Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
upright
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:01 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:04 pm

Remarkable in this new interview 24.02.2020 >>> Exclusive: Boeing CEO David Calhoun on the company's relationship with the FAA <<<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwPyhMZeJSM
as Calhoun saying to be an absolute “fan” of a public official Steve Dickson (FAA), who only keeps promising him a RTS again an again.
Perhaps Calhoun's words “fan of Steve Dickson” just slipped out, because in his position, no one should mention such an high position authority chief being a fan of, as not a pop star or Warren Buffett.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:26 pm

I agree with the posters who disagree with the line that nobody will care about the kind of plane they are flying (or a negligible percentage cares) once the MAX returns to service. I also agree that any move like Ryan Air's to hide from people what kind of plane they are flying will backfire, not only commercially but maybe even legally. It is not hard to see some European consumer groups lobby for legislation mandating the disclosure of the type of airplane to passengers, maybe even a right to refuse to fly and get their money back. Most of the civilized world forces food manufacturers to disclose fat, sugar, salt etc. content in food, does anyone really believe some of those jurisdictions are not going to say, wait a second, we believe that someone has a right to know how much saturated fat her ice-cream contains, but not the kind of plane she is going to fly on? Hiding from passengers that they will be flying a MAX is one of the most ill-advised ideas I have heard in a while and I do not believe that it will actually be tried.

The reason is simple: people will not care what kind of plane they are flying unless they are aviation geeks when all planes are flying happily with the odd runway excursion, accidental SAM shoot-down once in a while. That attitude changes immediately when the same new plane type starts acting like a dolphin in the air and crashes itself twice within a couple of months. To think that the former and the latter situations will elicit the same reaction from the public is...I do not want to be rude, so I will just say unrealistic. The horse is out of the barn or the cat is out of the bag, people will simply not react as though they have never heard of the two crashes. A lot of people might, but, then again, a lot of people will not.

I believe Boeing and the airlines actually know this and if I were a betting man, I would say they are working on some sort of a plan for doing this right way, which may go something like:

1. Have extensive test flights, more than the necessary minimum and rack up some numbers.
2. Place some high-profile folks from Boeing and the airlines in some of the test flights (and no, not their families, who are not chattel) and publicize it. I would even look to have a few high level Airbus execs on some highly-publicized flights. It would be both in their interest to help and would be the right thing to do. People love a "CEO of Boeing and Airbus got on a MAX and took a flight from Seattle to Chicago and discussing the future of the industry" type news.
3. Start re-introduction of the MAX on routes where there are alternatives (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, turboprops, whatever, but a non-MAX alternative) and tell people clearly that the MAX is a MAX and they have an alternative.
4. Make the re-introduction gradual, do not leave any route as a MAX only route for a year or two. Keep racking up the numbers and hours of safe flight.
5. At some point, when the numbers are there, come back and say "the re-certified plane is where the NG was or the 320 was x years after those planes entered into service."

These are just some ideas from someone who is only a flier. Some of them maybe completely unworkable, but I am sure there are other and much better ideas. And obviously, this all assumes everybody involved at Boeing and the FAA really believe the "plane is safe." Otherwise, you come out, bite the bullet and close the program. If the plane is safe and Boeing and the airlines using MAX offer an honest approach, the trust will eventually come back. There are no shortcuts to re-establishing lost trust. Any attempt at finding them will only cause its further erosion.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:32 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?


I think if you do the math, despite the numerous engine shut downs, the rate per flight (hour) is still very very very very low.

You'd be exceptionally unlucky to have two in one flight.

However MSPNWA turns that 180° around around and now calls it very lucky they did not have two A350 gliding down into the ocean.

One can't argue against flawed logic.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:18 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
FOD has also been discovered in the KC-46A tanker, and some 787s that have been built in South Carolina.


It's likely FOD has been found (and present but not found) somewhere in at least a few examples of essentially every airplane ever produced.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:25 pm

Forgedias wrote:
I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.


Wow. If you are right then the airlines -- who are absolutely stuck with the MAX -- are going to have to be giving seats away to get the public back into the MAX. Where is the line for the free tickets? I've got places I want to go.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
chicawgo
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:54 pm

NonTechAvLover wrote:
I agree with the posters who disagree with the line that nobody will care about the kind of plane they are flying (or a negligible percentage cares) once the MAX returns to service. I also agree that any move like Ryan Air's to hide from people what kind of plane they are flying will backfire, not only commercially but maybe even legally. It is not hard to see some European consumer groups lobby for legislation mandating the disclosure of the type of airplane to passengers, maybe even a right to refuse to fly and get their money back. Most of the civilized world forces food manufacturers to disclose fat, sugar, salt etc. content in food, does anyone really believe some of those jurisdictions are not going to say, wait a second, we believe that someone has a right to know how much saturated fat her ice-cream contains, but not the kind of plane she is going to fly on? Hiding from passengers that they will be flying a MAX is one of the most ill-advised ideas I have heard in a while and I do not believe that it will actually be tried.

The reason is simple: people will not care what kind of plane they are flying unless they are aviation geeks when all planes are flying happily with the odd runway excursion, accidental SAM shoot-down once in a while. That attitude changes immediately when the same new plane type starts acting like a dolphin in the air and crashes itself twice within a couple of months. To think that the former and the latter situations will elicit the same reaction from the public is...I do not want to be rude, so I will just say unrealistic. The horse is out of the barn or the cat is out of the bag, people will simply not react as though they have never heard of the two crashes. A lot of people might, but, then again, a lot of people will not.

I believe Boeing and the airlines actually know this and if I were a betting man, I would say they are working on some sort of a plan for doing this right way, which may go something like:

1. Have extensive test flights, more than the necessary minimum and rack up some numbers.
2. Place some high-profile folks from Boeing and the airlines in some of the test flights (and no, not their families, who are not chattel) and publicize it. I would even look to have a few high level Airbus execs on some highly-publicized flights. It would be both in their interest to help and would be the right thing to do. People love a "CEO of Boeing and Airbus got on a MAX and took a flight from Seattle to Chicago and discussing the future of the industry" type news.
3. Start re-introduction of the MAX on routes where there are alternatives (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, turboprops, whatever, but a non-MAX alternative) and tell people clearly that the MAX is a MAX and they have an alternative.
4. Make the re-introduction gradual, do not leave any route as a MAX only route for a year or two. Keep racking up the numbers and hours of safe flight.
5. At some point, when the numbers are there, come back and say "the re-certified plane is where the NG was or the 320 was x years after those planes entered into service."

These are just some ideas from someone who is only a flier. Some of them maybe completely unworkable, but I am sure there are other and much better ideas. And obviously, this all assumes everybody involved at Boeing and the FAA really believe the "plane is safe." Otherwise, you come out, bite the bullet and close the program. If the plane is safe and Boeing and the airlines using MAX offer an honest approach, the trust will eventually come back. There are no shortcuts to re-establishing lost trust. Any attempt at finding them will only cause its further erosion.


