• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
 
744SPX
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:31 pm

PITingres wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I don't think it would be too hard to find an additional 5% on the CFM-56 with some parts insertion from leap.


I'm sure that the CFM engineers would be pleased to have your insights as to which parts to just plop onto the existing engine, leaving weight and balance essentially unchanged, and get 5%. Because clearly they are missing something.

Or perhaps it's not as simple as you imagine.


Its called tech insertion and its been done for years on engines like the PW4000 and CF6-80
 
744SPX
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Well 3-4% of the Max's gains come from the winglets and revised tailcone. There is no reason to believe that the 69" Leap-1B gives the same 13-15% as the Leap-1A and much less the 15%+ of the PW1000G. On a side note, John Ostrower revealed a number of years back that APB's Slit scimitars give a 2% gain vs Boeing's proprietary Advanced Winglet which gives 1.5%.

I don't think it would be too hard to find an additional 5% on the CFM-56 with some parts insertion from leap.

No reason?

How about 3.59/3.04 = +18% for MAX-8 vs NG-800 ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

The point is that no one was going to be buying NGs for four to six years that would need to be operated for twenty to thirty years to get ROI while their competitors were operating LEAP/GTF.



I've never seen hard figures anywhere saying the Leap-1B has the same fuel burn as the -1A. Its absolutely impossible given its significantly lower bypass ratio unless the core itself is somehow a generation ahead of the -1A core.

If Boeing could have fit the Leap-1A on the 737 with minimal changes they would have done it. No one is buying that "optimized fan size" BS.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:45 pm

744SPX wrote:
I've never seen hard figures anywhere saying the Leap-1B has the same fuel burn as the -1A. Its absolutely impossible given its significantly lower bypass ratio unless the core itself is somehow a generation ahead of the -1A core.

If Boeing could have fit the Leap-1A on the 737 with minimal changes they would have done it. No one is buying that "optimized fan size" BS.

Whatever the LEAP-1B figure is, I think you'll have no choice to agree it's significantly better than CFM56 which addresses the point I'm making, customers were not going to keep buying NGs just to give Boeing the time to bring NSA to market. Clearly Airbus would do everything to do to point out NEO's superiority to NG every chance it got. AA told Boeing quite directly it would buy more NEO if Boeing didn't do MAX.
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
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

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

Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:38 am

par13del wrote:
NonTechAvLover wrote:
par13del wrote:
Funny thing, when you enter a negotiation to build a factory and the government gives you a tax break on the taxes you have to pay on the purchase of the property, you still have to spend the company money to purchase the property, I guess that is the major difference. In Europe RLI ensures that you work, while tax breaks ensures that you spend your own money.


The business in your example is not spending money, it is investing in real estate. Most people interpret the word to spend for money gone (ever heard “he is such a big spender, he keeps buying real estate?”). So, excluding the risk of a drop in real estate prices (which of course has an upside as well), the business in question gets a tax break for substituting one kind of asset (cash) for another kind (real estate). All in all, not a bad deal and clearly helps the business in question by lowering the amount of capital necessary for doing business without any significant risk (in the real estate transaction). Taxes paid on the other hand would have been money gone.

Not sure most of these are one to one swaps, usually other than the Death Tax, most state taxes for property sales is not more than the cost of the property, and since in most cases the land does not belong to the government........

If the property owner needs to be paid in money for his property, that money has to come from somewhere, whether you for tax purposes list that as an investment and claim lower taxes from what the government is already giving you a break on, the money has to come from somewhere, usually that is the company and or its investors.


Money "coming from somewhere" and money being spent are very different things. I will try to make it even simpler: if somebody says to me "If you show me $1,000 in cash in your left pocket and then transfer it to your right pocket, I will pay you $200," the $1,000 "has to come from somewhere" for me to win the $200, but it is at no risk whatsoever. I make the $200 and that is a very sweet deal, even though the money had to come from somewhere. Buying real estate with one's own money is essentially the same, assuming the buyer pays fair market value and there is no long term drop in property values. I assume you are not suggesting that Boeing should be rewarded just because it was able to produce the money (it is coming from somewhere), without risking it.

