|
Originally Posted by Water pilot
(Post 10636781)
I do think local media would have noticed that many fights around Renton. I'm pretty sure I saw one flight test and it was quite distinctive, no way of mistaking it for a regular flight. (It is quite impressive to see a commercial airliner pretending that it is a YAK-3 at an airshow, must have been fun for the pilots!)
|
Originally Posted by Water pilot
(Post 10636781)
I do think local media would have noticed that many fights around Renton. I'm pretty sure I saw one flight test and it was quite distinctive, no way of mistaking it for a regular flight. (It is quite impressive to see a commercial airliner pretending that it is a YAK-3 at an airshow, must have been fun for the pilots!)
|
And it is really taking Boeing a long time to fix the problem, or problems.
|
Originally Posted by The Range
(Post 10636795)
And it is really taking Boeing a long time to fix the problem, or problems.
|
By all reports, Boeing thinks the problems are fixed. Hence the absence of recent test flights. The trick now is to get most if not all regulators aboard and in agreement with the proposed fixes.
|
Originally Posted by Winemaker
(Post 10636685)
Well, they could use more than one aircraft. They certainly have plenty of them sitting around.
Only the original aircraft is used for test such as flutter and wind up turns. Customer aircraft are not used for purposes of testing new equipment, requirements etc. |
Originally Posted by Winemaker
(Post 10636685)
Well, they could use more than one aircraft. They certainly have plenty of them sitting around.
|
https://thewofa.com/2019/12/b737-max...e6019a0d26c8b0
"Boeing says the approval delays by regulators could cause the manufacturer to suspend the production of the MAX jets." |
Interesting to note the PR judo going on here, world class in that department at least. Boeing announces that the regulators will approve the fix by December, a timeline that could not legally have been based on anything other than hope. (The implication to the stockholders was that they had an inside line to the FAA.) The FAA denied that there was any such timeline. Now Boeing is blaming the potential revenue hit on "delays by regulators." Nicely done, Boeing PR.
|
Originally Posted by Water pilot
(Post 10636908)
Interesting to note the PR judo going on here, world class in that department at least. Boeing announces that the regulators will approve the fix by December, a timeline that could not legally have been based on anything other than hope. (The implication to the stockholders was that they had an inside line to the FAA.) The FAA denied that there was any such timeline. Now Boeing is blaming the potential revenue hit on "delays by regulators." Nicely done, Boeing PR.
|
Originally Posted by Water pilot
(Post 10636908)
Interesting to note the PR judo going on here, world class in that department at least. Boeing announces that the regulators will approve the fix by December, a timeline that could not legally have been based on anything other than hope. (The implication to the stockholders was that they had an inside line to the FAA.) The FAA denied that there was any such timeline. Now Boeing is blaming the potential revenue hit on "delays by regulators." Nicely done, Boeing PR.
p.s. in re Warne, Muralitharan says "Hi" |
The test flights are out of KBFI or KPAE. They either head out over the Pacific about 50 miles off the coast or else to an area just west of Moses Lake. They use the call sign Boeing 1, and on flightaware.com as BOE1. The aircraft I see on FR occasionally got from renton west to LaPush, then to Moses Lake..simple ferry flights to storage. Strikes me as quite scary for Boeing shareholders that the Company is desperate enough to take an antagonistic line towards the lead regulator (rather than the collaborative approach previously presented). |
Originally Posted by theFirstDave
(Post 10636436)
1,850 hours of actual wings in the air (or even Master Switch On) time during the 10 months since grounding, much less testing hours since the final software update, is a bit hard to believe and does not pass a sanity check.
|
One wonders if Boeing is counting simulator flight hours in that flight hours number. Given the amount of PR spin in the last 10 months, I wouldn't be surprised. |
Originally Posted by Water pilot
(Post 10636908)
Interesting to note the PR judo going on here, world class in that department at least. Boeing announces that the regulators will approve the fix by December, a timeline that could not legally have been based on anything other than hope. (The implication to the stockholders was that they had an inside line to the FAA.) The FAA denied that there was any such timeline. Now Boeing is blaming the potential revenue hit on "delays by regulators." Nicely done, Boeing PR.
FAA just announced 737 Max cert NOT done until 2020... Boeing 737 MAX certification to extend into 2020, FAA chief saysBy Ryan Beene BloombergBoeing’s 737 MAX certification, needed to end the jet’s nine-month worldwide grounding by regulators, will extend into 2020, the top U.S. aviation regulator said Wednesday. Federal Aviation Administration chief Stephen Dickson said that the plane, which has been grounded worldwide since March, will not be certified to fly this year, dashing Boeing’s hopes of getting the popular family of planes back in the air in 2019. “If you do the math, it’s going to extend into 2020,” Dickson told CNBC Wednesday before he is expected to testify before a congressional panel. “We’re going to do it diligently because safety is absolutely our priority with this airplane.” --- goes on |
Originally Posted by Grebe
(Post 10637268)
FAA just announced 737 Max cert NOT done until 2020...
Fit to hit shan on FAA view of MAX - this extract from WSJ this am says it all - the article is longer By Andy Pasztor and Andrew Tangel Dec. 11, 2019 8:00 am ET U.S. regulators decided to allow the 737 MAX jet to keep flying after its first fatal crash last fall, despite their own analysis indicating it could become one of the most accident-prone airliners in decades without design changes. The November 2018 internal Federal Aviation Administration analysis, expected to be released during a House committee hearing Wednesday, reveals that without agency intervention, the MAX could have averaged one fatal crash about every two or three years, according to industry officials and regulators. That amounts to a substantially greater safety risk than either Boeing Co. or the agency indicated publicly at the time..... |
Originally Posted by Tango and Cash
(Post 10637248)
One wonders if Boeing is counting simulator flight hours in that flight hours number. Given the amount of PR spin in the last 10 months, I wouldn't be surprised.
I can easily imagine someone who has had a briefing (but without notes given) then passing on to a third party "Boeing said they did 1850 hours of testing" and that other person thinking they meant "flight testing" |
Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist
(Post 10637348)
I also wonder if this somewhat third hand information passed through hands which don't understand the difference.
I can easily imagine someone who has had a briefing (but without notes given) then passing on to a third party "Boeing said they did 1850 hours of testing" and that other person thinking they meant "flight testing" By the way, here is the most complete account I could find about the visit (French only, I'm afraid) Boeing 737 MAX et MCAS : résumé de deux jours passé au siège de Boeing à Seattle | Sécurité aérienne et peur en avion It appears nothing new was revealed, apart from the dubious '1850' number. |
For comparison, on November 11th, they were saying "1700+"... https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/
|
I am trying to find the source again, perhaps the Senate hearings, where actual flight test were in the 200-300 hours range, the rest were sim.
GOL MAX 8 on its way to storage at SKF San Antonio right now. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.