You make several strong points and actually, some of the items on your list of recommendations have already been announced. I know the CEO of UA said he would be on the first post-RTS MAX flight. Thee FAA chief said it wouldn't be approved until he feels 100% comfortable flying his entire family on it, etc. So I think your list is correct and all of those things will happen as mentioned.

However, I think your thoughts on how much average fliers will care are incorrect. First of all, your analogy to ingredients in food is not a correct analogy. The name of a plane can be whatever the company wants it to be. If you think that airlines should be required to notify pax of its previous name and offer them the chance to switch, I'm open to that. But a company or airline can absolutely name a plane whatever they want. I would refer you to ValuJet (aka Airtran) who changed their name after a disaster that was explicitly blamed on the airline and was reported as such at length by the media. So then should Airtran have been required to disclaim in perpetuity "formerly known as ValuJet that killed 110 people due to loading unapproved explosive cargo on a passenger flight?" Regardless, no one really cared and Airtran went on to be a successful airline for many years until being bought by Southwest. I never flew on Airtran because of the ValuJet crash, but I'm an aviation enthusiast and not like most people.

I would also refer you to airlines around the world with seriously bad safety records. As long as the price is right, there are no shortage of people buying tickets and flying these airlines.

Will there be MORE people than normal paying attention and researching once MAX comes back? Yes, I think so. But it's not going to be any remarkable portion. If there's one thing we should know from history, humans often do not act in rational ways that you think they would in many situations.

I will say that if there is any additional crash within a few years after RTS that will absolutely be it. But again, that probably would be more due to regulators and the media than actual knowledge of what airplane fliers are flying on.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:46 pm

hivue wrote:
Forgedias wrote:
I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.


Wow. If you are right then the airlines -- who are absolutely stuck with the MAX -- are going to have to be giving seats away to get the public back into the MAX. Where is the line for the free tickets? I've got places I want to go.

Maybe not free - but half price may be a good idea for a while.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:55 pm

kalvado wrote:
hivue wrote:
Forgedias wrote:
I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.


Wow. If you are right then the airlines -- who are absolutely stuck with the MAX -- are going to have to be giving seats away to get the public back into the MAX. Where is the line for the free tickets? I've got places I want to go.

Maybe not free - but half price may be a good idea for a while.

Expect a law suit for unfair trade and discrimination in 1...2...3...4.....
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:00 pm

scbriml wrote:


Boeing's FOD issue is not limited to just the MAX.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... inspected/


From the article --
Regarding the additional 385 MAXs that were delivered to customers but have been grounded for almost a year and are parked at airfields around the world, company spokesman Bernard Choi said Boeing is recommending inspections for those airplanes that have been in storage for more than a year.


"Almost a year" and "more than a year" is inconsistent. Exactly which MAXs does Boeing thinks have wing tank FOD issues and need inspections?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5848
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:05 pm

Would FOD in the tanks help the CoG issue in those MAX planes?
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:08 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Telling someone to put their personal feelings and financial gain aside (Dickson and his Delta stock) and do their job is not blackmail.



So, just to get this right, you are saying that Dickson of the FAA is punishing Boeing and keeping the MAX grounded as this helps his stock options with Delta.

So the FAA, without Dickson in charge, grounds the MAX on the 13th March 2019. He is nominated by Trump to become Administrator at the FAA on the 19th March 2019 and he is confirmed as FAA Administrator on the 24th July 2019. Delta share price at this time is at a record high for the last 10 years at around $62, but since his appointment it has gone down to the current price of $48 per share. So in the time he had any influence over the grounding the share price is down, but you think the grounding is good for Delta and their share price and this is why the plane is still grounded.

Do I have that right?
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:13 pm

enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Telling someone to put their personal feelings and financial gain aside (Dickson and his Delta stock) and do their job is not blackmail.



So, just to get this right, you are saying that Dickson of the FAA is punishing Boeing and keeping the MAX grounded as this helps his stock options with Delta.

So the FAA, without Dickson in charge, grounds the MAX on the 13th March 2019. He is nominated by Trump to become Administrator at the FAA on the 19th March 2019 and he is confirmed as FAA Administrator on the 24th July 2019. Delta share price at this time is at a record high for the last 10 years at around $62, but since his appointment it has gone down to the current price of $48 per share. So in the time he had any influence over the grounding the share price is down, but you think the grounding is good for Delta and their share price and this is why the plane is still grounded.

Do I have that right?


MSPNWA can exain it much better than I can. Look at their previous posts for the details.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:28 pm

kalvado wrote:
hivue wrote:
Wow. If you are right then the airlines -- who are absolutely stuck with the MAX -- are going to have to be giving seats away to get the public back into the MAX. Where is the line for the free tickets? I've got places I want to go.

Maybe not free - but half price may be a good idea for a while.

If for any reason the 737 MAX is about 14% less profitable for the operators that initially expected, this annihilate his existence justification against both the 737 NG and the A32x neo.
: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
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:29 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Telling someone to put their personal feelings and financial gain aside (Dickson and his Delta stock) and do their job is not blackmail.



So, just to get this right, you are saying that Dickson of the FAA is punishing Boeing and keeping the MAX grounded as this helps his stock options with Delta.

So the FAA, without Dickson in charge, grounds the MAX on the 13th March 2019. He is nominated by Trump to become Administrator at the FAA on the 19th March 2019 and he is confirmed as FAA Administrator on the 24th July 2019. Delta share price at this time is at a record high for the last 10 years at around $62, but since his appointment it has gone down to the current price of $48 per share. So in the time he had any influence over the grounding the share price is down, but you think the grounding is good for Delta and their share price and this is why the plane is still grounded.

Do I have that right?


MSPNWA can exain it much better than I can. Look at their previous posts for the details.


Okay, I will ask him but seeing as his posts after this doesn't specify why there is a conflict of interest and only says there may be, I suspect he will not be able to give of reasonable reason why keeping the MAX grounded is good for the Delta share price.

MSPNWA wrote:
Coming from DL means that he may not be unbiased and likely has a financial conflict of interest in the MAX grounding.


Can you explain why there is a conflict of interest and why the MAX is still grounded when the Delta share price has gone down since Dickson took over at the FAA and kept the MAX grounded?
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:59 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?


:checkmark: You perfectly understand the overall point.

Unfortunately I often see an answer to your questions change based on if its starts with an A or it starts with a B. It shouldn't. Personally I don't care what letter it is.

scbriml wrote:
What truth is there in unproven allegations of conflict of interest and gaining financially from the MAX grounding?

