737 Max to fly again

[fishfoodie]

Sure.

Underground mining is a picnic.

Can see the safety concerns driving regulations but without the drive for weight saving the engineering aspect is totally different and not comparable.

I’m not trying to compare the industries or the engineering standards. I was trying to illustrate the experience of working within a heavily regulated field and the way human reaction or error can still be a factor. The context was talking about having blind faith in politics and airlines.

The MAX didn't become a dead trap because of human reactions, or errors, on the part of anyone.

The MAX became a death trap because Boeing wanted to do it on the cheap; & they decided to pretend that an aircraft that performed completely different from the regular 737, was just a little bit different; & they convinced a very compliant regulator to this lie.

This was a management failure all the way thru.

If the crews had received proper training, if the sw had gone thru a full certification; if Boeing had put in enough sensors to override a bad sensor; no one need have died.

[Sandstorm]

Or if Boeing engineers hadn’t put enormous engines on an old, small airframe, done it badly, seen it was a flying brick and then tried to put tape over the cracks?

[fishfoodie]

Or if Boeing engineers hadn’t put enormous engines on an old, small airframe, done it badly, seen it was a flying brick and then tried to put tape over the cracks?

There was no problem with doing that; & it was needed; the new engines meant that the fuel economy was improved, & there was no problem with the basic cabin, so why change the tooling to move stuff in the cabin by a few mill.

The problem happens when you know that sticking those engines on will dramatically changing the way the aircraft performs, & you know you're going to need a whole new software suite to handle those engines, & improvements to the crew cabin; but you still don't want to tell the airlines that they'll have to send their crews off on 80 hrs of training, because it's actually a new type.

[Lemoentjie]

The MAX didn't become a dead trap because of human reactions, or errors, on the part of anyone.

The MAX became a death trap because Boeing wanted to do it on the cheap; & they decided to pretend that an aircraft that performed completely different from the regular 737, was just a little bit different; & they convinced a very compliant regulator to this lie.

This was a management failure all the way thru.

If the crews had received proper training, if the sw had gone thru a full certification; if Boeing had put in enough sensors to override a bad sensor; no one need have died.

And now they've been caught instructing test pilots on how to operate the MAX when being checked by the FAA. Changing the reaction time for the 'flaw' from 19 seconds to 4 seconds.

[Sandstorm]

Or if Boeing engineers hadn’t put enormous engines on an old, small airframe, done it badly, seen it was a flying brick and then tried to put tape over the cracks?

There was no problem with doing that; & it was needed; the new engines meant that the fuel economy was improved, & there was no problem with the basic cabin, so why change the tooling to move stuff in the cabin by a few mill.

The problem happens when you know that sticking those engines on will dramatically changing the way the aircraft performs, & you know you're going to need a whole new software suite to handle those engines, & improvements to the crew cabin; but you still don't want to tell the airlines that they'll have to send their crews off on 80 hrs of training, because it's actually a new type.

Mate. The MAX is now a bad design. It's unstable and does not fly well. Using software and a "pickle switch" to fix this is a bodge and I don't care how much pilot training you do, it's wrong.

If Boeing had announced the MAX's issues to airlines but said "Don't worry that it flies like a block of cheese, we'll train your pilots so it doesn't crash into the ground" that they would have sold even 3 planes?

[Torquemada 1420]

Mate. The MAX is now a bad design. It's unstable and does not fly well. Using software and a "pickle switch" to fix this is a bodge and I don't care how much pilot training you do, it's wrong.

If Boeing had announced the MAX's issues to airlines but said "Don't worry that it flies like a block of cheese, we'll train your pilots so it doesn't crash into the ground" that they would have sold even 3 planes?

Yes. And it's not hard to get why. The original, archaic design was for a plane with a short undercarriage i.e. low to the ground. Some people claim it was to do with built in stairs to the cabin doors but it's more probably that in the 60s, engines were smaller (diameter) so why make the trolley any bigger?

Trouble is turbofans are friggin' huge girth wise but as foodie points out, that's what you need now if you want efficiency (and maybe even noise compliance). The only solution on this piece of junk was to engineer a pylon that moved the engines forward of the wing and upward to provide the necessary ground clearance. And, as you pointed out, that totally f**ked the balance of the plane up. Basically, it's un-flyable in some conditions without continuous s/w intervention a.k.a. the MCAS system and is especially unstable on take off........... and when do most crashes occur.... ?

