Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: 737 max 8

  1. #1

    Default 737 max 8

    It would appear that the system Boeing designed to be transparent was too transparent.

    Here's the terrifying reason Boeing's 737 MAX 8 is grounded across the globe
    Pilots are outraged that Boeing did not properly inform them of a program that can wrench control of an aircraft from human hands

    There is nothing wrong with the basic mechanics of the aircraft: Its engines, wings and control surfaces are all believed to be working fine. Rather, the passenger jet may have killed 346 people for the terrifyingly modern reason that human pilots were unable to override a malfunctioning computer.


    The cause of the Lion Air crash — and the suspected cause of the recent downing of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — is a little-known piece of software known as MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.


    The 737 MAX 8 has heavier and more fuel-efficient engines than prior editions of the 737, a change which causes the aircraft to pitch upwards ever-so-slightly after takeoff.

    Rather than instructing airlines to warn their pilots of this quirk, Boeing simply equipped the MAX 8 with MCAS, a program that would automatically tilt the nose downwards to compensate.


    ---


    Ever since the Lion Air crash, 737 MAX 8 pilots have been expressing outrage that Boeing did not properly inform them of MCAS, particularly the possibility that the program could wrench control of an aircraft from human hands.


    “We had NO idea that this MCAS even existed,” one anonymous American Airlines pilot posted to an online forum. “I’ve been flying the MAX-8 a couple times per month for almost a year now, and I’m sitting here thinking, what the hell else don’t I know about this thing?”

    An aircraft incident reporting database maintained by NASA is filled with multiple reports from MAX 8 pilots of the aircraft aggressively pitching forward soon after takeoff.

    One pilot wrote of having to take special caution during takeoff to remove the “MCAS threat.” Nevertheless, that pilot still suffered an “undesired brief nose down situation.”

    In another, a pilot called the MAX 8’s flight manual “almost criminally insufficient” and complained that Boeing had left pilots in the dark about the extent of the MAX 8’s automation.

    “The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag,” read the report.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/heres-...-8-is-grounded

  2. #2

    Default

    Truly sad. Rumbles on Youtube has Boeing attempting to have the grounding avoided through higher up request... That would truly show how far greed has lost touch with life. We need to have that fine balance back.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Truly sad. Rumbles on Youtube has Boeing attempting to have the grounding avoided through higher up request... That would truly show how far greed has lost touch with life. We need to have that fine balance back.
    “We need to have that fine balance back.“

    You’re believing YouTube?

  4. #4

    Default

    My neighbour is an Air Canada senior pilot and a certified trainer. He told me that Air Canada is the only airline in the world that he knows of, that trains their pilots the procedures on how to shut off the MCAS system.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,907

    Default

    A few fighter jets are designed to be inherently unstable and use flight controls like this to counter it. Being so close to the edge (or past it) improves their maneuvrability. However not something necessary or desireable on a commercial jet liner.
    Pretty interesting read on how they got to this point. In order to compete with the airbus neo they needed to add more fuel efficient engines to their 737, which were larger, so they moved them forward and up on the wing to accommodate. Which changed the COG and changed the lift characteristics. Which necessitated the need for the MCAS. They were considering a clean sheet re-design to compete, but that would take too long and cost too much, so the MAX 8.

  6. #6

    Default

    Not necessarily believing in it but another perspective to look at as the so called " real news" don't cover real news anymore. Believing in our news system ( accept local) is as laughable as YT if you really want to open the can of worms.
    Last edited by ctzn-Ed; 15-03-2019 at 02:27 PM.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    A few fighter jets are designed to be inherently unstable and use flight controls like this to counter it. Being so close to the edge (or past it) improves their maneuvrability. However not something necessary or desireable on a commercial jet liner.
    Pretty interesting read on how they got to this point. In order to compete with the airbus neo they needed to add more fuel efficient engines to their 737, which were larger, so they moved them forward and up on the wing to accommodate. Which changed the COG and changed the lift characteristics. Which necessitated the need for the MCAS. They were considering a clean sheet re-design to compete, but that would take too long and cost too much, so the MAX 8.
    Boeing 737-100
    First commercial service 1968
    Passengers 85 (124 max)
    Length/span 94 feet/93 feet
    Wing area 980ft2
    MTOW 110,000 lb
    Thrust 2x 14,000 lbf

    Boeing 737-MAX-8
    First commercial service 2017
    Passengers 178 (210 max)
    Length/span 129 feet/118 feet
    Wing area 1370ft2
    MTOW 181,200 lb
    Thrust 2x 26,786 to 29,317 lbf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8

    Default

    Boeing has much greater influence in the US government than in previous administrations. Like many departments of the government, lobbyists and former employees of the very industries they're supposed to regulate have declared their intention to "cut red tape" and "Make things easier for business". Government should rely on people knowledgeable with the industries they're responsible for while remembering that the government is responsible to the people, not to businesses.

