Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:58 am

WillyEckers wrote:
A long time lurker but first time poster.

I think something big happenedwhich resulted in the production shutdown and the CEO departure.

All of the people asking for training are missing the point.

When a system is developed, the impact that failures of the systems could have need to be assessed. This was done for the MAX and (based on looking at the system architecture) the consequences seem to have been assessed as “MINOR” (similar to STS).

Empirical evidence shows that there are failure effects which are CATASTROPHIC.

The same failure in two different parts of the world suggest that training alone is not the issue – it is hard to imagine that the exact same training failure could exist like this. And, at 8000 hours, it is difficult to believe that the ET captain had never seen an issue with the NG. For me, this is an aircraft system issue, not a pilot issue.

It seems that there have been changes made to the system – cross comparison of the sensors, improves system robustness and reduction of the authority of the MCAS reduces the consequences of failure.

My guess is that there is still a delta between the system robustness that can be achieved with this architecture and the system robustness that is required. Reading between the lines, it looks like the intention was to fill this gap with the pilot but, again – reading between the lines – this gap couldn’t be filled because half the pilots in the week long simulator session chose the wrong procedure (what does this even mean?). It is hard to imagine that there are any B737 pilots that are not aware of the MCAS issues so half failing in these conditions must be a bit of an issue.

And the FAA director’s comments are interesting. He didn’t say “we have all we need and will work a little overtime over the festive season to get this approved”. Rather, he said that the “focus should be on the quality and timeliness of data submittals for FAA review”.

We should listen to XRAYretired – he knows what he’s talking about!


Welcome to the forums! And a very good post.

Yep, I agree something big happened - which was the reason for the shutdown and firing of the CEO. I think that was the newly discovered text messages from former Chief Pilot Forkner (and possibly others). These were submitted by Boeing to the FAA, the Justice Department and Congress.

It will be interesting to find out what they say.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2225
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:58 am

airnorth wrote:
Air Canada flew theirs to the desert within what I would call "normal" conditions.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Do any of those examples include
a) a heavy fuel load
b) a heavy passenger load (or indeed any pax at all)

airnorth wrote:
I never suggested any kind of fuel load or payload you did. You brought it up,

Mea culpa, you are correct. However you used the description "normal conditions", without sufficient qualification. Undoubtedly you knew what you meant, but to others it suggests everything was normal. Maybe that was accidental, but these MAX threads are full of such ambiguous comments, and many of them are deliberately misleading. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I was only pointing to examples of flights that were flying a normal profile, who cares what the payload was, what difference would it make?

Whoah there - are you actually serious? :roll:
For a start, the initial climb-out would be different - maybe 10 minutes to reach FL280, instead of 20 minutes.
Or lower throttle settings, therefore less tendency to pitch up from badly positioned engines, one of the things MCAS was designed to mitigate.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this basic phenomenon.

airnorth wrote:
At what point in the payload range does a flight become normal anyway, is there a scale for that?
Oh dear!
The flight does not "become" normal; it is normal from start to finish providing it reflects normal day-to-day operation (which covers a wide range)
These AC flights, and many others since the grounding that were only short hops taking off at less than 55t (est) and landing at 47t (est) are in no way comparable to normal AC flights that could take off at closer to 82t MTOW, and land six hours later at 64t.

Very occasionally, in normal service conditions, a MAX will genuinely fly a short positioning flight, more or less empty. But either side of that will be many more longer, heavier flights. The average will be closer to MTOW than OEW, but the whole range should be examined. Unless you are trying to obscure the truth. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I will say its strange if you don't consider an empty unladen aircraft "normal".
Yes, perfectly normal... for an unladen aircraft.
But I have this nagging feeling the certification authorities (and anybody with a morsel of commonsense) would prefer to see data relevant to real life, right up to MTOW (and probably 5-10% on top of that)
And I don't think you will find too many people here suggesting that is unreasonable.. At a wild guess, a laden aircraft handles somewhat differently.... don't you think?
But if you could assure me that my next flight on a MAX as a passenger is with the aircraft empty apart from the two guys up front, and myself as the only passenger, then I'll accept your supposition that a heavy payload makes no difference.

Anyway, just to clarify the facts, the flight history is clear, all of these flights were completely normal flight profiles for a 737 MAX.
"Completely normal"
Yeah, whatever..... :white:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
Nick1209
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:24 am

Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:50 am

lowbank wrote:
lowbank wrote:
The recent announcements about the MAX are really concerning.
I have been convinced in the last couple of months that the MAX is unlikely to be certified again. That’s sad news indeed.



Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nick1209
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:24 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:55 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
airnorth wrote:
Air Canada flew theirs to the desert within what I would call "normal" conditions.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Do any of those examples include
a) a heavy fuel load
b) a heavy passenger load (or indeed any pax at all)

airnorth wrote:
I never suggested any kind of fuel load or payload you did. You brought it up,

Mea culpa, you are correct. However you used the description "normal conditions", without sufficient qualification. Undoubtedly you knew what you meant, but to others it suggests everything was normal. Maybe that was accidental, but these MAX threads are full of such ambiguous comments, and many of them are deliberately misleading. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I was only pointing to examples of flights that were flying a normal profile, who cares what the payload was, what difference would it make?

Whoah there - are you actually serious? :roll:
For a start, the initial climb-out would be different - maybe 10 minutes to reach FL280, instead of 20 minutes.
Or lower throttle settings, therefore less tendency to pitch up from badly positioned engines, one of the things MCAS was designed to mitigate.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this basic phenomenon.

airnorth wrote:
At what point in the payload range does a flight become normal anyway, is there a scale for that?
Oh dear!
The flight does not "become" normal; it is normal from start to finish providing it reflects normal day-to-day operation (which covers a wide range)
These AC flights, and many others since the grounding that were only short hops taking off at less than 55t (est) and landing at 47t (est) are in no way comparable to normal AC flights that could take off at closer to 82t MTOW, and land six hours later at 64t.

Very occasionally, in normal service conditions, a MAX will genuinely fly a short positioning flight, more or less empty. But either side of that will be many more longer, heavier flights. The average will be closer to MTOW than OEW, but the whole range should be examined. Unless you are trying to obscure the truth. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I will say its strange if you don't consider an empty unladen aircraft "normal".
Yes, perfectly normal... for an unladen aircraft.
But I have this nagging feeling the certification authorities (and anybody with a morsel of commonsense) would prefer to see data relevant to real life, right up to MTOW (and probably 5-10% on top of that)
And I don't think you will find too many people here suggesting that is unreasonable.. At a wild guess, a laden aircraft handles somewhat differently.... don't you think?
But if you could assure me that my next flight on a MAX as a passenger is with the aircraft empty apart from the two guys up front, and myself as the only passenger, then I'll accept your supposition that a heavy payload makes no difference.

Anyway, just to clarify the facts, the flight history is clear, all of these flights were completely normal flight profiles for a 737 MAX.
"Completely normal"
Yeah, whatever..... :white:



What are you trying to say? The Max will be jammed pack for every flight. Regardless. That’s true in every transport jet. Very rarely, will it fly empty. It does happen, but don’t count on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:11 am

Nick1209 wrote:
lowbank wrote:
lowbank wrote:
The recent announcements about the MAX are really concerning.
I have been convinced in the last couple of months that the MAX is unlikely to be certified again. That’s sad news indeed.



Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.

Surely, a great deal of these 800+ test flights are actually sim flights done in the engineering cab simulator. I've noticed that Boeing tends to refer to such sim flights no differently than actual flights.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:17 am

Nick1209 wrote:
lowbank wrote:
lowbank wrote:
The recent announcements about the MAX are really concerning.
I have been convinced in the last couple of months that the MAX is unlikely to be certified again. That’s sad news indeed.



Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that’s an excuse to bugger up a supply chain? Surely any good supply chain manager would know that interrupting as supply chain for a significant stretch of time will be far more costly and have far greater consequences than paying to park more planes if they claim they will be back by February anyway.

And so what if they’re testing the thing, they also tested the thing over 6 months ago when Denny Muilenburg went on it and said it was safe yet it’s still not fixed yet. Test flights don’t mean much until the thing is being recertified again for sure. Surely it’s not worth stopping production for about another 100 planes or so if the light actually is a the end of the tunnel. I could be wrong, but one has to wonder.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
namezero111111
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:50 am

asdf wrote:
namezero111111 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
So

could an unknowing inflight defecation of the MCAS as with say a bird strike of the angle of attack indicators and air speed indicators?

