Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:06 pm

Ertro wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Another possibility? You are trying to find complexity and conflict where there is none.

FAA/EASA/Boeing are in constant contact and are co-operating. EASA have a specific flight test programme that will be completed in due course when Boeing have managed to produce a compliant solution.

Ray


There clearly is a conflict.

Boeing could easily have said that "Okay you want to see the bare metal plane fly like NG manages to do. We have no problem as we are not making any changes to the metal aerodynamics. Actually we cannot make changes as that would be totally silly while we keep manufacturing the planes in hundreds. We just to have to produce a totally noncompliant SW for this test that switches MCAS totally off. So this is the date, August 2nd and here is plane and pilots on this airfield. Give your flight test plan 24 hours in advance and we fly that unless we find some part of it problematic. Second flight test in September based on what further ideas you got from the first one" So clearly the EASA worries would be much less and so certification would be much easier in other parts as well."

Seems totally silly not to do this. It is totally counterproductive to let EASA sit half a year thinking that there must be something catastrophic as something so easy and sensible does not seem possible. Unless there is some other explanation where this is actually the best course of action.

No. You've just tried to create one again. The demonstration is required with the configuration submitted for certification. If EASA have been sitting thinking, it is about how to achieve certification in a compliant way as soon as practically possible.

Ray
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Boeing shares just turned positive on the day - Yes they are done as a going concern........

Investors don't seem to be fazed by this at all as I speculated on the previous page and will likely see it as a positive.


This is just the pressure needed to get the FAA to certify the plane in 2019. I think Boeing will get a nice Christmas present soon.

No. Boeing must still meet requirements. What this does is stop the witch hunt for more fixes. At this time the MAX is 3 to 6 months from RTS if the churn stops.

The piled on requirements won't end, but there will be a pencils down moment early in 2020. Then Boeing will know exactly what to prove and will adapt.

The MAX will fly again. Additional losses for Boeing will probably be in the $10 to $15 billion range. This lets the professionals find solutions.

I agree with the grounding. I believe by June regulatory requirements were met. The number of jobs effected is staggering.

Prior links I posted estimate a reduction in production of 200 MAX. I believe inertia will take that past 300. That is approximately 85,000 people years of labor no longer required. There will be impacts.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
planecane
Posts: 1595
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:08 pm

Ertro wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Another possibility? You are trying to find complexity and conflict where there is none.

FAA/EASA/Boeing are in constant contact and are co-operating. EASA have a specific flight test programme that will be completed in due course when Boeing have managed to produce a compliant solution.

Ray


There clearly is a conflict.

Boeing could easily have said that "Okay you want to see the bare metal plane fly like NG manages to do. We have no problem as we are not making any changes to the metal aerodynamics. Actually we cannot make changes as that would be totally silly while we keep manufacturing the planes in hundreds. We just to have to produce a totally noncompliant SW for this test that switches MCAS totally off. So this is the date, August 2nd and here is plane and pilots on this airfield. Give your flight test plan 24 hours in advance and we fly that unless we find some part of it problematic. Second flight test in September based on what further ideas you got from the first one" So clearly the EASA worries would be much less and so certification would be much easier in other parts as well."

Seems totally silly not to do this. It is totally counterproductive to let EASA sit half a year thinking that there must be something catastrophic as something so easy and sensible does not seem possible. Unless there is some other explanation where this is actually the best course of action.


At this point, Boeing knows the characteristics of flight without MCAS. If they didn't, they wouldn't know how to program MCAS to create the desired result. I'm sure they have shared this information with EASA. The EASA, rightly so, wants a test flight to confirm what they have been told. The test flight isn't to find out what the characteristics are.

For the low speed, low G part of the MCAS envelope, MCAS wasn't added until after test flights found the undesirable behavior. For the high speed, high g, the wind tunnel testing showed the behavior.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:10 pm

lightsaber wrote:
seahawk wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Boeing shares just turned positive on the day - Yes they are done as a going concern........

Investors don't seem to be fazed by this at all as I speculated on the previous page and will likely see it as a positive.


This is just the pressure needed to get the FAA to certify the plane in 2019. I think Boeing will get a nice Christmas present soon.

No. Boeing must still meet requirements. What this does is stop the witch hunt for more fixes. At this time the MAX is 3 to 6 months from RTS if the churn stops.

The piled on requirements won't end, but there will be a pencils down moment early in 2020. Then Boeing will know exactly what to prove and will adapt.

The MAX will fly again. Additional losses for Boeing will probably be in the $10 to $15 billion range. This lets the professionals find solutions.

I agree with the grounding. I believe by June regulatory requirements were met. The number of jobs effected is staggering.

Prior links I posted estimate a reduction in production of 200 MAX. I believe inertia will take that past 300. That is approximately 85,000 people years of labor no longer required. There will be impacts.

Lightsaber


Boeing claims it does meet the requirements already.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19442
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:16 pm

morrisond wrote:
In any case - they can afford it.


Well that makes it fine, then.

indcwby wrote:
737Max isn't going anywhere.


Literally! :lol:

seahawk wrote:
Boeing claims it does meet the requirements already.


Christine Keeler defence applies. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I believe in Occams razor. The simplest theory is Boeing lost confidence in a quick return to service. From what I can tell, the June solution met regulations. Six months later, no reason to believe the MAX won't be grounded 6+ months. Time to preserve cash.

I also believe in the simplest explanation. I can see how the CEO was willing to continue production when he had confidence in a RTS time line. Conversely, I don't see how he can support continued production when he has no confidence in the RTS time line. Business is all about the management of risk. Once they had no handle on the risk, the only sensible thing to do was to stand down.
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
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:20 pm

seahawk wrote:

Boeing claims it does meet the requirements already.


I keep reading people saying but have not read it anywhere, got any links to share where Boeing claim this? Honestly asking!
 
Chemist
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:31 pm

Ertro wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
I'm going on the basis there was supposedly test flights with EASA last week

Nop. EASA Cert Test Flight will be conducted on a certification configuration aircraft when the certification standard is established. This has not yet happened.


I find this the most baffling. Why cannot Boeing start co-operating with EASA?



What evidence do you have that they are not cooperating?
 
Bongodog49
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:35 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:32 pm

seahawk wrote:
There are no serious issues. And the line will not actually shut down. After the Christmas holidays all will be back to normal.


The legal fall out from making an untrue statement of such a scale as this would be immense. Investors would be queuing up to sue the rear end off the Boeing board over the 8% drop in the share price over the past 24 hours. Some investment managers will be looking at losses in10's or 100's of millions over this announcement, they will be angry already but even angrier if its a false statement and they sell shares into the market only to see them bounce back
if proven that it was a lie the board could expect a rather uncomfortable cell some time next year
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:34 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Airbus could clone their A320 factories like they did in Tianjin and Mobile and build another one at, let's say Moses Lake or Mojave.


Boeing still has a narrow body with valid certificate. NG restart/rampup could be much easier for Boeing and entire supply chain. I doubt tooling have been scrapped because thousands are still flying.

If an airline would get new aircraft which are not better than the old ones, there is no point in ordering new ones. ~80% of the MAX orders are NG replacements. Adding the A320 replacements we get maybe 90% of the MAX order book. Shipping an NG instead of a MAX is useless.

planecane wrote:
Part of the shutdown I'm sure is to get the attention of politicians.

How could a politician help to resolve the complex failure modes the MAX seems to have?

lightsaber wrote:
The discussions today with the FAA will be very different thsn yesterday. No reduction in rigor, but at least a timeline to stop finding issues.

