Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
 
Aviation737
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:53 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:02 am

WOW. Finally, it was a long time coming. Hope, it will be all good news for Boeing from now on.
 
CX747
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:04 am

The overall 737 Max story has been so diluted, morphed and yelled about, that to get to brass tax is very hard.

As a pilot, I was stunned to read the reports on the crashes. It is always a humbling position to be in, because the departed are not here to defend themselves. There were a lot of problems with how the crews handled the situation, as has occurred in other crashes, namely a recent Atlas one. Basic airmanship, following a checklist or talking to the other pilot on what you are doing and why, did not occur. Those are major training or personality issues that have nothing to do with what was being flown or on behalf of who.

Training needs to be conducted, peer review needs to be conducted and we need to find a better way to have truly tested folks at the controls when things go wrong. Actual hand flying and meaningful hours need to be registered. Several hundred feet and the autopilot takes over needs to be shunned. Honest to God mastery of the system and control of the aircraft, needs to be drilled and drilled and drilled again. Not in a monotonous way but in meaningful, creative and thought provoking manner.

The overall system was at a break neck pace, both in manufacturing jets and pushing people into cockpits. The crashes and COVID have hopefully readjusted the priorities.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
tcfc424
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:56 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:19 am

After the Lion Air crash, I pointed out to my team (9 of us that travel weekly---outside of COVID) that they may want to be wary of booking on a MAX. I, myself, actively booked away from it. Knowing what I know now, I have no reservations about the aircraft being safe. I think the pilots are aware, and have followed the events, serving to enhance their knowledge of the aircraft, MCAS, and the recovery actions to be taken. Additionally, I think the training programs will serve to reinforce that knowledge and those actions to be taken, should they become needed. My reason for booking away from the MAX (more for convenience than safety concern) will be due to the way my preferred carrier, AA, has chosen to configure the aircraft. That said, I think most of the 738's have undergone the same configuration changes, so I will definitely be looking for the A321's and E75's when I can get back to travelling for work.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:35 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I believe even the vaunted Delta will finance.


Oh, I expect DL will continue to finance rather than paying cash (it's not Delta handing over a check for L-1011s in the early 70s), but DL doesn't need Boeing to finance them - they will have other commercial financing (and not just CARES Act loans) available.

DL doesn't need Boeing finance, but it may want to in order to extract the very best deal. And Boeing may insist.

Leasing allows latitude to conceal the depth of discounts. Boeing will want pricing and packaging to be low profile, so they can argue MAX confidence has been restored, and sales are achieved on product merits. The opposite will quickly lower the bar, and raise expectations (of even cheaper prices).
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1539
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:36 am

EdmFlyBoi wrote:
The idea that the majority of the flying public (who are not avgeeks) actually know what they are flying on makes most of public's opinion of the Max irrelevant. If the airlines rebrand the safety cards to 737-8 then most will for sure have no idea what kind of aircraft they are on. I commonly ask that question of non-avgeek friends and they differentiate the plane by whether it has propellors or not. Some don't even recall the number of aisles. People will forget quickly the history of the aircraft.

AA, United, and Southwest will have them back in the air relatively quickly I reckon - the fuel savings are too good not to be flying them.


That is for the most part true. The average joe usually has no idea about the type of aircraft they are flying. However the 737MAX is a very special case.

DC10 survived the series of crashes in the 70's and recovered but there was no internet then. Things are very different now! The 737MAX crashes, Boeings role and FAA's role all were discussed in great detail in the electronic, print and social media. They may not know the technical details about MCAS and such but even the common man is aware that there is something wrong with the 737MAX. If the granny who runs the little bakery in Surrey knows that the "737MAX has a autopilot problem", then I am sure many average joes will know too and will in all probability avoid flying the type for atleast a year. There is a reason many airlines including Air Canada are quietly changing 737-MAX8 to 737-8. Yeah! It has not escaped our attention! :)

Secondly, the grounding has delivered a knockout punch to FAA's global credibility. Most countries will not automatically sign off on ANY aircraft just because the FAA has. In the immediate context, this will delay the actual 737MAX re-entry into service. And it will impact all Boeing aircraft going into the future.

