Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
Desert Rat
Posts: 1146
Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Desert Rat » 11 Jan 2020, 15:02

That starts to smell coco-loco business, A/C CG/ behaviour is out of realistic figures in some flight configutation.
And nothing can be done about it...
I'll not flying it, although I did twice in the past.
...good luck Boeing

Bracebrace
Posts: 200
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Bracebrace » 11 Jan 2020, 16:43

Even in official mails, people will use "bar-talk". Like pilots judging their management... not always realistic as they hardly ever (rather never) know the complete story as to why certain decisions were/are taken.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 13 Jan 2020, 22:23

Boeing is facing a bill of more than US$8 billion in compensation for airlines with B737 MAX exposure, with the bill rising by $1 billion every month, says aviation economist Chris Tarry.

The FAA proposes a US$5.4 million civil penalty against Boeing for allegedly installing nonconforming slat tracks on approximately 178 B737 MAX, which Boeing subsequently presented as ready for airworthiness certification.
André
ex Sabena #26567

simnam
Posts: 15
Joined: 22 Feb 2018, 10:12

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by simnam » 14 Jan 2020, 15:58

Just re-read EASA certification requirement for large aeroplane (CS-25) and found CS25.672 on stability augmentation system, which ecompass MCAS imho.

It basically says that in case of malfunction of such a system,
- there must be a clear warning to the pilot
- it must be possible to counteract the system without exceptionnal skills by acting directly on the flight controls or by switching off the system
- it must be designed so that in case of failure the aircraft remains controllable

It's a really short summary, read the requirement fully if you need details

Even if it is not directly a failure of the MCAS but a failure of the AoA sensor that led to intempesstive actionning of the MCAS, Airworthiness Authorities clearly can show Boeing their system is unsafe and must be deeply reviewed, and not just by "pimping it", which would explain the time needed by Boeing to have this problem fixed.

CS 25.672 Stability augmentation and
automatic and poweroperated systems


If the functioning of stability augmentation or
other automatic or power-operated systems is
necessary to show compliance with the flight
characteristics requirements of this CS-25,
such systems must comply with CS 25.671
and the following:
(a) A warning, which is clearly
distinguishable to the pilot under expected
flight conditions without requiring his attention,
must be provided for any failure in the stability
augmentation system or in any other
automatic or power-operated system, which
could result in an unsafe condition if the pilot
were not aware of the failure. Warning
systems must not activate the control systems.
(b) The design of the stability
augmentation system or of any other
automatic or power-operated system must
permit initial counteraction of failures of the
type specified in CS 25.671 (c) without
requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, by
either the deactivation of the system, or a
failed portion thereof, or by overriding the
failure by movement of the flight controls in
the normal sense.
(c) It must be shown that after any single
failure of the stability augmentation system or
any other automatic or power-operated system
(1) The aeroplane is safely
controllable when the failure or malfunction
occurs at any speed or altitude within the
approved operating limitations that is
critical for the type of failure being
considered. (See AMC 25.672 (c) (1).)
(2) The controllability and
manoeuvrability requirements of this CS-25
are met within a practical operational flight
envelope (for example, speed, altitude,
normal acceleration, and aeroplane
configurations) which is described in the
Aeroplane Flight Manual; and
(3) The trim, stability, and stall
characteristics are not impaired below a
level needed to permit continued safe flight
and landing.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 14 Jan 2020, 22:47

American Airlines now anticipates that the resumption of scheduled commercial service on American’s fleet of B737 MAX aircraft will occur 04 June 2020.

