PDA

View Full Version : Icelandair Maxes ferried to Spain with flaps 1?


reverserunlocked
12th Oct 2019, 14:15
Icelandair have been ferrying their five MAX-8's to Lleida, Spain (LEDA) for storage. The ferry flights are being conducted with Flap 1 to eliminate the possibility of MCAS activating. Since the limitation for flight with flaps extended is FL200, the flights are being flown at FL190, hence the fuel stop in Shannon. Looking at the indirect routing it appears that they have been avoiding French airspace.
http://www.b737.org.uk/tf-icy.htm

Belt and braces I guess, but seems a long trip with the flaps out.

SaulGoodman
12th Oct 2019, 14:32
Look at it from the positive side. At least they are flying!

Uplinker
12th Oct 2019, 15:54
Icelandair have been ferrying their five MAX-8's to Lleida.................seems a long trip with the flaps out.



Indeed, but only flap 1. What would that be, 10% - 20% extra burn?

We once ferried an A330 back from Sanford, KSFB, with the gear locked down.............at FL250 and 250kts.........long story. I cannot remember the fuel flow now, but we had to refuel at Goose Bay.

Odd, though that the MCAS cannot be deactivated by the engineers? I suppose inoperative MCAS is a no-go item on a Max?

Gipsy Queen
12th Oct 2019, 16:14
Indeed, but only flap 1. What would that be, 10% - 20% extra burn?

We once ferried an A330 back from Sanford, KSFB, with the gear locked down.............at FL250 and 250kts.........long story. I cannot remember the fuel flow now, but we had to refuel at Goose Bay.

Odd, though that the MCAS cannot be deactivated by the engineers? I suppose inoperative MCAS is a no-go item on a Max?

I agree - it does seem odd.

To me, it suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the natural balance of the aircraft occasioned by the revised engine installation (or whatever) and it requires the intervention of the MCAS gizmo to disguise this. Pulling a few plugs in the harness evidently won't do.

OldnGrounded
12th Oct 2019, 16:22
Odd, though that the MCAS cannot be deactivated by the engineers? I suppose inoperative MCAS is a no-go item on a Max?

I believe STS is on the MEL, but MCAS is not.

GWYN
12th Oct 2019, 17:03
Yes, Uplinker, I think we all remember that little escapade. I seem to remember that crew did not believe the fuel consumption figures that they were given on their PLOG. Thought they knew better and could get all the way back. Thank goodness for Goose!

misd-agin
13th Oct 2019, 01:11
Other aircraft reported F1 as approx 7% more fuel burn. But that's at the same altitude. They're flying F1 at FL190 instead of cruising at OPT ALT which would be FL360 or higher depending upon weight. The difference in altitude is approx. 25-30% plus the additional drag from the flaps. Maybe 35% overall??

Global Aviator
13th Oct 2019, 01:35
Silk Air is flying Max from Singapore to Alice Springs in Australia.

That would be around 2800nm...

A few drinkie stops?

rattman
13th Oct 2019, 01:48
Silk Air is flying Max from Singapore to Alice Springs in Australia.

That would be around 2800nm...

A few drinkie stops?

11 arrived about 2 weeks ago, my understanding is that flew flaps up except for indonesian airspace where they were required to fly flaps 5

jugofpropwash
13th Oct 2019, 04:41
These planes have been sitting for months. Now they're being moved to a storage facility. Is that an indication that the operators have gotten the word that they won't be flying any time soon?

kikatinalong
13th Oct 2019, 09:09
Storage costs would be much cheaper in Lleada and Alice, and there would be less clutter at busy airports where parking is at a premium. Rumour has it the the fee for the 5 TUI Maxes parked down the end of the taxiway at MAN is around 2000 GBP a day.

kika

Uplinker
13th Oct 2019, 09:56
pm for you GWYN :ok:

flyer4life
13th Oct 2019, 10:09
We once ferried an A330 back from Sanford, KSFB, with the gear locked down.............at FL250 and 250kts.........long story. I cannot remember the fuel flow now, but we had to refuel at Goose Bay.

