Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

L1011

I'm still expecting the unusable at speed (except for bodybuilders) manual trim wheel to come back around as a potential grounding issue for the NG.

GM228

STB. wrote: »

I thought I saw reference somewhere to the Max name being dropped on Ryanair planes. It was replaced with a four digit number. The photo was on some airplane anorak site.

737-8200 now.

https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1150513859096002560?s=19

lfc200

Are we likely to see continuous stories appear in the media about Boeing at this stage? If the run on them continues will they be able to survive in their current format?

FishOnABike

lfc200 wrote: »

Are we likely to see continuous stories appear in the media about Boeing at this stage? If the run on them continues will they be able to survive in their current format?

They're suffering some serious reputational damage.



Even more significant is whether Boeing have backed themselves into a corner by betting their future on grandfathering a 50 year old design by incremental change after incremental change and have pushed it beyond its limits in an effort to keep up with Airbus rather than develop a new air frame from scratch.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414164

banie01

GM228 wrote: »

737-8200 now.

https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1150513859096002560?s=19

If memory serves a couple of contributors to this thread flagged the renaming of the MAX, to a -8/9 series moniker a few months ago.

The "MAX" branding is tainted, but IMO Boeing are so mired in scandal and oversight failings at the moment, that I think at this point any "new" build Boeing airframe is tainted.

I note that Airbus are expecting an additional 60+ a350 airframes completed per month from 2021 in their Chinese facilities in addition to increased a320 rates.
https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresnevicius/24158-airbus-china-mou

The strength of Boeing's share price is appearing more and more mysterious the longer the MAX and the other concurrent civil and military issues drag on.

Bob24

banie01 wrote: »

If memory serves a couple of contributors to this thread flagged the renaming of the MAX, to a -8/9 series moniker a few months ago.

Correct, this isn’t new.

Irish Steve

In the light of the ongoing and increasingly important NG Pickle fork issues, I have split the recent posts on that subject out into a separate thread, which contains most of the relevant discussion relating to the NG.

Please keep this thread going forward on the subject of the MAX MCAS issues, and use the NG thread for discussion that relate to that family of 737's

Inquitus

Canadian Safety Board member moots getting rid of MCAS all together and certifying it on the basis of its non MCAS flight amended flight characteristics. On the basis of this email it seems the 737-Max is still a long long way off a return to service.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/canadian-air-safety-official-urges-removal-of-key-software-from-boeing-737-max/

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/transport-canada-safety-official-urges-removal-of-mcas-from-737-max/

banie01

Inquitus wrote: »

Canadian Safety Board member moots getting rid of MCAS all together and certifying it on the basis of its non MCAS flight amended flight characteristics. On the basis of this email it seems the 737-Max is still a long long way off a return to service.

Please forgive me, and correct me if I'm wrong.

But, without MCAS won't the MAX require a completely new flight test programme and certification?
Grandfathering is out the window and it must be treated as an entirely new and separate airframe to legacy and NG 737s?

cnocbui

It will still have MCAS, just a new flavour that doesn't kill people.

Inquitus

cnocbui wrote: »

It will still have MCAS, just a new flavour that doesn't kill people.

The Canadian Regulator is suggesting they remove MCAS in this case and certify it with the known nose up issue caused by the moment of thrust, rather than continuing to patch MCAS with many unknowns as to how it will perform in the field.

As mentioned above this would require it to be certified outside of the 737 Grandfathering program which would cause Boeing a lot of pain, but tbh may be the safest way to go about things, train pilots for it, don't have a nefarious software patch to try and make it behave like the NG in the background, especially now they are trying to speed it back to flight status without the changes being properly vetted globally.

Irish Steve

cnocbui wrote: »

It will still have MCAS, just a new flavour that doesn't kill people.

If the Canadian comments are taken seriously, as far as they are concerned, the MAX won't have MCAS, or even a variant of it, under a new name, as they seem (rightly) determined to take a stand on this issue, and my gut instinct is that the FAA will be reluctant to let it back in the air unless all the major regulators are in agreement.