My opinion is the that FAA is doing a better job now because MAX (and Boing for that matter) is now getting the kind of scrutiny it should have had originally. The FAA did a piss-poor job originally and were rightly criticised for it.


You're either omitting the other reasons that multiple people have posted, or you simply haven't remember the posts (some in direct reply to you) detailing why. Knowing your constant presence in this thread, I suspect it's the former. I personally have not made those allegations. I have simply raised the potential, which are factual. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't consistently misstate my positions.

"Getting tough on Boeing" is not a good reason. It implies subjectivity. It implies there was or is uneven enforcement. A good regulator is supposed to be "tough" on everyone, applying the rules fairly and objectively, without bias to who it concerns. In order for increased scrutiny to be a good reason to suddenly fully trust in the FAA, it means the FAA wasn't doing what they should have been prior, and it means that the FAA is now "being fair" today by using the same scrutiny on Boeing as they do anyone else. We have no idea if the latter is true (the evidence leans otherwise), and the former is definitely not good for trustworthiness. To suddenly reverse your opinion (and normally it's a big change to go from distrusting to trusting) on an organization that you have to admit either wasn't scrutinizing fairly before or isn't fair today or wasn't and still isn't being fair as we speak is simply an unfounded belief. The trust in the FAA isn't based on evidence and reason. Instead it's consistent with the being based on emotions towards the parties involved. It appears that as long as the FAA is viewed as the enemy of my enemy, it's trustworthy to some. That isn't reasonable.

PepeTheFrog wrote:
I'm not sure why you believe two A350s would have been lost. Engine shutdowns are not a reason for an aircraft to crash. In case of dual engine failure, airplanes are designed to act like a glider.


Yeah, and what happens when you run out of altitude while gliding?

I didn't say "would have" been lost. What I said means "could have" - if they had some bad luck in the spills shutting down both engines, which the EASA says could happen. In the case of both DL159 and OZ751, the Inflight shutdowns occurred over large bodies of water. More research needs to be done to determine where there nearest suitable airport was when the failures occurred, but we do know that neither was nearby a suitable landing spot, and it's quite possible (if not certain) that one or both would have had to crash land or ditch in the best case scenario if both engines were shutdown. Sound safe to you? The whole point of ETOPS operations is that reliability has become so strong that it's extremely unlikely for an airplane to not reach a suitable runway in case of a problem. Clearly those were two very close calls that in a different scenario would have been tragic.

The point of that all that was regulators "gamble" all the time. The have to in a way. No airplane is 100% safe. There's always a risk or "gamble". The issue is what constitutes a reasonable gamble and one that isn't. I'm using this to contrast the current actions of the global regulators. They're busy with bit flips, wiring, and FOD on the MAX, keeping that on the ground, and all the while known potential dangers are flying everyday without a physical fix. I hope pilots follow the A350 EAD and don't spill. It begs questions. Are regulator actions based on probabilities of harm? Or are they somewhat based on luck or public image? Is keeping a plane grounded for remote possibilities a reasonable action?

PW100 wrote:
I think if you do the math, despite the numerous engine shut downs, the rate per flight (hour) is still very very very very low.

You'd be exceptionally unlucky to have two in one flight.

However MSPNWA turns that 180° around around and now calls it very lucky they did not have two A350 gliding down into the ocean.

One can't argue against flawed logic.


One spill and the A350 could lose both engines. You're not addressing that model. Regarding the A220. If you do the math on the chances that the cascade of events that led to an MCAS 1.0 crash, it's also very, very, very low. MCAS 2.0 adds many more "very"s. Winning the lottery doesn't mean the chances to win again are better than they were the first time. It may feel like it, but it's not reality. It's interesting but not surprising that you're finding excuses to treat the A220's known risk differently. You cannot deny the overall point being made.

So your conclusion of "flawed logic" is from yourself. It is by luck that the A350 didn't glide into the ocean. There was nothing psychically preventing a dual engine shutdown. That's a fact according to the EASA.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:15 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
If you do the math on the chances that the cascade of events that led to an MCAS 1.0 crash, it's also very, very, very low.

That part is misinformation. Every experts reports to date point to the safety deficiency of the MCAS V1. A document was showed during the hearing that mathematically predicted that lot of deaths will be caused by MCAS V1.
: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:
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:39 am

PixelFlight wrote:
If for any reason the 737 MAX is about 14% less profitable for the operators that initially expected, this annihilate his existence justification against both the 737 NG and the A32x neo.


Many would argue that that justification is annihilated already, but that is beside the point. WN, AA, MOL, etc. have significant sunk costs in the MAX and essentially nowhere else to go. They're stuck with it for the next 20 years or so.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:10 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
MSPNWA can exain it much better than I can. Look at their previous posts for the details.



No he can't actually, if I takes his reply just after mine,

MSPNWA wrote:
scbriml wrote:
What truth is there in unproven allegations of conflict of interest and gaining financially from the MAX grounding?

My opinion is the that FAA is doing a better job now because MAX (and Boing for that matter) is now getting the kind of scrutiny it should have had originally. The FAA did a piss-poor job originally and were rightly criticised for it.


You're either omitting the other reasons that multiple people have posted, or you simply haven't remember the posts (some in direct reply to you) detailing why. Knowing your constant presence in this thread, I suspect it's the former. I personally have not made those allegations. I have simply raised the potential, which are factual. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't consistently misstate my positions.


So he is not saying there is conflict of interest, but a potential conflict of interest. What this means is he is backtracking and effectively throwing you under the bus because you are the only one now asserting that Dickson has to, "put their personal feelings and financial gain aside (Dickson and his Delta stock) and do their job".

What we have now is one poster "asking" the tough questions on if there is a conflict of interest, and another stating that there is and personal feelings and financial gains should be put aside and people in charge get on with their job. What you and MSPNWA don't confront is that the current Boeing management has got a stake in getting the MAX back in the air as their compensation is tied to successfully getting the model back in service.

On Friday, the Boeing board approved a $1.4m salary for Calhoun and long-term compensation of $26.5m if he achieves several milestones, including the return to service of the 737 MAX.


New Boeing CEO says planemaker can be 'much better'

If you want more links confirming this,

https://www.barrons.com/articles/new-boeing-ceo-gets-about-11-million-to-fix-737-max-less-than-previous-chief-51578877723

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-new-ceo-david-calhoun-could-earn-28-million-pay-package-for-2020/

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-ceo-bonus-if-737-max-operation-again-2020-1

So no evidence only "questions" for Dickson, and no questions on the motives of Calhoun who has a lot of money tied to getting the model back in service.We should trust the previous member of the Boeing board who approved the strategy the company has been following which effectively lead to the current situation, because of reasons, but not that person who is on the other side because he is biased because his airline likes Airbus and he, potentially but not confirmed, has stock in Delta airlines. But sure, the potential conflict is on the FAA side here, without evidence of Dickson's pay or his compensation or his current stock holdings.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:38 am

enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
MSPNWA can exain it much better than I can. Look at their previous posts for the details.



