helix

Possibility of Boeing 737 Max 8/9 being permanently grounded?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, trose said:

Interesting that even when following Boeing’s procedures they couldn’t save the plane, presumably they couldn’t complete the override steps within the above 40s?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47812225

Last line in the article. "The plane maker says the upgrades are not an admission that MCAS caused the crashes."

Really Boeing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. consumer activist Ralph Nader :

"These planes should be more than grounded. Boeing should recall all these planes," he said.

"It's not a software patch. It's a fundamental design of aerodynamic instability in terms of making that plane prone to stall, instead of prone-proof. That's where the focus has to be."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.5084648/ralph-nader-lost-his-grandniece-in-the-ethiopian-airlines-crash-now-he-s-taking-on-boeing-1.5084655

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of respect for Ralph Nader in the consumer rights arena. I can see why he is going after the mfg and supply chain, that is standard practice in aviation accidents. I always fly commercial for business trips so my family has someone to sue if I go down.

With all of that said, the bit about the 737Max having inherent flaws is a bit off base. All aircraft have an operating envelope, and most have areas near the boundary that cause bad things to happen when you fly there. It has been standard practice in aviation for many decades to include systems that help the pilot stay away from the "coffin corners." Whether it's a stick shaker, stall warning or an autopilot that intervenes. I don't see anything unusual about including those features in a new aircraft. That is not covering up a flaw, that is keeping the pilot out of trouble.

However, the part that I do have a problem with, is the fact that they had a single string system that could cause a safety critical failure. THAT is a design flaw in the implementation of the MCAS. As I said in a previous post, it is unthinkable that the system didn't automatically switch over to the redundant sensors on that aircraft in the event of a failure. This is very basic fault detection and isolation. That really points to something screwy in the SW implementation of the MCAS.

The second part that is problematic is the multiple steps required to override the system during a failure. Again this is basic user interface stuff, a safety critical failure should require a single action to override. That is part of MIL-STD design practice on military aircraft (my background).

I am confident that Boeing will resolve these issues going forward. But I am disappointed that their airworthiness process didn't catch some of this basic stuff. I've been caught in the middle of management that is forcing one path and the airworthiness authority trying to force another. At the end of the day management always wins, until something happens. Then the gov't swoops in with a vengeance.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix is meant to be out end of May. Planes probably back in the air by July. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with software update, I would be very hesitant to step foot on one until they have a proven track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong,

But my understanding in a nut shell is, that you should never try to keep upgrading an old plane.There comes a time when you have to go back to the drawing board as is probably the 737’s case, shame though it’s cost a lot of money consumer confidence and above all lives ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:13 AM, OZCUBAN said:

Correct me if I am wrong,

But my understanding in a nut shell is, that you should never try to keep upgrading an old plane.There comes a time when you have to go back to the drawing board as is probably the 737’s case, shame though it’s cost a lot of money consumer confidence and above all lives ...

I think you may have nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 3:13 AM, OZCUBAN said:

Correct me if I am wrong,

But my understanding in a nut shell is, that you should never try to keep upgrading an old plane.There comes a time when you have to go back to the drawing board as is probably the 737’s case, shame though it’s cost a lot of money consumer confidence and above all lives ...

Add Southwest Airlines, much blame for the perpetual upgrades is SWA’s love affair with the 737 type and reluctance to make wholesale changes that would require a new aircraft certification. Every time I hit my head on the archaic overhead instrument panel with knobs and switches protruding every which way I cursed Southwest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 7:13 AM, OZCUBAN said:

Correct me if I am wrong,

But my understanding in a nut shell is, that you should never try to keep upgrading an old plane.There comes a time when you have to go back to the drawing board as is probably the 737’s case, shame though it’s cost a lot of money consumer confidence and above all lives ...

I don’t understand why you would scrap a design if it is airworthy and efficient. I can see upgrading avionics and components, but why start from scratch simply to create a new design? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelby07 said:

I don’t understand why you would scrap a design if it is airworthy and efficient. I can see upgrading avionics and components, but why start from scratch simply to create a new design? 

The 737 Max is not airworthy and a wholly new aircraft design.

Boeing was trying to get it approved past the FAA ( and they assisted ) so it would not be a new  a/c type requiring pilot type-rating training and sim hours.

It failed and killed innocent lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2019 at 6:16 AM, nino said:

The 737 Max is not airworthy and a wholly new aircraft design.

Boeing was trying to get it approved past the FAA ( and they assisted ) so it would not be a new  a/c type requiring pilot type-rating training and sim hours.

It failed and killed innocent lives.

