B737 Max : CAA bans from UK airspace; Comair aircraft grounded
Following the tragic news of the crash of a new 737 max in Eithiopia the coverage in The Times queried whether this aircraft could be considered reliable. The rather technical discussion in the comments section by those who seemed to know their onions was not very favorable either. More than one said they would not want to fly in one. I have noticed that Comair in South Africa have recently taken delivery of 8 of these for the route they share with BA from CPT. Does anyone know whether BA have plans to use the 737 Max from London? |
No. BA short haul is Airbus and Embraer driven and will be thus for a long time yet. Boeing will only be on long haul. |
I still don't think you can load standard cans (ULDs) into any 737? If so, BA won't like it; they put a lot of effort into can-loading all bags out of LHR and they won't want to go back. Let alone having to have two sets of pilot type ratings.
Also the aircraft is properly called the 737 MAX 8. |
Glad to hear this, I don’t think I’d want to fly in 737max after reading this article together with the comments. |
Do we even know what went wrong on the Ethiopian flight? if not how can one conclude the aircraft isn’t safe? |
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 30870962)
Do we even know what went wrong on the Ethiopian flight? if not how can one conclude the aircraft isn’t safe? |
Originally Posted by Sigwx
(Post 30870695)
No. BA short haul is Airbus and Embraer driven and will be thus for a long time yet. Boeing will only be on long haul. Wiki: "Comair operates 24 Boeing 737 aircraft with almost 2 000 staff" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_(South_Africa) |
Originally Posted by DBCme
(Post 30871411)
Hi. I thought BA operated by Comair is running 737's (not MAX) for local SA and regional Southern Africa flights.
Wiki: "Comair operates 24 Boeing 737 aircraft with almost 2 000 staff" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_(South_Africa) |
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 30870962)
Do we even know what went wrong on the Ethiopian flight? if not how can one conclude the aircraft isn’t safe? I don't feel particularly happy about flying on Max (I generally don't like the 737s in the first place though), so I've shifted my flight to the A321-operated service, and decided not to shift the 777 flight to a Max even though I planned to because of a better schedule. (Note, this is not about Comair flights) Why? 1) There is a possibility Max is a problem. 2) I also do not feel comfortable with the principle or grandfathering involved in 737s, although I'm not going into the technical discussion here. 3) If it's found to be a Max problem, or it's found to be semi-likely it was, it might disrupt the flight through grounding. Rebooking to a flight I want should it cause grounding may be difficult nearer the time, or once it's been grounded. Taking an early action prevents inconvenience to myself. 4) I don't particularly feel the need to feel somewhat wary while waiting for the outcome of the investigation if I can easily and simply avoid Max. Admittedly I could change my flights entirely free of charge. I may have thought twice if I had to pay perhaps £200+ to change the flights. |
Originally Posted by LTN Phobia
(Post 30871645)
I don't think anyone has concluded anything, but I can't blame people for feeling uneasy until we know what it was.
