MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concede the significant history.
I was referring to the context as only large manufacturer left standing that it destroyed its market by its own hand. In other words, it snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I was referring to the context as only large manufacturer left standing that it destroyed its market by its own hand. In other words, it snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting choice of words in: https://www.barrons.com/articles/boe...al-51575499155
Boeing, when asked, reiterated past statements. The company continues to work with all global regulators on issues from pilot training to software updates.
Of course, that's a prudent path and a prudent statement, but it leaves investors waiting for Godot.
Boeing, when asked, reiterated past statements. The company continues to work with all global regulators on issues from pilot training to software updates.
Of course, that's a prudent path and a prudent statement, but it leaves investors waiting for Godot.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early B-52s had spoilers AND ailerons. Spoilers only, on the later models. That's key to rolling a 707, too...raise the spoilers a bit, and you get increased differential deflection from them during the roll.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With spoilers only, you have to have the wings generating lift in order for the spoilers to...spoil some and get some roll input.
If one happens to go ballistic, reduced lift => reduced roll authority...
If one happens to go ballistic, reduced lift => reduced roll authority...
Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 5th Dec 2019 at 15:21. Reason: Added 'only'
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it work, or am I completely insane?
In the movie "Flight" Denzel Washington rolls a plane inverted that is stuck in a dive.
In the ET302 accident, the pilots turned the trim motor back on because they were trying to relieve back pressure, and the manual trim was stiff. Would rolling a 737-MAX inverted and relaxing the column have the plane gain altitude, buying the pilots more time to work the trim wheel manually, maybe even while the plane was inverted, with relaxed elevator forces, or not? I"m sure Boeing isn't considering this, to include in their flight manuals, and you wouldn't win any applause from the passengers, but, would it work? Would you be able to roll inverted, quickly enough, and would then relaxing back pressure, and even pushing forward on the controls, gain altitude?
In the movie "Flight" Denzel Washington rolls a plane inverted that is stuck in a dive.
In the ET302 accident, the pilots turned the trim motor back on because they were trying to relieve back pressure, and the manual trim was stiff. Would rolling a 737-MAX inverted and relaxing the column have the plane gain altitude, buying the pilots more time to work the trim wheel manually, maybe even while the plane was inverted, with relaxed elevator forces, or not? I"m sure Boeing isn't considering this, to include in their flight manuals, and you wouldn't win any applause from the passengers, but, would it work? Would you be able to roll inverted, quickly enough, and would then relaxing back pressure, and even pushing forward on the controls, gain altitude?
I'm was going to break this down into three scenarios but only one is really worth discussing. Scenario 1 is one where the trim has reached an unmanageable state, but the PF has still been able to hold the nose on or above the horizon. Scenario 2 is where the trim has become unmanageable and the nose is passing vertically downwards through the horizon. Scenario 3 is where the nose is significantly below the horizon. For all scenarios I'm using an arbitrary 5000' AGL as the starting point.
Scenario 1:
This is by far the most likely scenario to succeed. If the pilots recognized they were in deep with the trim pegged and unmoveable, before they allow the nose to pass through the horizon then it could possibly be recoverable.
1. Immediately begin an aileron roll by putting full aileron deflection.
2. As the airplane rolls towards 90 degrees the nose begins to drop. Anticipate this by retarding power and try to hold the nose on the horizon with top rudder. (Congratulations you just made 200 people puke...) If the nose goes below the horizon you aren't going to bring it back with the rudder, but even then you might be OK.
3. Airspeed will be increasing and hopefully so will roll rate. As the airplane passes through 90 degrees it is likely going to be increasing AS very quickly and the nose will move more quickly towards the vertical. Here power should be at flight idle and PF should firmly begin feeding in forward stick. The heading is going to change wildly due to dishing the roll, but that's the least of your worries now.
4. Here is where you are either going to save the day or fail like the others did. At the moment you went to negative G the fuel ports in the tanks were uncovered, meaning you only have any engine thrust for as long as the fuel remaining in the lines lasts. I have no idea how long, but probably 10 to 30 seconds at most. YOU MUST now get the nose not only above the horizon, but well above it- in order to give yourself enough time to wind back the trim and roll the airplane upright before you have once again become a lawn dart. You do this by pushing hard enough to hold a 2G or so constant. As speed bleeds off you will have to push harder to maintain this constant level of G loading.
