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

MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

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

MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

Old 14th Sep 2019, 22:35
  #2381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by blue up View Post
How many MAX Sims are currently in service or are being prepared? One in Canada, I'm told.

Is a -800 cockpit capable of being retrofitted as a MAX as this would make it quicker to 'rush' some MAX sims into use. Looking at a bare 747 cockpit last week it did seem that a bit of de-rivetting would be required.
Air Canada has one
.https://pizzainmotion-wpengine.netdn...2/IMG_0222.jpg
Following is an update from Flight Global re the US
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...online-460278/
Longtimer is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 23:37
  #2382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Longtimer View Post
Air Canada has one
.https://pizzainmotion-wpengine.netdn...2/IMG_0222.jpg
Following is an update from Flight Global re the US
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...online-460278/
"In April, Southwest chief executive Gary Kelly suggested the US Federal Aviation Administration will not require simulator time, though Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has said some airlines may implement such training.
Kelly drew that conclusion from discussions with the FAA, Boeing and Southwest's pilots' union, he said."

April was a very long time ago - 5 months later, we still do not even have "the fix".
Bend alot is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2019, 04:14
  #2383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 77
Posts: 1,135
Salute!

TNX, fdr, some good thots you present here.

And make no mistake, I used Otto a lot in my thousands of hours in single seaters. I used altitude hold, heading hold, heading select and even flew a few "coupled" approaches in one jet. I did it to reduce workload - getting out maps, approach plates for an unplanned divert base, quick fuel checks using the tiny nav circular slide rule and so forth ( not that big E6B doofer). So I am not one of the manual flying at all costs pilots.

That being said, there is one big thing I like about getting as much hand-flying time whenever you can. It is the "feeling" when the plane does something that you do not expect considering either the Otto mode or your own control inputs or trim settings. You know........., you did this hundreds of times but this time is "different". When letting Otto do the climbout/letdown and such, you should be mentally flying the same profile and be able to see where your manual inputs would be in effect or where Otto did something completely off the wall.

On another thread, or maybe even here among the latest one hundred posts.....someone raised the issue of the newer pilots that had little time flying pure manual planes and were born and bred in the Atari/Playstation/Nintendo world of aviation. As you know, being in the first training unit, I worked with many of the initial Viper pilots, including raw nuggets still wearing brown bars. Our fears of them not being able to "fly" without the computers and full FBW were quickly dispatched. Nevertheless, we demonstrated as many of the "limiters" as we could ( we did not call them "protections" as the 'bus crowd does) , and we had plenty of ground school discussions of what the limiters were limiting..

Now back to your regular programming...

Gums...
gums is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2019, 11:51
  #2384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
Posts: 32
Tomaski - Loved the graphic!
fdr - Read your latest post with great interest. A thread about pilot training in general might be better for continuing the SA, hand flying, and startle factor discussions.
But the questions about dedicated MAX simulators and the writing of new training modules for MAX pilots is very relevant to this thread.
Turb is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2019, 19:24
  #2385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
I think many forgot that with the upgrades, EACH aircraft will have to be flight tested for cert to resume operations....

"Boeing is exploring a deal for temporary pilots with Isle of Man-based aircrew and training provider CCL Aviation to supplement its staff pilots, one person with knowledge of the matter said."
Smythe is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2019, 20:48
  #2386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Smythe View Post
I think many forgot that with the upgrades, EACH aircraft will have to be flight tested for cert to resume operations....

"Boeing is exploring a deal for temporary pilots with Isle of Man-based aircrew and training provider CCL Aviation to supplement its staff pilots, one person with knowledge of the matter said."
After the first handful of conversions, this step will likely be incorporated into the ferry process.
Tomaski is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 07:04
  #2387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 511
Boeing ?going to war? to return the 737 MAX to the skies - Taipei Times

Boeing going to max its efforts for the max
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 07:24
  #2388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Smythe View Post
I think many forgot that with the upgrades, EACH aircraft will have to be flight tested for cert to resume operations....
AFAIK, there is no AMM requirement to airtest an aircraft that is being returned to service from storage.

Boeing: Airplane Return To Service After Extended Downtime
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 07:49
  #2389 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by gums View Post
Salute!

...That being said, there is one big thing I like about getting as much hand-flying time whenever you can. It is the "feeling" when the plane does something that you do not expect considering either the Otto mode or your own control inputs or trim settings. You know........., you did this hundreds of times but this time is "different". When letting Otto do the climbout/letdown and such, you should be mentally flying the same profile and be able to see where your manual inputs would be in effect or where Otto did something completely off the wall...

Now back to your regular programming...

Gums...
interesting.