The context of the discussion is whether A and B are risking anything for financial help from their governments. It is incorrect to suggest that one of them is at risk because it is "spending" money to qualify for a benefit, if all it is doing is buying land. It is also incorrect to suggest that the other is at risk for a loan it obtains for a particular program and then avoids paying the loan back by lobbying the financier if the program is not successful. I do not personally know the facts of either situation and am merely commenting on these programs as they are described here by various posters.

I am also not expressing a view on whether A or B should be helped by their respective governments. All I am saying is that the idea that a company incurs some risk by spending money by purchasing land and is therefore entitled to be rewarded for that risk-taking (in the form of a tax break or rebate, for financial end results there is no difference between just avoiding a payment versus paying it and getting your money back, in the end you have not parted with your money or "spent" it), that idea does not hold water. There may be many good reasons for their respective governments to aid these companies financially, but the neo-liberal kool aid rules the day nowadays and we all live in the fairy tales of the benefits of a free market trickling all the way down and the government being nothing but an impediment to the full realization of the fairy tale.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4076
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

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

Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:28 am

I had a lovely long reply written for last month's thread but that was lost when the thread was closed. :roll:

767333ER wrote:
It’s high time they pay the price for something they’ve done since they never really have had to before. Banning the 737 MAX forever for no reason other than punishment is deep down what I wish would happen. It’s illogical but it feels right.


Indeed. For the record I wouldn't mind if the regulators sat on an approved fix for six to eight months before signing off on it as punishment. It's not like Boeing don't deserve it for doing all they could to hoodwink the FAA and other regulators.

Aviator34ID wrote:
I believe I read that prior to the grounding the aircraft made around 140,000 flights in North America without incident . If this is so it doesn't sound like an inherently unstable aircraft.


The plane had zero crashes in Singapore therefore we can conclude that it's perfectly safe.

flyingphil wrote:
"Boeing Co suppliers are shedding jobs and capacity to cope with a halt in 737 MAX output, but while that staves off chaos, aerospace executives worry the industry might be unable to ramp factories quickly enough when the plane wins approval to fly again."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN2010G7

The longer the grounding goes on the harder it will be to restart production.. and at an economic rate too.

So.. the closer we seem to get to regulatory approval a new issue pops up.. the software glitch and the wiring bundles.. looks like the grounding will reach its first year anniversary.


Sounds very serious. I'm starting to worry that the production restart and ramp-up might turn into a disaster like the 737NG ramp-up in 98/99. Also going to be interesting to see how Boeing and suppliers manages Quality Control during a period when it seems that there will be a lot of learning going on by new employees along the full length of the supply chain.

Not managing to get to rate 55 until 2022 will be very painful and will make short and midterm sales very, very tough.

Scotron12 wrote:


I'll believe it when there's a firm order for an airworthy aircraft...

planecane wrote:
Due to the competitive market there isn't a huge profit margin in a 737 to start with. Having to lower it to offset the fuel savings of the NEO would likely make it that they would lose money on every 737NG produced.

Oh please, Boeing has been enjoying healthy margins on the 737NG for 20+ years.

Revelation wrote:
Of course not. The LEAP/GTF generation of engines were offering ~+15% better fuel burn. No one was going to keep buying NGs for 4-6 years just to give Boeing the time to bring NSA on the market.


You say that but Boeing had very healthy 737NG delivery numbers between 2012 (MAX launch) and 2018.
First to fly the 787-9
 
OldProp
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:06 pm

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

Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:21 pm

This may have been brought up because I haven't read all of the threads, but it seems to me that Boeing's 737MAX problems arose from a "rush to market" to compete with Airbus. Now I see Boeing and the FAA are facing another "rush to market" scenario because the long term grounding of the MAX. I am talking about the massive layoffs from vendors and loss of revenue. Tax revenue included on a local scale, also. There is pressure I'm sure. I hope this doesn't lead to another overlooked issue. Another disaster could surely lead to the end of the MAX.

On another note, will this lesson lead to the complete re-design of new aircraft? Not just an "alteration" ? At least have a harder look at new alterations.
 
SDL
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:36 pm

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

Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:20 pm

A 737-9 is on the way from Moses lake to BFI. Could it be because they want a 9 also as test plane or is it going for some kind of checkup after long storage?
 
hivue
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:34 am

zkojq wrote:
For the record I wouldn't mind if the regulators sat on an approved fix for six to eight months before signing off on it as punishment.