If you recall, other aircraft models had issues on release and were rectified. DC10 etc. As a former 737 driver I’d happily fly it after they sort out the MCAS issue of sourcing from only one AoA vane. The spiffy new engines and their resultant pitch up couple due changed location on the wing is a bit troubling, but even the 737-800 was a handful on a full thrust go around. 

Looking at the pictures of built airplanes sitting in the parking lot in Renton due no parking space is mind boggling though. What a screw up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone discussed how their stock is managing to still stay afloat?  I feel a few folks are shorting them big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to the 737 MAX but makes a case why aircraft Manufactures should not be allowed to self-certify their products :

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-air-canada-jet-fuel-leak-1.5193550

Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak

Air Canada said only 1 plane affected and Boeing said 'immediate corrective action was initiated'

Katie Nicholson · CBC News · Posted: Jun 28, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
air-canada-dreamliner-20140523.jpg
An Air Canada Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet taxies at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Enfield, N.S. in 2014. One of the 787 jets sold to Air Canada developed a fuel leak in 2015 after Boeing staff falsified records. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

Boeing staff falsified records for a 787 jet built for Air Canada which developed a fuel leak ten months into service in 2015.

In a statement to CBC News, Boeing said it self-disclosed the problem to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration after Air Canada notified them of the fuel leak.

The records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not.

Boeing said an audit concluded it was an isolated event and "immediate corrective action was initiated for both the Boeing mechanic and the Boeing inspector involved."

Boeing is under increasing scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad following two deadly crashes that claimed 346 lives and the global grounding of its 737 Max jets. 

On the latest revelations related to falsifying records for the Air Canada jet, Mike Doiron of Moncton-based Doiron Aviation Consulting said: "Any falsification of those documents which could basically cover up a safety issue is a major problem." 

In the aviation industry, these sorts of documents are crucial for ensuring the safety of aircraft and the passengers onboard, he said.  

'Never a good scenario'

Doiron said even small fuel leaks are dangerous.

The temperature on the internal parts of an aircraft's turbine engine can reach around 700 degrees. 

With such high temperatures, it doesn't take much for a flammable liquid like fuel to be ignited if there is a leak around the engine, Doiron said. 

"It's never, never a good scenario," he said of the leak. 

Air Canada said it inspected the rest of its 787 jets and did not find any other fuel leak issues.  

"All of our aircraft are subject to regular and thorough inspections and we maintain them in full accordance with all manufacturer and regulatory directives," Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said in an email to CBC News.

avaition-guy.jpg
Mike Doiron of Moncton-based Doiron Aviation Consulting said the falsification of documents by Boeing employees is a 'major problem' that 'could basically cover up a safety issue.' (CBC)

Air Canada introduced the 787 Dreamliner to its fleet five years ago.  According to its corporate website, it has 35 787s in its fleet.

WestJet also has two different Dreamliner models in its fleet which it introduced in February.  It said it has full confidence in the safety of those aircraft.

Transport Canada evaluation 

In 2015, Boeing paid the FAA $12 million US to settle ongoing investigations.  As a part of the five-year agreement, Boeing agreed to work with the agency to address safety oversight issues within the company.

That agreement details an "obscure program" that delegates some safety checks to Boeing itself, said Michael Laris, a Washington Post reporter who has looked into many of Boeing's safety issues that prompted the agreement with the FAA.

air-canada-dreamliner-20140523.jpg
An Air Canada Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet arrives at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in 2014. After the leak was detected, Air Canada said it inspected the rest of its 787 jets and did not find any other fuel leak issues. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

After the devastating 737 Max crashes, Laris said questions are being raised about the effectiveness of Boeing's oversight program.

"Just how much authority should be delegated to the company? Just how independent are the Boeing employees and their managers?"

Laris started digging into that agreement, and the investigations that prompted it, hoping to learn more about how the 737 Max was approved to fly.

The FAA said it closely monitors and evaluates Boeing's performance under the 2015 settlement agreement but cannot discuss it.

Boeing said it has introduced formal training for staff on personal accountability in the manufacturing process which emphasizes why it is important to comply with regulations.

Transport Canada said the incident involving falsified documents fell under the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Transport Canada said it is evaluating how all of this new information emerging about Boeing will impact ongoing aircraft safety validation efforts.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very confidence inspiring.

Boeing says 777X plane failed safety test

"during the test, the rear part of the fuselage depressurized, according to the Boeing statement. A person familiar with the test said one of the doors came off the plane. The company said it is now examining the test results to determine the cause of that problem."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boeing-says-777x-plane-failed-safety-test-1.4587093

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.