Dear defanged viper, IIRC, your ride, Boyd's mafia LWF, had an FBW FLCS (analog in 79..., digital later). Stevens and Lewis provide the control derivatives in Appendix A of their book on the wonders of control and simulation. In pitch, y'all had RSS, so essentially response there is from one of the 4 PFM boxes so long as the smoke remains inside the boxes. The original YF prototype IIRC had an immovable SSC, just being a handle for force sensors to be attached to. By the time it hit production, you had slight motion of the stick, but no feedback. Your Viper had a trim switch on the SSC which trimmed out lateral asymmetry and in pitch varied the force free manoeuvre g, IIRC, not having had the pleasure of much beyond a rear seat fly of an early block electrojet... Was the feeling you got actually derived from the FLCS or the need to apply say a constant force for at least the lateral input for a stores asymmetry or similar? In later blocks, with the digital computers things were broadly the same but the relaxation of stability could be taken further, and fun effects could be played with. On commercial aircraft, (le Concorde was an analog FBW aircraft too) such as the 777 787 and the 320-330-340-350-380, there are differences between brands. The Boeing is slightly weird by design choice, it does force feedback, and the driver is given trim input which indexes the trim speed. To an extent it gives a nearly conventional feedback, but with stability in roll mainly, and oddly a phugoid just to bedevil the curious. The 'buses have no feedback, they really are nintendo devices, but they do have a nice manoeuvre demand logic. The natural control feel of a FBW system is about the same as the control panel of a microwave oven for the SSC systems. If the designer wants to give feedback, that is an artificial feel, fed back by servos to a moveable control, like a 787, or F18 etc, and that feel can be whatever they decided was a good thing at the time, from the microwave oven control panel through to the Wright Flyer. Feeding back oddities and funnies into the controls is a function on what derivatives the designer wants the driver to deal with. They can wash out all anomalies, so the plane doesn't tell that the left wing was taken off, a flap failed to run, etc... whatever floats their boat.

The copy I have of 16DFCS003 is a lousy report version from DTIC, but it doesn't show much going back to the driver in feedback other than the aircraft performance outcome. As is usually the case, looking at the gains tells a great story of the planes character though.

just curious.

Last edited by fdr; 16th Sep 2019 at 09:33.
fdr is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 08:20
  #2390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Smythe View Post
I think many forgot that with the upgrades, EACH aircraft will have to be flight tested for cert to resume
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
AFAIK, there is no AMM requirement to airtest an aircraft that is being returned to service from storage
Seriously ?

‘As far as I know’ is the important sentence in your post (again). Read his entire quote. I’ve underlined the important part for you.

If an aircraft that has required maintenance on a flight control etc. requires a test flight, what makes you think a returning MAX aircraft won’t ? I’d be shocked if you have access to the relevant documents in any case.
JPJP is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 08:26
  #2391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,145
Yes, seriously.

The rectification will, we're told, involve software only. In other words a patch to the FCC software. There will have been dozens, if not more, of FCC releases during the lifetime of the 737.

While the design and certification of said patch will obviously have involved flight testing, there is absolutely no reason why its embodiment on individual airframes would require an airtest.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 10:19
  #2392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116 View Post
The article subtitle says :
"The crisis-hit planemaker is deploying 1,500 engineers — as many as it takes to design a new small jet — as part of a program to get hundreds of its best-selling aircraft back into service worldwide"

It is not clear if this refers to engineers or technicians (Americans often call all of them "engineers"), but it makes you wonder why Boeing has not come up with a viable solution yet.
Month after month since March, the CEO has kept telling the fix was ready.
How come so many engineers are required for months for a simple software fix ?
Isn't there more to it than just this alleged fix ?
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 10:28
  #2393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 694
A giant like B could not solve it within a year. So it must be more complicated than just a tiny software update. Instead we see global authorities drifting apart over those changes required. If this morphs into serious hardware changes now it'll take even longer. We are not back by christmas yet.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 11:56
  #2394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 595
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post

How come so many engineers are required for months for a simple software fix ?
Isn't there more to it than just this alleged fix ?
They’re not.

Most of those recently recruited ‘technicians’ are there to do the work necessary to return the grounded aircraft to a serviceable condition to fly again and are not involved with any attempts to find a fix.
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 12:12
  #2395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound View Post


They’re not.

Most of those recently recruited ‘technicians’ are there to do the work necessary to return the grounded aircraft to a serviceable condition to fly again and are not involved with any attempts to find a fix.
So the article is misleading :
" deploying 1,500 engineers — as many as it takes to design a new small jet — "

Deploying 1500 temporary technicians is no big deal in any industry, and has nothing to do with an engineer team designing an airplane.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 12:16
  #2396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 611
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...-year-11907906

DUBAI: The head of the United Arab Emirates' General Civil Aviation Authority said on Sunday (Sep 15) he was not optimistic the Boeing 737 MAX would return to operations in the fourth quarter of this year and it was more likely to be in the first quarter of 2020.

Director General Saif Mohammed al-Suwaidi told reporters in Dubai that the UAE would conduct its own separate re-certification of the aircraft, rather than follow the Federal Aviation Authority.

He added that he expects to complete the process of certifying Abu Dhabi airport's new Midfield terminal by the end of the year.