Glad to find someone who seems to agree with me that the airlines pushing for a "no-sim-transition" Max should be called to account for their roles in this fiasco. Or did you perhaps overlook the fact that punishing Boeing in this way would punish their customers as well?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1282
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:24 am

744SPX wrote:
PITingres wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I don't think it would be too hard to find an additional 5% on the CFM-56 with some parts insertion from leap.


I'm sure that the CFM engineers would be pleased to have your insights as to which parts to just plop onto the existing engine, leaving weight and balance essentially unchanged, and get 5%. Because clearly they are missing something.

Or perhaps it's not as simple as you imagine.


Its called tech insertion and its been done for years on engines like the PW4000 and CF6-80


And the CFM56, which has had at least two rounds of tech insertion since its debut. What I am skeptical of is that a) there is still 5% to be had from b) just dropping in some parts while c) maintaining the basic shape and weight profile. There are an awful lot of CFM56-7's flying around, never mind the -5's on A320-series, and it seems reasonable to assume that there would be a market for a drop-in 5% even if it meant buying a new set of engines. I think it much more likely that all the low hanging fruit has been plucked, and doing much more would change the engine enough that it's no longer a replacement, but a Max.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:07 am

MSPNWA wrote:
767333ER wrote:
We’ve seen the malicious intent in the company; I don’t think it really was an accidental goof up.


This is reckless falsehood. There has been no malicious content released to the public. What we've seen does not come close to the dictionary definition of malicious.

Enlighten me on what dictionary you are using and how it defines malicious.

One of the Webster definitions is quite telling: “given to, marked by, or arising from malice.”

If we investigate the meaning of the word malice in the same dictionary it is also telling: “intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse.”

Sure they didn’t try to kill people so it’s not malicious in that respect, but they did try to cheat the system to save gob loads of money while not caring if anyone died in the process. That should be seen as an unlawful act pointing back to the dictionary and would in other industries more likely than this one.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:20 am

smithbs wrote:
You seem to assume malicious negligence on Boeing's part, which colors most of the posts I've read recently. I disagree. I'm in a different industry but design safety-related systems to the latest standards. Boeing's hazard assessment was flawed, but in a way that is almost too easy of a trap to fall into. You typically create some paradigms to help you get through safety certification and design. Boeing created a paradigm about expected pilot response - how fast and how correctly they would react to certain events. It turns out, they took it too far in a couple different ways - they started to expect too much of pilots, allowed them to reduce perceived risk in some design functions, and got lazy in guarding those functions. Negligent, I agree, but not malicious. Boeing didn't intend for the control system to override and crash the airplane, and the hazardous assessment shows that.

What industry are you in because I sure hope it isn’t one that does engineering of this scale. No engineer worth their... calculations would make a absent minded mistake to make a flight augmentation system single point of failure. That’s not even a understandable trap to fall into, it’s just a thing you don’t ever do and it doesn’t take an engineer to figure that out. Even an average idiot like me could look at that design and see it’s badly flawed. You can’t seriously tell me that they didn’t design the thing knowing that it was dangerous; after all, they’re engineers designing it and it’s their job to have an idea of where the system will fail. The intent seems somewhat malicious based on that, on the idea that there’s no way a semi-qualified engineer would ever think such a system is relatively close to safe enough to fly. That points to a decision based on the deliberate saving of money and time at the expense of risk. There’s just no way any risk manager fails to correctly asses the risk of a single point failure system that is not included in training manuals without deliberation. Sure they didn’t intend to kill those people or have the plane crash, but it’s quite evident that they tried to hide MCAS to some degree to again save money and time. Why else would they not include it in the manual. Even if they assumed the pilots would treat it like runaway trim, but they still would most likely include the correct information in the manual of it wouldn’t risk costing more like any other plane. Even if it is negligence I think still should be considered criminal.

