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 9th Jun 2019, 22:06
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight View Post
Several years ago, I read here that Ryanair may block few rows for trim purposes and they put bags for free in the hold it they need to.
True. Rows can be sterile to do that.
Bags for free is more to do with getting passengers to not take on board hand baggage which slows down boarding and there’s only room for 90 overhead bags anyway on a 188 seater 737-800
yanrair is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 01:00
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 463
Boeing have 5000+ orders for the MAX, the aircraft is mostly operated on short to medium sectors therefore has a high number of take offs and landings. The pilots flying them are generally towards the lower end of the experience level, typically being the copilot's first job and the Captains first command. Combined total hours for both pilots is often below 4000. The aircraft is regularly flown into secondary, more challenging airports. It's also being operated by some airlines with less than stellar safety records.

In view of the above, I unfortunately can guarantee that there will be future accidents with the type should it return to service. Any accident will automatically have the MCAS as the number one suspect as far as the general public is concerned, even if the crew land on a closed runway and hit construction equipment. How are Boeing and the airlines going to deal with passengers refusing to fly on what could be a large percentage of the world's aircraft fleet ?

In contrast, the B777 has an excellent safety record, a good basic design, operated on longer sectors with fewer take offs and landings. Flown by more experienced pilots working for higher level airlines into better airports. Twenty four years in service and you can count the number of accidents on your fingers, most of which were attributable to crew error, engine problems or external factors. I can't think of a single accident caused by a Boeing deficiency.

How could Boeing get it so right with the B777 and so wrong with the MAX ?
krismiler is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 01:04
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post

How could Boeing get it so right with the B777 and so wrong with the MAX ?
Management moved from Seattle, close to the coalface, to an ivory tower in Chicago, far away from any contact with operations.
Building airplanes by remote control is clearly not working that well.
etudiant is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 01:16
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 385
How could Boeing get it so right with the B777 and so wrong with the MAX ?
We shall see when the 777X comes to fruition, yet another extension of an old variant. Given the MAX debacle, who has the confidence at this point, to certify that ac on an expedited schedule?

The folding wings arent exactly working out as planned.
In the folded position, they have issues with the wind load on the connections. There are also issues unfolding the wings in crosswinds.
There are the basic crosswinds for landing and departure, now the crew has to verify winds for folding/unfolding?

There is nothing, such as a light or any notification, such as with the landing gear, to tell the pilots when the wings are locked in the extended position, or locked in the folding position.
As the wings are folded at the gate, and cannot be extended until taxi, how are the pilots supposed to ensure the wings are folded and locked in position for flight? As PIC, how do you verify wings extended, and locked, visual? Like the landing gear, would one want to know extended and locked?

Yet another unmitigated (so far) SPOF design.
Honestly, for Boeing to design this folding system, with no follow through is appalling.
Perhaps, like AoA disagree, it was designed, but forgotten along the way?

Since it is not a Boeing issue, it is not their fault that the engines have 'anomalies'. The latest buzzword in the industry, "anomaly", like when the SpaceX capsule had an anomaly, and everyone knows what happened there. The engine on the test stand experienced an 'anomaly', who doesnt envision the engine blowing up on the stand?
Yet again, Boeing choosing the wrong words.

No test flights, issues with wings and engines, yet expected to be in service in 2020??? Who wants to hear that at this point?

Last edited by Smythe; 10th Jun 2019 at 01:40.
Smythe is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 01:32
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 266
As the wings are folded at the gate, and cannot be extended until taxi, how are the pilots supposed to ensure the wings are folded and locked in position for flight?
I find it hard to believe that there is no indication in the flight deck that the wings have locked into position correctly.
Are you sure? Ie is there a document to back that up?
73qanda is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 01:36
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 463
We shall see when the 777X comes to fruition, yet another extension of an old variant. Given the MAX debacle, who has the confidence at this point, to certify that ac on an expedited schedule?
The problems within Boeing started to become evident with the B787 and are now very obvious with the MAX. I would happily get onboard a current B738, B777 or B744 without a second thought but would be wary of future models. Self certification obviously isn't working. An independant, well resourced authority should be responsible for testing and issuing a type certificate, and deciding what training needs to be done for pilots transitioning onto the new aircraft. The current conflict of interest should have been obvious.
krismiler is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 02:05
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 385
I find it hard to believe that there is no indication in the flight deck that the wings have locked into position correctly.
Are you sure? Ie is there a document to back that up?
So did the FAA. The FAA pointed to how many issues there were with landing gear, the importance of a locked indicator, and the SPOF issue with no indication of wings locked. The FAA wording was terse on the issue to say the least.
The FAA was nicer on the crosswind issue, only noting issues with repetitive stressed connections, and asking to provide further calculations on the wind loads used to design the connections.
There was also the question on extending/folding the wings, the associated wind loads, and max wind load for extension/folding cycles.

As with all regulatory promulgation, the pendulum swings back and forth. As we have seen, the pendulum had swung one way too far, unfortunately, the reaction is for the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction.
Smythe is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 03:35
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,329
Originally Posted by Smythe View Post
So did the FAA. The FAA pointed to how many issues there were with landing gear, the importance of a locked indicator, and the SPOF issue with no indication of wings locked. The FAA wording was terse on the issue to say the least.
.
Smythe, you might want to check the list of EICAS messages and indications before you spout such nonsense...
tdracer is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 03:51
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 46
Posts: 382
Mmmmaxxxxxx or just get the A321NEO or LR or any of the family...
Global Aviator is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 04:26
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Posts: 992
Boeing just isn’t the company it used to be. The lack of competition has really taken a toll. Couple it with the non-existant regulator and the ingredients come together to create the current situation.

Previous posters nailed it, the merge with MD and the move of HQ away from the factory floor were the beginning of the end. Extremely bizarre moves that started the chipping away that destroyed an American icon.

The Max is not the first warmed-over failure. Remember the 747-8? An accountant’s creation, just a modified 744 done on the cheap and fast. Going on over 10 years in service and still having FMC issues.
This is what happens when you let accountants build airplanes. You will succeed at only building the plane as cheap as possible.

The Max would be over and done with where it not for the lack of competition. Any time a competitor pops up, B and A buy them and integrate them. The new Embraer and C-Series killed the A318-319 and B-736-737. With time, they would have chipped away at the 320-321 and 738-9 line eventually, which is why they are now folded into the big two.
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 05:14
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,019
Re-start the B757 line.....
dc9-32 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 08:50
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: The woods
Posts: 2

Given the ever increasing down time, basic changes could and should be made:

1) Decommission MACS feature and replace by a change to the mechanical feel in the control run, to achieve higher stick load at higher AoA with no stabiliser input
2) Build in a standby trim motor and scrap the trim wheel (see MD-80 for example)
3) Start from scratch with the trim electric logic and simplify the cut-out, column cut-out and trim switch confusion
4) Test fly and certify trim runaway situations on Max and NG
5) Create a “difference” course and market it to future operators at an attractive price - free for present operators
6) Make public the above, certify the Max and recommend the trim mod to NG operators

Takes time - takes money? So do crashes and down time, as we see.
bill fly is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 08:56
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by bill fly View Post

Given the ever increasing down time, basic changes could and should be made:

1) Decommission MACS feature and replace by a change to the mechanical feel in the control run, to achieve higher stick load at higher AoA with no stabiliser input
2) Build in a standby trim motor and scrap the trim wheel (see MD-80 for example)
3) Start from scratch with the trim electric logic and simplify the cut-out, column cut-out and trim switch confusion
4) Test fly and certify trim runaway situations on Max and NG
5) Create a “difference” course and market it to future operators at an attractive price - free for present operators
6) Make public the above, certify the Max and recommend the trim mod to NG operators

Takes time - takes money? So do crashes and down time, as we see.
All good plans but....