Ryanair could receive its first deliveries of up to 10 grounded B737 MAX from Boeing by April 2020, says Chief Marketing Officer Kenny Jacobs, but cautioned that the timing was dependent on regulators. But Ryanair does not rule out closing more bases in Spain if there are more delays in deliveries of the B737 MAX.
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 15 Jan 2020, 16:04

The winter is warmer in Tel Aviv than in Warsaw
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 16 Jan 2020, 23:10

Southwest Airlines says it doesn’t expect the B737 MAX to be included in its flight schedule until early June 2020.
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 17 Jan 2020, 23:44

New software flaw could further delay Boeing’s 737 MAX

The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it’s receiving valid data, said a person familiar with the issue who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about it. It occurs when the system is initially starting up, the person said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 37-max-jet
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 20 Jan 2020, 22:49

The New York Times examines the 2009 crash of flight TK1951 of Turkish Airlines 737-800 in Amsterdam (an accident that killed several Boeing engineers) and finds parallels to the design problems that caused the MAX crashes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/busi ... dents.html

Excerpts:

"The Dutch investigators focused blame on the pilots for failing to react properly when an automated system malfunctioned and caused the plane to plummet into a field, killing nine people.

The fault was hardly the crew’s alone, however. Decisions by Boeing, including risky design choices and faulty safety assessments, also contributed to the accident on the Turkish Airlines flight
."

Meanwhile, Boeing seeks to borrow $10 billion or more amid 737 MAX crisis!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1ZJ27T

Excerpt:

"The company has estimated the costs of the 737 MAX grounding at more than $9 billion to date, and is expected to disclose significant additional costs during its fourth-quarter earnings release on Jan. 29. "
André
ex Sabena #26567

Poiu
Posts: 684
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Poiu » 20 Jan 2020, 23:09

sn26567 wrote:
20 Jan 2020, 22:49
The New York Times examines the 2009 crash of flight TK1951 of Turkish Airlines 737-800 in Amsterdam (an accident that killed several Boeing engineers) and finds parallels to the design problems that caused the MAX crashes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/busi ... dents.html

Excerpts:

"The Dutch investigators focused blame on the pilots for failing to react properly when an automated system malfunctioned and caused the plane to plummet into a field, killing nine people.

The fault was hardly the crew’s alone, however. Decisions by Boeing, including risky design choices and faulty safety assessments, also contributed to the accident on the Turkish Airlines flight
."
Absolute nonsense!
TK1951 had a faulty altimeter, which led to the malfunction of the auto throttle (automatic speed control), the pilots were not monitoring the speed, they didn’t notice they were slowing down and the aircraft crashed because it didn’t have enough speed to fly.
A Gulf Air Airbus crashed for the same reason, pilots failing to monitor speed and thrust after finger trouble caused the automatic system to slow down the aircraft.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 21 Jan 2020, 11:43

Air Lease Corporation chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy called on Boeing to drop the “damaged” MAX brand to avoid it undermining the plane’s value.

IMHO, a name change will not solve any image problem. People are not stupid and will know that a new name does not hide old problems. Ryanair already changed the name of the MAX 200 to 737-8 200, but only naive people will be abused by the name change.

Air Niugini of Papua New Guinea has updated its contract with Boeing to delay the delivery of its four B737 MAX jets on order until at least 2024, to give the airline more time to complete a broader review of its fleet plans.
André
ex Sabena #26567

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3077
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by jan_olieslagers » 21 Jan 2020, 11:47

People are not stupid
If this were wikipedia, I would ask for an encyclopedical reference :) for that.

Also: seeing the rapidity and frequency with which products and companies are rebranded today, at the impetus of highly qualified marketeers, I am not so sure the idea is wrong. Especially in a country like the USA, where the impact of publicity and public relations is overwhelming.
Last edited by jan_olieslagers on 21 Jan 2020, 13:09, edited 1 time in total.

737MAX
Posts: 326
Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 08:46

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by 737MAX » 21 Jan 2020, 12:51

sn26567 wrote:
21 Jan 2020, 11:43
void it undermining the plane’s value.

IMHO, a name change will not solve any image problem. People are not stupid and will know that a new name does not hide old problems. Ryanair already changed the name of the MAX 200 to 737-8 200, but only naive people will be abused by the name change.
Get out of your avgeek bubble, please :?

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36071
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 » 21 Jan 2020, 14:19

Lessor Avolon (Ireland) predicts the B737 MAX will safely return to revenue service in 2020 because the world needs more Boeing aircraft to support growing demand for air travel.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Bracebrace
Posts: 200
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Bracebrace » 21 Jan 2020, 15:51

Poiu wrote:
20 Jan 2020, 23:09
TK1951 had a faulty altimeter, which led to the malfunction of the auto throttle (automatic speed control), the pilots were not monitoring the speed, they didn’t notice they were slowing down and the aircraft crashed because it didn’t have enough speed to fly.
I believe the similarities are in the certification process, a single failure leading to a catastrophic event.