Issues are found in testing. Thats the nature in testing. Only by ostrich policy a timeline can be defined for finding issues.

lightsaber wrote:
A timeline to define requirements.

The requirements were available in written form since 2011 when the MAX was launched.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:38 pm

Bongodog49 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There are no serious issues. And the line will not actually shut down. After the Christmas holidays all will be back to normal.


The legal fall out from making an untrue statement of such a scale as this would be immense. Investors would be queuing up to sue the rear end off the Boeing board over the 8% drop in the share price over the past 24 hours. Some investment managers will be looking at losses in10's or 100's of millions over this announcement, they will be angry already but even angrier if its a false statement and they sell shares into the market only to see them bounce back
if proven that it was a lie the board could expect a rather uncomfortable cell some time next year


It is not an untrue statement as Boeing made it clear that the FAA controls the RTS. If the FAA suddenly works fast, one can hardly blame Boeing.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:45 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
2175301 wrote:

Actually, the "whisper" I got from my normally silent source is that is the problem. "We don't even know what the standards are - they keep changing."

If I recall correctly the FAA head has stated that he will not allow certification of the aircraft until he personally is convinced it is safe.

Partial Deleted for readability: See above.

Have a great day,

No standards have changed. BitFlip requirement has been in place for decades. Just because you have not heard of it before does not mean it is new (except to the uninformed observer). MCAS added Hazardous/Catastrophic failure modes that were 'hidden' until exposed by the events and investigation. Boeing have so far failed to provide a compliant solution to the regulatory requirements that have existed for decades.

Ray


The odds of 5 specific bit flips from a cosmic ray event are so vanishingly small that they way exceed the regulations:

I posted long ago in this thread what I was told by my insider; and I don't recall exactly. But it went something like this: For this generation of computer chip (older chip designs are more bit flip resistance due to their wider circuitry and memory locations). 1 bit flips happens regularly enough to be observable in the records (we have data). 2 simultaneous bit flips are arguably within the required failure rate. 3 might possibly be within the regulatory required failure rate. 4 will be way beyond the regulatory failure rate. 5 simultaneous bit flips is so far beyond regulations to be statistically meaningless.

So, yes; the FAA forced a failure that is statistically way beyond anything the regulations required; and Boeing agreed to go along with it. For both the FAA and Boeing this was a "political" decision. Not a technical decision.

In this case, I believe we can say that standards were changed.

As for practical evidence: How many 737 classic and NG's have had major events due to a failure of the flight computers? What are the statistics of that.... It has to be well beyond the allowed statistical failure requirements otherwise Boeing would have upgraded the computers long ago (and not allowed to grandfather the computers).

Note the same practical argument can be applied to the the rudder cable failure scenario (and other cases): How many engine disintegrations have occurred that have cut a rudder control cable vs the number of hours and cycles of the 737 classics and NG. That gives you a historical failure rate (the very best evidence as it's not an estimate). Now increase that by 20-30% of the larger new engine. Are you within the allowed failure rate (and my guess is you are 1000 times better than the allowed failure rate). That is why you can grandfather the rudder cable design. Real historical evidence.

When discussing "grandfathering" the fist question that has to be asked is what is the current regulation trying to accomplish, and what does the historical data show. If historical data shows clear compliance with the intent of the current regulation there is no reason to look at other factors that can be considered in an argument for "grandfathering." If the historical data shows that you don't meet regulatory limits -there will not even be an attempt at "grandfathering." Only in the case where the historical data shows that you are "near" (or arguably near) the regulatory limit that other arguments might be considered (cost of modification, etc).

I do agree that the 737Max was reasonably grounded due to a problem with MCAS V 1. The evidence I have seen is that it was functionally fixed and tested by mid June 2019 with MCAS V 2.

I believe that Boeing made a good faith effort to go beyond with changing the computer structure for the extremely unlikely 5 simultaneous bit flip issue. However, that opened up all kinds of new areas beyond MCAS V 2 to be reviewed and approved... which leads to all kinds of new questions. I personally get the sense that much of the various questions related to software validation is in fact related to these other areas of flight control which were only opened up because the flight control computers were modified based on the 5 bit flips possibility (MCAS V 2 is a very simple software change).

The fact that apparently Boeing cannot even guess at what the timetable will be can only realistically exist because Boeing does not know what issues have yet to be resolved, and cannot make an educated guess about how long. Having worked with regulators - we have always been able to reasonably estimate how long something would take to resolve.

Have a great day,

I don't get the bit flip issue. Is it applicable to STS and mach trim failure on the MAX as well? Meaning if the NG was held to the same standard as the MAX, would it need the dual computer update?
 
kayik
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:47 pm

seahawk wrote:
Bongodog49 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There are no serious issues. And the line will not actually shut down. After the Christmas holidays all will be back to normal.


The legal fall out from making an untrue statement of such a scale as this would be immense. Investors would be queuing up to sue the rear end off the Boeing board over the 8% drop in the share price over the past 24 hours. Some investment managers will be looking at losses in10's or 100's of millions over this announcement, they will be angry already but even angrier if its a false statement and they sell shares into the market only to see them bounce back
if proven that it was a lie the board could expect a rather uncomfortable cell some time next year


It is not an untrue statement as Boeing made it clear that the FAA controls the RTS. If the FAA suddenly works fast, one can hardly blame Boeing.


like this one?

seahawk wrote:
What I heard is that the MAX saga will be over in 2019 and the NMA will launch in the 1st half of 2020, Boeing is set to come back stronger than ever.


with Bruce Willis as the CEO
 
DenverTed
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:49 pm

Are there hardware changes coming from the new team global aviation authorities. Will the new team be in charge of 777x certification, E175 E2 and all world aircraft going forward?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:56 pm

kayik wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Bongodog49 wrote:

The legal fall out from making an untrue statement of such a scale as this would be immense. Investors would be queuing up to sue the rear end off the Boeing board over the 8% drop in the share price over the past 24 hours. Some investment managers will be looking at losses in10's or 100's of millions over this announcement, they will be angry already but even angrier if its a false statement and they sell shares into the market only to see them bounce back
if proven that it was a lie the board could expect a rather uncomfortable cell some time next year


It is not an untrue statement as Boeing made it clear that the FAA controls the RTS. If the FAA suddenly works fast, one can hardly blame Boeing.


like this one?

seahawk wrote:
What I heard is that the MAX saga will be over in 2019 and the NMA will launch in the 1st half of 2020, Boeing is set to come back stronger than ever.


with Bruce Willis as the CEO


Take look at the stock prices and the reaction from the industry. There should be panic, but there is not.
 
asdf
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:58 pm

IADFCO wrote:
My speculation is that separated flow from the nacelle induces premature separation from the leading edge of a big chunk of the wing, and makes reattachment harder. That is, it's easier to get into a stall than in the NG, and harder to get out.


this is the big question of this whole disaster

why didn't boeing hire the best aerodynamic pros worldwide to find a hardware aerodynamic solution to correct that flawed behavior?
why didn't the do it in 2016?
why didn't they do it after the lion air crash?
why didn't they do it after the grounding?

I can not imagine that this is a non solvable problem
you can't solve it with software patches
your ned to fix the underlying problem
maybe you have to "pay" with a few % in fuel economics
find it on another side
use lighter materials
innovate in layout and design

is it simple arrogance of the management board leading to that disaster?
 
2175301
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:03 pm

Deleted for readabilty. See above

DenverTed wrote:
I don't get the bit flip issue. Is it applicable to STS and mach trim failure on the MAX as well? Meaning if the NG was held to the same standard as the MAX, would it need the dual computer update?


