Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Irish Steve

California Dreamer wrote: »

Would you say the same about the Airbus A330? One went into the Atlantic!

Would you say the same about other models of the 737? Remember British Midland?

Wouk did you say the same about the 777? Malaysian Airlines didn’t have much luck with 2 of theirs or British Airways that dinged the runway at Heathrow.

Speaking of Heathrow, would you say the same about the 787? Ethiopian had a smidge of a fire!

But yeh you should avoid the 737 Max!

The 330 that went into the Atlantic was servicable, the problem there was a very definite lack of appropriate crew training in how to deal with a known and documented event.

The Midland at Kegworth had a fully recoverable engine fault, but due to a combination of appalling crew resource management, and a lack of experience on a new version of the aircraft, the crew shut the wrong engine down.

The first Malaysian was lost in unexplained circumstances, but it's pretty clear that the airframe was not the problem. The second Malaysian was definitely not the airframe before it was fatally damaged by external military forces.

The BA at Heathrow was a swiss cheese scenario that was an unanticipated sequence of events that shut both engines down due to ice accretion in a filtration screen. It took a good while to work out what caused the accident, and it won't happen again.

The MAX issue was as a direct result of a lot of corners cut and regulatory failures that resulted in an almost hidden system that was effectively almost undocumented, was not covered adequately in type conversion training, and as installed, had the ability to make it impossible for the crew to recover control if actuated as a result of a single point failure, and it should NEVER have got through certification. That's a short version of the overall picture, but it makes the point clearly enough.

Boeing have had to make significant changes to the software, the airframe and the documentation and training of pilots, and Boeing are watching real time reports of every flight of the MAX fleet for an undetermined period of time.

EASA have not yet confirmed that they are happy to let them fly again, and it is altogether possible that they may require different or additional changes over and above the changes required by FAA, which they are fully entitled to do, and if that happens, it could further delay the return to service.

What happened with the MAX represents a very low point for both Boeing and the FAA, and it will be a very long time before trust in either organisation is fully restored.

The MAX should now be safe. The changes that have been made have taken a lot longer than was originally anticipated by anyone, which suggests that they found a lot more that needed looking at than was first thought.

We can only hope that they have now got it right, that said, given the number of people that are already watching, and will continue to be watching the evolution of the reborn MAX, nothing of significance will slip through the net for a considerable period of time, so in as much as any aircraft can be deemed safe, the MAX should now also be safe.

Graham

Fritzbox wrote: »

I see.

the Grauniad being a little bit misleading.

So not only will the MAX be somewhat cheaper, the delivery time should also be much reduced - Ryanair is expected to take delivery in the spring?

Not unique to any particular publication, most aircraft deals generally refer to value at list price.

The open secret is very few (if any) pay list price.

Noxegon

I'd be happy to board a MAX now – it's probably the most scrutinised aircraft in the history of aviation.

I'd also suggest that any further hull loss for the type shown to be a design flaw could be the end of Boeing. That's a fairly strong incentive to get things right.

Hotblack Desiato

California Dreamer wrote: »

Would you say the same about the Airbus A330? One went into the Atlantic!

Crew error.

Would you say the same about other models of the 737? Remember British Midland?

Crew error.

Wouk did you say the same about the 777? Malaysian Airlines didn’t have much luck with 2 of theirs

One shot down by a missile and the other deliberately flown into the ocean.

or British Airways that dinged the runway at Heathrow.

Getting warmer here, but the fuel/oil heat exchanger was redesigned to definitively resolve the issue.

Speaking of Heathrow, would you say the same about the 787? Ethiopian had a smidge of a fire!

Yes another "fine" Boeing product rushed into service despite obvious flaws to keep the accountants happy... Cost them a fortune to rectify but the lesson wasn't learned.

Hotblack Desiato

Irish Steve wrote: »

EASA have not yet confirmed that they are happy to let them fly again, and it is altogether possible that they may require different or additional changes over and above the changes required by FAA, which they are fully entitled to do, and if that happens, it could further delay the return to service.

Well on a quick layman's perusal it amounts to different coloured switch knobs and some differences in the updated flight manuals compared to the FAA's changes. The updated software version will be the same. I strongly suspect this severely curtails the ability of MCAS to repeatedly force nose-down trim.

EASA are a few weeks behind the FAA in the process but it seems inevitable that the MAX will be flying in European airspace before long.