However in this case, the problem is known and has been known since the classic: the limited elevator authority compared to the horizontal stabilizer authority leading to a situation where with elevator only, you will not escape the life threatening situation. You might blame the pilots, but it's pretty lame to fly an aircraft that is not able to get out of a low airspeed situation without creating another hazard. Which is what happened here. And every pilot can get in a low speed situation, whether you want it or not. Safety depends on the fact you have a pilot that remembers it or not. Ask any B737 pilot and you will know. Some know. Some don't.

In the case of the max, the problem in "recovery" is that Boeing asks to use manual trim control however the "solution" is complex again as they refer to manual trim, but also state manual trim might not work and then you need to rollercoaster. You can throw airspeed unreliable checklists at them as much as you want, you end up in a battle. We needed two crashes to even know there was a battle hidden in there.

All this works against the 737 that it is a bit of a lego aircraft since the classic version, and it has become more and more lego ever since. A junkyard of so-called modern systems that are piled up in a round fuselage, hoping it will create something modern. But is not modern. It has become only more and more lego aircraft compared to any other modern airliner out there. It was clear already on the NG. The first rotation on an NG will tell you how disconnected pitch and roll are. The NG had to be the end of a generation.

To be honest, I'm pretty curious about the 747-800 in this regard as well.
Last edited by Bracebrace on 21 Jan 2020, 16:23, edited 2 times in total.

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3077
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by jan_olieslagers » 21 Jan 2020, 16:19

Thank you, @Bracebrace, for as little as I know about piloting the big metal this was the most enlightening information I yet saw on this matter (though all of it must have been available somewhere on the www, doubltlessly - there is so much...)

The really fearsome bit is in your
I believe the similarities are in the certification process, a single failure leading to a catastrophic event.
: I always believed airliners would be at least as reliable as, say, high-availability web- or databaseservers. But I have some professional knowledge of the latter, and the first and major point that I heard again and again is "AVOID SINGLE PONTS OF FAILURE". A rule not observed in the current story, if I read you correctly.

737MAX
Posts: 326
Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 08:46

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by 737MAX » 21 Jan 2020, 18:17

jan_olieslagers wrote:
21 Jan 2020, 16:19
But I have some professional knowledge of the latter, and the first and major point that I heard again and again is "AVOID SINGLE PONTS OF FAILURE". A rule not observed in the current story, if I read you correctly.
I'm sorry, but that plane comes with seats that should welcome pilots. Not push button people. Pilots.
A 737 is not modern, it doesn't have *some* capacities/protections that modern planes have. All 737 pilots know that. But many 737 pilots are trained to be pilots of modern airplanes, which is (one more time) not the case of the 737.

If you see your plane doing abnormal things because of a "single failure" or because of "multiple failures" doesn't change anything to the fact that you have to act, as a pilot. Disconnecting the AP to take it over manually when it doesn't behave as it should cannot be a difficult thing...! It sadly is for too many 737 pilots, unfortunately because they have always been told that flying manually "increases the workload too much", or flying without the flight director/raw data is "dangerous". Pilots unable to fly a visual approach in perfect weather conditions & who prefer to go for the full procedure using the AP. Pilots who basically NEVER trim the plane by themselves. NEVER! That is abnormal; that is not the way the 737 has to be flown. Actually, it's not the way any plane should be flown either; you have to be proficient in all levels of automation, from raw data to full automation. Nobody in the industry can ignore that manual flying skills are lacking seriously, there have been enough cases in the past few years of incidents/accidents with an almost perfect plane to prove this.

Everything can go wrong, no system can be 200% perfect. Who could have imagined a B777 crash only because the TO/GA button "failed"? @Jan_olieslagers, you fly small planes. What do you do when you go-around? You add power and you check you have it (although you are lucky, you'll hear it too ;) ). Can you believe that those B777 drivers did not even check their thrust while going around? They stalled the damn plane only because the TO/GA button failed; who do you blame first? Boeing or the pilots?