Sounds like you were on the beach fleet at Spotty M. Good times 👍🏼

Fonsini
13th Oct 2019, 12:32
Kind of ironic when you consider that the MAX was specifically designed for a lower fuel burn.....

ManaAdaSystem
13th Oct 2019, 12:57
Is Spain cheaper than KEF??

The AvgasDinosaur
13th Oct 2019, 13:02
Is Spain cheaper than KEF??
probably not but itís warmer and dryer than winter in Iceland!
David

ChazR
13th Oct 2019, 13:08
Migrating to warm, dry locations for the winter. It makes sense.

If it lasts much longer, the grounding will have lasted longer than the entire development program.

Speed of Sound
13th Oct 2019, 13:28
Airlines moving their aircraft from cold or humid areas to dryer warmer climates doesn’t sound like airlines preparing to return the aircraft to service any time soon.

I wonder if the extra maintenance engineers hired by Boeing in July are being paid ‘waiting time’? ��

Liffy 1M
13th Oct 2019, 14:51
Air Canada have ferried ten MAXs to Marana AZ within the last few weeks also.

SMT Member
13th Oct 2019, 18:43
If it lasts much longer, the grounding will have lasted longer than the entire development program.

Yes! Only about 3 and a bit more years to go, almost there!

Stupid thing to say.

FullWings
13th Oct 2019, 19:33
Why didnít they just turn the trim off completely and use the handles? Could have cleaned up then...

Banana Joe
13th Oct 2019, 19:41
Why didnít they just turn the trim off completely and use the handles? Could have cleaned up then...
They would have had to fly manually and below RVSM airspace. While an A/P can always disconnect and if it's not your day MCAS could activate, F1 is a hard inhibit.

42go
13th Oct 2019, 21:28
" F1 is a hard inhibit." - about as 'hard' as the 'soft' ware?

etudiant
13th Oct 2019, 23:12
Seems the airlines no longer anticipate a return to service before 2020 and are putting the aircraft into low cost long term storage.
That begs the question whether Boeing, sitting on some hundreds of new MAX aircraft, will also opt to move them, away from wet and snowy Washington State to more salubrious climes in Arizona. It would certainly provide a more credible message than their public comments.

rattman
13th Oct 2019, 23:30
That begs the question whether Boeing, sitting on some hundreds of new MAX aircraft, will also opt to move them, away from wet and snowy Washington State to more salubrious climes in Arizona. It would certainly provide a more credible message than their public comments.

They already are, from very early they been flying them straight into storage. You can see regularly aircraft flying from place of production straight into storage. Silk airs 12th max flew from seattle to moses lakes
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-mbl

OldnGrounded
13th Oct 2019, 23:34
They already are, from very early they been flying them straight into storage. You can see regularly aircraft flying from place of production straight into storage. Silk airs 12th max flew from seattle to moses lakes
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-mbl

I wonder how the payment schedules have been adjusted.

C172R
14th Oct 2019, 06:14
11 arrived about 2 weeks ago, my understanding is that flew flaps up except for indonesian airspace where they were required to fly flaps 5
heard them on the radio couple days ago, flaps1 and FL190 into Alice

hayes67
14th Oct 2019, 06:26
I'm curious does anybody have any idea how this all works financially? By that I mean who covers all the costs of the aircraft not earning money, extra aircraft have surely been keep or dragged in by the airlines, that in turn has an impact directly with the airlines, then the storage costs, then the ongoing uncertainty which means they may look at other aircraft not knowing how long this may take to resolve? This may have been covered on another thread but I havent seen it, just surmised on some ideas! I'm just curious while chomping on breakfast!

Cheers guys and have a good safe day

Australopithecus
14th Oct 2019, 06:54
Boeing is on the hook for most of it. They have already admitted to an 8 Billion US loss up to the third quarter, so likely this will end up costing them, with the many lawsuits filed, 15 Billion if the Max flies agin in January. At this stage there does not seem to be much chance of that given the world's regulators looking askance at Boeing and the FAA.

armchairpilot94116
14th Oct 2019, 07:12
This goes on for another six months or so and the Max program may be unsalvageable. The public will have written the plane off before the manufacturer follows. If the plane is fundamentally unsound it should be put down.

