Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chrisg

Problems with the 737MAX ?

Recommended Posts

Hmm,

 

A couple of airlines at least could be more mindful of just how aware passengers can be these days:

 

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/safety-card-mixup-leaves-passengers-thinking-they-are-flying-on-boeing-737-max-jets/news-story/c39d264956fdfbe09cefbf58d7c897c0

 

Separately there is an emergent debate on if Boeing  can even survive the cash losses.

 

Very hard to say in the end but they are massive, the U.S' largest exporter.

 

If I had to guess I'd say they'll survive but whether they could ever recover from the lead Airbus is inevitably going to gain on them, that's a different story.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Boeing will be fine, they are in the class of "too big to fail" in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Funny J, I'm reading "Swimming with Sharks" at the moment, an account of the mess in 2008 when Lehmann Brothers bank went down. They like other big banks were deemed too big to fail as well.

 

I do tend to agree with you though, Boeing are indeed massive and deeply embedded in the U.S. military supply chain so unless Lockheed Martin could rake up a few spare bucks they will survive. Even in the unlikely event that a Lockheed bid were to come on the table I doubt Monopolies would allow it, it's been touch and go with them enough with the way aerospace companies have been gobbling each other up over there.

 

It is irrefutable  that Boeing have been badly damaged though, whilst other models have come and gone the 737 has been the Boeing cash cow for a long, long time.

 

The MAX order book is huge, but if those orders will survive is somewhat moot at the moment a few airlines have already cancelled and in the case of Garuda switched to Airbus.

 

The rest of the Boeing production line looks pretty solid, latest 777 has the makings of a great aircraft, the 787 is selling well, 747 is probably on last model but the full catalogue is just huge:

 

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/manufacture-aircraft/boeing/1

 

Airbus will be snapping at most all of the commercial lines, but the military suite of products is pretty much unassailable.

 

Boeing upper management and the FAA, bit of a different story, there are going to be changes.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lehmann were deemed expendable by the Fed, Boeing are part of the military complex and cannot be allowed to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, agreed, although this is one frightening book, I had not until now realised  just how close the globe came to a complete financial meltdown.  Perhaps even more frightening the conclusion is that very little has been done to prevent the possibility of it happening again.

 

The real danger is just how damaged Boeing could be.

 

An order book for 5,000 MAX aircraft is on the line, just how many cancellations there will be is impossible just now to estimate.

 

Brand credibility is hugely at risk, passengers are going to take some persuading to board a MAX and there is a likely flow-on to the Boeing brand in general which Airbus will be happy to keep in the spotlight.

 

The FAA is tarnished and will need a major overhaul to regain its credibility. That is almost impossible to underestimate, the organisation has been the Gold Standard of  aviation oversight since the 60s. Not just in the U.S. their reach has been global. Other countries have very effective Aviation safety bodies but the FAA is by far the most recognisable.

 

I find it very sad. I've never been a huge fan of the 737,  a utilitarian aircraft to get you from A to B, never much more, I always tend to groan inside when there is one at my gate. But it is what the buying public has demanded, through the clamor for cheaper and cheaper seats.

 

Other Boeings are so much nicer to fly on.

 

For a while owing to passenger seat demand QANTAS were using a somewhat elderly 747-200 on the Melbourne Perth route and called-back 767s saw some use on that route and the Sydney one as well. I was back and forth most every month during those times and it was quite a relief to see one of those older but just plain nice aircraft waiting for me.

 

In Asia which I was also heading to over and over again at the same time it was almost always a 777, lovely aircraft although they never yet seem to have sorted out the aircon, too warm or too cold in various parts of the cabin. Maybe they have on the new model.

 

Back in time I have no idea how often I flew on 727s, a lot, much more enjoyable than the DC-9s then flying alongside them in Australia.

 

I've also flown a great deal on Airbus', never had a bad one, they really do make good passenger friendly aircraft. The nicest was probably an a340, Cathay Pacific to Canada, It was never a very popular aircraft with the airlines, not as economical as it could have been but passengers loved it.

 

The concern for passengers has to be the possibility that Airbus bereft of a challenging competitor, which could be the fall-out, will in future build less passenger friendly cabins.