That's exactly the same for the RA failure that stalled the aircraft. OK, blame Boeing, blame the RA, but also blame the pilots for not doing their job. They watched the plane doing strange things and taking over didn't even come to their mind. Or way too late; AFTER looking at the plane doing strange things, they reacted. Way too late.

What about the Asiana B777 at SFO?
Same story all over again.

All I've said here doesn't mean more protections or better systems should not be made. All I'm saying is that too many cases happened where pilots could have saved the situation. And yes, I was disappointed too when Boeing announced the MAX, I have flown other types than the 737 and since then I realized the 737 is really jurassic, and that the NG should have been the last 737. But it's too late too change this, obviously.

737MAX
Posts: 326
Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 08:46

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by 737MAX » 21 Jan 2020, 18:18

Bracebrace wrote:
21 Jan 2020, 15:51

To be honest, I'm pretty curious about the 747-800 in this regard as well.
What do you mean about the 747-8*?

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3077
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by jan_olieslagers » 21 Jan 2020, 18:46

@Jan_olieslagers, you fly small planes. What do you do when you go-around? You add power and you check you have it (although you are lucky, you'll hear it too ;) ).
Yes, if going around (for which one has always to be prepared, if there's gliders around, with their own smaller traffic pattern, and their absolute right of way) I will begin by pushing the throttle to the panel, then take back flaps according to airspeed, all the while keeping half an eye on the horizon and another half at other traffic.

But no, I'll not hear the effect, at least less than I used to, ever since I acquired these noise-cancelling headsets - not the flashy Bose stuff, from China I paid just 200 € per set - but in this somehow overpowered little machine, the rpm indication is like tied to the throttle with a string, no revving up like them lazy turbine things :) so yes if the engine doesn't follow suit I'd be quickly reminded. Would feel it in my bum, too :) in the seat of my pants, that is.

Come to think of it, "feeling what happens, in the seat of one's pants" (with apologies, and much appreciation, to any pilot wearing skirts :) ) is what you seem to be basically and badly missing, in certain pilots. I must say I'd not expected it to be so relevant still, in the airliners of the 21st century.

Bracebrace
Posts: 200
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Bracebrace » 21 Jan 2020, 20:25

737MAX wrote:
21 Jan 2020, 18:17
All I've said here doesn't mean more protections or better systems should not be made. All I'm saying is that too many cases happened where pilots could have saved the situation. And yes, I was disappointed too when Boeing announced the MAX, I have flown other types than the 737 and since then I realized the 737 is really jurassic, and that the NG should have been the last 737. But it's too late too change this, obviously.
In all fairness, I think you have to turn the story around.

The B777 started flying commercially in 1995. It's 2020. The B737 NG first flight was 1997. Compare a brand new technology aircraft, with an "evolution". Many pilots were trained on the 777 from scratch. No recent experience on type from the start. Brand new integrated digital flightdeck. Brand new fly-by-wire. Brand new engines.

Statistics are pretty clear. When the B777 encounters a problem, it is pretty damn safe. The pilot errors you described resulted in a very limited number of fatalities. If there were many fatalities, the aircaft was shot down, or unknow cause (but it might be "pilot error" just as well as aircraft problem). If there is anything you could say, that is that the aircraft protected the pilots and passengers very well. And if there were major failures, the B777 remains an environment in which the pilots could work and the resulting fatalities were very very very limited. The best example being the BA crash in Heathrow (loss of thrust on both engines), athough there are other cases as well. But never fatalities.

NG: do we have to run the list of 737 NG hull losses because of crashes, overruns, underruns,...? And the number of fatilities this has all caused? And how many times the pilots "fucked up"?

Of course there are many more NG's flying around than 777s. But if you have a failure on the B777, the resulting situation is... easy. There could be pilot fuck-ups, yup, still the B777 will help you out.
If you have a failure on the NG, the resulting situation is... I don't know, it depends.
Last edited by Bracebrace on 21 Jan 2020, 23:16, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply