AA axe 7100+ MAX flights from 2019 schedule
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing as a manufacturer has No means to ground a fleet so as to damage the goods that others have purchased. Boeing's responsibility is to provide fixes for known problems with a suitable reccomendation for incorporation (ALL this under the rule of Continued Airworthiness).
As what they knew or didn't know at the time of their initial responses, that is TBD in the onward investigations
The same goes for the FAA who are dependent on Boeing for analysis of the data coming in from a field event and in-house testing, all which take time.
There is an underlying mode of operation that you don't prematurely ground fleets unless you have a path for ungroundings by identifying an unsafe action/design to bring the certificate back into compliance.
Many posters have a sense that simply discussing fatalities equates to instant groundings of whole fleets rather than finding means for restrictions on how they are flown with what fixes..
Personally (without data so just an hunch) I would have restricted the fleet to only fly with crews that were ably to comply with the restrictions needs. Of course that would have taken time to requalify crews but at least that gives the user operator more control over his costs and operations.
from a Sr Fellow in Continued Airworthiness
As what they knew or didn't know at the time of their initial responses, that is TBD in the onward investigations
The same goes for the FAA who are dependent on Boeing for analysis of the data coming in from a field event and in-house testing, all which take time.
There is an underlying mode of operation that you don't prematurely ground fleets unless you have a path for ungroundings by identifying an unsafe action/design to bring the certificate back into compliance.
Many posters have a sense that simply discussing fatalities equates to instant groundings of whole fleets rather than finding means for restrictions on how they are flown with what fixes..
Personally (without data so just an hunch) I would have restricted the fleet to only fly with crews that were ably to comply with the restrictions needs. Of course that would have taken time to requalify crews but at least that gives the user operator more control over his costs and operations.
from a Sr Fellow in Continued Airworthiness
As regards Boeing grounding the fleet - legally perhaps they can't force a fleet to be grounded. But if they said "hey guys, we're not happy about the safety", then it would be a pretty ballsy operator who would go against that. And again they would be flying a lot of fresh air around in those cabins.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're focussing on facts, regulations and engineering. ManInTheBar is talking about PR, confidence and customers. Sure they could get the fleet flying like you say, but you'd be flying empty planes around.
As regards Boeing grounding the fleet - legally perhaps they can't force a fleet to be grounded. But if they said "hey guys, we're not happy about the safety", then it would be a pretty ballsy operator who would go against that. And again they would be flying a lot of fresh air around in those cabins.
As regards Boeing grounding the fleet - legally perhaps they can't force a fleet to be grounded. But if they said "hey guys, we're not happy about the safety", then it would be a pretty ballsy operator who would go against that. And again they would be flying a lot of fresh air around in those cabins.
So who will progress and succeed when all is said and done,Science or emotions?
Some of us like our jobs and are willing to succeed and win and that goes for all manufacturers and regulatory bodies
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/kayakcom.html
Once a fix is implemented, the certification authorities lift the grounding (I suspect in unison, at least the FAA won't be the first), and the first few flights are perfectly routine, the media will quickly lose interest, passengers will forget whether they're on a Boeing or an Airbus, and the whole thing will be forgotten by 99.9% of the traveling public.
Nobody wanted to fly post 9/11 in Europe. Ryanair launched 1 penny / euro fares but they never caught on, oh wait they flew 140 million people last year.
As regards Boeing grounding the fleet - legally perhaps they can't force a fleet to be grounded. But if they said "hey guys, we're not happy about the safety", then it would be a pretty ballsy operator who would go against that. And again they would be flying a lot of fresh air around in those cabins.
As for passengers shunning the MAX, racedo's post 9/11 comment is spot on. I recall several people who stated at that time, categorically, they would never travel by air again but were flying again within a year - most probably don't even remember they said that. Given that probably half the traveling public don't know what kind of aircraft they are on, and will give up 5" of leg room for 3 hours to save $5, the MAX won't have to keep it's nose clean for too long before most people pretty much forget the whole thing.
Moderator
Boeing as a manufacturer has No means to ground a fleet so as to damage the goods that others have purchased. Boeing's responsibility is to provide fixes for known problems with a suitable reccomendation for incorporation (ALL this under the rule of Continued Airworthiness).
Yes, Boeing, as any manufacturer, is required to technically support their product, after they have taken any action necessary to assure safety.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: England
Posts: 14,562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amazing that just four years after a German airline pilot murdered 150 people by flying his Airbus into an Alp on purpose that the general public simply don’t remember it happened, which airline, where or when. The brand just carried on.
It will be fixed. Four years from now the General Public won’t even recall there was a crash in Ethiopia or what version of Airbus 737 it was.
WWW
It will be fixed. Four years from now the General Public won’t even recall there was a crash in Ethiopia or what version of Airbus 737 it was.
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see it differently: If Boeing chose to issue the highest level of service bulletin asking operators to not operate the aircraft for safety reasons, pending resolution, and then asked the FAA to make it mandatory by AD, I expect that there would be an AD issued to ground the FAA regulated fleet within hours, and much of the world's fleet would be similarly regulated shortly thereafter. What regulator would decline to ground a fleet at the manufacturer's request with good cause?