The bottom line is the bottom line, especially at Boeing. Just look at their track record. If you can’t see that you are in denial.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
planecane
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:46 am

767333ER wrote:
smithbs wrote:
You seem to assume malicious negligence on Boeing's part, which colors most of the posts I've read recently. I disagree. I'm in a different industry but design safety-related systems to the latest standards. Boeing's hazard assessment was flawed, but in a way that is almost too easy of a trap to fall into. You typically create some paradigms to help you get through safety certification and design. Boeing created a paradigm about expected pilot response - how fast and how correctly they would react to certain events. It turns out, they took it too far in a couple different ways - they started to expect too much of pilots, allowed them to reduce perceived risk in some design functions, and got lazy in guarding those functions. Negligent, I agree, but not malicious. Boeing didn't intend for the control system to override and crash the airplane, and the hazardous assessment shows that.

What industry are you in because I sure hope it isn’t one that does engineering of this scale. No engineer worth their... calculations would make a absent minded mistake to make a flight augmentation system single point of failure. That’s not even a understandable trap to fall into, it’s just a thing you don’t ever do and it doesn’t take an engineer to figure that out. Even an average idiot like me could look at that design and see it’s badly flawed. You can’t seriously tell me that they didn’t design the thing knowing that it was dangerous; after all, they’re engineers designing it and it’s their job to have an idea of where the system will fail. The intent seems somewhat malicious based on that, on the idea that there’s no way a semi-qualified engineer would ever think such a system is relatively close to safe enough to fly. That points to a decision based on the deliberate saving of money and time at the expense of risk. There’s just no way any risk manager fails to correctly asses the risk of a single point failure system that is not included in training manuals without deliberation. Sure they didn’t intend to kill those people or have the plane crash, but it’s quite evident that they tried to hide MCAS to some degree to again save money and time. Why else would they not include it in the manual. Even if they assumed the pilots would treat it like runaway trim, but they still would most likely include the correct information in the manual of it wouldn’t risk costing more like any other plane. Even if it is negligence I think still should be considered criminal.

The bottom line is the bottom line, especially at Boeing. Just look at their track record. If you can’t see that you are in denial.


Of course in hindsight anybody with half a brain can see the flaws. Before the crashes, it isn't as simple as you make it. The main thing that they missed was that there would end up being multiple cycles. MCAS wasn't designed for multiple cycles per se. It was designed to act once per event and then the pilot using the thumb switch would mark the end of the event. They assumed that if a failure happened, the pilots would perform the runaway stabilizer NNC which would have the electric trim turned off.

If you do a fault tree with that assumption, the maximum stabilizer movement would be 2.5 units nose down. Under that scenario, the pilots would have been able to maintain level flight using the elevator. They didn't miss the single point of failure, they missed that the pilots would be confused about what was happening and they would end up resetting MCAS so that it could continue to move the stabilizer until it got to full nose down.

It was an analysis done based upon a bad assumption. That does not make it malicious. It was a terrible mistake.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3638
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:09 am

767333ER wrote:
Enlighten me on what dictionary you are using and how it defines malicious.

One of the Webster definitions is quite telling: “given to, marked by, or arising from malice.”

If we investigate the meaning of the word malice in the same dictionary it is also telling: “intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse.”

Sure they didn’t try to kill people so it’s not malicious in that respect, but they did try to cheat the system to save gob loads of money while not caring if anyone died in the process. That should be seen as an unlawful act pointing back to the dictionary and would in other industries more likely than this one.


Any dictionary. The word was malicious. You're switching to the word "malice" and quoting the "law" definition (which it doesn't meet either), not the common definition. You're moving the goalposts.

"Malicious" from Merriam-Webster:

"having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone : given to, marked by, or arising from malice"


Accusing them of malicious intent is in libel territory. Now you're accusing them of intentionally "cheating the system" and not caring if anyone died. To me you have to really hate something or someone to make baseless charges such as those. Who's being malicious here? By definition, you are.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:50 pm

smithbs wrote:
Negligent, I agree, but not malicious. Boeing didn't intend for the control system to override and crash the airplane, and the hazardous assessment shows that.


Going by what is visible they made quite an effort to look away from anything that could have exposed the imbecility of
the design details MCAS and its surroundings. Begin with the decision to
take a slow control system ( speed doesn't change fast ) and have it work on a fast upcoming special conditions ( excessive AoA ).

Leaving good design practice behind them at super sonic speeds.

