Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

AlekSmart

Irish Steve wrote: »

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.

SNIP/

Correct me if I'm wrong here,but is the landing configuration for the B 738 not TOTALLY down to Boeings instructions on how to fly the plane ?

Irish Steve

The landing configuration is indeed down to the Boeing instructions. The landing technique is very much down to the skills of the individual pilot, but that can be affected by the specific airline operating procedures. The longer 737's are a challenge to making a smooth landing, due to the length, it is very much a case that in trying to make the touchdown less of a filling rattling event, the aircraft can be over rotated, resulting in a tail strike. One way to avoid this is that at a predetermined height above the runway, a specific pitch angle is set, the throttles are closed, and that pitch angle is then held until the aircraft arrives on the ground, the downside of that being that some arrivals end up as a somewhat more positive event, resulting in a sharp release of breath from anyone that's not a regular passenger on the type.

Looking at the additional complexity of the Max 10 landing gear, I find myself wondering if it will be as robust as is needed in the longer term, which may lead to problems from an operational and maintenance aspect.

GM228

I know Boeing say it's a new landing gear design, but is it not just a modified variant of the semi levered type on the 777-300ER and 787-10.

zilog_jones

Irish Steve wrote: »

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.

I wonder why they didn't just go for designing a new 757? Or would that have the same clearance issues with modern engines?

L1011

zilog_jones wrote: »

I wonder why they didn't just go for designing a new 757? Or would that have the same clearance issues with modern engines?

They don't have the tooling to build 757s anymore so that would have been somewhere approaching the cost of a cleansheet design, without all the benefits.

Irish Steve

If I've read it right, and there are as many theories as there are proponents, one of the issue with the 757 is that it needs additional ground support equipment because of the height, the 737 can be loaded and unloaded without the same level of equipment, so a quicker and easier turn round. From memory, the 757, especially the 300 was much more demanding in terms of number of ground crew to load and unload, due to the size and length of the holds.

There would be no height issues with the newer engines, there's plenty of clearance with the existing ones, and the newer engines are not significantly larger than the present equipment. Another issue for the 757 is that it never had inbuilt airstairs, so that would mean either using air bridges (which Ryanair among others hate), or using extra sets of steps, which makes the time to load and unload longer.

Hotblack Desiato

Don't have a figure to hand for a MAX 10, but a MAX 8 weighs 45t empty, a 757-200 carries about the same number of passengers as a MAX 10 but weighs 58 tonnes empty. That's a big increase in fuel burn.

corsav6

Program on 4 seven now about the Max, not sure if it's aired before now.

L1011

Everything on 4Seven is a repeat - but the original airing was an awful time I think. Watching myself.

corsav6

I'm watching now, it's muck.

L1011

Its less worse than most of these type of shows. There's some talking heads that shouldn't be let near it, and some errors or bad use of language ("14 versions" implies 14 generations to most people, when its 4)

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

Its less worse than most of these type of shows. There's some talking heads that shouldn't be let near it, and some errors or bad use of language ("14 versions" implies 14 generations to most people, when its 4)

Most people wouldn't know that the Boeing 737 or any other airliner comes in "generations".
There may well be 14 versions of the B737, if you are not including any of the military variants?

GM228

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but Boeing may be hit with a $3.9M fine by the FAA for installing flat tracks which it knew were sub standard in 133 737s, the fine relates to the NGs only, but Boeing have apparently said the issue could also affect the MAXs.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-hits-boeing-with-39-million-fine-for-slat-tra-462746/

The fine relates only the slat tracks on 737NGs, not 737 Max, the FAA confirms.

The FAA says the fine applies only to 737NGs. However, the issue may also have been present on 737 Max, Boeing has previously said.

The company says it has already inspected and performed required work on all affected 737NGs and that it will address affected 737 Max before those aircraft return to service.

The most startling part for me:-

Southwest United, a division of Washington-based PCC Aerostructures, notified Kencoa in July 2018 that a batch of tracks had failed a quality test, and Kencoa passed that information to Spirit in early August of that year. Spirit then informed Boeing of the problem in September 2018, says the FAA.