Finally, Boeing/FAA are really skating on thin ice here with the 737MAX. If there is any more unfortunate incident with the 737MAX, the programme is toast! Public confidence may be won back once, but you cant lose it again!
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
hivue
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:49 am

aden23 wrote:
and the general public is not as dumb as many of you seem to think.


Well, some of them are not maybe. Any bets on how long before you can have an app on your phone (for $2.99) that tells you whether the flight you are on (or are contemplating being on) is a MAX or not?
Last edited by hivue on Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27362
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:00 am

If you offer two flights close together and the MAX is $20 cheaper than an A320, 90+ out of 100 will pick the MAX even if they know it's a MAX and are familiar with it being grounded for safety reasons because it saves them $20.
 
hivue
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:09 am

Stitch wrote:
Frankly that first LionAir 610 crew were more lucky than good.


Say what?? If they had failed to come up with a solution to their problem but still completed the flight safely that would be lucky. But they did come up with a relevant and effective solution to a problem they had never trained for and no one had seen before. That's good.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
CX747
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:12 am

Stitch wrote:
If you offer two flights close together and the MAX is $20 cheaper than an A320, 90+ out of 100 will pick the MAX even if they know it's a MAX and are familiar with it being grounded for safety reasons because it saves them $20.


Indeed. 99.9% if the general public is not interested and at best may say, "well, they fixed it so off I go to XYZ".
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20940
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:18 am

Stitch wrote:
If you offer two flights close together and the MAX is $20 cheaper than an A320, 90+ out of 100 will pick the MAX even if they know it's a MAX and are familiar with it being grounded for safety reasons because it saves them $20.

Or saves a connection...
Or if the same price, in the FF award program...

I wonder how many who won't fly it fly regularly? I fly 3 to 12 round trips per year (sometimes more, but I avoid that work now). Of all the variables to pick...

For 737 operators, these will soon fly the longer routes due to the fuel savings. Would people really add a connections to avoid the MAX? Ok, in large groups. I know people who flew odd routes for odd reasons.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
CX747
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:24 am

hivue wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Frankly that first LionAir 610 crew were more lucky than good.


Say what?? If they had failed to come up with a solution to their problem but still completed the flight safely that would be lucky. But they did come up with a relevant and effective solution to a problem they had never trained for and no one had seen before. That's good.


The first Lionair crew was blessed to have another pilot deadheading, up front and in the cockpit. He appropriately assisted and worked the crew through the issue. They followed the checklist, worked the issue and brought the bird back home safely. A job well done indeed.

The deadheading pilot was aware of what to do, how to do it and thought critically.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Sokes
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:46 am

Opus99 wrote:
Some here swear they are smarter and more learned at aircraft certification than the FAA and EASA combined ! ;)

I believe everybody who understands redundancy is smarter than the FAA at aircraft certification.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Tiredofhumanity
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:27 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:52 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:

Unless the buyer was buying the model as a replacement for old frames and needs replacement. Air Canada and Icelandair will want a return to service.

Icelandair will benefit tremendously from the improved performance. I forgot about their grounded fleet.

Spot price if JetA $1.20/gallon or about $397.81 per metric ton:
https://www.airlines.org/argus-us-jet-fuel-index/

Low was $0.61/gallon
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/ ... y=jet-fuel

To put in perspective, in the boom times $1.70/gallon to $1.98 (monthly average):
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/ ... months=240

So fuel is pricey enough that the MAX pays for the upgrade.

Lightsaber

FI can also start to retire the old B752 fleet en masse now. That said, they would still need a wide-body model for destinations beyond 3000 nmi. For them, I'd expect them to be in for the S21 schedule (by which point COVID-19 vaccination will be well under way).


What about AC? Their A320's are mostly 20-30 years old.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:56 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I find the articles to be in very poor taste by tbe Seattle Times. They didn't need three new hit pieces on Boeing on what should be a celebrated day. But that's pretty much what Gates is known for. The fact that they couldn't even keep one of the articles positive shows the bias and that they are not an objective source. International media sources such as BBC have been much better at keeping to the facts and not letting personal grudges get in the way of reporting.



