maint123
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:29 am

Rather confusing that on one hand people claiming no sim training is required for the 737max, while at the same time airlines are buying scores of max sim trainers? Why waste money on Max sim trainers if NG trainers and a ipad are enough?
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3037
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:29 am

I’m guessing there will be no simulator training requirements for return to service but recurrent training sessions will cover much more vigorously the runaway trim and manual stab trim issues.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6935
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:09 am

wingman wrote:
I personally find it incredible that the FAA and Boeing would argue against the need for simulator training.

What would there be to train in a sim?

If MCAS v2 is safe, then a MAX will fly as an NG.

When a sensor fails, then you will get an appropriate alarm telling just that. MCAS will be disabled. Then you should preferably stay away from very high AoA work. That's a very, very simple and obvious memory item.

Alarm, AoA sensing unreliable, please keep AoA within sensible limits. It should be obvious for any pilot, and it should not be a reason to put him in a sim. And BTW, what would be tested in the sim. The sim of course could be used to demonstrate for the pilot how yoke force gradient in case of sensor failure and insane AoA is reduced below certifiable limits due to inop MCAS. Sure that can be told in an online presentation to people who have managed to get a license to fly us from A to B.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
sgrow787
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:24 am

prebennorholm wrote:
wingman wrote:
I personally find it incredible that the FAA and Boeing would argue against the need for simulator training.

What would there be to train in a sim?

If MCAS v2 is safe, then a MAX will fly as an NG.

When a sensor fails, then you will get an appropriate alarm telling just that. MCAS will be disabled. Then you should preferably stay away from very high AoA work. That's a very, very simple and obvious memory item.

Alarm, AoA sensing unreliable, please keep AoA within sensible limits. It should be obvious for any pilot, and it should not be a reason to put him in a sim. And BTW, what would be tested in the sim. The sim of course could be used to demonstrate for the pilot how yoke force gradient in case of sensor failure and insane AoA is reduced below certifiable limits due to inop MCAS. Sure that can be told in an online presentation to people who have managed to get a license to fly us from A to B.


Uhh, train for uncommanded AND trim at takeoff rotation and other low altitude scenarios. Can the pilot deal with faulty MCAS and faulty ADIRU simultaneously? Can they turn the trim wheel? Will they remember to control the throttle? What other simultaneous emergencies? How bout terrain avoidance and IFR flying?
 
art
Posts: 2906
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:34 am

par13del wrote:
The FAA is a government body, funded by the government via special taxes etc, as well as other budget means, therefore at its core it is political.


Therefore at its core it is compromised and cannot be relied on in its role of ensuring safety in aviation? Is the assessment of whether an aircraft is safe to fly political in nature? If it is, God help the flying public.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8491
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:42 am

par13del wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Not sure how well the following will go down with the A.Net faithfull.

"The need for additional training following the accidents isn’t in dispute. In both cases, pilots could have saved the planes, as did the ones aboard a Lion Air flight the night before the crash when confronted with an identical malfunction. But the crews on the planes that crashed either didn’t recognize what was happening or became overwhelmed by the multiple alarms and failures that were occurring simultaneously, according to preliminary reports."


Nobody doubted that they could have saved the planes, but for it to be a pilot error the finding should show that they "should have saved" the planes. Except for a midair structural break-up, a bomb or all engines out, pilots could have saved the plane in most accidents.

And I never understood the idea of a simulator training for the MCAS failure. Every 737 pilot is trained for the runaway trim failure, they only need to know that there is a new failure mode which does not see the trim wheel spin continuously, but one that will trim in intervals. The checklist will change.

If uncommaneded trim - check if manual electric trim works - if not - cut switches - if yes - trim neutral monitor for X seconds if a new uncommanded trim input occurs - if yes cut switches
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:11 am

seahawk wrote:
par13del wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Not sure how well the following will go down with the A.Net faithfull.

"The need for additional training following the accidents isn’t in dispute. In both cases, pilots could have saved the planes, as did the ones aboard a Lion Air flight the night before the crash when confronted with an identical malfunction. But the crews on the planes that crashed either didn’t recognize what was happening or became overwhelmed by the multiple alarms and failures that were occurring simultaneously, according to preliminary reports."


Nobody doubted that they could have saved the planes, but for it to be a pilot error the finding should show that they "should have saved" the planes. Except for a midair structural break-up, a bomb or all engines out, pilots could have saved the plane in most accidents.

And I never understood the idea of a simulator training for the MCAS failure. Every 737 pilot is trained for the runaway trim failure, they only need to know that there is a new failure mode which does not see the trim wheel spin continuously, but one that will trim in intervals. The checklist will change.

If uncommaneded trim - check if manual electric trim works - if not - cut switches - if yes - trim neutral monitor for X seconds if a new uncommanded trim input occurs - if yes cut switches

Stab Trim Runaway was only added to the training syllabus in February this year so will be covered on 6month re-current training. Does mean that many pilots will have seen it by the time MAX gets back in service.

Ray
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:31 am

aerolimani wrote:
At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


By saying "I sincerely hope you feel the same" in this context, you're implying that there's actually only one right answer. With only one right answer, your statement that there's a question to be answered is incongruent. You've now implied that there isn't a question. So is this actually a question to you, or not?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:47 am

MSPNWA wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


By saying "I sincerely hope you feel the same" in this context, you're implying that there's actually only one right answer.


That is correct, there is only one right answer.

