Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chrisg

Problems with the 737MAX ?

Recommended Posts

Yeah...

 

Now fix the damned thing... properly.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I doubt that is confined to Boeing aircraft.

 

It's been a growing problem for decades now, too many pilots who rely too much on instrumentation and not enough on looking outside....

 

In other words when in an IFR situation, fine, head down and you have to rely on instruments but in many, many cases in full VFR conditions pilots are still heads down.

 

We are for want of a better way of putting it lucky in Australia, generally flying conditions are pretty good and pilot training is very high. Consequently there is, usually, good cockpit discipline and division of labor, generally considered to be pilot flying keeps his attention outside the aircraft, pilot not flying monitors the instruments. It's not quite that simple but you get the idea.

 

In other countries it can be considerably more lax, a classic example would be the case a few years ago where a Transasia aircraft crashed just after take off because it suffered an engine outage  and the pilot mistakenly shut down the other engine.

 

Quite frankly that is inexcusable , it is not exactly difficult to identify which engine you have lost, you are supposed to train repeatedly for such an eventuality but obviously not the case there - too much reliance on the reliability of the aircraft and not enough on quality training.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Older planes were built when there were no portable electro-magnetic portable transmitting devices, so there was no need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Older 'planes were analogue so they were immune in any event.

 

I suppose I'm possibly getting old, and cynical, but if I were to lose every electronic device on an aircraft and be back to relying on the minimal analogue instruments I could still fly it - I wonder how many of today's pilots could make the same claim ?

 

It's also a function of the aircraft themselves of course.

 

The 737MAX is, at some points in its flight cycle, not an inherently stable aircraft - another way of saying relaxed stability that needs digital intervention or you will have a hard time controlling it.

 

That was not the case with older 737s and goes to the core of the issue, the FAA should not have certified it as "just another 737 evolution."

 

It's not, it's a new aircraft in all but name.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, chrisg said:

It's not, it's a new aircraft in all but name.

Perhaps time the FAA and related bodies world wide, reconsider what is classed as an upgrade and what is considered a new aircraft?

Personally as a rough idea major changes to engine type and size, or major changes to airframe dimensions, or of course major changes to flight surfaces should at least be considered a new airframe. I would even add in major changes to cockpit design and aircraft control systems as being more than a tweak to an existing design.

Or go super draconian and any change to a models performance and handling needs full recertification from scratch.

Yes well aware this would seriously push up the price of aircraft and therefore travel costs but this may be what's necessary to try and stop this sort of bullshit happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a legacy issue really ali.

 

I'm not terribly concerned about the small changes Airbus make in their models to be honest but the 737 is a much , much older design and to re-engine it and pass it off as "just an upgrade" is simply not true.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

So now there has been an airworthiness directive put out by the Europeans against the Airbus 321 Neo, also for a pitch up issue. it's being caused by the larger engine nacelles which are a little further forward of the centre of gravity.

 

There the similarities to the MAX  problems end  though. The Airbus has full redundancy on its angle of attack sensors and there is no automated push down system. If the condition occurs and it is only likely in a quite violent maneuver such as a go-around the pilots receive an alert and need to manually push the nose down with their side-stick. Nonetheless Airbus is working on a software update that will change a law in the fbw system. In the interim a NOTAM alerts pilots to the issue.

 

In other news it seems Boeing are going to have to further reduce MAX production, they are running out of room to park aircraft and depending on the final fix, which is undergoing certification at the moment, they could have quite a bit of work to do on modifying the aircraft already in stockpile.

 

There does seem to be high confidence that the fix is a good one but it is going to be put through the wringer in the simulator of course.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,

 

Suggestions are that 9oeing are going to duplex the system, back to and including the computers.

 

Call me old fashioned but in these mission critical instances I believe triplex is the way to go. I tell you three times or discard the "vote" if two agree.

 

In an extravagant world I'd even go Quintuple agreement and accept the minimal delays implicit in the negotiation - at bus speeds and processor speeds  today it does not matter.

