Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

L1011

GM228 wrote: »

First and foremost it would be a big plus for Airbus, and other smaller manufacturers such as Embraer, Bombardier or even Tupolov may benefit for the smaller regional fleets.

Could the likes of Comac even benefit - are the Chinese manufacturers even at the stage to be able to potentially take a decent market share yet?

But somehow I doubt Boeing will fail, they are just too big and have too much political affiliations to do so unlike for example MD in the past after the DC-10 issues.

I do wonder however if the Boeing issues will have any impact on their deal with Embraer?

Comac are unable to build to the required scale and their modified DC9 hasn't had a stellar introduction...

cnocbui

I would have thought that the optional warning light to announce a conflict between the two AOA sensors should just about be mandatory now. Not something that can be provided via software.

Bob24

troyzer wrote: »

I don't think anyone should be surprised that countries (the EU is basically a country when it comes to these things) punish foreign companies more than their own. It's incredibly political at this level. Boeing is also a massive defense contractor remember, it's a core component of America's national security.

Clearly that’s not a surprise, but the US/FAA/Boeing are walking on an thin line.

Being more accommodating with national players and making things harder for foreign ones is completely understandable (while obviously full of hypocrisy when you pretend to support free trade and want free access to international markets, but if they see it as their national interest it’s their decision).

But this has to be done with some restraint: using regulation to stall foreign players and advantage the national one is one thing and achieves its purpose as long as the national ones is still meeting acceptable standards. But if it goes to the point of seriously hurting the credibility of both the regulatory authority and the national manufacturer to deliver reliable planes (or whatever else in other industries), then it starts becoming counter productive.

Cloudio9

OSI wrote: »

Where's the lad that was calling them clowns?

Yeah. Reminds me of Derry girls last night: "Who put 50p in the eejit?"

dogmatix

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Related to more woes for Boeing with the engines on the 787;


https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-airlines-grounds-two-boeing-787-10-dreamliner-jets-due-11403920

Surely an issue for Rolls-Royce rather then Boeing?

dogmatix

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Yeah. Reminds me of Derry girls last night: "Who put 50p in the eejit?"

There was a poster over on the A380 cancelled thread who referred to airbus as “scarebus”, something to do with airbus not being as safe as boeing. Then the whole 737max story broke. Oh the irony… Strange thing is that the post has now vanished.

cson

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Report in the WSJ that prelim black box data shows that the ET crew did cut power to the stab trim....tried to manually trim.....but still couldn’t recover. They also reconnected power to the stab trim not clear why ......I guess in desperation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-followed-boeings-required-emergency-steps-to-disable-737-max-system-11554263276

There was an article somewhere quoting 40 seconds from onset of the issue to checklist it & resolve before the aircraft is uncontrollable. You could keep buying yourself 40 seconds by hitting an override button on the controls (?) though I think. Though I imagine that could easily be missed in the chaos and confusion of such a situation.

cnocbui

Another 787 with engine woes:

Pilots of a Jetstar 787 Dreamliner encountered problems with both engines of their passenger plane as they came into land at the Japanese city of Osaka on Friday.

Initial accounts of the incident indicate one of the Boeing 787's engines suffered fluctuations in speed on approach to the aircraft landing at Osaka's Kansai International Airport.

A short time later, the other GE-manufactured engine on Flight JQ15 briefly encountered the same problem, sources familiar with the matter said.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/111743027/jetstar-787-suffers-problems-with-both-engines-on-approach-to-osaka

Tenzor07

dogmatix wrote: »

Surely an issue for Rolls-Royce rather then Boeing?

As far as I know, Airlines purchase the aircraft complete from Boeing and not RR...

L1011

Tenzor07 wrote: »

As far as I know, Airlines purchase the aircraft complete from Boeing and not RR...

They generally buy or lease the engines in a separate contract to the airframe.

Hotblack Desiato

.. and the cost of replacement parts/engines and compensation for AOG will end up at RR's door one way or the other

Brennus335

dogmatix wrote: »

There was a poster over on the A380 cancelled thread who referred to airbus as “scarebus”, something to do with airbus not being as safe as boeing. Then the whole 737max story broke. Oh the irony… Strange thing is that the post has now vanished.

Yeah, it was the same eejit.

Brennus335

cnocbui wrote: »

I would have thought that the optional warning light to announce a conflict between the two AOA sensors should just about be mandatory now. Not something that can be provided via software.

The media always calls these things "warning lights". It's not an actual physical light like something out of 1960's Star Trek.
It's just a text message on a screen. All done by software.

billy few mates

Depending on the position of the horizontal stabiliser when they operated the stab trim cutout switches it may be that the elevators did not have the authority to overcome the stab trim?
For example if there was already full nose down stab trim when you switch off the motors the elevators by themselves would not be able to overcome the nose down pitch hence the attempt to manually trim the stab to try and get the nose back up.
Absolutely tragic.

Raging_Ninja

cnocbui wrote: »

Another 787 with engine woes:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/111743027/jetstar-787-suffers-problems-with-both-engines-on-approach-to-osaka

This is something that happens probably a thousand times a day.

Edit: my assertion is incorrect.

odyssey06

Brennus335 wrote: »

The media always calls these things "warning lights". It's not an actual physical light like something out of 1960's Star Trek.
It's just a text message on a screen. All done by software.