Only an idiot would think it would be reasonable to expect the pilot to diagnose an undocumented failure mode, then rectify said failure mode using the documented techniques for similar failure scenarios which have since been shown to be partially ineffectual.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:49 am

Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:02 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.


Well the cat is certainly out of the bag at this point, with what we know now about the FCC microprocessor and architecture issues. There's enough information to suggest a closer look is needed at WHY Boeing couldn't achieve a two sensor MCAS design. No one in the aerospace industry believes it was mere engineering misjudgment.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:06 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.

Not necessarily. You can change the FCCs to Active/Standby (assuming with swapping FCC in control in the event of fault) without any perceivable impact in the cockpit. If its done right, it will just mean the auto functions dropping out less often and more assured fail safe. Providing the pilots are appropriately instructed in the changes made and what to expect, it should be all good news.

There are potential gains for the OMS and MX staff in diagnosis of problems as well.

Ray
 
bgm
Posts: 2078
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:17 am

Grounded now for 5 months.

How long was the 787 grounded for?
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
planecane
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:52 am

aerolimani wrote:
planecane wrote:
par13del wrote:
Not sure how well the following will go down with the A.Net faithfull.

"The need for additional training following the accidents isn’t in dispute. In both cases, pilots could have saved the planes, as did the ones aboard a Lion Air flight the night before the crash when confronted with an identical malfunction. But the crews on the planes that crashed either didn’t recognize what was happening or became overwhelmed by the multiple alarms and failures that were occurring simultaneously, according to preliminary reports."


I've posted this exact sentiment many times and been accused of being a Boeing PR plant. Will this being published by respected media earn me some respect for my opinions? I even had a member add me to his ignore list over this opinion.

At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against dual engine failure on takeoff? Sully and the Russian pilot from the other day both handled that emergency which isn't trained for.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against an uncontained engine failure simultaneous with a rapid depressurization? Those are two emergencies that individually must be reacted to quickly and correctly if they happen individually. The pilots of WN1380 handled both flawlessly and landed safely.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against any emergency situation? If not, what is the job of a pilot? Flying an aircraft in good conditions isn't all that difficult. The skill and airmanship comes into play in non-routine situations and emergencies. Yes, I expect when I board a flight that the pilots are capable of recovering from any emergency situation that is possible to recover from.

Boeing putting out an incompetent design for a system and the pilots not having the training and/or airmanship skills to recover from the failure that resulted from the incompetent design are not mutually exclusive. Boeing's screw up caused two events of runaway stabilizer that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The pilots also didn't recover from a recoverable situation.
 
planecane
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:55 am

XRAYretired wrote:
seahawk wrote:
par13del wrote:
Not sure how well the following will go down with the A.Net faithfull.

"The need for additional training following the accidents isn’t in dispute. In both cases, pilots could have saved the planes, as did the ones aboard a Lion Air flight the night before the crash when confronted with an identical malfunction. But the crews on the planes that crashed either didn’t recognize what was happening or became overwhelmed by the multiple alarms and failures that were occurring simultaneously, according to preliminary reports."


Nobody doubted that they could have saved the planes, but for it to be a pilot error the finding should show that they "should have saved" the planes. Except for a midair structural break-up, a bomb or all engines out, pilots could have saved the plane in most accidents.

And I never understood the idea of a simulator training for the MCAS failure. Every 737 pilot is trained for the runaway trim failure, they only need to know that there is a new failure mode which does not see the trim wheel spin continuously, but one that will trim in intervals. The checklist will change.

If uncommaneded trim - check if manual electric trim works - if not - cut switches - if yes - trim neutral monitor for X seconds if a new uncommanded trim input occurs - if yes cut switches

Stab Trim Runaway was only added to the training syllabus in February this year so will be covered on 6month re-current training. Does mean that many pilots will have seen it by the time MAX gets back in service.

Ray


Really? Source please. Every training manual for a 737 that I have been able to find online has training for runaway stabilizer in it.

Your answer will go over my head like always because I'm not very smart but you should back up a statement like this.
 
planecane
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:58 am

sgrow787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.


Well the cat is certainly out of the bag at this point, with what we know now about the FCC microprocessor and architecture issues. There's enough information to suggest a closer look is needed at WHY Boeing couldn't achieve a two sensor MCAS design. No one in the aerospace industry believes it was mere engineering misjudgment.


All of the investigative reporting seems to indicate it was engineering misjudgment. When they were originally going to have the fix before the summer, the MCAS 2.0 design didn't require architecture changes, at least from all reports.

It appears that MCAS 1.0 was added as an extension of the STS functions and STS only used one sensor so MCAS 1.0 only used one sensor.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:10 am

XRAYretired wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.

Not necessarily. You can change the FCCs to Active/Standby (assuming with swapping FCC in control in the event of fault) without any perceivable impact in the cockpit.


You aren't doing all that properly inside a few months though.

The timescales coupled with the autonomy needed to void substantial training changes means the background changes can't have been that much*.


*or at least one of:
(1) the timescales are gonna slide another 12 months to the right and the managers don't have a clue what they are reporting
(2) the PR crowd talking to media don't have a clue what they are saying
(3) Boeing are assuming that the regulators are not going to demand a full V&V cycle of a fundamentally changed architecture (and are shortcutting said V&V themselves)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8654
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:12 am

art wrote:
par13del wrote:
The FAA is a government body, funded by the government via special taxes etc, as well as other budget means, therefore at its core it is political.


Therefore at its core it is compromised and cannot be relied on in its role of ensuring safety in aviation? Is the assessment of whether an aircraft is safe to fly political in nature? If it is, God help the flying public.