As to how the FAA will achieve that, your guess is as good as mine, as we know from what's eventually coming out of the woodwork, the MCAS issue is only one of number of issues that are causing concerns, and some of them (pitch trim in particular) are going to require some significant changes to systems that are common to the NG, and also affect the NG, so it won't be a quick or easy fix.

I fear there's some mileage in this issue yet, and nobody will be prepared to sign off on it unless they are very sure that it won't return to haunt them in the future.

john boye

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-10-employees/

Meanwhile Boeing rolled out this Frankenstein in low-key fashion yesterday. First thing I thought of is the amount of tail strikes it'll suffer but apparently it has a telescopic MLG which extends on take-off to prevent them.

cnocbui

I'd be surprised if a single Canadian officials email is going to be allowed to determine the course of events.

I would imagine that pulling MCAS entirely, at this point, would mean the 737 max would be lucky to be back in the air even next year.

While I have not the slightest sympathy for Boeing whatsoever, I think the fix has to be seen in detail, tested and evaluated first, rather than prejudging it and declaring it unacceptable.

Blut2

My gut feeling is they're going to spend another 3-6 months trying to make MCAS work but fail. Ultimately they'll remove MCAS as a last option, airlines will be extremely unhappy with pilots needing new certification, but it'll at least get the planes back in the air.

Every month that passes with more planes being manufactured to sit on the ground, and with more flights cancelled by airlines that they'll expect compensation for, just racks up more costs for Boeing. They can't continue this indefinitely.

Wonder what odds Paddypower would offer on it...

CJhaughey

john boye wrote: »

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-10-employees/

Meanwhile Boeing rolled out this Frankenstein in low-key fashion yesterday. First thing I thought of is the amount of tail strikes it'll suffer but apparently it has a telescopic MLG which extends on take-off to prevent them.

Slick video by Boeing on how this works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4

josip

CJhaughey wrote: »

Slick video by Boeing on how this works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IGl4OizM4

1:12 - "From a pilot's perspective there is absolutely no difference.."


I'm surprised they put such emphasis on this aspect in the promotional video.
Unless it was made prior to the MCAS debacle.

banie01

Blut2 wrote: »

My. Ultimately they'll remove MCAS as a last option, airlines will be extremely unhappy with pilots needing new certification, but it'll at least get the planes back in the air.
it...

No MCAS, means no airframe certification, its not just a pilot training issue.
MCAS is the plaster Boeing put on a 50yr old airframe design to make it compatible with current engine tech in a manner that doesn't require constant hands on reactive piloting.

.
No MCAS, no MAX.

The airframe isn't certifiable without an additional electronic control system.
MCAS will be renamed, rather than dropped but it's current iteration is patently unfit for purpose and the longer the airframe is grounded, it seems the more issues that are being flagged.

Irish Steve

And as if the present problems with the MAX were not enough to be worrying about, the Max 10 is even longer, with more seats, and to avoid even more tail strike issues, Boeing have come up with this Frankenstein landing gear solution that will cause the aircraft to rise up to a higher level above ground in order to provide more tail clearance during rotation, and presumably also during landing.

Having watched the Boeing video of how it will (supposedly) work, my own slightly cynical view of this latest "upgrade" is that I wonder how long it will last when exposed to the "standard" Ryanair landing technique.

Seems to me that all Boeing have done is to make the 737 capable of doing the same job that was done very well by the no longer available 757, but in the process, adding yet more complicated bodges rather than bite the bullet of doing what should have been done a long time ago, come up with a proper design rather than try and retain the grandfather certification of the 737.

Given the woes they are having with MCAS and other related issues, I find it slightly less than credible that they are looking to make even more changes to overcome the underlying shortcomings that are inherent in the 737 airframe. I hope the regulators will be looking very closely at this latest incarnation, I see way too many potential issues with this to make it a viable option, and to say that it will not change things for the pilot is ignoring so many potential issues that cannot be ignored if safety really is their primary concern.

john boye

Irish Steve wrote: »

Given the woes they are having with MCAS and other related issues, I find it slightly less than credible that they are looking to make even more changes to overcome the underlying shortcomings that are inherent in the 737 airframe. I hope the regulators will be looking very closely at this latest incarnation, I see way too many potential issues with this to make it a viable option, and to say that it will not change things for the pilot is ignoring so many potential issues that cannot be ignored if safety really is their primary concern.

This exactly. I wouldn't expect a smooth EIS for the Max 10.

AlekSmart

Irish Steve wrote: »

And as if the present problems with the MAX were not enough to be worrying about, the Max 10 is even longer, with more seats, and to avoid even more tail strike issues, Boeing have come up with this Frankenstein landing gear solution that will cause the aircraft to rise up to a higher level above ground in order to provide more tail clearance during rotation, and presumably also during landing.

Having watched the Boeing video of how it will (supposedly) work, my own slightly cynical view of this latest "upgrade" is that I wonder how long it will last when exposed to the "standard" Ryanair landing technique.

SNIP/

Correct me if I'm wrong here,but is the landing configuration for the B 738 not TOTALLY down to Boeings instructions on how to fly the plane ?

Irish Steve

The landing configuration is indeed down to the Boeing instructions. The landing technique is very much down to the skills of the individual pilot, but that can be affected by the specific airline operating procedures. The longer 737's are a challenge to making a smooth landing, due to the length, it is very much a case that in trying to make the touchdown less of a filling rattling event, the aircraft can be over rotated, resulting in a tail strike. One way to avoid this is that at a predetermined height above the runway, a specific pitch angle is set, the throttles are closed, and that pitch angle is then held until the aircraft arrives on the ground, the downside of that being that some arrivals end up as a somewhat more positive event, resulting in a sharp release of breath from anyone that's not a regular passenger on the type.

Looking at the additional complexity of the Max 10 landing gear, I find myself wondering if it will be as robust as is needed in the longer term, which may lead to problems from an operational and maintenance aspect.

GM228

I know Boeing say it's a new landing gear design, but is it not just a modified variant of the semi levered type on the 777-300ER and 787-10.

zilog_jones

Irish Steve wrote: »

Seems to me that all Boeing have done is to make the 737 capable of doing the same job that was done very well by the no longer available 757, but in the process, adding yet more complicated bodges rather than bite the bullet of doing what should have been done a long time ago, come up with a proper design rather than try and retain the grandfather certification of the 737.

I wonder why they didn't just go for designing a new 757? Or would that have the same clearance issues with modern engines?

L1011

zilog_jones wrote: »

I wonder why they didn't just go for designing a new 757? Or would that have the same clearance issues with modern engines?

They don't have the tooling to build 757s anymore so that would have been somewhere approaching the cost of a cleansheet design, without all the benefits.

Irish Steve

If I've read it right, and there are as many theories as there are proponents, one of the issue with the 757 is that it needs additional ground support equipment because of the height, the 737 can be loaded and unloaded without the same level of equipment, so a quicker and easier turn round. From memory, the 757, especially the 300 was much more demanding in terms of number of ground crew to load and unload, due to the size and length of the holds.

There would be no height issues with the newer engines, there's plenty of clearance with the existing ones, and the newer engines are not significantly larger than the present equipment. Another issue for the 757 is that it never had inbuilt airstairs, so that would mean either using air bridges (which Ryanair among others hate), or using extra sets of steps, which makes the time to load and unload longer.

Hotblack Desiato

Don't have a figure to hand for a MAX 10, but a MAX 8 weighs 45t empty, a 757-200 carries about the same number of passengers as a MAX 10 but weighs 58 tonnes empty. That's a big increase in fuel burn.

corsav6

Program on 4 seven now about the Max, not sure if it's aired before now.

L1011

Everything on 4Seven is a repeat - but the original airing was an awful time I think. Watching myself.

corsav6

I'm watching now, it's muck.