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 29th May 2019, 10:55
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,744
In fact, ALL people divide safe and unsafe as black and white.
How ridiculous.

Is flying in an aircraft "safe"?

Is driving a car "safe"?

These are not absolutes.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 13:01
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 918
Fly Aiprt

Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
One must remember that the 737 was a "certified" aircraft, and so was supposed to be trimmable at any speed within the flight envelope.
So there is nothing wrong with leaving full thrust with a stickshaker alarm at takeoff.

Duly warned and briefed pilots experienced great difficulties in the sim when confronted with the same scenario.
Even though nothing was at stakes, they say they had their hands full with dealing with the recovery and fighting tunnel vision.

What with a real unexpected alarm in a real aiplane with no previous briefing ?
And remember, the "certified" 737 was supposed to be hand trimmable at the time.

Only now do we know Boeing "autocertified" their airplanes, and there are suspicions of trim difficulties on the MAX as well as the NG.
“Nothing wrong with leaving full power on”. Why would a competent crew ever do that? With speed whistling through 250/300 kts you are obviously not stalling. ( easily confirmed by GS readout). Reduce power, pitch and power ( covered in your Type Rating) if ASI indications unreliable. Partial flap as required, no automatics due erroneous Stick Shaker, and manually fly a return circuit to land.
cessnapete is online now  
Old 29th May 2019, 13:11
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 424
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-...ys-11559117714

Boeing 737 MAX Could Stay Grounded for at Least Two Months, Trade Group Says
IATA boss says the impact of the global suspension of MAX flights on airlines has been significant

By Robert Wall and Na-young Kim
May 29, 2019 4:15 a.m. ET
The boss of the airline industry’s largest trade group Wednesday said the Boeing BA -0.01% 737 MAX fleet could remain grounded for another two months or more in the wake of two crashes.

IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac said the timing on the MAX’s return to service was up to regulators, but airlines were bracing for 10 to 12 more weeks of delay before the plane can resume commercial service.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration last week hosted foreign regulators to discuss the process of clearing the MAX to commercial service after the grounding that followed the March 10 crash of one of the planes in Ethiopia. It was the second MAX crash in less than five months.

“We have to maintain an alignment between those authorities. Hopefully an alignment in terms of schedule,” Mr. de Juniac told reporters.

Boeing has been working on a fix to the flight-control flaw implicated in both crashes, but hasn’t submitted the formal submission to the FAA as it responds to questions from regulators.

He said the impact of the grounding on airlines was significant, though IATA doesn’t yet have a figure for the financial hit from canceled flights, higher costs and lower sales. If the plane remains grounded for another three months, it would hit airlines for the bulk of their summer flying, the busiest travel period for most MAX operators.

Mr. de Juniac said it was unfortunate that the FAA meeting last week didn’t spell out a timeline for the MAX’s return to flight. IATA on the same day held a meeting of 23 airlines that have the MAX in their fleet or on order. Boeing and the FAA provided information to the carriers at the event. Mr. de Juniac said carriers are hopeful that regulators will “find a reasonable time frame” to safely return the MAX to the sky.

Mr. de Juniac said a meeting between airlines, Boeing and regulators is likely to be held in five to seven weeks to prepare for a smooth MAX return to service. “We need to restore confidence in our industry,” he said, both related to the MAX and the certification process for planes more widely.

IATA members are gathering for their annual meeting, which starts Sunday, against a backdrop of global trade tensions and uncertainty over Britain’s exit from the European Union, which have dented demand for air travel.

Air freight demand in April fell 4.7% compared with a year earlier, continuing a slump in demand that began in January, IATA said.

The Trump administration this summer plans to impose higher tariffs on numerous goods made in China, denting freight demand. The airline industry is only one of several to feel the sting. Danish shipping giant A.P. Moeller-Maersk AS last week reported a first-quarter loss and warned that rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China could cut container growth by up to a third this year.