Many times if passing thru a flock of birds ... while the engines may not take a direct hit, other parts of the aircraft may get a glancing blow.

Could this render the MCAS system fix problematic and pilots unknowingly flying a plane damaged with indicators showing all is okay?


Quite possibly so.
From all the information coming out about design and production deficiencies, flying with a 737 max , or any recent Boeing product is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.


This is not correct

Boeing has premium fly-by-wire products like the 787 and the 777
they are very safe products

In a fly by wire plane its all about the logic interface
If its done well it is safe

Both, airbus and boeing, have outstanding FBW automation
Very safe
Both

and it is NOT about the numbers of AoA sensors, with a good logic interface two are enough
airbus announced to reduce the AoA sensors from three to two in future products a few months ago

But 737 has no FBW
This is usually not a problem as long as you do not have difficult conditions in some way

with the 737max there are new difficulties
The worldwide regulator JTAR cited a „inacceptable“ behavior of the 737MAX if it approaches a stall

You can fix that on a FBW plane

You cant on the non-FBW 737MAX


I agree, but it doesn't change the perception on Boeing as a whole.
Rational? Maybe no, but why be nervous rather than going by feel for an equally/safer alternative?
 
Nick1209
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:24 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:15 am

767333ER wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:
lowbank wrote:



Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that’s an excuse to bugger up a supply chain? Surely any good supply chain manager would know that interrupting as supply chain for a significant stretch of time will be far more costly and have far greater consequences than paying to park more planes if they claim they will be back by February anyway.

And so what if they’re testing the thing, they also tested the thing over 6 months ago when Denny Muilenburg went on it and said it was safe yet it’s still not fixed yet. Test flights don’t mean much until the thing is being recertified again for sure. Surely it’s not worth stopping production for about another 100 planes or so if the light actually is a the end of the tunnel. I could be wrong, but one has to wonder.



You misread what I said. They’re testing the system. Up to 1,500 hours and 800+ flights. The new system has been done since summertime. Dennis probably said it to get all the cry babies off his back at the time, which I don’t even blame him for. What this situation did was allow people to think they have the slightest clue how all of this works, and shouldn’t even be talking about it, and they keep lipping and parroting talking points best held out for the ignorant media.

So what you’re saying is that you’d go and upset your investors even more, by purchasing more room to park aircraft? Wow. It would serve 0 purpose after this ordeal. I don’t think you realize what is needed in order to park aircraft. You’ll need a runway for 1. And 2. You’ll need A LOT of property for it to even be useful or make a dent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:23 am

namezero111111 wrote:
asdf wrote:
namezero111111 wrote:

Quite possibly so.
From all the information coming out about design and production deficiencies, flying with a 737 max , or any recent Boeing product is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.


This is not correct

Boeing has premium fly-by-wire products like the 787 and the 777
they are very safe products

In a fly by wire plane its all about the logic interface
If its done well it is safe

Both, airbus and boeing, have outstanding FBW automation
Very safe
Both

and it is NOT about the numbers of AoA sensors, with a good logic interface two are enough
airbus announced to reduce the AoA sensors from three to two in future products a few months ago

But 737 has no FBW
This is usually not a problem as long as you do not have difficult conditions in some way

with the 737max there are new difficulties
The worldwide regulator JTAR cited a „inacceptable“ behavior of the 737MAX if it approaches a stall

You can fix that on a FBW plane

You cant on the non-FBW 737MAX


I agree, but it doesn't change the perception on Boeing as a whole.
Rational? Maybe no, but why be nervous rather than going by feel for an equally/safer alternative?


There is no equally/safer alternative

You have equally/safer alternatives on planes with normal/safe flight attidudes
You dont on planes with unacceptable stall characteristic
Such planes need a full FBW control
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1007
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:31 am

Nick1209 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
airnorth wrote:
Air Canada flew theirs to the desert within what I would call "normal" conditions.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Do any of those examples include
a) a heavy fuel load
b) a heavy passenger load (or indeed any pax at all)

airnorth wrote:
I never suggested any kind of fuel load or payload you did. You brought it up,

Mea culpa, you are correct. However you used the description "normal conditions", without sufficient qualification. Undoubtedly you knew what you meant, but to others it suggests everything was normal. Maybe that was accidental, but these MAX threads are full of such ambiguous comments, and many of them are deliberately misleading. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I was only pointing to examples of flights that were flying a normal profile, who cares what the payload was, what difference would it make?

Whoah there - are you actually serious? :roll:
For a start, the initial climb-out would be different - maybe 10 minutes to reach FL280, instead of 20 minutes.
Or lower throttle settings, therefore less tendency to pitch up from badly positioned engines, one of the things MCAS was designed to mitigate.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this basic phenomenon.

airnorth wrote:
At what point in the payload range does a flight become normal anyway, is there a scale for that?
Oh dear!
The flight does not "become" normal; it is normal from start to finish providing it reflects normal day-to-day operation (which covers a wide range)
These AC flights, and many others since the grounding that were only short hops taking off at less than 55t (est) and landing at 47t (est) are in no way comparable to normal AC flights that could take off at closer to 82t MTOW, and land six hours later at 64t.

Very occasionally, in normal service conditions, a MAX will genuinely fly a short positioning flight, more or less empty. But either side of that will be many more longer, heavier flights. The average will be closer to MTOW than OEW, but the whole range should be examined. Unless you are trying to obscure the truth. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I will say its strange if you don't consider an empty unladen aircraft "normal".
Yes, perfectly normal... for an unladen aircraft.
But I have this nagging feeling the certification authorities (and anybody with a morsel of commonsense) would prefer to see data relevant to real life, right up to MTOW (and probably 5-10% on top of that)
And I don't think you will find too many people here suggesting that is unreasonable.. At a wild guess, a laden aircraft handles somewhat differently.... don't you think?
But if you could assure me that my next flight on a MAX as a passenger is with the aircraft empty apart from the two guys up front, and myself as the only passenger, then I'll accept your supposition that a heavy payload makes no difference.

Anyway, just to clarify the facts, the flight history is clear, all of these flights were completely normal flight profiles for a 737 MAX.
"Completely normal"
Yeah, whatever..... :white:



What are you trying to say? The Max will be jammed pack for every flight. Regardless. That’s true in every transport jet. Very rarely, will it fly empty. It does happen, but don’t count on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How was he unclear in any conceivable way? Sheikh explained why an unladen flight isn't representative of the vast (vast vast) majority of day-to-day operations and implied, they should be considered with caution when flagging them "normal".
Ever flew a transport jet ferry? I did. Fun performance wise. No fun handling wise for that specific aircraft. And hardly representative of anything you would "feel" at usual payloads + fuel.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Nick1209
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:24 am

Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019, Production suspended

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:40 am

namezero111111 wrote:
asdf wrote:
namezero111111 wrote:


MCAS operates off the AoA. So no. It would not show that everything is “okay” you would have faulty airspeed/altitude and trim would be running unwanted. This is assuming the computer is taking data from one sensor at a time.

If there is no unreliable airspeed or altitude nor trim issues, then everything is okay. Even if an AoA went faulty, and even when the pilot is hand flying, but if the flaps are set to ANY position, MCAS is disabled.

There’s really no way a 737 pilot could not see anything wrong with their aircraft though, a fully trained 737 pilot that is. The crew for ET302 knew which AoA was faulty. They knew they had unreliable airspeed, they knew which side to believe for airspeed/altitude. They also knew the stab trim system needed to be cut out. The First Officer manually trimmed in the wrong direction and then told his captain “it’s not working”. The captain also ignored his throttle at the fullest position, increasing nose down trim with an increase with airspeed= stronger nose down forces. Clearly the airline isn’t training their pilots up to the standard they should be.

Perfectly displayed in 2010, when they had a crew who also failed to recover the plane. Same for Lion Air, who has destroyed more than 8 aircraft since they came about in 1999. Mostly from pilots confusing the ocean for the runway. Compare to SWA who’s been in business nearly the same amount of time. Poorly trained pilots will crash the plane regardless of what’s failing.