I don't feel particularly happy about flying on Max (I generally don't like the 737s in the first place though), so I've shifted my flight to the A321-operated service, and decided not to shift the 777 flight to a Max even though I planned to because of a better schedule. (Note, this is not about Comair flights) Why? 1) There is a possibility Max is a problem. 2) I also do not feel comfortable with the principle or grandfathering involved in 737s, although I'm not going into the technical discussion here. 3) If it's found to be a Max problem, or it's found to be semi-likely it was, it might disrupt the flight through grounding. Rebooking to a flight I want should it cause grounding may be difficult nearer the time, or once it's been grounded. Taking an early action prevents inconvenience to myself. 4) I don't particularly feel the need to feel somewhat wary while waiting for the outcome of the investigation if I can easily and simply avoid Max. Admittedly I could change my flights entirely free of charge. I may have thought twice if I had to pay perhaps £200+ to change the flights. |
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 30870962)
Do we even know what went wrong on the Ethiopian flight? if not how can one conclude the aircraft isn’t safe? Of course, the question of what constitutes sufficient suspicion is really hard to agree on, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if a few people start following suit with the Chinese. |
Originally Posted by gypsyjaney
(Post 30870680)
I have noticed that Comair in South Africa have recently taken delivery of 8 of these for the route they share with BA from CPT. Does anyone know whether BA have plans to use the 737 Max from London? As said by others there are no plans for single-aisle Boeing aircraft on European short haul. |
It’s one thing when a slightly fly-by-night airline like Lion crash. They damage, bend and send 737s swimming on a fairly regular basis. It’s much easier to believe that such an airline would poorly train their pilots on the small differences between 737NG and MAX. Ethiopian are considered very safe, have a modern fleet of 787/777/A350, high standards and certainly don’t crash regularly. It’s much believable that a 10k hours captain wouldn’t have been aware of the Lion crash, the supposed contribution of aircraft systems and the recovery procedures. Clearly the causes of this crash are unknown. But it’s harder to blame the crew and airline. |
Exactly. We definitely can’t conclude that Boeing is at fault yet. However, the accident does certainly cause an eye brow to be raised and I am sure we, especially Boeing, are eager to find the cause as soon as possible. If it does end up being a related issue to the Lion Air crash, or another failure - I will be incredibly, incredibly upset and irritated at the Boeing corporation. However, from a safety perspective you can absolutely guarantuee Boeing will invest every dollar to ensure this will not happen again because it will kill their company otherwise. If passengers won’t fly Boeing, airlines won’t buy Boeing. |
I imagine they will use them for CPT JNB and other regional flights. I would still rather fly Comair than SAA (within SA) given SAA's financial troubles.
|
I do feel the instructions from Boeing to 737 MAX pilots can be summarised as "Don't screw it up like the Lion Air guys did".
However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong. So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way. I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure. |
Originally Posted by flatlander
(Post 30872052)
I do feel the instructions from Boeing to 737 MAX pilots can be summarised as "Don't screw it up like the Lion Air guys did".
However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong. So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way. I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure. |
Originally Posted by Lux Flyer
(Post 30872206)
The thing is, the opportunity for them to "screw it up" should be a rare event. Having it happen every couple months (if that turns out to be the case) is poor design and needs to be addressed. Humans are fallible beings, given enough opportunities, human error will occur. So they should be trying to eliminate the chance of human error occurring in the first place, which is done by fixing the underlying issue, not simply saying "train some more, don't screw up".
|
Extensive discussion on PPRuNe, of course. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...wn-africa.html
i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft! :eek: |
Originally Posted by T8191
(Post 30872329)
Extensive discussion on PPRuNe, of course. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...wn-africa.html
i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft! :eek: |
Originally Posted by BrianDromey
(Post 30871801)
It’s one thing when a slightly fly-by-night airline like Lion crash. They damage, bend and send 737s swimming on a fairly regular basis. It’s much easier to believe that such an airline would poorly train their pilots on the small differences between 737NG and MAX. Ethiopian are considered very safe, have a modern fleet of 787/777/A350, high standards and certainly don’t crash regularly. It’s much believable that a 10k hours captain wouldn’t have been aware of the Lion crash, the supposed contribution of aircraft systems and the recovery procedures. Clearly the causes of this crash are unknown. But it’s harder to blame the crew and airline. I mean we'll see of course but i wouldn't write off pilot error that quickly and I'm sure Boeing will want to get to the bottom of what happened and if anything does need to be done rather quickly with lots of 737 MAX operators grounding planes. |
BBC are reporting several airlines plus Chinese regulator grounding 737 max aircraft.