So you are on the side of those who say the FAA outsourcing of certification was a safety and not political decision, the numerous delays and overspending on obsolete technology for ATC, staffing issues those were all safety related, how about holding up funding for the FAA or attaching it to a poison bill that you know one party or the executive would not support, it goes on and on. Now do such things have an effect on whether their is an actual human being available to review all the required reports in a timely fashion......
 
Saintor
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:27 am

planecane wrote:
sgrow787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.


Well the cat is certainly out of the bag at this point, with what we know now about the FCC microprocessor and architecture issues. There's enough information to suggest a closer look is needed at WHY Boeing couldn't achieve a two sensor MCAS design. No one in the aerospace industry believes it was mere engineering misjudgment.


All of the investigative reporting seems to indicate it was engineering misjudgment. When they were originally going to have the fix before the summer, the MCAS 2.0 design didn't require architecture changes, at least from all reports.

It appears that MCAS 1.0 was added as an extension of the STS functions and STS only used one sensor so MCAS 1.0 only used one sensor.


That's a very good possible explanation.

With those incredibly long delays, it will be hard to get people aboard for years. I am not even sure that they have the final solution to implement, then more tests and the certification will become an hot potato to handle.
 
snowkarl
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 7:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:40 am

planecane wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
planecane wrote:

I've posted this exact sentiment many times and been accused of being a Boeing PR plant. Will this being published by respected media earn me some respect for my opinions? I even had a member add me to his ignore list over this opinion.

At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against dual engine failure on takeoff? Sully and the Russian pilot from the other day both handled that emergency which isn't trained for.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against an uncontained engine failure simultaneous with a rapid depressurization? Those are two emergencies that individually must be reacted to quickly and correctly if they happen individually. The pilots of WN1380 handled both flawlessly and landed safely.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against any emergency situation? If not, what is the job of a pilot? Flying an aircraft in good conditions isn't all that difficult. The skill and airmanship comes into play in non-routine situations and emergencies. Yes, I expect when I board a flight that the pilots are capable of recovering from any emergency situation that is possible to recover from.

Boeing putting out an incompetent design for a system and the pilots not having the training and/or airmanship skills to recover from the failure that resulted from the incompetent design are not mutually exclusive. Boeing's screw up caused two events of runaway stabilizer that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The pilots also didn't recover from a recoverable situation.

How is it possible that we are still discussing this?

Hypothetically the flight wasn't IMPOSSIBLE to save but that is totally irrelevant because the only thing that actually matters is - what percentage of these accidents can be saved? It doesn't matter that a 3 pilot crew saved the plane in the same situation once because evidently too often the crews were unable to save the plane, hence why we're here.

Do the same 'poor crews' crash any other jet at the rate the MAX is crashed at? Nope. Can a crew be expected to deal with an issue that was hidden from them by Boeing? Maybe. Would it increase the risk of the crew getting confused? Obviously. Is Boeing and their faulty design 100% at fault? Undeniably.

We also know that even in simulators where experienced pilots who were prepared for the same situation the Ethiopian flight was put in struggled and failed or barely managed to avoid crashing - suggesting to most non-stockholders that it's probably TOTALLY unacceptable for modern safety standards.

So why do we keep going over this? Morrisond and Planecrane already tapped out over this 100's of pages ago - let's leave it at that and not rehash it for the millionth time because a Bloomberg journalist printed one paragraph which agreed with you, Revelation.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:43 am

planecane wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
planecane wrote:

I've posted this exact sentiment many times and been accused of being a Boeing PR plant. Will this being published by respected media earn me some respect for my opinions? I even had a member add me to his ignore list over this opinion.

At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against dual engine failure on takeoff? Sully and the Russian pilot from the other day both handled that emergency which isn't trained for.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against an uncontained engine failure simultaneous with a rapid depressurization? Those are two emergencies that individually must be reacted to quickly and correctly if they happen individually. The pilots of WN1380 handled both flawlessly and landed safely.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against any emergency situation? If not, what is the job of a pilot? Flying an aircraft in good conditions isn't all that difficult. The skill and airmanship comes into play in non-routine situations and emergencies. Yes, I expect when I board a flight that the pilots are capable of recovering from any emergency situation that is possible to recover from.

Boeing putting out an incompetent design for a system and the pilots not having the training and/or airmanship skills to recover from the failure that resulted from the incompetent design are not mutually exclusive. Boeing's screw up caused two events of runaway stabilizer that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The pilots also didn't recover from a recoverable situation.

Yes, it is unreasonable to EXPECT the pilots to be the backstop for dual engine failure, assuming one or both can not be restarted in accordance with trained procedures. Dual engine failure it categorised catastrophic and the engine systems are designed such that probability is extremely remote, not withstanding uncontrollable common mode events such as dual bird strike in the cases you mention. Pilot general skills and training give them a CHANCE of surviving in these circumstances. Just because there is a chance of putting the thing down without death and destruction does not allow the failure mode to be reduced in categorisation to hazardous or even major. If it were, you could then justify single engine large aircraft on the basis the pilot can handle engine failure as long as he is correctly trained.

Oh, isn't that exactly what was done with MCAS V1.0 and the justification you keep putting forward?

No, it not acceptable for the pilot to be used as a backstop for potential catastrophic failure by Boeing design and declare only major categorisation, that is easily and cheaply avoidable anyway. And doubly no, it is not acceptable to put an airframe back in the air when it had become known that the situation was present on investigation of a crash. It would seem that FAA have seen the light and will no longer allow such practice, it is not clear if Boeing have grasped that yet.