One of the specific 5 bits flipped was to "activate" MCAS trim down, and MCAS does not exist on the Classics and NG. So, the FAA and Boeing can hide behind that as why this specific 5 bit flip does not apply to the Classic and NG.

However, I doubt there is a aircraft computer from any manufacturer of this generation (or a more modern generation that would have an "equivalent proportional higher number" of bit flips (as they happen more often on newer "smaller location" chips) that would pass a "bit flip" test on this order of probability.

My opionin is that both Boeing and the FAA believed that they had to show that they were working to improve safety and not being soft. This was what appeared to be a manageable way to do it at the time. I think historically both will admit it was a mistake to do this once things have cleared up. It sure opened the door to all kinds of other issues and potentials by doing it (including showing that it was now possible and acceptable to open doors on other "closed in the past" items not related to MCAS so other things can now be argued to be included in RTS because they pursued this item despite the statistical improbability beyond regulatory requirements).

Edited to add: Of course the bit flips get minimized when you have independent computers cross checking, which is what the agreed upon fix was. For the more modern aircraft that has cross checking computers they already address this. For any older generation flight computers (including in general aviation aircraft where you may not have a backup computer); applying this standard would fail those computers. So yes, it's totally logical to argue that if the 5 bit flip standard is evenly applied; that Classic and NG aircraft would require computer upgrades. Yet, I'm not aware of any evidence that bit flip failures of computers have been causing major events at or higher than the required regulatory limits.


Have a great day,
Last edited by 2175301 on Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:10 pm

seahawk wrote:
Bongodog49 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There are no serious issues. And the line will not actually shut down. After the Christmas holidays all will be back to normal.

The legal fall out from making an untrue statement of such a scale as this would be immense. Investors would be queuing up to sue the rear end off the Boeing board over the 8% drop in the share price over the past 24 hours. Some investment managers will be looking at losses in10's or 100's of millions over this announcement, they will be angry already but even angrier if its a false statement and they sell shares into the market only to see them bounce back
if proven that it was a lie the board could expect a rather uncomfortable cell some time next year

It is not an untrue statement as Boeing made it clear that the FAA controls the RTS. If the FAA suddenly works fast, one can hardly blame Boeing.

Indeed. To me a much bigger legal risk would present itself if Boeing knew MAX was not certifiable while telling the world it would have RTS in Q4 2019. To me this is why I have my doubts about the notion that MCAS cannot be made to work.

DenverTed wrote:
I don't get the bit flip issue. Is it applicable to STS and mach trim failure on the MAX as well? Meaning if the NG was held to the same standard as the MAX, would it need the dual computer update?

From what I've read, STS is more or less a pilot convenience feature whereas MCAS was required to gain certification.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2586
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:11 pm

Just a few points:

- The production halt is a shot across the bow of FAA and members of Congress. The consequences of this decision are enormous.
- Airbus stock will continue to rise.
- Boeing stock will continue to fall.
- Value of leasing companies with a large inventory of 737 NG will increase, because the value of every 737 NG just got higher.
- Airlines that are now phasing out 737 NG need to look at their decisions once more before sending them to the scrapper.
- Airbus will be able to charge more for their A320-series.

And one major point:

Boeing were in talks with Bombardier about the C-Series before Airbus. If Boeing had played their cards right, they could have had a narrowbody program for $1. All the C-Series would need is production capacity, the customer rolodex and marketing. All of which Boeing has. What Boeing does NOT have at this moment is a next gen narrowbody. If Boeing had taken over the C-Series, they would have had a replacement product. It's the Ace up the sleeve. CS500 would be launched, and Boeing could concentrate on the NMA. Which is now dead.

Hindsight 20/20 I guess.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:17 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
2175301 wrote:

Actually, the "whisper" I got from my normally silent source is that is the problem. "We don't even know what the standards are - they keep changing."

If I recall correctly the FAA head has stated that he will not allow certification of the aircraft until he personally is convinced it is safe.

Partial Deleted for readability: See above.

Have a great day,

No standards have changed. BitFlip requirement has been in place for decades. Just because you have not heard of it before does not mean it is new (except to the uninformed observer). MCAS added Hazardous/Catastrophic failure modes that were 'hidden' until exposed by the events and investigation. Boeing have so far failed to provide a compliant solution to the regulatory requirements that have existed for decades.

Ray


The odds of 5 specific bit flips from a cosmic ray event are so vanishingly small that they way exceed the regulations:

I posted long ago in this thread what I was told by my insider; and I don't recall exactly. But it went something like this: For this generation of computer chip (older chip designs are more bit flip resistance due to their wider circuitry and memory locations). 1 bit flips happens regularly enough to be observable in the records (we have data). 2 simultaneous bit flips are arguably within the required failure rate. 3 might possibly be within the regulatory required failure rate. 4 will be way beyond the regulatory failure rate. 5 simultaneous bit flips is so far beyond regulations to be statistically meaningless.

So, yes; the FAA forced a failure that is statistically way beyond anything the regulations required; and Boeing agreed to go along with it. For both the FAA and Boeing this was a "political" decision. Not a technical decision.

In this case, I believe we can say that standards were changed.

As for practical evidence: How many 737 classic and NG's have had major events due to a failure of the flight computers? What are the statistics of that.... It has to be well beyond the allowed statistical failure requirements otherwise Boeing would have upgraded the computers long ago (and not allowed to grandfather the computers).

Note the same practical argument can be applied to the the rudder cable failure scenario (and other cases): How many engine disintegrations have occurred that have cut a rudder control cable vs the number of hours and cycles of the 737 classics and NG. That gives you a historical failure rate (the very best evidence as it's not an estimate). Now increase that by 20-30% of the larger new engine. Are you within the allowed failure rate (and my guess is you are 1000 times better than the allowed failure rate). That is why you can grandfather the rudder cable design. Real historical evidence.

When discussing "grandfathering" the fist question that has to be asked is what is the current regulation trying to accomplish, and what does the historical data show. If historical data shows clear compliance with the intent of the current regulation there is no reason to look at other factors that can be considered in an argument for "grandfathering." If the historical data shows that you don't meet regulatory limits -there will not even be an attempt at "grandfathering." Only in the case where the historical data shows that you are "near" (or arguably near) the regulatory limit that other arguments might be considered (cost of modification, etc).

I do agree that the 737Max was reasonably grounded due to a problem with MCAS V 1. The evidence I have seen is that it was functionally fixed and tested by mid June 2019 with MCAS V 2.

I believe that Boeing made a good faith effort to go beyond with changing the computer structure for the extremely unlikely 5 simultaneous bit flip issue. However, that opened up all kinds of new areas beyond MCAS V 2 to be reviewed and approved... which leads to all kinds of new questions. I personally get the sense that much of the various questions related to software validation is in fact related to these other areas of flight control which were only opened up because the flight control computers were modified based on the 5 bit flips possibility (MCAS V 2 is a very simple software change).

The fact that apparently Boeing cannot even guess at what the timetable will be can only realistically exist because Boeing does not know what issues have yet to be resolved, and cannot make an educated guess about how long. Having worked with regulators - we have always been able to reasonably estimate how long something would take to resolve.

Have a great day,

You/insider have just accused Boeing of making a basic mathematical error and FAA of going along with it or a will-full conspiracy to be non-compliant that has cost Boeing 6 months and millions. I don't think the investors or the powers that be will be very happy. Suggest you go whistleblower. This would be bad faith not good.