It’s also good to note that a 737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS, it’s irrelevant because it does not change anything. It doesn’t have a hidden kill switch, or a hidden procedure. A 737 pilot has never needed to know why or what was pushing his aircraft down, the only thing they need to know is that the trim is running unwanted, clearly if auto pilot is not engaged, and the pilot isn’t doing it, then it’s unwanted. You hit the stab trim cut out switches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nick1209
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:24 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:55 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Mea culpa, you are correct. However you used the description "normal conditions", without sufficient qualification. Undoubtedly you knew what you meant, but to others it suggests everything was normal. Maybe that was accidental, but these MAX threads are full of such ambiguous comments, and many of them are deliberately misleading. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.


Whoah there - are you actually serious? :roll:
For a start, the initial climb-out would be different - maybe 10 minutes to reach FL280, instead of 20 minutes.
Or lower throttle settings, therefore less tendency to pitch up from badly positioned engines, one of the things MCAS was designed to mitigate.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this basic phenomenon.

Oh dear!
The flight does not "become" normal; it is normal from start to finish providing it reflects normal day-to-day operation (which covers a wide range)
These AC flights, and many others since the grounding that were only short hops taking off at less than 55t (est) and landing at 47t (est) are in no way comparable to normal AC flights that could take off at closer to 82t MTOW, and land six hours later at 64t.

Very occasionally, in normal service conditions, a MAX will genuinely fly a short positioning flight, more or less empty. But either side of that will be many more longer, heavier flights. The average will be closer to MTOW than OEW, but the whole range should be examined. Unless you are trying to obscure the truth. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

Yes, perfectly normal... for an unladen aircraft.
But I have this nagging feeling the certification authorities (and anybody with a morsel of commonsense) would prefer to see data relevant to real life, right up to MTOW (and probably 5-10% on top of that)
And I don't think you will find too many people here suggesting that is unreasonable.. At a wild guess, a laden aircraft handles somewhat differently.... don't you think?
But if you could assure me that my next flight on a MAX as a passenger is with the aircraft empty apart from the two guys up front, and myself as the only passenger, then I'll accept your supposition that a heavy payload makes no difference.

"Completely normal"
Yeah, whatever..... :white:



What are you trying to say? The Max will be jammed pack for every flight. Regardless. That’s true in every transport jet. Very rarely, will it fly empty. It does happen, but don’t count on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How was he unclear in any conceivable way? Sheikh explained why an unladen flight isn't representative of the vast (vast vast) majority of day-to-day operations and implied, they should be considered with caution when flagging them "normal".
Ever flew a transport jet ferry? I did. Fun performance wise. No fun handling wise for that specific aircraft. And hardly representative of anything you would "feel" at usual payloads + fuel.



Due to this horrible app, it’s quite difficult to read replies or who’s replying to and what about. In understood exactly what he said. But was confused as to what he is replying to or what the other person said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1007
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:19 am

Nick1209 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:


What are you trying to say? The Max will be jammed pack for every flight. Regardless. That’s true in every transport jet. Very rarely, will it fly empty. It does happen, but don’t count on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How was he unclear in any conceivable way? Sheikh explained why an unladen flight isn't representative of the vast (vast vast) majority of day-to-day operations and implied, they should be considered with caution when flagging them "normal".
Ever flew a transport jet ferry? I did. Fun performance wise. No fun handling wise for that specific aircraft. And hardly representative of anything you would "feel" at usual payloads + fuel.



Due to this horrible app, it’s quite difficult to read replies or who’s replying to and what about. In understood exactly what he said. But was confused as to what he is replying to or what the other person said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Alright! :-) Merry christmas!
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:37 am

Nick1209 wrote:
namezero111111 wrote:
asdf wrote:


MCAS operates off the AoA. So no. It would not show that everything is “okay” you would have faulty airspeed/altitude and trim would be running unwanted. This is assuming the computer is taking data from one sensor at a time.

If there is no unreliable airspeed or altitude nor trim issues, then everything is okay. Even if an AoA went faulty, and even when the pilot is hand flying, but if the flaps are set to ANY position, MCAS is disabled.

There’s really no way a 737 pilot could not see anything wrong with their aircraft though, a fully trained 737 pilot that is. The crew for ET302 knew which AoA was faulty. They knew they had unreliable airspeed, they knew which side to believe for airspeed/altitude. They also knew the stab trim system needed to be cut out. The First Officer manually trimmed in the wrong direction and then told his captain “it’s not working”. The captain also ignored his throttle at the fullest position, increasing nose down trim with an increase with airspeed= stronger nose down forces. Clearly the airline isn’t training their pilots up to the standard they should be.

Perfectly displayed in 2010, when they had a crew who also failed to recover the plane. Same for Lion Air, who has destroyed more than 8 aircraft since they came about in 1999. Mostly from pilots confusing the ocean for the runway. Compare to SWA who’s been in business nearly the same amount of time. Poorly trained pilots will crash the plane regardless of what’s failing.

It’s also good to note that a 737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS, it’s irrelevant because it does not change anything. It doesn’t have a hidden kill switch, or a hidden procedure. A 737 pilot has never needed to know why or what was pushing his aircraft down, the only thing they need to know is that the trim is running unwanted, clearly if auto pilot is not engaged, and the pilot isn’t doing it, then it’s unwanted. You hit the stab trim cut out switches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pilots were overwhelmed. Read the reports.

You are just propagating a myth regarding trim in the wrong direction, its just another misrepresentation by the 'blame the pilots mob'. Review the FDR, it does not exist.

Human factors experts will inform you that they are diametrically opposed to your 'pilots don't need to know' rubbish, specially on a manual airframe, the contrary, they would recommend a clear notification of active/inactive and training. Oh, and the pilots themselves are aghast at the thought that Boeing told them nothing.

Just despicable blame the pilots clap trap. Suggest you start reading and stop posting.
 
maint123
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 11:29 am

Why the hell is Boeing being so secretive about the actions they have taken and are planning to take to get the plane back in service ?
I am sure they are monitoring the discussions on sites such as these, and it's in their best interest to present their findings and actions taken in a transparent manner.
Most of the discussions here are going around in circles in absence of ANY new information in the last so many months.
Boeing should just miscaliberate a AOA sensor to replicate the worst case scenarios and physically fly the MAX hundreds of times ,after simulations , to get some confidence back in the modified MCAS.
It's not rocket science.
Laws of physics will not overlook any shortcomings in a defective plane forced back in.
 
lowbank
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:10 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:05 pm

Nick1209 wrote:
lowbank wrote:
lowbank wrote:
The recent announcements about the MAX are really concerning.
I have been convinced in the last couple of months that the MAX is unlikely to be certified again. That’s sad news indeed.



Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Temporary suspension is Boeing PR spin.
I can tell you thousands of people will be sacked/laid off/ redundant. Those people have families to support. They will get new jobs as fast as they can. When supply chains want to ramp up again it can take a year or two to get people in, train them , get them up the learner curve making good quality components or assemblies.
Whilst it will take Boeing months to get grounded planes modified and back up in the air and deliver the backlog. But they could lose at least a years production with the suspension and then getting it going again.
Plus quality suffers during retraining.
Every days a school day.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:08 pm

Starting to wonder if the extended landing gear of the MAX 10 will factor into the outcome of a resurrected and recertifications MAX 8 minus MCAS?

Sounds like the MAX 9 and MAX 10 may not be long for this world from an earlier posting.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:26 pm

Nick1209 wrote:
It’s also good to note that a 737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS, it’s irrelevant because it does not change anything. It doesn’t have a hidden kill switch, or a hidden procedure. A 737 pilot has never needed to know why or what was pushing his aircraft down, the only thing they need to know is that the trim is running unwanted, clearly if auto pilot is not engaged, and the pilot isn’t doing it, then it’s unwanted. You hit the stab trim cut out switches.

Did you have read any official documents (JT610, ET302, NTSB, JATR, hearings, pilots associations, etc..) on the subject ? No experts are actually supporting "737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS".

MCAS function was added on the MAX to the STS subsystem that already exist on the NG. Like the MCAS, the STS already trim the horizontal stabilizer in manual flight mode on the NG. So according to your claim, any 737 NG flights would have to be with electric stab trim cutout and manual trim wheels only, because STS generate stab trim input command on every single takeoff, and "the pilot isn’t doing it".