With the absolute certainty of having overlooked the deficiencies with such intense care
just for some nice numbers in the upcoming quarterly results.
I'd tag this malicious.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Aviator34ID
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:34 am

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

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:59 pm

How many more thousand words do we really need to waste about the people at Boeing. Can we talk about the aeroplane?
If there is nothing new to say about the aeroplane, then perhaps we could just be quiet until there is.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:27 pm

Here’s summary as of today of what needs to happen before she flies again.

It talks about certification flight at the end of this month or March.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/busi ... again.html
 
Myriad
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:28 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:55 pm

What's the plan for the B37M test aircraft in Lincoln and Kansas City?
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE ... /KBFI/KLNK
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:22 am

Myriad wrote:
What's the plan for the B37M test aircraft in Lincoln and Kansas City?
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE ... /KBFI/KLNK

'.... These non-commercial test flights with a small test team on board will exercise short- and long-haul flights, seeking out weather and altitude conditions that will help satisfy specific test conditions...'
www.kake.com/story/41682906/boeing-737- ... ernational

Ray
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:12 pm

Apparently FAA Administrator Steve Dickson is at the Singapore Air Show and giving some guidance to the press.

FAA gives steps needed to get Boeing 737 MAX flying, something some in this thread have suggested is lacking:

https://www.reuters.com/article/singapo ... SL8N2AB4U8

FAA says the MAX certification flight is approaching:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sing ... SKBN205100

“Having said that we are approaching a milestone: the certification flight is the next major milestone and once that is completed I think we will have a good bit more clarity on where the process goes forward from there,” he said during a visit to the Singapore Airshow.

The certification flight to be carried out by FAA pilots “is not scheduled yet because we still have a few issues to resolve, but we continue to narrow the issues. We are waiting for proposals from Boeing on a few items,” he added.

Maybe the proposal is on the contentious wire separation issue?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18262
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
FAA gives steps needed to get Boeing 737 MAX flying, something some in this thread have suggested is lacking:

https://www.reuters.com/article/singapo ... SL8N2AB4U8


All sounds very reasonable and logical. Hopefully it will stop the “FAA is punishing Boeing” nonsense.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22660
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:15 pm

Interesting comments on simulators from Boeing's VP of Marketing:

One key element of returning the jet to service is training pilots on simulators. While countries like India have advised Boeing to set up simulators locally, Tinseth on Tuesday said existing equipment should cover all training requirements.

The training that will be linked to the Max is manageable with the simulators that are in the market,” Tinseth said. “If we look at the footprint today that we see in the market, we look at the retraining that is going to be needed to bring those planes back into the marketplace, we’re OK.”

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-to-skies

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots.

Is he saying enough MAX-specific sims are out there, or that NG sims can be repurposed for the training?
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
 
SWADawg
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Interesting comments on simulators from Boeing's VP of Marketing:

One key element of returning the jet to service is training pilots on simulators. While countries like India have advised Boeing to set up simulators locally, Tinseth on Tuesday said existing equipment should cover all training requirements.

The training that will be linked to the Max is manageable with the simulators that are in the market,” Tinseth said. “If we look at the footprint today that we see in the market, we look at the retraining that is going to be needed to bring those planes back into the marketplace, we’re OK.”

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-to-skies

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots.

Is he saying enough MAX-specific sims are out there, or that NG sims can be repurposed for the training?

I’m thinking he’s saying that Boeing believes that the training scenarios for a trim runaway whether triggered by MCAS or some other anomaly could be trained in either the NG or MAX simulators.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18262
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
Interesting comments on simulators from Boeing's VP of Marketing:

One key element of returning the jet to service is training pilots on simulators. While countries like India have advised Boeing to set up simulators locally, Tinseth on Tuesday said existing equipment should cover all training requirements.

The training that will be linked to the Max is manageable with the simulators that are in the market,” Tinseth said. “If we look at the footprint today that we see in the market, we look at the retraining that is going to be needed to bring those planes back into the marketplace, we’re OK.”

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-to-skies

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots.

Is he saying enough MAX-specific sims are out there, or that NG sims can be repurposed for the training?


