Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Brennus335 · 25-03-2019 11:41AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

“Any designs we created could not drive any new training that required a simulator,” Mr. Ludtke said. “That was a first.”
When upgrading the cockpit with a digital display, he said, his team wanted to redesign the layout of information to give pilots more data that were easier to read. But that might have required new pilot training.
So instead, they simply recreated the decades-old gauges on the screen. “We just went from an analog presentation to a digital presentation,” Mr. Ludtke said. “There was so much opportunity to make big jumps, but the training differences held us back.”

Boeing said in a statement that the 2011 decision to build the Max had beaten out other options, including developing a new airplane.
“The decision had to offer the best value to customers, including operating economics as well as timing, which was clearly a strong factor,” the company said. “Safety is our highest priority as we design, build and support our airplanes.”

The bit about re-creating the analogue gauges on a digital display would be hilarious if 2 planes hadn't crashed.

That's not quite accurate.

The 737 NG has an option to recreate the old 737 classic analogue layout on the PFD, ND, and EICAS screens. I think only Southwest used that option as they wanted commonality across their - 200/-300/-500/-700/-800 fleet. However they now only use the standard NG EFIS layout.

The MAX only comes with the new EFIS displays based on the 787 PFD.

Southwest had a few other unusual quirks too.
To maintain commonality between flying the 737 Jurassic and the Classic, they didn't use Autobrake. (-200 didn't have it, - 300/500 did).
This came out as an issue after the Midway overrun accident.

Also, and I stand to be corrected, they didn't use VNAV or Autothrottle on the Classics for the same reason.

cnocbui · 25-03-2019 08:23PM

Looks like there are widespread concerns about the FAA.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is setting up a committee to review how the Federal Aviation Administration approves new aircraft as scrutiny mounts on popular Boeing planes that were involved in two fatal crashes in less than five months, it said on Monday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/dot-forms-special-committee-to-review-faas-aircraft-approval-process.html

L1011 · 25-03-2019 08:54PM

Southwest is moving their MAXs to Victorville for cheaper parking. If the fix was expected to be certified imminently, they'd continue paying the higher fees at the other airports rather than the fuel + organisation costs of the ferry flights (which are all being done by instructors, it seems).

I'd imagine they have a fairly good idea direct from Boeing due to their scale and importance as a customer.

Widdensushi · 25-03-2019 09:35PM

L1011 wrote: »

Southwest is moving their MAXs to Victorville for cheaper parking. If the fix was expected to be certified imminently, they'd continue paying the higher fees at the other airports rather than the fuel + organisation costs of the ferry flights (which are all being done by instructors, it seems).

I'd imagine they have a fairly good idea direct from Boeing due to their scale and importance as a customer.

It might be more efficient to do any alterations/fixes with all the planes at one location

Tenger · 25-03-2019 10:33PM

Widdensushi wrote: »

It might be more efficient to do any alterations/fixes with all the planes at one location

So then keep them at Love Field.

billy few mates · 26-03-2019 08:16AM

L1011 wrote: »

Southwest is moving their MAXs to Victorville for cheaper parking. If the fix was expected to be certified imminently, they'd continue paying the higher fees at the other airports rather than the fuel + organisation costs of the ferry flights (which are all being done by instructors, it seems).

I'd imagine they have a fairly good idea direct from Boeing due to their scale and importance as a customer.

I would imagine the parking fees would be the least of their concerns, they'll be invoicing Boeing for the costs of this debacle. It might be more to do with the workload while they're parked rather than the fix.
You can't just park up aircraft and start flying them again whenever you like, they have to be stored in an approved and fully documented storage program. Even when they're not flying there are a large number of maintenance tasks that have to be done on a regular basis, depending on the storage program (which depends on the length of time you intend to store them) the engines have to have an inhibiting fluid flushed through them, pitot static systems have to be regularly flushed, the aircraft themselves have to be moved slightly every seven days (to prevent flat spots on the tyres) and a whole heap of other tasks all of which have to be recorded and certified.
Victorville is a huge storage facility in the high desert of California, there are several companies there who can look after the aircraft properly while they're in storage, it can often be quite difficult to store them properly in normal busy airports.

NH2013 · 26-03-2019 09:37AM

L1011 wrote: »

Southwest is moving their MAXs to Victorville for cheaper parking. If the fix was expected to be certified imminently, they'd continue paying the higher fees at the other airports rather than the fuel + organisation costs of the ferry flights (which are all being done by instructors, it seems).

I'd imagine they have a fairly good idea direct from Boeing due to their scale and importance as a customer.

