MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 790
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
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
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?
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?
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 ...
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 ...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Boeing was a southern european country ...
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...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: denmark
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
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.
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.
"there is no evidence Boeing knew the design was safe."
Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 25th Jul 2019 at 09:11.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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...
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..
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..
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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...
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...
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???)
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Manchester
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is if Boeing knew that the manual trim forces were too high for an average pilot..
Join Date: May 2008
Location: denmark
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did consider if I should mention this, but I decided not to mention anything about distribution, sigma, or quartile ..:-)
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.
Including things such as age and gender?
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like EasyJet to me as well !