A recent Leeham article reported there are 36 MAX simulators currently in service, but more on order.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/10/cae-r ... roduction/
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
rikkus67
Posts: 1328
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
smithbs wrote:
With the absolute certainty of having overlooked the deficiencies with such intense care
just for some nice numbers in the upcoming quarterly results.
I'd tag this malicious.


Sadly, I have to agree. I am also convinced that the trade dispute that has essentially now killed off Bombardier (their own issues notwithstanding), was a deliberate smoke screen.
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:38 pm

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FAA gives steps needed to get Boeing 737 MAX flying, something some in this thread have suggested is lacking:

https://www.reuters.com/article/singapo ... SL8N2AB4U8


All sounds very reasonable and logical. Hopefully it will stop the “FAA is punishing Boeing” nonsense.

Well those steps listed have not changed much from what was provided last year November, this time we should have no debate on whether the initial simulator testing by line pilots has been completed. I still think the airlines and regulators training manuals / requirements should be further along, but...........
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:24 am

The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:47 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.


Funny, I don't recall them ever not wanting to cooperate to get the MAX flying again? I think what you suggest is an extreme and unlikely scenario.
@DadCelo
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:56 am

gatibosgru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.


Funny, I don't recall them ever not wanting to cooperate to get the MAX flying again? I think what you suggest is an extreme and unlikely scenario.


Then why were they being so secretive up until now? The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.
 
Myriad
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:28 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:37 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.


Funny, I don't recall them ever not wanting to cooperate to get the MAX flying again? I think what you suggest is an extreme and unlikely scenario.


Then why were they being so secretive up until now? The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.


It was all political. Mullenberg kept saying stupid comments, the FAA needed to show that it was in charge, Congress had to have its review to show that they are doing their part, and the FAA needed to get additional money in the budget. All that was done in December and Mullenberg got kicked out.
So now, it shifts back to jobs and economic impact in time for the election
 
snowkarl
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 7:48 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:52 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.


Funny, I don't recall them ever not wanting to cooperate to get the MAX flying again? I think what you suggest is an extreme and unlikely scenario.


Then why were they being so secretive up until now? The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.

The public never wants the plane to fly again.

The FAA didn't disclose anything because they didn't want to keep the controversy in the news and tried to put a lid on it. It's that simple. Whydo you really think they want to somehow mess around with Boeing for no reason?
The whole reason the Max killed hundreds is that the regulators have given Boeing too much slack and leeway at every step, if anything, they should be way more strict.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2641
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:53 am

IN light of the Corona virus drama playing out in China, I can see a scenario where the Chinese
defer all their undelivered Max's for quite some time, maybe even moving to the back of the line and have
their frames be the last ones delivered out of the stored inventory.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:10 am

Revelation wrote:
Interesting comments on simulators from Boeing's VP of Marketing:

One key element of returning the jet to service is training pilots on simulators. While countries like India have advised Boeing to set up simulators locally, Tinseth on Tuesday said existing equipment should cover all training requirements.

The training that will be linked to the Max is manageable with the simulators that are in the market,” Tinseth said. “If we look at the footprint today that we see in the market, we look at the retraining that is going to be needed to bring those planes back into the marketplace, we’re OK.”

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-to-skies

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots.

Is he saying enough MAX-specific sims are out there, or that NG sims can be repurposed for the training?


So the training is going to be runaway trim scenarios on a NG simulator..

Pilot: "Jane, it looks like all that work with the union paid off. They're finally giving us that simulator training we've been asking for".
Wife: "Joe that's great".
...
Pilot: "Honey I'm home".
Wife: "Awesome. How'd the training go?"
Pilot: "Uh.. awesome"
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
planecane
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:20 am

sgrow787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Interesting comments on simulators from Boeing's VP of Marketing:

One key element of returning the jet to service is training pilots on simulators. While countries like India have advised Boeing to set up simulators locally, Tinseth on Tuesday said existing equipment should cover all training requirements.

The training that will be linked to the Max is manageable with the simulators that are in the market,” Tinseth said. “If we look at the footprint today that we see in the market, we look at the retraining that is going to be needed to bring those planes back into the marketplace, we’re OK.”

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-to-skies

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots.

Is he saying enough MAX-specific sims are out there, or that NG sims can be repurposed for the training?