A day to be celebrated? Funny you should see it like that. It is more than 2 years since the first crash and 20 months since grounding. I personally don't think a mess up this big needs to be celebrated, it should just quietly be acknowledged and work continue to get the aircraft out the door. Celebrations are for certification of new models, not for aircraft grounded for 20 months.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:19 am

enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I find the articles to be in very poor taste by tbe Seattle Times. They didn't need three new hit pieces on Boeing on what should be a celebrated day. But that's pretty much what Gates is known for. The fact that they couldn't even keep one of the articles positive shows the bias and that they are not an objective source. International media sources such as BBC have been much better at keeping to the facts and not letting personal grudges get in the way of reporting.



A day to be celebrated? Funny you should see it like that. It is more than 2 years since the first crash and 20 months since grounding. I personally don't think a mess up this big needs to be celebrated, it should just quietly be acknowledged and work continue to get the aircraft out the door. Celebrations are for certification of new models, not for aircraft grounded for 20 months.


I'm betting there were quite a few celebrations when the Concorde's grounding was lifted. And there should have been. I don't know why any fan of aviation would want to look down on this day.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11410
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:35 am

Just a reminder to keep your post relevant to the topic without trying to provoke other users.
Forum Moderator
 
Chemist
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:51 am

I would think that regardless of the myriad issues with software and design in the MAX, it would not hurt if every ATP had a required hour in a REAL Cessna 172 or equivalent once a year - to go through hand-flying what we are taught for a PPL: Stalls, steep turns, slow flight, minimum controllable airspeed, and unusual attitude recovery under the hood.
 
uta999
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:53 am

hivue wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Frankly that first LionAir 610 crew were more lucky than good.


Say what?? If they had failed to come up with a solution to their problem but still completed the flight safely that would be lucky. But they did come up with a relevant and effective solution to a problem they had never trained for and no one had seen before. That's good.


Yes, but it took three of them to save the plane. That may sum up what is needed to make an airline as safe as one that only needs two pilots. You cannot compare two flights, one successful, with one that wasn't if one of the crew had an extra pair of hands. The MAX caused the crash, not the 'below average' crew.
Your computer just got better
 
Redd
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:51 am

BooDog wrote:
I feel safe, simply because of this: If a single Max crashes in the next year, It'll be the end of Boeing. All reputation gained over the past 100 years will be dead.


You may be right, but I don't want to be on that MAX ;) I'm going to give it at least a year before I put myself or my family on the MAX. 1 year after it's back in operation around the world.
 
asdf
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:07 am

CX747 wrote:
...Basic airmanship, following a checklist or talking to the other pilot on what you are doing and why, did not occur. ......

wrong
read the reports

CX747 wrote:
...Actual hand flying and meaningful hours need to be registered....


Meaningful handflying hours an a plane does NOT help on the max

engines are to high and to far in front
if you try to handfly it the feedback of the stick does not reflect the aerodynamical situation

that for the needed MCAS to simulate a aedequate feedback
 
asdf
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:09 am

Chemist wrote:
I would think that regardless of the myriad issues with software and design in the MAX, it would not hurt if every ATP had a required hour in a REAL Cessna 172 or equivalent once a year - to go through hand-flying what we are taught for a PPL: Stalls, steep turns, slow flight, minimum controllable airspeed, and unusual attitude recovery under the hood.


that would be a benefit for every flying object out there

but not on the concord (well, thats not a problem now)
not on the space shuttle (well, ..)
and not on the MAX
 
CRJockey
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:23 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Sign me up with the folks who expect a rebranding to simply 737-8/9/10.


Agree! And, regardless of the MAX fiasco in total, it would be a good move. 737-8 sounds professional and in line with the Boeing product line up. MAX simply sounds ridiculuous and did from the start. But thats of course a personal feeling.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:32 am

klm617 wrote:
For me this was a glaring example of poor crew training and lack of experience rather than [...].


I am glad Boeing was able to bring the aircraft back to the sky with the necessary improvements. But, with all due respect and not knowing your professional background, if your statement above is your honest take from what happenend, you lack fundamental understanding of aircraft design, the man-machine-interface and the whole 24 month past the first crash and the improvement process.

Stitch has an excellent post on page three in this thread pointing out (again and again, I might say) how highly experienced "western" crews lost the airframe with old MCAS config time and time again in the SIM. No, the crews are not to blame. They are victims as any of the 346 people. Victims first and foremost because the industry complex was deliberatlely withholding crucial systems information and SIM training.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:46 am

Chemist wrote:
I would think that regardless of the myriad issues with software and design in the MAX, it would not hurt if every ATP had a required hour in a REAL Cessna 172 or equivalent once a year - to go through hand-flying what we are taught for a PPL: Stalls, steep turns, slow flight, minimum controllable airspeed, and unusual attitude recovery under the hood.