As we have said before, in the cold light, it matters not a jot if all three flights had been recovered, or how many pilots (or simulator gods like yourself) managed to recover simulations, there would be a catastrophic event at some point if the Boeing design was not fixed. It might have been the flight you were on in the sure and certain hope that yours would be recovered to. No, this is not acceptable.

In anticipation, no, if MCAS V1.0 and the SSA had been disclosed appropriately by Boeing, it would not have made it through certification even with a Boeing requirement for adequate simulators and additional training. Better training including Stab Trim Runaway, as now added to the Boeing training syllabus, may have improved the chances of recovery of the crash flights but does not make it justifiable.

Ray
 
Saintor
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:48 am

We also know that even in simulators where experienced pilots who were prepared for the same situation the Ethiopian flight was put in struggled and failed or barely managed to avoid crashing


We keep hearing this,yet the references are very vague.


Obviously. Is Boeing and their faulty design 100% at fault? Undeniably.


Not only Boeing's fault if the pilots didn't follow the procedures. It was discussed many times that ET302 didn't even follow the first three top items of the checklist in such a condition.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20899
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:53 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
I’m guessing there will be no simulator training requirements for return to service but recurrent training sessions will cover much more vigorously the runaway trim and manual stab trim issues.

It'll be interesting to see if the "roller coaster" procedure gets trained to MAX pilots.

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Be prepared for incoming taunts regarding exceptionalism/jingoism/racism/etc from people who then claim safety is their primary concern.

Busy. Sashayed over to Russian corn fields already. Non US pilots can only rely on having luck. :-)

Aww, and I had you at the head of the list.

No worries, congrats to that amazing Russian crew, and be sure there is a lot of visceral hatred of Sully coming from many jealous US pilots.

Amiga500 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Oh and the talk of no training must mean Boeing simply did not have to do a fundamental re-architecture of the FCS.

Not necessarily. You can change the FCCs to Active/Standby (assuming with swapping FCC in control in the event of fault) without any perceivable impact in the cockpit.


You aren't doing all that properly inside a few months though.

The timescales coupled with the autonomy needed to void substantial training changes means the background changes can't have been that much*.

*or at least one of:
(1) the timescales are gonna slide another 12 months to the right and the managers don't have a clue what they are reporting
(2) the PR crowd talking to media don't have a clue what they are saying
(3) Boeing are assuming that the regulators are not going to demand a full V&V cycle of a fundamentally changed architecture (and are shortcutting said V&V themselves)

I'm not sure I'm following.

The "cosmic ray" fix will keep both computers active, compare the outputs of both computers, and when they disagree the augmentation gets turned off with a cockpit warning.

There is now an additional way to enter an existing failure mode and this will be at a very small rate since MCAS's major flaws have also been fixed.

While this could require significant testing I'm not sure why it would require significant 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
 
planecane
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:06 pm

snowkarl wrote:
planecane wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against dual engine failure on takeoff? Sully and the Russian pilot from the other day both handled that emergency which isn't trained for.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against an uncontained engine failure simultaneous with a rapid depressurization? Those are two emergencies that individually must be reacted to quickly and correctly if they happen individually. The pilots of WN1380 handled both flawlessly and landed safely.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against any emergency situation? If not, what is the job of a pilot? Flying an aircraft in good conditions isn't all that difficult. The skill and airmanship comes into play in non-routine situations and emergencies. Yes, I expect when I board a flight that the pilots are capable of recovering from any emergency situation that is possible to recover from.

Boeing putting out an incompetent design for a system and the pilots not having the training and/or airmanship skills to recover from the failure that resulted from the incompetent design are not mutually exclusive. Boeing's screw up caused two events of runaway stabilizer that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The pilots also didn't recover from a recoverable situation.

How is it possible that we are still discussing this?

Hypothetically the flight wasn't IMPOSSIBLE to save but that is totally irrelevant because the only thing that actually matters is - what percentage of these accidents can be saved? It doesn't matter that a 3 pilot crew saved the plane in the same situation once because evidently too often the crews were unable to save the plane, hence why we're here.

Do the same 'poor crews' crash any other jet at the rate the MAX is crashed at? Nope. Can a crew be expected to deal with an issue that was hidden from them by Boeing? Maybe. Would it increase the risk of the crew getting confused? Obviously. Is Boeing and their faulty design 100% at fault? Undeniably.

We also know that even in simulators where experienced pilots who were prepared for the same situation the Ethiopian flight was put in struggled and failed or barely managed to avoid crashing - suggesting to most non-stockholders that it's probably TOTALLY unacceptable for modern safety standards.

So why do we keep going over this? Morrisond and Planecrane already tapped out over this 100's of pages ago - let's leave it at that and not rehash it for the millionth time because a Bloomberg journalist printed one paragraph which agreed with you, Revelation.


I am willing to table this discussion until the final report for the Lion Air crash is released. If the report indicates that the crew should have been able to recover even without MCAS being disclosed then I'll be proven correct. If it says otherwise then I'll be proven wrong. Hopefully the report is released soon.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
I'm not sure I'm following.

The "cosmic ray" fix will keep both computers active, compare the outputs of both computers, and when they disagree the augmentation gets turned off with a cockpit warning.

There is now an additional way to enter an existing failure mode and this will be at a very small rate since MCAS's major flaws have also been fixed.

While this could require significant testing I'm not sure why it would require significant training.


If the fix is as simple as that, that is not the fundamental rearchitecture talked about.