The FAA actually stated the MAX was too unstable to be certified for passenger purposes hence the s/ware cludge offered up by Boeing which was then passed.

{EDIT} I should say that the right thing to do was build a new plane from scratch rather than continually patching a 60 year old design but
- Boeing wanted to save costs
- and airlines don't like having to train pilots on new types..

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Mate. The MAX is now a bad design. It's unstable and does not fly well. Using software and a "pickle switch" to fix this is a bodge and I don't care how much pilot training you do, it's wrong.

If Boeing had announced the MAX's issues to airlines but said "Don't worry that it flies like a block of cheese, we'll train your pilots so it doesn't crash into the ground" that they would have sold even 3 planes?

Yes. And it's not hard to get why. The original, archaic design was for a plane with a short undercarriage i.e. low to the ground. Some people claim it was to do with built in stairs to the cabin doors but it's more probably that in the 60s, engines were smaller (diameter) so why make the trolley any bigger?

Trouble is turbofans are friggin' huge girth wise but as foodie points out, that's what you need now if you want efficiency (and maybe even noise compliance). The only solution on this piece of junk was to engineer a pylon that moved the engines forward of the wing and upward to provide the necessary ground clearance. And, as you pointed out, that totally f**ked the balance of the plane up. Basically, it's un-flyable in some conditions without continuous s/w intervention a.k.a. the MCAS system and is especially unstable on take off........... and when do most crashes occur.... ?

The FAA actually stated the MAX was too unstable to be certified for passenger purposes hence the s/ware cludge offered up by Boeing which was then passed.

{EDIT} I should say that the right thing to do was build a new plane from scratch rather than continually patching a 60 year old design but
- Boeing wanted to save costs
- and airlines don't like having to train pilots on new types..

Original 737 - notice engines


737-MAX - notice engines!

[Kawazaki]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

[Sandstorm]

1) Too much
2) Too much

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

No idea about the numbers but the problem with 2) is that I gather it would have taken at least another 5 years to design a new plane during which time every other aircraft manufacturer is eating your lunch in the busiest segment of the market.

[Lemoentjie]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

2. More than it would to pay out compensation for the crashes the Max would cause during its lifetime

[Torquemada 1420]

Original 737 - notice engines


737-MAX - notice engines!

You understand what "diameter"means, right?

[Torquemada 1420]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

On 2, impossible to gauge because scrapping them and the dev time to new, approved type would be so long, Airbus may have swallowed the market by then.

[Saint]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

2. More than it would to pay out compensation for the crashes the Max would cause during its lifetime

Yeah - on point 2 it would effectively mean Boeing were walking away from the single aisle market. A new airframe is already under development, but don't expect to see it till 2028/2029 at earliest. If they were to stop selling Max in the meantime Airbus would finally have all the justification to double manufacturing and clean up. By the time Boeing had an offering the market would be owned by Airbus who would also have their new airframe available- the difference being that Airbus has always been fly by wire with minimal retraining needed between types.

[Kawazaki]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

2. More than it would to pay out compensation for the crashes the Max would cause during its lifetime

But if another Max crashes due to the same design fault then Boeing as a company are surely finished anyway?

[laurent]

To big to fail, they are making huge money on military gear.

[Saint]

Two questions;

1. How much has this mess cost Boeing already (compensation, lost sales, share value, reputation etc etc)

2. How much would it cost to scrap every Max, announce mea culpa, take the medicine and start from scratch?

2. More than it would to pay out compensation for the crashes the Max would cause during its lifetime

But if another Max crashes due to the same design fault then Boeing as a company are surely finished anyway?

Not a chance. US military contracts will keep them afloat forever

[Kawazaki]

2. More than it would to pay out compensation for the crashes the Max would cause during its lifetime

But if another Max crashes due to the same design fault then Boeing as a company are surely finished anyway?

Not a chance. US military contracts will keep them afloat forever

Ok, but their commercial arm would be in tatters.

[Saint]

But if another Max crashes due to the same design fault then Boeing as a company are surely finished anyway?

Not a chance. US military contracts will keep them afloat forever

Ok, but their commercial arm would be in tatters.

As I posted earlier - if they pull out of the narrows body market, they're effectively ceding it forever. Itg takes a decade to bring a new frame to market, and Airbus will simply have that time to own the market.