No it would not hurt. But it wouldn't help much either, in my opinion. I still fly both "worlds". But apart from the underlying physics factors like speeds, forces, complexity, necessity for crew cooperation etc., make flying a passenger jet largely different from a Cessna. Flying a pattern with 80kts is not preparing you for a situation like MCAS presented to the pilots. Flying stalls in a C172 you are mostly trying to even GET the aircraft into stall by pulling and pulling and kicking the rudder, so well-behaved are those wings regarding stall characteristics. Unusual attitude is trained in the Full Flight Sim which I feel is plenty sufficient and more effective than doing that in a 100kts Piper.

Thats also, why I am not in the "200hours pilots kill people" camp, as the evidence from Europe is cold hard fact against the thesis.

And still, I said it already in a recent post, I am happy Boeing and the authorities were able to put the 737 under the scrutiny it needed with the improvements necessary back into service.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:58 am

CRJockey wrote:
MAX simply sounds ridiculuous and did from the start. But thats of course a personal feeling.


Indeed. Reminds me of when Nestle introduced the large 1 finger KitKat (in the UK at least). On more than one occasion I said to the shopkeeper "I'll have a KitKat Chunky" and they replied "You're not so slim yourself".

CRJockey wrote:
klm617 wrote:
For me this was a glaring example of poor crew training and lack of experience rather than [...].


I am glad Boeing was able to bring the aircraft back to the sky with the necessary improvements. But, with all due respect and not knowing your professional background, if your statement above is your honest take from what happenend, you lack fundamental understanding of aircraft design, the man-machine-interface and the whole 24 month past the first crash and the improvement process.


Well written.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20940
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:15 pm

A fun poll on will people fly the MAX or not. I claim no scientific validity. At the time I post this slightly more would fly it than wouldn't, but a moderate sized group waiting for their own regulator to approve:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... max-2021-0

I also found a link of rate, per million flights, of crashes. You must prove <1 per million. To me this says the MAX grounding was justified. But the changes also tell me the root cause was addressed and it should fly again.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

If you want to wait, wait. I personally estimate it will take until end 2Q2021 to see a hundred MAX flying again; that is noise in the overall global market. It will be summer 2021, in my opinion, when a large quantity enter service (hopefully as demand returns).


Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:53 pm

lightsaber wrote:
A fun poll on will people fly the MAX or not. I claim no scientific validity. At the time I post this slightly more would fly it than wouldn't, but a moderate sized group waiting for their own regulator to approve:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... max-2021-0

I also found a link of rate, per million flights, of crashes. You must prove <1 per million. To me this says the MAX grounding was justified. But the changes also tell me the root cause was addressed and it should fly again.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

If you want to wait, wait. I personally estimate it will take until end 2Q2021 to see a hundred MAX flying again; that is noise in the overall global market. It will be summer 2021, in my opinion, when a large quantity enter service (hopefully as demand returns).


Lightsaber


That second list also shows that you should probably think twice before flying on a little Fokker.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:05 pm

CX747 wrote:
hivue wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Frankly that first LionAir 610 crew were more lucky than good.


Say what?? If they had failed to come up with a solution to their problem but still completed the flight safely that would be lucky. But they did come up with a relevant and effective solution to a problem they had never trained for and no one had seen before. That's good.


The first Lionair crew was blessed to have another pilot deadheading, up front and in the cockpit. He appropriately assisted and worked the crew through the issue. They followed the checklist, worked the issue and brought the bird back home safely. A job well done indeed.

The deadheading pilot was aware of what to do, how to do it and thought critically.

The issue with the first flight is that they did not return to base, once they identified a way to fly the a/c they continued on the scheduled flight.
In all the discussions about the technical issues of just how dangerous MCAS is / was / or will be, that simple operational decision has been lost in the shuffle.
Let's hope the updated training manuals mandate a return to base if an MCAS issue occurs going forward.
Last edited by par13del on Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jollo
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The level of predictive maintenance, in particular on the engines, us a huge step forward on the MAX.