10 MAX are being produced a week with the current physical spec. In order to achieve certification for these frames with the above modifications ANOTHER, separate design and approval process needs to run.

Then the modifications need to be made to each airframe, while still building new MAXes to the revised spec as above. Where does the manufacturing or maintenance capacity exist to do this?

This is why Boeing is fixated on a software revision.
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 09:03
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: The woods
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Maninthebar View Post
All good plans but....

10 MAX are being produced a week with the current physical spec. In order to achieve certification for these frames with the above modifications ANOTHER, separate design and approval process needs to run.

Then the modifications need to be made to each airframe, while still building new MAXes to the revised spec as above. Where does the manufacturing or maintenance capacity exist to do this?

This is why Boeing is fixated on a software revision.
Yep, so it is but at some point we have to bite the bullet. Exceptional events sometimes need more drastic solutions than software updates.
bill fly is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 09:11
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 79
Oh I do agree Bill, just pointing out some of the logistical challenges in a (physical) engineering solution.

Boeing are in a bind here - even if they are considering an entirely new design now, they can hardly publicise it
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 09:59
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,019
At current rates of production, when will Boeing run out of parking space ?
dc9-32 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 10:48
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by yanrair View Post

They operate at three different zero fuel weights even on a daily basis. This reduces a variety of charges including ATC
I really do wonder about the depth of your understanding given this and the rubbish you wrote regarding crew actions on the MAX crashes.

The zero fuel weight for a full 737 is the same regardless of its destination. Last I heard was that Ryanair operate at 5 different MTOWs for the reasons you state.
whiskydrinker is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 10:52
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 116
Lurker here, FYI found this comment within https://hackaday.com/2019/06/09/gps-...elled-flights/.
I've no idea about its accuracy.

Scott H. says:June 9, 2019 at 8:51 pm The airline I work for is having this issue. The story we’re getting is that at approximately 3:00z on 6/9/19, the WAAS system on all of the GPS satellites received a software upgrade and that the software upload was somehow corrupted. This means that aircraft equipped with the WAAS MMR’s (Multi mode receivers) manufactured by Rockwell Collins are unable to resolve the WAAS signal from the satellites, thus causing MMR and GPS failure messages in the aircraft. The aircraft equipped with the pre WAAS MMR’s are not affected. Our airline is working with Rockwell Collins, the aircraft manufacturer and the FAA to receive permission to return our aircraft back to the pre WAAS configuration until the WAAS systems on the satellite constellation are operating normally again.
Peter H is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 11:16
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 65
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by bill fly View Post


Yep, so it is but at some point we have to bite the bullet. Exceptional events sometimes need more drastic solutions than software updates.
Like Lockheed did after the call on the manufacturer from the FAA to conduct a complete engineering re-evaluation of the Electra to determine the cause (of two accidents) why the wings failed during flight.
Assisting Lockheed in the task were Allison and NASA plus engineers from Boeing and Douglas. The pursuit of airline safety crosses corporate lines. This became LEAP, the Lockheed Electra Action Program. After determining the culprit to be flutter due to undampened whirl mode (gyroscopic effect of the propellers, e.g. precession) because of weakened engine and gearbox mounts. Airframe / wing structure / engine and reduction gearbox mounts were modified. Lockheed did the modification on new aircraft on the production line and recalled all 135 delivered aircraft and modified them. Elapsed time for the modifications on each aircraft was 20 working days. All mods performed at the factory in Burbank in the 1960-1961 period.
Green-dot is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2019, 11:50
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast, UK
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by PEI_3721 View Post
...

If MCAS mods are approved, which appears likely, then why spend money on Aero fixes, but if other problems dominate - trim, then aero fixes could address both issues. Expensive and time consuming; requires balance, but as yet perhaps not Boeing’s call.
Perhaps they haven't yet learnt from the electronics and tech sectors, "someone will make an improved version of your best product, and you'd better make sure it's you".

Boeing need to decide and drive their fate, not their customers, regulators, press or passengers. I see precious little driving from Boeing at the moment.
catch21 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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