Car99

California Dreamer wrote: »

You could say that about any airline or aircraft maker, or any company for that matter. Profits come first every time! Fact of life but I love your faux outrage!:)

Every airline puts profits before safety ?

JimmyCorkhill

How many flights in total had the Boeing 737 Max planes flown? I dont mean the two planes who crashed but all Boeing 737 Max that were in operation. Or is it not possible to find that out?

The two planes that crashed was it ultimately due to pilot error due to being not adequately trained for this model? Or was it not possible to control the plane no matter what the pilot did when the plane kicked into some automation flight control?

I am a seriously nervous flyer and use Ryanair mainly when I do have to fly. The fact they are going with the Boeing 737 Max doesnt help my nervousness 😀

L1011

There was no element of pilot error at all, that was US based media trying to cover for a serious design flaw.

reforger

AA flew the Max with journalists on board a few days ago; its return to commercial service will be on 29 December.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/first-boeing-737-max-flight-since-groundings?utm_source=instagram.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=travelandleisure_travelandleisure&utm_content=igstory_topstories&utm_term=2020120411

Damien360

As it appears that the Max will fly, how did they sort out pilot certification? Is it still considered close enough to 737 to only require small additional certification or is it a new platform (the very thing they were trying to avoid) ?

Tenzor07

Damien360 wrote: »

As it appears that the Max will fly, how did they sort out pilot certification? Is it still considered close enough to 737 to only require small additional certification or is it a new platform (the very thing they were trying to avoid) ?

Watch a training video on your Ipad probably!

Tenzor07

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

I am a seriously nervous flyer and use Ryanair mainly when I do have to fly. The fact they are going with the Boeing 737 Max doesnt help my nervousness ��

You'll be fine, the Max is the most heavily scrutinised aircraft in history...

Prior to the groundings, Norwegian Air were running a daily Max flight to the U.S from Dublin and Shannon without an issue, the aircraft flew perfectly every time..

FishOnABike

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You'll be fine, the Max is the most heavily scrutinised aircraft in history...

Prior to the groundings, Norwegian Air were running a daily Max flight to the U.S from Dublin and Shannon without an issue, the aircraft flew perfectly every time..

That didn't make it any safer than the two that crashed. The failure mode that caused the crashes just wasn't triggered on those flights.

Tenzor07

FishOnABike wrote: »

That didn't make it any safer than the two that crashed. The failure mode that caused the crashes just wasn't triggered on those flights.

I was addressing the OP's fear about flying on the Max and stating that the Aircraft is safe, particularly now with all the updates Boeing have made to the 737, I for one can't wait to travel on a Ryanair Max...

FishOnABike

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I was addressing the OP's fear about flying on the Max and stating that the Aircraft is safe, particularly now with all the updates Boeing have made to the 737, I for one can't wait to travel on a Ryanair Max...

. Agreed. The causes for the crashes will have been thoroughly examined by multiple air safety organisations and the fixes to the angle of attack sensors + MCAS and for other potential issues found (e.g. wiring routing) will have been thoroughly checked and the design and implementation thoroughly verified, again by multiple air safety regulatory organisations before the max is back in service.

Locker10a

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I for one can't wait to travel on a Ryanair Max...

Guessing you’re not very tall.... lol, or very unconcerned about leg room then :P :rolleyes:

Tenzor07

Locker10a wrote: »

Guessing you’re not very tall.... lol, or very unconcerned about leg room then :P :rolleyes:

Meh, for a €10 flight to Santorini or some other destination I'm sure most people will be just fine with the new seats...

ForestFire

Well, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

I can understand with the amount of pressure and money involved to get this plane back in the skies, that something is going to give, either deliberately or even to a degree that subconsciously this could happen...(We ignore the COVID impact for the moment).

How many planes currently sit on the ground unused and how many orders are in the pipeline? What the value of this?

Even if this plane remains relatively safe in the air from this point, I think there is always going to be questions over the whole process of the original, and new certification.

How is the European certification going?
Are they relying on the FFA's (Boeings) certification?

Turbulent Bill

ForestFire wrote: »

Well, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

I can understand with the amount of pressure and money involved to get this plane back in the skies, that something is going to give, either deliberately or even to a degree that subconsciously this could happen...(We ignore the COVID impact for the moment).

How many planes currently sit on the ground unused and how many orders are in the pipeline? What the value of this?

Even if this plane remains relatively safe in the air from this point, I think there is always going to be questions over the whole process of the original, and new certification.

How is the European certification going?
Are they relying on the FFA's (Boeings) certification?