No he can't actually, if I takes his reply just after mine,

MSPNWA wrote:
scbriml wrote:
What truth is there in unproven allegations of conflict of interest and gaining financially from the MAX grounding?

My opinion is the that FAA is doing a better job now because MAX (and Boing for that matter) is now getting the kind of scrutiny it should have had originally. The FAA did a piss-poor job originally and were rightly criticised for it.


You're either omitting the other reasons that multiple people have posted, or you simply haven't remember the posts (some in direct reply to you) detailing why. Knowing your constant presence in this thread, I suspect it's the former. I personally have not made those allegations. I have simply raised the potential, which are factual. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't consistently misstate my positions.


So he is not saying there is conflict of interest, but a potential conflict of interest. What this means is he is backtracking and effectively throwing you under the bus because you are the only one now asserting that Dickson has to, "put their personal feelings and financial gain aside (Dickson and his Delta stock) and do their job".

What we have now is one poster "asking" the tough questions on if there is a conflict of interest, and another stating that there is and personal feelings and financial gains should be put aside and people in charge get on with their job. What you and MSPNWA don't confront is that the current Boeing management has got a stake in getting the MAX back in the air as their compensation is tied to successfully getting the model back in service.

On Friday, the Boeing board approved a $1.4m salary for Calhoun and long-term compensation of $26.5m if he achieves several milestones, including the return to service of the 737 MAX.


New Boeing CEO says planemaker can be 'much better'

If you want more links confirming this,

https://www.barrons.com/articles/new-boeing-ceo-gets-about-11-million-to-fix-737-max-less-than-previous-chief-51578877723

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-new-ceo-david-calhoun-could-earn-28-million-pay-package-for-2020/

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-ceo-bonus-if-737-max-operation-again-2020-1

So no evidence only "questions" for Dickson, and no questions on the motives of Calhoun who has a lot of money tied to getting the model back in service.We should trust the previous member of the Boeing board who approved the strategy the company has been following which effectively lead to the current situation, because of reasons, but not that person who is on the other side because he is biased because his airline likes Airbus and he, potentially but not confirmed, has stock in Delta airlines. But sure, the potential conflict is on the FAA side here, without evidence of Dickson's pay or his compensation or his current stock holdings.



Ok. I'm open to your theory of why things all of a sudden started moving.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:44 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Ok. I'm open to your theory of why things all of a sudden started moving.



Maybe, and walk with me here, maybe Boeing is actually working on fixing MCAS and is systematically getting through all of the items that the FAA and other agencies need addressed. I know it is a novel idea, that Boeing engineers are actually engineering a fix. Your idea seems to suggest that Boeing hasn't been doing any work and all of a sudden the FAA changed their minds and decided to progress the RTS on nothing new, with no proof at all.

By the way, you have not answered my question. Don't think it goes unnoticed when you deflect away when questioned about your posts.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3667
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:32 am

PepeTheFrog wrote:
glideslope wrote:
I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post.. I have my theory's , but I don't like speculating.


FOD has also been discovered in the KC-46A tanker, and some 787s that have been built in South Carolina.


Simple question from a retired technician.
Has FOD become a word? When I worked FOD was the initials of Foreign Object Damage. So the foreign objects needed to cause damage for FOD to occur.
I expect this FOD in the fuel tanks is just sitting there on the fuel pump inlet mesh, no damage caused yet?

Anyone know for sure?
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:43 am

par13del wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
glideslope wrote:
I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post.. I have my theory's , but I don't like speculating.


FOD has also been discovered in the KC-46A tanker, and some 787s that have been built in South Carolina.

It can also be noted that the employee's in the north west are not travelling to South Carolina on a periodic basis, and the workers on the MAX are most likely not the same workers on the tanker.
We may speculate that the issue is an institutional one versus few disgruntled workers.


Ok, I was curious what others felt in this regard. It would appear to be an institutional problem. It's so disheartening.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:41 am

Tristarsteve wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
glideslope wrote:
I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post.. I have my theory's , but I don't like speculating.


FOD has also been discovered in the KC-46A tanker, and some 787s that have been built in South Carolina.


Simple question from a retired technician.
Has FOD become a word? When I worked FOD was the initials of Foreign Object Damage. So the foreign objects needed to cause damage for FOD to occur.
I expect this FOD in the fuel tanks is just sitting there on the fuel pump inlet mesh, no damage caused yet?

Anyone know for sure?

Yes, it seems FOD has become a descriptive 'word' for the foreign objects and debris generally to the extent that I have seen used 'FOD damage' in documentation as a differentiator when referring to actual damage. Sometimes, FOD has appeared in glossaries as 'Foreign Object Debris' in an apparent attempt to rationalise its newer use.

As an aside, it reminds me of the use of 'CRO' (might be UK specific?). Although generally referred to 'MRO' (Materiel Repair Organisation) these days, Equipment Repair departments/facilities were for several decades known as CRO departments or facilities and the equipments for repair themselves as 'CRO's. In later years, CRO was often defined as Customer Repair Orders or Organisation or the like. In reality it stems from Military sources from between and the wars and during the last world war where the Military would put a big red label on removed equipment they could not repair themselves with in big letters printed on them 'CRO' which indicated that they were to be returned to the - 'Civil Repair Organisation'.

To recent times, I have seen 'CRO' still used as part of traceability references to identify repair equipment, orders or actions.

Ray
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:20 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So no evidence only "questions" for Dickson, and no questions on the motives of Calhoun who has a lot of money tied to getting the model back in service.We should trust the previous member of the Boeing board who approved the strategy the company has been following which effectively lead to the current situation, because of reasons, but not that person who is on the other side because he is biased because his airline likes Airbus and he, potentially but not confirmed, has stock in Delta airlines. But sure, the potential conflict is on the FAA side here, without evidence of Dickson's pay or his compensation or his current stock holdings.

I thought the general population was happy the previous head of Boeing was fired and all celebrated his replacements, are we now disillusioned that the job was given to a previous board member, something which some complained about from the start but were shouted down?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:24 pm

enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Ok. I'm open to your theory of why things all of a sudden started moving.



Maybe, and walk with me here, maybe Boeing is actually working on fixing MCAS and is systematically getting through all of the items that the FAA and other agencies need addressed.