Before being notified of the issue, Boeing certificated 48 aircraft that may have had affected slats. The company then certificated another 85 potentially affected aircraft after being informed, says the FAA.

It has also transpired that identifying the affected parts has been hampered by a failure to protect the identification marks on the parts with a protective coating, you really couldn't make it up could you.

Between MCAS/the MAX 8, 737NG pickle forks and cowlings, 777 fuselage splits, the KC-46 multiple issues and now this (I've probably missed something else) it really has been a bad year for Boeing, but, is that the end of it or is there more issues that will come to light I wonder?

CJhaughey

GM228 wrote: »

there more issues that will come to light I wonder?

I would say there is more to come yet.
Money men don't make aircraft they make money.
There is a lot of things that have gone on that passed unnoticed but once a spotlight is placed on the company you can be sure other shoddy stuff will surface.

kmart6

$3.9m fine in total? If that's all it's pocket change to Boeing. If it is per plane then ok, it's a lot, article that is linked no longer there so can't check if it is a total or on a per plane basis.

GM228

kmart6 wrote: »

$3.9m fine in total? If that's all it's pocket change to Boeing. If it is per plane then ok, it's a lot, article that is linked no longer there so can't check if it is a total or on a per plane basis.

It's total, here's the FAA release:-

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24456

corsav6

CJhaughey wrote: »

I would say there is more to come yet.
Money men don't make aircraft they make money.
There is a lot of things that have gone on that passed unnoticed but once a spotlight is placed on the company you can be sure other shoddy stuff will surface.

1 mistake leads to an investigation that uncovers a lot more. Stuff like this could have been done on previous generations of aircraft without anyone knowing much. In fairness it's a 1960's aircraft that's been modified over the years.
The next couple of years could provide some interesting findings.

kmart6

GM228 wrote: »

It's total, here's the FAA release:-

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24456

Nothing they will notice so.

Quin_Dub

kmart6 wrote: »

$3.9m fine in total? If that's all it's pocket change to Boeing. If it is per plane then ok, it's a lot, article that is linked no longer there so can't check if it is a total or on a per plane basis.

GM228 wrote: »

It's total, here's the FAA release:-

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24456

That's a rounding error in their accounts , a meaningless penalty.

Nijmegen

The US government won't properly sanction a company that makes so much bank for the US economy and has so much pull via lobbyists. Add that to the recent issues that have been emerging and make your own choices as a consumer.

Fritzbox

Well, there is an almost 5,000 airframe order backlog for the 737 MAX, so I guess the consumer is not going to have much choice in the matter. Do you know anyone who won't fly with an airline because they operate Boeing?

Hotblack Desiato

Plenty of people saying they or their families won't be flying on a MAX when it returns.

Fritzbox

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Plenty of people saying they or their families won't be flying on a MAX when it returns.

Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

gordongekko

Fritzbox wrote: »

Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

In reality most people who are saying it mean they won't fly on it for a period of time until the plane is proven to be airworthy.

I personally will be avoiding it for at least 12 months so that hopefully any further issues are resolved.

Hotblack Desiato

Fritzbox wrote: »

Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

How many of those have crashed due to design or assembly defects?

banie01

If Boeing operated in an actually effective and competent regulatory environment there would be serious implications at the board level by this stage.

They are laughing up their sleeves at the world with the FAA in their pockets while they do it.

crisco10

Fritzbox wrote: »

Have the same people stopped flying on Boeing 777, 747-8 and Dreamliner as well?

Do you know I would have been of a similar mindset to that (i.e. the juggernaut keeps going), but the more that has come out about Boeing, I am actually preferring to book flights with non-Boeing metal recently.

E.g. looking at Tokyo flights at the moment, and preferring Finnair and their A350s over BA and their 777s or JAL and their 787s, and in November I chose to fly BA around Europe over KLM as BA were a32xs but KLMs were 737s..

