Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AvFanNJ
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:47 pm

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:33 pm

Nothing posted in this thread has changed my opinion that the MAX will be safe to fly once recertified by ALL aviation regulators, however long that takes. I also think the notions in here that regulators will force a major structural and aerodynamic redesign of the airplane are grossly over speculative. I also think the proclamations of some in here that they'd NEVER fly this airplane despite signoffs by all of those regulators are utterly absurd. They're entitled to do whatever they want but given the unprecedented scrutiny this airplane has been subjected to over the last 9 1/2 months, that position will lie outside of rationality. That said, Boeing STILL needs to explain to the flying public, which will in large numbers shun the MAX despite what I said above, just HOW this calamity came to pass. So far, it hasn't, at least in any news story or press release I've read. I think it's necessary from a PR standpoint that they do this. Ex CEO Muilenburg never seemed to get a handle on that, unless some of what he told Congress was hidden from the public. I'm not cutting Boeing any slack on this; it's an unmitigated disaster that will marginalize them for years over the reputational damage done. Prior to this mess, the MAX had a good chance of holding a 40 to 45% market share for the next few years until increasing demand for the A321NEO pushed it down. Now, it will likely be lucky to hold onto barely more than a third of that market after the current backlog of MAX deliveries are made. So coming clean with the flying public over just how this crisis came to be is essential to even begin to win back confidence. For many, I concede worldwide regulatory recertification will not be enough, however irrational that seems to me. So Boeing NEEDS to, regardless of their supposed legal counsel's advice, put out a press release to the general public explaining WHY the MCAS's errant implementation wasn't caught and corrected in flight tests PRIOR to service entry. That, as a necessary first step, followed by explanations of the corrective processes pursued under mandate to get the airplane returned to service. However painful and ill advised their lawyers may well consider it, I think that would be the most prudent and proper initial measure for Boeing to take to begin the long process of repairing such extensive reputational damage.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:38 pm

planecane wrote:
PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
So please explain why the 737NG has a lower fatality rate than the A320 then.

Perhaps, because in your numbers the oldest A320 is era 1988, and the oldest 737 is era 1998.
Newer generation planes usually are significantly more safe than older generation planes (the Max being the only odd one out).
If you would add the 737-300/400/500/600 series to your numbers, you'll find that the A320 series now all of a sudden has a lower fatality rate than the 737. So please explain that . . .
I have noticed you playing these numbers before, and I mentioned this to you before. But for some reason you continue to spread the misguided information.


The 10 year difference in service doesn't matter to the hull loss statistics since both have had well over a million departures. The 737NG is statistically as safe as the A320 series. There were pretty significant changes between the 737 classic series and the NG. The classic series was not as safe as the NG or A320. Part of that was due to the rudder reversal flaw that was mitigated pretty early in the NG service life but caused two hull losses in the classic. The glass cockpit might also be a factor that improves safety.


10 years difference in service history does indeed not change much given the millions of flight hours. Most statistical inaccuracies should have largely balanced out. But that was not my point.

The point is that any new generation plane introduces an improved level of safety. The 10 years difference in EIS between original A320 and 737NG is half a generation. The advances in those 10 years benefits the NG if you do a comparison to the 320ceo.

Mind you, with the continuous improvements Airbus made to the A320 over its life, most of those advances that benefitted the NG (compared to the original A320) were also adopted by Airbus on new build 320s. But the older 320 did not benefit to the full degree.

And no, I'm not trying to bash the NG safety numbers. I agree that they are very good and perfectly in line with industry norm during its production life. I’m just pointing out that you can’t really compare a 1988 A320 to a 1998 NG and then compare their respective safety records. Because of the 10 year difference in technology advances. If that wouldn’t matter, then surely there would be no problem in adding the -300/400/500/600 to the equation. After all, the difference in EIS between to the A320 is less than four years. It would be a much more accurate comparison than the 10 years difference between the 320 and 737NG EIS . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
If they had allowed one more exception as the Transport Canada employee speculated then we might never have been having this conversation.

Unless the MAX has some bizarre undisclosed handling issue other than what has so far been reported the MAX would probably have been a lot better off and have in reality about the same level of safety as the A320 and 737. No huge redesign needed.


Agree that without MCAS, we would not have this discussion. And that the MAX safety record would be much nicer than we are seeing today (two complete fatal accidents in less than 200 000 flights is unheard of ever since de Havilland Comet).