I know the MAX is forever linked to MCAS, so it is to be expected that everything MAX is MCAS and vice versa, but in taking the walk with you, as far as I can recall and seen reported, nothing has been done to MCAS since June-2019 when the fix was submitted, the MAX is still grounded for all the other items that the FAA and other regulators want fixed.
So MCAS resulted in deaths, the flaws in certification is what is costing billions in profits, revenues, jobs, productivity etc etc etc.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:31 pm

On the FOD issue with the MAX, the a/c that were inspected were they at locations like in Boeing's parking lot's and on the ramps or dispersed to other airports?
The reason I ask is when a/c are prepared for storage, do they drain the fuel tanks, secure engines etc? If the tanks are / were drained, I assume the debris would have been found then not on inspection for possible delivery.
At Renton they are putting in place measures to minimize, not sure why, they should already have been there.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:52 pm

par13del wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Ok. I'm open to your theory of why things all of a sudden started moving.



Maybe, and walk with me here, maybe Boeing is actually working on fixing MCAS and is systematically getting through all of the items that the FAA and other agencies need addressed.

I know the MAX is forever linked to MCAS, so it is to be expected that everything MAX is MCAS and vice versa, but in taking the walk with you, as far as I can recall and seen reported, nothing has been done to MCAS since June-2019 when the fix was submitted, the MAX is still grounded for all the other items that the FAA and other regulators want fixed.
So MCAS resulted in deaths, the flaws in certification is what is costing billions in profits, revenues, jobs, productivity etc etc etc.

Boeing did not submit a solution in June, it failed testing before hand and are yet to submit a working solution to date.

When Boeing has a solution that is functional and submits it, certification proper can begin.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:30 pm

chicawgo wrote:
NonTechAvLover wrote:
I agree with the posters who disagree with the line that nobody will care about the kind of plane they are flying (or a negligible percentage cares) once the MAX returns to service. I also agree that any move like Ryan Air's to hide from people what kind of plane they are flying will backfire, not only commercially but maybe even legally. It is not hard to see some European consumer groups lobby for legislation mandating the disclosure of the type of airplane to passengers, maybe even a right to refuse to fly and get their money back. Most of the civilized world forces food manufacturers to disclose fat, sugar, salt etc. content in food, does anyone really believe some of those jurisdictions are not going to say, wait a second, we believe that someone has a right to know how much saturated fat her ice-cream contains, but not the kind of plane she is going to fly on? Hiding from passengers that they will be flying a MAX is one of the most ill-advised ideas I have heard in a while and I do not believe that it will actually be tried.

The reason is simple: people will not care what kind of plane they are flying unless they are aviation geeks when all planes are flying happily with the odd runway excursion, accidental SAM shoot-down once in a while. That attitude changes immediately when the same new plane type starts acting like a dolphin in the air and crashes itself twice within a couple of months. To think that the former and the latter situations will elicit the same reaction from the public is...I do not want to be rude, so I will just say unrealistic. The horse is out of the barn or the cat is out of the bag, people will simply not react as though they have never heard of the two crashes. A lot of people might, but, then again, a lot of people will not.

I believe Boeing and the airlines actually know this and if I were a betting man, I would say they are working on some sort of a plan for doing this right way, which may go something like:

1. Have extensive test flights, more than the necessary minimum and rack up some numbers.
2. Place some high-profile folks from Boeing and the airlines in some of the test flights (and no, not their families, who are not chattel) and publicize it. I would even look to have a few high level Airbus execs on some highly-publicized flights. It would be both in their interest to help and would be the right thing to do. People love a "CEO of Boeing and Airbus got on a MAX and took a flight from Seattle to Chicago and discussing the future of the industry" type news.
3. Start re-introduction of the MAX on routes where there are alternatives (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, turboprops, whatever, but a non-MAX alternative) and tell people clearly that the MAX is a MAX and they have an alternative.
4. Make the re-introduction gradual, do not leave any route as a MAX only route for a year or two. Keep racking up the numbers and hours of safe flight.
5. At some point, when the numbers are there, come back and say "the re-certified plane is where the NG was or the 320 was x years after those planes entered into service."

These are just some ideas from someone who is only a flier. Some of them maybe completely unworkable, but I am sure there are other and much better ideas. And obviously, this all assumes everybody involved at Boeing and the FAA really believe the "plane is safe." Otherwise, you come out, bite the bullet and close the program. If the plane is safe and Boeing and the airlines using MAX offer an honest approach, the trust will eventually come back. There are no shortcuts to re-establishing lost trust. Any attempt at finding them will only cause its further erosion.


You make several strong points and actually, some of the items on your list of recommendations have already been announced. I know the CEO of UA said he would be on the first post-RTS MAX flight. Thee FAA chief said it wouldn't be approved until he feels 100% comfortable flying his entire family on it, etc. So I think your list is correct and all of those things will happen as mentioned.

However, I think your thoughts on how much average fliers will care are incorrect. First of all, your analogy to ingredients in food is not a correct analogy. The name of a plane can be whatever the company wants it to be. If you think that airlines should be required to notify pax of its previous name and offer them the chance to switch, I'm open to that. But a company or airline can absolutely name a plane whatever they want. I would refer you to ValuJet (aka Airtran) who changed their name after a disaster that was explicitly blamed on the airline and was reported as such at length by the media. So then should Airtran have been required to disclaim in perpetuity "formerly known as ValuJet that killed 110 people due to loading unapproved explosive cargo on a passenger flight?" Regardless, no one really cared and Airtran went on to be a successful airline for many years until being bought by Southwest. I never flew on Airtran because of the ValuJet crash, but I'm an aviation enthusiast and not like most people.

I would also refer you to airlines around the world with seriously bad safety records. As long as the price is right, there are no shortage of people buying tickets and flying these airlines.

Will there be MORE people than normal paying attention and researching once MAX comes back? Yes, I think so. But it's not going to be any remarkable portion. If there's one thing we should know from history, humans often do not act in rational ways that you think they would in many situations.

I will say that if there is any additional crash within a few years after RTS that will absolutely be it. But again, that probably would be more due to regulators and the media than actual knowledge of what airplane fliers are flying on.


Thank you for your response. I will go straight to the point of disagreement: I think an entity being free to brand its product as it wishes is a different matter from having to disclose facts about its product for consumer protection purposes. A simple example: I can change the name of my candy bar from Milky Way to Kinky Way, but I cannot change the ingredients list to change saturated fat to read "that great stuff for your arteries." Now, where does the MAX belong in that classification? To me it is not a branding issue, I could care less about the name, but it is a consumer protection issue. Not consumer protection because the MAX will be more likely to crash again (if that is the case, it should not RtS in the first place), it is consumer protection because I do not want to fly so many hours on a plane worrying that it has a high chance of crashing. It is irrelevant to me that from a technical perspective the MAX may be the safest thing that graces the skies upon RtS, as long as I feel anxious. I want to be protected from unnecessary stress, not necessarily from a higher risk of crashing. And, as you can tell from this, I completely agree with you: people are not rational evaluators of risk and statistics is not ingrained into our hardware the way it runs in a processor. As an aside, I actually believe strongly that a lot of our problems stem from fancying ourselves to be a lot more rational than we are.

