communication available to them regarding the prior flight, the problem encountered and the resolution. How that prior crew or the maintenance team did not ensure that a near catastrophic event was properly recorded and communicated to their fellow pilots is surprising at minimum. Or maybe in the airline world that's normal, you come close to death but as soon as you land safely you run off to the hotel and swim some laps? Not me, I almost die and I'm telling everyone about it for days on end. Some blame will be assigned there. Maybe not a lot, but some, and just as with Boeing it will be justified in my opinion.
 
Overthecascades
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:09 pm

Any new developments on testing the new software by the worldwide pilots invited?
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:22 pm

kalvado wrote:
asdf wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:

And management/McNerney was right. There's no question that the MAX was the right move strategically. An issue in execution doesn't invalidate the decision. Times have changed. You can't engineer your way to success like you could in decades past. That is a good way to go bankrupt.


maybe you should discuss this with the relatives of the killed pax?

there was no „issue in execution“ from my point of view

if you make a decision you have to evaluate a plan B if it turns out that it wont work.

at least at the time as they got the results of the aerodynamic tests they would have to correcct their decition and go for a plan B


Or imagine 797 was designed as a replacement of 737, and due to some stupid decision there were 2 crashes. Lets say batteries were catching fire (that happened in a clean sheet design, right?)
Would you argue that re-engine would be a better option in that case?

MCAS may be a suboptimal solution to a funny problem, but if you think a new design wouldn't have its own funny problems, then you're really optimistic. Clean sheet design may have an advantage of better utilizing latest and bestest tools (just $1M per workstation, that is a steal!) - but that is a whole different story.

You got a point here.

The debate is then more on the Boeing internal management and culture. We will never know for sure, but if Boeing would have taken the 797 route with the same peoples, management and culture, how safe the 797 would have been today ?
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
morrisond
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:26 pm

wingman wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
As to the plane, first off, we know that AOA sensors are prone to failure at a relatively high rate. Secondly, regardless of what maintenance may or may not have done correctly, a mere faulty AOA sensor should never have been able to put the plane into danger.


Boeing will always shoulder the blame for this MAX design problem, rightly so. But I'd still challenge your description saying "..a mere faulty AOA sensor...". The crew on the prior flight had to hand fly practically the entire flight or die, and even then it was critical input from a random cockpit guest that got them to that conclusion. I still find it incredible that the final crew had zero communication available to them regarding the prior flight, the problem encountered and the resolution. How that prior crew or the maintenance team did not ensure that a near catastrophic event was properly recorded and communicated to their fellow pilots is surprising at minimum. Or maybe in the airline world that's normal, you come close to death but as soon as you land safely you run off to the hotel and swim some laps? Not me, I almost die and I'm telling everyone about it for days on end. Some blame will be assigned there. Maybe not a lot, but some, and just as with Boeing it will be justified in my opinion.


Most pilots would not consider being able to complete that flight without the Auto-nannies a difficult task - that should be an easy thing to do for any pilot.

And if they had know about the issue from the previous flight it probably would have helped them to come to the conclusion to turn off the electric trim the first or second time they saw it acting up.
 
wingman
Posts: 3960
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:45 pm

morrisond wrote:

Most pilots would not consider being able to complete that flight without the Auto-nannies a difficult task - that should be an easy thing to do for any pilot.

And if they had know about the issue from the previous flight it probably would have helped them to come to the conclusion to turn off the electric trim the first or second time they saw it acting up.


I agree with you first comment but would still argue that there's a difference between Auto-nannies not functioning properly (cruise control doesn't work) and Auto-nannies desperately trying to kill you (steering wheel yanks car hard left unless I grip it tight and pull right). Maybe flights like that happen every day, but I certainly don't read about them on A.net. That flight should've generated more than a one line description along the lines of "AoA thingy not working". I would've added "almost died but figured out how to turn the thing off and hand fly just before death." I'm curious to read in the report the interviews with that crew and the maintenance crew and of course the responses from both Boeing and Lion Air to the reporting or lack thereof of the prior flight details.
 
jmry888
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:56 pm

My friends and I have searched only found the app 800 hours that the crashed max had. We are wondering how many hours did the Lion Air max have on it when it was received from the Chinese leasing company. What is the average hours on a new delivery aircraft be it airbus or boeing ?
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:03 pm

wingman wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
As to the plane, first off, we know that AOA sensors are prone to failure at a relatively high rate. Secondly, regardless of what maintenance may or may not have done correctly, a mere faulty AOA sensor should never have been able to put the plane into danger.