 

That might require a more extravagant re-design though,  and although I do not want it to be I still think Boeing are trying to build the MAX to a price  which makes a kind of macabre sense, with 5,000 orders on the books if build cost ends up being above sale price the more they sell the more they lose.

 

I begin to wonder if some of the senior engineers on the MAX were not from the military side of Boeing - different rules apply there.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...It really is Hate Boeing year, now the Dreamliner is getting a caning...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/boeing-787-dreamliner-airline-complaints-quality-production-2019-8?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral&r=US&IR=T

 

Aviation is a complex business, I'd think it laudable that the results of these surveys be published but the airlines then saying they have full confidence is just a case of closing ranks to get the next discount.

 

I've yet to fly on a Dreamliner, a few friends have, came away very impressed.

 

I did wonder over the "dented panels" mentioned - the aircraft is composite anywhere that matters 🙂

 

Boeing are just in the spotlight, for perfectly understandable reasons, their reputation is battered and needs to recover, that can best be done by making sure the MAX becomes bulletproof, even if it costs them for a while.

 

I trust the design is not so flawed that they cannot do that or the scrap merchants are going to have a field day.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I did wonder over the "dented panels" mentioned

Possibly mean internal cabin lining panels since the complaints are about the quality control?

Just a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound like Boeing has been doing a few shortcuts to speed up production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Probably aliali, although most airlines have their cabins fitted out by third parties, in fact very few if any take a default Boeing cabin and I would have thought that even less likely on a flagship like the Dreamliner. So it is not a complaint that could really be leveled at Boeing.

 

As I said the airline business is very complex, it may well be, I don't know, that Boeing ship the aircraft out to the cabin installers then take it back prior to handover and therefore are expected to do final QA. Unless that was specified in the contract I'd find it a bit willing to blame Boeing. Scratched glass I can to a greater degree understand, fuel clamps not attached is definitely a Boeing issue. The last could sound more ominous but it isn't. Climbing around inside bizjets over the years I've found the odd clamp missing, FOD floating around from date of manufacture. It happens, mostly it is inconsequential although less forgivable on bespoke, smaller jets where the manufacturers usually do have near total control and if third party cabin installers are used they come to the factory in the main, not the other way around.

 

Grumman for example I know have last time I looked a third party cabin installer setup on-site who can do most anything the customer wants, under the Grumman roof which is sold by Grumman as a total care package. Not to say a customer could not take delivery of an aircraft bare and take it to a cabin installer but from my understanding in new aircraft that is very rare.

 

I'd be willing to bet those doing the final inspections airline side would often not be aware of the steps the airframe goes through before it reaches them either. Still when you, or more commonly the lease company, are laying down millions of investment in a jet I guess it is fair to expect perfection     🙂

 

You never get it of course.

 

I've a mate who spends quite a bit of his time buying , and mostly selling, 2nd hand exotic sports cars, primarily Ferrari's and Lamborghini's, he's always finding things wrong with them that he fixes before he resells them. One time he actually had a Lambo where the block had only been half machine finished. The original owner probably never had it out of third gear 🙂

 

To go back to Boeing, most of the niggles are just that, but they are in the spotlight right now so anything the media vultures come across gets attention.

 

Cheers

 

Edit. That's also possible J, or just bedding in a relatively new line, in a different State, Renton has been running a lot longer and Boeing mostly recruits from locals with a long history with the company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus....

 

I admit, in general I spend far more time looking at military aircraft than I do at civilian, I've flown untold miles on Boeing product and never had a glitch, so, I've just treated Boeing as a gold standard.

 

Even if you deduct some media hyperbole this still presents a damning picture.

 

Upon reflection I think I might see a pattern, one I do not like at all.

 

Douglas made extravagant promises about their last significant product the DC-10 - it suffered horrifying early accidents that led to a huge investigation and much re-engineering. It became a good aircraft, still is, as the KC-10 it will be around for a long, long time, but it killed a lot people getting there.

 

McDonnell never made a bad aircraft but they never made a civilian aircraft either. When Jim McDonnell died the company sort of lost its heart and the shareholders took the offer from Douglas.

 

It was a strange merger in some ways, Douglas had stayed in Civilian for a long, long time but it was just assumed that they were shaping up to battle with Boeing on two fronts.

 

They failed, they never were able to properly compete with the 747 and the 777 was something they never produced an answer to. Their military side also lost out to Lockheed.

 

Then they were pretty much forced to merge with Boeing or go under.

 

Post the merger Boeing did some things that seemed ...odd, mentioned in the article. They moved the HQ to Chicago, something that long term Boeing people found incomprehensible, Boeing had always been a very strong presence in Washington state.

 

It was about money, pure and simple, but at core Boeing had never been about money it had been about quality and the money will follow.

 

I have a dark suspicion that Douglas-rot has set in, that in a sense it has been a reverse merger and former senior Douglas people are now at the head of some programmes and other departments in Boeing.

 

If that is the case it will be the death of them, I do not care how big they are.

 

To my knowledge Airbus, whilst often quite political, does not suffer from these issues, it could well become the dominant player - at least until China establishes some credence.

 

Lockheed do not show much interest in big commercial, the Grumman division does fine in both spaces, mostly biz-jets at the moment, but it is very different to the Boeing merger, Grumman was definitely taken over but kept separate from daily Lockheed business, and that seems to work.

 

So, at the moment the only Boeings we care to trust are older models, including the 777. I wonder if the 777X has caught the disease ?

 

I'm not planning upon flying anywhere at the moment - a bit over it tbh, after years of constant travel, but if I were I'd be thinking twice about flying on the 787 after seeing this.

 

Lastly on the "fix" for the Lion batteries - who the hell are they kidding ?

 

Those batteries simply do not belong on any aircraft but especially a FBW airplane - lose power, and if I read it right there is not total power redundancy, and you begin to lose control. ANA did a damned good job getting that aircraft down in one piece.

 

Colour me very perturbed....

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeruselem said:

This is about the 787 ... scary.

 

Well that was eye opening!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, rs727 said:

 

Well that was eye opening!!

 

If the people BUILDING the planes say they won't fly on on them, be scared. Boeings are the iPhones of airline industry.

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather think there is a battle of wills going on behind the scenes at Boeing at the moment.

 

Granted there have been no Dreamliner crashes and an early grounding is not exactly unusual although the reason is but to have two of your biggest programmes under a cloud at the same time is unprecedented.

 

Hopefully Boeing can clean up their act if not Airbus get a free run to the future.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing really can't take a trick:

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/norwegian-boeing-737-plane-debris-fell-rome-damaging-cars-houses-2019-8-1028437382?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

 

If it is engine debris, which seems likely can't really blame Boeing, I think all the Norwegian 787s use RR Trents, but the mud will stick with Boeing.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jeruselem said:

If the people BUILDING the planes say they won't fly on on them, be scared. Boeings are the iPhones of airline industry.

 

It's definitely a concern. Although since the initial battery issues i don't recall there being any major disaster related to the 787. This site seems to agree.

 

So it seems to have a good record up till now. Although maybe the batch of planes that this affects hasn't made it to the air yet??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft are rather different to most "consumer" items. The level of maintenance and replacement of significant portions of the airframe over time are such that any small aberrations that get past delivery QA tend to be ironed out very quickly.

 

That however is no excuse for rushing production.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


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

Aircraft are rather different to most "consumer" items. The level of maintenance and replacement of significant portions of the airframe over time are such that any small aberrations that get past delivery QA tend to be ironed out very quickly.

 

That however is no excuse for rushing production.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Boeing seemingly went to the iPhone way of manufacturing. Yes fine for a phone but not good for a plane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that was a very late-model 777ER, so maybe we could be a little selective and fly on the older ones  🙂

 

I have no idea how many hours I've flown on the 777, a lot that's for sure.

 

Can't call it my favorite aircraft, not by a long shot, they never really seem to have sorted out the climate control, but I never felt unsafe. I didn't feel as comfortable as I do o the 747, even the older ones, either, but those are getting difficult to find unless you want to fly as cargo  🙂

 

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  

×