Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Charles Babbage

cnocbui wrote: »

Whoops, yes, NOX. I wasn't trying to downplay the seriousness of NOX, however, the fine was in the US, where diesel cars are far fewer in number as a proportion of the total so aerial concentrations are likely lower than in European cities. The estimate of premature deaths from NOX in the US, attributable to VW cheat emissions is 59. So Boeing should be fined about $79 B proportionately.

In addition to premature deaths, VW damaged the health of a larger number of people, the Max didn't cause any real problems other than the deaths.

Henry Ford III

The Max saga keeps on giving and giving.

The fundamental issue with the 737 - the engines are sitting too low - won't go away without a major redesign. Essentially a new plane. I think that's exactly what Boeing should do.

It would be an enormous cost but I can't ever see confidence returning to the 737 Max regardless of whatever electronic trickery they wheel out.

cnocbui

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The Max saga keeps on giving and giving.

The fundamental issue with the 737 - the engines are sitting too low - won't go away without a major redesign. Essentially a new plane. I think that's exactly what Boeing should do.

It would be an enormous cost but I can't ever see confidence returning to the 737 Max regardless of whatever electronic trickery they wheel out.

They won't be scrapping the Max, the fix will get regulatory approval and they will all be flying again after that. The amount of money involved is far too large to be putting safety first. Trump has wound back and neutered every regulatory oversight of commerce you can think of. The FAA won't be allowed to harm Boeing.

Blut2

cnocbui wrote: »

They won't be scrapping the Max, the fix will get regulatory approval and they will all be flying again after that. The amount of money involved is far too large to be putting safety first. Trump has wound back and neutered every regulatory oversight of commerce you can think of. The FAA won't be allowed to harm Boeing.

The FAA may have their arm twisted towards a sooner approval, but Boeing will have a much more difficult job with EASA and the Chinese. I would not be betting any of my money on seeing the Max in worldwide commercial service within the 12 months.

Turbulent Bill

I was booking some flights using Kanoo Travel (business travel service) recently. Every flight search had a popup saying the MAX was not in service at the airlines they book (or words to that effect).

Thought it was interesting that the issues are now publicised enough that they felt the popup was necessary. On top of the re-certification, Boeing will have a serious PR job to do with the travelling public.

Bob24

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I was booking some flights using Kanoo Travel (business travel service) recently. Every flight search had a popup saying the MAX was not in service at the airlines they book (or words to that effect).

Thought it was interesting that the issues are now publicised enough that they felt the popup was necessary. On top of the re-certification, Boeing will have a serious PR job to do with the travelling public.

On the other hand since no airline is using the MAX, the pop-up doesn’t mean much and is easy for them to add.

If/when an airline they work with starts using the MAX again, they will probably just remove that pop-up and keep quiet about it.

banie01

More bad news for Boeing in so far as another income stream is lost and it also doesn't bode well for their participation in any future Minuteman upgrades or replacement programme.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/10/22/boeing-could-be-out-of-the-air-forces-competition-for-next-gen-icbms-for-good/

Henry Ford III

cnocbui wrote: »

They won't be scrapping the Max, the fix will get regulatory approval and they will all be flying again after that. The amount of money involved is far too large to be putting safety first. Trump has wound back and neutered every regulatory oversight of commerce you can think of. The FAA won't be allowed to harm Boeing.

Yes that'll probably happen ok. I did say "should" and not "would" btw.

p.s. If another one goes down after getting it's certification back though it's curtains for the 737 Max imho.

Damien360

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Yes that'll probably happen ok. I did say "should" and not "would" btw.

p.s. If another one goes down after getting it's certification back though it's curtains for the 737 Max imho.

In what timeframe ? 2 years later ? Then they can deflect and look for other causes. I get the impression that if only one plane had crashed with this fault, they would still be unsure. Remember Boeing tried unsuccessfully to blame the foreign pilots.

I agree it will fly again but it might be US only for a timeframe to assure other nations.

Van.Bosch

L1011 wrote: »

NG production has officially ended, only the KLM mistake frame (and some military varients) is left to be made. Would be slightly embarrassing to resume sales and production

It would but less embarrassing than having no short haul planes to sell at all

Henry Ford III

Damien360 wrote: »

In what timeframe ? 2 years later ? Then they can deflect and look for other causes. I get the impression that if only one plane had crashed with this fault, they would still be unsure. Remember Boeing tried unsuccessfully to blame the foreign pilots.

