Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

I thought they were grounded?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

I thought they were grounded?

Old 27th Mar 2019, 16:40
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,983
Received 304 Likes on 158 Posts
Originally Posted by Simplythebeast
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:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
"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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 17:34
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 77
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.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 17:49
  #43 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RTM Boy
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?
jugofpropwash is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 17:55
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Siliconia
Age: 63
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PEI_3721
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.
noughtsnones is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 18:14
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 974
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
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.
Dannyboy39 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.