Boeing will always shoulder the blame for this MAX design problem, rightly so. But I'd still challenge your description saying "..a mere faulty AOA sensor...". The crew on the prior flight had to hand fly practically the entire flight or die, and even then it was critical input from a random cockpit guest that got them to that conclusion. I still find it incredible that the final crew had zero communication available to them regarding the prior flight, the problem encountered and the resolution. How that prior crew or the maintenance team did not ensure that a near catastrophic event was properly recorded and communicated to their fellow pilots is surprising at minimum. Or maybe in the airline world that's normal, you come close to death but as soon as you land safely you run off to the hotel and swim some laps? Not me, I almost die and I'm telling everyone about it for days on end. Some blame will be assigned there. Maybe not a lot, but some, and just as with Boeing it will be justified in my opinion.

This was before the first crash. MCAS was unknown by anybody other than the FAA and Boeing, and even then, it seems like the failure modes were either ignored(pilots will fix deal with the problem) or unexplored(poor fault analysis). I don’t think anyone would have understood the gravity of the situation prior to the first crash.

Flight crews are trained to manage emergencies in a calm manner. You get through it, and then you report the relevant details, in as much as the plane has reported its errors to you. In this case, the plane was, due to design errors, shall we say “under-reporting” its problems. I know this mindset. It’s the situation where you just push and you get through it. I think it’s similar to what paramedics train into themselves, a sort of focus that ignores the emotional aspects of a situation. Unfortunately, the side effect can be PTSD. If you know a paramedic, ask them about paramedic humour. It gives a whole new meaning to the term gallows humour. Anyhow… I’m getting sidetracked.

As to my use of “mere faulty AOA sensor,” I say it like this because I believe that a faulty AOA sensor should never put a plane into such a situation. Indeed, the relatively high known failure rate of AOA sensors would suggest that no plane would be designed with a known vulnerability to a faulty sensor, let alone a potentially catastrophic vulnerability. A faulty AOA sensor should be no more calamitous than a broken windshield wiper on your car.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:20 pm

wingman wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
As to the plane, first off, we know that AOA sensors are prone to failure at a relatively high rate. Secondly, regardless of what maintenance may or may not have done correctly, a mere faulty AOA sensor should never have been able to put the plane into danger.


Boeing will always shoulder the blame for this MAX design problem, rightly so. But I'd still challenge your description saying "..a mere faulty AOA sensor...". The crew on the prior flight had to hand fly practically the entire flight or die, and even then it was critical input from a random cockpit guest that got them to that conclusion. I still find it incredible that the final crew had zero communication available to them regarding the prior flight, the problem encountered and the resolution. How that prior crew or the maintenance team did not ensure that a near catastrophic event was properly recorded and communicated to their fellow pilots is surprising at minimum. Or maybe in the airline world that's normal, you come close to death but as soon as you land safely you run off to the hotel and swim some laps? Not me, I almost die and I'm telling everyone about it for days on end. Some blame will be assigned there. Maybe not a lot, but some, and just as with Boeing it will be justified in my opinion.

Peddling myths?

Extracts from the preliminary report:
JT043 -
'The remainder of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft landed using runway 25L about 1556 UTC.

After parking, the PIC informed the engineer about the aircraft problem and entered IAS (Indicated Air Speed) and ALT (altitude) Disagree and FEEL DIFF PRESS (Feel Differential Pressure) light problem on the Aircraft Flight Maintenance Log (AFML). The PIC also reported the flight condition through the electronic reporting system of the company A-SHOR. The event was reported as follows: Airspeed unreliable and ALT disagree shown after takeoff, STS* also running to the wrong direction, suspected because of speed difference, identified that CAPT instrument was unreliable and handover control to FO. Continue NNC of Airspeed Unreliable and ALT disagree. Decide to continue flying to CGK at FL280, landed safely runway 25L. Note: STS = Speed Trim System'

'The engineer performed flushing the left Pitot Air Data Module (ADM) and static ADM to rectify the IAS and ALT disagree followed by operation test on ground and found satisfied. The Feel Differential Pressure was rectified by performed cleaned electrical connector plug of elevator feel computer. The test on ground found the problem had been solved.' (recorded in AFML).

We may get further information in the full report due in the next two months.