    Trump grounds Boeing jets amid global outcry

    The action represents a rare case in which other countries — including allies such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany and the European Union — refused to follow the FAA's lead in dealing with the safety of a U.S.-made aircraft. Even more strikingly, the U.S. bowed to the pressure, even after Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg assured Trump in a phone conversation Tuesday that the aircraft is safe.


    Trump said Wednesday that "Boeing is an incredible company. ... Hopefully they will very quickly come up with the answer. But until they do, the planes are grounded."


    He called the move "a very tough decision."

    "We didn’t have to make this decision today," Trump said. "We didn’t have to make it at all.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...canada-1220264

  9. #9
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,838
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #10
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Boeing has much greater influence in the US government than in previous administrations.(…)
    ...please detail out what greater influence, on which administration, and which pervious administration was harder on Boeing?
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  11. #11

    Default

    I think this is the starkest sign of how badly Boeing approached the small plane market: It tried to kill the Cseries by getting the US government to slap an absurd tariff on a niche it didn't even serve, then tried to take over Embraer wholesale but failed, and now their stopgap solution is shown to have (literally) fatal flaws.

    Meanwhile, China is having a major schadenfreude moment over this (they were the first ones to impose a full-scale grounding). Their C919 is another upcoming competitor in the small plane market and it's a perfect opportunity to hit back over previous incidents like ZTE and Huawei.

    The small plane market is the next big trend in passenger aviation and none of the main players can afford to screw it up. So-called skinny routes, or point-to-point connections between middle sized markets, are breaking down the traditional hub-and-spoke model.

    I wasn't kidding when comparing the end of A380 production to the end of Concorde. They were each extreme examples of visions of the aviation future, ones that the market eventually rejected.
    Last edited by Foolworm; 15-03-2019 at 12:36 PM.

  12. #12

    Default

    I’m always a fan of root causes so it was super interesting to learn that the Max 8 was a rushed response to the Canadian made C series jet, which proved to be an industry game changer!

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Boeing has much greater influence in the US government than in previous administrations.(…)
    ...please detail out what greater influence, on which administration, and which pervious administration was harder on Boeing?
    From that well known lefty rag, The Economic Times.
    Updated: Mar 13, 2019

    Ties between Boeing and Donald Trump run deep


    Trump has used Boeing products and sites as a backdrop for major announcements over the course of his presidency. In March 2018 he touted the impact of his tax overhaul bill as he visited a plant in St. Louis.



    Before joining the Pentagon, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who is expected to be named to the post, worked for 31 years at Boeing, where he was general manager for the 787 Dreamliner passenger jet.


    Boeing has nominated Nikki Haley, Trump's former U.S. ambassaambassador to the United Nations who continues to be a close ally, to join its board of directors at the company's annual shareholders meeting on April 29.


    Trump has also put pressure on U.S. allies to buy products from Boeing, the country's second largest defense contractor which received $104 billion in unclassified defense contracts between 2014 and 2018.


    U.S. officials and defense industry sources said that weeks after Trump pressed the Emir of Kuwait in 2018 over a long-delayed deal for Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, Kuwait said it would proceed with the order.


    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/68389185.cms

  14. #14
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,260

    Default

    ^

    you do realize that you still haven't answered the actual question RichardS asked don't you?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  15. #15

    Default

    I don't recall any prior Presidential appointee acting as a salesman for his former company.

    Trump’s defense secretary faces ethics complaint over Boeing promotion

    A government watchdog group has asked the Department of Defense Inspector General to investigate whether Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan violated ethics rules by promoting Boeing weapons systems while serving as a government official.


    Shanahan, 56, worked at Boeing for more than 30 years prior to being tapped by President Donald Trump to serve as deputy secretary of defense under former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. When Mattis submitted his resignation in December, Shanahan was named by Trump as acting defense secretary.


    Since coming to the Pentagon, Shanahan has faced criticism over reports that he has touted Boeing’s line of aircraft over rival Lockheed Martin. In the fiscal year 2020 budget released Tuesday, the Air Force is set to purchase up to 80 F-15Xs over the next five years — a system, made by Boeing, that the Air Force has said it does not want.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...r-boeing-ties/
    And I'm not the only one who's asking questions.

    The Trump Administration's Relationship With Boeing Is Under Scrutiny After Crashes

    Shanahan, who came to the Pentagon after spending more than three decades at Boeing, has routinely fended off questions about potential conflicts of interest with the aerospace company that also happens to be one of the largest suppliers for the U.S. military.