If that is the case Boeing trying to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for it as an optional extra is even more outrageous.

Tenzor07

odyssey06 wrote: »

If that is the case Boeing trying to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for it as an optional extra is even more outrageous.

Hundreds of thousand$$ for a light? Are you sure?

odyssey06

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Hundreds of thousand$$ for a light? Are you sure?

On second thoughts no... unclear how much but if it is similar to the extras noted here more like 10k
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.amp.html

mickdw

80,000 dollars was quoted here earlier.

Tenger

mickdw wrote: »

80,000 dollars was quoted here earlier.

Quotes varied as the cost was a fraction of the overall price per airframe. Obviously Boeing has a “list price” and each customer negotiates that price down depending on their clout with Boeing, their order size, their after sales support and their delivery slots.
Thus it could be 200K on a last minute, in a rush small order versus the 100s of airframes ordered by Southwest/Ryanair for delivery over 5-10 years.

mickdw

Tenger wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

80,000 dollars was quoted here earlier.

Quotes varied as the cost was a fraction of the overall price per airframe. Obviously Boeing has a “list price” and each customer negotiates that price down depending on their clout with Boeing, their order size, their after sales support and their delivery slots.
Thus it could be 200K on a last minute, in a rush small order versus the 100s of airframes ordered by Southwest/Ryanair for delivery over 5-10 years.

So realistically it's just down to customer specification as to whether it was included or not and not necessarily a cost issue.
The important point is though that if it's a safety critical item, it should be standard fit.

cnocbui

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

This is something that happens probably a thousand times a day.

I don't believe you, frankly.

The Jetstar 787 remains grounded at Kansai International Airport while it is inspected by engineers from the airline, General Electric and Boeing.

The ministry classified the situation as a “serious incident” that could have led to a major accident, adding that although there were no reports of injuries it has decided to send inspectors to the airport to look into the plane, which was from the northern Australian city of Cairns.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/03/business/jetstar-787-serious-engine-trouble-landing-kansai-international-airport/

cnocbui

billy few mates wrote: »

Depending on the position of the horizontal stabiliser when they operated the stab trim cutout switches it may be that the elevators did not have the authority to overcome the stab trim?
For example if there was already full nose down stab trim when you switch off the motors the elevators by themselves would not be able to overcome the nose down pitch hence the attempt to manually trim the stab to try and get the nose back up.
Absolutely tragic.

Please tell me the trim tab isn't actuated by a long threaded shaft attached to a motor with a 'nut' on the shaft attached to the tab?

Cutting power would just lock something like that it in the wrong position. You would need something like an explosive bolt to decouple such a mechanism in an emergency.

Irish Steve

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

This is something that happens probably a thousand times a day.

No, this is very much NOT a regular or even irregular occurrence, and is being regarded as a serious incident. The aircraft is currently grounded and being inspected, they will be looking very closely at a number of data recorder captures to see what went on, and why, as this is very much not an expected or routine event.

Coil Kilcrea

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't believe you, frankly.



https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/03/business/jetstar-787-serious-engine-trouble-landing-kansai-international-airport/

I flew on the 787 last week and will do the same next week to Japan. Much and all as I love the airplane, these issues nag at me. Anyone here know why this problem with the Trent engines seems to be never ending? And I appreciate it’s rare enough but it’s still troubling. Thanks.

Jeff2

cnocbui wrote: »

Please tell me the trim tab isn't actuated by a long threaded shaft attached to a motor with a 'nut' on the shaft attached to the tab?

Cutting power would just lock something like that it in the wrong position. You would need something like an explosive bolt to decouple such a mechanism in an emergency.

I believe it is but there is a way the pilot can manually control it after switching it off.

I'll look for where I got that from.

Found it.
4.30 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xixM_cwSLcQ

plodder

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

I flew on the 787 last week and will do the same next week to Japan. Much and all as I love the airplane, these issues nag at me. Anyone here know why this problem with the Trent engines seems to be never ending? And I appreciate it’s rare enough but it’s still troubling. Thanks.

787 uses GE engines not the Trent which is Rolls Royce.

Coil Kilcrea

plodder wrote: »

787 uses GE engines not the Trent which is Rolls Royce.

I think it’s the Rolls Royce Trent but sorry for posting on the 737 Max thread which might be causing confusion.

plodder

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

I think it’s the Rolls Royce Trent but sorry for posting on the 737 Max thread which might be causing confusion.

Actually, the 787 supports both, but the Jetstars mentioned in the article used the GE engine afaik.

Coil Kilcrea

JP Morgan reporting today that the cost to Boeing of the disruption caused by the Max grounding will likely cost between 1.7 to 2 Billion dollars a month. Build of the Max is continuing at an increased rate of 56 per month. That’s an an awful lot of working capital wrapped up in an aircraft that may have to be parked for a while.

Airlines typically pay a deposit with the order and then stage payments through build and final delivery. And while Boeing is a cash generating machine when all is well, it burns enormous cash when deliveries are disrupted. So while they’ve deep pockets, the pressure commercially to get back in the air conflicts with the necessity to ensure the plane is safe for flight.

I don’t see this happening as fast as the company would like.