Interesting. Do you happen to know how much of the raw predictive maintenance data from a 737MAX flight comes off the engines, and how much from the rest of the aircraft?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:13 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
I won't be getting anywhere NEAR this thing, for at least several years..... but I also recognize that the overwhelming majority of the public, despite what they say to media/pollsters, will have no idea what they're flying on, and thus any expressed objections by them will be irrelevant.

With respect, I propose a hypothetical. UA, AA and WN have said they will not force pax to fly on MAX. So, suppose you show up to the airport and your non-MAX flight on one of those carriers gets cancelled due to maintenance. Your choices are (a) take a full refund and not travel; (b) accept an inferior routing on perhaps less comfortable aircraft (think RJ); (c) accept a delay of a day or more to get onto the original equipment; (d) fly on MAX on the planned itenerary. Which would you choose?

uta999 wrote:
You cannot compare two flights, one successful, with one that wasn't if one of the crew had an extra pair of hands. The MAX caused the crash, not the 'below average' crew.

One thing Boeing was (eventually) clear on was that MCAS put too much workload onto the pilots. I take this as a frank admission. I think others should too, and we should put the matter to rest.

That being said, there is a problem with 'inconsistent' pilot training world wide, even Airbus says this is so ( ref: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... ng-quality ).

Since every MAX pilot is now going to be going through sim training, I would hope the sim instructors are being told to look out for weak performers who may be having problems keeping up with the training and may need additional training before RTS. The Atlas Air situation does spring to mind.
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
 
hivue
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:36 pm

par13del wrote:
Let's hope the updated training manuals mandate a return to base if an MCAS issue occurs going forward.


I assume you mean land at nearest suitable?

MCAS (old and new) is strictly software, not hardware. It's a software component of the STS. I assume there always have been rules regarding whether the STS can be MEL'd, whether an STS failure requires landing as soon as possible,etc. I wouldn't think those would change materially.
Last edited by hivue on Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
CX747
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:36 pm

asdf wrote:
CX747 wrote:
...Basic airmanship, following a checklist or talking to the other pilot on what you are doing and why, did not occur. ......

wrong
read the reports

CX747 wrote:
...Actual hand flying and meaningful hours need to be registered....


Meaningful handflying hours an a plane does NOT help on the max

engines are to high and to far in front
if you try to handfly it the feedback of the stick does not reflect the aerodynamical situation

that for the needed MCAS to simulate a aedequate feedback


Read the reports, talked with other pilots. Appropriate responses did not occur from the crews. That doesn't detract from the need to adjust the Max, it is just a fact that can't and should not be ignored.

In addition, you are describing a technical fault, not the appropriate ability to react to an aircraft not doing what you want, manage the situation and get back safely to the ground. Hopefully moving forward all has been addressed.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
max999
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:43 pm

CNN reports: Boeing's 737 Max debacle could be the most expensive corporate blunder ever
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/17/busi ... index.html
The article goes into details about the direct costs that Boeing has already disclosed and at the indirect costs that still not known. It could cost Boeing more than $68B, which was the cost for BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster and that has been the most expensive corporate mistake so far.

All those Jack Welch acolytes in Boeing management did such a great job at creating shareholder value!
Last edited by max999 on Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:45 pm

hivue wrote:
par13del wrote:
Let's hope the updated training manuals mandate a return to base if an MCAS issue occurs going forward.


I assume you mean land at nearest suitable?
.

Yes, did not think I needed to be that specific.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:56 pm

hivue wrote:
par13del wrote:
Let's hope the updated training manuals mandate a return to base if an MCAS issue occurs going forward.


I assume you mean land at nearest suitable?

MCAS (old and new) is strictly software, not hardware. It's a software component of the STS. I assume there always have been rules regarding whether the STS can be MEL'd, whether an STS failure requires landing as soon as possible,etc. I wouldn't think those would change materially.

Figure 10 of the FAA AD on RTS has a list of ten changes to the MEL, one of which is:
The speed trim function must be operative for dispatch.

NOTE: This requires both FCCs to be operative for dispatch.

It also says "Dispatch is not permitted with both autopilot systems inoperative" and gives a list of lights, switches, warnings and displays that need to be operative before dispatch.