    His public support for an investigation at Thursday’s Senate Armed Services hearing comes a day after a government watchdog group, called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), wrote a 9-page complaint to the Pentagon’s inspector general urging the agency to scrutinize the relationship. At issue is whether Shanahan pushed the Pentagon to buy more Boeing-made F-15X fighter jets, which the Air Force does not want, and whether he castigated Boeing-rival Lockheed Martin Corp. during government meetings.


    The group cited a Politico report in January that said Shanahan had been promoting Boeing while criticizing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin program. The plane was “f-cked up,” he reportedly said, and Lockheed Martin “doesn’t know how to run a program.”

    ---

    Boeing has long been part of Washington’s “revolving door” between government, industry and the lobbying world that, critics say, make it hard to tell where one job begins and the other ends. Trump’s former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, for example, is joining Boeing’s board of directors after leaving the Administration more than two months ago. (The company has also hired 19 officials from the Department of Defense since 2008, according to the watchdog Project on Government Oversight.)

    William D. Hartung, director of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy, said the arrangement is odd. “The Trump Administration’s relationship with Boeing is precisely what President Eisenhower was thinking of when he warned of the dangers of unwarranted influence wielded by the military-industrial complex,” he said. “The fact that the acting secretary of defense is a former Boeing executive raises serious questions.”

    http://time.com/5552076/boeing-737-crash-trump-boeing/
    But let's not question what Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex". There's just too much money to be made.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 15-03-2019 at 12:15 PM.

  16. #16
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I’m always a fan of root causes so it was super interesting to learn that the Max 8 was a rushed response to the Canadian made C series jet, which proved to be an industry game changer!
    Sorry that it wasn't clear. The MAX is a response to the Airbus A321neo. Not the C-series planes (now called Airbus A220). Those are much smaller and don't compete in the same market/routes.

  17. #17

    Default

    The Chinese angle will sure get interesting for sure. I can't help but think Canada will be joining that buffet as well.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  18. #18
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I’m always a fan of root causes so it was super interesting to learn that the Max 8 was a rushed response to the Canadian made C series jet, which proved to be an industry game changer!
    Sorry that it wasn't clear. The MAX is a response to the Airbus A321neo. Not the C-series planes (now called Airbus A220). Those are much smaller and don't compete in the same market/routes.

    Thank you. I am so sick of the BS in this issue. The C-Series/A220 is not a factor, and the Delta trade conversation proved that out.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  19. #19
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^

    you do realize that you still haven't answered the actual question RichardS asked don't you?

    KK doesn't care. It is all about avoiding the real issue, and all about making it about Trump. Sure, Trump is a bombastic narcissist who will take credit for everything, but we know that he is a bombastic narcissist. That; however, is not why the FAA was last to the table.

    Heaven forbid there is a process where evidence is gathered, assessments are made, and then action it taken...just like Garneau who didn't make the call until more evidence was given. But then KK and others would have to understand how TC works, what actually are the consequences in grounding an entire aircraft fleet, how it affects global trade and commerce, the howling of the travelling public, the liability on all sides of the conversation, the lasting effects of the grounding on schedules, how amazingly uncooperative joe/jane q public are, the hype of social media and false reporting by "Citizen journalists"...

    ...and the amazing new satellite array NAVCanada has to track A/C globally which can give it a unique insight into things like this...I bet not many of you know what NAVCan is doing...and it is pretty freaking sweet! Hey KK, could this be what I am trying to do with the Airshow...show off this type of advancements? Nah. Of course not.

    You can certainly tell those that have had hard decisions thrust upon them vs those that just like to blame. The blamers are shouting at the FAA, and at TC/Garneau. I think Marc did the right thing. In the evidence he had, Air Canada and WestJet were aware of this potential issue and had trained their pilots to recognize it and react...just like the rudder issue of 1994. Marc has the experience of the training in this world where risk assessments are made on a routine basis, and so do many in the FAA. They know the liability of both sides - the complexity of grounding a fleet. The FAA had 9/11 as a backdrop to what it is like to shut something down like that. It is not easy, and I am sure it was weighing on Marc's mind. Once evidence was presented, Marc made the call.

    nah...it must be about TRUMP.

    And if KK would like to actually research aviation accidents and the politics/nuances/issues/complexities within them all, then the answer to the question I posed would be apparent.

    Oh, and by the way KK, the answer is all of them since the dawn of aviation. All have been influenced, lobbied, lobbied after accidents, lobbied for foreign markets, foreign market protection...and all have reacted in one way or another, and you would be hard pressed to make the case that Trump is more or less affected by the same. Same for AIRBUS, Embraer, Bombardier...and their requisite political leaders and certification agencies. The only thing you said correct was paraphrasing Ike's comment, but then that complex affects all Administration's equally...unless you're trying to say your heroes weren't? Should I bring up Kennedy/LBJ and the Arrow v F-15?

