737 max... what now?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
This is a big black eye for Boeing. Hopefully Boeing stock drops 40%.


There's a whole lot more than just commercial aircraft in Boeing's business endeavors. The stock has already dropped about as much as it's going to - no where close to 40%, and it won't. Since Boeing said this will end up costing them $5 Billion when the dust settles, there won't be much if any stock dividends for awhile. People that invest in a company like Boeing are typically long range investors. Once the 737 Max starts flying again it will be move forward for Boeing like they always do.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by AC1DD
I believe that Boeing is going to have to replace the oversize engines with smaller units and redesigned mounting pylons as well before the craft is allowed back in the air. I think that's why the delay keeps getting longer and longer. A software change won't eliminate the poor balance of the current design as the result of oversize engines.


That not going to happen. Never any news or talk about that being their plans.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
This is a big black eye for Boeing. Hopefully Boeing stock drops 40%.


There's a whole lot more than just commercial aircraft in Boeing's business endeavors. The stock has already dropped about as much as it's going to - no where close to 40%, and it won't. Since Boeing said this will end up costing them $5 Billion when the dust settles, there won't be much if any stock dividends for awhile. People that invest in a company like Boeing are typically long range investors. Once the 737 Max starts flying again it will be move forward for Boeing like they always do.


Completely agree.

The bad news from their self-inflicted fiasco is already reflected in the price of BA.

From a peak of about $445 last year to the current $345, BA is off by over 20%. Their stock has already been hammered by the market.

It hasn't fallen further because Boeing has a huge order book, with the 777 selling very well, and the 787 is sold out for the next ten years. Their space ventures are making money and their military order book (F-15, F/A-18, KC-46, P-8, etc.) is very strong.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
This is a big black eye for Boeing. Hopefully Boeing stock drops 40%.

I wonder how much revenue all the airlines will lose with all the aircraft grounded ?


Why would you wish that?

To buy a few hundred shares of BA.... ðŸ‘

 

[fdcg27]

Do you think that the problem is that the type was designed for a time when most of the crews had training and experience similar to your own?
There are simply not enough military and civil trained crews available today to operate the global airline fleet.
In your training, you either qualified each step of the way or you got washed out.
In the civil world, there are good pilots flying freight in piston twins or flying the Alaskan or Canadian bush or they become dead pilots.
There aren't enough such pilots to crew the global narrow body fleet, so we end up with guys who know how the buttons are supposed to work but have very little of the feel acquired from handling an airplane of any size or type.
It isn't so much a matter TT as it is one of hours spent hand flying the machine.
Just as an example, trimming is something anyone with any flying experience quickly grasps, but at least two crews seem to have missed that part of the lesson, maybe because they lacked the experience of actually flying any aircraft and not just monitoring it.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Do you think that the problem is that the type was designed for a time when most of the crews had training and experience similar to your own?
There are simply not enough military and civil trained crews available today to operate the global airline fleet.
In your training, you either qualified each step of the way or you got washed out.
In the civil world, there are good pilots flying freight in piston twins or flying the Alaskan or Canadian bush or they become dead pilots.
There aren't enough such pilots to crew the global narrow body fleet, so we end up with guys who know how the buttons are supposed to work but have very little of the feel acquired from handling an airplane of any size or type.
It isn't so much a matter TT as it is one of hours spent hand flying the machine.
Just as an example, trimming is something anyone with any flying experience quickly grasps, but at least two crews seem to have missed that part of the lesson, maybe because they lacked the experience of actually flying any aircraft and not just monitoring it.

I think issues is much deeper than that.
First of all, they messed up lift on that aircraft with bigger engines that are pitched now forward and up. The problem is design of an aircraft that was very useful for 1960, but not for today. This would be like using Impala design from that time with new engines.
Second, from what I have read, Boeing did not disclose degree of assistance. They have changed it (as far as I remember typing this) from 0.6 to 2.4. That is HUGE change.
Third, Boeing CEO (and he supposed to be fired promptly for this alone) tried to pitch blame to pilots. But AA union and other US pilots came to defense saying that pilots are not to blame and that American pilots had similar issues. In the end by now, I think it is very clear (and Boeing quietly acknowledged this) that is is MCAS and design to blame, not pilots.

I think the real issues here is application of New Public Management and theory of shifting services to for profit entities, services in this case being compliance. Also, FAA is purposely starved, and when you financially starve organization like that, that requires high technical expertise that costs money, it is easy to accuse it of inefficiency later. This happened in 2005, and I believe if we want to address this issue and future similar issues (and there will be a lot of them) we need stronger FAA and compliance part back to it. This issue is much more than just Boeing. VW got into hot sauce with dieselgate because of self regulation in EU, thinking they could muddle through in US.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted by AC1DD
I believe that Boeing is going to have to replace the oversize engines with smaller units and redesigned mounting pylons as well before the craft is allowed back in the air. I think that's why the delay keeps getting longer and longer. A software change won't eliminate the poor balance of the current design as the result of oversize engines.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyeqeqSNSgQ

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by AC1DD
I believe that Boeing is going to have to replace the oversize engines with smaller units and redesigned mounting pylons as well before the craft is allowed back in the air. I think that's why the delay keeps getting longer and longer. A software change won't eliminate the poor balance of the current design as the result of oversize engines.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyeqeqSNSgQ

I do not understand point of this video?

 

[Exhaustgases]

So I wonder how this ever happened? No more old engineers?, and hoping kids with computers can do all the design work now?
I'd like to know where all those max 8's are stored? Special flights to the Arizona desert?






Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by AC1DD
I believe that Boeing is going to have to replace the oversize engines with smaller units and redesigned mounting pylons as well before the craft is allowed back in the air. I think that's why the delay keeps getting longer and longer. A software change won't eliminate the poor balance of the current design as the result of oversize engines.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyeqeqSNSgQ

I do not understand point of this video?


Easy to figure out the point. It did a super steep climb out and the MCAS did not nose it down and crash it.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
Easy to figure out the point. It did a super steep climb out and the MCAS did not nose it down and crash it.

Well, mystery resolved, they supposed to do super steep climb under full power with demonstration plane.
Not sure why Boeing bothers with this, they should just send new instructions and tell pilots to take of in same manner.

 

[fdcg27]

Not really.
Nobody with much actual flying experience in even a C172 would let their aircraft get far enough out of trim that both pilots were having to white-knuckle it on the yoke, particularly when the manual electric trim switches on that yoke were available and active.
That Boeing mucked up this implementation is beyond question.
That we have a lot of inadequate airmen operating the world's narrow body fleet is also beyond question.
We need to insist on higher training and experience standards in actually flying aircraft worldwide. That we will see higher fares shouldn't matter.
It isn't only developing word airlines either.
Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.

 

[mk378]

I don't think it's realistic to expect every pilot to always handle every mechanical malfunction that could theoretically be mitigated by the pilot doing exactly the right thing. In the commercial world cost constraints aren't going to allow that level of expertise of everyone.

My thought on looking at the video of the 737 MAX is that "those engines don't fit on that plane." It looks like some teenager's ghettoed out car that you would avoid going near on the road. It doesn't look competently designed even from a simple aesthetic point of view.

Boeing's key marketing point was that the MAX would fly just like older 737's, so an airline that has a 737 now could buy a MAX and have pilots fly it right away based on their existing experience and training. This turned out to be wrong, even though they were able to sell that idea to the FAA as well.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Not really.
Nobody with much actual flying experience in even a C172 would let their aircraft get far enough out of trim that both pilots were having to white-knuckle it on the yoke, particularly when the manual electric trim switches on that yoke were available and active.
That Boeing mucked up this implementation is beyond question.
That we have a lot of inadequate airmen operating the world's narrow body fleet is also beyond question.
We need to insist on higher training and experience standards in actually flying aircraft worldwide. That we will see higher fares shouldn't matter.
It isn't only developing word airlines either.
Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.

I agree with your points. But there is much more to Boeing's contribution here. Do not forget that everything revolved around the fact that cockpit has to be so similar to NG that it would not require simulators etc. From all what I have seen, Boeing could not deliver that, but claimed it did. This is not fault of any foreign company. If someone other than Boeing is to blame, it is Southwest and insistence on this design and commonality with previous generation. You cannot expect from pilots to know something that manufacturer did not provide explanation for or training for. But if they did, then price would go way up. In the end, what really is sign of how stupid Boeing is is that warning software that was $80k option, and not to mention reliance on single AOA sensor.
I agree with AF, and Vanity Fair had probably best analysis as why that happened. However, it is not confined to foreign only. Remember Colgan Air crash in Buffalo in 2009?
IMO, Congress and constant undermining of FAA is at fault. It is this ridiculous, stupid, greedy notion of how business knows best what is best for America or world. So why not transfer services (regulation and compliance) to entity that will profit from lack of it? I mean, what could go wrong? And world relied on FAA, as it is mentioned all the time, a gold standard. Well, now FAA even if it clears MAX soon, Chinese and Europeans will impose their own demands. We shot ourselves in the foot over short term profits and stock price.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by mk378
I don't think it's realistic to expect every pilot to always handle every mechanical malfunction that could theoretically be mitigated by the pilot doing exactly the right thing. In the commercial world cost constraints aren't going to allow that level of expertise of everyone.

My thought on looking at the video of the 737 MAX is that "those engines don't fit on that plane." It looks like some teenager's ghettoed out car that you would avoid going near on the road. It doesn't look competently designed even from a simple aesthetic point of view.

Boeing's key marketing point was that the MAX would fly just like older 737's, so an airline that has a 737 now could buy a MAX and have pilots fly it right away based on their existing experience and training. This turned out to be wrong, even though they were able to sell that idea to the FAA as well.

That is the key!
As for FAA< Boeing has far too much influence in Congress (as some other too).
Bob Gates, former SecDef in his book "Secretary at War," mentioned how representative from state of Washington had talking points written on Boeing memorandum during meeting. Like he said, we are at point where they do not even hide that they completely sold themselves.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by mk378
I don't think it's realistic to expect every pilot to always handle every mechanical malfunction that could theoretically be mitigated by the pilot doing exactly the right thing. In the commercial world cost constraints aren't going to allow that level of expertise of everyone.

My thought on looking at the video of the 737 MAX is that "those engines don't fit on that plane." It looks like some teenager's ghettoed out car that you would avoid going near on the road. It doesn't look competently designed even from a simple aesthetic point of view.

Boeing's key marketing point was that the MAX would fly just like older 737's, so an airline that has a 737 now could buy a MAX and have pilots fly it right away based on their existing experience and training. This turned out to be wrong, even though they were able to sell that idea to the FAA as well.

That is the key!
As for FAA< Boeing has far too much influence in Congress (as some other too).
Bob Gates, former SecDef in his book "Secretary at War," mentioned how representative from state of Washington had talking points written on Boeing memorandum during meeting. Like he said, we are at point where they do not even hide that they completely sold themselves.


What we're really talking about here is that any halfway skilled crew should have trimmed ANU against the AND inputs of MCAS as a matter of course.
This is not some esoteric failure mode that any halfway skilled crew would not have been able to recognize and overcome.
The switch selectable electric trim would always override MCAS and the crews should have known to do this even in the absence of any specialized training or sim time.
If the yoke grows heavy in your hand having to hold back stick to maintain level flight, then you trim that out. If this cycle continues, then anyone with much actual flying and not mere systems monitoring experience would trim the aircraft close to neutral trim and then shut the electric trim off.
This isn't rocket science and that's why this is as much a failure of actual flying experience and training as it is of Boeing's handiwork.

