737 max... what now?

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Your trolling the same line based upon your own ignorance becomes tiresome to everyone here.
Your posts in this thread make me wonder whether anything you post is informed by any actual subject matter knowledge.
Nothing at all risky about either flying light aircraft or scuba, since one has complete control over the risks involved.
A flight over the countryside in a C172 on a beautiful summer day or a dive to some reasonable depth in clearish water are both about as safe as sitting at a keyboard typing trash-talk.
The individual determines the risk level with either private flying or scuba, so either activity is all about appropriate risk management.
You really need to get out more and explore all of the interesting things there are to do while you're still young enough and fit enough to experience them.

Says accountant?

 

[Mr Nice]

Has the FAA given the airlines an estimated timeframe in which the 737Max be allowed to carry passengers ?

Airbus is loving these delays and problems...

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Has the FAA given the airlines an estimated timeframe in which the 737Max be allowed to carry passengers ?

Airbus is loving these delays and problems...


The FAA has avoided any timeline for RTS of the Max.
Boeing is now saying October for the grounding to be lifted, but you're then looking at another four to six weeks for any needed upgrades as well as general inspection and maintenance to get these birds ready to fly the line along with any needed crew training, read sim time.
All in, I'd doubt that any Max will be flying schedules much before 1/1/20.
Airbus is no doubt feeling a little schadenfreude (an accounting term? LOL!) over Boeing's Max predicament, but I doubt they're loving it.
First, anything that causes would-be new or nervous fliers to question the safety of brand new equipment has a negative impact on the entire industry.
Second, Airbus has an even longer delivery backlog for the NEO than Boeing does for the MAX and the P&W GTF engines that seem so efficient in the NEO have some problems of their own. OTOH, having taken over the C-series program, Airbus offers a wide range of sizes and capabilities in the single aisle market and this may prove more daunting to BCA than the current Max debacle.
Boeing may have Embraer, but that's a pale image of what Airbus got from Bombadier/Canadair.

 

[4WD]

I hear you - took a 4-1/2 hour A321 NEO flight and was trying to recall what I had read - and asking myself how well proven is this PP gearbox ?
On my connecting long haul I was able to keep a sharp eye on that Dreamer's Trent - thanks to my backwards BA seat, LoL

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Has the FAA given the airlines an estimated timeframe in which the 737Max be allowed to carry passengers ?

Airbus is loving these delays and problems...


The FAA has avoided any timeline for RTS of the Max.
Boeing is now saying October for the grounding to be lifted, but you're then looking at another four to six weeks for any needed upgrades as well as general inspection and maintenance to get these birds ready to fly the line along with any needed crew training, read sim time.
All in, I'd doubt that any Max will be flying schedules much before 1/1/20.
Airbus is no doubt feeling a little schadenfreude (an accounting term? LOL!) over Boeing's Max predicament, but I doubt they're loving it.
First, anything that causes would-be new or nervous fliers to question the safety of brand new equipment has a negative impact on the entire industry.
Second, Airbus has an even longer delivery backlog for the NEO than Boeing does for the MAX and the P&W GTF engines that seem so efficient in the NEO have some problems of their own. OTOH, having taken over the C-series program, Airbus offers a wide range of sizes and capabilities in the single aisle market and this may prove more daunting to BCA than the current Max debacle.
Boeing may have Embraer, but that's a pale image of what Airbus got from Bombadier/Canadair.


Seems too long for a trim issue?

 

[fdcg27]