    I did start a list of accidents by aircraft type and similar issues, by all makes, but that just gets too long. Airbus, MD, Boeing...even NASA (Challenger anyone?)

    The key here is the age old questions of:

    1. how much tech is too much?
    2. where should automation end and humanity begin?
    3. is this new thing a new version (type rating), or a whole new plane? How should certification be done? How do we keep the politics out of certification?
    4. pilot training, airline revenue, manufacturer reputation, public outcry for having plans cancelled, public outcry for ...


    I could go into the lengthy post, but that would bore many here, and I am waiting for the investigation. KK accused me of having a slavish devotion to a part of aviation, but if KK actually would stop being so biased and look at what I actually do, KK would find out that it is really about answering the questions above, and integrating it into helping Edmonton diversify its economy. Coincidentally, one of the first symposiums proposed for the Career Fair was this exact question of how much tech is too much. Given this event, I am looking at accelerating that conversation.


    ...but yeah...trump...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  20. #20
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    I think this is the starkest sign of how badly Boeing approached the small plane market: It tried to kill the Cseries by getting the US government to slap an absurd tariff on a niche it didn't even serve, then tried to take over Embraer wholesale but failed, and now their stopgap solution is shown to have (literally) fatal flaws.

    Meanwhile, China is having a major schadenfreude moment over this (they were the first ones to impose a full-scale grounding). Their C919 is another upcoming competitor in the small plane market and it's a perfect opportunity to hit back over previous incidents like ZTE and Huawei.

    The small plane market is the next big trend in passenger aviation and none of the main players can afford to screw it up. So-called skinny routes, or point-to-point connections between middle sized markets, are breaking down the traditional hub-and-spoke model.

    I wasn't kidding when comparing the end of A380 production to the end of Concorde. They were each extreme examples of visions of the aviation future, ones that the market eventually rejected.
    There's a lot to unpack here, and you touching on one issue with global trade/certification.

    ...are incidents like this going to be politicized to hurt one nation's economy v another? Is one nation ignoring the certification process in favour of rapid development? Is the ban on the 737 Max tempered with aviation authorities trying to get back at Boeing, or embarrass Boeing? Boeing hasn't been a saint either....

    In this case, it is the argument of aircraft type commonality (a version upgrade for the computer speakers) vs a whole new airplane. The 2 737's EPRT referenced earlier are only common by saying they are the 737 family, but the planes couldn't be further apart. It is like saying a 1950 F series truck and a 2019 F series truck are the same...they are not.

    The issue I am seeing, and was raised before, is what is the level where the design is considered net new? In some aspects of the automotive world, if you can say 40% or more of the parts are new, or not interchangeable, then it is a new car model even if you call it a Cadillac Eldorado. In this case, the 737 Max only shares virtually nothing with the NG/Classic/original series. ...it is manufactured in Renton, is called a 737, and has the same radar cover. That's about it from what I know today. However, when this was being tested, this was treated as more of a version upgrade than net new. The investigation will ferret out whether or not this approach was foolhardy.

    I agree about the abandonment of hub/spoke in aviation, especially in the First World. This model lead to delays and the creation of superhubs, which are logistically a nightmare. This is where the C-series/Embraer will shine. However, the 737 Max and the A321Neo are meant for higher load routes, both in cargo and in passengers. Their range is larger too. ...and, you must remember that the 737 Max is also an attempt to replace the 757 series as they are getting old. I often wonder why they didn't redo the 757...it was taller, removed the clearance issues, and had a great wing. That thing is a rocket, and operators love it as much as the 727.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  21. #21

    Default

    New Evidence in Ethiopian 737 Crash Points to Connection to Earlier Disaster

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/b...ian-crash.html

    The evidence, a piece of the Boeing 737 Max 8 jet that crashed in Ethiopia last weekend killing 157 people, suggests that the plane’s stabilizers were tilted upward, according to two people with knowledge of the recovery operations. At that angle, the stabilizers would have forced down the nose of the jet, a similarity with the Lion Air crash in October.

    Separately, I have read that Boeing had to modify the 737 airframe for newer engines, which necessitated changes to the forward landing gear, which may have caused problems with the 2 types of sensors that inform the new software control system.

    From the draft Lion Air report, that plane seemed to exhibit control problems when autopilot was engaged, problems that stopped when it was disengaged, which had happened on a prior flight with the same plane. Other pilots have reported similar behaviour, collected by an anonymous reporting system managed by NASA.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  22. #22
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...just one of the issues Marc had to contemplate ...and the repercussions if he knee jerked...