 

[ozric]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.


Such a sad story, as they drop past unrecoverable altitude the number two proclaims "I've had the stick back the whole time!" ... can you imagine the sinking feeling as the pilot realized they may have recovered if not for that idiot? All those people lost for such a stupid mistake.

That's one point against control sticks hidden over to the side of the each pilot, if there had been yokes in the cockpit there is no way that copilot screws that up without everyone seeing it.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by mk378
I don't think it's realistic to expect every pilot to always handle every mechanical malfunction that could theoretically be mitigated by the pilot doing exactly the right thing. In the commercial world cost constraints aren't going to allow that level of expertise of everyone.

My thought on looking at the video of the 737 MAX is that "those engines don't fit on that plane." It looks like some teenager's ghettoed out car that you would avoid going near on the road. It doesn't look competently designed even from a simple aesthetic point of view.

Boeing's key marketing point was that the MAX would fly just like older 737's, so an airline that has a 737 now could buy a MAX and have pilots fly it right away based on their existing experience and training. This turned out to be wrong, even though they were able to sell that idea to the FAA as well.

That is the key!
As for FAA< Boeing has far too much influence in Congress (as some other too).
Bob Gates, former SecDef in his book "Secretary at War," mentioned how representative from state of Washington had talking points written on Boeing memorandum during meeting. Like he said, we are at point where they do not even hide that they completely sold themselves.


What we're really talking about here is that any halfway skilled crew should have trimmed ANU against the AND inputs of MCAS as a matter of course.
This is not some esoteric failure mode that any halfway skilled crew would not have been able to recognize and overcome.
The switch selectable electric trim would always override MCAS and the crews should have known to do this even in the absence of any specialized training or sim time.
If the yoke grows heavy in your hand having to hold back stick to maintain level flight, then you trim that out. If this cycle continues, then anyone with much actual flying and not mere systems monitoring experience would trim the aircraft close to neutral trim and then shut the electric trim off.
This isn't rocket science and that's why this is as much a failure of actual flying experience and training as it is of Boeing's handiwork.

Well, all I can say is: why you are not out there training pilots how to fly? 346 people died, AA union is saying this is serious issue, and numerous others, but here we go, BITOG'ers talking about halfway skilled crew in one of the safest arline companies in the world.
Give me a break man.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by ozric
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.


Such a sad story, as they drop past unrecoverable altitude the number two proclaims "I've had the stick back the whole time!" ... can you imagine the sinking feeling as the pilot realized they may have recovered if not for that idiot? All those people lost for such a stupid mistake.

That's one point against control sticks hidden over to the side of the each pilot, if there had been yokes in the cockpit there is no way that copilot screws that up without everyone seeing it.

The issues behind AF crash are much deeper than just who pulled stick back.
That was a symptom of much larger issues.

 

[fdcg27]

Maybe I should use a larger, bolded font to help you to understand this, but I find that childish, so I won't.
Anyone who has flown anything is aware of the importance of and use of pitch trim.
It's about as important as breathing and also requires about as much thought.
Why the accident crews couldn't grasp this is a mystery to me, although Boeing enabled the party with what turned out to be a badly thought out system that wasn't at all well documented anywhere.
There is a deeper problem here and it lies in the system by which people are put in the front seats of airliners with very little experience in actually flying even a simple aircraft.
I'll take a thousand hour C172 instructor over the product of an ab initio training academy any time, since the Cessna guy will have seen all sorts of conditions including students trying to kill him and will have felt real fear while in conditions that were far worse than planned while safely on the ground.
This guy has seen awful flights and worked through the problem and returned safely to ground. In short, he learned to handle an aircraft without panic when the cards dealt him turned out to be a really bad hand.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Now what??? get back up there and try again Pudknockers...