5. As you pass through the horizon again you will need to restore power to the trim circuits by hitting the cutouts and then trimming via the column switch before switching the cutouts back off. While you are doing that you need to be rolling with full aileron deflection (and perhaps one engine at 100% and the other at idle, I need to think about that one- also it is likely that at this point you have no engines, so probably moot point) until you have passed through 90 degrees of bank, at which point you also start puling very aggressively to again keep the nose from dropping any further than necessary.
Scenario 2 and 3 are simply not possible due to overspeed and running out of altitude before the pilots can arrest the descent and convert to an ascent.
Thoughts: I know that seems like a lot to process in a very short period of time, but I can tell you straight up that it is not a complicated sequence at all. Just one figure in an Unlimited routing can read like this: Pull to a vertical upline, 1 1/4 outside snap roll, 1/2 aileron roll (opposite), hammerhead, 1 3/4 inside snap on the downline. And there are up to ~16 figures in a sequence. So it is definitely possible for a qualified and capable pilot to perform the maneuver I described, but only if the pilot has been properly trained and (ideally) has flown the maneuver in real life to get an idea of how daunting the G forces will be. Is this maneuver going to save a 737 one day when the trim runs amok?? I highly doubt it. But with a horizontal trim tab that can be locked into position well within the flight envelope it is probably worth exploring what your options are if it ever does lock up and try to stick you into the ground nose first.
Cheers!!
dce
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this maneuver going to save a 737 one day when the trim runs amok?? I highly doubt it. But with a horizontal trim tab that can be locked into position well within the flight envelope it is probably worth exploring what your options are if it ever does lock up and try to stick you into the ground nose first.
Just a question concerning aircraft structure.
I seem to remember of an Airbus accident when due to coarse use of the rudder at speed, the tail fin snapped and the aircraft was lost. So maybe the 737 (or Airbus) structure may not resist the amount of top rudder that could be used in an attempt to keep the nose from falling ?
Which would not mean one mustn't try this desperate maneuver...
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUSINESS NEWS DECEMBER 6, 2019 / 4:10 AM / UPDATED 36 MINUTES AGO
Eric M. Johnson
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Significant additional regulatory requirements or delays in returning Boeing Co’s 737 MAX to commercial service could cause it to cut or temporarily halt production of the aircraft, it said in an Oct. 18 letter released on Thursday In its letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Boeing said it does not expect 737 MAX order cancellations due to the grounding of its best-selling single-aisle jet to have a material impact on revenues or earnings.
It cited the size of the 737 order backlog and its ability to shift planned customer delivery dates.
Boeing’s letter was a response to requests from the SEC to clarify the company’s comments in earlier financial filings on the 737 MAX grounding related to revenue and production.
The correspondence was released on the Edgar filing system on Thursday.
Boeing, the world’s largest planemaker, is trying to rebuild trust with customers, regulators and the flying public in the wake of twin 737 MAX crashes in the span of five months that killed 346 people.
Boeing has said extra delays or a cut in production are possible as regulators around the world evaluate the 737 MAX, including Boeing’s proposed upgrade of software at the center of both crashes and complementary training materials.
Boeing said last month that it expected the Federal Aviation Administration would lift the grounding around mid-December, though it did not expect the agency to complete its review of revised training requirements until January.
In the October letter, Boeing also said it does not expect a shortage of space to store parked 737 MAX jetliners - which continue to roll out of a its Seattle-area factory - would limit its ability to continue their production.
The contents were released a day after Boeing wrapped up two days of meetings with consultants, pilots and other “select aviation leaders” it hosted in the Seattle area to discuss 737 MAX preparations, according to an invitation seen by Reuters and one person who attended the meetings.
Events included a demonstration in a flight simulator, meetings with Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg and other Boeing executives, and a tour of the 737 factory in Renton, south of Seattle, the person added.
Media were not invited to the two-day summit. Boeing was planning a separate session with journalists at a later date, a Boeing spokesman said.