So the training is going to be runaway trim scenarios on a NG simulator..

Pilot: "Jane, it looks like all that work with the union paid off. They're finally giving us that simulator training we've been asking for".
Wife: "Joe that's great".
...
Pilot: "Honey I'm home".
Wife: "Awesome. How'd the training go?"
Pilot: "Uh.. awesome"


I love how people jump to conclusions. Where did anybody official clearly state that NG Sims would be used? If there are 38 MAX Sims why wouldn't that be enough? Only a few aircraft per day will be put back in service. It's not like they instantly need 50k pilots trained.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:46 am

Boeing's problem is they have eaten crow and are still eating crow for trying to update a 50 year old aircraft with computers it was never designed to have or need. There is nothing more important than having pilots that know how to hand fly an aircraft and they are a dying part of the airline industry. There are just too many computers being used in the aviation industry. :old:
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
sibibom
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:04 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:17 am

Sooner787 wrote:
IN light of the Corona virus drama playing out in China, I can see a scenario where the Chinese
defer all their undelivered Max's for quite some time, maybe even moving to the back of the line and have
their frames be the last ones delivered out of the stored inventory.


I can bet a million on Coronavirus being sorted before MAX flies again. China will have seen the worst this month, and flu trends to die by spring and definitely by summer.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9211
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:03 am

When it is certified again, Boeing´s troubles are far from over. Look at the numbers from TUI, to get an idea on the compensations the airlines will demand.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:14 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Then why were they being so secretive up until now?

The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.


your train of thoughts breaks here.

Public is rubbernecking.
They are neither in the command nor in the information chain.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18262
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:17 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.


All of a sudden? Is this the same president that recently called Boeing “a big disappointment”?

Now you want the military running the FAA? What could go wrong with that? :rotfl:
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
LTU1011
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:34 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:33 am

Watching this thread from the sidelines leaves one speechless at times, the amount of denial of some of the posters and calling for a dear leader to intervene is highly disturbing imho...
If a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favorable. - Seneca
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18262
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:36 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Then why were they being so secretive up until now? The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.


Can you give examples of the public “pleading with the FAA” for information on MAX?
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
scbriml
Posts: 18262
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:39 am

LTU1011 wrote:
Watching this thread from the sidelines leaves one speechless at times, the amount of denial of some of the posters and calling for a dear leader to intervene is highly disturbing imho...


Didn’t you get the email? Everyone is out to get Boeing!
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.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:52 am

LTU1011 wrote:
Watching this thread from the sidelines leaves one speechless at times, the amount of denial of some of the posters and calling for a dear leader to intervene is highly disturbing imho...


Well that's his job... Who do you think appoints the people to head these agencies? Trump has fired plenty of government officials for incompetence and such. The lackadaisical attitude of the FAA toward getting the Max back in the air was quite concerning. Dickson seemed apathetic toward it. Now he seems to have a new interest in getting It certified and admitted he might not be able to do a worldwide ungrounding. That was never his decision to make. If Boeing has satisfied all FAA requirements then it must be allowed to fly in the US. I believe it's quite possible Mr Dickson got a phone call with a none too happy commander in chief regarding the situation. What else would have changed his attitude?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18262
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:25 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
LTU1011 wrote:
Watching this thread from the sidelines leaves one speechless at times, the amount of denial of some of the posters and calling for a dear leader to intervene is highly disturbing imho...


Well that's his job... Who do you think appoints the people to head these agencies? Trump has fired plenty of government officials for incompetence and such. The lackadaisical attitude of the FAA toward getting the Max back in the air was quite concerning. Dickson seemed apathetic toward it. Now he seems to have a new interest in getting It certified and admitted he might not be able to do a worldwide ungrounding. That was never his decision to make. If Boeing has satisfied all FAA requirements then it must be allowed to fly in the US. I believe it's quite possible Mr Dickson got a phone call with a none too happy commander in chief regarding the situation. What else would have changed his attitude?


The same C-I-C who said “I am so disappointed in Boeing -- had a tremendous impact,” Trump said on CNBC. "You know, when you talk about growth, it’s so big that some people say it’s more than a half a point of GDP. So Boeing -- big, big disappointment to me. Big disappointment.”?

