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 24th Jul 2019, 22:04
  #1501 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NY Times coverage of possible shutdown

Boeing said on Wednesday that it was considering halting production of the 737 Max if the grounding of its most popular plane persists, a move that could damage airlines, suppliers and even the United States economy.
The company is struggling to contain the fallout from two deadly crashes of the Max. It has already announced more than $8 billion in costs related to the accidents, and is producing the planes at a slower rate.

The damage is spreading through the constellation of companies connected to Boeing, the nation’s largest aerospace manufacturer. Airlines around the world have canceled thousands of flights, costing them billions of dollars, and some carriers have reined-in expansion plans. Suppliers like General Electric, which makes engines for the Max, are expecting lower revenue in the quarter.

The economic toll is also rising. Orders of durable goods in the United States, which include commercial airplanes, were down 1.3 percent in May, the third drop in four months, according to the Census Bureau.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/b...s-737-max.html
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 04:57
  #1502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
Given these are the known issues with the 737 MAX and it does not even list the MCAS changes and still meeting certification requirements as an issue.

Is it even possible for re-certification any time in 2019?

They are a lot of very different issues and problems to rectify and certify - If simulators are required for training, currently there are none that correctly simulate it appears. Even then there appears only to be 3 simulators (+ Boeing "simulator").

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/0...x-issues-.html

The trim wheel has been marginal since birth in the 737, imagine if now it will actually be required to work at all times within the envelope (and it should). That is a massive amount of work/time just to correct then get certified.

All of these changes and rectifications need to be made within the grandfathering conditions and approval/acceptance of a number of regulatory bodies not just the FAA.

A year from now more realistic?
Bend alot is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 06:53
  #1503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So yesterday media reported that their cash flow was "only" -$900M (LA Times: "Burnt 1B") and their cash reserves remained high at 9.1B. This supprised me a bit as I would have expected a higher impact. That's why I had a look in their official Form 10-Q report. Turns out that they setteled debt in Q2 for $6B but took new borrowings for $11B. So they burnt more like $6B and are living on the credit card so to speak to save their cash reserves. And they will continue for at least one Q, probably two, maybe three.

Once again I am baffeled how they are handeled with valvet gloves. No one publically challenges them neither from a technical point of view nor from a project management point of view (timeline!) nor from a financial point of view.
If Boeing was a southern european country ...
BDAttitude is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 07:29
  #1504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If Boeing was a southern european country ...
Then would haven´t gotten the 707 off the ground, let alone any other airplane.

But you´re right, one wonders, 346 killed, nobody (to my knowledge) in custody, after the VW diesel scandal broke in the US (an ESTIMATED 59 premature deaths acc. to a study), the gloves were off immediately.

But then, the Max killed mostly non-US folks...
His dudeness is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 08:19
  #1505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: denmark
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by His dudeness
But you´re right, one wonders, 346 killed, nobody (to my knowledge) in custody, after the VW diesel scandal broke in the US (an ESTIMATED 59 premature deaths acc. to a study), the gloves were off immediately.
There is a difference..
VW knew they were breaking the law..
Boeing knew that the B737 is not state of the art, but there is no evidence that Boeing knew that the design was dangerous.

However:
On page 15 of https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...20ISS%2010.pdf
It seems like FAA/Boeing have delivered evidence to EASA to confirm that the manual trim wheel is usable in ‘certain corners of the envelope’, in situations where the trim forces are too high for the electrical trim.
The question is if Boeing knew that the manual trim forces were too high for an average pilot..
HighWind is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 08:40
  #1506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,822
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
This may be a rather simplistic view but many of the problems appear to have been exacerbated by Boeing trying to implement FBW-like features on a non-FBW aircraft by modifying systems that were never intended for this kind of application? The difference between the 737 family and the A3xx one is stark in this respect.

Given that Boeing have built very successful FBW aircraft, both military and civil, they must be kicking themselves that they didn’t use that knowledge and experience on the 737. Yes, it has a cost but nothing like the one they are having now...
FullWings is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 08:43
  #1507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HighWind
There is a difference..
VW knew they were breaking the law..
Boeing knew that the B737 is not state of the art, but there is no evidence that Boeing knew that the design was dangerous.

However:
On page 15 of https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...20ISS%2010.pdf
It seems like FAA/Boeing have delivered evidence to EASA to confirm that the manual trim wheel is usable in ‘certain corners of the envelope’, in situations where the trim forces are too high for the electrical trim.
The question is if Boeing knew that the manual trim forces were too high for an average pilot..
I think this is a slight misunderstanding.
The information provided was that in some corners of the envelope trim input may be needed which is not accessible by electric trim, because it is past the column cutout switches. It was argued, that it could be achieved by manual trim though and "additional crew procedures and training material will clearly explain to pilots the situations where use of the trim wheel may be needed".
Now if it turns out that exactly in the situations mentioned "gear up/flaps up, aft center of gravity, near Vmo/Mmo corner" manual trim is not possible that would make Boeings statment significanty false.