BUT, that still does not meet that it's safety level would be acceptable to today’s standard. And apparently it wouldn’t. If it would, I have no doubt that Boeing would long ago have released the unaugmented flight characteristics and stick force gradient curves. If only to put pressure on the FAA . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
A murkier way of certification is hardly imaginable.


This happens with all Aircraft - lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted.

Here is the 337 Page Document from the A380 certification listing all it's deviations from the Standards.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2003.pdf

The A380 is a very good example of "neutral [longitudinal] stability within the normal flight envelope" (see page 10) done by FBW system. This require highly reliable and redundant powers, sensors, computers, networks, and actuators. The 737 MAX would have certainly be a very safe aircraft if Boeing have taken that FBW system design from the start (as for the 777 and 787). But to make that choice Boeing needed to cancel the MAX==NG requirement and accept the additional cost of a new type rating. Retrospectively, this would have been one of the best decision. But the additional billions required for that plan was perceived as a lost compare to the actual MAX design and probably nobody back then foresee the actual consequences experienced today.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27238
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:17 pm

PW100 wrote:
Agree that without MCAS, we would not have this discussion.


Even with MCAS we would not be having this discussion if Boeing had properly documented how it worked in the FCOM so air crews would know how it could impact the plane's performance. I'd also argue that Boeing should not have acquiesced to airline contractual language that said no additional crew training should be necessary on pain of financial penalty which incentivized Boeing to both create MCAS and then keep as quiet as possible about it to regulators and customers.
 
asdf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:24 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
A murkier way of certification is hardly imaginable.


This happens with all Aircraft - lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted.

Here is the 337 Page Document from the A380 certification listing all it's deviations from the Standards.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2003.pdf


As far as i have learned european goverment agencies every singel deviation has to be explained and documented and then it has been proofen that the summary of all deviations has no impact on safety

Nothing wrong with it that way
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14006
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:25 pm

par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
par13del wrote:
The bigger concern is what is the FAA doing about it, they already know about this since they were a part of the process, and this news was revealed months ago.
As I said in another post, what is new versus different reporters rehashing the same story.


The fact it was revealed doesn't justifying ignoring it in any way?

This isn't Keeping Up with the Kardashians, where old shows are replaced by new ones & forgotten.

It hasn't, the CEO was fired, production stopped.

Timelines are unclear while specialist try to find a way out while it looks worse the better they look.

When Boeing started pushing like they became used to, Muilenburg was shown the door. Probably not by Boeing themselves.

I will wait until folks start asking the congress and the FAA why these revelations that have been out PRIOR to the CEO termination and PRIOR to the announcement of a production shut down have been ignored or not publicly commented on, forcing additional reporters to once again make the revelations public, that seems to be the only thing that is working.
Did anything actually come out of the hearings on Capital Hill, any commitments, any new representatives sending letters to the FAA on not allowing the MAX to fly, Boeing to be reigned in, etc etc etc. transparency is needed by all involved, or just Boeing who have been told to shut up?


Boeing lobbied the hell out of Congress & got what they wanted. Delegation, streamlining to improve the competitiveness of the US industry (Boeing). Flight Safety became the #5(?)priority.

It was kicked off by congress at the start of 737MAX and 777x development. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... 202012.pdf

In 2017 Congress’ GOA concluded FAA was on the right track, but should also try harder to stop EASA “recertifying” FAA certification, simply rubber stamp. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683649.pdf

So embarrasing, it is hard to believe now. Congress will go a long way to keep this out of mainstream media. Together with Boeing and FAA. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... needs-look

All is well documented (thanks Google). But hard to acknowledge, accept for many. Takes time.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:57 pm

PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
PW100 wrote:
The less stable a platform (aerodynamically, mechanically, electrically, or whatever), the less effort is needed to take it out of the stable condition.
That effort could be control force (control column), but also atmospheric disturbance (turbulence).


So would you agree that sometimes Turbulence causes the controls to get a little lighter than allowed even with an aircraft that has stick force that increases as per regulation?

There are several ways that can disturb a stable condition. Turbulence is certainly one of them. And yes, that does happen on other aircraft as well.
The problem with the Max is if that happens in certain parts of the operational flight envelope, then that is in addition to the lack of natural stability margin. And it is not evident that normal airline pilots are expected to be able to handle such situation.

This is something that Pilots have to be able to cope with and is ably demonstrated and experienced when you are piddling around in an 172 as it gets moved around a lot more than a 737.