    AC suspends 2019 Financial Guidance.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  23. #23
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Sully making remarks echoed by my father and many others in the industry for some time...

    Inadequate training and rushing unqualified people into the cockpit
    ... This is a huge issue for the industry as a whole.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  24. #24

    Default

    I don't think it's hard to see a political motive in, say, China grounding its entire fleet less than 24 hours after the incident. That's not enough time to even attempt any rescue efforts, let alone conduct a preliminary investigation. In light of recent grievances with the US, I think it is reasonable to infer as such.

    Oh the other hand, is it wrong to say their actions are justified when they (purportedly) act out of 'an excess of caution?' This is the second catastrophic crash in as many years involving a brand new aircraft of the same, newly introduced model. The last time a wholesale grounding like this occurred was the Dreamliner and their battery problems, and that was with no fatalities - compare this to the 737 Max, which has now incurred 350 in two years.

    It is entirely fair to say that the consequences of a grounding have to be weighed carefully, and that due process is allowed. However, China essentially 'took the lead' by being proactive in implementing a ban, with Indonesia following close behind. Both are giant aviation markets, and it set a precedent for other countries to follow. Besides the horrible optics, there is also the matter of consistency - if a country grounds its fleet, how is it supposed to tolerate aircraft of another flag over its airspace?

    In this case the US had to do an about-face, which seriously undermines its credibility given that it is the producer nation of the aircraft in question. Of course the sordid details are a feast for the media, but I emphasise that the FAA has a SAFETY mandate i.e. that it should on principle err on the side of caution.

    As an aside, I don't think the certification process is an issue here. There are pretty much only two authorities who really have any saying power (EASA and FAA) and anyone who is even remotely familiar with them will also know the sanctity of those institutions. Backpedalling a bit, I believe the either has enough authority such that any proclamation is enough for the rest of the world to follow suit. This allows for a orderly, coordinated process and is the usual state of affairs - witness 9/11 and how well-organised the response of the aviation world was. In this case, China broke order and unilaterally declared a grounding of the fleet, and that other countries would follow its lead is, I suspect, a sign of its growing clout.

  25. #25

    Default

    China didn't have to care that Boeing gave its president's Inaugural Committee a million bucks...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  26. #26
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    I don't think it's hard to see a political motive in, say, China grounding its entire fleet less than 24 hours after the incident. That's not enough time to even attempt any rescue efforts, let alone conduct a preliminary investigation. In light of recent grievances with the US, I think it is reasonable to infer as such.

    (…)
    As an aside, I don't think the certification process is an issue here. There are pretty much only two authorities who really have any saying power (EASA and FAA) and anyone who is even remotely familiar with them will also know the sanctity of those institutions. Backpedalling a bit, I believe the either has enough authority such that any proclamation is enough for the rest of the world to follow suit. This allows for a orderly, coordinated process and is the usual state of affairs - witness 9/11 and how well-organised the response of the aviation world was. In this case, China broke order and unilaterally declared a grounding of the fleet, and that other countries would follow its lead is, I suspect, a sign of its growing clout.

    I can agree that the Chinese decision could easily be inferred as political, especially with the haste. Safety can become a concern to tout, but the speed at which the ban came was, um, impressive... The domino effect alludes to what you suggest...

    Groundings are uncommon, the last one I can recall due to a crash was the DC-10 after Chicago.

    I've come to know a few FAA folks over the years, and I echo the safety first mandate. They are as risk adverse as TC. I rely heavily on my local TC advisors, and of the FAA when I am visiting the US. I would argue that the certification process is and will be brought up as a potential issue, just like training, hours of experience..it is all up for grabs now as it all plays into this. If the interpretation was that the FAA was in some kind of conspiracy, I apologize. That is not the word in the industry; rather, the process was followed, but was it the right process. Alarm bells were rung back in 2012 and all through the Max's development saying this was an all new plane, and that it maybe should even have a new designation. ...or be a NG 757. As you've no doubt read, the use of the 737 type saved Boeing design time, and now there is a conversation on the FAR's for this...but that will work itself out. It is a conversation that I think is long overdue as pilots of the NG 800/900 were complaining about this already...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  27. #27

    Default

    The point being is that the US was the last to the table and they had the manufacturer right there at their beck and call. And yet every major country grounded their 737 MAX planes before they did. Two crashes, not within two years but within 6 months ( October 29, 2018, Lion Air Flight 610, March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302), both just after takeoff. We have also gotten word about what Boeing did and did not tell the airlines about the MCAS system, including from pilots from American where they stated that they had been given no information on it or how to override it. But sure, let's just keep flying, regardless. Maybe we'll have another crash in another 6 months. Would you be OK with an immediate grounding then? How about two?