Ray
 
kalvado
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:24 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
kalvado wrote:
asdf wrote:

maybe you should discuss this with the relatives of the killed pax?

there was no „issue in execution“ from my point of view

if you make a decision you have to evaluate a plan B if it turns out that it wont work.

at least at the time as they got the results of the aerodynamic tests they would have to correcct their decition and go for a plan B


Or imagine 797 was designed as a replacement of 737, and due to some stupid decision there were 2 crashes. Lets say batteries were catching fire (that happened in a clean sheet design, right?)
Would you argue that re-engine would be a better option in that case?

MCAS may be a suboptimal solution to a funny problem, but if you think a new design wouldn't have its own funny problems, then you're really optimistic. Clean sheet design may have an advantage of better utilizing latest and bestest tools (just $1M per workstation, that is a steal!) - but that is a whole different story.

You got a point here.

The debate is then more on the Boeing internal management and culture. We will never know for sure, but if Boeing would have taken the 797 route with the same peoples, management and culture, how safe the 797 would have been today ?

Well, 777X is in the pipeline - and I don't want to have the question answered in a hard way.
That is why I am totally unimpressed with a strong anti-Boeing attitude many people have. Those who describe MAX situation "business as usual" and try to whitewash the company apparently want to say that Boeing is incapable of safe design any more. Criticism, even harsh, is one thing - but saying "business as usual" is a whole different level of hatred.
Last edited by kalvado on Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bob75013
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:26 pm

aerolimani wrote:
wingman wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
As to the plane, first off, we know that AOA sensors are prone to failure at a relatively high rate. Secondly, regardless of what maintenance may or may not have done correctly, a mere faulty AOA sensor should never have been able to put the plane into danger.


Boeing will always shoulder the blame for this MAX design problem, rightly so. But I'd still challenge your description saying "..a mere faulty AOA sensor...". The crew on the prior flight had to hand fly practically the entire flight or die, and even then it was critical input from a random cockpit guest that got them to that conclusion. I still find it incredible that the final crew had zero communication available to them regarding the prior flight, the problem encountered and the resolution. How that prior crew or the maintenance team did not ensure that a near catastrophic event was properly recorded and communicated to their fellow pilots is surprising at minimum. Or maybe in the airline world that's normal, you come close to death but as soon as you land safely you run off to the hotel and swim some laps? Not me, I almost die and I'm telling everyone about it for days on end. Some blame will be assigned there. Maybe not a lot, but some, and just as with Boeing it will be justified in my opinion.

This was before the first crash. MCAS was unknown by anybody other than the FAA and Boeing, and even then, it seems like the failure modes were either ignored(pilots will fix deal with the problem) or unexplored(poor fault analysis). I don’t think anyone would have understood the gravity of the situation prior to the first crash.

Flight crews are trained to manage emergencies in a calm manner. You get through it, and then you report the relevant details, in as much as the plane has reported its errors to you. In this case, the plane was, due to design errors, shall we say “under-reporting” its problems. I know this mindset. It’s the situation where you just push and you get through it. I think it’s similar to what paramedics train into themselves, a sort of focus that ignores the emotional aspects of a situation. Unfortunately, the side effect can be PTSD. If you know a paramedic, ask them about paramedic humour. It gives a whole new meaning to the term gallows humour. Anyhow… I’m getting sidetracked.

As to my use of “mere faulty AOA sensor,” I say it like this because I believe that a faulty AOA sensor should never put a plane into such a situation. Indeed, the relatively high known failure rate of AOA sensors would suggest that no plane would be designed with a known vulnerability to a faulty sensor, let alone a potentially catastrophic vulnerability. A faulty AOA sensor should be no more calamitous than a broken windshield wiper on your car.


My recollection of MCAS evolution was that the AOA sensor would never put a plane into jeopary -- as it was to be used in conjuction with an accelerometer and that it would activate only at relatively high speed.

Things fell apart when Boeing realized MCAS might be needed at slower speeds where the accelerometer would be worthless. So Boeing left the accelerometer out of the equation at slower speeds (and did not substitute any compensating second device) and apparently was unaware of the extreme hazard of that decision..
Last edited by bob75013 on Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24396
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:54 pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1VK122 says the "chairman's committee" report is out, and:

Boeing Co needs to reorganize its engineering reporting lines company-wide and ensure higher ranking officials, including its CEO, get faster feedback about potential safety concerns from lower levels of the company, according to an internal review at the U.S. planemaker following two recent fatal crashes.

The initial recommendations, presented to Boeing’s board of directors over the weekend, also include potentially creating a new permanent committee to review Boeing’s aircraft design and development, company officials told Reuters.

Specific to MAX, Muilenburg reiterates that he has confidence in how the design and certification process was done, and:

No employee has been fired over the development of the 737 MAX, he said.

Also,

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Engineer John Hamilton told Reuters that Boeing and European rival Airbus SE meet several times a year to share data on safety.

“The next time we get together, I am sure we will be sharing learnings from the MAX accidents,” Hamilton said.

So there's an upside to the duopoly after all.
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
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4262
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:34 pm

The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don’t want you to know about
PUBLISHED THU, FEB 22 2018 9:31 AM ESTUPDATED WED, FEB 28 2018 9:39 AM EST
Ray Sipherd, special to CNBC.com
KEY POINTS
A recent Johns Hopkins study claims more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical errors. Other reports claim the numbers to be as high as 440,000.
Medical errors are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Advocates are fighting back, pushing for greater legislation for patient safety.


This is a controversial statistic, but almost for certain the figure is not less than a third of that estimate, say upwards of 100,000 people a year. Human operating in dicey situations (fishing, logging, operating rooms, dangerous drugs, flying) make mistakes resulting in deaths. Boeing should and will pay a hefty price for their carelessness. But most of those 250K to 440K (or 100K) people in the medical field and tens of thousands in other fields won't have survivors so lucky as those whose loved ones die in a plane crash.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:52 pm

kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In the end it is those engineers who have to try to sleep at night knowing the body count that people here cite over and over again.

Frankly speaking, any engineer designing large enough systems have to live with the idea some day their design may have a body count number attached to it. Planes do crash. Cars do crash. Buildings burn. Ship sink. You name it. Same likely goes to doctors. That's life... Probably the only way to live with this is to accept the possibility of mistake while doing the best to avoid those.

I am an engineer too, am designing systems, that potentially could cause death (and the systems are even avionics too). This is they way I see it: my system shall have a net positive impact on safety. In other words, it shall safe more lives, than it will cost lives. Meeting that goal, I can sleep well at night...!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:54 pm

kalvado wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
kalvado wrote:

Or imagine 797 was designed as a replacement of 737, and due to some stupid decision there were 2 crashes. Lets say batteries were catching fire (that happened in a clean sheet design, right?)
Would you argue that re-engine would be a better option in that case?

MCAS may be a suboptimal solution to a funny problem, but if you think a new design wouldn't have its own funny problems, then you're really optimistic. Clean sheet design may have an advantage of better utilizing latest and bestest tools (just $1M per workstation, that is a steal!) - but that is a whole different story.

You got a point here.

The debate is then more on the Boeing internal management and culture. We will never know for sure, but if Boeing would have taken the 797 route with the same peoples, management and culture, how safe the 797 would have been today ?

Well, 777X is in the pipeline - and I don't want to have the question answered in a hard way.
That is why I am totally unimpressed with a strong anti-Boeing attitude many people have. Those who describe MAX situation "business as usual" and try to whitewash the company apparently want to say that Boeing is incapable of safe design any more. Criticism, even harsh, is one thing - but saying "business as usual" is a whole different level of hatred.

Peoples attitudes (outside the 737 MAX project) will not change the safety of the design. The 777X is delayed and Boeing just communicate management changes. Could be the sing that concerns have raised and that there want to fix them, or at least ensure that nothing wrong have been left. There is also the possibility that for some reason the 737 MAX project didn't get the seam appealing than the 777X project and that could have limited the time of the insightful expertise on it. Of course this is speculative.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
wingman
Posts: 3960
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:56 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Peddling myths?

We may get further information in the full report due in the next two months.

Ray


Every story I've read about the prior flight paints a much more harrowing situation that the summary extract you provided. I'd love to hear the CVR of that prior flight and see the read outs of the flight parameters. We'll just need to wait.
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:15 pm

kalvado wrote:
asdf wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:

And management/McNerney was right. There's no question that the MAX was the right move strategically. An issue in execution doesn't invalidate the decision. Times have changed. You can't engineer your way to success like you could in decades past. That is a good way to go bankrupt.


maybe you should discuss this with the relatives of the killed pax?

there was no „issue in execution“ from my point of view

if you make a decision you have to evaluate a plan B if it turns out that it wont work.

at least at the time as they got the results of the aerodynamic tests they would have to correcct their decition and go for a plan B


Or imagine 797 was designed as a replacement of 737, and due to some stupid decision there were 2 crashes. Lets say batteries were catching fire (that happened in a clean sheet design, right?)
Would you argue that re-engine would be a better option in that case? ....