That is all fine and well. But that still assumes that the aircraft has a certain stability margin and associated flight characteristics. Which the Max apparently doesn't have at certain parts of its flight envelope. Or in other words, to continue with your example, it would be OK for the Max as long as it does not meet that level of turbulence. Which is not a realistic scenario of course.


I guess you have never flown a 172 in turbulence - the stick force can go negative. This is absolutely something a pilot is expected to be able to handle and why it is drilled incessantly into you in training to not rely on the feel - rely on the instruments and outside visual reference.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7089
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:39 am

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
This happens with all Aircraft - lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted.

Here is the 337 Page Document from the A380 certification listing all it's deviations from the Standards.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2003.pdf

That would represent a lot of things to re-examine for "un-grandfathering" and I bet many aircraft have similar lists.

All aircraft have such a list. It is an annex to the type certificate detailing HOW the plane meets the regulation.

Many rules are "generic rules" telling what characteristics must be met. Obviously many such characteristics may be met in multiple ways. This annex tells how they were met for this specific plane, and sometimes what test method to be used to verify compliancy.

morrissond makes it look as it is purely a listing of deviations from the standards. Read it, and you will notice that it is not the case.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
hivue
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:03 am

PixelFlight wrote:
The 737 MAX would have certainly be a very safe aircraft if Boeing have taken that FBW system design from the start (as for the 777 and 787). But to make that choice Boeing needed to cancel the MAX==NG requirement and accept the additional cost of a new type rating.


I suppose you could make the DC-3 a FBW airplane if you spent enough money and worked at it hard enough. The "additional cost of a new type rating" for the MAX would have been the least of Boeing's challenges if they had tried to go that route.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
speedking
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:09 am

asdf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:

this seems to be the point

boeing seems to be used to NOT show compliance to the regulator but only declare something as "compliant" by themselves
and as documentation only assessment, assumptions, comparative disclosures, comparability estimates ....
but no proofs of compliance

that brought boeing and its stakeholders in the last decades significant competitive advantages and massive savings
and it brought a higher risk of an accident and after a few decades now the trap has snapped shut with the 737MAx accidents

and the only thing what both, FAA and boeing does not seem to know is what of all those NOT proofed modifications of the 737 in the last decades need to be proofen now for the first time

from my point of view there are a view modifications and grandfatherings of the 737 series which are simply not proof able
the low-G hull for example can never be a grandfathering issue, can it?
you can grandfather a previous technical solution to make sure that the change to a new technical solution is not maybe unsafer as to keep the previous one
but how can it be more safe to keep a 5G hull if a 16G hull is the technical standard ....?
thats simply physics
it can never be more safe

so I can see very clearly where they have a problem in communication about what to proof ...


So please explain why the 737NG has a lower fatality rate than the A320 then?

As has been argued many times on this forum by others the 737NG has a perfectly acceptable safety record with most of the same grandfathering that the MAX has.


the 737NG has a solide safety record

but what is wrong with a 16G hull?
why did FAA demand a 16G hull long ago in the regulations and enforced it on every (foreign) certification all over the world if it is useless ?

the better is the enemy of the good
a 16G hull secures the PAX and crews a lot more then a 5G hull

(note: if a 737 breaks during a crash landing, it always collapses at a certain area of the hull. PAX pros avoid those seatrows as far as possible, for a good reason. that is the difference between a 5G hull and a 16G hull)

edit: sorry, i read backwards usually, I didn't get that 767333ER has brought exactly that point a few postings before ....


Thank you for this information. Could you share which seat rows should be avoided? Which airplanes have the safer 16G hull?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:52 am

prebennorholm wrote:
Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
This happens with all Aircraft - lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted.

Here is the 337 Page Document from the A380 certification listing all it's deviations from the Standards.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2003.pdf

That would represent a lot of things to re-examine for "un-grandfathering" and I bet many aircraft have similar lists.

All aircraft have such a list. It is an annex to the type certificate detailing HOW the plane meets the regulation.

Many rules are "generic rules" telling what characteristics must be met. Obviously many such characteristics may be met in multiple ways. This annex tells how they were met for this specific plane, and sometimes what test method to be used to verify compliancy.

morrissond makes it look as it is purely a listing of deviations from the standards. Read it, and you will notice that it is not the case.


That's what I said "lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted". Nothing meets the rules perfectly and there are many comprimises in airliner design.

Yes MCAS was a way to meet a rule.
Last edited by morrisond on Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:53 am

speedking wrote:
asdf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So please explain why the 737NG has a lower fatality rate than the A320 then?

