Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

TomSweeney

So Ryanair are going ahead with the 737 MAX ?

Locker10a

TomSweeney wrote: »

So Ryanair are going ahead with the 737 MAX ?

I would imagine yes once it’s proven safe and certified by EASA

Jeff2

They have the black box a while now.

I would have expected news on that by now.?

Captain_Crash

From CNN: Boeing's 737 MAX jets will remain grounded for weeks after the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday afternoon that the plane maker continues to work on a software fix.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/boeing-737-max/index.html

TomSweeney

Captain_Crash wrote: »

From CNN: Boeing's 737 MAX jets will remain grounded for weeks after the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday afternoon that the plane maker continues to work on a software fix.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/boeing-737-max/index.html

But they won't be grounded in Europe ?



I have a Ryanair flight booked Barcelona -> Dublin 25-29 April, I'm assuming it won't be a MAX that soon ??

billie1b

TomSweeney wrote: »

But they won't be grounded in Europe ?



I have a Ryanair flight booked Barcelona -> Dublin 25-29 April, I'm assuming it won't be a MAX that soon ??

The first 6 Ryanair Max aircraft are going to Stansted, the next 20 to Poland and then the rest after that spread around Europe.

Captain_Crash

TomSweeney wrote: »

But they won't be grounded in Europe ?

They'll be grounded in Europe until EASA says otherwise. I'd imagine that once the FAA approve any new fix, EASA will scrutinize it with a fine tooth comb before giving the all clear so expect to see MAX's flying in the US before the EU.

ZiabR

TomSweeney wrote: »

But they won't be grounded in Europe ?



I have a Ryanair flight booked Barcelona -> Dublin 25-29 April, I'm assuming it won't be a MAX that soon ??

You can refuse to fly. If you are not comfortable, then don't fly on a MAX. I am not saying you will be refunded, you won't. You will lose your money but its up to you if you wish to fly or not.

What is really annoying me in the past week is that Boeing are rushing to get a fix/update to its MCAS software rolled out. Despite clear links between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes (both linking to the MCAS), Boeing are refusing to admit any blame.

Their moral compass is so far from reality, the mind boggles.

Van.Bosch

ZiabR wrote: »

Their moral compass is so far from reality, the mind boggles.

Fully agree but legally there is no way they can say anything in fairness.

They will need to wait until the official reports blame MCAS even though the fact a “fix” is needed at all speaks volumes.

Bob24

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They'll be grounded in Europe until EASA says otherwise. I'd imagine that once the FAA approve any new fix, EASA will scrutinize it with a fine tooth comb before giving the all clear so expect to see MAX's flying in the US before the EU.

And you can expect the same level of scrutiny in China which I assume would be a key market for the 737 Max, as well as possibility other Asian countries.

Even if the FAA provides approval quickly, this is likely going to be an issue for Boeing for a while.

CiboC

Jeff2 wrote: »

They have the black box a while now.

I would have expected news on that by now.?

I don't know how reliable the source on this is, but if true it is frightening to think that the system was pitching the nose down at only 137 metres from the ground...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47759966

cnocbui

ZiabR wrote: »

You can refuse to fly. If you are not comfortable, then don't fly on a MAX. I am not saying you will be refunded, you won't. You will lose your money but its up to you if you wish to fly or not.

What is really annoying me in the past week is that Boeing are rushing to get a fix/update to its MCAS software rolled out. Despite clear links between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes (both linking to the MCAS), Boeing are refusing to admit any blame.

Their moral compass is so far from reality, the mind boggles.

American companies only have financial compasses.

errlloyd

cnocbui wrote: »

American companies only have financial compasses.

Ah I was watching Dirty Money on netflix yesterday and VW were just as bad when it came to cheating emissions. Their cars produce 40 times more NOX than they claimed they did and that kills 10,000 Americans per year.

cnocbui

errlloyd wrote: »

Ah I was watching Dirty Money on netflix yesterday and VW were just as bad when it came to cheating emissions. Their cars produce 40 times more NOX than they claimed they did and that kills 10,000 Americans per year.