One may be tempted to say my anxiety is my problem and I should deal with it personally. The statement is totally correct if this is personal to me and maybe to a negligible few others. I just do not believe that is the case based on what I am hearing from people around me, but I realize anecdotal evidence and personal observations are not reliable indicators of mass preferences. If that were the case and my personal views were good predictors, 80% of the countries in the world would have different leaders now.

I also think the ValuJet analogy is inapposite: This is simply not 1996. How many people had regular internet access in 1996 versus 2020? I have no idea about the number but if I had to guess and compare how many minutes/hours/words/sentences were spent on covering the two stories, I would say the MAX story would have had thousands of times as much coverage as the ValuJet 592 crash if not tens or hundreds of thousands times more. I also think there is a huge difference between a single incident and two incidents in quick succession (why I cannot believe to this day that Boeing allowed the MAX to fly after the LionAir crash). Finally, I was careful to say that I would expect the push-back to a RyanAir type plan to come from Europe, where consumer protection laws are generally stronger (put another way, the "profit over everything else and at whatever cost necessary" is not as entrenched and sacrosanct in Europe as it is in the U.S.).

All that being said, I have to acknowledge that you may end up being right, I do not think you will, but it may very well be the case. We are both trying to predict the future and guess what will happen to a MAX operating airline if it tries to hide the MAX from its customers. I believe they will either not be allowed to do so (at least in Europe) or, if they are, they will suffer commercially and at a significant level.

Regards,
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:32 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Boeing did not submit a solution in June, it failed testing before hand and are yet to submit a working solution to date.

When Boeing has a solution that is functional and submits it, certification proper can begin.


But we keep being told it’s the untrustworthy FAA slowing things down because... [insert preferred reason here]
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:56 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Boeing did not submit a solution in June, it failed testing before hand and are yet to submit a working solution to date.
.

Ok, that one is new to me, or are you reclassifying the bit flip testing?
How about the testing that the pilots did and all recovered the a/c just using non-standard methods, is / was that also a failure of MCAS?
 
OEMInsider
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:33 pm

par13del wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Ok. I'm open to your theory of why things all of a sudden started moving.



Maybe, and walk with me here, maybe Boeing is actually working on fixing MCAS and is systematically getting through all of the items that the FAA and other agencies need addressed.

I know the MAX is forever linked to MCAS, so it is to be expected that everything MAX is MCAS and vice versa, but in taking the walk with you, as far as I can recall and seen reported, nothing has been done to MCAS since June-2019 when the fix was submitted, the MAX is still grounded for all the other items that the FAA and other regulators want fixed.
So MCAS resulted in deaths, the flaws in certification is what is costing billions in profits, revenues, jobs, productivity etc etc etc.

I want to follow up on this because I think a lot of posters are missing an important point: just because the other fixes are in separate systems doesn't mean they aren't linked to the MACS fix.

Let's take the example of the bit flip issue. Boeing at the time were trying to convince the FAA that a software-only fix was acceptable (i.e. would meet the 10^-9 events/flight hr safety requirement for a catastrophic failure). No system is 10^-9 on its own, you need multiple layers of safety (the Swiss cheese model). If one of these layers is undermined (found not to be as safe as thought, eg the pilots reacting in 3 seconds) then you need another layer to be proved to be more safe to make up for it.

I can very well imagine a scenario where Boeing submitted documentation to the FAA saying "yes, we know the 3s rule was wrong, but because of these other factors the overall System (MCAS 2.0) is safe". If Boeing are relying on new analysis, new assumptions (or new anything), then the natural response from the FAA would be to say "fine, but prove it". The bit flip test could very well have been in response to a claim by Boeing saying that the probability of a failure of the flight control computer was very low. This was challenged to a test, and it failed, leading to more changes etc.

This kind of process is really common in aerospace. You do a basic analysis at first, making lots of simplifying assumptions which all err on the side of caution (i.e. assume a system is less safe than it really might be, to make the analysis easier). If that gives you a good answer, great you're all good to go. If not, you go back and identify which assumptions/bits of analysis can be challenged and replaced with something more accurate (and therefore less conservative). The problem comes when you run out of things to make more detailed - at some point the numbers just don't add up and the system genuinely isn't safe, regardless of how much analysis you do (kinda feels like this is where Boeing almost got to). Here the only thing you can do is a redesign/add more layers to the Swiss cheese.

I see nothing in the conduct of the FAA which is inconsistent with standard practice in the industry. They (Boeing) have just painted themselves into a corner.

PS The wiring issue is a bit different it seems. Once it was realised that the 3s reaction time was bogus, it was clearly necessary for the FAA to ask Boeing what other Safety Assessments relied on this assumption, and were therefore no longer valid. I'm guessing the wiring issue was flagged at this point. IMO it does need to be changed (at least on new builds - there might be a greater risk of damage by doing it as a retrofit).
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:09 pm

par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Boeing did not submit a solution in June, it failed testing before hand and are yet to submit a working solution to date.
.

Ok, that one is new to me, or are you reclassifying the bit flip testing?
How about the testing that the pilots did and all recovered the a/c just using non-standard methods, is / was that also a failure of MCAS?

I have not reclassified anything? No submission was made. (bitflip is a standing requirement for decades as you have been previously advised many times through these threads). It failed test I.e. it did not work.

How about get your brain around procedures and training being part of the solution? In any case, the problem could have possibly been resolved in parallel to the physical solution continuing into certification excepting it was found that 12.1 software did not resolve the MCAS catastrophic failure mode (see Mr Markos leaked email), the system could not get through its own power up self checks, and it was erroneously setting 'STAB TRIM OUT OF LIMIT'. I.e. it did not work, I.e. it did not work, and I.e. it did not work. Best not mention the failed software audit eh.

We could go back further, if you wish? The solution targeted for ~January 2019 was found to be inadequate (I.e. it did not work). The revised solution targeted for ~March/April 2019 failed due to flight control system problem deemed catastrophic (I.e. it did not work). Neither of these were submitted either, because - they did not work.

What about wire bundles? Boeing reviewed the wiring scheme because the previously hidden catastrophic categorisation of stab trim runaway. We have yet to understand if the subsequent analysis has determined that a hot short could cause stabilizer runaway or not, nor do we know of the proposal made to FAA or its likelihood of acceptance or otherwise either in regard to hot short causing stabilizer runaway or just its apparent non-compliance that was not disclosed by Boeing. Even assuming separation of bundles is required, this can be completed as part of the preparation for RTS, as can inspection of the wing fuel tanks for FOD (as discovered by Boeing) and the correction of the uncontrolled fettling of engine cowling components (as discovered by Boeing).