As has been argued many times on this forum by others the 737NG has a perfectly acceptable safety record with most of the same grandfathering that the MAX has.


the 737NG has a solide safety record

but what is wrong with a 16G hull?
why did FAA demand a 16G hull long ago in the regulations and enforced it on every (foreign) certification all over the world if it is useless ?

the better is the enemy of the good
a 16G hull secures the PAX and crews a lot more then a 5G hull

(note: if a 737 breaks during a crash landing, it always collapses at a certain area of the hull. PAX pros avoid those seatrows as far as possible, for a good reason. that is the difference between a 5G hull and a 16G hull)

edit: sorry, i read backwards usually, I didn't get that 767333ER has brought exactly that point a few postings before ....


Thank you for this information. Could you share which seat rows should be avoided? Which airplanes have the safer 16G hull?


It is not a 16G hull rule - that is false information. It is a 16G seat and Floor rule - there is a big difference.
 
Chemist
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:55 am

Stitch wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Agree that without MCAS, we would not have this discussion.


Even with MCAS we would not be having this discussion if Boeing had properly documented how it worked in the FCOM so air crews would know how it could impact the plane's performance. I'd also argue that Boeing should not have acquiesced to airline contractual language that said no additional crew training should be necessary on pain of financial penalty which incentivized Boeing to both create MCAS and then keep as quiet as possible about it to regulators and customers.


This might be a chicken-or-egg argument, but do we have any actual evidence that the "no training" requirement was airline-originated? Or was it Boeing marketing-originated to create a competitive advantage? Or some mutual discussion and agreement between Boeing and one or more airlines?

Let's not claim that it's one or more airlines' "fault" as if Boeing wasn't culpable, if we don't have evidence to that effect. For all we know, Boeing was the originator of the "no sim training" requirement.
 
art
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:56 am

In a nutshell I see Boeing as an organisation whose ethos changed from one of making airplanes and money to one of making money and airplanes.

To me the origin of the current disaster lies therein.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:05 am

The FAA just needs to hand out a waiver for the stick pressure requirements, Boeing does not need MCAS, the plane can fly again. If the will would be there, it could be done in hours.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:25 am

We‘d need to know first how a MAX without protections flies.

Those predictable stick forces are formally required by FARs. Therefore hard if not impossible to get a waiver around them.

Shouldn’t Boeing solve the problem and not the FAA?
 
art
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:49 am

seahawk wrote:
The FAA just needs to hand out a waiver for the stick pressure requirements, Boeing does not need MCAS, the plane can fly again. If the will would be there, it could be done in hours.


You mean FAR should apply where the OEM can meet them but should not apply if the OEM cannot? Interesting idea but not one I see being adopted.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:17 am

Chemist wrote:
This might be a chicken-or-egg argument, but do we have any actual evidence that the "no training" requirement was airline-originated? Or was it Boeing marketing-originated to create a competitive advantage? Or some mutual discussion and agreement between Boeing and one or more airlines?

Let's not claim that it's one or more airlines' "fault" as if Boeing wasn't culpable, if we don't have evidence to that effect. For all we know, Boeing was the originator of the "no sim training" requirement.


Either way, I don't think Boeing had a choice. Airbus was offering a convenient no-training upgrade with the NEO. All customers had to do was buy the airplane and seamlessly add it to the fleet.

The pressure on Boeing to offer the same was enormous.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:37 am

morrisond wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
Revelation wrote:
That would represent a lot of things to re-examine for "un-grandfathering" and I bet many aircraft have similar lists.

All aircraft have such a list. It is an annex to the type certificate detailing HOW the plane meets the regulation.

Many rules are "generic rules" telling what characteristics must be met. Obviously many such characteristics may be met in multiple ways. This annex tells how they were met for this specific plane, and sometimes what test method to be used to verify compliancy.

morrissond makes it look as it is purely a listing of deviations from the standards. Read it, and you will notice that it is not the case.


That's what I said "lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted". Nothing meets the rules perfectly and there are many comprimises in airliner design.

The context in which you said that was completely different. Having reread the initial post (#5622 by mjoelnir) to which you replied, I don't understand how that compares in any way to the A380 document you posted.

I guess in these long threads with mutiple different (side-) discussions going on at the same time, it's easy to lose track . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11137
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

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

Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:19 am

Please continue discussion in Boeing 737MAX Grounded, General Discussion Thread January 2020

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437867
Forum Moderator

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