Says a lot that they only trust their senior Instructor Pilots to fly the aircraft at the moment without the fix installed.

Bob24 · 26-03-2019 09:41AM

L1011 wrote: »

Southwest is moving their MAXs to Victorville for cheaper parking. If the fix was expected to be certified imminently, they'd continue paying the higher fees at the other airports rather than the fuel + organisation costs of the ferry flights (which are all being done by instructors, it seems).

I'd imagine they have a fairly good idea direct from Boeing due to their scale and importance as a customer.

Maybe a stupid question, but that means the planes are not actually grounded as such, but rather not allowed to carry passengers?

L1011 · 26-03-2019 09:55AM

Bob24 wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question, but that means the planes are not actually grounded as such, but rather not allowed to carry passengers?

Yes, test and ferry flights are allowed but commercial service is not

Tenger · 26-03-2019 11:19AM

Bob24 wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question, but that means the planes are not actually grounded as such, but rather not allowed to carry passengers?

The regulations for passenger flights are a lot stricter then empty ferry or test flights.

Many years ago I actually flew back from Heathrow on a B737 that had a pressurisation issue. The flight was cancelled and the passengers put on other, later flights. While we headed home to base with a height restriction of 10,000 ft.

basill · 26-03-2019 02:38PM

Says a lot that they only trust their senior Instructor Pilots to fly the aircraft at the moment without the fix installed.

Its not unusual to have trainers undertake these types of flights. Many airlines will have it as part of the SOPs that ferry flights are undertaken by trainers. Rest assured that Southwest will have trained up a core group for this work involving sim details and how to deal with a runaway MCAS and they will be well briefed in case it starts pitching forward uncommanded. It could well be that the MCAS is deactivated if at all possible before the flights are conducted to further mitigate any risk. As an aside the flights whilst costly for someone won't go to waste from a training point of view as no doubt Southwest will use them to sign off trainers and conduct check rides etc so get some benefit from them for their normal training and checking requirements.

vintagecosmos · 26-03-2019 02:41PM

L1011 wrote: »

Yes, test and ferry flights are allowed but commercial service is not

Didnt Easy Jet do a stroke on that a few years ago. They didnt have a licence to operate a new route to Switzerland but had already taken bookings. So they refunded passengers but asked them for a donation on board to cover the fuel....

Bob24 · 26-03-2019 02:47PM

basill wrote: »

Its not unusual to have trainers undertake these types of flights. Many airlines will have it as part of the SOPs that ferry flights are undertaken by trainers. Rest assured that Southwest will have trained up a core group for this work involving sim details and how to deal with a runaway MCAS and they will be well briefed in case it starts pitching forward uncommanded. It could well be that the MCAS is deactivated if at all possible before the flights are conducted to further mitigate any risk.

Plus even ignoring the technicalities, in the current political/media context related to the aircraft I’d say any airline flying it (even without passengers) has to be able to back their decision with the fact that only people described as “expert” pilots are put in command. Without it media and social media could quickly turn the situation into a PR issue.

GM228 · 26-03-2019 03:35PM

L1011 wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question, but that means the planes are not actually grounded as such, but rather not allowed to carry passengers?

Yes, test and ferry flights are allowed but commercial service is not

That may be so in the US under the AD issued by the FAA, however in Europe under the AD issued by the EASA non commercial ferry flights are not permitted with the exception of one non commercial ferry flight to a location where the expected corrective action can be accomplished subject to three flight cycles, in other words you can't do a ferry flight just for cheaper/better storage options.

ZiabR · 26-03-2019 05:40PM

The real question here is...

Given that alot of customer faith has been lost with Boeing and that questions are now being asked of the FAA certification processes, if and when this "new" software patch is installed on all 737 MAX aircraft, would you be happy to fly?

I think that the MAX aircraft is irreversibly damaged.

Personally, I wouldnt feel comfortable flying on one even with the software patch installed because I have lost trust in Boeing and the FAA.

Thoughts?

Stark · 26-03-2019 05:45PM

Considering the software is there in the first place to compensate for an engineering design fault (engines being too high and too far forward), I don't think I'd be comfortable flying on one.

cnocbui · 26-03-2019 07:14PM

ZiabR wrote: »

The real question here is...

Given that alot of customer faith has been lost with Boeing and that questions are now being asked of the FAA certification processes, if and when this "new" software patch is installed on all 737 MAX aircraft, would you be happy to fly?

I think that the MAX aircraft is irreversibly damaged.

Personally, I wouldnt feel comfortable flying on one even with the software patch installed because I have lost trust in Boeing and the FAA.