All Boeing self inflicted me thinks. If the regulators had wanted to delay MAX RTS they would not have been able to as good a job as Boeing has done on themselves.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19111
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:21 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
All Boeing self inflicted me thinks. If the regulators had wanted to delay MAX RTS they would not have been able to as good a job as Boeing has done on themselves.


Incoming in 3...2...1... :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:23 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
How about get your brain around procedures and training being part of the solution?
.

How about simply stating that the MAX is being re-certified, why is everyone so afraid to say that, everything is MCAS. The cables that may be cut by an uncontained engine failure is MCAS, the cowling is MCAS.

I guess I need to get my brain around the fact that anything that is wrong or goes wrong with the MAX can directly be tied to MCAS, think I got the point now.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:38 pm

par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
How about get your brain around procedures and training being part of the solution?
.

How about simply stating that the MAX is being re-certified, why is ev, not uncontrolled fettling have anything to do MCASeryone so afraid to say that, everything is MCAS. The cables that may be cut by an uncontained engine failure is MCAS, the cowling is MCAS.

I guess I need to get my brain around the fact that anything that is wrong or goes wrong with the MAX can directly be tied to MCAS, think I got the point now.

Uncontained engine failure with or without cutting the rudder cables nor the uncontrolled fettling of cowling components have anything whatsoever to do with MCAS.

As far we know, the waiver on the cables stands and cowling components can be replaced during preparation for RTS - So no effect on RTS.

All Boeing self inflicted though.
 
planecane
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:43 pm

OEMInsider wrote:
par13del wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


Maybe, and walk with me here, maybe Boeing is actually working on fixing MCAS and is systematically getting through all of the items that the FAA and other agencies need addressed.

I know the MAX is forever linked to MCAS, so it is to be expected that everything MAX is MCAS and vice versa, but in taking the walk with you, as far as I can recall and seen reported, nothing has been done to MCAS since June-2019 when the fix was submitted, the MAX is still grounded for all the other items that the FAA and other regulators want fixed.
So MCAS resulted in deaths, the flaws in certification is what is costing billions in profits, revenues, jobs, productivity etc etc etc.

I want to follow up on this because I think a lot of posters are missing an important point: just because the other fixes are in separate systems doesn't mean they aren't linked to the MACS fix.

Let's take the example of the bit flip issue. Boeing at the time were trying to convince the FAA that a software-only fix was acceptable (i.e. would meet the 10^-9 events/flight hr safety requirement for a catastrophic failure). No system is 10^-9 on its own, you need multiple layers of safety (the Swiss cheese model). If one of these layers is undermined (found not to be as safe as thought, eg the pilots reacting in 3 seconds) then you need another layer to be proved to be more safe to make up for it.

I can very well imagine a scenario where Boeing submitted documentation to the FAA saying "yes, we know the 3s rule was wrong, but because of these other factors the overall System (MCAS 2.0) is safe". If Boeing are relying on new analysis, new assumptions (or new anything), then the natural response from the FAA would be to say "fine, but prove it". The bit flip test could very well have been in response to a claim by Boeing saying that the probability of a failure of the flight control computer was very low. This was challenged to a test, and it failed, leading to more changes etc.

This kind of process is really common in aerospace. You do a basic analysis at first, making lots of simplifying assumptions which all err on the side of caution (i.e. assume a system is less safe than it really might be, to make the analysis easier). If that gives you a good answer, great you're all good to go. If not, you go back and identify which assumptions/bits of analysis can be challenged and replaced with something more accurate (and therefore less conservative). The problem comes when you run out of things to make more detailed - at some point the numbers just don't add up and the system genuinely isn't safe, regardless of how much analysis you do (kinda feels like this is where Boeing almost got to). Here the only thing you can do is a redesign/add more layers to the Swiss cheese.

I see nothing in the conduct of the FAA which is inconsistent with standard practice in the industry. They (Boeing) have just painted themselves into a corner.

PS The wiring issue is a bit different it seems. Once it was realised that the 3s reaction time was bogus, it was clearly necessary for the FAA to ask Boeing what other Safety Assessments relied on this assumption, and were therefore no longer valid. I'm guessing the wiring issue was flagged at this point. IMO it does need to be changed (at least on new builds - there might be a greater risk of damage by doing it as a retrofit).


Based upon my understanding, the bit flip issue came into play because even though the MCAS software had been updated to use data from both AoA sensors, it was still only relying on one flight computer at a time. The FAA determined that if the worst case bit flip happened, it could cause an MCAS-like runaway. Also, the bit flip scenario seemed to delay the response to the runaway by the test pilots. Therefore, they required cross checking between both FCCs to make it acceptably redundant.
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:44 pm

par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
How about get your brain around procedures and training being part of the solution?
.

How about simply stating that the MAX is being re-certified, why is everyone so afraid to say that, everything is MCAS. The cables that may be cut by an uncontained engine failure is MCAS, the cowling is MCAS.

I guess I need to get my brain around the fact that anything that is wrong or goes wrong with the MAX can directly be tied to MCAS, think I got the point now.


Speaking of which, thanks for bringing it up again, when people are talking about the wiring issues, these are different wiring issues to one that was pointed out last year?

The potential for the rudder control cables being severed due to uncontained engine failure, issue being the different position of the engines higher and further forward and the potential that debris cuts these cables.... was this ever an FAA issue that was being inspected and does it need to be resolved prior to RTS? Or was just noise last year?

Anyone know anything more recent?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/07/7 ... ified.html

https://boards.fool.com/rudder-problem- ... 60054.aspx
Last edited by ShamrockBoi330 on Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:44 pm

scbriml wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
All Boeing self inflicted me thinks. If the regulators had wanted to delay MAX RTS they would not have been able to as good a job as Boeing has done on themselves.


Incoming in 3...2...1... :wink2:

I wont bother ducking. They probably have not done end to end software testing and they will burn up on re-entry (unless they can get a quick fix uploaded in flight. Oh no!)

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

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:04 pm

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
par13del wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
How about get your brain around procedures and training being part of the solution?
.

How about simply stating that the MAX is being re-certified, why is everyone so afraid to say that, everything is MCAS. The cables that may be cut by an uncontained engine failure is MCAS, the cowling is MCAS.

I guess I need to get my brain around the fact that anything that is wrong or goes wrong with the MAX can directly be tied to MCAS, think I got the point now.


Speaking of which, thanks for bringing it up again, when people are talking about the wiring issues, these are different wiring issues to one that was pointed out last year?

The potential for the rudder control cables being severed due to uncontained engine failure, issue being the different position of the engines higher and further forward and the potential that debris cuts these cables.... was this ever an FAA issue that was being inspected and does it need to be resolved prior to RTS? Or was just noise last year?