I'm not familiar with the old MEL but it is my understanding that in the past you only needed one FCC for dispatch since it wasn't doing anything required to meet FARs, it was in essence something that reduced pilot workload rather than making the plane legal to fly. As we know, the old FCC setup (and the one still used on older 737s) keeps one FCC active and one in standby so the 2nd isn't even in use during a given flight.
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
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15468
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:12 pm

Even before the 2 737MAX crashes, there were several pilots who had and reported issues with the handling of the 737MAX. There are also other aircraft that have handling issues in certain conditions that contributed to crashes, for example the MD-11 but were never grounded.
I think Boeing needs to have massive training and test flights program with a cross-section of commercial pilots from around the world in different conditions to feel out real life behaviors of the aircraft, computer systems and of pilots.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:14 pm

Chemist wrote:
I would think that regardless of the myriad issues with software and design in the MAX, it would not hurt if every ATP had a required hour in a REAL Cessna 172 or equivalent once a year - to go through hand-flying what we are taught for a PPL: Stalls, steep turns, slow flight, minimum controllable airspeed, and unusual attitude recovery under the hood.




Absolutely. All of my friends still employed as commercial ATP's do indeed fly small single engine GA aircraft on their days off. They see it as not only critical to maintaining their Stick and Ridder roots, most find it very relaxing and helps them survive the typical grind of a Line Pilot.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:35 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Various sources are reporting that the 737 MAX has been ungrounded by the FAA.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/business ... index.html

It will be interesting to see how the stored airplanes get returned (or, in many cases, introduced) into service over the coming months and years.


It will take some time for the planes to have the FAA required "fixes" installed.
 
hivue
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:38 pm

par13del wrote:
hivue wrote:
par13del wrote:
Let's hope the updated training manuals mandate a return to base if an MCAS issue occurs going forward.


I assume you mean land at nearest suitable?
.

Yes, did not think I needed to be that specific.


Understood. But a MAX crew with an STS issue would know the difference between diverting, returning to the departure airport, and continuing to destination and would have to make the appropriate decision in the specific circumstances.

In the current environment an "MCAS issue" could mean MCAS activating appropriately and in the absence of any hardware failure. I wonder, under these circumstances and with the airplane in controlled flight and MCAS disabled, what the new requirements advise that a crew should do. Maybe consider continuing to destination?

EDIT: Oops. Meant to say "...and MCAS still enabled..."
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11062
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:44 pm

hivue wrote:
par13del wrote:
hivue wrote:

I assume you mean land at nearest suitable?
.

Yes, did not think I needed to be that specific.


Understood. But a MAX crew with an STS issue would know the difference between diverting, returning to the departure airport, and continuing to destination and would have to make the appropriate decision in the specific circumstances.

In the current environment an "MCAS issue" could mean MCAS activating appropriately and in the absence of any hardware failure. I wonder, under these circumstances and with the airplane in controlled flight and MCAS disabled, what the new requirements advise that a crew should do. Maybe consider continuing to destination?

If MCAS is legitimately activating (or if you previously disabled MCaS for some reason and now in a situation where it is legitimately needed) then you are probably in a situation where you want to get on the ground as soon as possible. It would probably be left up to pilot discretion though, rather than some blanket order that says if MCAS activates you are required to land immediately. If MCAS is finally designed and working properly the fact that MCAS activated should not be a major issue for the rest of the flight assuming everything else with the plane is ok and not damaged in any way. You might have some bad pilots though, so as a passenger ot might be preferable that you get off ASAP ;)


It should never activate in normal everyday flying.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2946
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:58 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Stitch has an excellent post on page three in this thread pointing out (again and again, I might say) how highly experienced "western" crews lost the airframe with old MCAS config time and time again in the SIM.


Those test scenarios were not the same as the accident Flights. Crews were only given control of the aircraft in the SIM only after multiple MCAS activations and way overspeed.

If they had been given control at first MCAS activation the results should have been a lot different.

It would be the same in any runaway trim scenario - not much you would be able to do if the tail plane was already fully trimmed down and Thrust levers were in TOGA and you were a hundred knots + over Vne with only a few thousand feet of altitude.

It was the fact the two crews let the situation develop to that point that needs to be trained for.
 
planecane
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:00 pm

hivue wrote:
aden23 wrote:
and the general public is not as dumb as many of you seem to think.


