MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 ?
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 ?
Building airplanes by remote control is clearly not working that well.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could Boeing get it so right with the B777 and so wrong with the MAX ?
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.
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?
Are you sure? Ie is there a document to back that up?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Are you sure? Ie is there a document to back that up?
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, you might want to check the list of EICAS messages and indications before you spout such nonsense...
Mmmmaxxxxxx or just get the A321NEO or LR or any of the family...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Boeing are in a bind here - even if they are considering an entirely new design now, they can hardly publicise it
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurker here, FYI found this comment within https://hackaday.com/2019/06/09/gps-...elled-flights/.
I've no idea about its accuracy.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.