Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double

Old 12th Feb 2020, 10:10
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According CNN:

...last month new CEO David Calhoun announced that the company is going back to the drawing board on the plane's design.

This refers to the middle range project. Most refreshing, if true.
Twitter is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2020, 17:34
  #62 (permalink)  
568
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

Originally Posted by silverstrata
Think you are wrong there. Unlike all other aircraft, the 737 had a single rudder PCU. (A bit like MCAS only using one AoA sensor - you would have thought Boeing would have learned by now that two is the minimum).

The 737 rudder PCU was made into a dual system because of several incidents and two crashes, not because of Cat III operations. Seem to remember that one of those incidents was on a BA 747, which captured the error on data recorders (the 747 used the same PCU for the elevators).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

Silver
Yes indeed you are correct and I did remember about the US air and other possible PCU problems I just plain forgot to add this before my brain fart, but thanks anyway
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.
568 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 11:01
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 568
Yes indeed you are correct and I did remember about the US air and other possible PCU problems I just plain forgot to add this before my brain fart, but thanks anyway
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.
Yes, all the NG flap and slat-tracks had to be replaced, because the bearings had seized.
And now all the pickle-forks should be replaced.
The NG was not as well engineered as the Classic, and the Max even less so.

As an aside, I thought that video was quite accurate, and less sensationalist than the title.

Silver
silverstrata is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 18:06
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fr8tmastr
not a single Airbus has ever gone down because of any kind of manufacture design or manufacturing flaw, all accidents are all the pilots fault.
SO you conveniently forgot Mont St Odile which was certainly bean counters at work.

If I remember then the "investigation" as such was so fatefully flawed and the whole justice action so corrupted, nobody ever tried to opportion blame to the real people - who are all probably living a nice retirement in the sun.

As far as I remember the victims got sweet FA after a decade of court action, & Air Inter / Air Frantic got completely exonerated.

Class!
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2020, 21:02
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
SO you conveniently forgot Mont St Odile which was certainly bean counters at work.

As far as I remember the victims got sweet FA after a decade of court action, & Air Inter / Air Frantic got completely exonerated.

Class!
Eh? The pilots chose the wrong descent mode - rate of descent instead of angle of descent.
While you might claim ergonomic deficiencies were involved, and I would probably agree, the aircraft did exactly as it was told.

Silver
silverstrata is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 13:58
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by silverstrata
Eh? The pilots chose the wrong descent mode - rate of descent instead of angle of descent.
While you might claim ergonomic deficiencies were involved, ...
Silver
er...and the lack of Balise to locate the plane resulting in most of the survivors freezing to death because it took hours more than neccessary to find it.
Who's decision was this the pilots too??
(bean counters, said it wasn't needed)
And
How come a terrain warning was unable to prevent the plane literally being within 10m altitude height of clearing the top of the mountain (I have been there and visited the site).

In the urge to continue the Airbus v Boeing wars, better to be sure of your facts n'est pas?
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 15:50
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bali H'ai
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lost in Translation

Balise = Transponder
Sultan Ismail is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 16:27
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
How come a terrain warning was unable to prevent the plane literally being within 10m altitude height of clearing the top of the mountain (I have been there and visited the site).
From Wikipedia:
The report also recommended that pilot training for the A320 should be enhanced and that ground proximity warning systems should be installed on them. Air Inter equipped its aircraft with ground proximity warning systems before the investigation was completed.
The Bartender is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 20:06
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: France
Age: 64
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Think you'll find that the "balise" referred to here means ELT.
MELT is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2020, 21:14
  #70 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Like in most accidents if not all, the causes of Air Inter Mt St Odile are many , The fact that the ELT did not activate and that the aircraft was not equipped with GPWS did not help but those were not among the causes of the accident. GPWS was not mandatory at the time and it was not as reliable as it is today with lots of false alarms for those who remember . The ergonomic of the button between rate and angle is mentioned as probably one of the causes, the military ATC in place in Strasbourg at the time was another. But read the report in the BEA archives. There is also an interesting book about the rescue operation.

ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2020, 02:53
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Like in most accidents if not all, the causes of Air Inter Mt St Odile are many ,
Yes the point I was making, bean counters were the ones that "caused" this catastrophe, because the reasons for the absence of many of the "normal" air frantic equipment being absent were those of "economy" just like the choice of using an inferior AOA pitot resulted in the eventual downing of another perfectly airworthy Airbus AF447.

In both cases the choice between life and death were decided by faceless committees in offices far away from the tragedies, and those responsible have a happy retirement... oh and btw it was Airbus was also responsible for Concorde, and deliberately vandalised the future of the (also perfectly airworthy) British version of it.

In their efforts to save face, all sorts of strange manouevres go on behind the scenes, and it doesn't look better than Boeing.
If in doubt, blame the pilot,is the official way around it.
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2020, 07:29
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
... just like the choice of using an inferior AOA pitot resulted in the eventual downing of another perfectly airworthy Airbus AF447.
Not going to go into AF447 yet again here. If your opinion is that this was the main cause then I suggest you have a look at the evidence again.
PerPurumTonantes is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2020, 08:23
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,802
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes
Not going to go into AF447 yet again here. If your opinion is that this was the main cause then I suggest you have a look at the evidence again.
You are unlikely ever to see the expression "main cause" in any accident investigation report. Nor is it in the post you quoted.

All you can reasonably say is that obstruction of the pitot probes by ice crystals was the first stage in a chain of events, all of which in combination resulted in the eventual outcome. Much like the previous poster said ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2020, 15:53
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 167
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
Yes the point I was making, bean counters were the ones that "caused" this catastrophe,
The decision not to have GPWS was not made by bean counters but by the Air Inter operational management (as well as some pilots).....

.
Bidule is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 15:22
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peter H
My emphasis.

Can you elaborate on that.

I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").
Sorry Peter H,
ther is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....
rh..
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 17:18
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>Originally Posted by roulishollandais View Post
>in the Volkswagen investigation there was only fraud!
>in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge. That lack of knowledge is existing by Airbus too,
>and in the whole aeronautical world including the certification process in use by ICAO

>
>Peter H Can you elaborate on that.
>I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").

>roulishollandais Sorry Peter H,
>there is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....

I requested an elaboration of your original cryptic post, I think there should be space in the thread for that.

My one-liner was simply to emphasise that the software implementation team seem to be totally in the clear.
They correctly implemented software conforming to the specification they were give. A specification that had
passed all Boeing QC checks, including a full safety assessment (which specifically considered AoA failure).

So can you elaborate, not about specifications, by why "in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge."
Who failed to understand what about computers, and with what consequences?
... I'm just trying to understand what you meant.
Peter H is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 16:57
  #77 (permalink)  
568
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stock review

Found this interesting.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/432...ine-goes-viral
568 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.