No i would not

Boeing has developed FBW widebody planes from outstandig quality
They didnt go as deep into the automation as the busmakers but the planes work pretty flawless

I cant find a reason why the same engineers should fail on a FBW narrowbody

your argument is really far-fetched ...
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:59 pm

marcelh wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
They all lie. Der Spiegel, The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, FOX, CNN.

They're all very selective with what facts they choose to tell, and what truths they omit - all creating a narrative that fits their world view.


Der Spiegel? The operation that had an award-winning plagiarist and headline maker who fabricated stories? That operation?

Too easy. That was only one person. It’s the same as blaming all Boeing products are as unsafe as the 737MAX was.


of course, it was only one person

nobody else had any clue...none of the editors, other "journalists" knew...just one bad apple. lol

I have a bridge to sell
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24396
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:43 pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethi ... SKCN1VK2B4 says the JATR report on certification of the MAX is taking a few weeks longer than anticipated, and the FAA points out this committee is separate from the effort to safely return the MAX to flight.

A bit confusing, but the role of all the different investigating committees/bodies has been pretty confusing all along, IMO.

Some quotes:

The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday a blue-ribbon panel of experts around the world will need a few more weeks to finish its review into the Boeing 737 MAX certification.

The team, which is reviewing the approval of the now grounded jet involved in two fatal crashes since October, is taking additional time to finish documenting its work and the FAA said it expects its recommendations in the coming weeks.

And:

The Joint Authorities Technical Review is chaired by former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Christopher Hart, and the FAA said its focus on the certification of the aircraft “is separate from the ongoing efforts to safely return the aircraft to flight.”

In September the NTSB plans to outline airplane design certification procedures, the head of the agency, Robert Sumwalt, told Congress in July.

Sumwalt said in March that the agency was “examining the U.S. design certification process to ensure any deficiencies are captured and addressed” after two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes.
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
 
sgrow787
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:19 am

Revelation wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-faa/faa-panel-reviewing-737-max-certification-will-take-additional-time-idUSKCN1VK2B4 says the JATR report on certification of the MAX is taking a few weeks longer than anticipated, and the FAA points out this committee is separate from the effort to safely return the MAX to flight.

A bit confusing, but the role of all the different investigating committees/bodies has been pretty confusing all along, IMO.

Some quotes:

The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday a blue-ribbon panel of experts around the world will need a few more weeks to finish its review into the Boeing 737 MAX certification.

The team, which is reviewing the approval of the now grounded jet involved in two fatal crashes since October, is taking additional time to finish documenting its work and the FAA said it expects its recommendations in the coming weeks.

And:

The Joint Authorities Technical Review is chaired by former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Christopher Hart, and the FAA said its focus on the certification of the aircraft “is separate from the ongoing efforts to safely return the aircraft to flight.”

In September the NTSB plans to outline airplane design certification procedures, the head of the agency, Robert Sumwalt, told Congress in July.

Sumwalt said in March that the agency was “examining the U.S. design certification process to ensure any deficiencies are captured and addressed” after two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes.


Wait, when did Boeing say they submitted their fix to the FAA (who then approved and submitted to JATR for review)? And when did it become within NTSB's scope to direct FAA's certification process?? Isnt it the DOT that is over the FAA? Afterall, it was the DOT Inspector General that served the subpeona for 737 Max records on April 1st.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:26 am

h1fl1er wrote:
marcelh wrote:
h1fl1er wrote:

Der Spiegel? The operation that had an award-winning plagiarist and headline maker who fabricated stories? That operation?

Too easy. That was only one person. It’s the same as blaming all Boeing products are as unsafe as the 737MAX was.


of course, it was only one person

nobody else had any clue...none of the editors, other "journalists" knew...just one bad apple. lol

I have a bridge to sell


He was found out by a der Spiegel journalist, not by some outside entity. Than his whole work was fact checked by der Spiegel. So somebody at der Spiegel seems to have had a clue. It was also not der Spiegel who gave awards to that guy for journalistic achievements.

For you I have a conspiracy theory to sell.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747d10, arfbool, Baidu [Spider], BC77008, Bing [Bot], bmibaby737, Clydenairways, cm642, crownvic, DJMEL, flyingclrs727, goldcrest, Google Adsense [Bot], mkwia, mrkerr7474, Opus99, Phen, Phosphorus, Pottok, qfvhoqa, RyanairGuru, sfg, Skyblue39, TropicalSky, Waterbomber2, ZK-NBT and 239 guests

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