VW sell lots of large trucks, buses and trains in the US, do they?

HTCOne

cnocbui wrote: »

VW sell lots of large trucks, buses and trains in the US, do they?

Are Scania busses/trucks sold in the US? VW own them.

errlloyd

cnocbui wrote: »

VW sell lots of large trucks, buses and trains in the US, do they?

I guess through omission I am meant to extrapolate that you are suggesting the majority of NOX emissions come from busses and trucks.

I know very little about it, but I believe that most actually come from passenger cars. http://www.road-to-zero.com/roads/cars-emit-more-nox-than-trucks-and-buses-report/

Either way, NOX is Dangerous and VW didn't just lie, but continued to develop systems to hide their NOX emissions (as did almost every other major manufacturer)

cnocbui

There are very few diesel cars in the US, was my point, so any NOX deaths in the US are not because of VW fiddling the tests.

Since the advent of the automobile age in the U.S., gasoline has been king of the road; today upwards of 95 percent of passenger cars and light trucks on American roads are gas-powered.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-european-diesel-cars/

billy few mates

errlloyd wrote: »

I guess through omission I am meant to extrapolate that you are suggesting the majority of NOX emissions come from busses and trucks.

I know very little about it, but I believe that most actually come from passenger cars. http://www.road-to-zero.com/roads/cars-emit-more-nox-than-trucks-and-buses-report/

Either way, NOX is Dangerous and VW didn't just lie, but continued to develop systems to hide their NOX emissions (as did almost every other major manufacturer)

Then how come we don't even measure them here...?
That "fix" was for the US market, our NCT doesn't even measure it...

odyssey06

U.S. authorities have extracted $25 billion in fines, penalties and restitution from VW for the 580,000 tainted diesels it sold in the U.S. In Europe, where the company sold 8 million tainted diesels, VW has not paid a single Euro in government penalties.
http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/#

It will be significant to see how Boeing fares in comparison.

cnocbui

US governments have a huge problem with adequately taxing their economy so they have partially made up for it by scamming European and overseas companies in the guise of 'fines'. BP have been fined the most in corporate history for the deep water horizons spillage - $62 billion - and yet a smallish Texas oil producer, Taylor Energy, has had a 14 year long well leak discharging more than than BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster and have only been threatened with $40 K a day fines if they don't get a move on cleaning it up.

EU financial institutions have been bled for many billions in fines in recent years. The US fined Airbus $125 M for missile sales to Taiwan! It will be interesting to see if Boeing have to pay fines for causing the deaths of several hundred people and how they compare to what foreign companies like Airbus get hit for doing something that caused no fatalities.

STB.

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They'll be grounded in Europe until EASA says otherwise. I'd imagine that once the FAA approve any new fix, EASA will scrutinize it with a fine tooth comb before giving the all clear so expect to see MAX's flying in the US before the EU.

The "software fix**" pushed back several weeks after an internal review by engineers not connected to the aircraft raised additional safety questions.


**Cannot believe I just used the term being used by Boeing to describe something that is to ensure that their planes stop coming down.

errlloyd

billy few mates wrote: »

Then how come we don't even measure them here...?
That "fix" was for the US market, our NCT doesn't even measure it...

This is fairly OT, but apparently, each member state trusts the tests done by other member states. VWs are tested somewhere for emissions I think.

odyssey06

cnocbui wrote: »

US governments have a huge problem with adequately taxing their economy so they have partially made up for it by scamming European and overseas companies in the guise of 'fines'. BP have been fined the most in corporate history for the deep water horizons spillage - $62 billion - and yet a smallish Texas oil producer, Taylor Energy, has had a 14 year long well leak discharging more than than BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster and have only been threatened with $40 K a day fines if they don't get a move on cleaning it up.

EU financial institutions have been bled for many billions in fines in recent years. The US fined Airbus $125 M for missile sales to Taiwan! It will be interesting to see if Boeing have to pay fines for causing the deaths of several hundred people and how they compare to what foreign companies like Airbus get hit for doing something that caused no fatalities.

