Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

trellheim wrote: »

Much as I am angry with lots of things re Aviation, I think if the NG was unsafe we would very quickly find out; scaremongering like you find on here is just putting it up people and scaring them. . If people have real worries take it to the IAA and ring them straight away.

Boeing workers had real worries and took them to the FFA and were fired, so your 'advice' is fantasy and not actually something that would realistically lead to anything. The only things that seem to really get the serious attention of officials is planes crashing with high death tolls.

plodder wrote: »

The NG has been flying for over 20 years, and there's around 7,000 of them in the air. If there was a serious problem with them, we'd know it by now.

I believe three have overshot runways and broken into three pieces with some commentators expressing surprise and an opinion they shouldn't have broken in pieces. There have been 15 hull loss incidents with the NG. Perhaps the solution to the fatigue and corrosion mentioned in the video has been to retire the hulls when inspections show it to have become a concern. But, yes, I certainly wouldn't have a problem flying on one as a passenger. I'm sure I already have, several times.

plodder wrote: »

The NG has been flying for over 20 years, and there's around 7,000 of them in the air. If there was a serious problem with them, we'd know it by now.

Aloha flight 243 took almost exactly 20 years from date of manufacture until it suffered a fatal explosive decompression and it was "over cycled" doing really short hops between islands. Normal short haul aircraft could be expected to take longer to develop the same fault. In short, I would respectfully suggest it's too soon to say if the NG suffers from a metal fatigue issue or not. I would have previously relied on Boeing to have done their best to ensure that at least during manufacture that nothing would be done to potentially weaken any of the structural components but talk of "drilling and hammering" parts onto the air frame does not exactly inspire confidence that this was in fact the case. We now know with relative certainty that at some point a culture of expediency over safety crept into Boeing. The question is, when did that happen and are other aircraft possibly affected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

mickdw wrote: »

To go off at a slight tangent, I generally expect an aircraft to break in most crash situations however to give Boeing credit where its due, the 777 seems to be incredible strong. Certainly the San Francisco crash to me was incredible in how it stayed together.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer when planes didn't fall out of the sky rather than commending them for not breaking up too bad when they do.

Shedite27 wrote: »

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer when planes didn't fall out of the sky rather than commending them for not breaking up too bad when they do.

Fair enough but as noted, there was nothing wrong with that aircraft and my comment was in relation to the discussion re possible defect in the 737ng. The supposed defects have not resulted in any falling out of the sky but there are claims being made that they are breaking up too easily in survivable crash landings.

Tenger wrote: »

MAX has ‘serrated’ rear on engine and has the split scimitar wingtips. Also a bulge under cockpit to for longer nose gear.
NG has only upward winglets.

Not to be a pedant, but split scimitar winglets are only found on NG’s. The MAX has a similar split winglet but it’s very different in appearance to a scimitar.

The MAX has also got a rounded a*se, whereas the NG has a “wedge” so to speak, a la the 777

Tenger wrote: »

MAX has ‘serrated’ rear on engine and has the split scimitar wingtips. Also a bulge under cockpit to for longer nose gear.
NG has only upward winglets.

Which is why I said "most people" . I'm not trying to disparage here, its an aviation forum and a lot of posters here will be able to tell. However most would not tell a 737-400 from a 737-800 from a max outside this , its an "airplane"

does this analysis stand up? also why twitter probably isnt the best place to make coherent arguments(open up to read the thread)

https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974

silverharp wrote: »

does this analysis stand up? also why twitter probably isnt the best place to make coherent arguments(open up to read the thread)

https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974

It's pretty sound alright. A software bug didn't crash the plane, the software that crashed the plane was the result of a whole series of design and commercial decisions and regulatory failures that came before it.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Most people after a few weeks will forget about this (if they haven't already) and will be more interested in their baggage allowance than the type they're flying on.

Assuming the issue is actually fixed and there is no more crash, yes people will forget and probably rightly so.

But memories will come back quickly if there is another spectacular accident and people will demand not to fly on this type of airplane.

Not wishing for another accident to be clear, but I guess what I am saying is that now the pressure is on Boeing and the FAA not only to fix the issue and make sure all safety standards required for certification are actually met, but also to make this plane even *safer* than usual standards. Because given the two similar accidents with no clear remedial actions in between and now the bad press about the design/certification of the plane, reputational damage would be very strong if something else was to happen after this - even if this particular issue is fixed and a subsequent accident was due to a different reason.

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Not to be a pedant, but split scimitar winglets are only found on NG’s. The MAX has a similar split winglet but it’s very different in appearance to a scimitar.

The MAX has also got a rounded a*se, whereas the NG has a “wedge” so to speak, a la the 777

I've seen split scimitar winglets on NGs, I wouldn't notice any difference between those and the winglets fitted to the Max unless I saw them side by side.

Deaf student wrote: »

It's scary. What's the real problem re 737 max?

This article explains the concerns and problems very simply.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

Boeing knew the problem before the 2nd crash. It isn't the software as Boeing kept saying ad nausem.

FAA delegated responsibilities to Boeing on certifying planes as if boeing certified all of their planes themselves. Lack of independence scrutiny and verfication as well.

A

fter the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, Boeing for the first time provided to airlines details about MCAS. Boeing’s bulletin to the airlines stated that the limit of MCAS’s command was 2.5 degrees.

That number was new to FAA engineers who had seen 0.6 degrees in the safety assessment.

“The FAA believed the airplane was designed to the 0.6 limit, and that’s what the foreign regulatory authorities thought, too,” said an FAA engineer. “It makes a difference in your assessment of the hazard involved.”

“None of the engineers were aware of a higher limit,”

Airlines who purchased 737 planes weren't notified as regards to MCAS and the hazard/risk as well. In other words Airlines were mislead as regards to the level of risk and hazardness.

System failed on a single sensor

That was unbelievable as you can't rely just simply on one sensor. That was the major flaw as regards to critical safety systems as a whole. It could give us unrealistic readings as you would need a second sensor or another backup.

737 Max pilots weren't notified about the existence of the MCAS until after 1st crash. Why weren't airlines who bought 737 planes notified of this?

This detail showed that Boeing had shown no respect for security and safety of these planes and also to all 737 purchasers as well.

If i were the CEO of an airline company as i would cancel all or any 737 orders that airlines has entered into a contract with Boeing.

Its a negilient homicide or at least a corporate manslaughter which we don't have a legalisation here in Ireland.