I thought they were grounded?

[rog747]

Originally Posted by lapp

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]

A lot cheaper to park them at Victorville.

[RTM Boy]

Originally Posted by patplan

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
Incident: TUI B38M near Chania on Jan 29th 2019, engine problem
Incident: Spicejet B38M near Varanasi on Jan 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight
Incident: Norwegian B38M near Shiraz on Dec 14th 2018, engine shut down in flight

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]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by lomapaseo

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]

Originally Posted by patplan

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
Incident: TUI B38M near Chania on Jan 29th 2019, engine problem
Incident: Spicejet B38M near Varanasi on Jan 6th 2019, engine shut down in flight
Incident: Norwegian B38M near Shiraz on Dec 14th 2018, engine shut down in flight

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]

Originally Posted by speedbird_481_papa

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.


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]

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]

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]

FOD?

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee

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]

I would imagine the FAA issued SFP's for the domestic US movements.

[Spacepope]

Originally Posted by Simplythebeast

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]

Originally Posted by tdracer

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

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