 

However safety has to be the paramount. Mostly it never bothers me, I used to fly aircraft in the military that would never get a passenger clearance on safety grounds but this tragedy really has bothered the pilot in me. To have an aircraft almost willfully fly you into the ground would have to be right up there as the worst pilot nightmare.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, chrisg said:

To have an aircraft almost willfully fly you into the ground would have to be right up there as the worst pilot nightmare.

 

Shades of?

60819-2earo7s.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Never seen it  ali, but sounds like it.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, chrisg said:

Never seen it  ali, but sounds like it.

 

Cheers

neither have I but I know about it.

It tells the story of a mysterious car (sans driver) that goes on a murderous rampage, terrorising the residents of a small town.

 

Oops a daisy.

but it will affect more than the 737Max.

https://blog.fosketts.net/2019/04/06/gps-time-rollover-failures-keep-happening-but-theyre-almost-done/

Edited by aliali
added stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad movie - somewhat similar to Duel (which was Spielberg's debut feature length film and shot in only 13 days)

 

The dodgy software correction thing... from memory an A320 crashed at a Euro airshow because the computer thought that a high AoA stunt at low altitude was going to stall the aircraft and the "fix" was to auto nose-down to gain airspeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Sort of Ry, it was quite a scandal in France with falsified evidence and substituted FDRs.

 

The pilot always claimed he throttled up but the engines did not respond. Eventually he was exonerated, it was a software bug, albeit one that would not (probably) have occurred if the fly-past had not been set right on minimum speed and at a low 100foot altitude. However the pilot had been cleared for the pass at that altitude and at minimum speed.

 

It took years to sort out but the truth did emerge in end.

 

Regarding that movie, it sort of reminds me of Carpenter's "Christine" that I did see  🙂

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that everyone onboard died on that airshow one I mentioned.

 

Yeah - Christine, good Stephen King cheesy book made into cheesy movie.

Funny about movies that have horror/car chases/psycho characters like that.  They often get a paltry rating but are a good watch and have some repeat value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah,

 

I saw Duel at a drive-in, if I recall it was originally a made-for-tv thing but it was a good movie, especially for a first effort.

 

If the Airbus crash is the same one I'm thinking of there were some fatalities but by no means all, it was this one:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

 

Overall Airbus has a very good record with the 319-321 family and those are their most popular models:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family

 

I don't recall anything of note with the 340 and only Qantas in Singapore with the 380.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez,

 

Putting Boeing in the spotlight has turned up some disturbing stuff:

 

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/report-highlights-disturbing-safety-claims-surrounding-boeing-factory/news-story/fff95e497d50f12d869d3d43170ad07b

 

Manufacturing detritus, tools etc turning up in new aircraft is not that unusual. I don't know nowadays but BA used to go through new aircraft from any manufacturer with a fine tooth comb and most always turned up something.

 

Not exactly helping the Boeing case though.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AvE takes apart an AoA sensor - though off a C130 probably has componentry alike the 737.  Note that he's not an aviation expert but has plenty of knowedge of components and quality manufacturing processes.

 

And NSW also...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

AoA sensors have been around long enough that they are generic, components would be just that.

 

Methinks the Boeing CEO is being groomed to be tossed under the bus and handed a big cheque, his latest public excuse is pathetic:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/boeings-ceo-on-why-737-max-pilots-not-told-of-mcas-2019-4?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral&r=US&IR=T

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Tossed under bus, how about thrown out of plane (no parachute)?

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Management is so divorced from the business these days he's just parroting, very unlikely he knows what he is talking about.

 

Bit like Sculley knew more about Pepsi than he ever did Apple....

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad news from Boeing just keeps on coming:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/business/boeing-737-max-warning-light.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

 

That sounds like a serious disconnect between sales, engineering and training.  Not the first time, Lockheed went through years of that and Douglas also. Makes you wonder just how many of the McDonnell Douglas staff came over in the merger and brought some culture with them.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno,

 

I don't work for Boeing but I just butted in on  an Air Crash show about a Turkish 737 900 crash  at Schipol that came down to too much reliance on automation.

