Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems

[TenEightyOne]

Things like this start to cascade. People are hesitant to fly on 737 max, airlines ask for compensation,

Nobody can fly on the MAX at the moment (outside the testing crews), and I'm pretty certain that most passengers don't give a toss what their jet is - they shop on airline reputation on flights where they even have a choice. Where this will hurt Boeing (medium term) is airlines may prefer to change their MAX orders to 800-types (the generation before MAX, still an advanced glass cockpit aircraft). In the long run the improved cost indexes of the MAX which Boeing will place strategically with large carriers will turn their heads, the early MAX safety stats will be forgotten and Boeing will carry on business as usual.

When I say "as usual" I expect the real changes will be in the way certification is overseen.

 

[Danoff]

Nobody can fly on the MAX at the moment (outside the testing crews), and I'm pretty certain that most passengers don't give a toss what their jet is - they shop on airline reputation on flights where they even have a choice. Where this will hurt Boeing (medium term) is airlines may prefer to change their MAX orders to 800-types (the generation before MAX, still an advanced glass cockpit aircraft). In the long run the improved cost indexes of the MAX which Boeing will place strategically with large carriers will turn their heads, the early MAX safety stats will be forgotten and Boeing will carry on business as usual.

When I say "as usual" I expect the real changes will be in the way certification is overseen.

They could probably use a re-brand on the MAX, given that the name is so well known at this point. They'll need something boring with jumbled letters and numbers (preferably they'd break the MAX moniker up into different classifications so that you'd need a chart to map out where it ended up, that will confuse things even more).

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They could probably use a re-brand on the MAX, given that the name is so well known at this point. They'll need something boring with jumbled letters and numbers (preferably they'd break the MAX moniker up into different classifications so that you'd need a chart to map out where it ended up, that will confuse things even more).

737 RSA-1000 (Really Safe Airplane)

 

[Liquid]

Problem solved.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I guess the markets show no mercy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/boe...ane-orders-as-paris-air-show-starts-slow.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

I guess the markets show no mercy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/boe...ane-orders-as-paris-air-show-starts-slow.html

Ouch. I guess the issue is that MAX runs at a far lower cost (cost, not altitude) than the previous generation - I think the orders will come in once it's re-certified but for now airlines would be fools to tie money/time up in orders for a plane that can't fly, or for a type-similar alternative that's more expensive.

I'd actually thought that Boeing might push the 800s at a lower cost just to get some turnover, but I have no idea what the margins on a 737 are

 

[Dotini]

I guess the markets show no mercy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/boe...ane-orders-as-paris-air-show-starts-slow.html

We are expecting orders for the 777X. But delays with the GE9X engines have delayed first flight for several months.

 

[GTV0819]

Problem solved.

I hope Boeing would realize next time that a simple apology can't bring back the lives of hundreds of people anymore.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We are expecting orders for the 777X. But delays with the GE9X engines have delayed first flight for several months.

High compressor wear has led to a redesign of some parts, as I understand it. Not great timing.

I hope Boeing would realize next time that a simple apology can't bring back the lives of hundreds of people anymore.

I'm not sure that anybody thinks that was the intent of the apology. As it is I'm still surprised that Boeing are making any apologies until investigations are complete - apologising might be the right thing to do but some might see it as a tacit admission of culpability, something that I'm sure Boeing's lawyers would like to avoid.

 

[GTV0819]

I'm not sure that anybody thinks that was the intent of the apology. As it is I'm still surprised that Boeing are making any apologies until investigations are complete - apologising might be the right thing to do but some might see it as a tacit admission of culpability, something that I'm sure Boeing's lawyers would like to avoid.

Sure it may be not, but considering that they have not admitted their fault at first at all while being so defensive about it initially, they should try to be more considerate next time. Plus, they are the manufacturer of the aircrafts that were involved in two different accidents months ago. So naturally, they're the only ones who should take the blame, unless there's something else to prove with the involved airlines which led to the happenings of these tragedies, which seems unlikely at the most.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sure it may be not, but considering that they have not admitted their fault at first at all while being so defensive about it initially

It's a serious legal liability - and we don't know for sure it's their fault. I'm pretty sure, but that is not definitive.

they should try to be more considerate next time.

