PDA

View Full Version : I thought they were grounded?


Simplythebeast
26th Mar 2019, 21:07
https://apple.news/AXkY-G3E0RM-2pMMMyQJeFg

Bankstown Boy
26th Mar 2019, 21:10
From the article

"the FAA grounded the 737 MAX following two fatal crashes since October but has allowed airlines to conduct flights without passengers to move planes to other airports"

Simplythebeast
26th Mar 2019, 21:24
From the article

"the FAA grounded the 737 MAX following two fatal crashes since October but has allowed airlines to conduct flights without passengers to move planes to other airports"

surely any movements should have been undertaken by now?

lapp
26th Mar 2019, 21:24
Is the EASA allowing the MAX to be re-positioned? There are news of an IG plane unable to leave CAI since the 12th.

Airbubba
26th Mar 2019, 21:45
It was Southwest 8701, N8712L, a B-737 MAX 8 MCO-VCV.

From FR24:


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1520x831/wn8701_9f217006b1ccfa2a7f6bcc8e8065b7a91b9ae57e.jpg

n5296s
26th Mar 2019, 21:54
Victorville is generally where planes go to die. It has no commercial service.

ex-EGLL
26th Mar 2019, 21:55
It didn't get too far, returned to MCO following an engine failure shortly after departure..

WillFlyForCheese
26th Mar 2019, 21:58
Southwest is ferrying its 737 Max fleet to Victorville for storage.

https://onemileatatime.com/southwest-737-max-storage/

22/04
26th Mar 2019, 21:59
Southwest making a commercial judgment - looking to store some airframes in Victoriaville as they think this may take a while - or fling for there to check out another issue on this aircraft.

TriStar_drvr
26th Mar 2019, 21:59
Victorville is generally where planes go to die. It has no commercial service.

That is true, no commercial service. However both Boeing and GE have test facilities there. Also a paint shop for airliners. Southwest has decided to fly all 34 of its Max aircraft there for storage until they are cleared for passenger service. They have been flying 5-7 a day there since Saturday.

Dee Vee
26th Mar 2019, 22:11
It was Southwest 8701, N1712L, a B-737 MAX 8 MCO-VCV.


Wow, shortly after takeoff too, would be interested to know exactly where in the flight path the "engine problem" occurred.

Was it while they were banking shortly after takeoff???

West Coast
26th Mar 2019, 22:15
surely any movements should have been undertaken by now?

I know of one aircraft (not SWA) that was in unscheduled mx for damage caused by a catering vehicle when the grounding was instituted. Could very well be the same case with the aircraft coming out of a mx event.

Airbubba
26th Mar 2019, 22:17
WN8701 reported a right engine failure on takeoff, was given a block altitude 2000 to 3000 feet and took vectors for a landing on 36L at MCO.

After the fire crew took a look at the engine and brakes, WN8701 taxied to the gate, not the hangar.

patplan
26th Mar 2019, 22:50
It's just a flight to ferry the plane to its "storage" place while the grounding still takes effect.

But, there's A HUGE ELEPHANT in the room. The Max 8 engine, CFM Leap-1B, seems to have been failing in a very alarming rate lately...

Incidents of MAX 8 engines failure as compiled by AVHERALD:

Incident: Southwest B38M at Orlando on Mar 26th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c5e38ab&opt=0)
Incident: TUI B38M near Chania on Jan 29th 2019, engine problem (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c38c91c&opt=0)
Incident: Spicejet B38M near Varanasi on Jan 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c286a1b&opt=0)
Incident: Norwegian B38M near Shiraz on Dec 14th 2018, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c18fbc9&opt=0)

Are these incidents are simply showing a normal "growing pain" for this new type of engine CFM Leap-1B?? Or, it shows a major problem with its reliability/durability??

DaveReidUK
26th Mar 2019, 23:15
Here we go again ...

Maybe we could save time - could anyone with verifiable proof that airlines are defying the ban and flying passengers on a 737 Max kindly post some evidence?

Thought not.