Granted I am just a drop in the ocean.

Bob24

crisco10 wrote: »

Granted I am just a drop in the ocean.

Only if you fly the Max. Otherwise I think you’ll be fine - other planes don’t drop in the ocean that easily.

Fritzbox

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How many of those have crashed due to design or assembly defects?

They (the B777 at least) and various Airbuses have crashed for other reasons and no doubt will do so in the future. If you are not afraid to take the road trip to the airport I don't see how you wouldn't fancy your chances with the flight afterwards.

L1011

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How many of those have crashed due to design or assembly defects?

At least one BA 777, but the design defects were in the engines not the airframe

Mrtm17

gordongekko wrote: »

In reality most people who are saying it mean they won't fly on it for a period of time until the plane is proven to be airworthy.

I personally will be avoiding it for at least 12 months so that hopefully any further issues are resolved.

I'll be doing the same,I use ryanair maybe 10 times a year
Wont b next year

Damien360

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Plenty of people saying they or their families won't be flying on a MAX when it returns.

Plenty of people will change their minds when the likes of Ryanair make really low fare offers.

banie01

The news only gets worse for Boeing and the FAA on this.

A government analysis after the first Boeing 737 MAX crash last fall found the jets were at a significant risk for future crashes, but the agency did not ground the planes until after a second crash.

Those two crashes killed 346 people.
A Federal Aviation Administration analysis document predicted there would be more than 15 additional fatal crashes of the MAX over its lifetime, and was made public Wednesday at a House Transportation Committee hearing.

Full story here.

15 Airframe losses expected, and the MCAS issue was still left rumble on to a second fatal crash!

Inquitus

banie01 wrote: »

The news only gets worse for Boeing and the FAA on this.



Full story here.

15 Airframe losses expected, and the MCAS issue was still left rumble on to a second fatal crash!

That's pretty damning on both Boeing and the FAA.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/boeing-737-max-plane-faa-regulators-crash-risk

Hotblack Desiato

Damien360 wrote: »

Plenty of people will change their minds when the likes of Ryanair make really low fare offers.

They're now admitting they may not have any MAX aircraft in service for the summer 2020 season. So fares will be going up if anything.

Fritzbox

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They're now admitting they may not have any MAX aircraft in service for the summer 2020 season. So fares will be going up if anything.

What will Ryanair fly instead? Will their present fleet of B737-800 suffice?

banie01

Inquitus wrote: »

That's pretty damning on both Boeing and the FAA.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/boeing-737-max-plane-faa-regulators-crash-risk

Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.

The entire design and certification process is tainted and cannot be trusted to deliver a "safe" airframe.

There is a degree of deliberate obfuscation on this being peddled by Boeing and their lobbyists.

From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.

Quin_Dub

banie01 wrote: »

Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.

The entire design and certification process is tainted and cannot be trusted to deliver a "safe" airframe.

There is a degree of deliberate obfuscation on this being peddled by Boeing and their lobbyists.

From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.

I've been thinking this for a while..

At the very least they need to submit for a full type certification and stop trying to pretend that it's just another generation of 737.

Inquitus

banie01 wrote: »

Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.

The entire design and certification process is tainted and cannot be trusted to deliver a "safe" airframe.

There is a degree of deliberate obfuscation on this being peddled by Boeing and their lobbyists.

From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.

Thing is they are between a rock and a hard place, with 4500 odd unfulfilled Max orders, and only 387 deliveries of the Max series, the rest of their order backlog consists of only 900 unfulfilled orders, if they pulled the plug on the Max it would absolutely decimate them. It takes up to a decade to design and bring to market a new plane.

The simple maths of this means canning the Max would likely bring about the end of Boeing, especially now they are lagging behind Airbus in the narrow body market as well as the mid-range market. Only the 787 stands on its own and the 777X is plagued by engine and other issues and already a couple of years at least late to market.

banie01

Fritzbox wrote: »

What will Ryanair fly instead? Will their present fleet of B737-800 suffice?