Last edited by BDAttitude; 25th Jul 2019 at 09:13.
BDAttitude is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 08:48
  #1508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HighWind
there is no evidence that Boeing knew that the design was dangerous.
Consider the alternative proposition:
"there is no evidence Boeing knew the design was safe."

Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 25th Jul 2019 at 09:11.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 08:54
  #1509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
Given that Boeing have built very successful FBW aircraft, both military and civil, they must be kicking themselves that they didn’t use that knowledge and experience on the 737.
Certificating a 50-year-old design transformed into a FBW aircraft under a grandfathered TC was never an option.

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 09:24
  #1510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
Certificating a 50-year-old design transformed into a FBW aircraft under a grandfathered TC was never an option.
Should never have been considered a viable option!
Be lucky
Bavid
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 09:27
  #1511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,822
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
Certificating a 50-year-old design transformed into a FBW aircraft under a grandfathered TC was never an option.
I think you’re right for those exact criteria but if they had bitten the bullet and re-certified it as FBW 20+ years ago when the 777 appeared, they wouldn’t be having half the issues now...
FullWings is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 09:37
  #1512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by HighWind
There is a difference..
VW knew they were breaking the law..
Boeing knew that the B737 is not state of the art, but there is no evidence that Boeing knew that the design was dangerous.

However:
On page 15 of https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...20ISS%2010.pdf
It seems like FAA/Boeing have delivered evidence to EASA to confirm that the manual trim wheel is usable in ‘certain corners of the envelope’, in situations where the trim forces are too high for the electrical trim.
The question is if Boeing knew that the manual trim forces were too high for an average pilot..
Possible until crash one, by crash 2 they would be very marginal on law breaking - but my money is on prior crash one at very least moral laws were broken.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 09:44
  #1513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
This may be a rather simplistic view but many of the problems appear to have been exacerbated by Boeing trying to implement FBW-like features on a non-FBW aircraft by modifying systems that were never intended for this kind of application? The difference between the 737 family and the A3xx one is stark in this respect.

Given that Boeing have built very successful FBW aircraft, both military and civil, they must be kicking themselves that they didn’t use that knowledge and experience on the 737. Yes, it has a cost but nothing like the one they are having now...
Equally, in a DAL-C implementation inappropriate MCAS triggering only became a show-stopper because of "modifying systems that were never intended for this kind of application".

Only SLF, but surely producing stick-feel by a servo rather than using the stab would have been virtually self-teaching and self-limiting, and Boeing's initial risk assessment
would look OK. All at modest development and regulatory cost. (Modest retrofit cost too???)
Peter H is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 09:50
  #1514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Manchester
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BBC: Boeing warns it may stop 737 Max production

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49108807
slfool is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 10:13
  #1515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Luton
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The question is if Boeing knew that the manual trim forces were too high for an average pilot..
I don't buy this average pilot stuff. If the trim can only be operated by a pilot with average strength or higher, in some circumstances, then assuming a normal distribution of strength then 50% of pilots will have less than average strength. If strength greater than that deliverable by 50% of pilots is required to trim in some scenarios then certification should specify the minimum strength required by the pilot and a relevant method for evaluating a pilot's fitness to fly the type.
Jim59 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 10:24
  #1516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: denmark
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jim59
I don't buy this average pilot stuff. If the trim can only be operated by a pilot with average strength or higher, in some circumstances, then assuming a normal distribution of strength then 50% of pilots will have less than average strength.
Agree.
I did consider if I should mention this, but I decided not to mention anything about distribution, sigma, or quartile ..:-)
HighWind is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 10:31
  #1517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Jim59
I don't buy this average pilot stuff. If the trim can only be operated by a pilot with average strength or higher, in some circumstances, then assuming a normal distribution of strength then 50% of pilots will have less than average strength. If strength greater than that deliverable by 50% of pilots is required to trim in some scenarios then certification should specify the minimum strength required by the pilot and a relevant method for evaluating a pilot's fitness to fly the type.
So all pilots and a medical to include a test of pilot strength?

Including things such as age and gender?
Bend alot is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 11:22
  #1518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
Is China's position known towards recertification of the MAX? What are their specific requirements if any? China is the key market without it the whole thing wouldn't make sense.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 11:46
  #1519 (permalink)  
IHF
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by slfool
Anyone care to comment on the picture of "Grounded 737 MAX aeroplanes stored near Boeing Field" partway down this BBC page? To a naive (and not very sharp-sighted!) observer, one looks like it's in EasyJet livery. That can't be right, can it?
IHF is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 11:52
  #1520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Darkest Lincs
Posts: 544
Received 80 Likes on 46 Posts
Originally Posted by IHF
Anyone care to comment on the picture of "Grounded 737 MAX aeroplanes stored near Boeing Field" partway down this BBC page? To a naive (and not very sharp-sighted!) observer, one looks like it's in EasyJet livery. That can't be right, can it?
Looks like EasyJet to me as well !
wowzz is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.