Funnily enough, if you don't know what problems are going to come up, then you cant make a accurate estimate of timescale. Boeings estimates have so far turned out to be woeful, so hopefully they have stopped doing so.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 817
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:17 pm

asdf wrote:
IADFCO wrote:
My speculation is that separated flow from the nacelle induces premature separation from the leading edge of a big chunk of the wing, and makes reattachment harder. That is, it's easier to get into a stall than in the NG, and harder to get out.


this is the big question of this whole disaster

why didn't boeing hire the best aerodynamic pros worldwide to find a hardware aerodynamic solution to correct that flawed behavior?
why didn't the do it in 2016?
why didn't they do it after the lion air crash?
why didn't they do it after the grounding?

I can not imagine that this is a non solvable problem
you can't solve it with software patches
your ned to fix the underlying problem
maybe you have to "pay" with a few % in fuel economics
find it on another side
use lighter materials
innovate in layout and design

is it simple arrogance of the management board leading to that disaster?


Boeing should not have done MAX at all. They should have been designing and building a frame that could compete with or surpass the A320 lineup at Airbus. MAX was stupid.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Airbus could clone their A320 factories like they did in Tianjin and Mobile and build another one at, let's say Moses Lake or Mojave.


Boeing still has a narrow body with valid certificate. NG restart/rampup could be much easier for Boeing and entire supply chain. I doubt tooling have been scrapped because thousands are still flying.

If an airline would get new aircraft which are not better than the old ones, there is no point in ordering new ones. ~80% of the MAX orders are NG replacements. Adding the A320 replacements we get maybe 90% of the MAX order book. Shipping an NG instead of a MAX is useless.

planecane wrote:
Part of the shutdown I'm sure is to get the attention of politicians.

How could a politician help to resolve the complex failure modes the MAX seems to have?

lightsaber wrote:
The discussions today with the FAA will be very different thsn yesterday. No reduction in rigor, but at least a timeline to stop finding issues.

Issues are found in testing. Thats the nature in testing. Only by ostrich policy a timeline can be defined for finding issues.

lightsaber wrote:
A timeline to define requirements.

The requirements were available in written form since 2011 when the MAX was launched.

I'm a test lead in Aerospace, so I'm well aware of what I typed.

The testing requirements are growing. This is a pause to all get on the same plate. The certification authority and Vendor always negotiate the RVTM (Requirements Verification Test Matrix). The current RVTM is certainly not the 2011 RVTM. With multiple certification authorities, there is always test growth. This compares to Verification by analysis or Verification by simulation.

There are multiple levels of requirements. The top level is fixed. The derived requirements allocated to testing or retest has changed. New flight tests not agreed to in 2011 are being imposed.

I live this life. Certification authorities always want tests added at great cost. My last program they wanted to add six months of testing; it ended up costing us two months as we couldn't prove requirements clearly without new tests.

It turned out most of the testing the certification authority demanded was because their test equipment was faulty and they wanted more data to compare to a competitor. Not my problem, we collected the required data ourselves, the nice to have duplicate data we accomodated, but it wasn't required.

This problem was solved months ago. The politics are driving too much double guessing. A shutdown has a wonderful way of putting things in perspective.

Regulator churn is something I manage for a living. This churn just went out if hand.

Some of the posts here do not delve into reality. I routinely get waivers for verification requirements. There are even waivers to top level requirements where, "I cannot meet the requirement, but by training (say pilots), we reduce probability to meet the intent of requirements" or by adding a limitation or constraint (e.g., cross wind limitation until a new actuator is developed).

Unfortunately certification often becomes political. My last program we had the government remove certification personnel when we found they were going out the revolving door to a competitor. Those personel were trying to add testing for no good technical reason.

Unfortunately, personality and politics rears into aircraft certification. If it didn't, I wouldn't be as popular in test engineering.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
checklist350
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:20 pm

InsideMan wrote:
NonTechAvLover wrote:
As my user name implies, I am not a techie so, please no abuse even if the idea is way off. There is some adage to the effect that crises sometimes present opportunities. If the MAX situation does not seem to be likely to be resolved soon, how about:

- Boeing and Airbus form a Joint venture, Boeing contributes the MAX production facilities, workers, supplier relationships, orderbook;

- Airbus contributes production licenses for the appropriate 320 models (to best match the MAX models) and know-how and enough employees to start and then oversee production of 320s;

- Boeing also contributes financing;

- JV starts producing 320 planes under a Boeing-Airbus label, workers keep jobs, suppliers change the parts they are producing but keep producing—this is the part I had the biggest doubt (other than a juvenile understanding of what competition should be about) would such a conversion be possible?;

- While all this happens, 737 pilots get training to fly the 320s.

I know it is not ideal but it may end up with 5,000 frames delivered, both companies benefiting as JV partners, airlines continue to fly, the public continues to travel and maybe, for once, the U.S. and the E.U. can show that they can cooperate even when there is no military threat around.

In the meantime, Boeing (sans 737) focuses on NMA or NSA or whatever else and AB makes more 320s even if they end up being called a Boeing 320, 321 etc. Once the orders end, liquidate the JV and, if the two sides like each other maybe they go ahead and do the next supersonic plane (this is the Hollywood ending version).

I really do not mean the above as a joke, but despite all its challenges and costs, wouldn’t such a JV be a better solution than anything else if the MAX is really in trouble? If not, what is a better solution that produces 5,000 planes faster and with less damage than a JV like this?


It's not a terrible idea. Airbus also has an impact due to joint suppliers feeling the pain due to Boeing production stop. However I doubt either company would go for it. Too much pride involved and it would essentially render Boeing Commercial single aisle production a subsidiary of Airbus. Too much IP to flow to Airbus. But truth be told I never understood why there is not more cooperation. Legend has it, that Emirates once said "If there were only two Airlines in the world, us and some other major player, we wouldn't fight each other tooth and nail, we'd be drinking champagne together"....


You have it backwards, Boeing producing 320s would mean a massive amount of design and production IP transferring to Boeing as they need to understand the plane and build it.

No way would Airbus ever allow that.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:23 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
This is taking the proportions of a scandal, akin to VW's dieselgate.

If I were Muellenberg, I would order to stop producing MAXes and start producing B738NG's again. The B738NG may not be as competitive but at least it is a well proven design and many airlines will accept to switch back to it at the right price.


I'm quoting myself as I see that Boeing decided to suspend thr MAX production.
I wonder why Boeing has not reverted to producing B737NG's and decided to suspend the production entirely.

Some here talk about yield growth thanks to constrained capacity growth.
You have to wonder though, with Airbus delivering 50 neo's a month, what's happening to the A320's or even B737NG's that they're replacing?
Do they go back to the lessors or will operators try to hold on to them and take advantage of the grounding of the competitors' MAXes to grow?
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2586
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:25 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I didn't realize Spirit had gone to a 4-day work week with the grounding:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/12/17/minim ... down-seen/

That link notes this is a 3 to 6 month shutdown. The link also notes Boeing hasn't communicated with vendors yet.

I suspect Boeing wants to keep vendors ready for a ramp up post RTS. I wonder how many could drop to short workweeks?

The longer this goes on, the more Boeing must conserve cash.

Lightsaber



The only good explanation for not communicating with suppliers is this:

Boeing expects panic in D.C. and Wall Street, and pressure on the FAA to continue production.

It's a shot across the bow.

Because surely Boeing would have looked at the ramifications for such a thing? They would have contingency plans?

The only other reason would be sheer incompetence. And even though we've seen some of that lately on their part, I think they know exactly what they're doing and have calculated what will happen.

I've not seen one document from Boeing to employees or suppliers / vendors that explain what is about to happen. All we've seen are press releases.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:30 pm

checklist350 wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
NonTechAvLover wrote:
As my user name implies, I am not a techie so, please no abuse even if the idea is way off. There is some adage to the effect that crises sometimes present opportunities. If the MAX situation does not seem to be likely to be resolved soon, how about:

- Boeing and Airbus form a Joint venture, Boeing contributes the MAX production facilities, workers, supplier relationships, orderbook;

- Airbus contributes production licenses for the appropriate 320 models (to best match the MAX models) and know-how and enough employees to start and then oversee production of 320s;

- Boeing also contributes financing;

- JV starts producing 320 planes under a Boeing-Airbus label, workers keep jobs, suppliers change the parts they are producing but keep producing—this is the part I had the biggest doubt (other than a juvenile understanding of what competition should be about) would such a conversion be possible?;

- While all this happens, 737 pilots get training to fly the 320s.

I know it is not ideal but it may end up with 5,000 frames delivered, both companies benefiting as JV partners, airlines continue to fly, the public continues to travel and maybe, for once, the U.S. and the E.U. can show that they can cooperate even when there is no military threat around.

In the meantime, Boeing (sans 737) focuses on NMA or NSA or whatever else and AB makes more 320s even if they end up being called a Boeing 320, 321 etc. Once the orders end, liquidate the JV and, if the two sides like each other maybe they go ahead and do the next supersonic plane (this is the Hollywood ending version).

I really do not mean the above as a joke, but despite all its challenges and costs, wouldn’t such a JV be a better solution than anything else if the MAX is really in trouble? If not, what is a better solution that produces 5,000 planes faster and with less damage than a JV like this?


It's not a terrible idea. Airbus also has an impact due to joint suppliers feeling the pain due to Boeing production stop. However I doubt either company would go for it. Too much pride involved and it would essentially render Boeing Commercial single aisle production a subsidiary of Airbus. Too much IP to flow to Airbus. But truth be told I never understood why there is not more cooperation. Legend has it, that Emirates once said "If there were only two Airlines in the world, us and some other major player, we wouldn't fight each other tooth and nail, we'd be drinking champagne together"....


You have it backwards, Boeing producing 320s would mean a massive amount of design and production IP transferring to Boeing as they need to understand the plane and build it.

No way would Airbus ever allow that.


How about the Russian MC21?
Surely this is an opportunity of a lifetime for the Russians to cooperate with Boeing. Sure, it will be years before Boeing could produce any American MC21's, even longer if they also want the Leap on it, but under Boeing, it would be a hell of an aircraft.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:34 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
I wonder why Boeing has not reverted to producing B737NG's and decided to suspend the production entirely.

Because Boeing has filled (almost) all orders for NGs and cannot build more MAXes until it has a better understanding of when the return to service can be expected.

Please take the time to understand: customers do not want new NGs!!!

The customers signed contracts for planes with 15% or so better economics, and that's the plane they want for the frame's expected life time, not the NG!
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
 
lexiion
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:34 pm

*Sarcasm on*

But according to the Boeing Executives, the B737NG is even more capable than the A320neo family. Why not restart the NG line? Why need the MAX when the NG is better than the A320neo?
https://www.postandcourier.com/business/plane-spoken-boeing-execs-talk-smack-about-new-airbus-jet/article_f2a728f8-64c4-581c-9bef-254ddad2a218.html

*sarcasm off*
 
KarlB737
Posts: 2894
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:35 pm

Courtesy: Fox Business Channel

Southwest Airlines Removes Boeing 737 Max From Schedule Until April

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/southwest-boeing-737-flight-schedule-april-2020
 
morrisond
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:41 pm

lightsaber wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

Boeing still has a narrow body with valid certificate. NG restart/rampup could be much easier for Boeing and entire supply chain. I doubt tooling have been scrapped because thousands are still flying.

If an airline would get new aircraft which are not better than the old ones, there is no point in ordering new ones. ~80% of the MAX orders are NG replacements. Adding the A320 replacements we get maybe 90% of the MAX order book. Shipping an NG instead of a MAX is useless.

planecane wrote:
Part of the shutdown I'm sure is to get the attention of politicians.

How could a politician help to resolve the complex failure modes the MAX seems to have?

lightsaber wrote:
The discussions today with the FAA will be very different thsn yesterday. No reduction in rigor, but at least a timeline to stop finding issues.

Issues are found in testing. Thats the nature in testing. Only by ostrich policy a timeline can be defined for finding issues.

lightsaber wrote:
A timeline to define requirements.

The requirements were available in written form since 2011 when the MAX was launched.

I'm a test lead in Aerospace, so I'm well aware of what I typed.

The testing requirements are growing. This is a pause to all get on the same plate. The certification authority and Vendor always negotiate the RVTM (Requirements Verification Test Matrix). The current RVTM is certainly not the 2011 RVTM. With multiple certification authorities, there is always test growth. This compares to Verification by analysis or Verification by simulation.

There are multiple levels of requirements. The top level is fixed. The derived requirements allocated to testing or retest has changed. New flight tests not agreed to in 2011 are being imposed.

I live this life. Certification authorities always want tests added at great cost. My last program they wanted to add six months of testing; it ended up costing us two months as we couldn't prove requirements clearly without new tests.

It turned out most of the testing the certification authority demanded was because their test equipment was faulty and they wanted more data to compare to a competitor. Not my problem, we collected the required data ourselves, the nice to have duplicate data we accomodated, but it wasn't required.

This problem was solved months ago. The politics are driving too much double guessing. A shutdown has a wonderful way of putting things in perspective.

Regulator churn is something I manage for a living. This churn just went out if hand.

Some of the posts here do not delve into reality. I routinely get waivers for verification requirements. There are even waivers to top level requirements where, "I cannot meet the requirement, but by training (say pilots), we reduce probability to meet the intent of requirements" or by adding a limitation or constraint (e.g., cross wind limitation until a new actuator is developed).

Unfortunately certification often becomes political. My last program we had the government remove certification personnel when we found they were going out the revolving door to a competitor. Those personel were trying to add testing for no good technical reason.

Unfortunately, personality and politics rears into aircraft certification. If it didn't, I wouldn't be as popular in test engineering.

Lightsaber


So basically is what you are saying is that if the stall behaviour of the MAX is normal(ish) without MCAS it's possible that they could get a waiver on the stick force requirement?

In your view - would removing the whole complexity of MCAS be potentially safer and less prone to failure and in conjunction with more training produce a safer overall system (Pilot/Airplane)?

Could US EET(stall) training be enough to make regulators happy with the MAX without MCAS? Maybe just with a specific session for the MAX so the Pilots could feel the controls getting a little lighter in some corners of the the flight envelope?

Thanks
 
2175301
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:43 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Deleted for Readability, See above

You/insider have just accused Boeing of making a basic mathematical error and FAA of going along with it or a will-full conspiracy to be non-compliant that has cost Boeing 6 months and millions. I don't think the investors or the powers that be will be very happy. Suggest you go whistleblower. This would be bad faith not good.

Funnily enough, if you don't know what problems are going to come up, then you cant make a accurate estimate of timescale. Boeings estimates have so far turned out to be woeful, so hopefully they have stopped doing so.


No: I am accusing of the FAA intentionally making something a "feel good/get tough" requirement for which there was no mathematical basis; and that Boeing went along with it. The FAA needed to show the world that they were toughening up. That was a way to do it. What was Boeing supposed to do, file a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the FAA... (which would take years to resolve) at a time when it's obvious that both Boeing and the FAA needed to do better, and accepting this FAA request and doing the computer function changes appeared reasonably manageable and shows that Boeing is willing to take a hit on the chin at times.

Those of us who actually deal with regulators know that its not uncommon to do more than is required to buy "grace/leeway" elsewhere as regulations often cannot be exactly implemented as written, or it's not anywhere near practical to do so (you need an "interpretation" or a "Waiver"). There are things a company wants and there are things a regulator wants and neither actually affects real safety. So you trade favors and do things that are not technically required at times. It's called having a "working" relationship. There is nothing wrong with a good professional working relationship. I've never seen it compromise safety. Overall, my feeling is that it has improved the safety of older designs (Regulator says: we can see your argument on why this should be waived in this case; and we're concerned about another component/system and would like to see it upgraded (even though it technically meets all regulatory requirements)... So we upgrade what they are concerned with and they approve our waiver where the historical evidence is that it meets the current intent. Net increase in safety. I've seen this too many times to count.

Have a great day,
Last edited by 2175301 on Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:47 pm

Interesting quote from a new Bloomberg article on production shut down:

The pace of work will be determined supplier by supplier, rather than halted across the board, said the Boeing official, who asked not to be named because discussions are confidential. The company doesn’t want to lose capacity at casting and forging companies that struggled with delays last year.


Also about related costs:

Boeing is burning through $4.4 billion in cash for each quarter that the Max remains grounded, Jefferies analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu said in a report. Halting production would save about half that amount in the near term, she said.

But the company still faces eye-watering costs to compensate airlines for lost flying that will only grow with the disruption to production. Customer concessions could double to $11 billion from the previously announced $5.6 billion, Kahyaoglu said.

Delaying the aircraft’s certification past the end of 2019 could force Boeing to take an additional accounting charge, which she pegged at $3.6 billion if program-accounting costs rise at a comparable pace. That would clip profits and cash for years to come for Boeing’s biggest source of revenue.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... utput-halt

This last part about costs fits the "least disruptive" tag, yet still is mighty disruptive.

The article has lots of other interesting stuff in it, including a suggestion that the MAX workers may find themselves working on 77X or KC46 for a while. It won't be fun commuting from RNT to PAE, I would think.
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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:55 pm

morrisond wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
If an airline would get new aircraft which are not better than the old ones, there is no point in ordering new ones. ~80% of the MAX orders are NG replacements. Adding the A320 replacements we get maybe 90% of the MAX order book. Shipping an NG instead of a MAX is useless.


How could a politician help to resolve the complex failure modes the MAX seems to have?


Issues are found in testing. Thats the nature in testing. Only by ostrich policy a timeline can be defined for finding issues.


The requirements were available in written form since 2011 when the MAX was launched.

I'm a test lead in Aerospace, so I'm well aware of what I typed.

The testing requirements are growing. This is a pause to all get on the same plate. The certification authority and Vendor always negotiate the RVTM (Requirements Verification Test Matrix). The current RVTM is certainly not the 2011 RVTM. With multiple certification authorities, there is always test growth. This compares to Verification by analysis or Verification by simulation.

There are multiple levels of requirements. The top level is fixed. The derived requirements allocated to testing or retest has changed. New flight tests not agreed to in 2011 are being imposed.

I live this life. Certification authorities always want tests added at great cost. My last program they wanted to add six months of testing; it ended up costing us two months as we couldn't prove requirements clearly without new tests.

It turned out most of the testing the certification authority demanded was because their test equipment was faulty and they wanted more data to compare to a competitor. Not my problem, we collected the required data ourselves, the nice to have duplicate data we accomodated, but it wasn't required.

This problem was solved months ago. The politics are driving too much double guessing. A shutdown has a wonderful way of putting things in perspective.

Regulator churn is something I manage for a living. This churn just went out if hand.

Some of the posts here do not delve into reality. I routinely get waivers for verification requirements. There are even waivers to top level requirements where, "I cannot meet the requirement, but by training (say pilots), we reduce probability to meet the intent of requirements" or by adding a limitation or constraint (e.g., cross wind limitation until a new actuator is developed).

Unfortunately certification often becomes political. My last program we had the government remove certification personnel when we found they were going out the revolving door to a competitor. Those personel were trying to add testing for no good technical reason.

Unfortunately, personality and politics rears into aircraft certification. If it didn't, I wouldn't be as popular in test engineering.

Lightsaber


So basically is what you are saying is that if the stall behaviour of the MAX is normal(ish) without MCAS it's possible that they could get a waiver on the stick force requirement?

In your view - would removing the whole complexity of MCAS be potentially safer and less prone to failure and in conjunction with more training produce a safer overall system (Pilot/Airplane)?

Could US EET(stall) training be enough to make regulators happy with the MAX without MCAS? Maybe just with a specific session for the MAX so the Pilots could feel the controls getting a little lighter in some corners of the the flight envelope?

Thanks

Seems to read like that, could be done with some ‘MAX specific’ training to bring the max safety record in to line with the global standard, depending on the severity of the issue of course.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:00 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
asdf wrote:
Interested wrote:

Realistically what's the turnaround time on doing something like that

And bringing all the supplier needs and trained employees on board as well ready to go?

12 months would seem ambitious?

Or are we talking 2 years plus?


no a pro
but I guess 18-24 months and more ...

if they would take the boeing suppliers to deliver for the AB production it would migrate the delivery bottleneck created by the higher AB output

this can only take place if boeing management stops hoping on a quick&dirty solution (however it can be)

it would help
- boeing employees
- boeing suppliers
- boeing supplier shareholders
- the US economy
but it would not really help the boeing shareholders because it damages the brand

and btw:
US leaders will never accept that kind of move
its US

For the suppliers like CFM they night try to get Airbus to increase the production rate on the 320Neo to help makeup their missing orders and avoid furloughing or bankrupting their supply chain which benefits no one.

Wasn't CFM reluctant to meet Airbus's increased rated for the A320neo not even a year earlier?
 
IADCA
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:01 pm

NonTechAvLover wrote:
As my user name implies, I am not a techie so, please no abuse even if the idea is way off. There is some adage to the effect that crises sometimes present opportunities. If the MAX situation does not seem to be likely to be resolved soon, how about:

- Boeing and Airbus form a Joint venture, Boeing contributes the MAX production facilities, workers, supplier relationships, orderbook;

- Airbus contributes production licenses for the appropriate 320 models (to best match the MAX models) and know-how and enough employees to start and then oversee production of 320s;

- Boeing also contributes financing;

- JV starts producing 320 planes under a Boeing-Airbus label, workers keep jobs, suppliers change the parts they are producing but keep producing—this is the part I had the biggest doubt (other than a juvenile understanding of what competition should be about) would such a conversion be possible?;

- While all this happens, 737 pilots get training to fly the 320s.

I know it is not ideal but it may end up with 5,000 frames delivered, both companies benefiting as JV partners, airlines continue to fly, the public continues to travel and maybe, for once, the U.S. and the E.U. can show that they can cooperate even when there is no military threat around.

In the meantime, Boeing (sans 737) focuses on NMA or NSA or whatever else and AB makes more 320s even if they end up being called a Boeing 320, 321 etc. Once the orders end, liquidate the JV and, if the two sides like each other maybe they go ahead and do the next supersonic plane (this is the Hollywood ending version).

I really do not mean the above as a joke, but despite all its challenges and costs, wouldn’t such a JV be a better solution than anything else if the MAX is really in trouble? If not, what is a better solution that produces 5,000 planes faster and with less damage than a JV like this?


A proposal for that JV would get blocked by at least three antitrust regulators (and probably a half-dozen more by the time all was done), and it would take at least a year by the time they signed the deal to get to that point. With all the time you'd waste on that, you could just get the MAX back in the air.
 
fabian9
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:27 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:01 pm

asdf wrote:
if you fit the smaller engines on the frames .... even if they are a little bit larger than the NG variant .... you do not need to move the engines in front and you do not need those problematic 737MAX nacells.