Well, some of them are not maybe. Any bets on how long before you can have an app on your phone (for $2.99) that tells you whether the flight you are on (or are contemplating being on) is a MAX or not?

Why would you need an app? At least for AA and WN, you can see it on their website for free in ten seconds.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Stitch has an excellent post on page three in this thread pointing out (again and again, I might say) how highly experienced "western" crews lost the airframe with old MCAS config time and time again in the SIM.


Those test scenarios were not the same as the accident Flights. Crews were only given control of the aircraft in the SIM only after multiple MCAS activations and way overspeed.

If they had been given control at first MCAS activation the results should have been a lot different.

It would be the same in any runaway trim scenario - not much you would be able to do if the tail plane was already fully trimmed down and Thrust levers were in TOGA and you were a hundred knots + over Vne with only a few thousand feet of altitude.

It was the fact the two crews let the situation develop to that point that needs to be trained for.


So basically what your are saying is, that the regulators and accident investigators deliberately rigged the SIM scenario against the crew in order to achieve desastrous results? Out of which then more disastrous conclusions against the safety of the 737 could be drawn?

I am not sure I buy this theory, but I am happy to read up on the matter. Can you recommend a good reading about that? Would be highly interesting.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:48 pm

Polot wrote:
If MCAS is legitimately activating (or if you previously disabled MCaS for some reason and now in a situation where it is legitimately needed) then you are probably in a situation where you want to get on the ground as soon as possible. It would probably be left up to pilot discretion though, rather than some blanket order that says if MCAS activates you are required to land immediately. If MCAS is finally designed and working properly the fact that MCAS activated should not be a major issue for the rest of the flight assuming everything else with the plane is ok and not damaged in any way. You might have some bad pilots though, so as a passenger ot might be preferable that you get off ASAP ;)


I presume the flight standardization board considered this in their evaluation of what should be in the training and manuals, although I haven't tried to look up if there is any guidance about diverting. It makes sense to me that it should be the pilot's decision, which will be aided by knowledge of what MCAS does, how it is disabled, and what the new limits of its actions are.

Also, as indicated in the FAA's summary report, they tested the scenario where MCAS does not activate when it should, whether that was because it was previously disabled or due to an AoA disagreement. It seems they found it an acceptable way for the system to degrade as a failure scenario, although obviously not acceptable as normal behavior, per the relevant FAR. I don't remember if the failure is indicated by a warning separate from "AoA Disagree," but there is at least some notification to the crew of a relevant technical issue. Meanwhile, the EASA's view seems to have been that it was acceptable enough to return to flight, but not as the long term behavior. Adding the synthetic airspeed check should further reduce the possible situations when a pilot might encounter degraded control behavior at high AoA.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2946
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:54 pm

CRJockey wrote:
morrisond wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Stitch has an excellent post on page three in this thread pointing out (again and again, I might say) how highly experienced "western" crews lost the airframe with old MCAS config time and time again in the SIM.


Those test scenarios were not the same as the accident Flights. Crews were only given control of the aircraft in the SIM only after multiple MCAS activations and way overspeed.

If they had been given control at first MCAS activation the results should have been a lot different.

It would be the same in any runaway trim scenario - not much you would be able to do if the tail plane was already fully trimmed down and Thrust levers were in TOGA and you were a hundred knots + over Vne with only a few thousand feet of altitude.

It was the fact the two crews let the situation develop to that point that needs to be trained for.


So basically what your are saying is, that the regulators and accident investigators deliberately rigged the SIM scenario against the crew in order to achieve desastrous results? Out of which then more disastrous conclusions against the safety of the 737 could be drawn?

I am not sure I buy this theory, but I am happy to read up on the matter. Can you recommend a good reading about that? Would be highly interesting.


I'll dig those up.. There was actually another test written up in Aviation Week where pilots were put in a situation like the accident flights in the MAX sim. It was no biggie for them to switch to manual trim and continue the flight.

In the meanwhile at first dig I came across this article. Another example of another crew not being able to actually fly an aircraft without the nannies https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/exp ... 72.article

I haven't looked into it in detail but I expect the were a couple of 200 hour European Wonders into the right seat.