It's bonkers that the FAA permitted Boeing to take part in the recertification test sessions, especially given the MAX's history with self-certification.

I work in a different regulated industry, but the normal human factors practice is for the manufacturer to define the HF test protocol, have this approved by the regulator and then executed by an independent 3rd party (who has to stick rigidly to the protocol). It means that any unrealistic prompting won't get past protocol review. You can't expect a realistic test response if you prime the participants for exactly what will happen, and how to handle it.

banie01

ForestFire wrote: »

Well, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

Surely there is criminal sanction due if this is true.
Not at all surprised, but Christ on a bike it just illustrates how far Boeing have strayed from what them great.

This isn't innovative, safety 1st engineering...

Fritzbox

ForestFire wrote: »

Well, I can hardly say I'm surprised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

How is the European certification going?

They have cleared the Max to fly again in January - no Boeing coaching there, I should think.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-lays-out-its-proposed-conditions-return-service-boeing-737

Are they relying on the FFA's (Boeings) certification?

No.

The Canadian aviation authorities have also cleared the MAX to fly as well.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-boeing-737-max-1.5845096

Fritzbox

https://www.bbc.com/news/55366320

Executive Director Patrick Ky said his organisation had "left no stone unturned" in its review of the aircraft and its analysis of design changes made by the manufacturer...

...Since the Ethiopian crash, EASA has been carrying out a root-and-branch review of the 737 Max's design, independently from a similar process undertaken by the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The review, says Mr Ky, went well beyond the immediate causes of the two accidents and the modifications proposed by Boeing.

"We went further and reviewed all the flight controls, all the machinery of the aircraft", he explains...

The aim, he says, was to look at anything which could cause a critical failure.

Back in service in Europe by mid- January.

Hotblack Desiato

Fritzbox wrote: »

They have cleared the Max to fly again in January - no Boeing coaching there, I should think.

So if EASA are happy without any messing around, wouldn't the FAA have been too?

Seems to me that Boeing really haven't learned their lesson, despite everything.

SeeMoreBut

Is the Air Canada emergency max landing with engine issues something that could set things back?

banie01

SeeMoreBut wrote: »

Is the Air Canada emergency max landing with engine issues something that could set things back?

As much as I have issue with the MAX

I really shouldn't think so. It looks as if 1 engine had a hydraulic issue, it was shut down and emergency declared and landed on 1 engine.

It may be as simple as a mistake during its storage maintenance routine or a fault developing in a pump.
Unrelated to the FCS issues and unlikely to impact the return to service.

It will be the most scrutinised engine failure in years tho

Captain_Crash

Back in November the FAA made it clear to the media that this would happen!!

They said.... "It is inevitable that at some time in the future a #737MAX will turn back to its originating airport, divert, or land at its destination with an actual or suspected inflight problem"

Tenzor07

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Back in November the FAA made it clear to the media that this would happen!!
They said.... "It is inevitable that at some time in the future a #737MAX will turn back to its originating airport, divert, or land at its destination with an actual or suspected inflight problem"

Exactly, you have these machines built for one purpose: Flight... which have been on the ground for 2 years while being maintained by the owners of the various airlines so all maintenance issues lie with them...

“As part of normal operating procedures in such situations, decided to shut down one engine” and diverted to Tucson, Air Canada said. The flight was carrying three crew members and no passengers. The plane remains in Tucson.

Boeing declined to comment and referred questions to the airline.

Belgian aviation site Aviation24.be said the plane had a “hydraulic low pressure indication.” Air Canada didn’t immediately respond to further request for comment.

Nothing to do with the manufacturer...

Tenzor07

Looks like Boeing have reached a settlement in the U.S with the Max disasters:


https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0107/1188387-boeing-us-settlement/


$2.5 Billion fine..

Irish Steve

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Looks like Boeing have reached a settlement in the U.S with the Max disasters:


https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0107/1188387-boeing-us-settlement/


$2.5 Billion fine..

That's the fine from the US Government for the manner in which Boeing deceived regulators about the Max issues.

What's very much still in the melting pot will be the compensation due to all the airlines that took massive hits as a result of the grounding, and the delays in delivery, which is likely to be a prolonged battle, given that the full impact on the airlines is still an unknown quantity. Add to that things like the additional cost of training, and training procedure changes, it won't be a small bill.

Hotblack Desiato

The total cost to Boeing between one thing and another has to be mutiples of that $2.5 billion.