Thoughts?

If the pilots are happy to fly them, I am happy to fly on them.

billy few mates · 26-03-2019 07:43PM

Tenger wrote: »

The regulations for passenger flights are a lot stricter then empty ferry or test flights.

Many years ago I actually flew back from Heathrow on a B737 that had a pressurisation issue. The flight was cancelled and the passengers put on other, later flights. While we headed home to base with a height restriction of 10,000 ft.

That's not exactly the same thing, the MEL allows you to fly unpressurised so any crew could do this automatically.

These aircraft would currently have their CofA suspended so would have to be flown under Permit to fly (EASA also allows for this). Its quite common that these would only be flown by the most senior crews like the fleet manager, the senior training captain etc as would be done for three engine ferrys, or any maintenance ferry flight.
Permits to fly are commonly used for aircraft with expired CofAs or overdue maintenance for example to position an aircraft that's been in storage to a place where it can have the maintenance done to return it to service.

Nijmegen · 26-03-2019 08:25PM

ZiabR wrote: »

Personally, I wouldnt feel comfortable flying on one even with the software patch installed because I have lost trust in Boeing and the FAA.

Thoughts?

It’s not dissimilar to the hardover issue with a previous generation of 737. If they find and fix it and she continues in service without major further incident I’d get back on one, but yeah I’d wait a while.

smurfjed · 26-03-2019 08:31PM

Remember that these 2 sets of flight crew had no idea that the system even existed so how to you fight something that you don't know about. At least now, all flight crew will know that the system exists and how to over-ride it.

Did the AF330 crash stop you from flying on that aircraft type?

odyssey06 · 26-03-2019 08:40PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

It’s not dissimilar to the hardover issue with a previous generation of 737. If they find and fix it and she continues in service without major further incident I’d get back on one, but yeah I’d wait a while.

That's a big IF though. The development and certification process for this 737 generation does not inspire confidence. They would have to be extremely lucky if the only consequence of the shortcuts \ corners they cut is this one issue.

Tenzor07 · 27-03-2019 12:41AM

L1011 wrote: »

Southwest is moving their MAXs to Victorville

Oh dear!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-03-26/southwest-737-max-makes-emergency-landing-after-engine-trouble-jtq9ynrd

Conas · 27-03-2019 01:03AM

A Boeing 737 Max, has had to make an emergency landing in the states today. Only the pilots were on board. An Engine problem it seems.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/us/boeing-737-max-emergency-landing/index.html

mickdw · 27-03-2019 01:15AM

Boeing cannot get any sort of a break it seems.
Engine issue reported but its yet another heap of pressure onto boeing.

Tenger · 27-03-2019 02:13AM

billy few mates wrote: »

That's not exactly the same thing, the MEL allows you to fly unpressurised so any crew could do this automatically.

Can’t believe you just shattered my 18 year memory of my ‘adventure’ at FL10!!
Cockpit door open all the way, me wishing I had my camera with me while looking out........

murphaph · 27-03-2019 06:50AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's a big IF though. The development and certification process for this 737 generation does not inspire confidence. They would have to be extremely lucky if the only consequence of the shortcuts \ corners they cut is this one issue.

Exactly this. The entire certification process is suspect. I definitely would not get on one if they quickly patch the software and that's it. I would certainly wait a few years anyway.

Bob24 · 27-03-2019 09:56AM

Conas wrote: »

A Boeing 737 Max, has had to make an emergency landing in the states today. Only the pilots were on board. An Engine problem it seems.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/us/boeing-737-max-emergency-landing/index.html

Regardless of the root cause of the issue and how severe it is, at this stage I think it is madness for any airline to fly a 737 Max, even without passengers.

Any incident - serious or not - means instant and widespread bad PR.

And IMO it’s also in Boeing’s interest to recommend not to fly then under any circumstances for now besides test flights supervised by the manufacturer, as they also get badly affected by any potential incident.

smurfjed · 27-03-2019 12:16PM

Once again, they now know what caused the crashes, a crew who fly the aircraft today will have briefed and prepared for issue, which btw may be avoided by turning on the autopilot at 500 feet.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-03-2019 01:14PM

There's nothing inherently unsafe about this aircraft if flown by properly-trained personnel. No problem with repositioning flights like that.

Tenzor07 · 27-03-2019 01:15PM

Confidence in Boeing Aircraft expressed by airlines:

https://www.ethiopianairlines.com/corporate/media/media-relations/press-release/detail/1106

Qatar also:

https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/25/qatar-airways-ceo-has-confidence-in-boeing-airplanes-after-max-crash

Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Comments