I thought they were grounded?
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:
Nothing has changed since then.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Siliconia
Age: 62
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
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
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.
Re the A320neo - the incidents in India are related to the PW1100 GTF, not the LEAP, which is a longstanding issue.