The EU fined Google and Microsoft billions for pre-installing apps \ software.
I can't imagine any of them having even the potential for fatalities that missiles do.
Nobody died in the first five instances yet all were fined more than Airbus.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-7-biggest-fines-the-eu-has-ever-imposed-against-giant-corporations-2018-7?r=US&IR=T

For every example of US behaviour, an EU one could likely be found.

It seems like we should be aware of a certain disposition \ favouritism on both sides of the Atlantic versus 'domestic' concerns when it comes to regulation.

Bob24

STB. wrote: »

The "software fix**" pushed back several weeks after an internal review by engineers not connected to the aircraft raised additional safety questions.


**Cannot believe I just used the term being used by Boeing to describe something that is to ensure that their planes stop coming down.

I was wondering how impacted airlines who own the aircraft are. The article partly covers this:

“Southwest Airlines, Boeing’s largest 737 MAX customer, canceled all of its flights dependent on its 34 737 MAX aircraft through April 20 so far—about 150 flights per day.”

Anyone knows if the airline can claim some type of financial compensation from Boeing as I assume the cost for the cancellations is fairly significant.

STB.

Bob24 wrote: »

I was wondering how impacted airlines who own the aircraft are. The article partly covers this:

“Southwest Airlines, Boeing’s largest 737 MAX customer, canceled all of its flights dependent on its 34 737 MAX aircraft through April 20 so far—about 150 flights per day.”

Anyone knows if the airline can claim some type of financial compensation from Boeing as I assume the cost for the cancellations is fairly significant.

9% of its available seat miles for this year is from the Max. They also have problems with the unions which resulted in more groundings from mechanics strikes. Lost $150m in the first quarter.

Coil Kilcrea

Bob24 wrote: »

I was wondering how impacted airlines who own the aircraft are. The article partly covers this:

“Southwest Airlines, Boeing’s largest 737 MAX customer, canceled all of its flights dependent on its 34 737 MAX aircraft through April 20 so far—about 150 flights per day.”

Anyone knows if the airline can claim some type of financial compensation from Boeing as I assume the cost for the cancellations is fairly significant.

I don’t know the answer but I picture many lawyers weaponising from all sides and suspect Boeing will have enormous costs. And that’s just the start of it.

Consider the conversations Boeing are having with Southwest and Ryanair, to name two mega loyal airlines, given the size of the fleets, the considerable orders in the pipeline and the disruptions.

And then the concern among Mr and Mrs Punter who might prefer anything other than a 737 Max for future travel.

Boeing make circa 50 737 Max’s a month. Enormous implications on the supply chain, cash flow, work streams and engine delivery. The list gets longer by the day.

It’s a nightmare but as nothing compared to what has happened to all those loved ones losing their lives and never coming home. That’s the savage human cost that cannot possibly be priced but for whom Boeing have to show what they really consider their role and liability in this disturbing disaster.

Cloudio9

Report in the WSJ that prelim black box data shows that the ET crew did cut power to the stab trim....tried to manually trim.....but still couldn’t recover. They also reconnected power to the stab trim not clear why ......I guess in desperation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-followed-boeings-required-emergency-steps-to-disable-737-max-system-11554263276

Muahahaha

If every Max plane has to get a second AoA sensor installed will Boeing have to send engineers all around the globe to do the work on where the planes are stored or would the planes make their way to a Boeing facility in the US? Who will be certifying the work, Boeing or the FAA?

Captain_Crash

Muahahaha wrote: »

If every Max plane has to get a second AoA sensor installed will Boeing have to send engineers all around the globe to do the work on where the planes are stored or would the planes make their way to a Boeing facility in the US? Who will be certifying the work, Boeing or the FAA?

They all have two already. The issue is MCAS only uses one of them to receive information and has no fail safe. The software fix in part will ensure that MCAS uses both AOA sensors when in use which should resolve the pitch down issues if one fails.

troyzer

I don't think anyone should be surprised that countries (the EU is basically a country when it comes to these things) punish foreign companies more than their own. It's incredibly political at this level. Boeing is also a massive defense contractor remember, it's a core component of America's national security.