Has he publicly said anything against the FAA?
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
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:33 am

scbriml wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
LTU1011 wrote:
Watching this thread from the sidelines leaves one speechless at times, the amount of denial of some of the posters and calling for a dear leader to intervene is highly disturbing imho...


Well that's his job... Who do you think appoints the people to head these agencies? Trump has fired plenty of government officials for incompetence and such. The lackadaisical attitude of the FAA toward getting the Max back in the air was quite concerning. Dickson seemed apathetic toward it. Now he seems to have a new interest in getting It certified and admitted he might not be able to do a worldwide ungrounding. That was never his decision to make. If Boeing has satisfied all FAA requirements then it must be allowed to fly in the US. I believe it's quite possible Mr Dickson got a phone call with a none too happy commander in chief regarding the situation. What else would have changed his attitude?


The same C-I-C who said “I am so disappointed in Boeing -- had a tremendous impact,” Trump said on CNBC. "You know, when you talk about growth, it’s so big that some people say it’s more than a half a point of GDP. So Boeing -- big, big disappointment to me. Big disappointment.”?

Has he publicly said anything against the FAA?


Honestly, I don’t think it’s his position to comment on either. That’s are what regulators are for.

Rgds,
C1973
 
seb76
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:02 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:37 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The FAA all of a sudden seems to have a change of heart and wants to cooperate to get the Max flying again. I wonder if the president told them to straighten up or there would be consequences. I could see Trump losing confidence and bringing in military officials to temporarily lead the FAA and get things done.


Funny, I don't recall them ever not wanting to cooperate to get the MAX flying again? I think what you suggest is an extreme and unlikely scenario.


Then why were they being so secretive up until now? The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.


Not quite sure what "The public" means for you. For over 95%, the public is composed of people who are not related to aviation by any way and don't visit Airliners.net or any aviation related site. I can bet that they don't care at all about when the Max will fly again. As long as they can find affordable tickets to reach their holiday destinations (and there is still enough metal flying around without the Max to allow this), they will not notice anything. For the portion of that public knowing a bit about the Max debacle just from what they read in the press (and I can tell you that in Europe for now, the press has become very negative towards Boeing .. and also US administrations) there is a good chance that their will to know when the Max will fly again is solely motivated by their desire to avoid booking a trip that could one day put them on a Max with their family. In any case, they are not "pleading to get information" ;-)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9211
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:47 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
LTU1011 wrote:
. What else would have changed his attitude?


Boeing came up with the info needed and a plan that was reasonable.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3638
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:51 am

scbriml wrote:
All sounds very reasonable and logical. Hopefully it will stop the “FAA is punishing Boeing” nonsense.


I can more reasonably turn that around and use the article as evidence that the FAA is continuing to "punish" Boeing. How you can use it as evidence that they are playing nice to them is beyond me. 2 + 2 = 5 for some I guess. Nonsense is right. The list that Lord Dickson speaks off seems to be growing, not shrinking, and we're in the same place we were in months ago (certification flight approaching). Nothing has changed, and he will not say why. I also like how he now estimates how long it will take Boeing to do their tasks. No wonder he got mad at Boeing. Their estimates were rightly pointing the finger in his direction when things kept slipping. It exposed the moving goalposts and illogical fixes required.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:06 am

scbriml wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Then why were they being so secretive up until now? The public pleaded for months to get information on when they expected the Max to fly again and got nothing.


Can you give examples of the public “pleading with the FAA” for information on MAX?



By public I suspect the poster means his friends who works at Boeing. There must be some workers at Boeing who must feel the FAA is out to get them.
 
THS214
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:03 pm

planecane wrote:
767333ER wrote:
smithbs wrote:

It was an analysis done based upon a bad assumption. That does not make it malicious. It was a terrible mistake.


I disagree.

There were a lot of engineers and of course there are areas that they don't know. But in this case its clear that they knew that problem and wanted to hide it. Therefore it is malicious.
 
bgm
Posts: 2296
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

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

Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:04 pm

The FAA need to be 110% sure the MAX isn't going to lawn-dart itself if/when it goes back into service.

What do you think will happen if yet another MAX kamikazed itself? That'd be the end of the MAX program.
OK boomer.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9

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