If the system is not designed for concurrent running and comparison - which means separation of signals at source and keeping that separation throughout as well as comparing the end result - then they are not going to design, code, verify and validate that in a few months while remaining autonomous to the pilot.


I believe the FAA already declared failure of MCAS as catastrophic, so don't see how it can be turned off [or have I got that bit wrong?] without additional aids to the pilot kicking in or flight envelope limits - I assume that is what you are referring to by augmentation?



There was talk that EASA were unhappy at the original MAX being certified as fit to use without sim training - but ultimately after an argument about it with the FAA, deferred to their judgement. I don't see that happening this time around. So we will probably end up with a fudge; FAA say "fit to fly without sim training" - Boeing don't have to pay Southwest and everyone else in the world says "fit to fly with sim training" - so those airlines have to negotiate with Boeing as to who picks up the tab on training costs.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20899
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:42 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
If the fix is as simple as that, that is not the fundamental rearchitecture talked about.

The Seattle Times article was updated a day after its release to make some of these points clearer.

If the system is not designed for concurrent running and comparison - which means separation of signals at source and keeping that separation throughout as well as comparing the end result - then they are not going to design, code, verify and validate that in a few months while remaining autonomous to the pilot.

The comparison is of the output signals.

I believe the FAA already declared failure of MCAS as catastrophic, so don't see how it can be turned off [or have I got that bit wrong?] without additional aids to the pilot kicking in or flight envelope limits - I assume that is what you are referring to by augmentation?

My understanding is that the architecture fix is to resolve the cosmic ray flipping five bits issue which happens at odds said to be one in ten trillion per day so the odds of needing to turn off augmentation (which would include both the one-time MCAS 2.0 stabilizer change and anything else FCC is involved in such as autopilot or autoland) are tiny. I'm not sure how this maps into FAA terminology, but odds are far lower than single engine out or double engine out. Clearly the FCC already has failure modes that can kick in at inconvenient/stressful times, this is just another instance of one with tiny odds of happening in real life.
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
 
planecane
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:51 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
planecane wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
At this point, I think it is unimportant whether the flights could have been saved or not. Rather, the question should be whether it was reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against MCAS v1. For me, that is a resounding NO, it was absolutely not reasonable. I sincerely hope you feel the same.


Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against dual engine failure on takeoff? Sully and the Russian pilot from the other day both handled that emergency which isn't trained for.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against an uncontained engine failure simultaneous with a rapid depressurization? Those are two emergencies that individually must be reacted to quickly and correctly if they happen individually. The pilots of WN1380 handled both flawlessly and landed safely.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against any emergency situation? If not, what is the job of a pilot? Flying an aircraft in good conditions isn't all that difficult. The skill and airmanship comes into play in non-routine situations and emergencies. Yes, I expect when I board a flight that the pilots are capable of recovering from any emergency situation that is possible to recover from.

Boeing putting out an incompetent design for a system and the pilots not having the training and/or airmanship skills to recover from the failure that resulted from the incompetent design are not mutually exclusive. Boeing's screw up caused two events of runaway stabilizer that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The pilots also didn't recover from a recoverable situation.

Yes, it is unreasonable to EXPECT the pilots to be the backstop for dual engine failure, assuming one or both can not be restarted in accordance with trained procedures. Dual engine failure it categorised catastrophic and the engine systems are designed such that probability is extremely remote, not withstanding uncontrollable common mode events such as dual bird strike in the cases you mention. Pilot general skills and training give them a CHANCE of surviving in these circumstances. Just because there is a chance of putting the thing down without death and destruction does not allow the failure mode to be reduced in categorisation to hazardous or even major. If it were, you could then justify single engine large aircraft on the basis the pilot can handle engine failure as long as he is correctly trained.

Oh, isn't that exactly what was done with MCAS V1.0 and the justification you keep putting forward?

No, it not acceptable for the pilot to be used as a backstop for potential catastrophic failure by Boeing design and declare only major categorisation, that is easily and cheaply avoidable anyway. And doubly no, it is not acceptable to put an airframe back in the air when it had become known that the situation was present on investigation of a crash. It would seem that FAA have seen the light and will no longer allow such practice, it is not clear if Boeing have grasped that yet.

As we have said before, in the cold light, it matters not a jot if all three flights had been recovered, or how many pilots (or simulator gods like yourself) managed to recover simulations, there would be a catastrophic event at some point if the Boeing design was not fixed. It might have been the flight you were on in the sure and certain hope that yours would be recovered to. No, this is not acceptable.

In anticipation, no, if MCAS V1.0 and the SSA had been disclosed appropriately by Boeing, it would not have made it through certification even with a Boeing requirement for adequate simulators and additional training. Better training including Stab Trim Runaway, as now added to the Boeing training syllabus, may have improved the chances of recovery of the crash flights but does not make it justifiable.

Ray


I am not justifying the MCAS 1.0 design. I have repeatedly said that it followed terrible design logic. As a result, three emergencies occurred and two crashes happened that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

My opinion is that regardless of how bad the design was or what failure it caused, the pilots should have been trained well enough and had the level of airmanship to be able to recover. Had the crew of Lion Air 610 cut off electric trim after any of the 19 times the captain got back into trim they would have landed safely just like Lion Air 043. Had the crew of ET 302 waited to cut off electric trim until they were back in trim, they would have landed safely. It didn't require any special skills like landing on the Hudson or in a corn field with dual engine failure after takeoff. All it took was recognizing a runaway stabilizer.