BBC Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded. |
Originally Posted by Steve_ZA
(Post 30871764)
Comair has only had one 737 MAX delivery so far of the 8 they ordered. The rest of the fleet is a mix of -400s and -800s. |
Originally Posted by djbenedict
(Post 30872535)
I've got a flight booked later this year with a Comair sector. In MMB it shows "Aircraft type: 738". Am I right in thinking that this indicates a 737-800 and that a 737 MAX 8 would be 7M8?
|
Originally Posted by milkyway88
(Post 30872396)
BBC are reporting several airlines plus Chinese regulator grounding 737 max aircraft.
BBC Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded. I do share some of the concerns that the original 737 type certification has nothing to do with a current 7M8. Perhaps time to shine a light on this. |
I'm flying to Livingstone tomorrow on comair, thankfully it's a 737-800 from 2007. Really don't fancy getting on a Max 8.
|
Originally Posted by Steve_ZA
(Post 30872556)
Correct, the 738 will be a 737-800.
|
See that Comair are now grounding their 737-8's
|
Originally Posted by LHRagain
(Post 30873301)
See that Comair are now grounding their 737-8's
Surely the remainder of the 737-800 fleet isn't in the least bit affected by this? |
My biggest problem with the 737-Max discussion has been that the MCAS auto-trim system is a single fault design flaw. Retired Boeing engineers and others have been quoted as saying that the air input to the system that determines the angle of attack for the MCAS auto-trim system is a single point with no back up. Thus if there is a flaw/failure there the whole system malfunctions.
This should have been picked up at the time of FAA certification but was not (software has gotten so complex that I'm not surprised that this happened, I am surprised that Boeing has not jumped on either a fix or a disconnect of the MCAS auto-trim system.) Remember, FAA is NOT supposed to allow certification of any aircraft where a single fault would allow disabling of the aircraft. I would think that Boeing would be better served to disable the MCAS auto-trim system and train for the flight characteristics of the 737Max rather than having the pilots fighting the computer, especially if there are times when the computer is being given false information from the angle of attack input to the MCAS auto-trim system. |
With so much automation becoming dependent on some fairly basic technology (AoA sensors and pitot tubes) that are hugely vulnerable to external influences (damage, ice accretion etc.) it seems to me it’s becoming time for manufactureres to step back from ‘because we can’ to ‘is this wise?’.
Apologies for the long sentence. |
Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar
(Post 30872834)
China grounding these planes is as much about Huawei and trade wars than safety imo. Until EASA and/or FAA do the same I will hold opinion.
I do share some of the concerns that the original 737 type certification has nothing to do with a current 7M8. Perhaps time to shine a light on this. BTW, when China grounds the MAX, presumably it includes not just Chinese carriers but also flights operated by foreign carriers to/from mainland China that use the MAX, right?
Originally Posted by mnhusker
(Post 30873380)
My biggest problem with the 737-Max discussion has been that the MCAS auto-trim system is a single fault design flaw. Retired Boeing engineers and others have been quoted as saying that the air input to the system that determines the angle of attack for the MCAS auto-trim system is a single point with no back up. Thus if there is a flaw/failure there the whole system malfunctions.