It will have to, there is no alternative available to them or slots available to buy elsewhere.

It's going to be a very lucrative few years for 2nd hand sales, leasing, maintenance and parts.

Unless Boeing restart 800 series production and discount the arse of them to offset running costs, there will be no new airframes hitting that sector in any volume over the next 12 months or so that aren't Airbus for at least the next 12 months IMO.

That the FAA let an unsafe plane be certified, knowing how and why it was dangerous in the 1st place in the hope a software fix would solve the problem before anyone died is abhorrent.

Fritzbox

banie01 wrote: »

From a purely reputational standpoint, it has to be accepted that the MAX is dead, its toxic and continuing it's rollout in the aftermath of the regulatory failings is madness.

Er, no, it's not dead, who ever told you that? It certainly isn't toxic either.

The airframe as a whole is uncertifiable without the sticking plaster fixes of MCAS, and without secondary control systems to "eliminate" the flaw inherent in an end of life airframe that has been flogged to death for the convenience of airport handlers and "training" costs it is a dead duck IMO and someone in Boeing needs to look at their balance sheet and pull the plug.

All Airbuses produced today also need "secondary" control systems to eliminate their inherent flaws (they're unstable) to help the pilots operate them. Otherwise they would immediately fall out of the sky.

Quin_Dub

banie01 wrote: »

It will have to, there is no alternative available to them or slots available to buy elsewhere.

It's going to be a very lucrative few years for 2nd hand sales, leasing, maintenance and parts.

Unless Boeing restart 800 series production and discount the arse of them to offset running costs, there will be no new airframes hitting that sector in any volume over the next 12 months or so that aren't Airbus for at least the next 12 months IMO.

That the FAA let an unsafe plane be certified, knowing how and why it was dangerous in the 1st place in the hope a software fix would solve the problem before anyone died is abhorrent.

Absolutely - There is a quote earlier in the thread from a report showing that the FAA decided not to challenge some safety issues with the MAX as they "didn't want to negatively impact Boeings time to market"

The FAA prioritised Boeing Profits over public safety - Utterly despicable.

Damien360

banie01 wrote: »

Boeing need to somehow get in front of this and the only way I can see that happening is killing the model.
.

Using google as my source, it took the A320 from 1981 concept to 1987 for the first flight.

In my opinion.....For Boeing, the cost of development of a whole new airframe plus the cost of scrapping the entire Max program would be impossible to finance. And it would put Boeing way behind the curve with loss of market share in that time. I can’t see major customers (current ones waiting for max) waiting another 6 years with their current ageing fleet.

They are going to try get the Max program to work. The FAA will bend to the will of the US government and it will fly (as I feel they did to get the Max to this point). That will likely be unacceptable to non-US certification so I can see the Max used in the US only but it will fly.

With its eventual extended use in the US, this may bring political pressure to allow it outside the US. This will gives Boeing breathing room to develop a new airframe.

I wonder can I bring this bare bones business plan to Boeing and ask for a job.....

banie01

Fritzbox wrote: »

Er, no, it's not dead, who ever told you that? It certainly isn't toxic either.



All Airbuses produced today also need "secondary" control systems to eliminate their inherent flaws (they're unstable) to help the pilots operate them. Otherwise they would immediately fall out of the sky.

There is a world of difference between a FBW airframe that is designed around such a control system and a sticking plaster additional system such as MCAS.

Comparing an FBW system, to an ancillary control input that overrides a pilot without the pilot being aware it exists, and that it delivers control correction far in excess of what it was certified to do, strongly indicates you haven't a bulls notion of what the crux of Boeing's issue here is.

There is a world of difference between a flight control system designed from the outset for inherent relaxed stability, and an eltronic system that has clearly faulty design that is tacked onto the 50y.o mechanical control system of the 737.

Fritzbox

banie01 wrote: »

Comparing an FBW system, to an ancillary control input that overrides a pilot without the pilot being aware it exists, and that it delivers control correction far in excess of what it was certified to do, strongly indicates you haven't a bulls notion of what the crux of Boeing's issue here is.

