Jump to content

737 Max


rob Lyttle

Recommended Posts

On 7/17/2019 at 7:56 PM, stever219 said:

Seriously though, the 737 had some suspect handling (lack of) qualities in its earlier incarnations; the CAA insisted on some significant modifications before Britannia (first UK operator I think) were let loose with theirs.

Do you have a source for this? I've flown a lot of hours in two later generations of B737 and I never heard of these modifications nor noticed any particular handling difficulties...colleagues who flew the earlier -200s for Britannia and charter operators in the 80s told me it handled better due to the engines having a direct wing mounting rather than the pylon mounts of the -300/400 and NG series (reduced pitch/power couple).

 

The only issues communicated to us were those regarding the rudder problems on the -300/400 which I referred to earlier in the thread.

 

I'd be interested to know. Was it a yaw damper issue or something like that?

Edited by Alan P
grammer and speling, reduced the pomposity level👍
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 737 has been a mostly reliable, relatively efficient, acceptably comfortable and most importantly, practical aircraft for 50 years. But that is now the biggest problem it has; the design is more than 50 years old. It reached the limit of its development in the previous generation. Boeing tried to squeeze one more generational development from it to answer the competition and this revealed the 737's shortcomings. 

 

It's a shrewd move from any operator to put in some big orders right now, as Boeing will have to honour those in the event it has to bin the Max for good. The likelihood is the extension of the NG production line to cover those orders and big wins for the airlines that get cut price, brand new -800s, a tried and tested design. Whether the 737 gets its public reputation restored, that's another matter. But I suspect from previous experience (the A320, for example) public memory will be very short lived.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read through this thread just now having just seen it and would like to add my twopen'th.  As an Airbus pilot with 10000 hours on A320/A321/A330 and over 1000hours on B747 Classics, there was a bit of Airbus bashing to start on this thread with the famous "what's it doing now" expressed a few times.  I've heard this so many times over the last years, mainly from ex-Boeing drivers who have yet to grasp the concept of Airbus operation.  The 'what's it doing now" comes about through a lack of understanding of the mode that the aircraft has been selected to fly in on the automatics: it is not a flight control issue whatsoever.  Once the various modes of operation have been understood, then most Boeing folk I know, have come around to the huge number of flight control protections that Airbus built into its flight control software right from the start. 

 

The A320/A321/A330 all started life as FBW aircraft, the B737 did not and the MAX still is not.  The problem with the MAX is not just limited to extending the fuselage because the thrust line has been changed too.  MCAS was put in place not just to sort out the change in C of G but also the differing thrust line and thrust moment moving the engines forward created.  Airbus was able to happily accommodate the LEAP engines on its wing because it was designed from the outset to be taller on the ramp than the B737.  Putting the LEAP on the B737 was never going to be a sound idea as the B737 was originally designed specifically to be low to the ground to aid loading/unloading at second/third tier airports where loading was done manually.  To achieve that, the engines were of a thin "cigar" shape and fitted neatly under the wing.  As B737 engines have got bigger, so has the need to move them forward so that they can be accommodated with the result that the top of the LEAP is now in line with the top of the wing of a MAX.

 

The movement of engines forward on a wing presents difficulties when in the low speed environment.  If an aircraft with underslung engines gets slow, the aircraft nose is probably already quite high.  Applying lots of thrust to try to accelerate the aircraft out of slow speed applies a significant pitch up moment which further exacerbates the potential for the stall.  Push the engine forward, create a thrust line that is further nose up and increase the thrust of that engine and you have added significantly to that pitch up problem.  Hence the arrival of MCAS to try to counter this pitch up phenomena.  The problem was it is fed from a single source.  The further problems of certification in house, lack of information in manuals, lack of training have all been mentioned already.  However, I agree that it was disingenuous to suggest that the failings of training were down to training in Ethiopian or Lion Air.  If Boeing offer options then of course, that then becomes a commercial decision for an airline to make.  They are there, after all, to make a profit.  The issue is whether a flight control option should be a flight control option, and I think we are all in agreement there.  (It should not be an option - just in case I wasn't clear!).  Ethiopian have a very good reputation professionally amongst carriers in Asia and I feel uncomfortable with them being slighted.  Lion Air, however, do not, but again, the commercial prerogative on an aircraft option, one that has been deemed safe by the regulator to omit, means that they too have significant mileage in their claims against Boeing.

 

What all this highlights for me is that finally, the general public is finally becoming aware of a really uncomfortable truth which is that airlines and aircraft manufacturers are placing commercial interest ahead of safety.  The pilots are still the bottom line when it comes to safe aircraft operation.  I, and my colleagues in my company, go out of our way to ensure the safe operation of our aircraft 100% of the time, even if it means putting on extra fuel to ensure no embarrassment due to ATC delays down route, or un-forecast bad weather that local knowledge knows will create delays; even if it means delaying the flight because the aircraft has a snag that needs resolution; even if it means offloading unruly passengers as they might be a flight safety hazard later in the flight.  All of the former require huge amounts of knowledge of our area of operations, our passenger profiles, the ATC issues we might counter, exceptional technical knowledge and most importantly, detailed and accurate information in our Aircraft Operating Manuals, something that my colleagues in Lion Air and Ethiopian did not have due to commercial pressure.