[Kawazaki]

Not a chance. US military contracts will keep them afloat forever

Ok, but their commercial arm would be in tatters.

As I posted earlier - if they pull out of the narrows body market, they're effectively ceding it forever. Itg takes a decade to bring a new frame to market, and Airbus will simply have that time to own the market.

If the Max is all Boeing has to offer to that market and if the Max can never fully address/correct the design flaws sufficiently to get accreditation then it is out of that market by default anyway.

I guess the real decision is knowing when to let go of the rising balloon isn't it.

[Saint]

Ok, but their commercial arm would be in tatters.

As I posted earlier - if they pull out of the narrows body market, they're effectively ceding it forever. Itg takes a decade to bring a new frame to market, and Airbus will simply have that time to own the market.

If the Max is all Boeing has to offer to that market and if the Max can never fully address/correct the design flaws sufficiently to get accreditation then it is out of that market by default anyway.

I guess the real decision is knowing when to let go of the rising balloon isn't it.

It as been re-accredited by the FAA as it stands, so that's a null consideration

It's also been re-accredited by EASA as well, albeit with a higher re-training threshold.

Even if Boeing completely cover all the retraining costs, it's the only possible route they can take to stay in the market. Even if they lose 75% of future sales, it's still better than the alternative. Bearing in mind that both Airbus and Boeing have 10 year order backlogs for narrowbodies, it's difficult for existing orders to switch - unless one were to withdraw from the market completely, thus providing the incentive for the other to make the enormous capital investment to build out additional production

[Kawazaki]

Maybe Boris can print another £100bn and the UK can get de Havilland back in the market?!

[Sandstorm]

Maybe Boris can print another £100bn and the UK can get de Havilland back in the market?!

Well we make almost half an Airbus here already, maybe not such a bad idea after Brexit.

[Kawazaki]

Maybe Boris can print another £100bn and the UK can get de Havilland back in the market?!

Well we make almost half an Airbus here already, maybe not such a bad idea after Brexit.

The UK used to be good at making things and inventing new things to make. Planes, Trains, Automobiles and Ships.

[Kawazaki]

It as been re-accredited by the FAA as it stands, so that's a null consideration

It's also been re-accredited by EASA as well, albeit with a higher re-training threshold.

Even if Boeing completely cover all the retraining costs, it's the only possible route they can take to stay in the market. Even if they lose 75% of future sales, it's still better than the alternative. Bearing in mind that both Airbus and Boeing have 10 year order backlogs for narrowbodies, it's difficult for existing orders to switch - unless one were to withdraw from the market completely, thus providing the incentive for the other to make the enormous capital investment to build out additional production

Do the FAA have any credibility?

[Saint]

It as been re-accredited by the FAA as it stands, so that's a null consideration

It's also been re-accredited by EASA as well, albeit with a higher re-training threshold.

Even if Boeing completely cover all the retraining costs, it's the only possible route they can take to stay in the market. Even if they lose 75% of future sales, it's still better than the alternative. Bearing in mind that both Airbus and Boeing have 10 year order backlogs for narrowbodies, it's difficult for existing orders to switch - unless one were to withdraw from the market completely, thus providing the incentive for the other to make the enormous capital investment to build out additional production

Do the FAA have any credibility?

What's that got to do with it? They approve 737max for US operators. Even if no other body signed off on the Max, their approval covers domestic US - which is a huge market. Add in Europe signing off, and Boeing are able to fly in two major markets.

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

[Kawazaki]

It as been re-accredited by the FAA as it stands, so that's a null consideration

It's also been re-accredited by EASA as well, albeit with a higher re-training threshold.

Even if Boeing completely cover all the retraining costs, it's the only possible route they can take to stay in the market. Even if they lose 75% of future sales, it's still better than the alternative. Bearing in mind that both Airbus and Boeing have 10 year order backlogs for narrowbodies, it's difficult for existing orders to switch - unless one were to withdraw from the market completely, thus providing the incentive for the other to make the enormous capital investment to build out additional production

Do the FAA have any credibility?

What's that got to do with it? They approve 737max for US operators. Even if no other body signed off on the Max, their approval covers domestic US - which is a huge market. Add in Europe signing off, and Boeing are able to fly in two major markets.