I agree it will fly again but it might be US only for a timeframe to assure other nations.

If a 737 Max crashes after recertification anywhere and at any time the MCAS will be a prime suspect.

Ultimately the airlines won't purchase an aircraft that it's passengers won't fly in.

cml387

I imagine passengers getting on the first Max flight after recertification being a bit like those poor bathers being persuaded by the mayor to go back into the sea in Jaws.

TomSweeney

So Ryanair are going ahead with the MAX ?

How long more will it be grounded for ? will they be flying by 2nd January 2020 ?

kmart6

TomSweeney wrote: »

So Ryanair are going ahead with the MAX ?

How long more will it be grounded for ? will they be flying by 2nd January 2020 ?

Extremely doubtful.

jmayo

Damien360 wrote: »

In what timeframe ? 2 years later ? Then they can deflect and look for other causes. I get the impression that if only one plane had crashed with this fault, they would still be unsure. Remember Boeing tried unsuccessfully to blame the foreign pilots.

Not alone Boeing, AFAIK FAA chiefs at a congressional/senate hearing also tried to claim it was poorly trained foreign pilots.
Worse still some US politicians, obviously looking after US Boeing interests, were more than willing to join in.

The FAA come out of this very badly and as some have said their attitude and thinking that companies like Boeing were best placed to do a lot of the certification was akin to getting the fox to look after the chicken coop.

Boeing have long since gone away from quality to cost cutting and at some stage the chickens (sorry for another chicken reference) are coming home to roost.
They moved corporate HQ from Seattle to Chicago supposedly to be closer to investors.
Why move from their historic massive production bases.
They setup production of the dreamliner in South Carolina as it was much cheaper and we all know the stories coming out of there.
I had always thought it would be the dreamliner that would scupper them.

Boeing will jetison the CEO to assuage Wall Street.
Some heads will have to roll to try safeguard the share price.

cnocbui

How the duck do you have the skanking nerve to blame poorly trained foreign pilots when you made sure not to tell them about the secret MCAS and you did your best to make the new death trap fly just like the old more reliable one so no retraining or special training was supposedly required?

How f'n difficult would it have been to: 'Guys/Gals - if the plane tries to kill you by nose diving into the ground, turn the Stab Trim switches to OFF or lower the flaps a notch...'

One, tiny paragraph!

CJhaughey

They are trying to make the 737 Max into something its not.
Its all about money at the end of the day.

jmayo

cnocbui wrote: »

How the duck do you have the skanking nerve to blame poorly trained foreign pilots when you made sure not to tell them about the secret MCAS and you did your best to make the new death trap fly just like the old more reliable one so no retraining or special training was supposedly required?

How f'n difficult would it have been to: 'Guys/Gals - if the plane tries to kill you by nose diving into the ground, turn the Stab Trim switches to OFF or lower the flaps a notch...'

One, tiny paragraph!

Because no manufacturer is going to admit that you have to shut off something that is drastically working in a negative fashion.

It would have been like Ford many years ago putting something in their manual for the Bronco warning you that the thing can kill you.

CJhaughey wrote: »

They are trying to make the 737 Max into something its not.
Its all about money at the end of the day.

But isn't that it.
Boeing are continuing this farce that the new model is still a 737 although it is a vast departure from earlier models.

Type rating cost money and airlines don't want to spend it.
So Boeing plays along and just sticks a 737 badge on it.

Cookiemunster

CJhaughey wrote: »

They are trying to make the 737 Max into something its not.
Its all about money at the end of the day.

While I know what you're trying to say, comparing a 100 cockpit to a Max coxkpit is very disengenious. This is the NG cockpit that it's replacing.

tricky D

cml387 wrote: »

I imagine passengers getting on the first Max flight after recertification being a bit like those poor bathers being persuaded by the mayor to go back into the sea in Jaws.

First pax should be Boeing execs and FAA big knobs. Put yer money life where yer mouth is.

easypazz

tricky D wrote: »

First pax should be Boeing execs and FAA big knobs. Put yer money life where yer mouth is.

Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing, has revealed that he himself has flown on two 737 MAX test flights in the past few months. Boeing has flown the MAX on more than 500 test flights since its grounding.