 

in that instance a radio altimeter failed but was not off-line ,  it contributed to the AI input and stalled the airplane by the AI being in land mode at 500 feet.

 

Schipol is below sea level, surprised that was not factored into the crash report.

 

It seems seeds of too much automation has been there in the  Boeing model for too long, especially on the 737s.

 

I tend to fly a lot on 737s, does not make me too comfortable, I never had much of it at all in my flying days, in the end you fly the airplane, not the computers, But that seems to have been lost in training.

 

Flying is not easy, manufacturers trying to make it simpler is taking skill out of the equation.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

I'd really completely forgotten about this one, which I should not have, but a friend copied me on this today:

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-ve-become-very-isolated-the-aftermath-of-near-doomed-qf72-20190514-p51n7q.html

 

Boeing are not alone but in a different sense. QF72 could have had a multitude of causes and may never be completely resolved, there was however a great deal of suspicion at the time that the close proximity to the VLF transmitters at Exmouth may have had a bearing (They are not actually there, but close enough.) Certainly those transmitters, used to communicate with U.S. submarines are weird to say the least, including attracting whale sharks but no one ever completely connected them to QF72.

 

Automation really has it seems gone too far in aviation, taking control out of the hands of the pilot.

 

I'll have to find a copy of this book.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Trouble with the MAX8 series, they cannot fly without MCAS because the airframe is an unstable stretched 737 with oversized engines which threw everything out of balance.

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes and no J. The real problem with MCAS is that most of the time it does nothing. The MAX has a nose high tendency yes but ordinarily it is just trimmed out and the pilots do not notice, nor have any reason to notice.

 

There could have been other means by which the trim could have been adjusted but Boeing chose to go with software.

 

The problem happens when the MCAS system receives an erroneous input from the software and reacts in the belief that the aircraft is departing from norms, ie. nose high pitch and commands a pitch down. If the system persists in believing that the aircraft is nose high then it persists in pitching down and leave the crew fighting with it right up to the scene of disaster.

 

The more I explore it the more I wonder just why it was needed in the first place but it comes back to Boeing trying to do something that Airbus have done, mostly successfully, for a long time but Boeing have far less experience of. They tried to make the MAX airframe feel so much like the earlier versions of the 737 that crews would need only rudimentary training to adapt to the new model.

 

That's purely a cash situation, trying to save the airlines from expensive training and it has failed miserably.

 

What Boeing do not want to accept, even now, is that the Airbus family has had high commonality baked in from the very beginning and they still made some mistakes, sometimes fatally, Boeing is very late to the party.

 

Personally I think they made a big, big mistake.

 

FBW is fine, but when you start introducing over-riding automation into the equation then you are departing from giving the pilot direct control.

 

CCV is also fine, relaxed stability has been a feature of military aircraft from the F-16 on if not sooner in experimental types and that is getting on for half a century. But does it really have any place on civilian aircraft ?

 

Not really, there's really no demonstrable need.

 

Boeing seem to have hit a horrible crossroads of FBW and CCV in trying to evolve a mid 60s airframe that was frankly past its use-by date  in the name of cash. There is a reason why the MAX order book is so large, there is a very large pool of pilots out there who can fly 737s at minimal conversion cost to the airline.

 

One step too far and 350 or so people have died.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your comments chrisg.  The fact is that no matter how you compare them, the planes from Airbus and Boeing were always going to intersect, technologically at least and you hit in on the head of the nail with the commonality issue too.  You can see MCAS as a subsystem of a FBW system, just a few screws short of a full system.  It's like saying, I am going to turn on my a/c to blow hot air when it reaches a certain temperature never mind if it's getting cooler or hotter.  For them to put a system like that on an aircraft with wide-ranging capabilities and no apparent over-ride ability is unforgivable.  But the worst bit is that they consider you trained because you did an hour lesson plan on a tablet.  Wow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,

 

That really was taking it too far.

 

There must have been some substantial cross over somewhere in the 737 line, not sure where because I don't fly them, where the cockpit changed to being glass but since then they seem to have been pushing the commonality line hard and now with a rather substantial change to the airframe pushed it too far.

 

BTW, not seen you around for a while strifus WB 🙂

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×