Write to Robert Wall at [email protected]
Zeffy is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 13:45
  #44 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
One must remember that the 737 was a "certified" aircraft, and so was supposed to be trimmable at any speed within the flight envelope.
unfortunately, that is not quite correct. There is an assumption that the crews can cope with an out of trim case at all times, e.g., there is always sufficient authority of the elevator to cope with an out of trim stabiliser, but reality is that is not what the rules actually require. The protection of the certification standard gives a partial coverage for out of trim conditions, of a 3 second error only in the trim at all speeds within the normal envelope effectively. That is sorely tested by the MCAS system, and even without it, there could easily be conditions where you can alter the thrust enough that an additional 3 second of error in trim can place you outside of normal protections under the certification standard. [think of the A310's, the A320 @ Perpignan etc, and other wildly out of trim from thrust/trim mismatches].

The B737 is not alone in being able to be put into a severe out of trim case, but the fact that a condition can arise where the trim cannot function at all as a result of the error is a serious lack of certification shortfall in the protections provided by certification. The only part of the regs that the MCAS appears to be actually non compliant with is related to stability augmentation systems. The trim case it may well have been compliant, the rules themselves were deficient in this case, and appear to be in any case where a condition may arise where the stabiliser can only be returned to function by undergoing special procedures that were not generally taught or discussed, could require a breach of the single crew on the controls policy, and would exceed the control input force requirement of certification. That latter item is a possible breach.

The OEM and the industry have had an expensive lesson on the real world behaviour of the worlds favourite jet transport, and as always the industry will learn from the wreckage and reinforce rules as a result. This particular deficiency is going to be more than a minor matter, personally, I would think that there is some serious issues raised in how to ensure trim is always able to be controlled. watch out for some T tabs on elevator TE in the near future etc... Perhaps nothing gets fixed.

fdr is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 13:52
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Airworthiness

JSP 553 is not the only definitive statement regarding aeronautical products and reflects the USA Military and CFR14 FAR interpretations. This is a good definition, however Nations signatory to the ICAO Convention and in particular Annex 8 have jurisdiction concerning the interpretation and this is reflected in the National Regulatory Organisational standards. Whilst acceptance of Aeronautical Product certification standards between many but not all nations is to date convention this MAX 8 situation indicates that this may not hold true for the future. EASA have made it quite clear that automatic acceptance of FAA MAX 8 changes will not happen. This may have implications wrt the ICAO Convention not least as it also may affect Annex 13 and its interpretation.
RobertP is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 14:15
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by cessnapete View Post


“Nothing wrong with leaving full power on”. Why would a competent crew ever do that? With speed whistling through 250/300 kts you are obviously not stalling. ( easily confirmed by GS readout). Reduce power, pitch and power ( covered in your Type Rating) if ASI indications unreliable. Partial flap as required, no automatics due erroneous Stick Shaker, and manually fly a return circuit to land.
Of course, in an armchair flight, no problem doing what has been discussed here for weeks. It is all too easy to pick just one part of the event and in the light of hindsight, choose the relevant C/L, which we now know would solve the problem.
Now, in the real airplane at takeoff, why would a crew reduce thrust while battling with a persistent stickshaker (it makes noise, no whistling sound) and lots of most distracting alarms, instead of climbing away to sort things out ?
Even just in a sim, warned and briefed crews had their hands full doing the correct thing, which implied resorting to the roller-coaster maneuver.
And just got away by a small margin that the real crew in the real event didn't have.

And BTW, it appears that no flight sim to date reflects the real airplane...
So...I must admit that I'd not be so affirmative...



Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 14:38
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
that the 737 was a "certified" aircraft, and so was supposed to be trimmable at any speed within the flight envelope.
unfortunately, that is not quite correct. There is an assumption that the crews can cope with an out of trim case at all times, e.g., there is always sufficient authority of the elevator to cope with an out of trim stabiliser, but reality is that is not what the rules actually require. The protection of the certification standard gives a partial coverage for out of trim conditions, of a 3 second error only in the trim at all speeds within the normal envelope effectively.
Point taken.
Was meaning "the trim was supposed to be moveable"...
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 17:41
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,892
fdr #44,
Interesting views, no disagreement.

This particular deficiency is going to be more than a minor matter …’
It might be premature to discuss specific solutions for a deficiency which as yet is not clearly understood (at least publicly).
Elevator effectiveness, yes; but also in normal operation consider the combined horizontal tail surfaces - trim drag. What do you imply with TE tabs; corrective effect must overcome the failed trim condition, but not detract from normal operation.