That was in August 7th, so presumably many more test flights have taken place since then.

Inquitus

Be interesting to see how much people value not flying on a Max 8:

DUB -> ALC

Served by Aer Lingus and Ryanair, once the Max 8 is back in the air, given a fair level of awareness of the Max 8 issues among the sample, it would be nice to see how much extra people would be prepared to pay to not fly on the Ryanair Max 8 assuming it was scheduled to this route once delivered.

Tomrota

Inquitus wrote: »

Be interesting to see how much people value not flying on a Max 8:

DUB -> ALC

Served by Aer Lingus and Ryanair, once the Max 8 is back in the air, given a fair level of awareness of the Max 8 issues among the sample, it would be nice to see how much extra people would be prepared to pay to not fly on the Ryanair Max 8 assuming it was scheduled to this route once delivered.

I imagine Ryanair would just keep lowering the price till people did fly on them. That way they will fill the Max and it’ll keep flying and it’ll eventually be forgotten about unfortunately.

This is why the “self-regulating free market” doesn’t work in the aviation industry and the FAA didn’t do their job. If the free market worked, Boeing wouldn’t be in the situation it’s in now.

Gringo180

Are Ryanair still getting these Max's?

Will try and avoid at all costs flying on them.

Irish Steve

Gringo180 wrote: »

Are Ryanair still getting these Max's?

Will try and avoid at all costs flying on them.

There was an announcement recently that Ryanair are not expecting the MAX until quite some time into 2020, and whenever they do eventually get sorted out and are deemed safe, you may be very sure that the EASA regulators will have made sure that everything that needs to be known about the MCAS system, and any other system that have not been talked about in detail up to now, will be known in very great detail by the training organisations and pilots.

Even now, we don't know in detail what changes will be mandated for the MAX family, there will for sure be some significant software changes, but it is also very possible that Boeing may have to make significant changes to the hardware that will go beyond the areas that have already been highlighted, in order to satisfy the regulators that the aircraft is indeed safe, and while the operators may not like it, there will also have to be significant changes to training to ensure that no one is surprised by things happening that they were not prepared for.

While people may not like some aspects of the ethos of Ryanair, one thing that cannot be taken away from them is that they operate a huge number of aircraft on a very heavy schedule, and in a very long time, they have had an extremely good safety record, and that does not happen without a significant commitment to the whole aspect of "safety culture".

I think we can all be very certain that the eventual introduction of the MAX (or whatever it gets renamed as) will be only as a result of a very careful review of all aspects of the training and operation of the aircraft, and if there are any doubts, the introduction will be delayed until there are no doubts.

Bob24

Irish Steve wrote: »

I think we can all be very certain that the eventual introduction of the MAX (or whatever it gets renamed as) will be only as a result of a very careful review of all aspects of the training and operation of the aircraft, and if there are any doubts, the introduction will be delayed until there are no doubts.

Agree with that, but doesn’t it mean we are nowhere near reintroduction? (Not so long ago I remember US airlines making noise about using it again at the end of the year or very early next year - we don’t really know what the current status is, but it seems like there still is a long way to go)

Irish Steve

Ryanair have gone "on record" yesterday, https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-boeing-737-max-delay-2/ saying that they don't expect to now have more than 20 of the 58 Max aircraft they were expecting to have in service next year, and even that number is in doubt, given that EASA have to approve it after the FAA have approved the changes that Boeing are still working on. EASA are unlikely to rubber stamp the FAA approval, given the history of this aircraft, and the rumours that I am hearing are that the FAA have been sidelined by the controversy surrounding the approval of the MAX, with the result that EASA and the Canadian regulators are leading the process of ensuring that the MAX is safe to return to service.

What is very certain is that none of the regulators that will have responsibility for allowing the MAX to be flown again are going to be prepared to overlook or ignore anything that could be an issue with the aircraft, in that the publicity that has surrounded the issues with the MAX mean that they cannot ignore them and retain any credibility.

STB.

I thought I saw reference somewhere to the Max name being dropped on Ryanair planes. It was replaced with a four digit number. The photo was on some airplane anorak site.

shanec1928

STB. wrote: »

I thought I saw reference somewhere to the Max name being dropped on Ryanair planes. It was replaced with a four digit number. The photo was on some airplane anorak site.