Boeing says 737 MAX approval delays could hit production
Eric M. Johnson
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Significant additional regulatory requirements or delays in returning Boeing Co’s 737 MAX to commercial service could cause it to cut or temporarily halt production of the aircraft, it said in an Oct. 18 letter released on Thursday In its letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Boeing said it does not expect 737 MAX order cancellations due to the grounding of its best-selling single-aisle jet to have a material impact on revenues or earnings.
It cited the size of the 737 order backlog and its ability to shift planned customer delivery dates.
Boeing’s letter was a response to requests from the SEC to clarify the company’s comments in earlier financial filings on the 737 MAX grounding related to revenue and production.
The correspondence was released on the Edgar filing system on Thursday.
Boeing, the world’s largest planemaker, is trying to rebuild trust with customers, regulators and the flying public in the wake of twin 737 MAX crashes in the span of five months that killed 346 people.
Boeing has said extra delays or a cut in production are possible as regulators around the world evaluate the 737 MAX, including Boeing’s proposed upgrade of software at the center of both crashes and complementary training materials.
Boeing said last month that it expected the Federal Aviation Administration would lift the grounding around mid-December, though it did not expect the agency to complete its review of revised training requirements until January.
In the October letter, Boeing also said it does not expect a shortage of space to store parked 737 MAX jetliners - which continue to roll out of a its Seattle-area factory - would limit its ability to continue their production.
The contents were released a day after Boeing wrapped up two days of meetings with consultants, pilots and other “select aviation leaders” it hosted in the Seattle area to discuss 737 MAX preparations, according to an invitation seen by Reuters and one person who attended the meetings.
Events included a demonstration in a flight simulator, meetings with Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg and other Boeing executives, and a tour of the 737 factory in Renton, south of Seattle, the person added.
Media were not invited to the two-day summit. Boeing was planning a separate session with journalists at a later date, a Boeing spokesman said.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might have something to do with United's "totally unrelated to the MAX" decision to go with Airbus for 50 planes. The fact that United even felt it necessary to explain shows how well Boeing's mitigation efforts have been working, and this fellow was one of the more visible but apparently expendable soldiers leading that effort.
United chooses Airbus
United chooses Airbus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not big enough, but that's a good thing. "Buy three; they're small." The Boeing sales guys should definitely be making lists of Cal Fire contact info.
Kind of like saying it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
The Boeing fall is ALL theirs to own. Good that someone puts an end to that fall.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n
I don't know much about the SEC, is it usual for them to ask a company to "clarify" their financial statements? When I became a manager it was beaten into me not to talk about anything that could materially affect the stock price, and it has felt to this outsider that Boeing management has been playing pretty loose with the rules. Statements such as "Boeing expects the FAA to lift the grounding around mid-December" implies that they have inside knowledge about an event that certainly materially affects the stock price. That is bad news either way. If it is true then it says that Boeing still has an inside track to the regulator, and if it is false than it is stock manipulation.
requests from the SEC to clarify the company’s comments in earlier financial filings on the 737 MAX grounding related to revenue and production.
Psychophysiological entity
To bend a famous saying:- The road to disappointment is paved with expectations.
It would be a pretty dim investor that was swayed by a little optimism.
It would be a pretty dim investor that was swayed by a little optimism.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n
I don't know much about the SEC, is it usual for them to ask a company to "clarify" their financial statements? When I became a manager it was beaten into me not to talk about anything that could materially affect the stock price, and it has felt to this outsider that Boeing management has been playing pretty loose with the rules. Statements such as "Boeing expects the FAA to lift the grounding around mid-December" implies that they have inside knowledge about an event that certainly materially affects the stock price. That is bad news either way. If it is true then it says that Boeing still has an inside track to the regulator, and if it is false than it is stock manipulation.
I don't know much about the SEC, is it usual for them to ask a company to "clarify" their financial statements? When I became a manager it was beaten into me not to talk about anything that could materially affect the stock price, and it has felt to this outsider that Boeing management has been playing pretty loose with the rules. Statements such as "Boeing expects the FAA to lift the grounding around mid-December" implies that they have inside knowledge about an event that certainly materially affects the stock price. That is bad news either way. If it is true then it says that Boeing still has an inside track to the regulator, and if it is false than it is stock manipulation.