Even though you keep stating that this was not in the training syllabus until recently, I have found training manuals online going back many years which show that it was, in fact, part of training to fly the 737. I would find it hard to believe that there is any NNC that isn't part of the training syllabus.

When the final reports come out, if I am proven wrong I will eat crow. However, assuming the Bloomberg report is sourced from people with knowledge, my opinion will likely be shown to be valid by the final reports.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1171
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:56 pm

planecane wrote:
snowkarl wrote:
planecane wrote:

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against dual engine failure on takeoff? Sully and the Russian pilot from the other day both handled that emergency which isn't trained for.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against an uncontained engine failure simultaneous with a rapid depressurization? Those are two emergencies that individually must be reacted to quickly and correctly if they happen individually. The pilots of WN1380 handled both flawlessly and landed safely.

Is it reasonable to expect the pilots to be the backstop against any emergency situation? If not, what is the job of a pilot? Flying an aircraft in good conditions isn't all that difficult. The skill and airmanship comes into play in non-routine situations and emergencies. Yes, I expect when I board a flight that the pilots are capable of recovering from any emergency situation that is possible to recover from.

Boeing putting out an incompetent design for a system and the pilots not having the training and/or airmanship skills to recover from the failure that resulted from the incompetent design are not mutually exclusive. Boeing's screw up caused two events of runaway stabilizer that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The pilots also didn't recover from a recoverable situation.

How is it possible that we are still discussing this?

Hypothetically the flight wasn't IMPOSSIBLE to save but that is totally irrelevant because the only thing that actually matters is - what percentage of these accidents can be saved? It doesn't matter that a 3 pilot crew saved the plane in the same situation once because evidently too often the crews were unable to save the plane, hence why we're here.

Do the same 'poor crews' crash any other jet at the rate the MAX is crashed at? Nope. Can a crew be expected to deal with an issue that was hidden from them by Boeing? Maybe. Would it increase the risk of the crew getting confused? Obviously. Is Boeing and their faulty design 100% at fault? Undeniably.

We also know that even in simulators where experienced pilots who were prepared for the same situation the Ethiopian flight was put in struggled and failed or barely managed to avoid crashing - suggesting to most non-stockholders that it's probably TOTALLY unacceptable for modern safety standards.

So why do we keep going over this? Morrisond and Planecrane already tapped out over this 100's of pages ago - let's leave it at that and not rehash it for the millionth time because a Bloomberg journalist printed one paragraph which agreed with you, Revelation.


I am willing to table this discussion until the final report for the Lion Air crash is released. If the report indicates that the crew should have been able to recover even without MCAS being disclosed then I'll be proven correct. If it says otherwise then I'll be proven wrong. Hopefully the report is released soon.


I'll table it as well - Especially on Lionair as they really didn't know what was happening and sometimes things just happen and there is nothing you can do. The Pilot's "could" have saved it but nothing specifically in there training would have led them to the necessary conclusion to turn off the Electric Trim system as it was intermittent and not runaway. It required a leap in thinking that unfortunately did not happen.

ET is a different matter though - they knew all about MCAS and should have done a lot better Job than they did. IMO - and yes even on ANET you are allowed to have an opinion - the ET training system failed there pilots - but that's a debate for another day.

The only one training suggestion I would make is that all Commercial Pilots as part of there annual recurrent training are required to complete a flight (in the simulator) from takeoff to landing without any of the nannies (No Autopilot, No Autothrottle, No Electric Trim) in IMC conditions - just like they learned in there Primary training(or were supposed too). If there is not enough time to do that and the pilots to be proficient at it - the number of training hours and the number of sims need to be increased worldwide by regulation.

I think I calculated previously that it might add $10 to the cost of a plane ticket to get 12 extra hours of sim time per pilot per year. Even half of that would be a good start but would require consensus from worldwide regulators.

If Pilots were that proficient I think that might cut the number of crashes to an even lower number than it is now - possibly significantly when you look at the route causes of most fatal crashes in the last 10 years.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:05 pm

I continue to be appalled that there is nothing between an iPod and a $15 million simulator.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
If the system is not designed for concurrent running and comparison - which means separation of signals at source and keeping that separation throughout as well as comparing the end result - then they are not going to design, code, verify and validate that in a few months while remaining autonomous to the pilot.

The comparison is of the output signals.


Yep - that's what I mean - in order to compare an output signal and it to be a useful comparison, you need to have separation throughout that signal's life.

In a ridiculously simple and not really applicable scenario - if both CPUs used the same memory space for storage, then both signals are entirely susceptible to the same cosmic rays.




My understanding is that the architecture fix is to resolve the cosmic ray flipping five bits issue which happens at odds said to be one in ten trillion per day so the odds of needing to turn off augmentation (which would include both the one-time MCAS 2.0 stabilizer change and anything else FCC is involved in such as autopilot or autoland) are tiny. I'm not sure how this maps into FAA terminology, but odds are far lower than single engine out or double engine out. Clearly the FCC already has failure modes that can kick in at inconvenient/stressful times, this is just another instance of one with tiny odds of happening in real life.


OK, thank you.

I would have thought it would have extended beyond just that but I'll take your word for it. I'd have thought the NG upgrade would have included going to ECC memory.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:46 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I continue to be appalled that there is nothing between an iPod and a $15 million simulator.
:checkmark:
Exactly.

A documentation will never allow the brain to learn a complex situation (multiple alarms, low altitude, fast speed, multiple reading disagree, repetitive erratic nose down trim) that require so much coordination (understanding all the mess, decide the actions, hold yoke firmly, high force to spin the trim wheels), all in a surprise and in a imminent danger of death.

There is a reason why engine failure training is not just a quick documentation on a tablet.
 
bob75013
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:59 pm

Well it appears that at least one airline doesn't expect MAXs to fly anytime soon

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas- ... 48366.html
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:00 pm

planecane wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Nobody doubted that they could have saved the planes, but for it to be a pilot error the finding should show that they "should have saved" the planes. Except for a midair structural break-up, a bomb or all engines out, pilots could have saved the plane in most accidents.

And I never understood the idea of a simulator training for the MCAS failure. Every 737 pilot is trained for the runaway trim failure, they only need to know that there is a new failure mode which does not see the trim wheel spin continuously, but one that will trim in intervals. The checklist will change.

If uncommaneded trim - check if manual electric trim works - if not - cut switches - if yes - trim neutral monitor for X seconds if a new uncommanded trim input occurs - if yes cut switches

Stab Trim Runaway was only added to the training syllabus in February this year so will be covered on 6month re-current training. Does mean that many pilots will have seen it by the time MAX gets back in service.

Ray

Really? Source please. Every training manual for a 737 that I have been able to find online has training for runaway stabilizer in it.

Your answer will go over my head like always because I'm not very smart but you should back up a statement like this.

Polarised lenses must have been in last time.

www.avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0045&opt=0
'the first 737-8 MAX simulator was put into service mid January 2019. Only in March 2019 a trim runaway lesson was included in the NG and MAX training syllabus. Flight crew are scheduled to go through a simulator session every 6 months (as per industry standards), '

From <https://www.airliners.net/forum/search.php?keywords=syllabus&t=1421471&sf=msgonly>

Ray
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:02 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Well it appears that at least one airline doesn't expect MAXs to fly anytime soon

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas- ... 48366.html


Likely because the bulk of Sunwing's activity is winter-based, holiday sun-destinations for Canadians, hence they need to firm-up all winter schedules now, which likely takes them well into spring 2020. May 2020 will mark 14 months of no MAX activity for Sunwing.
 
planecane
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:35 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
planecane wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Stab Trim Runaway was only added to the training syllabus in February this year so will be covered on 6month re-current training. Does mean that many pilots will have seen it by the time MAX gets back in service.

Ray

Really? Source please. Every training manual for a 737 that I have been able to find online has training for runaway stabilizer in it.

Your answer will go over my head like always because I'm not very smart but you should back up a statement like this.

Polarised lenses must have been in last time.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0045&opt=0
'the first 737-8 MAX simulator was put into service mid January 2019. Only in March 2019 a trim runaway lesson was included in the NG and MAX training syllabus. Flight crew are scheduled to go through a simulator session every 6 months (as per industry standards), '

From <https://www.airliners.net/forum/search.php?keywords=syllabus&t=1421471&sf=msgonly>

Ray


Thank you for the reference. That appears to be specific to ET. To me, that indicates a huge issue with the training at ET (and possibly other airlines). How can something that has an NNC and is considered important enough to be a memory item not be included in the training syllabus?
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:52 pm

planecane wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
planecane wrote:
Really? Source please. Every training manual for a 737 that I have been able to find online has training for runaway stabilizer in it.

Your answer will go over my head like always because I'm not very smart but you should back up a statement like this.

Polarised lenses must have been in last time.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0045&opt=0
'the first 737-8 MAX simulator was put into service mid January 2019. Only in March 2019 a trim runaway lesson was included in the NG and MAX training syllabus. Flight crew are scheduled to go through a simulator session every 6 months (as per industry standards), '

From <https://www.airliners.net/forum/search.php?keywords=syllabus&t=1421471&sf=msgonly>

Ray


Thank you for the reference. That appears to be specific to ET. To me, that indicates a huge issue with the training at ET (and possibly other airlines). How can something that has an NNC and is considered important enough to be a memory item not be included in the training syllabus?

Training syllabus is a Boeing responsibility.

Ray
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:11 pm

New article today in reputable Wall Street Journal.

The Four-Second Catastrophe: How Boeing Doomed the 737 MAX

"In designing the flight controls for the 737 MAX, Boeing assumed that pilots trained on existing safety procedures should be able to sift through the jumble of contradictory warnings and take the proper action 100% of the time within four seconds.

That is about the amount of time that it took you to read this sentence."



https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-four-s ... 1565966629

If you've used up your "free" articles, you can sometimes google the title and be able to read it anyway.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1460
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
I continue to be appalled that there is nothing between an iPod and a $15 million simulator.



Microsoft is bringing back Flight Simulator ...

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/micros ... -simulator

Do we need apple to bring back the ipod too? :D
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
ArchGuy1
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:42 pm

Why are all 737 Max models grounded and not just the Max 8.
 
rayfound
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:52 pm

ArchGuy1 wrote:
Why are all 737 Max models grounded and not just the Max 8.


Because the failure mode was related to a common system.
 
chiad
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:22 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Well it appears that at least one airline doesn't expect MAXs to fly anytime soon

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas- ... 48366.html


May 2020 is a good wait and probably needed.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:27 pm

chiad wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
Well it appears that at least one airline doesn't expect MAXs to fly anytime soon

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas- ... 48366.html


May 2020 is a good wait and probably needed.


And AC has removed them from their Hawaii schedules for the entire winter season. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s grounded until then but just covering the schedule.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2424
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:53 pm

ArchGuy1 wrote:
Why are all 737 Max models grounded and not just the Max 8.


Only one 737-7 has been built yet because neither of the airlines that have ordered them actually wanted delivery this year anyway. It's currently being used for tests. We assume it will require the same modifications as the -8 if it enters airline service.
The 737-10 isn't grounded - it can't be because it hasn't even been certified yet, we don't know if it will have similar issues or not until Boeing actually ask for certification.
That leaves the 737-8 and 737-9. The -9 has identical systems to the -8, so if the -8 needs modifications to software and/or hardware, so does the -9.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20899
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:53 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I continue to be appalled that there is nothing between an iPod and a $15 million simulator.

I agree. As I mentioned earlier, in my humble glider pilot experience I've had cockpit checkouts with an instructor where he made me go through a few drills with the glider tied down just so I could build up some muscle memory. That's the kind of thing you do when you don't have simulators. Obviously with a two-seat glider or any other two-seat or greater airplane you can do check rides, and since there are far more instructor pilots / training captains / line check airmen / etc that is a lot easier to scale up than a sim ride.

PixelFlight wrote:
A documentation will never allow the brain to learn a complex situation (multiple alarms, low altitude, fast speed, multiple reading disagree, repetitive erratic nose down trim) that require so much coordination (understanding all the mess, decide the actions, hold yoke firmly, high force to spin the trim wheels), all in a surprise and in a imminent danger of death.

There is a reason why engine failure training is not just a quick documentation on a tablet.

I agree, but the theory is that the MCAS fix will remove the "imminent danger of death" aspect along with a few of those multiple alarms, and then we are back to the old "can the pilot remember the memory check list items they learned during type rating years if not decades ago" problem. Hopefully the tragedies have made every 737 pilot work through all the different scenarios yet again to refresh any stale memories they may have had.
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
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:12 pm

Andy33 wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
Why are all 737 Max models grounded and not just the Max 8.


Only one 737-7 has been built yet because neither of the airlines that have ordered them actually wanted delivery this year anyway. It's currently being used for tests. We assume it will require the same modifications as the -8 if it enters airline service.
The 737-10 isn't grounded - it can't be because it hasn't even been certified yet, we don't know if it will have similar issues or not until Boeing actually ask for certification.
That leaves the 737-8 and 737-9. The -9 has identical systems to the -8, so if the -8 needs modifications to software and/or hardware, so does the -9.


7 or 8 MAX7s have been built, most in storage for Southwest
 
bennett123
Posts: 8856
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:21 pm

If it was primarily a training issue, would they still be grounded?.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:25 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
Andy33 wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
Why are all 737 Max models grounded and not just the Max 8.


Only one 737-7 has been built yet because neither of the airlines that have ordered them actually wanted delivery this year anyway. It's currently being used for tests. We assume it will require the same modifications as the -8 if it enters airline service.
The 737-10 isn't grounded - it can't be because it hasn't even been certified yet, we don't know if it will have similar issues or not until Boeing actually ask for certification.
That leaves the 737-8 and 737-9. The -9 has identical systems to the -8, so if the -8 needs modifications to software and/or hardware, so does the -9.


7 or 8 MAX7s have been built, most in storage for Southwest


Yes. The first one is a Boeing test aircraft. The second one is currently also a Boeing aircraft, but it will eventually be delivered to Southwest.

MSN LN AIRCRAFT TYPE REG AIRLINE DELIVERED STATUS PREV. REG REMARK
42561 6744 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7201S Boeing Active
42569 6798 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7202U Boeing 21 Apr 2018 Active N1786B
42586 7455 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7203U Southwest Airlines On Order N1786B 7203
42587 7485 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7204U Southwest Airlines On Order N1786B 7204
42588 7510 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7205U Southwest Airlines On Order N1786B
42589 7545 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7206U Southwest Airlines On Order N1786B
42590 7570 Boeing 737-7 MAX N7207Z Southwest Airlines On Order N1786B 7207
 
Andy33
Posts: 2424
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:26 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
Andy33 wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
Why are all 737 Max models grounded and not just the Max 8.


Only one 737-7 has been built yet because neither of the airlines that have ordered them actually wanted delivery this year anyway. It's currently being used for tests. We assume it will require the same modifications as the -8 if it enters airline service.
The 737-10 isn't grounded - it can't be because it hasn't even been certified yet, we don't know if it will have similar issues or not until Boeing actually ask for certification.
That leaves the 737-8 and 737-9. The -9 has identical systems to the -8, so if the -8 needs modifications to software and/or hardware, so does the -9.


7 or 8 MAX7s have been built, most in storage for Southwest


Ah I didn't know that - I thought SouthWest had prioritised their orders for 737-8s over the 737-7s before the MAX crisis blew up and it was just 737-8s that had been built and delivered, or built and hanging round various Boeing facilities in storage.
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:52 pm

bennett123 wrote:
If it was primarily a training issue, would they still be grounded?.


Wouldn't have been grounded to begin with
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:55 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
New article today in reputable Wall Street Journal.

The Four-Second Catastrophe: How Boeing Doomed the 737 MAX

"In designing the flight controls for the 737 MAX, Boeing assumed that pilots trained on existing safety procedures should be able to sift through the jumble of contradictory warnings and take the proper action 100% of the time within four seconds.

That is about the amount of time that it took you to read this sentence."



https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-four-s ... 1565966629

If you've used up your "free" articles, you can sometimes google the title and be able to read it anyway.

Free to view carbon......Damning......
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/ ... doomed-the

Ray

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