It was mentioned on this thread previously

banie01

Whistleblower highlighting a 25% failure rate on the 787 emergency oxygen system! :eek:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50293927

If Boeing built fans...
There's be quite a demand for shít at the moment!

L1011

I'm still expecting the unusable at speed (except for bodybuilders) manual trim wheel to come back around as a potential grounding issue for the NG.

GM228

STB. wrote: »

I thought I saw reference somewhere to the Max name being dropped on Ryanair planes. It was replaced with a four digit number. The photo was on some airplane anorak site.

737-8200 now.

https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1150513859096002560?s=19

lfc200

Are we likely to see continuous stories appear in the media about Boeing at this stage? If the run on them continues will they be able to survive in their current format?

FishOnABike

lfc200 wrote: »

Are we likely to see continuous stories appear in the media about Boeing at this stage? If the run on them continues will they be able to survive in their current format?

They're suffering some serious reputational damage.



Even more significant is whether Boeing have backed themselves into a corner by betting their future on grandfathering a 50 year old design by incremental change after incremental change and have pushed it beyond its limits in an effort to keep up with Airbus rather than develop a new air frame from scratch.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414164

banie01

GM228 wrote: »

737-8200 now.

https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1150513859096002560?s=19

If memory serves a couple of contributors to this thread flagged the renaming of the MAX, to a -8/9 series moniker a few months ago.

The "MAX" branding is tainted, but IMO Boeing are so mired in scandal and oversight failings at the moment, that I think at this point any "new" build Boeing airframe is tainted.

I note that Airbus are expecting an additional 60+ a350 airframes completed per month from 2021 in their Chinese facilities in addition to increased a320 rates.
https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/24158-airbus-china-mou

The strength of Boeing's share price is appearing more and more mysterious the longer the MAX and the other concurrent civil and military issues drag on.

Bob24

banie01 wrote: »

If memory serves a couple of contributors to this thread flagged the renaming of the MAX, to a -8/9 series moniker a few months ago.

Correct, this isn’t new.

Irish Steve

In the light of the ongoing and increasingly important NG Pickle fork issues, I have split the recent posts on that subject out into a separate thread, which contains most of the relevant discussion relating to the NG.

Please keep this thread going forward on the subject of the MAX MCAS issues, and use the NG thread for discussion that relate to that family of 737's

Inquitus

Canadian Safety Board member moots getting rid of MCAS all together and certifying it on the basis of its non MCAS flight amended flight characteristics. On the basis of this email it seems the 737-Max is still a long long way off a return to service.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/canadian-air-safety-official-urges-removal-of-key-software-from-boeing-737-max/

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/transport-canada-safety-official-urges-removal-of-mcas-from-737-max/

banie01

Inquitus wrote: »

Canadian Safety Board member moots getting rid of MCAS all together and certifying it on the basis of its non MCAS flight amended flight characteristics. On the basis of this email it seems the 737-Max is still a long long way off a return to service.

Please forgive me, and correct me if I'm wrong.

But, without MCAS won't the MAX require a completely new flight test programme and certification?
Grandfathering is out the window and it must be treated as an entirely new and separate airframe to legacy and NG 737s?

cnocbui

It will still have MCAS, just a new flavour that doesn't kill people.

Inquitus

cnocbui wrote: »

It will still have MCAS, just a new flavour that doesn't kill people.

The Canadian Regulator is suggesting they remove MCAS in this case and certify it with the known nose up issue caused by the moment of thrust, rather than continuing to patch MCAS with many unknowns as to how it will perform in the field.

As mentioned above this would require it to be certified outside of the 737 Grandfathering program which would cause Boeing a lot of pain, but tbh may be the safest way to go about things, train pilots for it, don't have a nefarious software patch to try and make it behave like the NG in the background, especially now they are trying to speed it back to flight status without the changes being properly vetted globally.

Irish Steve

cnocbui wrote: »

It will still have MCAS, just a new flavour that doesn't kill people.

If the Canadian comments are taken seriously, as far as they are concerned, the MAX won't have MCAS, or even a variant of it, under a new name, as they seem (rightly) determined to take a stand on this issue, and my gut instinct is that the FAA will be reluctant to let it back in the air unless all the major regulators are in agreement.