Other problem is that the manual trim wheels are too hard to use at high speed.
: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:
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:46 pm

The presentation said Boeing’s “digital and media team” would be “monitoring social conversations around the clock.”


I have a feeling this already happened :-)

The team goals may have included sufficient posts to re-focus discussion on ancillary topics like pilot training standards, conspiracy theories such as FAA delaying return to service, or unrelated topics like home team vs. third world superiority.

None of this will help. What would help, however, is information. If you believe you have the product that world can benefit from, please tell us what the parameters of its flight envelope are in various situations, including the effects that the airplane goes through when flying without MCAS or the actual limits and forces involved in the manual trim wheels. Tell us about the exact actions you've taken about correcting the product, not just that you have a new software version, but also whether you've made any hardware modifications or what your current plan for the necessary MAX-specific training is. And let us know what your disposition is to various rumoured issues such as the control cable vulnerabilities is. You do not have to final, FAA approved plans, but the lack of any information is what is fueling the distrust. Fix that and you've taken a big step towards gaining trust.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:55 pm

I have this increasing feeling that Boeing is approaching the point of seriously scrapping the 737 MAX program altogether. This means scrapping circa 600 airframes, and the cost would be so daunting that Boeing may be forced into bankruptcy just to protect itself from potential lawsuits from the likes of Southwest and Ryanair. Unfortunately, this plane scrapping and bankruptcy could end up causing a mild US recession as its effects ripple through the US economy.

Boeing will likely need a US government loan guarantee of around $10 billion so it could finally develop a true 737/757 successor using technology already developed for the 787--essentially dusting off the research from the Yellowstone 1 studies of circa 2003-2009. The resulting plane will look like a reduced-size version of a 787.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:06 pm

RayChuang wrote:
I have this increasing feeling that Boeing is approaching the point of seriously scrapping the 737 MAX program altogether. This means scrapping circa 600 airframes, and the cost would be so daunting that Boeing may be forced into bankruptcy just to protect itself from potential lawsuits from the likes of Southwest and Ryanair. Unfortunately, this plane scrapping and bankruptcy could end up causing a mild US recession as its effects ripple through the US economy.

Boeing will likely need a US government loan guarantee of around $10 billion so it could finally develop a true 737/757 successor using technology already developed for the 787--essentially dusting off the research from the Yellowstone 1 studies of circa 2003-2009. The resulting plane will look like a reduced-size version of a 787.

Would that be Grandsoning?

Ray
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4246
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:21 pm

Please stick to discussing the topic. There's no need for personal attacks.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
Palop
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:48 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Starting to wonder if the extended landing gear of the MAX 10 will factor into the outcome of a resurrected and recertifications MAX 8 minus MCAS?


How would the Max 10 landing gear make the -8 not need MCAS? In my understanding the landing gear shift the center of rotation backwards. It does not change the heigh off the ground when the plane is at rest. That height is anyway limited by the lack of slides from the overwing exits. So since the height is unchanged, the engines cannot come down and back which is needed to remove MCAS.
If I’m wrong in these assumptions I’d honestly like to know.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:57 pm

beechnut wrote:
And then there's this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/busi ... urvey.html

Incredible. They can't figure out what's wrong with it but they've already drafted the PR doublespeak to convince an increasingly reluctant public to fly on it.

Absolutely incredible.

The MAX really is doomed...

Beech

They have figured out what is wrong with it and are working with the regulators to get an acceptable fix.

They do draft material to help airlines talk with with reluctant passengers.

Why is this incredible?
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
 
mig17
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:03 pm

maint123 wrote:
Why the hell is Boeing being so secretive about the actions they have taken and are planning to take to get the plane back in service ?
I am sure they are monitoring the discussions on sites such as these, and it's in their best interest to present their findings and actions taken in a transparent manner.
Most of the discussions here are going around in circles in absence of ANY new information in the last so many months.
Boeing should just miscaliberate a AOA sensor to replicate the worst case scenarios and physically fly the MAX hundreds of times ,after simulations , to get some confidence back in the modified MCAS.
It's not rocket science.
Laws of physics will not overlook any shortcomings in a defective plane forced back in.

"All you will say can be held against you". I suspect that the review of the entire 737MAX conception, developpement and certification process revealed several other blindspot potentialy incompatible with airworthyness. When we know that Boeing PR at the begining of the MAX crisis was "we are working to make a safe aircraft, safer", the discovery of other risk hiden since now could be imensly damaging and even be the source of criminal charges.
Like I said 6 mounth ago, for now the 737MAX is a Schrodinger case. It can fly again soon or it can be the largest industrial failure ever ...
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
randomdude83
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:52 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:28 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Starting to wonder if the extended landing gear of the MAX 10 will factor into the outcome of a resurrected and recertifications MAX 8 minus MCAS?


You'd only use the MAX10 Gear if you've decided to re design the engine pylon to drop engines even lower to the ground (like the NG). Other wise its pointless.

I honestly think that should have been a decision Boeing could have taken early and by now they would have had new engine pylon and perform a refit program to all Max and delete MCAS and its need to interfere and "save" a bad aerodynamic design to begin with.

So redesigned pylon+lower engines to not cause the plane to stall so easy on turns+ max 10 gear...to me should have been the solution.
 
Nick1209
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:24 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:33 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:
It’s also good to note that a 737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS, it’s irrelevant because it does not change anything. It doesn’t have a hidden kill switch, or a hidden procedure. A 737 pilot has never needed to know why or what was pushing his aircraft down, the only thing they need to know is that the trim is running unwanted, clearly if auto pilot is not engaged, and the pilot isn’t doing it, then it’s unwanted. You hit the stab trim cut out switches.

Did you have read any official documents (JT610, ET302, NTSB, JATR, hearings, pilots associations, etc..) on the subject ? No experts are actually supporting "737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS".

MCAS function was added on the MAX to the STS subsystem that already exist on the NG. Like the MCAS, the STS already trim the horizontal stabilizer in manual flight mode on the NG. So according to your claim, any 737 NG flights would have to be with electric stab trim cutout and manual trim wheels only, because STS generate stab trim input command on every single takeoff, and "the pilot isn’t doing it".

Other problem is that the manual trim wheels are too hard to use at high speed.



Is that trim running unwanted? Affecting your flight behavior in a very negative way? No. The only reason those “experts” are pushing for these cautions is clearly because we cannot rely on these airlines to train their pilots. They want manufacturers to design their product as if the pilot is completely stupid and useless to the entire. Airbus already did that, and allows the pilot to think he or she is flying. That’s the smartest thing Airbus has done.

Boeing now realizes they need the same software, and no more pilot freedom. Because this is the result. Two crews who handled their emergency in the worst way possible. One forgot their procedure, and the other knew it, and somehow failed to complete a single step on their procedure runaway stabilizer or unreliable airspeed. JT610 also failed to complete a single step.

Now we have that one flight from Lion Air’s incident, who DID complete their checklist for the emergency, who DID use the manual wheel and trimmed the nose back up, and also LANDED. Could it be, that these procedures are here for a reason and not just show? Hmm

Lion Air dropped the ball on their accident anyway, they went and bought an AoA from a company who wasn’t even allowed to sell the product, and also miscalibrated it by 21 degrees. That didn’t seal the deal either, had Lion Air completed their required test on the AoA, which would have shown it was miscalibrated. This may come as a surprise to you, but they didn’t. They installed anyway, lied about it, and the next time that aircraft took off, it crashed. They quickly rushed to take photos of this required test on another aircraft, and told media, and the families that it was proof everything was completed and that they had no idea why it crashed.

And by the way, yes no 737 pilot needs to know about it. Runaway stab before the Max did not include 1. Locating the faulty wire 2. Re wire the faulty wire. It has never been about or will be about why or what is pushing the nose down. Is the trim running unwanted? Yes. Stab trim cut out switches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TaromA380
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:59 pm

May I present you my naïve analysis. These are opinions not facts, lot of hypothesis, take them with salt.

Putting together everything that happened since the first crash, mainly Boeing’s reactions at every new development, for me it doesn’t fit along with a certifiable airframe.

They knew that and now they know the world know, and the end is unavoidable.
We have lot of things to look at post-first crash (2018) then post-second crash and grounding (2019), we know some things related to flight testing and certifications (2016), but nothing about how a team of engineers misestimated the NG + bigger fans longitudinal stability back in 2011.