Airbubba
26th Mar 2019, 23:19
Southwest corrects the earlier news reports of an engine failure at MCO ;):

Southwest Airlines said the plane returned to the airport after pilots reported a "performance issue'' with one of the engines.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2019/03/26/southwest-airlines-boeing-737-max-8-makes-emergency-landing-way-storage/3281138002/

If you've ever taken a plane into or out of maintenance at an airline hub you can see why they went back to the gate, not the hangar. The contract ground transportation company and crew skeds always seem to get lost trying to find the right address for the hangar at a large airport. I've had a mechanic take us over to the terminal in the pickup truck after waiting a while for a ride that didn't come.

tdracer
26th Mar 2019, 23:28
It's just a flight to ferry the plane to its "storage" place while the grounding still takes effect.

But, there's A HUGE ELEPHANT in the room. The Max 8 engine, CFM Leap-1B, seems to have been failing in a very alarming rate lately...

Incidents of MAX 8 engines failure as compiled by AVHERALD:

Incident: Southwest B38M at Orlando on Mar 26th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c5e38ab&opt=0)
Incident: TUI B38M near Chania on Jan 29th 2019, engine problem (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c38c91c&opt=0)
Incident: Spicejet B38M near Varanasi on Jan 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c286a1b&opt=0)
Incident: Norwegian B38M near Shiraz on Dec 14th 2018, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c18fbc9&opt=0)

Are these incidents are simply showing a normal "growing pain" for this new type of engine CFM Leap-1B?? Or, it shows a major problem with its reliability/durability??

There were over 300 MAX aircraft in service prior to the grounding. Figure an average of 300 hours per month per aircraft, two engines per aircraft, that roughs out to 180,000 engine operating hours per month.
I doubt anyone is going to get to0 excited over ~1 shutdown per 180,000 hours on a new engine type. That's pretty good rate for a mature engine type..

lomapaseo
27th Mar 2019, 00:22
My local TV indicated that they ingested debris on the runway. Afterwards they showed people picking up debris off the runway. The last shot in the video showed the plane being towed away (not at a gate)

I suspected that they may have used an inactive portion of the field to takeoff that might have collected wind blown debris. Just a curious point not significant to the Max 8 problems

jewitts
27th Mar 2019, 00:34
From the article

"the FAA grounded the 737 MAX following two fatal crashes since October but has allowed airlines to conduct flights without passengers to move planes to other airports"
I guess all are risk evaluated,, but imagine egg on faces if one of these ferry flights resulted in another total loss? Smells like Boeing already knew the problem intimately, just tried to hide it. FAA COMPLICIT?

JLWSanDiego
27th Mar 2019, 02:46
I guess all are risk evaluated,, but imagine egg on faces if one of these ferry flights resulted in another total loss? Smells like Boeing already knew the problem intimately, just tried to hide it. FAA COMPLICIT?
Possibly you and a few others should start a "Conspiracy" thread elsewhere 🙃

rog747
27th Mar 2019, 06:46
Is the EASA allowing the MAX to be re-positioned? .

No,
nor is the UK CAA - TUI UK, and Norwegian both have stranded Max's at TFS...

ACMS
27th Mar 2019, 08:09
A lot cheaper to park them at Victorville.

RTM Boy
27th Mar 2019, 08:37
It's just a flight to ferry the plane to its "storage" place while the grounding still takes effect.

But, there's A HUGE ELEPHANT in the room. The Max 8 engine, CFM Leap-1B, seems to have been failing in a very alarming rate lately...

Incidents of MAX 8 engines failure as compiled by AVHERALD:

Incident: Southwest B38M at Orlando on Mar 26th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c5e38ab&opt=0)
Incident: TUI B38M near Chania on Jan 29th 2019, engine problem (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c38c91c&opt=0)
Incident: Spicejet B38M near Varanasi on Jan 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c286a1b&opt=0)
Incident: Norwegian B38M near Shiraz on Dec 14th 2018, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c18fbc9&opt=0)

Are these incidents are simply showing a normal "growing pain" for this new type of engine CFM Leap-1B?? Or, it shows a major problem with its reliability/durability??

Issues can always arise, and it would be unfair to draw any firm conclusions about the Leap at this stage. However, the question must be; is the cause of each failure similar/related. You all know the rest.

RTM Boy
27th Mar 2019, 08:47
Here we go again ...

Maybe we could save time - could anyone with verifiable proof that airlines are defying the ban and flying passengers on a 737 Max kindly post some evidence?

Thought not.