Uplinker
14th Oct 2019, 08:42
I bet Boeing are now wishing they had lengthened the landing gear legs - to allow larger diameter fan engines to fit underneath, instead of forward of the wings - or brought in a FBW system (certainly in pitch), on the 73.

Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?

Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.

Lake1952
14th Oct 2019, 10:09
I believe STS is on the MEL, but MCAS is not.
How could MCAS (which is just software code) be on the MEL. if it wasn't even mentioned in the manual?

Tomaski
14th Oct 2019, 12:28
How could MCAS (which is just software code) be on the MEL. if it wasn't even mentioned in the manual?

Boeing considered MCAS to be a subset of the Speed Trim System, thus it's functionality would be tied to the availability of the STS. In the original design (and similar to the 737NG today), STS was operated by two independent controllers that alternated every flight. The MEL allowed one STS channel to be inoperative as long as the other one was verified to be working. You could not dispatch with both STS channels inop. With the proposed MCAS revision, I'm expecting that the both FCC's and both STS (and thus both MCAS) controllers must be operative for dispatch.

Speed of Sound
14th Oct 2019, 12:31
I'm curious does anybody have any idea how this all works financially?

In theory, airlines could sue Boeing for losses incurred with a high likelihood of success in the courts. However as some of these airlines are major customers of Boeing Aircraft and have been for decades, I suspect that any compensation will come in the form of future discounts or easier payment terms for existing or future sales.

I suspect any smaller operations, especially any who go out of business because of the grounding will be dealt with in the courts.

OldnGrounded
14th Oct 2019, 12:39
How could MCAS (which is just software code) be on the MEL. if it wasn't even mentioned in the manual?

Exactly. I should have picked an appropriate emoji for that post.

cooperplace
14th Oct 2019, 12:50
Yes, Uplinker, I think we all remember that little escapade. I seem to remember that crew did not believe the fuel consumption figures that they were given on their PLOG. Thought they knew better and could get all the way back.

Recalls Hapag-Lloyd 3378; sorry for the thread drift.

medod
14th Oct 2019, 12:59
I bet Boeing are now wishing they had lengthened the landing gear legs - to allow larger diameter fan engines to fit underneath, instead of forward of the wings - or brought in a FBW system (certainly in pitch), on the 73.

Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?

Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.

Talk is that Boeing's "NMA" programme is being dropped for a "FSA" -- Future Small Aircraft.

I do wonder how Boeing could afford to shutter the MAX and develop a replacement. It's debatable if it will ever make money on the 787 so how could it afford the necessary debt?

unworry
14th Oct 2019, 13:07
Seems the airlines no longer anticipate a return to service before 2020 and are putting the aircraft into low cost long term storage.


I don't know what the quota is for Alice, but don't be surprised if there's a few parked up at YPDN shortly

Mookiesurfs
14th Oct 2019, 13:40
I bet Boeing are now wishing they had lengthened the landing gear legs - to allow larger diameter fan engines to fit underneath, instead of forward of the wings - or brought in a FBW system (certainly in pitch), on the 73.

Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?

Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
Boeing wanted an all new airplane instead of the Max. Unfortunately, fuel was expensive at the time and airlines insisted on a quicker fuel saving solution. Hence, the Max. Plenty of blame to go around, but airlines drove the decision for the Max instead of an all new aircraft.

Lord Bracken
14th Oct 2019, 13:47
Boeing wanted an all new airplane instead of the Max. Unfortunately, fuel was expensive at the time and airlines insisted on a quicker fuel saving solution. Hence, the Max. Plenty of blame to go around, but airlines drove the decision for the Max instead of an all new aircraft.

Boeing panicked when AA went for the A320 Neo in July 2011. The Max is the result.

golfyankeesierra
14th Oct 2019, 14:32
Boeing wanted an all new airplane instead of the Max. Unfortunately, fuel was expensive at the time and airlines insisted on a quicker fuel saving solution. Hence, the Max. Plenty of blame to go around, but airlines drove the decision for the Max instead of an all new aircraft.
Off course Boeing could have started developing a new aircraft a little earlier then 2011. Like 20 years earlier, when the design was already 25 years old😉

infrequentflyer789
14th Oct 2019, 15:11
Boeing wanted an all new airplane instead of the Max. Unfortunately, fuel was expensive at the time and airlines insisted on a quicker fuel saving solution. Hence, the Max. Plenty of blame to go around, but airlines drove the decision for the Max instead of an all new aircraft.

More to it than that. Before the MAX announcement, in fact even at the time of it, Boeing was still trying to sort out the 787 development s**tshow. Until it had got the 787 flying and the production problems resolved, done the postmortem and learned the lessons, Boeing was not in the position to develop an all new aircraft, but leaving it that long to announce/start on a program would have lost major 737 customers to Airbus. Also, an all new aircraft would have to compete with the 320neo without any advantage of common type-rating at existing 737 customers.

Boeing found themselves in a corner where the only way out was a re-engined 737, given that they made a hash of doing that it's probably for the best that they didn't try for a complete new aircraft. Boeing weren't put in the corner by anyone else though, it was of their own making with the 787 debacle one of the primary causes.

ph-sbe
14th Oct 2019, 16:31
To me, it suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the natural balance of the aircraft

Have you noticed any black SUVs parked outside of your home yet? Because I think your are spot on here.

Dan Winterland
14th Oct 2019, 16:34
Never trust manufacturer's fuel burn figures for abnormal configurations. I'm sure they make them up using 'best guess' principles and they are always wildly optimistic. I once ferried a VC10 from the West coast of the USA with a main gear leg locked down. We knew from experience the burn figures were a bit on the light side, so we loaded extra fuel as a precaution. Yet, I was still surprised. And we had to endure calls from other aircraft at least every hundred miles of "Hey buddy, do you know you've got a gear leg stuck down".

And once, thanks to a (non flying) misdemeanour, I was first choice for a full flap ferry for a aircraft stuck in Germany. The engineers had been over to fix it, but couldn't find the fault, so it had to be flown back at 120 knots. The type was new in service and we had no experience or figures for this, so we phoned the manufacturers who came up with a fuel burn after an unfeasibly short period of reflection. However, in the cruise, it was soon clear that this figure was plucked out of thin air and was complete bollocks. The result was I had to drop into Coltishall for a hasty refuel. On landing back at base, I absentmindedly went into the after landing sequence and moved the flap lever to up. And the flaps retracted!

However, you can use this to your advantage. A WIWOL colleague was first choice for a gear down ferry in a Lightning from Leuchars to Binbrook - mainly due to being the junior pilot. Thinking out of the box, he worked out that the higher he went, the faster the trip would be. So, skywards he went at just under the gear limiting speed, which was quite high in the Lightning - which I know from experience having refuelled some in flight from a Victor when we had lots of spare gas. To save dumping it, the guys obliged by plugging in with their gear down. Back to the story - what the WIWOL mate failed to appreciate was that after some quite considerable altitude, but still lower than the Lightning's maximum, the gear limiting speed exceeded Mach 1. When English Electric tested the Lightning, no one considered that anyone would ever be daft enough to try to fly it supersonic with the gear down, so WIWOL mate was completely in unknown territory. As it transpired, the aircraft didn't like this very much and demonstrated it's displeasure by departing in a most spectacular fashion. After many tumbles and a dual engine flame out, he finally got it under control with both engines relit at quite a low altitude - too low to climb back up and make it back to Binbrook. So he diverted to Leeming and phoned his boss to tell that the gear down ferry burn figures were too low.

Expatrick
14th Oct 2019, 16:38
Boeing is on the hook for most of it. They have already admitted to an 8 Billion US loss up to the third quarter, so likely this will end up costing them, with the many lawsuits filed, 15 Billion if the Max flies agin in January. At this stage there does not seem to be much chance of that given the world's regulators looking askance at Boeing and the FAA.

15 billion? Is that all? - cheap at twice the price (so VW might say!).

Speed of Sound
14th Oct 2019, 17:12
The ferry flights are being conducted with Flap 1 to eliminate the possibility of MCAS activating.

Why?

If the AoA vane operation was checked prior to take off and no bird strikes were encountered below the first few thousand feet, the chance of a spontaneous AoA/computer hardware failure occurring in such a small number of flights is virtually nil. On top of that, the first signs of any trim related abnormality would be responded to correctly in seconds by a flight crew who would have a very heightened awareness of the MAXís problems (the reason for their flight in the first place.) Flying a non-normal configuration could possibly increase the chances of a mishap more than a chance MCAS activation.

MCAS is a real danger to aviation in general, but in a small number of highly monitored flights that danger has got to be minimal.

etudiant
14th Oct 2019, 20:02
Why?

If the AoA vane operation was checked prior to take off and no bird strikes were encountered below the first few thousand feet, the chance of a spontaneous AoA/computer hardware failure occurring in such a small number of flights is virtually nil. On top of that, the first signs of any trim related abnormality would be responded to correctly in seconds by a flight crew who would have a very heightened awareness of the MAXís problems (the reason for their flight in the first place.) Flying a non-normal configuration could possibly increase the chances of a mishap more than a chance MCAS activation.

MCAS is a real danger to aviation in general, but in a small number of highly monitored flights that danger has got to be minimal.

Exactly!
Frying pan and fire seems the nearest analogue.

fizz57
14th Oct 2019, 21:07
MCAS is a real danger to aviation in general, but in a small number of highly monitored flights that danger has got to be minimal.



You're right based on what we know but the JATR report has cast doubt on the unaugmented characteristics of the MAX and I suspect that they know more than they're letting on.

OldnGrounded
14th Oct 2019, 21:36
Why [fly the ferry flights with flaps 1]?

Probably the regulators aren't taking the chance of letting those flights go without MCAS being inhibited (as far as anyone knows).

Peter H
14th Oct 2019, 22:20
Probably the regulators aren't taking the chance of letting those flights go without MCAS being inhibited (as far as anyone knows).

If I understand the situation correctly, having flaps out should do two things:
- inhibit the MCAS software
- ensure that the aerodynamic problems which MCAS was designed to mitigate cannot arise (by changing the airflow over the wing). *
So belt and braces [ US suspenders].

Peter

* In https://leehamnews.com/2019/09/27/bjorns-corner-fly-by-steel-or-electrical-wire-part-10/
MCAS is not active on the 737 MAX when flaps are deployed. This is because when flaps are out the slats are out as well and these
diminish the disturbance to the pitch moment curve from the larger and further forward-higher slung engine nacelles.

Big Pistons Forever
15th Oct 2019, 00:56
For the last 10 + years Boeing CEO's have made share price and investor short term gains the companies number one priority. In that time they have returned almost 90 billion dollars to investors in dividends and share buybacks. That is money that could have been spent on aircraft development and manufacturing improvements and would have directly improved system safety. This was no accident, it was a choice and is IMO directly responsible for the root cause of the MAX fiasco which is changed a company culture of engineering excellence to a culture of fast and cheap inculcated from the C suite and which has permeated all the way down to the level of aircraft cleaners.

Sadly like example of Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon, Boeing is now another example of what happens when bean counters run a technologically sophisticated and complicated industry sector like it was Walmart.or McDonald's

jack11111
15th Oct 2019, 04:21
I believe the Exxon Valdez disaster was not technical failure but total malfeasance by the Master of the ship.

Big Pistons Forever
15th Oct 2019, 04:43
I believe the Exxon Valdez disaster was not technical failure but total malfeasance by the Master of the ship.

Actually it has most of the same elements as the MAX catastrophe

When the tanker route was first approved Exxon was required by the US Coast Guard to have many safety measures in place to reduce the chance of an accident.

Exxon immediately worked to water down the requirements to save money. They succeeded in

1) Elimination of the requirement for extra training for the ships officers

2) Elimination of the requirement for an extra officer so that the bridge watch would be well rested for the outbound passage

3) Elimination of the speed limit in the channel. This was the final cheese hole. Under the original requirements the speed was kept low because of floating ice in the channel from the glacier next to the channel. At the low speed the ship could just plow through ice and not be damaged, But to save 3 hrs of voyage time Exxon got permission to go to sea speed in the channel.

At sea speed the ship could not hit ice without sustaining damage and the reason the ship hit Blythe reef which was on the opposite side of the outbound channel, was the tired untrained mate who was maneuvering trying to avoid ice lost situational awareness and by the time he realized he was in trouble the situation was not recoverable

That sound familiar ?

solent
15th Oct 2019, 05:46
Perhaps a daft question but for all the 737 MAX aircraft already built, instead of being scrapped could they roll back the aircraft to a 737-800/737-900?

Change engines, remove MCAS etc?

Capt Fathom
15th Oct 2019, 06:10
heard them on the radio couple days ago, flaps1 and FL190 into Alice

From the couple of Silk Air 737s I could find on FlightRadar heading to Alice Springs, normal cruise Flight Levels from Singapore to just before the Australian coast (at Derby), then they descended to FL190 for the remainder of the trip. Looks like CASA put the more limiting restriction in place, but not Indonesia or Singapore.

A and C
15th Oct 2019, 06:44
These forums are fed by disaster negative thinking, I offer the following theory as a counter to the usual pessimistic view of those who post on these pages and like some posts above have no hard evidence to base it on.

Boeing must be quite close to a fix for this problem by now and while not wanting to say much until the authorities approve this fix are getting the aircraft gathered together in places that most of the work can be done without using hangar space. After all the weather in Iceland to northern Canada over the winter would considerably slow a work team down without the aircraft being hangared.

gravityf1ghter
15th Oct 2019, 06:56
As a side note- Who flew these aircraft? I thought Icelandair laid off all their 73 pilots?

DaveReidUK
15th Oct 2019, 07:12
Perhaps a daft question but for all the 737 MAX aircraft already built, instead of being scrapped could they roll back the aircraft to a 737-800/737-900?

Change engines, remove MCAS etc?
No, not a chance.

Australopithecus
15th Oct 2019, 07:53
These forums are fed by disaster negative thinking, I offer the following theory as a counter to the usual pessimistic view of those who post on these pages and like some posts above have no hard evidence to base it on.

Boeing must be quite close to a fix for this problem by now and while not wanting to say much until the authorities approve this fix are getting the aircraft gathered together in places that most of the work can be done without using hangar space. After all the weather in Iceland to northern Canada over the winter would considerably slow a work team down without the aircraft being hangared.

There are zero facilities in the boneyard parking at Alice Springs. BIRK, in the few times I have been in the winter didnít strike me as that cold...maybe -2į. Air Canada has plenty of hangar space, so what would be the reason to try to avoid using it?

I enjoy a good train wreck story as much as the next disaster maven, but I havenít yet seen Boeing communicate a cogent plan to address the concerns of regulators and operators. I have my suspicions that Boeing is still trying to address MCAS while leaving the evidently inadequate manual trim system untouched. If a retroactive fix for the trim wheels is mandated, then it follows that Boeing will be exposed to providing 7000+ NG fixes too.

But sure, I fully expect the Max to fly again sometime in my lifetime.

rattman
15th Oct 2019, 08:04
Perhaps a daft question but for all the 737 MAX aircraft already built, instead of being scrapped could they roll back the aircraft to a 737-800/737-900?

Change engines, remove MCAS etc?

Zero chance of that happening, only conversion option I could see would be conversion into a freighter, otherwise it would be scrap yard if they cant be made safe


From the couple of Silk Air 737s I could find on FlightRadar heading to Alice Springs, normal cruise Flight Levels from Singapore to just before the Australian coast (at Derby), then they descended to FL190 for the remainder of the trip. Looks like CASA put the more limiting restriction in place, but not Indonesia or Singapore.

Seems likely seen a few quotes from CASA and they say it will be a flight profile that prevents MCAS activiating, with flaps out seems to be the only way

Maoraigh1
15th Oct 2019, 08:55
Back to Icelandic moving south. Plan changed. From Iceland Review Online, 1 October:
"The departure of the five Icelandair Boeing 737 MAX-8 planes, which were planned to take off today, was unexpectedly postponed yesterday night. The French Directorate General for Civil Aviation has placed additional conditions on the flights, to ensure their complete safety. The stipulations include the demand that the planes not fly over urban areas.

Icelandair intends to fly the airplanes to Tolouse, France for storage, to protect them from the wear and tear caused by harsher weather conditions at KeflavŪk airport."

*