Alternative thoughts could question why it was necessary to increase the tail area, yet retain the same size elevator. More trim range required whilst the pitch control appeared to be adequate.
The obvious longer, heavier, cg, arguments apply, but pitching moment with varying thrust levels could add another dimension.
Another question is why the trim range was chosen (horiz stab angles), is this relatively large, what are the limiting aerodynamic conditions; high, low speed, configuration, cg, thrust.
Have these changed with the evolving variants.

Background ref; https://www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stab...and-range.html


safetypee is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 17:50
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Zeffy View Post
IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac said the timing on the MAX’s return to service was up to regulators, but airlines were bracing for 10 to 12 more weeks of delay before the plane can resume commercial service.

“We have to maintain an alignment between those authorities. Hopefully an alignment in terms of schedule,” Mr. de Juniac told reporters.

Mr. de Juniac said it was unfortunate that the FAA meeting last week didn’t spell out a timeline for the MAX’s return to flight.

Mr. de Juniac said a meeting between airlines, Boeing and regulators is likely to be held in five to seven weeks to prepare for a smooth MAX return to service. “We need to restore confidence in our industry,” he said, both related to the MAX and the certification process for planes more widely.
So, correct me if I'm wrong here. The "decadent capitalist pig", the "Pentagon puppet", the "Trump man" Daniel Elwell says that 737MAX investigation "will be driven by safety and not by schedule". Whereas the French socialist who went to the same school as the recent French president Francois Hollande, a school where Jean-Paul Sartre, no less, was a teacher once, says that MAX investigation should reach an "allignment" (whatever that is) "in terms of schedule" because - OMG!!! - summer schedule is in danger.

And he thinks rushing an investigation of this magnitude and "alligning" it to a schedule will "restore confidence in [his] industry"?!

I think, IATA needs a new CEO.

Last edited by ProPax; 29th May 2019 at 18:15.
ProPax is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 18:37
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by ProPax View Post
Daniel Elwell says that 737MAX investigation "will be driven by safety and not by schedule". Whereas the French socialist who went to the same school as the recent French president Francois Hollande, a school where Jean-Paul Sartre, no less, was a teacher once, says that MAX investigation should reach an "allignment" (whatever that is) "in terms of schedule" because - OMG!!! - summer schedule is in danger.

And he thinks rushing an investigation of this magnitude and "alligning" it to a schedule will "restore confidence in [his] industry"?!
That's wishful talk.
Didn't it occur to you that both may be wrong^^?

Originally Posted by ProPax View Post
I think, IATA needs a new CEO.
What's IATA to do ? There's no fault on the part of IATA. They bought aircraft, confident that they would be up to modern standards, and actually certified by a real, up to the task, aviation agency.

Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 29th May 2019 at 18:40. Reason: Corrected quotes
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 20:31
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
What's IATA to do?
That's actually a very good question. What do they usually do? ICAO issues and enforces the rules of international aviation, such as the freedoms of airspace. But what does IATA do? I'm seriously asking this question. I have NO idea. I'm sure there is an article in Wikipedia that will give me the official blurb, but what actual function do they perform, does anyone know? I honestly have never heard anything about IATA actions, good or bad, but then again, I may have not been paying attention.

ProPax is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 21:39
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PUDBY
Posts: 690
What do they usually do?
I'm pretty sure they assign the three-letter airport identifiers. No idea what else they do.
n5296s is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 22:01
  #53 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,286
I'm afraid that reading the Wikipedia article will not enlighten you.
c52 is offline  
Old 29th May 2019, 22:16
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
Originally Posted by ProPax View Post
But what does IATA do? I'm seriously asking this question. I have NO idea. I'm sure there is an article in Wikipedia that will give me the official blurb, but what actual function do they perform, does anyone know?
Almost every industry has a trade association. Most of those carry out the functions that you would expect from such an organisation. IATA is the airline industry's trade association.

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th May 2019, 02:48
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Grand Turk
Age: 56
Posts: 64
Certification is a binary process denoting an acceptable level of risk. Safety or risk is inherently not binary but is subject to the exercise of judgment to arrive at a compromise that can be certified. Not sure what the pregnancy argument is about but clearly no system is absolutely safe but when you are pregnant you are absolutely.