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

I thought the FAA have been implicated as complicit with Boeing in the 737Max disaster, no?

[GogLais]

Original 737 - notice engines


737-MAX - notice engines!

You understand what "diameter"means, right?

"If it looks right it is right" has gone out of the window then.

[Saint]

Do the FAA have any credibility?

What's that got to do with it? They approve 737max for US operators. Even if no other body signed off on the Max, their approval covers domestic US - which is a huge market. Add in Europe signing off, and Boeing are able to fly in two major markets.

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

I thought the FAA have been implicated as complicit with Boeing in the 737Max disaster, no?

They're still the US regulator.

[Torquemada 1420]

Not a chance. US military contracts will keep them afloat forever

This.

[Torquemada 1420]

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

FCA anyone?

[Saint]

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

FCA anyone?

Again - while the FAA remains the US regulator, their word is law in tge YS domestic market at least. They have approved the Max, so US Airlines can fly it domestically

Easa have approved tge Max fit Europe, so it can fly in Europe. You can argue that tge regulator doesn't have credibility, but they are legally the regulator. Dies anyone really expect an airline that has made a huge investment in an inflame to refuse to use it after the regulator has said they approve?

[Sandstorm]

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

FCA anyone?

Again - while the FAA remains the US regulator, their word is law in tge YS domestic market at least. They have approved the Max, so US Airlines can fly it domestically

Easa have approved tge Max fit Europe, so it can fly in Europe. You can argue that tge regulator doesn't have credibility, but they are legally the regulator. Dies anyone really expect an airline that has made a huge investment in an inflame to refuse to use it after the regulator has said they approve?

Jeez Saint, you on the booze? Never seen you make so many typos.

[Saint]

FCA anyone?

Again - while the FAA remains the US regulator, their word is law in tge YS domestic market at least. They have approved the Max, so US Airlines can fly it domestically

Easa have approved tge Max fit Europe, so it can fly in Europe. You can argue that tge regulator doesn't have credibility, but they are legally the regulator. Dies anyone really expect an airline that has made a huge investment in an inflame to refuse to use it after the regulator has said they approve?

Jeez Saint, you on the booze? Never seen you make so many typos.

Been drinking since around 11ish. That's when I started prep for tomorrow.

Am a firm believer of the Keith Floyd school of cookery

[Wignu]

Again - while the FAA remains the US regulator, their word is law in tge YS domestic market at least. They have approved the Max, so US Airlines can fly it domestically

Easa have approved tge Max fit Europe, so it can fly in Europe. You can argue that tge regulator doesn't have credibility, but they are legally the regulator. Dies anyone really expect an airline that has made a huge investment in an inflame to refuse to use it after the regulator has said they approve?

Jeez Saint, you on the booze? Never seen you make so many typos.

Been drinking since around 11ish. That's when I started prep for tomorrow.

Am a firm believer of the Keith Floyd school of cookery

With some Julia Child thrown in for good measure too?

[Torquemada 1420]

Whether the regulator is credible or not is irrelevant as long as they're still the regulator

FCA anyone?

Again - while the FAA remains the US regulator, their word is law in tge YS domestic market at least. They have approved the Max, so US Airlines can fly it domestically

Easa have approved tge Max fit Europe, so it can fly in Europe. You can argue that tge regulator doesn't have credibility, but they are legally the regulator. Dies anyone really expect an airline that has made a huge investment in an inflame to refuse to use it after the regulator has said they approve?

https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/reg ... eport.html?

[Lobby]

This won’t improve confidence in the Max

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ical-issue

[obelixtim]

The first few flights need to be full of Boeing Execs and FAA regulators. I think the public are not going to be keen on boarding the MAX.

No doubt Ryanair will get a deal on a job lot and their clients will become the guinea pigs.

[Sandstorm]

The first few flights need to be full of Boeing Execs and FAA regulators. I think the public are not going to be keen on boarding the MAX.

No doubt Ryanair will get a deal on a job lot and their clients will become the guinea pigs.

Once lockdown ends people will queue up to ride Challenger after a hard frost.

[Torquemada 1420]

The first few flights need to be full of Boeing Execs and FAA regulators. I think the public are not going to be keen on boarding the MAX.

No doubt Ryanair will get a deal on a job lot and their clients will become the guinea pigs.

Once lockdown ends people will queue up to ride Challenger after a hard frost.