There is an initial engineering failure behind all this. Not with later Mcas development but right at the beginning. Any such engineering team will have huge pressure on their shoulder - the CEO want good news and the engineers gets big bonuses if they manage to bring the good news. It still wasn’t a unique situation. The engineering team that responded by affirmative either miscalculated either calculated correctly but did hide the truth.

No matter what pressure existed, somewhere a chief engineer signed in 2011 that it is doable when it was not. From here, nothing could stop or change the chain of events.

When the industrial program was already in place, and the prototypes ready, test flights revealed a bigger than anticipated issue with longitudinal stability. We now know that they hoped to neutralize it with Mcas but let’s look at that situation.
They simultaneously understood the impossibility of passing through regulators scrutiny. They had two options then: to cancel everything or to continue by reducing the risk with adjustements (Mcas) then trying to slip the Max through the spaces opened by the quasi auto-certification situation, then hope for the best.

When you self-assess yourself, you don’t even make efforts to look good. A super intelligent Mcas or a basic Mcas would have made no difference as both would have normally been rejected - we saw it during last months. Back then, nobody could quantify the gain or loss in incidents risk in the future, especially their gravity, by implementing a more sophisticated Mcas at the cost of delays and orders losses. What’s more, spending too much time and efforts on it would have attracted the focus of regulators and everything would have blown up.

At prototype stage with test flights in progress, the entire industrial program is already heavily engaged, with thousands of orders by airlines. At that time, it was impossible to anticipate the crashes that happened later. It was just an imperfect product, like virtually all products are.
The leading team at that time had two options: to push the cancellation button and instantly lose billions, bankrupt lot of suppliers and destroy prestige, based on vague ideas about a hard to assess incident risk in a rather rare flight envelope situation, or to push the Go ahead button and perhaps ultimately win dozen billions as profit.

It proved to be a trap for human thinking and ultimately for Boeing. They have fallen into a trap and I personally think no other human leading team would have done differently. (hence that phrase of the new CEO about his predecessor...)

Who would have wanted to enter history as the top manager who backed up when unexpected difficulties have arisen and instead of finding solutions to problems, epically failed the whole industrial program? Then, winners are those who take risks, who bet.
So, having the abyss behind, you cannot but move forward and hope for the best. After all aviation world is full of incidents and it cannot be so bad, pilots will figure it out and compensate, if ever.
They were aware of a dark shade somewhere, but they couldn't face the coming out admitting such a program failure. Real freaking losses versus vague virtual risks. Hard to explain that to your partners and shareholders.

There is the expression "too big to fail". Now we know another expression "too big to admit".

With the insight everything is so simple, they have run into a trap and they should have canceled the program instead.
However, at that time that vision of such an epic failure only made the alternative "good enough, and with some chance it won't ever be known" an escape door.

This explains the rather bizarre attitude starting with the first crash. Their statements of denial, blaming and so on were hiding desperation. Suddenly the trap in which they entered become perceivable. They realized also the risk of the trap being triggered - the grounding. Again, in that situation, no human could admit such a failure. Humans will instead scream “Stay away from triggering the trap upon us!!!”

The industrial program was at full steam, orders have accumulated into the five thousand. Such a bad luck did occur in that accident (beside Mcas not being even known, both pilots normally shouldn’t have been allowed into a cockpit: PF incapacitated by flue + incompetent FO).
You had again two options: jump into the abyss by recognizing that you just killed people, that the Max wasn’t certifiable without lying by omission to regulators, therefore cancelling the industrial program or keep selling and continuing lying/omitting then hoping for the best. That published AD curiously looks rather like omission under disguise. Kind of a riddle meant to hide the devastating truth. Pilots were supposed to figure it out.

It could have worked. It still could get them dozens of billions of profits in the end.
Who would have pushed the cancellation button - I mean the self-grounding button, at that moment? Maybe people who doesn’t have the ability to understand the specific situation and/or how humans work.

The second crash of course didn’t change the fundamentals: Boeing was flying an uncertifiable Max sold to the world as certified and any grounding, forced or based on admitted fault from their part would have triggered the trap. Up to the forced grounding, there still existed a narrow chance of escaping fatality. When faced with the perspective of an epic failure of dozen billions, the human thinking will go wild to imagine and dream of alternatives in which that perspective doesn’t happen. No matter what.

After the trap was triggered by the forced grounding following the second crash, everything was potentially lost. They knew it. Only a miracle would have allowed a lax re-certification. However, when things go tragic, humans tend to cling to hopes of miracles. Till the end. No matter what. Some clever people wearing golden parachutes might also mimic that.

This explains the behavior since the grounding. They were murmuring “Please God FAA, don’t be angry, don’t punish me, help me, certify me again, please, please. Look, I’m even developing a super intelligent version of Mcas, how dare you turn your back to me, evil God ??”
The airframe simply wasn’t certifiable, it was too late, the trap was triggered, they knew this and all they could do was murmuring in distress all day long.

Would you have done differently? Sure you would have! Only in your dream where a planetary industrial program homicidal catastrophe wearing your name is a weird but harmless thought.

It happens that airliners of this kind are very expensive to build and need to be ordered by thousands immediately after program launch. Different magnitude than the Galaxy Note 7 fiasco. Then the airframe instability (only if and only if and only if…) paired with the belief of last standing coping pilots was more insidious than a smartphone battery catching fire under case pressure.

In this industry, when confronted with an unanticipated insuppressible (still highly virtual) flaw during first real testing, it will be already too late to cancel. The reaction will be to continue with the program based on omissions and hopes. The self-certification possibility was a catalyst for commitment. In the worst case, responsibilities will be diluted/spread among countless participants; in the best case, the gains should be tremendous.

As human behavior is the result of situation, we couldn’t have a different outcome in that situation. Program inconceivable to fail that happens to fail, the insider acknowledgment being followed by reality denial, lies to outsiders and hopes that luck will sort things out.

So, the reactions we saw since the first crash seems to me coherent with my opening assumption: the Max was inherently uncertifiable since the beginning. Still, it went ahead because the situation was “too big to admit”.

I wonder if ever someone will look at who was the chief engineer in 2011 who set the trap on tracks?
 
kayik
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:28 pm

Good read, thank you. Boeing may wish to discuss the issue with you further, offline. :D
TaromA380 wrote:
I wonder if ever someone will look at who was the chief engineer in 2011 who set the trap on tracks?


John Hamilton was the chief engineer.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:37 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
May I present you my naïve analysis. These are opinions not facts, lot of hypothesis, take them with salt.

Putting together everything that happened since the first crash, mainly Boeing’s reactions at every new development, for me it doesn’t fit along with a certifiable airframe.

They knew that and now they know the world know, and the end is unavoidable.
We have lot of things to look at post-first crash (2018) then post-second crash and grounding (2019), we know some things related to flight testing and certifications (2016), but nothing about how a team of engineers misestimated the NG + bigger fans longitudinal stability back in 2011.

There is an initial engineering failure behind all this. Not with later Mcas development but right at the beginning. Any such engineering team will have huge pressure on their shoulder - the CEO want good news and the engineers gets big bonuses if they manage to bring the good news. It still wasn’t a unique situation. The engineering team that responded by affirmative either miscalculated either calculated correctly but did hide the truth.

No matter what pressure existed, somewhere a chief engineer signed in 2011 that it is doable when it was not. From here, nothing could stop or change the chain of events.

When the industrial program was already in place, and the prototypes ready, test flights revealed a bigger than anticipated issue with longitudinal stability. We now know that they hoped to neutralize it with Mcas but let’s look at that situation.
They simultaneously understood the impossibility of passing through regulators scrutiny. They had two options then: to cancel everything or to continue by reducing the risk with adjustements (Mcas) then trying to slip the Max through the spaces opened by the quasi auto-certification situation, then hope for the best.

When you self-assess yourself, you don’t even make efforts to look good. A super intelligent Mcas or a basic Mcas would have made no difference as both would have normally been rejected - we saw it during last months. Back then, nobody could quantify the gain or loss in incidents risk in the future, especially their gravity, by implementing a more sophisticated Mcas at the cost of delays and orders losses. What’s more, spending too much time and efforts on it would have attracted the focus of regulators and everything would have blown up.