Not really, since there is the need to idiot proof the system for the less experienced pilot population who will be flying these aircraft outside of a handful of nations.
MCAS is really a system intended to provide for increasing yoke effort as the aircraft is at angles of attack beyond what will normally ever be seen in airline service. The horizontal stab was used to provide for this. It was later determined that while the original setup was fine for the high speed case, there was also a low speed case that needed attention, so MCAS was given far more trim authority than was originally envisioned. That a damaged AOA probe could bring MCAS into operation was not envisioned, although it probably should have been and MCAS could have been inhibited with disagree between the two AOA probes exceeding a certain value, but this was not done for whatever reason.
Now, the thumb switches on the yoke always override MCAS operation, so the undesired AND trim can always be overcome. Leaving some flap down does this as well, as does engaging the autopilot, which the Ethiopian PIC tried to do twice. He reasoned that he and his FO were in way over their heads but that George could fix things, since that was how they had been trained to fly. George would have fixed things too, except that they had too much force on the yoke to allow George to engage and take over. That crews had great difficulty with this since it involved an undocumented system is not too surprising, particularly if these crews learned to fly by rote and not by hand, as they had.
You should also understand that you can't just leave a complicated piece of kit parked up for five or six months and then just start it up and go. Lots of systems will need inspection and maintenance. These airliners aren't as simple as cars, after all, nor are they simple aircraft, like C172s that are winter stored and then awakened in April around here. Can't coast an airliner to the side of the road like you can a winter-stored ragtop BMW like mine, although I've never had to do that with the car.
So speaks the accountant.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Not really, since there is the need to idiot proof the system for the less experienced pilot population who will be flying these aircraft outside of a handful of nations.
MCAS is really a system intended to provide for increasing yoke effort as the aircraft is at angles of attack beyond what will normally ever be seen in airline service. The horizontal stab was used to provide for this. It was later determined that while the original setup was fine for the high speed case, there was also a low speed case that needed attention, so MCAS was given far more trim authority than was originally envisioned. That a damaged AOA probe could bring MCAS into operation was not envisioned, although it probably should have been and MCAS could have been inhibited with disagree between the two AOA probes exceeding a certain value, but this was not done for whatever reason.
Now, the thumb switches on the yoke always override MCAS operation, so the undesired AND trim can always be overcome. Leaving some flap down does this as well, as does engaging the autopilot, which the Ethiopian PIC tried to do twice. He reasoned that he and his FO were in way over their heads but that George could fix things, since that was how they had been trained to fly. George would have fixed things too, except that they had too much force on the yoke to allow George to engage and take over. That crews had great difficulty with this since it involved an undocumented system is not too surprising, particularly if these crews learned to fly by rote and not by hand, as they had.
You should also understand that you can't just leave a complicated piece of kit parked up for five or six months and then just start it up and go. Lots of systems will need inspection and maintenance. These airliners aren't as simple as cars, after all, nor are they simple aircraft, like C172s that are winter stored and then awakened in April around here. Can't coast an airliner to the side of the road like you can a winter-stored ragtop BMW like mine, although I've never had to do that with the car.
So speaks the accountant.

We all know that. You could copy/paste article(s) from numerous sources.
But my question to you is how do you have an insight in the final report?
As for how much you know about aviation speaks the fact that you are pretending that you know what happened before looking at final reports.
So speaks graduate of the Air War College, among other things!

 

[4WD]

Excellent summary

 

[fdcg27]

Air War College of a place that actually had aircraft?
Your posts don't reflect any actual flying experience.
You don't even seem to understand pitch trim.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Air War College of a place that actually had aircraft?
Your posts don't reflect any actual flying experience.
You don't even seem to understand pitch trim.

They did have few, though in previous institutions where I was that was main business.
As for your knowledge, I see everyday people like you here in Colorado Springs. I deal on a daily basis with people that think they know or they could know how to fly. Difference is that they are 18-19, in tertiary stage of puberty. You have a lot in common with them, though they are 18, and you are much older. You are stroking your ego bcs. you acquired few hours on 172. Just make sure you do not kill someone on the ground or in the plane that is flying with you.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Excellent summary

It is the summary available in all major newspapers. There is much more to it. But, no one serious in this business will make definite conclusions of what happened before final reports are out. Our friend here could be right, or could be wrong. Thing is, he thinks he knows what happened and what they suppose to do. Humility in this business takes you long ways, oversized ego can only take you down.

 

[97prizm]

I had read that the max issue only applies to part of the 737 fleet, not all were effected not sure

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 97prizm
I had read that the max issue only applies to part of the 737 fleet, not all were effected not sure

Well, yeah, it is 737 MAX.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 97prizm
I had read that the max issue only applies to part of the 737 fleet, not all were effected not sure

Well, yeah, it is 737 MAX.


Did Boeing put these aircraft in service too quickly without the proper training with sales pitch the MAX is very easy transition from the 737-800 and 737-900 ?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 97prizm
I had read that the max issue only applies to part of the 737 fleet, not all were effected not sure

Well, yeah, it is 737 MAX.


Did Boeing put these aircraft in service too quickly without the proper training with sales pitch the MAX is very easy transition from the 737-800 and 737-900 ?



Well yeah in a nutshell. There are very good articles about it. But bottom line: pressure from Southwest and fear of AA dropping them for Airbus+stock price= botched product. IMO< someone needs to end up in prison for this. But then again, FAA is being constantly underfunded since 2005 and in 2005 biggest development happened when it was allowed Boeing (and others) to perform self-regulation in numerous aspects.
This is not an issue of just 737 MAX. The problem is institutional degradation of FAA as most important safety regulator in this business in the world.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 97prizm
I had read that the max issue only applies to part of the 737 fleet, not all were effected not sure

Well, yeah, it is 737 MAX.


Did Boeing put these aircraft in service too quickly without the proper training with sales pitch the MAX is very easy transition from the 737-800 and 737-900 ?



Well yeah in a nutshell. There are very good articles about it. But bottom line: pressure from Southwest and fear of AA dropping them for Airbus+stock price= botched product. IMO< someone needs to end up in prison for this. But then again, FAA is being constantly underfunded since 2005 and in 2005 biggest development happened when it was allowed Boeing (and others) to perform self-regulation in numerous aspects.
This is not an issue of just 737 MAX. The problem is institutional degradation of FAA as most important safety regulator in this business in the world.