Source: Reuters
krismiler is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 15:09
  #2397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound View Post
They’re not.

Most of those recently recruited ‘technicians’ are there to do the work necessary to return the grounded aircraft to a serviceable condition to fly again and are not involved with any attempts to find a fix.

Quite so.

To quote from the Boeing document that I linked to in my previous post:

An airplane may be parked for more than a day because of business or operational factors such as overcapacity, company restructuring, market conditions, or regulatory action. Deterioration of airplane structure, surface finish, airplane systems, and components can occur if preservation procedures to protect the airplane are not followed. If exposed to the outside environment (figure 3), an airplane can be damaged by heat, humidity, cold, ice, snow, rain, lightning, hail, wind, sandstorms, and insects. The airplane must also be protected from damage or debris contamination of pitot probes, static ports, total air temperature probes and angle-of-attack sensors. External openings on the airplane such as the outflow valve, relief valves, vents, ports, and openings must be closed and sealed against environmental effects.

Because of airplane system inactivity and the lack of regular maintenance checks during parking, the following may also occur: component mechanisms may lose lubrication, batteries may discharge, contamination of potable water systems or fuel tanks may occur, and some systems or components (such as oxygen cylinders, tires, hydraulic systems, and landing gear shock struts) may lose pressure. Although the airplane is inactive during parking, it is important to maintain the engine, auxiliary power unit, and cargo fire extinguishing systems and all portable fire extinguishers in fully serviceable condition in case of a fire. The airplane must be electrostatically grounded while it is parked.
Increased emphasis on aviation safety has required operators and maintenance personnel to exercise greater care and vigilance in all aspects of airplane maintenance. Any airplane being returned to service after extended downtime requires additional attention, because in many cases a lengthy period of time has passed since the airplane last flew. Any time an airplane is in extended downtime for maintenance, either system modifications or configuration changes may have been implemented. When an airplane is parked, protective maintenance must be performed to prevent damage to the airplane. The airplane was airworthy prior to either instance of extended downtime, but no assumptions should be made about the airworthiness of the airplane after the downtime, especially if protective measures and the manufacturer's recommended maintenance instructions have not been carried out. When an airplane is returned to service after parking or maintenance downtime, the appropriate checks and tests must be performed to ensure its airworthiness. All airplane systems that were disturbed during maintenance should be operationally tested according to the airplane manufacturer's instructions or equivalent operator instructions. Following these fundamental practices can help maintenance organizations ensure the airworthiness of an airplane returned to service after extended downtime.
The reason for the vast army of technicians isn't so much because the actions required to return an aircraft to flight are complex, but because no airline wants to be at the back of a long queue to get its own aircraft in the air again.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 00:36
  #2398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 395
I would be more impressed if he was to try it out in an actual aircraft.

FAA chief to test out changes to Boeing 737 Max software in simulator


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/16/faa-...simulator.html
Longtimer is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 07:47
  #2399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 58
Posts: 424
This WSJ article indicates that the Joint Technical Review Panel report is expected to be critical of FAA approval, and the B737 MAX certification process. Link may be paywalled: https://www.wsj.com/articles/interna...ts-11568666088
A panel of international air-safety regulators is finishing a report expected to criticize the initial U.S. approval process for Boeing Co. ’s 737 MAX jets, according to people briefed on the conclusions, while urging a wide-ranging reassessment of how complex automated systems should be certified on future airliners.

As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of these people, is that essential design changes didn’t receive adequate FAA attention.

The report, these officials said, also is expected to fault the agency for what it describes as inadequate data sharing with foreign authorities during its original certification of the MAX two years ago, along with relying on mistaken industrywide assumptions about how average pilots would react to certain flight-control emergencies. FAA officials have said they are devising new pilot-reaction guidelines after two fatal crashes.
GordonR_Cape is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 10:31
  #2400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,344
Originally Posted by GordonR_Cape View Post
This WSJ article indicates that the Joint Technical Review Panel report is expected to be critical of FAA approval, and the B737 MAX certification process. Link may be paywalled: https://www.wsj.com/articles/interna...ts-11568666088
along with relying on mistaken industrywide assumptions about how average pilots would react to certain flight-control emergencies. FAA officials have said they are devising new pilot-reaction guidelines after two fatal crashes.
That statement will have huge ramifications for avionics, aircraft design and for pilots; it is a tacit admission that pilots have become deskilled in manual flying.
.
The current assumptions made for "FMS disengagement" / "drops into alternate laws" are based on how average pilots would react. IF the average pilot now has to be expected to be less capable of reacting correctly, then the entire cost benefit analysis of automation changes as the systems must be designed to cope with more and only present easier failure cases to the pilot. The argument necessarily becomes - that automation using new intelligent machines need not hand anything to the pilot the actual flying of the aircraft will cease to be the pilot task even in emergencies as the pilots cannot be expected to cope.

That line of reasoning will remove the companies' concerns over pilot shortage, pilots will go the way of flight engineers and radio operators.
Ian W is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.