MCAS is popularly considered to have introduced an unnecessary level of risk that should not have been certified. It is probable that the aircraft would have been safer without MCAS and the pilots were responsible for potential pitch up conditions due to the new engine locations. The investigation will have to resolve these suppositions and whether there were fundamental irregularities with the design and certification process. Quite rightly the focus must be on whether the design and certification was appropriate. Consideration of pilot performance are of course relevant, but are not the primary cause of the accidents and are not capable of obvious remedial action. There will always be pilots of varying ability. It is far from certain that the situation that they found themselves would have been recoverable by average pilots... more information is required to establish what the pilots actually did at all stages of the flights.

Based on the limited information, it appears to me that MCAS introduced an unacceptable level of risk and those risks were known to Boeing and possibly the FAA. It is not a good situation for public confidence in safety.
wheelsright is offline  
Old 30th May 2019, 03:54
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 64
MAX needs MCAS for FAR 25 compliance

Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
It is about time. There is no difference between the NG and the MAX in manual trim, so if the pilots were unable to manually trim in the last crash, they wouldn't have been able to trim in any of the 6500 B737s flying.
Umm, apologies if I've misunderstood what you're saying, but...

The entire point of the introduction of MCAS is that the 737 MAX without MCAS responds to pitch control inputs differently to earlier models. In particular, runaway pitch-up is possible.

Without MCAS, the 737MAX would fail to meet FAR 25 requirements for controllability in manual flight.

In another thread

Originally Posted by gums
I like "25.203 Stall characteristics", as it may provide a clue why MCAS was incorporated. The first paragraph requires:
No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up
to and throughout the stall.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 30th May 2019, 04:06
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,355
It is probable that the aircraft would have been safer without MCAS and the pilots were responsible for potential pitch up conditions due to the new engine locations.
Whilst in hindsight that is probably true, MCAS came about because the MAX didn't actually meet the certification standard in the first place. It would be interesting to know how far off the certification standard they were that Boeing believe it necessary to actually put in the MCAS system.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 30th May 2019, 04:23
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,259
Originally Posted by ProPax View Post
ICAO issues and enforces the rules of international aviation, such as the freedoms of airspace. But what does IATA do? I'm seriously asking this question. I have NO idea.
IATA is a trade body of all the mainstream carriers, on the commercial side. They represent interline agreements, revenue division, commercial policies, relations with travel agencies and other sales agents, and such like. This mirrors what ICAO do on the operational and technical side.

Their relevance to the situation is in the forward planning of schedules and making reservations, where the aircraft provision and schedules are currently substantially disorganised by the grounding, such that carriers currently are unsure what capacity they may have available for the season ahead. It now looks likely the Max is going to be grounded right through the summer peak period, and carriers affected are going to be facing up to different timetables, and offering different fare structures through their yield management plans, to what they might have hoped.
WHBM is offline  
Old 30th May 2019, 04:40
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,464
As others have noted, absolute safety is a myth - nothing in life is completely safe.
For certification purposes, there is a definition of safe:
The probability of a catastrophic outcome is ~ 10-9/flight hour (or less - less is always better).
The miss was that no one at Boeing or the FAA (or EASA) identified MCAS as being a flight critical system that needed to meet that 10-9 requirement.
I'm not privy to everything the 'fix' entails, but 10-9/hr. is the standard it will need to meet to be determined safe.
tdracer is offline  
Old 30th May 2019, 04:52
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 180
I don't think the MAX will be flying in Europe any time soon, there is a very nasty trade war brewing. The WTO has found that Airbus has been illegally subsidized by the government and so the US will be able to impose tariffs. Boeing is also illegally subsidized but the case is not as far along so there is going to be five or six months of one-sided tariffs (affecting cheese makers, etc.) over airplanes. It is a little hard to see that the European regulators are going to cut Boeing much slack, I imagine a "work to rule" type situation and they have plenty of ammunition. I don't know how many airlines will be affected; I do know that Sunwings in Canada is already cancelling flights and blaming Boeing (although they are affected by a different trade war.)

Last edited by Water pilot; 30th May 2019 at 05:29.
Water pilot 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.