737 Max

[NoSG0]

FAA may require wiring changes, Transport Canada strongly supports moving some wires according to this article.

 

https://www.marketscreener.com/BOEING-COMPANY-THE-4816/news/FAA-Poised-to-Require-Electrical-Wiring-Fixes-Before-Boeing-737-MAX-Jets-Can-Fly-Again-30127963/

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by NoSG0

[stever219]

What’s not entirely clear from the article is whether the proposed wiring changes are peculiar to the presently-grounded MAX 8 sub-type or affect the not-yet-grounded MAX 9 and -10.  The MCAS installation only, as far as I know, applies to the MAX 8 but I suspect that most of the tailplane control system is common to all MAX sub-types.  Boeing’s position that there have been no instances of the type of stray feed failure described earlier which have led to hull losses and/or injuries and fatalities amongst the NG fleet, from which the MAX is derived, should, perhaps, be qualified with “yet”.  The failures that resulted in the two MAX 8 crashes were described as being possible “once in a million miles”, the problem is that they could occur at any point in that million miles and the NG fleet and it’s wiring isn’t getting any younger.

[Circloy]

24 minutes ago, stever219 said:

“once in a million miles”,

That's not as re-assuring as it sounds.

 

London - New York approx 3500 mile one way and approx 7 hours flight time which is short enough for a plane to do a round trip of 7000 miles each day.

 

At that rate one million miles would be achieved in less than 150 days flying time which, frightlingly, implies a failure, and potential loss, for each airframe within 6 months of first flight!

[Jure Miljevic]

Yesterday's news, literally:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/news/boeing-bailout-plea-rattles-investors-with-cash-hoard-drying-up/ar-BB11k9gy

Apparently, president Trump is very enthusiastic about the suggestion. As with other planed bailouts this one, too, will serve purely to offset coronavirus economic impact. Cheers

Jure

[NoSG0]

So we should just ignore all the cash they and other companies used in stock buy backs?

Edited March 19, 2020 by NoSG0

[stever219]

It’s all very well for some politician to say “we can’t let our only airliner manufacturer fail” when they have allowed Boeing to become the only airliner manufacturer by buying out any remotely credible competition (and yes, I do remember the DC-10 catastrophes and their fall out).  The recent buy-out of Embraer is simply a tit-for-tat response to Airbus’ acquisition of Bombardier’s aviation interests, itself prompted by America’s anti-trade actions against the Canadian manufacturer’s products.

 

There’s no doubt that the US government will bail them out because they need them short-term for the KC-46 programme and support for F-15 and F-18 operators amongst others.  The fact that Boeing generates a lot of money for the US from overseas will no doubt “persuade” some wavering politicians to sign on the dotted line and further extend their credit.  Will suppliers want to continue to deal with Boeing under their current terms, or will they bargain harder for a better return now that Boeing’s credit rating is only two steps above “junk”.

 

The US political, military, industrial and financial apparatus have, for a long time, been the biggest bullies in the global school playground; perhaps they might, although I doubt it, learn a bit of humility.  Boeing have become a victim of their own might, being able to self-certify elements of design that really could have done with “another pair of eyes” and able to browbeat the FAA into going along with them on such things and the so-called “grandfather rights” which surely now should be on their way to the boneyard.

 

Will Airbus seek funding from the respective governments of the partner nations (and let’s not forget that there is now an A320 assembly facility in the US) and, if so, is this going to precipitate another unholy and unedifying squabble at the WTO over the (lack of) transparency of government subsidies?  Airbus haven’t covered themselves in glory much either with a recent bribery scandal involving a number of far-eastern airlines which would probably make Lockheed blush.

[Max Headroom]

Thread resurrection time!

 

It looks as if it’s slowly getting there

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-53930694
 

Once it gets the all clear hopefully early next year, how many will fly straight into storage?

 

Trevor

[stever219]

Meanwhile in other news......