Have you stopped to think, just for a second (there saving you time), that there are people other than crew and PAX that form part of the risk assessment envelope? Let me help you with that thought; persons on the ground...under the flight path...at the crash site (heaven forbid). Once again it comes down to the degree of risk, as assessed, mainly for crew ferrying MAXs to wherever, but also what if something (anything) caused the flight to, for example, crash onto a school (heaven forbid). Would you consider that to be evidentially valid?

Yes, I'm egging the point, but that's what correctly carried out risk assessment has to consider in terms of event possibility and probability. Besides Boeing and the FAA will (I hope) have considered the reputational and practical consequences of any further loss of a MAX airframe for any reason; eg the 'Not only' MCAS, 'but also' engine failures. Think about it.

RTM Boy
27th Mar 2019, 09:05
My local TV indicated that they ingested debris on the runway. Afterwards they showed people picking up debris off the runway. The last shot in the video showed the plane being towed away (not at a gate)

I suspected that they may have used an inactive portion of the field to takeoff that might have collected wind blown debris. Just a curious point not significant to the Max 8 problems

The media jumping to conclusions? What a surprise! I don't suppose they considered the possibility that the engine had a failure on the runway and that the debris could be expelled parts of the Leap? And/or this could be a bird strike. Etc, etc. No prior assumptions and no prior conclusions; investigate objectively and with an open mind based purely on evidence, and test it, and test it again and so on.

speedbird_481_papa
27th Mar 2019, 09:22
It's just a flight to ferry the plane to its "storage" place while the grounding still takes effect.

But, there's A HUGE ELEPHANT in the room. The Max 8 engine, CFM Leap-1B, seems to have been failing in a very alarming rate lately...

Incidents of MAX 8 engines failure as compiled by AVHERALD:

Incident: Southwest B38M at Orlando on Mar 26th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c5e38ab&opt=0)
Incident: TUI B38M near Chania on Jan 29th 2019, engine problem (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c38c91c&opt=0)
Incident: Spicejet B38M near Varanasi on Jan 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c286a1b&opt=0)
Incident: Norwegian B38M near Shiraz on Dec 14th 2018, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c18fbc9&opt=0)

Are these incidents are simply showing a normal "growing pain" for this new type of engine CFM Leap-1B?? Or, it shows a major problem with its reliability/durability??

Also am I right in thinking that these apparent failures are just happening with Boeing? I hope someone will correct me if necessary but I can not recall any reported shutdowns or issues with airbus' offer of the CFM LEAP engines on their A320 family.

patplan
27th Mar 2019, 10:09
Also am I right in thinking that these apparent failures are just happening with Boeing? I hope someone will correct me if necessary but I can not recall any reported shutdowns or issues with airbus' offer of the CFM LEAP engines on their A320 family.

I revisited AVHERALD looking only for engine shut down incidents for all 319/320/321-NEO family. This is what turned up...

Airbus A320-neo [A20N] engine shut down incidents:
GoAir A20N near Lucknow on Mar 7th 2019, engine shut down in flight
Vistara A20N at Hyderabad on Feb 25th 2019, engine shut down in flight
Indigo A20N at Chennai on Jan 3rd 2019, engine shut down in flight
GoAir A20N at Delhi on Feb 8th 2017, engine shut down in flight
Indigo A20N at Bangalore on Oct 8th 2018, engine shut down in flight
GoAir A20N at Bangalore on Sep 1st 2018, engine shut down in flight
Vistara A20N at Ahmedabad on Mar 30th 2018, engine shut down in flight
Indigo A20N at Ahmedabad on Mar 12th 2018, engine shut down in flight
Indigo A20N at Mumbai on Mar 1st 2018, engine shut down in flight
Indigo A20N near Nagpur on Aug 16th 2017, engine shut down in flight

A Strange fact: ALL A20N engine shut-downs incidents occurred in India. :confused:


Airbus A321-neo [A21N] engine shut down incidents:
THY A21N near Sofia on Mar 12th 2019, engine shut down in flight
Vietnam A21N near Lahore on Feb 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight
S7 A21N near Moscow on Dec 23rd 2018, engine shut down in flight
THY A21N at Brussels on Nov 23rd 2018, engine shut down in flight
Alaska A21N near Philadelphia on May 15th 2018, engine shut down in flight

Albeit, There was no details of whether the A320/A321 Neo's involved had PW or CFM engines installed.
Source: AVHERALD

warkman
27th Mar 2019, 10:17
reports that it was a FOD issue, brings up more concerns than an empty Ferry flight, crewed by pilots who are totally aware of the issues.
Nobody concerened that a FOD incedent happened at MCO? With all the building work going on there, you think they might have increased FOD checks?

meleagertoo
27th Mar 2019, 10:43
Airbus 320 Neo. Ten failures, just three airlines represented. One had FIVE events, one three and the other two. And all Indian.
There's a background story to that, methinks.

golfyankeesierra
27th Mar 2019, 10:45
Usually debris on the runway is a result of an engine failure, less often the cause.
(Unless debris has wings and makes quacking noises, but that leaves debris on the runway as well)

DaveReidUK
27th Mar 2019, 10:54
Have you stopped to think, just for a second (there saving you time), that there are people other than crew and PAX that form part of the risk assessment envelope? Let me help you with that thought; persons on the ground...under the flight path...at the crash site (heaven forbid). Once again it comes down to the degree of risk, as assessed, mainly for crew ferrying MAXs to wherever, but also what if something (anything) caused the flight to, for example, crash onto a school (heaven forbid). Would you consider that to be evidentially valid?

Yes, I'm egging the point, but that's what correctly carried out risk assessment has to consider in terms of event possibility and probability. Besides Boeing and the FAA will (I hope) have considered the reputational and practical consequences of any further loss of a MAX airframe for any reason; eg the 'Not only' MCAS, 'but also' engine failures. Think about it.

I'm not disputing any of that.

The fact remains, however, that both the FAA and EASA have made provision for moving aircraft to base/storage/rectification locations. Go argue with them if you don't agree with their risk assessment.

In the meantime, perhaps the spotters could try to contain their excitement on the odd occasions that they see a Max on the flight trackers, which in any event aren't infallible, as we saw with that AAL example on FlightAware.

Owen61
27th Mar 2019, 10:55
Wow, shortly after takeoff too, would be interested to know exactly where in the flight path the "engine problem" occurred.

Was it while they were banking shortly after takeoff???
Hmm... I'm interested that you put quotation marks around the reported failure mode. Roughly speaking, any single random failure is recoverable from a reputational point-of-view. Two of the same type is very damaging and will take a lot to recover from. Three... and they'll never fly again.

dc9-32
27th Mar 2019, 11:09
I would imagine the FAA issued SFP's for the domestic US movements.

Spacepope
27th Mar 2019, 12:54
surely any movements should have been undertaken by now?

WN started ferrying them to VCV beginning n Saturday.

Flights are listed as WN8700-8707 daily with (reportedly) only certain crew doing these flights.

Besides this hiccup, all MAX should be at VCV in the next day or two.

Humpmedumpme
27th Mar 2019, 13:39
There were over 300 MAX aircraft in service prior to the grounding. Figure an average of 300 hours per month per aircraft, two engines per aircraft, that roughs out to 180,000 engine operating hours per month.
I doubt anyone is going to get to0 excited over ~1 shutdown per 180,000 hours on a new engine type. That's pretty good rate for a mature engine type..

I think you'll find that the Max has three engines. Boeing just didn't put anything in the AFM or tell the pilots about it.

PEI_3721
27th Mar 2019, 14:36
Just considering an extreme ‘what if’; questions for information only, not to generate any wild speculation.
Could an errant AoA signal get into FADEC or FMC / thrust management?
AoA interconnected with ADC - speed / alt errors; ADC interconnect with Engine / auto thrust ?

sandiego89
27th Mar 2019, 15:01
I imagine ramp space at Renton will be getting tight with production continuing, but deliveries paused. Moses Lake would be a good ferry site.

Victorville is a great place to park them with the reasons in the article linked by willflyforcheese.

It’s cheaper just to park the planes in Victorville than at airports
It frees up space at airports that are otherwise congested
When a fix for the 737 MAX is completed, it will be easier to do everything in one place, and then send the planes to the hubs they need to be at to get back into service
Victorville has the right climate for storing planes

NWA SLF
27th Mar 2019, 15:20
A320 series NEO has had an incredible number of in flight shutdowns including restrictions n overwater flight duration. At one point several shut downs daily.

Simplythebeast
27th Mar 2019, 15:42
In the meantime, perhaps the spotters could try to contain their excitement on the odd occasions that they see a Max on the flight trackers, which in any event aren't infallible, as we saw with that AAL example on FlightAware.

As the OP I would just like to point out that Im not a spotter but an ex RAF Technician with a continuing interest in aviation.
It seemed a little odd to me that the Max was still flying some time after the ban but the reasons were explained by someone a little more helpful than yourself. Should you be bored by threads such as this one you are not actually required to get involved with your pointless input but if you do feel the need to chip in with pointless comments thats okay too.

Dr.Gonzo
27th Mar 2019, 16:34
Boeing has permission to conduct test flights out off their facility in Renton. Apart from that there have been numerous authorized ferry flights across the US since March 12th to several storage airports. This Southwest bird was going to Victorville. Being a new menber and not being allowed to post an URL here a link: Bloomberg, Where Boeing's 737 Max Planes Go When They're Grounded. It shows all the relevant movements

DaveReidUK
27th Mar 2019, 16:40
As the OP I would just like to point out that Im not a spotter but an ex RAF Technician with a continuing interest in aviation.It seemed a little odd to me that the Max was still flying some time after the ban but the reasons were explained by someone a little more helpful than yourself. Should you be bored by threads such as this one you are not actually required to get involved with your pointless input but if you do feel the need to chip in with pointless comments thats okay too.
Well now that you've got that off your chest, allow me to compound my sin by tactlessly pointing out that the terms of the grounding restrictions were extensively discussed two weeks ago when they were first put in place. At the risk of being inadvertently helpful, here's a link:

FAA Emergency Order of Prohibition (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Emergency_Order.pdf)

"Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, including to allow non-passenger carrying flights, as needed, for purposes of flight to a base for storage, production flight testing, repairs, alterations, or maintenance."

Nothing has changed since then.

KelvinD
27th Mar 2019, 17:34
patplan: Re the A321 NEO shut downs to which you refer:
2 of the incidents (THY) occurred on the same aircraft TC-LSA and both involved loss of oil pressure. And both aircraft were equipped with PW 1133 engines.
The Vietnam incident, VN-A621, occurred on its delivery flight from Finkenwerder. The engine in this case was a PW1130.
The Siberian flight VQ-BGR lost the right hand engine during departure from Moscow and this one was also a PW1133
The Alaskan flight, N922VA was the only one with a LEAP engine.

jugofpropwash
27th Mar 2019, 17:49
Have you stopped to think, just for a second (there saving you time), that there are people other than crew and PAX that form part of the risk assessment envelope? Let me help you with that thought; persons on the ground...under the flight path...at the crash site (heaven forbid). Once again it comes down to the degree of risk, as assessed, mainly for crew ferrying MAXs to wherever, but also what if something (anything) caused the flight to, for example, crash onto a school (heaven forbid). Would you consider that to be evidentially valid?

Yes, I'm egging the point, but that's what correctly carried out risk assessment has to consider in terms of event possibility and probability. Besides Boeing and the FAA will (I hope) have considered the reputational and practical consequences of any further loss of a MAX airframe for any reason; eg the 'Not only' MCAS, 'but also' engine failures. Think about it.

Would it be possible (and possibly prudent?) to turn the system off entirely on these ferry flights, and trim the aircraft manually?

noughtsnones
27th Mar 2019, 17:55
Just considering an extreme ‘what if’; questions for information only, not to generate any wild speculation.
Could an errant AoA signal get into FADEC or FMC / thrust management?
AoA interconnected with ADC - speed / alt errors; ADC interconnect with Engine / auto thrust ?


The FADEC input function specifications I've seen (about 7), all do not include AoA, though the data may be on the data bus network.
I've not seen the FADEC input function specification for any B737, but leaked CFM training powerpoint for thrust setting also does not include AoA.
I think that speed and altitude data is cross-checked against engine sensors (unless these faulty), so not a common mode concern.
I think FMC has same basic thrust setting function as FADEC (i.e. does not include AoA); this is more like tdracer domain to comment.
0'n'1

Dannyboy39
27th Mar 2019, 18:14
Just to correct a few things - SFPs or PTFs (same thing, different naming convention) are hardly a rarity and are common place globally to move aircraft for maintenance reasons, incidents, commercial / repossessions, usually with conditions in place. EASA have given operators 5 FC to get back to base or a place of their choosing. It is a perfectly sensible thing for regulators to do and the risk factor is low.

Re the A320neo - the incidents in India are related to the PW1100 GTF, not the LEAP, which is a longstanding issue.