But the same accounting approach, program accounting, resulted in a major hit to earnings back in the late 1990s. According to a report by Bloomberg in 2002, Harry C. Stonecipher, then Boeing’s president and chief operating officer, warned Boeing Chairman Philip Condit in an email on Oct. 8, 1997 that was revealed in a subsequent lawsuit: “We do know for certain that there is a big surprise coming, and I think we owe the Street a heads-up. We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands and need some very candid damage control.”
Condit had just closed the deal merging McDonnell Douglas, Stonecipher’s old company, with Boeing in December 1996. On Oct. 22, 1997, Condit announced Boeing would write off $2.6 billion, the biggest charge in Boeing’s history at that time. Program accounting was also blamed for hiding the production problems that caused the write-off. In 2002, Boeing settled a private securities-fraud suit over the 1997 episode for $92.5 million. The company did not admit guilt.
At the time, according to Bloomberg’s report, the company defended itself by saying that aircraft production “is an incredibly complex and expensive endeavor” and that its managers “told the public about the 1997 production problems as soon as they were legally required to do so.” The SEC never filed charges and its accounting decisions were approved by its auditor Deloitte, the same audit firm it uses today.
In 2007, two Boeing Co. internal auditors blew the whistle to a journalist about weaknesses in Boeing’s controls over its financial reporting process. The whistleblowers warned Boeing first that it might be violating the Sarbanes-Oxley law by forcing them to say controls were in place that they believed weren’t. The whistleblowers spoke with a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter after deciding they were being ignored. After a story ran, Boeing investigated and fired the men for unauthorized communication with reporters. They sued, citing Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protection, and lost. Their appeals went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected their request for protection from retaliation for going to the news media with their complaints of alleged company wrongdoing.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bo...ons-2016-02-11
Condit had just closed the deal merging McDonnell Douglas, Stonecipher’s old company, with Boeing in December 1996. On Oct. 22, 1997, Condit announced Boeing would write off $2.6 billion, the biggest charge in Boeing’s history at that time. Program accounting was also blamed for hiding the production problems that caused the write-off. In 2002, Boeing settled a private securities-fraud suit over the 1997 episode for $92.5 million. The company did not admit guilt.
At the time, according to Bloomberg’s report, the company defended itself by saying that aircraft production “is an incredibly complex and expensive endeavor” and that its managers “told the public about the 1997 production problems as soon as they were legally required to do so.” The SEC never filed charges and its accounting decisions were approved by its auditor Deloitte, the same audit firm it uses today.
In 2007, two Boeing Co. internal auditors blew the whistle to a journalist about weaknesses in Boeing’s controls over its financial reporting process. The whistleblowers warned Boeing first that it might be violating the Sarbanes-Oxley law by forcing them to say controls were in place that they believed weren’t. The whistleblowers spoke with a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter after deciding they were being ignored. After a story ran, Boeing investigated and fired the men for unauthorized communication with reporters. They sued, citing Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protection, and lost. Their appeals went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected their request for protection from retaliation for going to the news media with their complaints of alleged company wrongdoing.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bo...ons-2016-02-11
Last edited by Grebe; 6th Dec 2019 at 01:25. Reason: hilight book cooking
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might want to change the "is" to "was". Trust has been broken and I'd expect more cancelled orders for types that are now behind schedule with their own 'issues' let alone belief that B could ever greenfield an NMA. What would NOT surprise me is to learn that some in B might have been thinking of a Max+.
You might want to change the "is" to "was". Trust has been broken and I'd expect more cancelled orders for types that are now behind schedule with their own 'issues' let alone belief that B could ever greenfield an NMA. What would NOT surprise me is to learn that some in B might have been thinking of a Max+.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would put the chance of a "MAX+" at sub-zero. If anything, the MAX fiasco has made the need for a new NMA more urgent. While Boeing has committed to the MAX 737-10, there is no way they can get withing shouting distance of the range to compete against the A321LR without a new wing - at which point the whole reason for the MAX goes away.
The MAX Boeing product name is now too tainted and I doubt we will see any re-introduction of the aircraft with any fan fare using same...
No other new Boeing product will see the MAX tag being used.
Boeing are now way behind in the marketplace for a 737/757 replacement (off by years now)
No other new Boeing product will see the MAX tag being used.
Boeing are now way behind in the marketplace for a 737/757 replacement (off by years now)
The Boeing fall is ALL theirs to own. Good that someone puts an end to that fall.