At prototype stage with test flights in progress, the entire industrial program is already heavily engaged, with thousands of orders by airlines. At that time, it was impossible to anticipate the crashes that happened later. It was just an imperfect product, like virtually all products are.
The leading team at that time had two options: to push the cancellation button and instantly lose billions, bankrupt lot of suppliers and destroy prestige, based on vague ideas about a hard to assess incident risk in a rather rare flight envelope situation, or to push the Go ahead button and perhaps ultimately win dozen billions as profit.

It proved to be a trap for human thinking and ultimately for Boeing. They have fallen into a trap and I personally think no other human leading team would have done differently. (hence that phrase of the new CEO about his predecessor...)

Who would have wanted to enter history as the top manager who backed up when unexpected difficulties have arisen and instead of finding solutions to problems, epically failed the whole industrial program? Then, winners are those who take risks, who bet.
So, having the abyss behind, you cannot but move forward and hope for the best. After all aviation world is full of incidents and it cannot be so bad, pilots will figure it out and compensate, if ever.
They were aware of a dark shade somewhere, but they couldn't face the coming out admitting such a program failure. Real freaking losses versus vague virtual risks. Hard to explain that to your partners and shareholders.

There is the expression "too big to fail". Now we know another expression "too big to admit".

With the insight everything is so simple, they have run into a trap and they should have canceled the program instead.
However, at that time that vision of such an epic failure only made the alternative "good enough, and with some chance it won't ever be known" an escape door.

This explains the rather bizarre attitude starting with the first crash. Their statements of denial, blaming and so on were hiding desperation. Suddenly the trap in which they entered become perceivable. They realized also the risk of the trap being triggered - the grounding. Again, in that situation, no human could admit such a failure. Humans will instead scream “Stay away from triggering the trap upon us!!!”

The industrial program was at full steam, orders have accumulated into the five thousand. Such a bad luck did occur in that accident (beside Mcas not being even known, both pilots normally shouldn’t have been allowed into a cockpit: PF incapacitated by flue + incompetent FO).
You had again two options: jump into the abyss by recognizing that you just killed people, that the Max wasn’t certifiable without lying by omission to regulators, therefore cancelling the industrial program or keep selling and continuing lying/omitting then hoping for the best. That published AD curiously looks rather like omission under disguise. Kind of a riddle meant to hide the devastating truth. Pilots were supposed to figure it out.

It could have worked. It still could get them dozens of billions of profits in the end.
Who would have pushed the cancellation button - I mean the self-grounding button, at that moment? Maybe people who doesn’t have the ability to understand the specific situation and/or how humans work.

The second crash of course didn’t change the fundamentals: Boeing was flying an uncertifiable Max sold to the world as certified and any grounding, forced or based on admitted fault from their part would have triggered the trap. Up to the forced grounding, there still existed a narrow chance of escaping fatality. When faced with the perspective of an epic failure of dozen billions, the human thinking will go wild to imagine and dream of alternatives in which that perspective doesn’t happen. No matter what.

After the trap was triggered by the forced grounding following the second crash, everything was potentially lost. They knew it. Only a miracle would have allowed a lax re-certification. However, when things go tragic, humans tend to cling to hopes of miracles. Till the end. No matter what. Some clever people wearing golden parachutes might also mimic that.

This explains the behavior since the grounding. They were murmuring “Please God FAA, don’t be angry, don’t punish me, help me, certify me again, please, please. Look, I’m even developing a super intelligent version of Mcas, how dare you turn your back to me, evil God ??”
The airframe simply wasn’t certifiable, it was too late, the trap was triggered, they knew this and all they could do was murmuring in distress all day long.

Would you have done differently? Sure you would have! Only in your dream where a planetary industrial program homicidal catastrophe wearing your name is a weird but harmless thought.

It happens that airliners of this kind are very expensive to build and need to be ordered by thousands immediately after program launch. Different magnitude than the Galaxy Note 7 fiasco. Then the airframe instability (only if and only if and only if…) paired with the belief of last standing coping pilots was more insidious than a smartphone battery catching fire under case pressure.

In this industry, when confronted with an unanticipated insuppressible (still highly virtual) flaw during first real testing, it will be already too late to cancel. The reaction will be to continue with the program based on omissions and hopes. The self-certification possibility was a catalyst for commitment. In the worst case, responsibilities will be diluted/spread among countless participants; in the best case, the gains should be tremendous.

As human behavior is the result of situation, we couldn’t have a different outcome in that situation. Program inconceivable to fail that happens to fail, the insider acknowledgment being followed by reality denial, lies to outsiders and hopes that luck will sort things out.

So, the reactions we saw since the first crash seems to me coherent with my opening assumption: the Max was inherently uncertifiable since the beginning. Still, it went ahead because the situation was “too big to admit”.

I wonder if ever someone will look at who was the chief engineer in 2011 who set the trap on tracks?


Interesting read and theory. Whoever the engineer who signed off on the project was, it wouldn't matter. There might have been pushback from the engineering and design team, but in the end it's the board and CEO who makes the decisions.

I'm starting to believe the MAX is uncertifiable. The underlying architecture and systems that have been grandfathered through 50 years would not stand up to any scrutiny today. It's as out of date as a 1960s Cadillac. So the only way to get it done is to make it as close to an NG as possible. And that required MCAS. The only other options were to lengthen gear instead of moving engines forward, but that would have required wheel well and wing box redesign. Which would mean it strayed too far from the original 737 spec to be grandfathered. Making it into another aircraft type (797) would not work. Because it's not up to spec.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:45 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
May I present you my naïve analysis. These are opinions not facts, lot of hypothesis, take them with salt.

A lot of your timeline is off.

The pitch up problem was found in the wind tunnel, before any metal was cut, not once production was started.

"Final phase" of wind tunnel testing began Feb 2012 ( ref: https://www.aviationguy.com/2012/02/13/ ... l-testing/ ).

The major design decisions were made by May 2012 according to https://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/04 ... e-737-max/

The new CFM International LEAP-1B engines will be integrated with the wing similar to the aerodynamic lines of the 787 Dreamliner engine with its wing. A new pylon and strut, along with an 8-inch nose gear extension, will maintain similar ground clearance to today’s 737 while accommodating the larger engine fan. The nose gear door design is altered to fit with this revision.

The article quotes a Boeing press release featuring Michael Teal, chief project engineer and deputy program manager, 737 MAX program who says wind tunnel testing is going on at that point in time with goal of EIS in 2017.

First MAX fuse began assembly Aug 2015 and rolled out Dec 2015 ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX ) so there's a two years or so between wind tunnel testing and assembly of the first frame.
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
 
Palop
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:57 pm

randomdude83 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Starting to wonder if the extended landing gear of the MAX 10 will factor into the outcome of a resurrected and recertifications MAX 8 minus MCAS?


You'd only use the MAX10 Gear if you've decided to re design the engine pylon to drop engines even lower to the ground (like the NG). Other wise its pointless.

I honestly think that should have been a decision Boeing could have taken early and by now they would have had new engine pylon and perform a refit program to all Max and delete MCAS and its need to interfere and "save" a bad aerodynamic design to begin with.

So redesigned pylon+lower engines to not cause the plane to stall so easy on turns+ max 10 gear...to me should have been the solution.

Again, how? The Max 10 landing gears are not talker than the -8’s. The gears only shift the center of rotation aft. The heigh off the ground is limited by the lack of slides on the overwing exits. So, to lower the engines you need a new landing gear (not the -10’s gear), maybe redesigned wing box, new wing to accommodate the slides. Could be feasible, but it’s not as easy as slapping the -10 gear onto an -8 and lower the engine. If it was thai easy it would probably be in works already. Boeing might have done some boneheaded things lately, but they do have smart people employed.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:00 pm

767333ER wrote:
And that’s an excuse to bugger up a supply chain? Surely any good supply chain manager would know that interrupting as supply chain for a significant stretch of time will be far more costly and have far greater consequences than paying to park more planes if they claim they will be back by February anyway.

And so what if they’re testing the thing, they also tested the thing over 6 months ago when Denny Muilenburg went on it and said it was safe yet it’s still not fixed yet. Test flights don’t mean much until the thing is being recertified again for sure. Surely it’s not worth stopping production for about another 100 planes or so if the light actually is a the end of the tunnel. I could be wrong, but one has to wonder.

Except the FAA told Boeing to zip it and unofficial quotes of FAA personnel is that Feb-Mar2020 while EASA spokespersons say Feb 2020, so since Boeing missed RTS of September, 4tr Qtr 2019 all while producing 40+ per month, how much longer should they go?

The FAA and the foreign regulators are being called upon to ensure that the proper paperwork is completed and the a/c is verified safe, the 400+ frames sitting down are 9 months of production, they will ensure that if RTS is given by April or May, Boeing can start delivering a/c to clients while restarting the line, the billions they save on line closure will ensure that they can pay their compensation claims on a timely basis, and the value of those claims go up daily as the grounding continues.
 
TaromA380
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
A lot of your timeline is off.

The pitch up problem was found in the wind tunnel, before any metal was cut, not once production was started.

"Final phase" of wind tunnel testing began Feb 2012 ( ref: https://www.aviationguy.com/2012/02/13/ ... l-testing/ ).

The major design decisions were made by May 2012 according to https://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/04 ... e-737-max/

I stand corrected.
However, I wouldn’t consider the discovered generic pitch up problems in the wind tunnel as critical news (2012). Anyone possessing aerodynamics knowledge can anticipate the same thing when looking at the engines pushed forward.
I guess the difference was made by some magnitude revealed only later, during test flights (2016). That’s the story of the test pilot’s exchanges saga. At that moment it was too late to cancel.

That wind tunnel tests as well as all the other simulations done apparently ended with either miscalculation or correct calculation but wrong reporting. I suppose it is not imaginable that a board would launch an industrial program without the Ok of the chief engineer.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:13 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
The industrial program was at full steam, orders have accumulated into the five thousand. Such a bad luck did occur in that accident (beside Mcas not being even known, both pilots normally shouldn’t have been allowed into a cockpit: PF incapacitated by flue + incompetent FO).
You had again two options: jump into the abyss by recognizing that you just killed people, that the Max wasn’t certifiable without lying by omission to regulators, therefore cancelling the industrial program or keep selling and continuing lying/omitting then hoping for the best. That published AD curiously looks rather like omission under disguise. Kind of a riddle meant to hide the devastating truth. Pilots were supposed to figure it out.

It could have worked. It still could get them dozens of billions of profits in the end.
Who would have pushed the cancellation button - I mean the self-grounding button, at that moment? Maybe people who doesn’t have the ability to understand the specific situation and/or how humans work.

I would say this is when Boeing could steer the boat. Load AoA failure into a sim, test run it - and there would come an impression something was wrong. Then there could be a more aggressive AD, some fixes, etc.
They not only told everyone its not their fault - they sincerely believed in that.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:16 pm

Nick1209 wrote:
namezero111111 wrote:
asdf wrote:


It’s also good to note that a 737 pilot does NOT need to know about MCAS, it’s irrelevant because it does not change anything. It doesn’t have a hidden kill switch, or a hidden procedure. A 737 pilot has never needed to know why or what was pushing his aircraft down, the only thing they need to know is that the trim is running unwanted, clearly if auto pilot is not engaged, and the pilot isn’t doing it, then it’s unwanted. You hit the stab trim cut out switches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nonsense, a pilot of a transport category aircraft needs to know any system that augments the flying characteristics of the aircraft... MCAS does that to create the feel of flying an NG. To say anything else is an ignorant statement much like what you’ve accused the media of doing.

It’s beyond baffling that Boeing did not explain the MCAS system properly in their differences between MAX and NG.

I know from personal experience that other manufacturers that I’ve learned systems on including the current aircraft I’m typed on disclose much more smaller systems differences.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:25 pm

Nick1209 wrote:

Lion Air dropped the ball on their accident anyway, they went and bought an AoA from a company who wasn’t even allowed to sell the product, and also miscalibrated it by 21 degrees.


Your post reads as if you place the vast majority of the blame squarely with Lion Air. The AoA sensor came from an FAA licensed repair shop in the US and according to the FAA it was likely them that did the miscalibration. FAA has since stripped their certification. The aircraft with the huge design error came from Boeing in the US and has been grounded worldwide for more than 9 months with no end in sight.

But it was those pesky foreigners that did it in the pantry with the candlestick.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:38 pm

Nick1209 wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:


Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that’s an excuse to bugger up a supply chain? Surely any good supply chain manager would know that interrupting as supply chain for a significant stretch of time will be far more costly and have far greater consequences than paying to park more planes if they claim they will be back by February anyway.

And so what if they’re testing the thing, they also tested the thing over 6 months ago when Denny Muilenburg went on it and said it was safe yet it’s still not fixed yet. Test flights don’t mean much until the thing is being recertified again for sure. Surely it’s not worth stopping production for about another 100 planes or so if the light actually is a the end of the tunnel. I could be wrong, but one has to wonder.



You misread what I said. They’re testing the system. Up to 1,500 hours and 800+ flights. The new system has been done since summertime. Dennis probably said it to get all the cry babies off his back at the time, which I don’t even blame him for. What this situation did was allow people to think they have the slightest clue how all of this works, and shouldn’t even be talking about it, and they keep lipping and parroting talking points best held out for the ignorant media.

So what you’re saying is that you’d go and upset your investors even more, by purchasing more room to park aircraft? Wow. It would serve 0 purpose after this ordeal. I don’t think you realize what is needed in order to park aircraft. You’ll need a runway for 1. And 2. You’ll need A LOT of property for it to even be useful or make a dent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But property to park 100 or so aircraft or interrupting production for 2 months if it’s coming back in February? Interrupting a supply chain is a very difficulty thing to do, what’s even more difficult is starting it up again. Not only do they have their supply chain, but all the supply chains that supply their supply chain and ones that supply those ones as well. I’d rather buy more parking... if it was only for 2 months. How upset will investors get when the supply chain struggles to reach its previous rate and efficiency. That’s a problem they’ll be dealing with for a lot longer than paying for parking.

A system design is not fully done and final until testing is done. If the design was all done in the summer, testing should be done by now, or it should at least submitted for regulatory review. If the system is good enough to be intensively tested, it’s good enough to submit for review and there would be a somewhat certain timeframe for RTS, but we don’t have this.

Dare I ask why you call the crybabies? Is it the families of the 346 deceased? Is it those of us that think MCAS is approaching criminal negligence or worse? Is it those of us that want people and corporations to be held accountable for what they do and don’t do? Is it those of us that want the law upheld? Is it those of us that want safety put first no matter the cost?

Dare I also ask what authority you are on saying someone has or does not have any business taking about the 737 MAX? Judging by the way you word you replies (all emotion, all attacks on people, and devoid of logic) and the fallacious things you say, you aren’t an authority and maybe even fit into the group you are talking about here.
par13del wrote:
Except the FAA told Boeing to zip it and unofficial quotes of FAA personnel is that Feb-Mar2020 while EASA spokespersons say Feb 2020, so since Boeing missed RTS of September, 4tr Qtr 2019 all while producing 40+ per month, how much longer should they go?

The FAA and the foreign regulators are being called upon to ensure that the proper paperwork is completed and the a/c is verified safe, the 400+ frames sitting down are 9 months of production, they will ensure that if RTS is given by April or May, Boeing can start delivering a/c to clients while restarting the line, the billions they save on line closure will ensure that they can pay their compensation claims on a timely basis, and the value of those claims go up daily as the grounding continues.
Again, don’t you think interrupting a supply chain of this size is also going to cost billions, especially if the RTS is delayed any further? The excuse given from Boeing from before when they hinted at maybe shutting down production was, if I understand correctly, that if they continued to not be able to get a solid timeframe for RTS they would halt production... well it’s going to halt.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:55 pm

With the massive amounts of aircraft parking still available in the desert, and the massive disruptions caused by a production halt - I think there's something else going on behind the production stop.

It's not lack of parking, even though that's an issue.. parking is an easier puzzle to solve than the consequences of a complete stop in production.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:56 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
With the massive amounts of aircraft parking still available in the desert, and the massive disruptions caused by a production halt - I think there's something else going on behind the production stop.

It's not lack of parking, even though that's an issue.. parking is an easier puzzle to solve than the consequences of a complete stop in production.


Exactly!
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:00 pm

aerolimani wrote:
Nick1209 wrote:
lowbank wrote:



Temporarily suspended because they’re running out of room to put them. Boeing has already announced whats taking so long. They’re testing this new system for up to 1,500 hours. 800+ flights. And it’ll have three layers of protection. You can even see these test flights on Flight radar.

Surely, a great deal of these 800+ test flights are actually sim flights done in the engineering cab simulator. I've noticed that Boeing tends to refer to such sim flights no differently than actual flights.



Yes
Sim flights

Basically worthless

It shows what you programm into
Not how the plane behaves
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:13 pm

RayChuang wrote:
I have this increasing feeling that Boeing is approaching the point of seriously scrapping the 737 MAX program altogether. This means scrapping circa 600 airframes, and the cost would be so daunting that Boeing may be forced into bankruptcy just to protect itself from potential lawsuits from the likes of Southwest and Ryanair. Unfortunately, this plane scrapping and bankruptcy could end up causing a mild US recession as its effects ripple through the US economy.

Boeing will likely need a US government loan guarantee of around $10 billion so it could finally develop a true 737/757 successor using technology already developed for the 787--essentially dusting off the research from the Yellowstone 1 studies of circa 2003-2009. The resulting plane will look like a reduced-size version of a 787.



I had never even thought that was possibility until this morning. I think now, with the CEO change and the documents turned over to Congress the Max and maybe also the NG are essentially done for as go forward aircraft models.

And am starting to wonder how Boeing survives this and how long is it all to take, until they are essentially producing new aircraft with public and regulatory confidence? 5 years, 10 years?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9634
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:34 pm

Less drama please. Boeing will survive, the MAX will fly again but the new CEO faces a hell of a challenge turning the company culture around and find a new leadership team.On the other hand maybe this is the reason behind the production halt, maybe the naysayers have found somebody willing to listen and Boeing is willing to clean shop first.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:36 pm

Then buy a lot of stock.....If I owned any I think i'd sell it all tomorrow.
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:45 pm

seahawk wrote:
Less drama please. Boeing will survive, the MAX will fly again


How can you be so sure the MAX will fly again? Do you have information we don't?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:46 pm

Halting production could end up really nasty. Is Boeing paying the suppliers to stay in line?

Especially second and third tier suppliers could find new contracts and start producing different stuff and this will hurt Boeing a lot as this leads to time consuming search and certification costs to find replacement. Same goes for first tier. If CFM knows it will have to stop Leap-b production for 6 months they might turn parts of the line into other Leap products, especially if Airbus foots the bill for the transition.

Others might go out of business if they do not get money or find different buyers.

Spirit can focus on the new acquisition in Belfast and reduce 737 output and that might be a reduction that lasts for a long time if the capacity is shifted permanently.
 
airnorth
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:06 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
airnorth wrote:
Air Canada flew theirs to the desert within what I would call "normal" conditions.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Do any of those examples include
a) a heavy fuel load
b) a heavy passenger load (or indeed any pax at all)

airnorth wrote:
I never suggested any kind of fuel load or payload you did. You brought it up,

Mea culpa, you are correct. However you used the description "normal conditions", without sufficient qualification. Undoubtedly you knew what you meant, but to others it suggests everything was normal. Maybe that was accidental, but these MAX threads are full of such ambiguous comments, and many of them are deliberately misleading. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I was only pointing to examples of flights that were flying a normal profile, who cares what the payload was, what difference would it make?

Whoah there - are you actually serious? :roll:
For a start, the initial climb-out would be different - maybe 10 minutes to reach FL280, instead of 20 minutes.
Or lower throttle settings, therefore less tendency to pitch up from badly positioned engines, one of the things MCAS was designed to mitigate.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this basic phenomenon.

airnorth wrote:
At what point in the payload range does a flight become normal anyway, is there a scale for that?
Oh dear!
The flight does not "become" normal; it is normal from start to finish providing it reflects normal day-to-day operation (which covers a wide range)
These AC flights, and many others since the grounding that were only short hops taking off at less than 55t (est) and landing at 47t (est) are in no way comparable to normal AC flights that could take off at closer to 82t MTOW, and land six hours later at 64t.

Very occasionally, in normal service conditions, a MAX will genuinely fly a short positioning flight, more or less empty. But either side of that will be many more longer, heavier flights. The average will be closer to MTOW than OEW, but the whole range should be examined. Unless you are trying to obscure the truth. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

airnorth wrote:
I will say its strange if you don't consider an empty unladen aircraft "normal".
Yes, perfectly normal... for an unladen aircraft.
But I have this nagging feeling the certification authorities (and anybody with a morsel of commonsense) would prefer to see data relevant to real life, right up to MTOW (and probably 5-10% on top of that)
And I don't think you will find too many people here suggesting that is unreasonable.. At a wild guess, a laden aircraft handles somewhat differently.... don't you think?
But if you could assure me that my next flight on a MAX as a passenger is with the aircraft empty apart from the two guys up front, and myself as the only passenger, then I'll accept your supposition that a heavy payload makes no difference.

Anyway, just to clarify the facts, the flight history is clear, all of these flights were completely normal flight profiles for a 737 MAX.
"Completely normal"
Yeah, whatever..... :white:


I won't post the links because it seems that most people do not have access to historical data, but if you do ever have access, its worth a look at other flight profiles. But here are the numbers:
C-FTJV performed the following two flights, one ferry flight from Montreal to Marana, on Sept 16 2019, flight time approx 4:58, the second was a flight from Hawaii to Vancouver on March 12 2019, flight time approx 5:21. I have no idea what the payload was, but lets assume on the flight from Hawaii to Vancouver there were some passengers, just because it was spring break time, and it is typically a busy route at that time of year. The data shows the ferry flight reaching cruising altitude of FL 380 approx 24 mins after takeoff. The flight from Lihue Hawaii to Vancouver, took approx 24 mins to reach FL 370. Both profiles look almost identical.I imagine there are some restrictions around airspace and assigned routes, but, man it is hard to tell which one is a ferry flight from the graphs and data.
What does this prove? I have no idea, just presenting some facts.
On second thought, here is the link, a subsription may be required to see the data, sorry about that.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/c-ftjv#
Merry Christmas if you participate in that, if not, Happy Holidays.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:22 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
With the massive amounts of aircraft parking still available in the desert, and the massive disruptions caused by a production halt - I think there's something else going on behind the production stop.

It's not lack of parking, even though that's an issue.. parking is an easier puzzle to solve than the consequences of a complete stop in production.

Thank you! My point exactly. I don’t pretend to know exactly why they are stopping production, but I don’t buy that it’s because parking undelivered aircraft is too expensive. How about all those retired aircraft? Who pays for that parking and surely if that parking was expensive it wouldn’t be feasible to park a retired aircraft.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:38 pm

767333ER wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
With the massive amounts of aircraft parking still available in the desert, and the massive disruptions caused by a production halt - I think there's something else going on behind the production stop.

It's not lack of parking, even though that's an issue.. parking is an easier puzzle to solve than the consequences of a complete stop in production.

Thank you! My point exactly. I don’t pretend to know exactly why they are stopping production, but I don’t buy that it’s because parking undelivered aircraft is too expensive. How about all those retired aircraft? Who pays for that parking and surely if that parking was expensive it wouldn’t be feasible to park a retired aircraft.


Perhaps they realized it's better to stop production since it's dawned on them that the MAX may never fly again?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1507
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:40 pm

767333ER wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
With the massive amounts of aircraft parking still available in the desert, and the massive disruptions caused by a production halt - I think there's something else going on behind the production stop.

It's not lack of parking, even though that's an issue.. parking is an easier puzzle to solve than the consequences of a complete stop in production.

Thank you! My point exactly. I don’t pretend to know exactly why they are stopping production, but I don’t buy that it’s because parking undelivered aircraft is too expensive. How about all those retired aircraft? Who pays for that parking and surely if that parking was expensive it wouldn’t be feasible to park a retired aircraft.

Since grounding, Boeing have been assembling / building aircraft for which they hold milestone payments, so were only partially funding the build.

The point has been reached where post December 2019, Boeing would be building aircraft with zero / almost zero milestone payments (except minimal deposits), so would be almost 100% funding every aircraft, including in the case or turnkey sales, engines too.

No-one is making milestone payments (except Boeing Capital), including specialist pre-shipment financiers, and even Boeing 'friends' who fund pre-shipment finance internally.

Paying for, and finding storage, is the least of their problems.

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