The wings and fuselage join up would have been sized for the heavier engines. Lighter engines don’t offer the same load alleviation on the wings, so the load cases would likely be significantly different if they strap on NG engines.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
The article has lots of other interesting stuff in it, including a suggestion that the MAX workers may find themselves working on 77X or KC46 for a while. It won't be fun commuting from RNT to PAE, I would think.
I probably beats sitting at home not getting paid though.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Bongodog49 wrote:
The legal fall out from making an untrue statement of such a scale as this would be immense. Investors would be queuing up to sue the rear end off the Boeing board over the 8% drop in the share price over the past 24 hours. Some investment managers will be looking at losses in10's or 100's of millions over this announcement, they will be angry already but even angrier if its a false statement and they sell shares into the market only to see them bounce back
if proven that it was a lie the board could expect a rather uncomfortable cell some time next year

It is not an untrue statement as Boeing made it clear that the FAA controls the RTS. If the FAA suddenly works fast, one can hardly blame Boeing.

Indeed. To me a much bigger legal risk would present itself if Boeing knew MAX was not certifiable while telling the world it would have RTS in Q4 2019. To me this is why I have my doubts about the notion that MCAS cannot be made to work.

DenverTed wrote:
I don't get the bit flip issue. Is it applicable to STS and mach trim failure on the MAX as well? Meaning if the NG was held to the same standard as the MAX, would it need the dual computer update?

From what I've read, STS is more or less a pilot convenience feature whereas MCAS was required to gain certification.

So a 5 bit flip could cause a malfunction of MCAS or STS, just that MCAS is a more severe malfunction? Or a bit flip turns off MCAS and STS, and that is OK for STS, just not MCAS?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:20 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Deleted for Readability, See above

You/insider have just accused Boeing of making a basic mathematical error and FAA of going along with it or a will-full conspiracy to be non-compliant that has cost Boeing 6 months and millions. I don't think the investors or the powers that be will be very happy. Suggest you go whistleblower. This would be bad faith not good.

Funnily enough, if you don't know what problems are going to come up, then you cant make a accurate estimate of timescale. Boeings estimates have so far turned out to be woeful, so hopefully they have stopped doing so.


No: I am accusing of the FAA intentionally making something a "feel good/get tough" requirement for which there was no mathematical basis; and that Boeing went along with it. The FAA needed to show the world that they were toughening up. That was a way to do it. What was Boeing supposed to do, file a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the FAA... (which would take years to resolve) at a time when it's obvious that both Boeing and the FAA needed to do better, and accepting this FAA request and doing the computer function changes appeared reasonably manageable and shows that Boeing is willing to take a hit on the chin at times.

Those of us who actually deal with regulators know that its not uncommon to do more than is required to buy "grace/leeway" elsewhere as regulations often cannot be exactly implemented as written, or it's not anywhere near practical to do so (you need an "interpretation" or a "Waiver"). There are things a company wants and there are things a regulator wants and neither actually affects real safety. So you trade favors and do things that are not technically required at times. It's called having a "working" relationship. There is nothing wrong with a good professional working relationship. I've never seen it compromise safety. Overall, my feeling is that it has improved the safety of older designs (Regulator says: we can see your argument on why this should be waived in this case; and we're concerned about another component/system and would like to see it upgraded (even though it technically meets all regulatory requirements)... So we upgrade what they are concerned with and they approve our waiver where the historical evidence is that it meets the current intent. Net increase in safety. I've seen this too many times to count.

Have a great day,

I thought STS was working on take off and climb, which would be a more critical time. Or a malfunction of mach trim could be bad as well. These are not affected by a five bit flip, or nobody has looked to find possbility?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:30 pm

lightsaber wrote:
A bit more: SAFRAN isn't paid until aircraft delivery

Where an air frame OEM sells on a turnkey basis, the engine cost is packaged with the air frame. Each pre-delivery payment milestone, includes an engine payment, which is released by the air frame OEM on delivery, or earlier if requested.

Where customers purchase engines separately, milestone payments are made directly between the purchaser and engine supplier.

If SAFRAN receive no payment until an aircraft is delivered, that's an issue between GE and themselves. GE has access to engine milestone payments. GE invoices Boeing or customers depending on how the engines were sold. SAFRAN needs a new deal with GE.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:32 pm

2175301 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Deleted for Readability, See above

You/insider have just accused Boeing of making a basic mathematical error and FAA of going along with it or a will-full conspiracy to be non-compliant that has cost Boeing 6 months and millions. I don't think the investors or the powers that be will be very happy. Suggest you go whistleblower. This would be bad faith not good.

Funnily enough, if you don't know what problems are going to come up, then you cant make a accurate estimate of timescale. Boeings estimates have so far turned out to be woeful, so hopefully they have stopped doing so.


No: I am accusing of the FAA intentionally making something a "feel good/get tough" requirement for which there was no mathematical basis; and that Boeing went along with it. The FAA needed to show the world that they were toughening up. That was a way to do it. What was Boeing supposed to do, file a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the FAA... (which would take years to resolve) at a time when it's obvious that both Boeing and the FAA needed to do better, and accepting this FAA request and doing the computer function changes appeared reasonably manageable and shows that Boeing is willing to take a hit on the chin at times.

Those of us who actually deal with regulators know that its not uncommon to do more than is required to buy "grace/leeway" elsewhere as regulations often cannot be exactly implemented as written, or it's not anywhere near practical to do so (you need an "interpretation" or a "Waiver"). There are things a company wants and there are things a regulator wants and neither actually affects real safety. So you trade favors and do things that are not technically required at times. It's called having a "working" relationship. There is nothing wrong with a good professional working relationship. I've never seen it compromise safety. Overall, my feeling is that it has improved the safety of older designs (Regulator says: we can see your argument on why this should be waived in this case; and we're concerned about another component/system and would like to see it upgraded (even though it technically meets all regulatory requirements)... So we upgrade what they are concerned with and they approve our waiver where the historical evidence is that it meets the current intent. Net increase in safety. I've seen this too many times to count.

Have a great day,

The number of Bits would be established on a clear mathematical basis. That's how its done. If it wasn't in this case then it is basic error or deliberate false action. If it were a deliberate action, I do not see any possibility that it would have survived beyond the test run that identified a Catastrophic failure, certainly not to a major re-design of the FCC software architecture decision and absolutely definitely not 6 months and millions of costs with no end in sight. Ludicrous.

I'm sorry to hear that the regulators over there are less competent than I thought.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:42 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that the regulators over there are less competent than I thought.

If you are talking about the FAA, I thought we were already past that?

The history outlined in the article below may be a reason why the priority will be the stored frames versus the line.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... ding-drags
 
morrisond
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:57 pm

Prioritizing delivery of already built frames makes sense - you don't have to fork out the cash to build new ones and can take a lot of those 12,000 workers to prepare the existing frames for delivery.

Although we have not heard much lately - Boeing was having real issues to find people to do the RTS work.

Presumably a few thousand line workers could have the Job done a lot sooner than what they were proposing before - they were contemplating delivery of 52 New Fresh ones and 20 parked ones per month until the backlog was cleared - which could have taken 20ish months.

Instead maybe they start the line at 20 or so and deliver 50 parked to get the backlog cleared in less than 12 months, possibly as low as 8, and ramp up new production over those 8 months possibly back to 52 per month by this time next year if they get the MAX cleared by the 1st of May.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

Boeing still has a narrow body with valid certificate. NG restart/rampup could be much easier for Boeing and entire supply chain. I doubt tooling have been scrapped because thousands are still flying.