This should have been picked up at the time of FAA certification but was not (software has gotten so complex that I'm not surprised that this happened, I am surprised that Boeing has not jumped on either a fix or a disconnect of the MCAS auto-trim system.) Remember, FAA is NOT supposed to allow certification of any aircraft where a single fault would allow disabling of the aircraft. I would think that Boeing would be better served to disable the MCAS auto-trim system and train for the flight characteristics of the 737Max rather than having the pilots fighting the computer, especially if there are times when the computer is being given false information from the angle of attack input to the MCAS auto-trim system. |
It wasn’t all too long ago BA Mainline shorthaul had their own 737 issues. The 737-236 all had an inherent Rudder PCU design flaw that had sent several 737’s into unrecoverable rudder ‘hard-overs’ with operators around the globe. It was only due the a few very near misses and a lengthy investigation of aircraft that had been lost that the fault was discovered and a mod issued to all global operators. BA continued to fly the fleet throughout this period. The 737 is such a long standing design that has evolved and each evoloution has brought with it latent faults and as yet we have no idea if the two MAX 8 accidents are related. We also do not know that the issue lies with training or pilot competence. Too many unknowns. Would I get on a MAX? Yes. Would I fly on either airline involved on amy of their other types (ok limited with Lionair I know), No! |
If these multiple eyewitness reports are correct, a lot of people may have jumped the gun.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-e...-idUKKBN1QS1LH |
Each to their own. I have flown on the Max twice, once AA and once FI. Will I get on another one at this point in time? Not under any circumstances, period. If you read the thread on Pprune about this, and yes, I know it is rumours and conjecture, it appears there is a strong possibility that a design fault exists which can put the aircraft into a sharp nose down attitude at very low altitude leaving seconds to overcome the problem. Consensus there is that it is a recoverable situation but only if the crew react impeccably and locate the right switches to disable the right systems at the same time as panic is likely setting in as the ground is suddenly looming. And no, disconnection of the autopilot does not override the erroneous control inputs. And no, pulling back on the column doesn't work well either - it requires circa 60kg of force to override the system. No, I haven't flown a 737. I fly a sophisticated light aircraft so have some limited insight and no more. But I have read enough to see a pattern emerging. And whilst the theories may subsequently prove to be incorrect, they have sufficient credibility at this point to make me choose to stay away. Just checked my two domestic AA sectors next week and they are E90 and 319 respectively. But I say again, if irrops leads to a 737-max being substituted, I will refuse to board.
|
Originally Posted by Sealink
(Post 30871146)
For me its the fact that this is the second fatal accident on a brand new 737-800 MAX in five months. The previous, Lion Air, gave cause for Boeing to issue new instructions to pilots. That's incredibly worrying.
|
Oversimplifying, I know, but what about a bloody great button that disconnects all the automatics and resets all trim to neutral, and reverts to manual throttles ... and let the pilot fly the bloody thing manually? Or aren’t aome Captains able to do that any more? ;)
I wouldn’t dare post that on PPRuNe, of course. I’m not a pilot. |
Originally Posted by brentford77
(Post 30873865)
I know it is rumours and conjecture, it appears there is a strong possibility that a design fault exists which can put the aircraft into a sharp nose down attitude at very low altitude leaving seconds to overcome the problem. Consensus there is that it is a recoverable situation but only if the crew react impeccably and locate the right switches to disable the right systems at the same time as panic is likely setting in as the ground is suddenly looming.
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(Post 30873352)
For clarity, it looks it's Comair's single example of the MAX that is being grounded: https://www.iol.co.za/business-repor...7-max-19811120
Surely the remainder of the 737-800 fleet isn't in the least bit affected by this? |
Originally Posted by T8191
(Post 30874176)
Oversimplifying, I know, but what about a bloody great button that disconnects all the automatics and resets all trim to neutral, and reverts to manual throttles ... and let the pilot fly the bloody thing manually? Or aren’t aome Captains able to do that any more? ;)
I wouldn’t dare post that on PPRuNe, of course. I’m not a pilot. IMO (IANAP = I am not a pilot), this would work for pilots with lots of hours flying for major (legacy) first world carriers, but not when the cockpit crew consists of only two, with at least one being very inexperienced. Having a third person to improve crew resource management wouldn't be cost effective, so that wouldn't fly as a solution, nor could having only very experienced pilots be mandates for some of these carriers. |
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
(Post 30874215)
IMO (IANAP = I am not a pilot), this would work for pilots with lots of hours flying for major (legacy) first world carriers, but not when the cockpit crew consists of only two, with at least one being very inexperienced. Having a third person to improve crew resource management wouldn't be cost effective, so that wouldn't fly as a solution, nor could having only very experienced pilots be mandates for some of these carriers. https://www.pprune.org/10414149-post460.html |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:12 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.