Anyone know anything more recent?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/07/7 ... ified.html

https://boards.fool.com/rudder-problem- ... 60054.aspx

The Collins testimony is the only more recent info I can recall. Gives a view of the FAA action (or lack of?) in the original instance. One can only assume 'status quo'.
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/me ... timony.pdf

Ray
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:20 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Maybe, and walk with me here, maybe Boeing is actually working on fixing MCAS and is systematically getting through all of the items that the FAA and other agencies need addressed. I know it is a novel idea, that Boeing engineers are actually engineering a fix. Your idea seems to suggest that Boeing hasn't been doing any work and all of a sudden the FAA changed their minds and decided to progress the RTS on nothing new, with no proof at all.

This doesn't generate as much buzz as suggesting the head of the FAA is deliberately dragging his feet to help his DL stock portfolio grow, so it gets a pass. It's much more enjoyable to trigger people by suggesting someone else is cashing in than saying a bunch of nerds are doing a bunch of nerd stuff to meet the requirements for RTS.

Which recent RTS progress are we talking about, BTW?
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
 
Scotron12
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:32 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
scbriml wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
All Boeing self inflicted me thinks. If the regulators had wanted to delay MAX RTS they would not have been able to as good a job as Boeing has done on themselves.


Incoming in 3...2...1... :wink2:

I wont bother ducking. They probably have not done end to end software testing and they will burn up on re-entry (unless they can get a quick fix uploaded in flight. Oh no!)

Ray


That is soo funny!! Spot on! :rotfl:
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9630
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:34 pm

With a global pandemic and global recession coming, the airline industry will be hit hardest, when many countries close their airports and air travel is reduced to bare minimum for a few months. When this is over the backlogs for both frames will have shrunk by 75% and many airlines will be no more.
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:59 pm

asdf wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?


A 737MAX is kinda similar to a A220 like a 1972 ford pinto is similar to a 2018 tesla S


More like how a 2019 Toyota Yaris is similar to a 2019 Ford Fusion. Size and country of origin are the only real differences.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:18 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
All Boeing self inflicted though.

Somehow this seems to be the main basis of your points, apologies for the MCAS specifics.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1507
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:21 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Tristarsteve wrote:
Simple question from a retired technician.
Has FOD become a word? When I worked FOD was the initials of Foreign Object Damage. So the foreign objects needed to cause damage for FOD to occur.
I expect this FOD in the fuel tanks is just sitting there on the fuel pump inlet mesh, no damage caused yet?

Anyone know for sure?

Yes, it seems FOD has become a descriptive 'word' for the foreign objects and debris generally to the extent that I have seen used 'FOD damage' in documentation as a differentiator when referring to actual damage. Sometimes, FOD has appeared in glossaries as 'Foreign Object Debris' in an apparent attempt to rationalise its newer use.

FOD does seem to have become a more generic, all embracing term.

The most meticulous airline when it comes to accepting new (and returning leased aircraft), for a while used the term Foreign Object Contamination (FOC), a more accurate literal description, but it doesn't abbreviate well.

Should QR involvement be part of the MAX RTS process?
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:33 pm

Tristarsteve wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
glideslope wrote:
I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post.. I have my theory's , but I don't like speculating.


FOD has also been discovered in the KC-46A tanker, and some 787s that have been built in South Carolina.


Simple question from a retired technician.
Has FOD become a word? When I worked FOD was the initials of Foreign Object Damage. So the foreign objects needed to cause damage for FOD to occur.
I expect this FOD in the fuel tanks is just sitting there on the fuel pump inlet mesh, no damage caused yet?

Anyone know for sure?


I saw a youtube video -- I don't recall which one -- of flight deck operations on a U.S. aircraft carier. Periodically crew members would walk in a line stretching across the deck looking for FOD (debris) to prevent FOD (damage). Whatever they collected would be taken to a little shrine by the island to offer to the "FOD god."
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:39 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
asdf wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?


A 737MAX is kinda similar to a A220 like a 1972 ford pinto is similar to a 2018 tesla S


More like how a 2019 Toyota Yaris is similar to a 2019 Ford Fusion. Size and country of origin are the only real differences.


the 2019 Toyota Yaris is not based on a concept of the 1960ies

the 737MAX is
 
oschkosch
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:41 pm

seahawk wrote:
With a global pandemic and global recession coming, the airline industry will be hit hardest, when many countries close their airports and air travel is reduced to bare minimum for a few months. When this is over the backlogs for both frames will have shrunk by 75% and many airlines will be no more.


I agree, this will be a real stability test for many airlines and therefore for all OEMs order books.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
This doesn't generate as much buzz as suggesting the head of the FAA is deliberately dragging his feet to help his DL stock portfolio grow, so it gets a pass. It's much more enjoyable to trigger people by suggesting someone else is cashing in than saying a bunch of nerds are doing a bunch of nerd stuff to meet the requirements for RTS.

Which recent RTS progress are we talking about, BTW?



I am not sure, it seems that TTailedTiger is under the impression that things are moving along. Must be from his contacts within the 777X department that things are moving.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, February 2020

Sat Feb 29, 2020 7:03 am

Actually we all know it is official that iPad training is not sufficient, but now details have been released as to why Boeing changed their opinion. And even well trained first world pilots have issues flying the max. At least that is my take on this article, which is on Bloomberg but I found a non paywall version:

https://beta.canada.com/pmn/business-pm ... 70cbd81b2/

FAA Tells Boeing More Training For 737 Max Pilots May Be Needed

U.S. regulators have told Boeing Co. that pilots may require additional training to properly respond to emergencies on the 737 Max after airline crews failed to perform proper procedures in simulator tests. In a Feb. 19 letter to Boeing reviewed by Bloomberg News, the Federal Aviation Administration detailed multiple missteps that airline crews had made in the December simulator sessions and said additional tests are needed. The simulations replicated failures similar to those in two fatal crashes.

Pilots from the three U.S. carriers that fly the Max, American Airlines Group Inc., United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., along with a crew from Grupo Aeromexico SAB were tested in December simulations of multiple emergency scenarios. The tests were conducted in a simulator running Boeing’s updated flight-control system that was developed in the wake of the crashes. While none of the crews committed such egregious mistakes that they lost their planes, the errors were extensive, according to the FAA letter.

The pilots, who had received additional training proposed by the company, failed to finish emergency checklists related to the automated system involved in both 737 Max crashes, known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. In addition, they had difficulty with emergency procedures related to sensor failures, erroneous altitude and airspeed readings and the autopilot, among others, according to the letter. The tests also showed that some pilots were confused about how the autopilot behaved in some circumstances and their interactions with the plane’s automated warning systems were distracting.
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:

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