To use your own words, you could have copied and pasted this from any number of websites.
The problem is that it doesn't pass the common sense test in any way.
So Boeing knowingly cut corners and released a known unsafe plane in the hope that it could sell a few hundred examples before anyone caught on?
What's their exit strategy?
Boeing can't sneak off in the night like the unscrupulous guy who did your new driveway last year that's now spalling to pieces.
Boeing also has other more profitable if lower volume models that it needs to deliver to the world's airlines.
Boeing, like Airbus lives on its reputation. If either were to gain a reputation for offering potentially dangerous aircraft, then that airframer would suffer a loss of business across its line and would ultimately cease to exist as a supplier of commercial transports.
Boeing has built a solid reputation going back to well before Airbus even existed.
Boeing also knew going in that WN was about as likely to buy Airbus as it is that the sun would rise in the West tomorrow morning while AA (really US) along with the rest of the world's airlines have no way collectively of having their replacement and expansion needs met through Airbus alone.
That Boeing made a horrible mistake that cost lives in it's implementation of a system intended to provide for increasing yoke pull effort at high angles of attack where there might otherwise be a reduction in the pull force required is inarguable.
To claim that Boeing knowingly did so is foolish and demonstrates a complete ignorance of commercial realities.
WRT the FAA, that entity has long relied upon manufacturer's people for technical insight and advice.
Were it to be otherwise would require that the FAA possess the technical knowledge of both the airframe and powerplant makers, IOW that it be a virtual shadow designer of both. This has never been the case and never can be, despite the pretentions of the NTSB to the contrary.

 

[4WD]

There is and always will be a cat and mouse view with regards to industries and regulators. Industry will always have the SME's and shear numbers of R&D data sets. Industry must survive by both commercial and HSE performance - safety, health, environment, and reputations connected to these are day by day matters.

There is not a single industry that does not have to keep within regulations with or without the regulator present.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
To use your own words, you could have copied and pasted this from any number of websites.
The problem is that it doesn't pass the common sense test in any way.
So Boeing knowingly cut corners and released a known unsafe plane in the hope that it could sell a few hundred examples before anyone caught on?
What's their exit strategy?
Boeing can't sneak off in the night like the unscrupulous guy who did your new driveway last year that's now spalling to pieces.
Boeing also has other more profitable if lower volume models that it needs to deliver to the world's airlines.
Boeing, like Airbus lives on its reputation. If either were to gain a reputation for offering potentially dangerous aircraft, then that airframer would suffer a loss of business across its line and would ultimately cease to exist as a supplier of commercial transports.
Boeing has built a solid reputation going back to well before Airbus even existed.
Boeing also knew going in that WN was about as likely to buy Airbus as it is that the sun would rise in the West tomorrow morning while AA (really US) along with the rest of the world's airlines have no way collectively of having their replacement and expansion needs met through Airbus alone.
That Boeing made a horrible mistake that cost lives in it's implementation of a system intended to provide for increasing yoke pull effort at high angles of attack where there might otherwise be a reduction in the pull force required is inarguable.
To claim that Boeing knowingly did so is foolish and demonstrates a complete ignorance of commercial realities.
WRT the FAA, that entity has long relied upon manufacturer's people for technical insight and advice.
Were it to be otherwise would require that the FAA possess the technical knowledge of both the airframe and powerplant makers, IOW that it be a virtual shadow designer of both. This has never been the case and never can be, despite the pretentions of the NTSB to the contrary.


Boeing would not be the first or last huge company where hubris took over common sense. What was exit strategy of VW? What was exit strategy of GM? What was exit strategy of MD?
Didn't they charge $80,000 warning light that AoA is not giving right data? Didn't engineers for years warn that new airplane has to be developed due to inherit problems of B737 design? Their strategy supposed to be new design, swallow biter pill, which would be anyway flushed out by Uncle Sam. They cannot loose as much money as USAF can order C17's.
There is no exit strategy here. The fact that CEO is still in the job indicates bigger problems in Boeing. Constant compalints by Air Force regarding KC-46 and complaints by other in regard to B787 tell that issues are far deeper than just MAX.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
There is and always will be a cat and mouse view with regards to industries and regulators. Industry will always have the SME's and shear numbers of R&D data sets. Industry must survive by both commercial and HSE performance - safety, health, environment, and reputations connected to these are day by day matters.

There is not a single industry that does not have to keep within regulations with or without the regulator present.

Boeing with MAX had unprecedented flexibility. You cannot constantly underfund FAA (among others), then go and say: you see, regulators do not work. Now, Chinese will have their own certification, Europeans will have their own demands. For what? Short term profits?

 

[4WD]

Ok, you can send them your proposal.