Raging_Ninja

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Report in the WSJ that prelim black box data shows that the ET crew did cut power to the stab trim....tried to manually trim.....but still couldn’t recover. They also reconnected power to the stab trim not clear why ......I guess in desperation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-followed-boeings-required-emergency-steps-to-disable-737-max-system-11554263276

This is pretty significant - the pilots were aware of MCAS, knew the potential issues, knew how to work around it by using Boeing's recommendations and yet they still ended up in the ground.

Either that or there is a very similar failure mode which has very similar symptoms.

Man Vs ManUre

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

This is pretty significant - the pilots were aware of MCAS, knew the potential issues, knew how to work around it by using Boeing's recommendations and yet they still ended up in the ground.

Either that or there is a very similar failure mode which has very similar symptoms.

By the sounds of it, this workaround was a very manual task of having to yank a lever and wind in very physical manner to get the nose back up.
It’s crazy that this would be acceptable as part of a means to getting round a known issue. And in couple of minutes of panic and desperation, making it even more difficult.

Wheeliebin30

If this finishes Boeing off what does that mean for the future of flying?

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

If this finishes Boeing off what does that mean for the future of flying?

Very doubtful to "finish them" although they have an enormous problem on their hands.

As mentioned earlier it is a major military contractor in the us and a huge employer.

Also the airlines quite like to have Airbus and Boeing competing with each other, a monopoly supplier would be bad for business for them.

Muahahaha

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They all have two already. The issue is MCAS only uses one of them to receive information and has no fail safe. The software fix in part will ensure that MCAS uses both AOA sensors when in use which should resolve the pitch down issues if one fails.

So would Boeing have to send out engineers to the 400 odd Max parked up and spread throughout the world? And what happens then, some test flights on each plane with Boeing self certifying they are safe? Or is the FAA stamp of approval on the new software enough to get them all back in the air without test flights?

banie01

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

If this finishes Boeing off what does that mean for the future of flying?

Likely end up being split into Civil and Military with the military arm folded into Lockheed I'd guess.
Civil aviation and existing Boeing civil projects would be quite interesting to see where it ends up.
The US is very protectionist and given Boeing's political clout and importance to the US economy I would not be surprised to see some type of indemnification attempted to ensure its survival.

The US is averse to having single monopolistic military contractors given their usual "competition" procurement process.

Think back to what happened McDonnell Douglas in the DC-10 era, despite huge military sales they were still weakened to the point they were taken over.

A lot of premier US airframe constructors went to the great big corporate merger graveyard in the sky from failed Civil projects.

Tenzor07

Related to more woes for Boeing with the engines on the 787;


https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-airlines-grounds-two-boeing-787-10-dreamliner-jets-due-11403920

Casati

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Very doubtful to "finish them" although they have an enormous problem on their hands.

As mentioned earlier it is a major military contractor in the us and a huge employer.

Also the airlines quite like to have Airbus and Boeing competing with each other, a monopoly supplier would be bad for business for them.

I would not be surprised to see corporate manslaughter charges brought against Boeing executives

GM228

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

If this finishes Boeing off what does that mean for the future of flying?

First and foremost it would be a big plus for Airbus, and other smaller manufacturers such as Embraer, Bombardier or even Tupolov may benefit for the smaller regional fleets.

Could the likes of Comac even benefit - are the Chinese manufacturers even at the stage to be able to potentially take a decent market share yet?

But somehow I doubt Boeing will fail, they are just too big and have too much political affiliations to do so unlike for example MD in the past after the DC-10 issues.

I do wonder however if the Boeing issues will have any impact on their deal with Embraer?

Captain_Crash

Muahahaha wrote: »

So would Boeing have to send out engineers to the 400 odd Max parked up and spread throughout the world? And what happens then, some test flights on each plane with Boeing self certifying they are safe? Or is the FAA stamp of approval on the new software enough to get them all back in the air without test flights?

Simply put, its just a case of installing the software patch, which can be done by an airlines own engineers. Software updates are fairly common and a bog standard part of an aircraft maintenance cycle.


