Jul 20, 2019, 7:49 pm
737-Max 8 safety concerns
May 3, 2019, 5:09 pm
#211
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bo...teid=rss&rss=1
Boeing Co. limited the role of its own pilots in the final stages of developing the 737 MAX flight-control system implicated in two fatal crashes, departing from a longstanding practice of seeking their detailed input, people familiar with the matter said...
It isn’t clear whether greater pilot participation would have altered the ultimate design of the flight-control system. But the scaling back of pilots’ involvement and their lack of detailed knowledge about the plane’s system add to the list of questions about engineering and design practices facing the Chicago-based aerospace giant.
It isn’t clear whether greater pilot participation would have altered the ultimate design of the flight-control system. But the scaling back of pilots’ involvement and their lack of detailed knowledge about the plane’s system add to the list of questions about engineering and design practices facing the Chicago-based aerospace giant.
May 4, 2019, 4:28 am
#212
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,307
Much of this is already known but it does place many relevant facts together:
The many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max - The Verge
The many human errors that brought down the Boeing 737 Max - The Verge
Really good article, worth the 10 minutes it took to read.
May 6, 2019, 4:11 pm
#213
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,722
I won't be flying the MAX until I see 6 month track record with zero incidents similar to the ones previously encountered. It is pretty clear that the 737 MAX is fundamentally different in terms of engineering than its predecessors, and thus Boeing's otherwise stellar track record is irrelevant to the discussion. I would have no hesitation to fly any prior Boeing (or Airbus) planes but no thanks on the MAX.
In fact I'd trust Engineer Scott (a fictional character) more than I'd trust Boeing: "Fool me once, jokes on you. Fool me twice..."
In fact I'd trust Engineer Scott (a fictional character) more than I'd trust Boeing: "Fool me once, jokes on you. Fool me twice..."
May 7, 2019, 6:56 am
#214
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Boeing stayed quiet about faulty 737 Max alert until after deadly crash
Boeing Co. knew months before a deadly 737 Max crash that a cockpit alert wasn’t working the way the company had told buyers of the single-aisle jetliner. But the plane maker didn’t share its findings with airlines or the Federal Aviation Administration until after a Lion Air plane went down off the coast of Indonesia in October, according to a Boeing statement Sunday as it provided additional details of an issue that first came to light last week...
...“The question I have is just like we asked them in Reno, ‘Is that all there is?’ That’s the biggest question,” said Jon Weaks, head of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Assn., referring to a meeting union leaders had with Boeing after the Lion Air crash. “It’s obviously troubling that here is something else Boeing didn’t get to us.”...
...The inactive alert was later deemed to be “low risk” by the FAA’s Corrective Action Review Board, the regulator said Sunday. “However, Boeing’s timely or earlier communication with the operators would have helped to reduce or eliminate possible confusion,” the FAA said.
...“The question I have is just like we asked them in Reno, ‘Is that all there is?’ That’s the biggest question,” said Jon Weaks, head of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Assn., referring to a meeting union leaders had with Boeing after the Lion Air crash. “It’s obviously troubling that here is something else Boeing didn’t get to us.”...
...The inactive alert was later deemed to be “low risk” by the FAA’s Corrective Action Review Board, the regulator said Sunday. “However, Boeing’s timely or earlier communication with the operators would have helped to reduce or eliminate possible confusion,” the FAA said.
May 7, 2019, 12:08 pm
#215
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, England.
Programs: BA
Posts: 8,476
The key reason why they wanted to avoid the "additional training" that has been regularly mentioned is not so much that it would not have been possible to get the crew time to do the training, more that there are few/no simulators yet built of the Max. So there is nowhere to do the training. So the aircraft could not have been used at all. This is why it was imperative for it to be presented as "just like an NG 800", so they could use the simulators in place for those.
It's also going to impact on any return to service. If they think that this can be done, regardless of any other issues or corrections, without any specific Max training for the crews, on proper facilities, they must believe in fairies.
It's extraordinary that the Boeing stock price is currently higher than it was in January. If one regulatory authority (and I might look initially to Canada here) decides that the quick fix is still not good enough then that is going to cascade around.
It's also going to impact on any return to service. If they think that this can be done, regardless of any other issues or corrections, without any specific Max training for the crews, on proper facilities, they must believe in fairies.
It's extraordinary that the Boeing stock price is currently higher than it was in January. If one regulatory authority (and I might look initially to Canada here) decides that the quick fix is still not good enough then that is going to cascade around.
May 7, 2019, 8:45 pm
#216
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 81
The reason why there are so few simulators for the Max is because Boeing's strategy was to get the Max certified and sell the Max as not requiring additional simulator training. The simulators could and would have been built had it been accepted that they were needed.
May 8, 2019, 2:20 pm
#217
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,307
As someone elsewhere pointed out, this logic is the wrong way around.
The reason why there are so few simulators for the Max is because Boeing's strategy was to get the Max certified and sell the Max as not requiring additional simulator training. The simulators could and would have been built had it been accepted that they were needed.
The reason why there are so few simulators for the Max is because Boeing's strategy was to get the Max certified and sell the Max as not requiring additional simulator training. The simulators could and would have been built had it been accepted that they were needed.
May 8, 2019, 7:34 pm
#218
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 81
Boeing also seems to be taking a public relations gamble here, namely that the average passenger doesn't know and doesn't care what aircraft they're flying and/or doesn't understand enough of the details of this case for it to impact their assessment of Boeing. We'll see, but in this age of social media and flight review web sites, that seems like a big risk - the public is swayed by safety perception, not safety reality.
May 8, 2019, 9:48 pm
#219
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Posts: 9,455
If it's Boeing, I aint' going 
Honestly I can see ALL major countries' safety agencies looking VERY closely into whatever "fix" Boeing thinks will make the MAX airworthy.