Yes, Boeing, as any manufacturer, is required to technically support their product, after they have taken any action necessary to assure safety.
Yes, Boeing, as any manufacturer, is required to technically support their product, after they have taken any action necessary to assure safety.
When I thought a product fix was not available I could ask the FAA to restrict fleet operations under specific condition and the operators would push back to the point where they promised their own fix without an FAA restriction..
Lots of people in this decision process
on a more immediate topic how are the current operators coping? I would be surprised that there would be hundreds of non MAX 737 available on short notice to provide for the lost capacity? and even so who is covering the inevitable costs?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is how to get to the “fly the plane for a year or two with no incidents” part. The airliners will not want to fly an empty plane and unlike 9/11 the public can easily chose to flya different one.
I don’t think a software patch will cut it, we all have experience with software patches.
I think the best thing to do is either redesign the AOA sensors or add more of them, even if not “medically necessary”. A sensor that could perform a physical self test may be an approach to consider, built in sense points (led? Magnetic?) to verify that the vane is pointing more or less where we think it is.
Of course fixing the areodynamics would be the best solution, perhaps a flap welded on somewhere or the like.
I don’t think a software patch will cut it, we all have experience with software patches.
I think the best thing to do is either redesign the AOA sensors or add more of them, even if not “medically necessary”. A sensor that could perform a physical self test may be an approach to consider, built in sense points (led? Magnetic?) to verify that the vane is pointing more or less where we think it is.
Of course fixing the areodynamics would be the best solution, perhaps a flap welded on somewhere or the like.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 40
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amazing that just four years after a German airline pilot murdered 150 people by flying his Airbus into an Alp on purpose that the general public simply don’t remember it happened, which airline, where or when. The brand just carried on.
It will be fixed. Four years from now the General Public won’t even recall there was a crash in Ethiopia or what version of Airbus 737 it was.
WWW
It will be fixed. Four years from now the General Public won’t even recall there was a crash in Ethiopia or what version of Airbus 737 it was.
WWW
We are frankly in uncharted waters in terms of how the public react if/when it is returned to service. It's the first time something like this has happened in the social media age. And the coverage of it has been more thorough in terms of technical details of the aircraft than anything I've seen before.I suspect there could be a significant prolonged effect on passenger preferences. The fact that an engine like Kayak is allowing passengers to filter out specific aircraft will have a few people sweating, since there's only 1 aircraft I can imagine anyone choosing to filter out...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 40
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering I've received jokes from my completely non-aviation interested friends describing anything dysfunctonal as a MAX I on't think this is the case this time. One friend said with all the Brexit chaos Britain is currently the MAX of countries. I'd say some pretty big damage has been done.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 47
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, as with many aviation incidents, the industry is once again using this to get better. The all-too-comfy relationship between manufacturers and certification authorities are exposed by the media, and rightfully so. The poor engineering is being addressed and serves, unfortunately once again, as a reminder that redundancy is necessary on passenger aircraft.
Personally I would have no problem to fly the MAX in the future. Not so much because because I'm a B-fanboy, but because they learned a very, very expensive lesson (both in terms of lives lost as well as monetary damage), which makes this lesson one they will not forget any time soon.
In a different career I once observed a mechanic making a very expensive mistake, causing a small manufacturing company tens of thousands of dollars. He thought he was going to get fired, but his boss saw it from a different angle. The company just paid for a very expensive lesson, so the mechanic was now worth more than before as it is highly unlikely that he would ever make that mistake again. Obviously in a company like Boeing this does not translate 1:1 as eventually the bean-counters will take over again. But for now, engineer depts will have a bit of leverage against their bean-counter counterparts in their wishes to provide quality, not cheap products.
The problem is how to get to the “fly the plane for a year or two with no incidents” part. The airliners will not want to fly an empty plane and unlike 9/11 the public can easily chose to flya different one.
I don’t think a software patch will cut it, we all have experience with software patches.
I think the best thing to do is either redesign the AOA sensors or add more of them, even if not “medically necessary”. A sensor that could perform a physical self test may be an approach to consider, built in sense points (led? Magnetic?) to verify that the vane is pointing more or less where we think it is.
Of course fixing the areodynamics would be the best solution, perhaps a flap welded on somewhere or the like.
I don’t think a software patch will cut it, we all have experience with software patches.
I think the best thing to do is either redesign the AOA sensors or add more of them, even if not “medically necessary”. A sensor that could perform a physical self test may be an approach to consider, built in sense points (led? Magnetic?) to verify that the vane is pointing more or less where we think it is.
Of course fixing the areodynamics would be the best solution, perhaps a flap welded on somewhere or the like.
I intend to avoid the Max when it comes back on line, but my decision has nothing to do with the MCAS, grounding etc etc. The reason I am going to avoid the MAX is because of the crap low profile, hard as a rock, massively uncomfortable seats everyone is putting in them. 
The only problem is that whilst you select the flight you want to go on, there’s nothing preventing the airline you have booked with changing their schedules round and putting a Max on where it was previously A N other type. There’s nothing you can do about it apart from offload yourself, and that’s then going to be expensive.