What complicates this is the concerns related to regulatory oversight. As you can bet your a*s EASA, China, Canada ect wont go on the FAA's word anymore. So any software fix will require rigorous certification before authorities allow it be installed.



Test flights shouldn't be needed once the fix is approved. Such flights are rare these days, and normally only done, for example; after "x" number of components have been changed.

L1011

GM228 wrote: »

First and foremost it would be a big plus for Airbus, and other smaller manufacturers such as Embraer, Bombardier or even Tupolov may benefit for the smaller regional fleets.

Could the likes of Comac even benefit - are the Chinese manufacturers even at the stage to be able to potentially take a decent market share yet?

But somehow I doubt Boeing will fail, they are just too big and have too much political affiliations to do so unlike for example MD in the past after the DC-10 issues.

I do wonder however if the Boeing issues will have any impact on their deal with Embraer?

Comac are unable to build to the required scale and their modified DC9 hasn't had a stellar introduction...

cnocbui

I would have thought that the optional warning light to announce a conflict between the two AOA sensors should just about be mandatory now. Not something that can be provided via software.

Bob24

troyzer wrote: »

I don't think anyone should be surprised that countries (the EU is basically a country when it comes to these things) punish foreign companies more than their own. It's incredibly political at this level. Boeing is also a massive defense contractor remember, it's a core component of America's national security.

Clearly that’s not a surprise, but the US/FAA/Boeing are walking on an thin line.

Being more accommodating with national players and making things harder for foreign ones is completely understandable (while obviously full of hypocrisy when you pretend to support free trade and want free access to international markets, but if they see it as their national interest it’s their decision).

But this has to be done with some restraint: using regulation to stall foreign players and advantage the national one is one thing and achieves its purpose as long as the national ones is still meeting acceptable standards. But if it goes to the point of seriously hurting the credibility of both the regulatory authority and the national manufacturer to deliver reliable planes (or whatever else in other industries), then it starts becoming counter productive.

Cloudio9

OSI wrote: »

Where's the lad that was calling them clowns?

Yeah. Reminds me of Derry girls last night: "Who put 50p in the eejit?"

dogmatix

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Related to more woes for Boeing with the engines on the 787;


https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-airlines-grounds-two-boeing-787-10-dreamliner-jets-due-11403920

Surely an issue for Rolls-Royce rather then Boeing?

dogmatix

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Yeah. Reminds me of Derry girls last night: "Who put 50p in the eejit?"

There was a poster over on the A380 cancelled thread who referred to airbus as “scarebus”, something to do with airbus not being as safe as boeing. Then the whole 737max story broke. Oh the irony… Strange thing is that the post has now vanished.

cson

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Report in the WSJ that prelim black box data shows that the ET crew did cut power to the stab trim....tried to manually trim.....but still couldn’t recover. They also reconnected power to the stab trim not clear why ......I guess in desperation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-followed-boeings-required-emergency-steps-to-disable-737-max-system-11554263276

There was an article somewhere quoting 40 seconds from onset of the issue to checklist it & resolve before the aircraft is uncontrollable. You could keep buying yourself 40 seconds by hitting an override button on the controls (?) though I think. Though I imagine that could easily be missed in the chaos and confusion of such a situation.

cnocbui

Another 787 with engine woes:

Pilots of a Jetstar 787 Dreamliner encountered problems with both engines of their passenger plane as they came into land at the Japanese city of Osaka on Friday.

Initial accounts of the incident indicate one of the Boeing 787's engines suffered fluctuations in speed on approach to the aircraft landing at Osaka's Kansai International Airport.

A short time later, the other GE-manufactured engine on Flight JQ15 briefly encountered the same problem, sources familiar with the matter said.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/111743027/jetstar-787-suffers-problems-with-both-engines-on-approach-to-osaka

Tenzor07

dogmatix wrote: »

Surely an issue for Rolls-Royce rather then Boeing?

As far as I know, Airlines purchase the aircraft complete from Boeing and not RR...

L1011

Tenzor07 wrote: »

As far as I know, Airlines purchase the aircraft complete from Boeing and not RR...

They generally buy or lease the engines in a separate contract to the airframe.