The US American for obvious reasons not to lose any more face, the European one to prove they're independant (and a wee bit of support for Airbus won't hurt I guess) from the FAA, similar for the Canadian one (A220's is still basically a Canadian product), the Chinese who were the first one's to (rightfully!) ground the MAX certainly will make sure the aircraft is working as it should. In fact I could see the Russians (due to the fact that they want to make Trump "look strong") being the only ones that might give the MAX a slightly easier time.
This has become obviously a political case too (and since we aren't in OMNI/PR I'll not further go into that) so Boeing needs to be very careful. They'll certainly not go out of business over this, but the mid- to long-term consequences could be rather brutal for them (once COMAC basically fully catched up, a weakened Boeing could be relegated to #2 status aside them and clearly behind Airbus)
Honestly I can see ALL major countries' safety agencies looking VERY closely into whatever "fix" Boeing thinks will make the MAX airworthy.
The US American for obvious reasons not to lose any more face, the European one to prove they're independant (and a wee bit of support for Airbus won't hurt I guess) from the FAA, similar for the Canadian one (A220's is still basically a Canadian product), the Chinese who were the first one's to (rightfully!) ground the MAX certainly will make sure the aircraft is working as it should. In fact I could see the Russians (due to the fact that they want to make Trump "look strong") being the only ones that might give the MAX a slightly easier time.
This has become obviously a political case too (and since we aren't in OMNI/PR I'll not further go into that) so Boeing needs to be very careful. They'll certainly not go out of business over this, but the mid- to long-term consequences could be rather brutal for them (once COMAC basically fully catched up, a weakened Boeing could be relegated to #2 status aside them and clearly behind Airbus)
May 9, 2019, 7:50 am
#220
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Boeing also seems to be taking a public relations gamble here, namely that the average passenger doesn't know and doesn't care what aircraft they're flying and/or doesn't understand enough of the details of this case for it to impact their assessment of Boeing. We'll see, but in this age of social media and flight review web sites, that seems like a big risk - the public is swayed by safety perception, not safety reality.
As you noted, in today's world it's much easier for a subject to be discussed and remain in the public's mind than it used to be. Anecdotally, I know a number of people who are either vowing to never fly on a 737 MAX or very skeptical about its safety...in past accidents I've not experienced that with my circle of friends/family/etc, especially not this long after the accident. Whether those folks' opinions later change or not, who knows - some will, some won't - but I think it depends on what transpires.
Personally, I will wait to see when more definitive information and results come out from the things I mentioned above before making any decision to avoid or not avoid the MAX. I do feel that so far, as far as initial impressions from the reporting so far, Boeing isn't doing very well in my mind, regarding its conduct in certain aspects of the design, certification, and fielding of the aircraft. I'll do my best to keep an open mind as more info and 3rd-party reviews/analysis/investigations play out.
May 9, 2019, 12:57 pm
#221
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,508
If it's Boeing, I aint' going
Honestly I can see ALL major countries' safety agencies looking VERY closely into whatever "fix" Boeing thinks will make the MAX airworthy.
The US American for obvious reasons not to lose any more face, the European one to prove they're independant (and a wee bit of support for Airbus won't hurt I guess) from the FAA, similar for the Canadian one (A220's is still basically a Canadian product), the Chinese who were the first one's to (rightfully!) ground the MAX certainly will make sure the aircraft is working as it should. In fact I could see the Russians (due to the fact that they want to make Trump "look strong") being the only ones that might give the MAX a slightly easier time.
This has become obviously a political case too (and since we aren't in OMNI/PR I'll not further go into that) so Boeing needs to be very careful. They'll certainly not go out of business over this, but the mid- to long-term consequences could be rather brutal for them (once COMAC basically fully catched up, a weakened Boeing could be relegated to #2 status aside them and clearly behind Airbus)
Honestly I can see ALL major countries' safety agencies looking VERY closely into whatever "fix" Boeing thinks will make the MAX airworthy.
The US American for obvious reasons not to lose any more face, the European one to prove they're independant (and a wee bit of support for Airbus won't hurt I guess) from the FAA, similar for the Canadian one (A220's is still basically a Canadian product), the Chinese who were the first one's to (rightfully!) ground the MAX certainly will make sure the aircraft is working as it should. In fact I could see the Russians (due to the fact that they want to make Trump "look strong") being the only ones that might give the MAX a slightly easier time.
This has become obviously a political case too (and since we aren't in OMNI/PR I'll not further go into that) so Boeing needs to be very careful. They'll certainly not go out of business over this, but the mid- to long-term consequences could be rather brutal for them (once COMAC basically fully catched up, a weakened Boeing could be relegated to #2 status aside them and clearly behind Airbus)
Whether that will help fix the FAA's damaged reputation? We'll see.
May 13, 2019, 9:28 am
#222
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 581
I expect China to fully use this situation as a leverage for Huawei & the tariffs.
May 13, 2019, 12:39 pm
#223
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Posts: 9,455
May 17, 2019, 11:31 am
#224
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 1
Boeing is saying that the MCAS issue is resolved.
Maybe its just me . But how is all talks on the MCAS system and all scrutiny is on the MCAS system and there is no focus on the AOA sensors that in both crashes was malfunctioning. Im in the Aviation industry but im not a commercial pilot. However im concerned about these airplanes flying again with these AOA sensors that may be defective on these type of airplanes. I saw the readings AOA readings on both airplanes and it is very abnormal readings given the fact that the airplane in both cases was into a normal climb.
May 17, 2019, 12:02 pm
#225
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
The AoA sensor on the Lion Air airplane failed. The AoA sensor on the Ethiopian airplane was apparently damaged by an impact, likely a bird strike, which detached the vane. There is no common link between the two failures.