You then also have the Lufthansa 321 flight where the 200 hour wonder almost put it into the ground when all 3 probes froze up before the Senior Captain who had real experience and was not an 200 hour wonder took over and saved the flight.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:16 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
I suspect many of those parked planes will stay exactly where they are. Between COVID19 and the public's likely unwillingness to fly the plane, only a handful will be back in the air any time soon.


Most people don´t even notice how many engines a plane has.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13438
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I won't be getting anywhere NEAR this thing, for at least several years..... but I also recognize that the overwhelming majority of the public, despite what they say to media/pollsters, will have no idea what they're flying on, and thus any expressed objections by them will be irrelevant.

With respect, I propose a hypothetical. UA, AA and WN have said they will not force pax to fly on MAX. So, suppose you show up to the airport and your non-MAX flight on one of those carriers gets cancelled due to maintenance. Your choices are (a) take a full refund and not travel; (b) accept an inferior routing on perhaps less comfortable aircraft (think RJ); (c) accept a delay of a day or more to get onto the original equipment; (d) fly on MAX on the planned itenerary. Which would you choose?

Implausible scenario: as I simply won't book with carriers who fly it, to avoid this specific problem happening in the first place-- just as I did throughout the mid to late '90s, the last time 737s were having a (un)known issue causing a string of crashes.

Granted, it was much easier to do back then, as there were so many M80/757/727/etc options. The amount of domestic widebodies (e.g. 767s, L1011s, etc) really helped too.
Now, it's more a matter of simply sticking with DL (my primary carrier anyway), and using B6 or F9 as a backup, or trying NK.

But to humor the argument, every alternative but "d" would be considered. D would simply not be an option.
...not ...getting ...on ...that thing.

Would be yearrrrrrrrs before I'd even contemplate the idea.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
hivue
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:52 pm

planecane wrote:
hivue wrote:
aden23 wrote:
and the general public is not as dumb as many of you seem to think.


Well, some of them are not maybe. Any bets on how long before you can have an app on your phone (for $2.99) that tells you whether the flight you are on (or are contemplating being on) is a MAX or not?

Why would you need an app? At least for AA and WN, you can see it on their website for free in ten seconds.


I realize some airlines have said they will be fully transparent about when a passenger is booked on a MAX. We'll see. Some may specify -7 or -8 and say they have adequately identified the airplane ("MAX" after all is and always has been just a catch-all branding like "Dreamliner"). If the more dire predictions you have seen from a-netters pessimists who think no rational passenger will knowingly book on a MAX come to pass then the airlines may need to start thinking about rationing information regarding what the aircraft type is.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:58 pm

CRJockey wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Sign me up with the folks who expect a rebranding to simply 737-8/9/10.


Agree! And, regardless of the MAX fiasco in total, it would be a good move. 737-8 sounds professional and in line with the Boeing product line up. MAX simply sounds ridiculuous and did from the start. But thats of course a personal feeling.

+1 - always felt the name was silly, even told my buddy who works in Boeing Sales. He privately agreed but of course has to toe the company line when trying to sell them.
Although I am not planning on traveling by air anytime soon, next time I do I would fly on a 737 Max without hesitation.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: FAA ungrounds Boeing 737 MAX

Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:59 pm

morrisond wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Stitch has an excellent post on page three in this thread pointing out (again and again, I might say) how highly experienced "western" crews lost the airframe with old MCAS config time and time again in the SIM.


Those test scenarios were not the same as the accident Flights. Crews were only given control of the aircraft in the SIM only after multiple MCAS activations and way overspeed.

If they had been given control at first MCAS activation the results should have been a lot different.

It would be the same in any runaway trim scenario - not much you would be able to do if the tail plane was already fully trimmed down and Thrust levers were in TOGA and you were a hundred knots + over Vne with only a few thousand feet of altitude.

It was the fact the two crews let the situation develop to that point that needs to be trained for.


I also would appreciate if you have any links about this topic. This is something that has been puzzling me for a while, but I haven't had a chance to follow up on my intention to look for information about those tests.

Since MCAS does not override the electric trim switches, and even if the electric trim is disabled, the FAA's reports say they verified manual trim wheel forces are acceptable, what you're saying about the test actually being an evaluation strictly of the ability to recover once over-speed at a very high nose-down trim makes sense. However, I'd much prefer to verify this from an FAA report, or at least an article from a media source with an experienced aviation writer.
  • 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