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good summary of the thread, @feifeitim 👍

 

Although only an Airbus driver could read the entire thread and come out complaining about Airbus bashing 😂😂😂 (tongue is in cheek)

 

The 73 was a good old bird for me, shame its 50 years of service is going to end in such ignominy.

Edited by Alan P
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to a piece in this week’s Flight International Saudi budget airline Flyadeal has placed an order for 50 A320neo-family jets for delivery starting in 2021 to “replace” an order for the same number of -8Max 737s that are still either parked at Boeing or which may now never be built.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This article gives a recap of things, but also some more bits and pieces.  If I read the 737 grounded q3 forum discussion over on Airliners.net correctly, looks like the FAA is not going to require sim training for RTS.  Another go round with a pad type device perhaps?

 

This is a WSJ article:

 

https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/boeing-BA/stock-news/80556180/the-four-second-catastrophe-how-boeing-doomed-the

 

"Our marching orders are no training impact on this airplane. Period," Richard Reed, a former Federal Aviation Administration engineer, recalled a senior Boeing official telling him during a meeting in the early years of the MAX's development."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by NoSG0
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This months Airliner World has an article showing how all the non-Chinese airlines are coping without the 737-Max and a map showing where at least some are parked up.

 

The financial losses they seem to be clocking up are quite spectacular. Wonder how much of this Boeing will become liable for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EwenS said:

Wonder how much of this Boeing will become liable for

All of it , can't see any other outcome . Boeing got it wrong in Spades or maybe the FAA too ?

 

I want to hear David Learmont's take on the whole 737 MAX8 thing.

That man really  is a star .

Edited by bzn20
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bzn20 said:

All of it , can't see any other outcome . Boeing got it wrong in Spades or maybe the FAA too ?

 

I want to hear David Learmont's take on the whole 737 MAX8 thing.

That man really  is a star .

Here you go....

 

https://davidlearmount.com/tag/boeing-737-max-8/

 

Trevor

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Here you go

Top man ,that's you btw ! Thanks very much !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article . Heres a quote from Mr Learmount , a picture of Boeing power ( not mentioned though is the massive % of the USA GDP earned with  their successful products ) and bed mates FAA .

 

If America has an image it is that of the can-do, the entrepreneurial risk-taker. Why would Boeing or the FAA be different? One of the FAA’s stated values is this: “Innovation is our

signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today’s boundaries.”

If America has an image it is that of the can-do, the entrepreneurial risk-taker. Why would Boeing or the FAA be different? One of the FAA’s stated values is this: “Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today’s boundaries.”

The world has benefited from the USA’s risk-taking culture which has driven some aviation advances faster than they would have occurred in other more risk-averse cultures like that of Western Europe. An example of this is the massive extension of ETOPs (extended range twin engine operation) with the arrival on the market of the Boeing 777, which ultimately drove the four-engined Airbus A340 out of the market and influenced the early close-down of the A380 line. Boeing and the FAA took the risk together, and together they got away with it.

Is the 737 Max going to prove to be the one Boeing didn’t get away with? Time will tell.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Is the FAA trying to certify these now? or is this still ongoing. Just wondering when I read this, https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/12/headlines/families_of_boeing_crash_victims_mark_6_month_anniversary_of_ethiopian_airlines_flight_302_disaster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 4:17 PM, Rickoshea52 said:

already making plans to bring all of the jets in storage back to a condition

If and when it happens , can you imagine getting that lot up to Mod State, signed off and in the air ? Speaking as someone that's had to "panic" at aircraft servicing/production manager's / RAF Officer's whims . Manpower where ever it is isn't scaled for this amount because it isn't normal or even expected . Not saying it won't because the company's future hinges on it but it hasn't been done before on this scale . Going to put a massive,massive dent in  Boeing's profits for the MAX 8 sales . They'll drive it ,hope they've done proper a job that's all .

 

They don't deserve it though , Boeing are beyond the pail period ,disgusting

Edited by bzn20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Regulators knew before crashes that 737 MAX trim control was confusing in some conditions: document

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-regulator-insight-idUSKCN1RA0DP 

 

I saw this post and thought that the numbers were interesting/probably not good if the poster worked things out right?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1426007&start=4200#p21683777 

Edited by NoSG0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boeing are waking up to the realisation that their own internal reporting structure needs reform to remove any perceived pressure from managers to downplay any concerns:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-board-calls-for-revamping-company-structure-in-wake-of-737-max-crashes/%3famp=1

 

Trecor

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...