I suspect you haven't got a bulls notion yourself. 737 MAX will probably be fully re-certified by the FAA in the next few months and by Europe's AESA a month or two afterwards.

banie01

Fritzbox wrote: »

I suspect you haven't got a bulls notion yourself. 737 MAX will probably be fully re-certified by the FAA in the next few months and by Europe's AESA a month or two afterwards.

Feel free to read back over this thread, particularly the posts from pilots and well informed aviation minded folk.
There is a world of information from them, and indeed from the regulators that would strongly suggest a "few months" is far from likely.

The Canadian regulators in particular, have expressed quite strong opinions.

Fritzbox

banie01 wrote: »

Feel free to read back over this thread, particularly the posts from pilots and well informed aviation minded folk.
There is a world of information from them, and indeed from the regulators that would strongly suggest a "few months" is far from likely.

The Canadian regulators in particular, have expressed quite strong opinions.

A thread on Boards.ie full of quotes from anonymous posters is certainly not the last authority on airliner safety and design - far from it.

Why don't you accept the opinion from qualified authorities - here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa/boeings-max-likely-to-return-to-european-service-in-first-quarter-regulator-idUSKBN1XE1U1

Boeing's MAX likely to return to European service in first-quarter: regulator

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Boeing’s (BA.N) grounded 737 MAX airliner is likely to return to service in Europe during the first quarter of 2020, the head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) said on Monday.

While the European regulator expects to give its approval in January, preparations by national authorities and airlines may delay the resumption of commercial flights by up to another two months, EASA executive director Patrick Ky indicated.

“If there are training requirements (and) coordination to be done with the EU member states to make sure everyone does the same thing at the same time, this will take a bit of time,” Ky said. “That’s why I’m saying the first quarter of 2020.”

banie01

Fritzbox wrote: »

A thread on Boards.ie full of quotes from anonymous posters is certainly not the last authority on airliner safety and design - far from it.

Why don't you accept the opinion from qualified authorities - here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa/boeings-max-likely-to-return-to-european-service-in-first-quarter-regulator-idUSKBN1XE1U1

You are posting an article from the start of November.
The goal posts on a return to service have shifted significantly since then including the evidence regarding the FAA culpability and knowledge released today.

You do realize that none of the events happen in a vacuum, an opinion that was a best guess can be rapidly revised and even reversed in the light of new information?

Or is it a case of finding the best spin possible to but on a partial representation of "facts"?
Because that hasn't worked out so well for Boeing lately.

Inquitus

Fritzbox wrote: »

A thread on Boards.ie full of quotes from anonymous posters is certainly not the last authority on airliner safety and design - far from it.

Why don't you accept the opinion from qualified authorities - here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa/boeings-max-likely-to-return-to-european-service-in-first-quarter-regulator-idUSKBN1XE1U1

Even the FAA have said today it is unlikely it will be re-certified in Jan 2020, and they will not rush things, that article is well out of date at this point. EASA haven't even had a chance to do the test flights they have said they will require at this point.

In the meantime more muck has been thrown at Boeing on the 787 which has had lightning strike protections removed in order to lower cost and make sure they meet delivery dates. There is a whole bad culture at Boeing being exposed at the moment, and weighing up the information it seems that the global grounding will certainly stretch into a full year, which would be 10th March 2020.

Inquitus

Damien360 wrote: »

They are going to try get the Max program to work. The FAA will bend to the will of the US government and it will fly (as I feel they did to get the Max to this point). That will likely be unacceptable to non-US certification so I can see the Max used in the US only but it will fly.

That won't work, only around 15% of the 737 Max order book is for domestic US flights. Boeing needs it to be re-certified globally, and with Airbus unable to pick up the slack as their A320 lines are booked out for 8 odd years, by hook or by crook the 737 Max will get global re-certification. Might be some good ammo for the EU though in Trump's attempted trade war against them.