    There have been questions raised about the large number of industry lobbyists that are in the current American administration. Generally, the rest of the world have followed the American lead. We're seeing a situation where that may no longer be the case if it's shown that something other than passenger safety is being relied upon to make these decisions.

    So if two crashes of the same model plane, under similar situations in six months isn't sufficient reason for a grounding, what is? Three? Four in a year? Or should the planes just keep flying and crashing as long as the period between crashes is getting longer?
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 16-03-2019 at 03:18 AM.

  28. #28

    Default

    Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  29. #29

    Default

    Deregulation, abdicating oversight and making the bottom line more important than safety.

    From the link above.

    The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.

    Early on in certification of the 737 MAX, the FAA safety engineering team divided up the technical assessments that would be delegated to Boeing versus those they considered more critical and would be retained within the FAA.

    But several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing.

    A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA.”

    “There was constant pressure to re-evaluate our initial decisions,” the former engineer said. “And even after we had reassessed it … there was continued discussion by management about delegating even more items down to the Boeing Company.”

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Deregulation, abdicating oversight and making the bottom line more important than safety.

    From the link above.

    The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.

    Early on in certification of the 737 MAX, the FAA safety engineering team divided up the technical assessments that would be delegated to Boeing versus those they considered more critical and would be retained within the FAA.

    But several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing.

    A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA.”

    “There was constant pressure to re-evaluate our initial decisions,” the former engineer said. “And even after we had reassessed it … there was continued discussion by management about delegating even more items down to the Boeing Company.”
    “As Boeing hustled in 2015 ...”

    Seems like an appropriate time for someone to blast Obama.
    Last edited by KC; 17-03-2019 at 06:31 PM.

  31. #31

    Default

    Yup, as it happened under his watch. Also, the congress as they are the ones who actually set the budget allocations.

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    I've flown on the Max 8 several times in the past couple of years. Nice airplane, I especially like the larger overhead baggage compartments.

    It's rather ironic that the Airbus which was the first passenger aircraft with a completely digital fly by wire control system was criticized for having a flight control system that would not always accept pilot input. In 1988, an Air France Airbus crashed while conducting a low level low speed fly by at an airshow. The pilot flew the plane too low and when he tried to apply power and lift the nose by activating the elevators the FCS went into stall prevention mode and did not respond to the pilot's inputs. Sounds rather familiar. At the time, there was general praise in the pilot community for Boeing's jets still having traditional mechanical control systems.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  33. #33

    Default

    Will Garneau put Canadians safety above Boeing's bottom line?

    Canada urged to review aircraft certification agreement with U.S. following Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes

    Ashley Nunes, who studies regulatory policy at MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics, said the FAA has for years lacked adequate resources and staffing, which has had an “impact on the quality of service.” Currently, the FAA hasn’t had a permanent top official for 14 months.


    Nunes said a report from the Seattle Times alleging that the FAA sped up approval of Boeing’s 737 MAX 8, which included a flawed safety analysis, is more evidence Canada needs to rethink how it approaches certification with the troubled U.S. agency.


    “The FAA was putting pressure on its own employees to hurry up and certify the airplane, which, quite frankly, is not the role of the agency,” Nunes told Global News. “The agency isn’t there to look out for Boeing. The agency is there to look out for the flying public.”
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5069202/c...-boeing-max-8/

  34. #34

    Default

    EU & Canada to conduct independence certification of 737 MAX after crashes.

    Stakes rise for Boeing as EU, Canada step up scrutiny of 737 MAX after crashes

    As the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) analyses Boeing’s plans for a software fix prompted by the first crash five months ago, the European Union’s aviation safety agency EASA promised its own deep look at any design improvements.

    “We will not allow the aircraft to fly if we have not found acceptable answers to all our questions,” EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky told an EU parliament committee hearing.

    Canada said it would independently certify the 737 MAX in the future, rather than accepting FAA validation. It also said it would send a team to help U.S. authorities evaluate proposed design changes and decide if others were needed.

    Boeing Co declined to comment.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/ethi...-idUSKCN1R01AW

  35. #35
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    I've flown on the Max 8 several times in the past couple of years. Nice airplane, I especially like the larger overhead baggage compartments.