As to how the FAA will achieve that, your guess is as good as mine, as we know from what's eventually coming out of the woodwork, the MCAS issue is only one of number of issues that are causing concerns, and some of them (pitch trim in particular) are going to require some significant changes to systems that are common to the NG, and also affect the NG, so it won't be a quick or easy fix.

I fear there's some mileage in this issue yet, and nobody will be prepared to sign off on it unless they are very sure that it won't return to haunt them in the future.

john boye

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-10-employees/

Meanwhile Boeing rolled out this Frankenstein in low-key fashion yesterday. First thing I thought of is the amount of tail strikes it'll suffer but apparently it has a telescopic MLG which extends on take-off to prevent them.

cnocbui

I'd be surprised if a single Canadian officials email is going to be allowed to determine the course of events.

I would imagine that pulling MCAS entirely, at this point, would mean the 737 max would be lucky to be back in the air even next year.

While I have not the slightest sympathy for Boeing whatsoever, I think the fix has to be seen in detail, tested and evaluated first, rather than prejudging it and declaring it unacceptable.

Blut2

My gut feeling is they're going to spend another 3-6 months trying to make MCAS work but fail. Ultimately they'll remove MCAS as a last option, airlines will be extremely unhappy with pilots needing new certification, but it'll at least get the planes back in the air.

Every month that passes with more planes being manufactured to sit on the ground, and with more flights cancelled by airlines that they'll expect compensation for, just racks up more costs for Boeing. They can't continue this indefinitely.

Wonder what odds Paddypower would offer on it...

CJhaughey

john boye wrote: »

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-10-employees/

Meanwhile Boeing rolled out this Frankenstein in low-key fashion yesterday. First thing I thought of is the amount of tail strikes it'll suffer but apparently it has a telescopic MLG which extends on take-off to prevent them.

Slick video by Boeing on how this works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4

josip

CJhaughey wrote: »

Slick video by Boeing on how this works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4

1:12 - "From a pilot's perspective there is absolutely no difference.."


I'm surprised they put such emphasis on this aspect in the promotional video.
Unless it was made prior to the MCAS debacle.

banie01

Blut2 wrote: »

My. Ultimately they'll remove MCAS as a last option, airlines will be extremely unhappy with pilots needing new certification, but it'll at least get the planes back in the air.
it...

No MCAS, means no airframe certification, its not just a pilot training issue.
MCAS is the plaster Boeing put on a 50yr old airframe design to make it compatible with current engine tech in a manner that doesn't require constant hands on reactive piloting.

.
No MCAS, no MAX.

The airframe isn't certifiable without an additional electronic control system.
MCAS will be renamed, rather than dropped but it's current iteration is patently unfit for purpose and the longer the airframe is grounded, it seems the more issues that are being flagged.

Irish Steve

And as if the present problems with the MAX were not enough to be worrying about, the Max 10 is even longer, with more seats, and to avoid even more tail strike issues, Boeing have come up with this Frankenstein landing gear solution that will cause the aircraft to rise up to a higher level above ground in order to provide more tail clearance during rotation, and presumably also during landing.

Having watched the Boeing video of how it will (supposedly) work, my own slightly cynical view of this latest "upgrade" is that I wonder how long it will last when exposed to the "standard" Ryanair landing technique.

Seems to me that all Boeing have done is to make the 737 capable of doing the same job that was done very well by the no longer available 757, but in the process, adding yet more complicated bodges rather than bite the bullet of doing what should have been done a long time ago, come up with a proper design rather than try and retain the grandfather certification of the 737.

Given the woes they are having with MCAS and other related issues, I find it slightly less than credible that they are looking to make even more changes to overcome the underlying shortcomings that are inherent in the 737 airframe. I hope the regulators will be looking very closely at this latest incarnation, I see way too many potential issues with this to make it a viable option, and to say that it will not change things for the pilot is ignoring so many potential issues that cannot be ignored if safety really is their primary concern.

john boye

Irish Steve wrote: »

Given the woes they are having with MCAS and other related issues, I find it slightly less than credible that they are looking to make even more changes to overcome the underlying shortcomings that are inherent in the 737 airframe. I hope the regulators will be looking very closely at this latest incarnation, I see way too many potential issues with this to make it a viable option, and to say that it will not change things for the pilot is ignoring so many potential issues that cannot be ignored if safety really is their primary concern.

This exactly. I wouldn't expect a smooth EIS for the Max 10.