If an airline would get new aircraft which are not better than the old ones, there is no point in ordering new ones. ~80% of the MAX orders are NG replacements. Adding the A320 replacements we get maybe 90% of the MAX order book. Shipping an NG instead of a MAX is useless.

planecane wrote:
Part of the shutdown I'm sure is to get the attention of politicians.

How could a politician help to resolve the complex failure modes the MAX seems to have?

lightsaber wrote:
The discussions today with the FAA will be very different thsn yesterday. No reduction in rigor, but at least a timeline to stop finding issues.

Issues are found in testing. Thats the nature in testing. Only by ostrich policy a timeline can be defined for finding issues.

lightsaber wrote:
A timeline to define requirements.

The requirements were available in written form since 2011 when the MAX was launched.

I'm a test lead in Aerospace, so I'm well aware of what I typed.

The testing requirements are growing. This is a pause to all get on the same plate. The certification authority and Vendor always negotiate the RVTM (Requirements Verification Test Matrix). The current RVTM is certainly not the 2011 RVTM. With multiple certification authorities, there is always test growth. This compares to Verification by analysis or Verification by simulation.

There are multiple levels of requirements. The top level is fixed. The derived requirements allocated to testing or retest has changed. New flight tests not agreed to in 2011 are being imposed.

I live this life. Certification authorities always want tests added at great cost. My last program they wanted to add six months of testing; it ended up costing us two months as we couldn't prove requirements clearly without new tests.

It turned out most of the testing the certification authority demanded was because their test equipment was faulty and they wanted more data to compare to a competitor. Not my problem, we collected the required data ourselves, the nice to have duplicate data we accomodated, but it wasn't required.

This problem was solved months ago. The politics are driving too much double guessing. A shutdown has a wonderful way of putting things in perspective.

Regulator churn is something I manage for a living. This churn just went out if hand.

Some of the posts here do not delve into reality. I routinely get waivers for verification requirements. There are even waivers to top level requirements where, "I cannot meet the requirement, but by training (say pilots), we reduce probability to meet the intent of requirements" or by adding a limitation or constraint (e.g., cross wind limitation until a new actuator is developed).

Unfortunately certification often becomes political. My last program we had the government remove certification personnel when we found they were going out the revolving door to a competitor. Those personel were trying to add testing for no good technical reason.

Unfortunately, personality and politics rears into aircraft certification. If it didn't, I wouldn't be as popular in test engineering.

Lightsaber


Working on the other side, I have to strongly disagree. Especially in that case it is very possible that the more information the regulator gets, the more questions could arise. We should not forget that Boeing made a lot so risk assessments themselves and only presented the final result to the regulator. In my experience especially band aid solutions tend to fall apart once given full scrutiny, often leading to many new questions and problems. If the FAA keeps its position even in the face of the production halt, they will have more than regulator churn supporting their case. In my opinion, they will have something clearly safety relevant.
 
art
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:02 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
How about the Russian MC21?
Surely this is an opportunity of a lifetime for the Russians to cooperate with Boeing. Sure, it will be years before Boeing could produce any American MC21's, even longer if they also want the Leap on it, but under Boeing, it would be a hell of an aircraft.


Time is of the essence here, I think. MC-21 is not yet EASA certified. I have read that the aim is to reach production of around 70 a year in around 5 years' time. Too late to help with deliveries in the short term. Lomg term Boeing would design the NSA so MC-21 does not look like an option to me.
 
hivue
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
I can see how the CEO was willing to continue production when he had confidence in a RTS time line. Conversely, I don't see how he can support continued production when he has no confidence in the RTS time line.


Boeing said months ago that if the grounding lasted into Q4 they might have to reduce/suspend production. None of this should be a surprise. I think Boeing had done a calculation of the ratio of parked delivered air frames to parked new build air frames that would make halting new builds -- if not exactly desirable -- the wisest choice for them financially considering the logistics of getting both categories flying for revenue as soon as possible after RTS.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
I wonder why Boeing has not reverted to producing B737NG's and decided to suspend the production entirely.

Because Boeing has filled (almost) all orders for NGs and cannot build more MAXes until it has a better understanding of when the return to service can be expected.

Please take the time to understand: customers do not want new NGs!!!

The customers signed contracts for planes with 15% or so better economics, and that's the plane they want for the frame's expected life time, not the NG!


As posted in the parallel thread, Spicejet has inducted about 40 B737NG's since the start of the Max grounding.

Sure, operators want the latest and greatest, but in the meanwhile, Boeing could simply deliver B737NG's and keep revenue coming in and the line moving.
Operators would happily take those as they could make more money flying those than getting compensation from Boeing.

If Boeing suspended production, it must be because they do not anticipate a quick return to service, ie the line is going to stop for at least half a year, a year.
Why not produce B737NG's in the meanwhile.
Plus, not all MAX operators are going to be happy flying empty Maxes as the public will avoid them initially.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:52 pm

seahawk wrote:
Working on the other side, I have to strongly disagree. Especially in that case it is very possible that the more information the regulator gets, the more questions could arise. We should not forget that Boeing made a lot so risk assessments themselves and only presented the final result to the regulator. In my experience especially band aid solutions tend to fall apart once given full scrutiny, often leading to many new questions and problems. If the FAA keeps its position even in the face of the production halt, they will have more than regulator churn supporting their case. In my opinion, they will have something clearly safety relevant.

My issue in this situation would be what new information has the FAA received other than the results of testing, that they did not already have in their possession or received after the grounding and the subsequent revelations by whistle blowers?

The FAA and the whistle blowers had no issues revealing all the information that Boeing had hidden, is it still the contention that there are still hidden items and the FAA is still digging through all the initial certification documents approved by themselves and Boeing?
The head of the FAA has advised his staff to do their due diligence on the fixes Boeing submitted in November, do we have anything stating that the FAA has halted the process?
The last major concern voiced by the head of the FAA was Boeing's RTS public thoughts were a bother to FAA.
 
ckfred
Posts: 5188
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:57 pm

I think what has Boeing, its suppliers, the airlines, pilot unions, and the like upset is that the FAA will no longer give a timeline for getting the MAX recertified and back into the air. I understand that a lot of "penciled-in" dates have come and gone. But someone at the FAA must have a notion that, assuming no other problems are found and all of the updates work as projected, of when its work will be concluded. This is worse that the rehabilitation work on the airport transit system at ORD. The City stopped giving dates when the system will resume operations, because the contractor kept missing them, blaming the City for problems it didn't give prior warning.

Honestly, the FAA is sort of acting like my son, when he was in grade school, and could not estimate how long it would take to complete his homework.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:00 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If Boeing suspended production, it must be because they do not anticipate a quick return to service, ie the line is going to stop for at least half a year, a year.

It could also be that because the head of the FAA is pissed at them for their optimistic RTS they decided not to provide any guidance on RTS sufficient for Boeing to make budgetary plans for continued production, it is the end of the quarter and year, so forward planning is required.
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Why not produce B737NG's in the meanwhile.
Plus, not all MAX operators are going to be happy flying empty Maxes as the public will avoid them initially.

How many frames can Boeing actually run down the military line being used for the P8, additionally, since the last NG was delivered, is that line still compliant to make civilian frames?
Since the other NG vendors have switched over to the MAX, what about the suppliers of the parts, a large number of them are not involved in the production of the P8.

On the financial front, will the compensation Boeing will have to pay to airlines for the inferior NG be greater, after all, if the MAX does RTS they have to take back those NG's right?

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