    It's rather ironic that the Airbus which was the first passenger aircraft with a completely digital fly by wire control system was criticized for having a flight control system that would not always accept pilot input. In 1988, an Air France Airbus crashed while conducting a low level low speed fly by at an airshow. The pilot flew the plane too low and when he tried to apply power and lift the nose by activating the elevators the FCS went into stall prevention mode and did not respond to the pilot's inputs. Sounds rather familiar. At the time, there was general praise in the pilot community for Boeing's jets still having traditional mechanical control systems.

    I intentionally left that accident out as it is mired in controversy over allegations of doctored CVR's and FDR's, allegations of pilot error, etc. ...but yes, that accident was the first time, and a constant whipping boy, when planes that are automated start doing things contrary to what pilots want.

    ...there is a conflict between pilots who are trained to fly who hate control being wrestled away from them vs "push button" pilots that haven't flown planes you have to fly. That statement will become clearer as this investigation rolls on as I am sure it will be brought up. I can explain more if people want.

    ...it will also highlight why other Airbus planes that crashed due to erroneous readings compiled with pilot error (AF447 anyone) weren't immediately grounded...oh, that's right. Training and AD's were issued for flight with abnormal airspeed indications...just like training was issued for the MAX...and then training will be put on the forefront of NA/EUR pilots vs others...it is going to get messy...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  36. #36
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ...it will also highlight why other Airbus planes that crashed due to erroneous readings compiled with pilot error (AF447 anyone) weren't immediately grounded...oh, that's right. Training and AD's were issued for flight with abnormal airspeed indications...just like training was issued for the MAX...and then training will be put on the forefront of NA/EUR pilots vs others...it is going to get messy...
    Yes, AF447 was a total cockup since it was determined that the crew did not follow the procedure for dealing with unreliable air-speed from a faulty pitot tube. The first Max 8 crash was also attributed to a faulty angle of attack sensor. The CBC interviewed a Canadian aviation expert after the 2nd Max 8 crash and one of things he mentioned was how Canadian pilots were taught how to turn off MCAS so obviously dealing with a recalcitrant FCS is part of the training syllabus. I would hope that is something all airlines should have as part of their simulator scenarios.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  37. #37

    Default

    Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-later-crashed

    As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving BoeingCo. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.



    That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia’s investigation.



    The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  38. #38

    Default

    The FBI has joined the investigation.

    FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX

    The FBI has joined the criminal investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, lending its considerable resources to an inquiry already being conducted by U.S. Department of Transportation agents, according to people familiar with the matter.


    The federal grand jury investigation, based in Washington, D.C., is looking into the certification process that approved the safety of the new Boeing plane, two of which have crashed since October.


    The FBI’s Seattle field office lies in proximity to Boeing’s 737 manufacturing plant in Renton, as well as nearby offices of Boeing and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials involved in the certification of the plane.


    The investigation, which is being overseen by the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal division and carried out by the Transportation Department’s Inspector General, began in response to information obtained after a Lion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed shortly after takeoff from Jakarta on Oct. 29, killing 189 people, Bloomberg reported earlier this week, citing an unnamed source.


    It has widened since then, The Associated Press reported this week, with the grand jury issuing a subpoena on March 11 for information from someone involved in the plane’s development, one day after the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX 8 near Addis Ababa that killed 157 people.


    The FBI’s support role was described by people on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the investigation.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oeing-737-max/

  39. #39

    Default

    Not good for Boeing at a time where rvials have just emerged. L8imd our own and China. Hope we benefit out of their mistakes.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  40. #40
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The FBI has joined the investigation.

    FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX

    (…)

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oeing-737-max/
    Ah...the good ol' Times...

    I encourage all to read the full article. It actually goes into a bit more detail than the dun dun duuuuuunnnnn headline would have you assume. It is proper and often certain protocol that when there is any hint of malfeasance or intentional irregularities in an accident, the FBI gets brought into play. While the article does cite a potential to silence witnesses, it is due course and prudent in a case like this to bring the FBI into the investigation.

    Like I said earlier, there was talk of a rushed certification due to using a type rating v new aircraft....this would be a logical extension of that. However, the article also goes into some detail on how hard it is to make criminal charges stick. I was in Seattle during the 261 days, and the scrutiny on Alaska was intense...with good ol' King5 and KOMO doing their best dun dun duuuuuuuunnnnnn s...

    This is why one supports evidence vs a story. When you again review just how many criminal charges are actually laid, and then actually successful...it is low. That said, again, the FBI should be looking at this...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  41. #41
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-later-crashed

    As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving BoeingCo. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.
    A helping hand is not that uncommon. Jump seaters have a helped before. ...and then there are crew that just happen to be there...like United Airlines Flight 232 in Souix City.

    What is troubling in this read is the fact that the crew, including the jumpseater, didn't make a bigger fuss...from the article...