 

Boeing has advised operators, including Air Canadia and Singapore Airlines, of eight recently delivered 787s to withdraw the aircraft from service following the discovery of two separate manufacturing faults in rear fuselage assemblies.  Although each by itself has been considered not to be critical at present the presence of both in one airframe is, hence the groundings.  Boeing are citing two weeks as the time necessary to complete the repairs to each airframe.

 

Further you information has it that shims installed to ensure a good fit between fuselage section have either not been installed or have been installed correctly.  The other defect is that the inner skins have a rougher than normal surface finish.  Together they mean that the rear fuselage joints probably will not pass ultimate load tests.

 

The immediate thoughts that occur include “why wasn’t this picked up by quality control during construction?” and “how many jets are flying with at least one of these defects which may become critical in the [near] future?”  Obviously the 787 is a large and complex aircraft but modern production and inspection equipment is incredibly sophisticated.  Conspiracy theorists might want to consider whether this is a near repeat of the DC-10 “Ship 29” case where work had been signed off as completed when it had not been, ultimately resulting in the loss of the aircraft and, ironically, 346 lives (the same number as those killed in the two 787 MAX-8 crashes).  Also Boeing has been. churning out 787s for around a decade so those involved in so doing should know if something doesn’t look right.

 

No doubt there will be further probing by Boeing and the relevant regulatory authorities to establish cause and cure but I suspect that Boeing’s outsourcing of major component production, reduction in engineer input and preoccupation with sorting out the MAX-8 catastrophe will be looked at.  Coupled with the continuing woes of the KC-46 programme and despite the board reshuffle earlier this year this is going to delay Boeing's emergence from the woods.

Edited August 29, 2020 by stever219
Typo + extra info.

[stevehnz]

Recent readings of happenings at Boeing lead me to conclude that they & their contractors have some appalling work place environments which has lead to poor job performance & lousy quality control, both in initial work & subsequent checks. Anyone would think they were being run with a closer eye on the bottom line & shareholders profits than safety & fitness for purpose by a management too inept to realise that if they get the last bit right, the cost savings will follow.

Steve.

[stever219]

11 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Thread resurrection time!

 

It looks as if it’s slowly getting there

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-53930694
 

Once it gets the all clear hopefully early next year, how many will fly straight into storage?

 

Trevor

Not as many as a few months ago, around 80 or 90 others have been cancelled in the last few months.  Maybe airlines will also convert MAX-8 orders to other variants.

[Albeback52]

On 3/19/2020 at 9:38 AM, Jure Miljevic said:

Yesterday's news, literally:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/news/boeing-bailout-plea-rattles-investors-with-cash-hoard-drying-up/ar-BB11k9gy

Apparently, president Trump is very enthusiastic about the suggestion. As with other planed bailouts this one, too, will serve purely to offset coronavirus economic impact. Cheers

Jure

Oh, such delicious irony. Is this the same Boring that whines continually about "unfair" government funding for Airbus?

Actually, I'd have thought that anything Trump was enthusiastic about would be something to avoid?

Allan

[JohnT]

Further thread resurrection. 
 

Article in today’s Sunday Times asking as the 737 Max nears a return to the skies will people be told what they are going to be flying on and will they choose to travel elsewhere?  Seemingly a number of airlines have said they will make that choice available to passengers

 

Of more interest the article quotes Chesley Sullenberger as saying Boeing have not done enough. While praising the autopilot and sensor revamp he says more needs done in pilot training. 
 

Charles Kennedy, pilot author and aviation analyst says the decision to add new sensors and revamp the autopilot “does not change the fact that the aircraft is a Frankenstein monster” and he goes on being quoted to the effect that Boeing should have gone for a new design rather than try and modify an old design beyond what is sensible and then trying to resolve any resulting problems with a software fix. 
 

Interesting stuff

[Adam Poultney]

1 minute ago, JohnT said:

Further thread resurrection. 
 

Article in today’s Sunday Times asking as the 737 Max nears a return to the skies will people be told what they are going to be flying on and will they choose to travel elsewhere?  Seemingly a number of airlines have said they will make that choice available to passengers

 

.........

personally I'll be avoiding the max for at least a few years, and if that means avoiding airlines which won't tell you which 737 you're flying on so be it, I'm not a fan of the 737 anyway. Hopefully Boeing will go for a clean sheet on the next 737 type aircraft they do

[alt-92]

On 8/29/2020 at 10:33 PM, stevehnz said:

Anyone would think they were being run with a closer eye on the bottom line & shareholders profits than safety & fitness for purpose by a management too inept to realise that if they get the last bit right, the cost savings will follow.

Funny you should mention that.

Boeing apparently also is closing down the Everett 787 production line and shifting that to Charlotte, NC - where they don't have any Union staff to bug them.

 
 

[Max Headroom]

US clears the Max to re enter service

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-54981658

 

Trevor

[stalal]

There should be a choice for passengers to not take the flight if its 737MAX. Boeing has shattered confidence in this plane the way they have managed its safety. 

[stevehnz]

3 hours ago, stalal said:

There should be a choice for passengers to not take the flight if its 737MAX. Boeing has shattered confidence in this plane the way they have managed its safety. 

Much as my heart agrees with you, my head tells me that this aircraft is probably the most scrutinised by regulatory authorities for decades now & as such should be quite safe to fly in. I predict those already in service, once they're modified as per the article, will go on to give long safe service. I also have a hunch that Boeing will replace the Max before long with a more effective next generation aircraft.

Steve.

[JohnT]

One suspects a lot of fingers are crossed that there are no more incidents as whether the fix is in or not any suggestion of the problem not being fixed would I think be the end of the road for the aircraft.

 

Interesting that types with similar records didn't really survive the publicity.  The DC-10 after its troubles for example.  Is the 737MAX a case of too big to fail? 

 

I confess I am a pretty sanguine type but will really think twice before family are allowed on one if there are any alternatives - for a few years of trouble free history at least.

 

 

[Ben Brown]

I’m surprised Boeing hasn’t renamed it to get away from the “Max” image. The flying public would forget about it in six months and hop on one without thinking twice. “It’s a 737 Evo? Cool!”

 

Ben

Edited November 19, 2020 by Ben Brown

[stever219]

18 hours ago, stevehnz said:

I predict those already in service, once they're modified as per the article, will go on to give long safe service.

Let's hope that Boeing have learned from history; it was one of their working parties that repaired the JAL 747 that had suffered a tail scrape, and then went on to suffer a catastrophic explosive decompression when the incorrectly repaired aft pressure bulkhead failed and killed 520 people.

[Paul J]

Will there be any airlines still there to buy them after all this covid business and virtual death of the travel industry???

[Sabrejet]

Believe it or not there are still airline industry execs saying that we will be "back to normal" by the end of 2021! They are either stupid or in denial. I wonder if they feel the same way about the cruise ship industry?

[Doom3r]

18 hours ago, JohnT said:

Interesting that types with similar records didn't really survive the publicity.  The DC-10 after its troubles for example.  Is the 737MAX a case of too big to fail? 

DC-10 did not survive b/c it had to compete with two engine airliners that were able to cross the ocean.  Safety concern just sped up the things (lets not forget much better Tristar had even worse case).

 

However 737MAX might go away b/c you can milk 60ths design only so many times.

[Stephen]

2 hours ago, Ben Brown said:

I’m surprised Boeing hasn’t renamed it to get away from the “Max” image. The flying public would forget about it in six months and hop on one without thinking twice. “It’s a 737 Evo? Cool!”

 

Ben

They will have to rebrand it, the designation 737 MAX is "snakebit" for want of a better term. It'll be called the 737-8 or 9 something but they will have to change it.

[Sabrejet]

12 minutes ago, Stephen said:

They will have to rebrand it, the designation 737 MAX is "snakebit" for want of a better term. It'll be called the 737-8 or 9 something but they will have to change it.

 I seem to recall they did that with the next deliveries a few years ago when it looked like all would be getting back to normal. 737-8 rings a bell.