At the very least, naturally.

Plus, they are the manufacturer of the aircrafts that were involved in two different accidents months ago.

That doesn't prove fault. It's statistically horrible, not proof of fault.

 

[GTV0819]

It's a serious legal liability - and we don't know for sure it's their fault. I'm pretty sure, but that is not definitive.

At the very least, naturally.

That doesn't prove fault. It's statistically horrible, not proof of fault.

The recent airline that was affected by this disaster was Ethiopian Airlines. Prior to Flight 302, the airline has good, if not great, track records of safety in the last 5 years. Sure, there may still be some incidents which happened but apparently, those did not even result into any fatalities at all.

Meanwhile, Lion Air has poorer track records of safety in the last 5 years but despite that, there were no fatalities as well until Flight 610 happened. And coincidentally, the same aircraft made by Boeing was involved.

If Boeing is not the one to take the blame at the moment, then who the heck else do you think would take it? These two involved airlines? Lol.

Not quite sure where your sudden assumption that Boeing shouldn't take blame yet is coming from. But yes, investigation is still on the way so maybe we could find who's fault it really was someday.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The recent airline that was affected by this disaster was Ethiopian Airlines. Prior to Flight 302, the airline has good, if not great, track records of safety in the last 5 years. Sure, there may still be some incidents which happened but apparently, those did not even result into any fatalities at all.

Meanwhile, Lion Air has poorer track records of safety in the last 5 years but despite that, there were no fatalities as well until Flight 610 happened. And coincidentally, the same aircraft made by Boeing was involved.

If Boeing is not the one to take the blame at the moment, then who the heck else do you think would take it? These two involved airlines? Lol.

Not quite sure where your sudden assumption that Boeing shouldn't take blame yet is coming from. But yes, investigation is still on the way so maybe we could find who's fault it really was someday.

What I'm saying is that it seems clear to you (and to me) that the MCAS system and the procedure involved in its certification was flawed. The FAA and Boeing each have, in my opinion, some blame to take. However, until the investigation results are known it is impossible to attribute actual blame. I agree with most of the point you're getting at but the legal process is the legal process. Nobody will admit culpability in proper form until that process is complete.

EDIT: IAG, owner of British Airways, have just signed a letter of intent to purchase 200 MAX aircraft. BBC.

 

[GTV0819]

What I'm saying is that it seems clear to you (and to me) that the MCAS system and the procedure involved in its certification was flawed. The FAA and Boeing each have, in my opinion, some blame to take. However, until the investigation results are known it is impossible to attribute actual blame. I agree with most of the point you're getting at but the legal process is the legal process. Nobody will admit culpability in proper form until that process is complete.

Ah, I see. But there were articles before that Boeing knew all along that the system or sensors were faulty, though they remained tight lipped about it until Flight 610 happened.

Maybe they should also investigate more too about this part of the story, that why they didn't inform airlines about this flaw in the first place and still waited for an accident to happen before doing any immediate actions on it. Because of that, this has become negligence on their part.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Danoff]

Staff parking will open up for more planes as people get laid off.

 

[Liquid]

Which airport is that? Disregarding the circumstances that is a brilliant picture.

 

[UKMikey]

Which airport is that? Disregarding the circumstances that is a brilliant picture.

As far as I can tell it's not an airport but the staff car park of Boeing Seattle.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Things like this start to cascade. People are hesitant to fly on 737 max, airlines ask for compensation, Boeing's share value starts to decline as their losses mount, people lose faith in the company and sell off the stock, Boeing's accounts start to look really dry and R&D takes a hit, then more problems happen...etc. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying it's plausible.

Based on? If all engineering projects were equal and interconnected sure that'd make sense, but considering how many projects they have and the 737 MAX is it's own thing these previous speculation statements really hold no water. At worse the shares keep taking a downturn and the steady at a low until market belief returns. A bail out on the other hand is quite extreme, now if airline contracts, government contracts and foreign contracts of all sort started to stop that'd make more sense to what you said.

 

[Keef]

Based on?

Logic. You can't really question if something may or may not be plausible because a lot of things are plausible.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Logic. You can't really question if something may or may not be plausible because a lot of things are plausible.

That's not logic that's speculation, especially if you can't define parameters or even a precedence based on similar situations. I gave plenty of reason why a hyperbolic idea of a bail out, wouldn't happen.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which airport is that? Disregarding the circumstances that is a brilliant picture.

It's Clayton Scott Field (aka Renton Municipal Airport), Boeing have their Renton production facility there.

 

[Dotini]

Aerial view of Boeing Renton Factory adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport
The Boeing Company's Renton, Washington Factory is a facility where Boeing 737 MAX airliners are built.

 

[GTV0819]

Despite being the smallest aircraft in the fleet, it still looks huge when there are cars that surround it. Btw, I wonder how long more they will just sit there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Further issues are delaying the MAX recertification. The suggestion is that in FAA simulator tests recovery took longer than Boeing stated it should do. BBC.

 

[TheCracker]

It's Clayton Scott Field (aka Renton Municipal Airport), Boeing have their Renton production facility there.

I think it's actually Boeing Field in Seattle itself.

 

[Slapped]

Further issues are delaying the MAX recertification. The suggestion is that in FAA simulator tests recovery took longer than Boeing stated it should do. BBC.

According to The Register it's because they've found another bug in the control software which could potentially lock up a microprocessor causing the plane to enter.... You guessed it, a nosedive.

At this point I'm now convinced that the 737 MAX would have been a safe plane if it had a different type rating to the existing 737s, thus negating the need for the MCAS. However airlines wouldn't have bought it as there would problems with the pilot allocation. Pilots can only be can be rated on one type of aircraft at any one time. You can't have a pilot fly a 737 and then the next day jump into a 787 even if the pilot is fully qualified on both. Therefore pilots rated on the 737 MAX wouldn't be able to go back to the older 737 without doing a conversion course, and this course would need to be done every time they switched.

 

[Liquid]

At this point I'm now convinced that the 737 MAX would have been a safe plane if it had a different type rating to the existing 737s, thus negating the need for the MCAS. However airlines wouldn't have bought it as there would problems with the pilot allocation. Pilots can only be can be rated on one type of aircraft at any one time. You can't have a pilot fly a 737 and then the next day jump into a 787 even if the pilot is fully qualified on both. Therefore pilots rated on the 737 MAX wouldn't be able to go back to the older 737 without doing a conversion course, and this course would need to be done every time they switched.

Two words: money talks

 

[Imari]

Pilots can only be can be rated on one type of aircraft at any one time.

I wonder a bit about this one. With modern control systems, is this still a valid requirement? Are modern planes so complex that routinely flying more than one type is infeasibly complex for an experienced pilot?

Do we have any pilots here who would care to weigh in on the matter?

 

[Swagger897]

I wonder a bit about this one. With modern control systems, is this still a valid requirement? Are modern planes so complex that routinely flying more than one type is infeasibly complex for an experienced pilot?

Do we have any pilots here who would care to weigh in on the matter?

While I currently attend an approved Part 141/147 school, I'm just an AMT student but friends with multiple pilots, and some of our regulation books share the same CFRs. I'm pretty sure that is an incorrect statement. I've known many pilots outside of my school (Not sharing the names but they are part of the big 3 in the US) who have held multiple ratings at a time, but it was in their interest due to simply climbing the ladder. There are also common type ratings, such as when the FAA approved the 757/767 CTR, as both aircraft were extremely close to each other in terms of operation. Same goes for several Airbus models too. Then you have required differences training, such as between variations of aircraft (IE: 747-200/400/800) but not different types.

You will find that nowhere within the CFRs (Part 61, 91, 121, or 135) will it state that a person with multiple type certificates may operate only one type at any time.