    However, the pilots on the harrowing Oct. 28 flight from Bali to Jakarta didn’t mention key issues with the flight after they landed, according to the report.
    Their request for maintenance didn’t mention they had been getting a stall warning since about 400 feet after takeoff as a result of the faulty angle-of-attack sensor. It was still giving false readings the next morning on the flight that crashed, according to flight data.
    ...this again starts to talk towards airline culture, maintenance strategies, issues therein, crew communication, etc. It is going to go towards culture, training, and efficacy of airlines in North America and Europe where no crashes have happened,(and in Canada they trained for this issue), vs other nations and airlines that may or may not have a culture of continuous improvement.

    Which again is why I applauded Garneau for wanting evidence, and again his training in a prior career would tell him to wait for it...

    ..for there are a few examples of where crews, for the sake of not being annoyed, or because they don't like how some things are installed/processed, will override safety mechanisms that lead to a crash...Northwest Airlines Flight 255 where it is alleged that the CWAS was disabled because of a common practice at Northwest where it annoyed pilots due to the design...and they would NEEEEEEEEEEEEVER forget to lower the flaps/slats for takeoff. I know that after that crash, and the crash of Delta 1141, I always have a habit to review the a/c's configuration prior to departure. These were within a year of each other...same cause...no fleet groundings due to poor training...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  42. #42

    Default

    Yeah, they should just let them keep crashing until the airlines pull up their socks.

    Last edited by kkozoriz; Yesterday at 09:40 PM.

  43. #43
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,995
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    yeah...'cause that's what I said...or anyone.

    Maybe you need a "crash course" in how investigations are run?
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  44. #44

    Default

    It's all about the Benjamans.

    Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras

    “There are so many things that should not be optional, and many airlines want the cheapest airplane you can get,” said Mark H. Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot. “And Boeing is able to say, ‘Hey, it was available.’”

    But what Boeing doesn’t say, he added, is that it has become “a great profit center” for the manufacturer.

    Both Boeing and its airline customers have taken pains to keep these options, and prices, out of the public eye. Airlines frequently redact details of the features they opt to pay for — or exclude — from their filings with financial regulators. Boeing declined to disclose the full menu of safety features it offers as options on the 737 Max, or how much they cost.


    But one unredacted filing from 2003 for a previous version of the 737 shows that Gol Airlines, a Brazilian carrier, paid $6,700 extra for oxygen masks for its crew, and $11,900 for an advanced weather radar system control panel. Gol did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


    The three American airlines that bought the 737 Max each took a different approach to outfitting the cockpits.


    American Airlines, which ordered 100 of the planes and has 24 in its fleet, bought both the angle of attack indicator and the disagree light, the company said.


    Southwest Airlines, which ordered 280 of the planes and counts 36 in its fleet so far, had already purchased the disagree alert option, and it also installed an angle of attack indicator in a display mounted above the pilots’ heads. After the Lion Air crash, Southwest said it would modify its 737 Max fleet to place the angle of attack indicator on the pilots’ main computer screens.


    United Airlines, which ordered 137 of the planes and has received 14, did not select the indicators or the disagree light. A United spokesman said the airline does not include the features because its pilots use other data to fly the plane.


    When it was rolled out, MCAS took readings from only one sensor on any given flight, leaving the system vulnerable to a single point of failure. One theory in the Lion Air crash is that MCAS was receiving faulty data from one of the sensors, prompting an unrecoverable nose dive.


    In the software update that Boeing says is coming soon, MCAS will be modified to take readings from both sensors. If there is a meaningful disagreement between the readings, MCAS will be disabled.


    Incorporating the disagree light and the angle of attack indicators on all planes would be a welcome move, safety experts said, and would alert pilots — as well as maintenance staff who service a plane after a problematic flight — to issues with the sensors.


    The alert, especially, would bring attention to a sensor malfunction, and warn pilots they should prepare to shut down the MCAS if it activated erroneously, said Peter Lemme, an avionics and satellite-communications consultant and former Boeing flight controls engineer.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/b...es-charge.html

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's all about the Benjamans.
    Benjamans = Benjamins = One Hundred dollar bills

    Capitalism gone insane. Making safety features a costly upgrade. Hope Boeing gets sued to hell and back.

  46. #46

    Default

    Capitalism is fine. Man has gone rogue that's all...
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  47. #47
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Capitalism is fine. Man has gone rogue that's all...
    Facism the bleeding edge of capitalism. Complete control by a select elite - with or without military support.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,866

    Default

    Okay - understand passenger comfort can come with options. Passenger entertainment can come with options.

    How the F**k is passenger safety an option???

    Boeing ... the SNC-Lavalin of Uhmurrikka
    ... gobsmacked

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •