Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems

Robin
Talk about a bad time to be back flying again. Many airlines will go straight from receiving them to parking them up.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought, but maybe they'll actually spin it to some good. Get rid of the 800s that the MAX lease replaces, get hefty discount from the pre-COVID negotiations over MAX losses, run cheaper aircraft (the whole point of MAX's engine after all), maybe lose less than if MAX was still parked.
 
Ryanair have ordered a further 75 MAX jets, although in the press conference CEO Michael O'Leary repeatedly referred to it as "737 8200". BBC.
 
Last edited:
I guess Boeing decided all their other airplanes should have software faults too. The most recent update to the autothrottle software in 777 and 787 airplanes has a flaw that causes the autothrottle to get stuck in idle mode, and an update to the 747 is causing the flight management computers to reset themselves while on landing approach.

These supposedly aren't extreme issues, as neither will render the plane unflyable and both can be overcome by switching off the borked system and taking manual control. Still... FFS Boeing, hire some better software testers already.
 
EngieDiesel
These supposedly aren't extreme issues, as neither will render the plane unflyable and both can be overcome by switching off the borked system and taking manual control.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, uncommanded throttle changes or non-standard throttle behaviour can be an obviously bad thing. Goodness knows how Boeing were able to let this through. After everything.
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
Nonetheless, uncommanded throttle changes or non-standard throttle behaviour can be an obviously bad thing. Goodness knows how Boeing were able to let this through. After everything.
Click to expand...
Which is probably why one of the pilots quoted in the article says that disengaging autothrottle entirely is a standard procedure in the maneuver that caused that erratic behavior to occur, and keeping it off until they're in a position to react properly.

As for why this keeps happening, general consensus is that incompetent management installed from the McDonnell-Douglas merger refuse to listen to their engineers. Which, y'know, always goes well.
 
EngieDiesel
Which is probably why one of the pilots quoted in the article says that disengaging autothrottle entirely is a standard procedure in the maneuver that caused that erratic behavior to occur, and keeping it off until they're in a position to react properly.

As for why this keeps happening, general consensus is that incompetent management installed from the McDonnell-Douglas merger refuse to listen to their engineers. Which, y'know, always goes well.
Click to expand...
There is a range of words which could be substituted for incompetent, but IMHO, this remark is on target.
 
EngieDiesel
Which is probably why one of the pilots quoted in the article says that disengaging autothrottle entirely is a standard procedure in the maneuver that caused that erratic behavior to occur, and keeping it off until they're in a position to react properly.
Click to expand...

That's for that pilot's type and airline though, notwithstanding that 87 and 77 have a cross-rating. The point is that the automated facility is there to be used when it's needed. Pilots won't always have a (comparatively) leisurely go-around, and the aircraft should be selecting TOGA thrust through the autothrottle (whether the AT intervention is active or not). That system should work as it's supposed to, whether or not the pilots choose to use it. AT at idle when TOGA is required could lead very very quickly to the aircraft being at an unrecoverable attitude and altitude.

Do you have source for AT cancellation being standard across all airlines and 47/77/87 types?
 
EngieDiesel
The article I linked to previously links directly to the FAA's safety bulletin about the issue.
Click to expand...

That's the FAA SAIB, it has nothing to do with the individual operating practices of any airline at the time of issue.

Anyway... reading the full report is pretty sobering, particularly the Southwest Airlines stuff. I assume they're an airline people avoid anyway given its safety record but its malpractice clearly goes way beyond shoddy maintenance. In general the FAA hasn't been bringing bad airlines to book. If the actions described in the report are correct then people should be going to prison.
 
TenEightyOne
Boeing is to pay $2.5bn for choosing 'profit over candour'. BBC.
Click to expand...
Wow. They were acting like the CCP of aircraft manufacturing. I wonder whether such behaviour is a natural consequence of becoming so big and monolithic. Either way I'm glad I haven't got shares in the corporation (I don't actually own any shares).
 
Will any of the Boeing CEOs face punishment?
What about the "Genius" that decided to allow big companies to "Self Certify" their products

Of course a company is not going to admit their products are unsafe, that is bad for shareholders.
 
Grayfox
Of course a company is not going to admit their products are unsafe, that is bad for shareholders.
Click to expand...

But they should, and they do. That all happens during the design stage, the test stage, the certification stage, and the FAA should be taking a good share of blame for the utter failure of that process. Because it was an utter failure, two aircraft crews found themselves fighting an unmanageable diving, overspeeding plane. Boeing hid the extent of the changes to avoid new certification, they omitted new QRH procedures from the manual until forced to do so by the FAA, they didn't add the system to their simulators (and in any case were late delivering to many major airlines including Ethiopian Air), they increased the authority extent of MCAS over the tailplanes without notifiying the FAA, they made additional AoA (angle of attack) sensors a paid option (many airlines don't bother with the additionals because they expect the base plane to work just fine in the majority of operations).

On the other side of the coin this all happened on the FAA's watch. The final "Genius" is somewhere inside the FAA, imo.
 
TenEightyOne
The final "Genius" is somewhere inside the FAA, imo.
Click to expand...
I don't yet know the whereabouts of the final Genius. Good question. But, IMHO, I can tell you the source evil genius that has brought us to this place. It is George Stigler, Frank Knight and Milton Friedman, all of the University of Chicago, the academics who brought us the modern theory of deregulation.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what model specifically but an Indonesian 737 has disappeared from radar not long after take off. It lost 3,000ft in a minute. The plane has not yet been located or recovered.

Not what Boeing needs at a time like this.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
Not sure what model specifically but an Indonesian 737 has disappeared from radar not long after take off. It lody 3,000ft in a minute. The plane has not yet been located or recovered.

Not what Boeing needs at a time like this.
Click to expand...

PK-CLC, it's a 737-524. FlightRadar24 link. Two residents of the Thousand Islands say they were out in their boat when they heard two "explosions" before finding debris.

Metars don't look particularly worrying.

WIII 090800Z 28008KT 4000 -RA BKN016 OVC018 26/24 Q1006 NOSIG=
WIII 090730Z 30006KT 5000 -RA FEW017CB OVC018 25/24 Q1006 NOSIG=

Aircraft first flew 1994, it's an old one, not that that means anything in terms of airworthiness.

PKCLC.PNG
 
Last edited:
I knew it wouldn't be a Max but "Boeing 737 crash" clearly is not what the firm needs right now.
 
Liquid
I knew it wouldn't be a Max but "Boeing 737 crash" clearly is not what the firm needs right now.
Click to expand...

Definitely agreed, not least because everybody will ask "was it a MAX?".

Sounds like it was climbing through 10,000 feet before it began to descend rapidly (around 26,000 feet per minute). Speculation: the combination of altitude change and airframe age could suggest rear bulkhead failure.
 
TenEightyOne
Definitely agreed, not least because everybody will ask "was it a MAX?".

Sounds like it was climbing through 10,000 feet before it began to descend rapidly (around 26,000 feet per minute). Speculation: the combination of altitude change and airframe age could suggest rear bulkhead failure.
Click to expand...
At 10,000 feet, the difference in ambient air pressure and cabin pressure is not much. I doubt a pressure dome would rupture at 10,000 feet, at least not without help.
 
Liquid
I knew it wouldn't be a Max but "Boeing 737 crash" clearly is not what the firm needs right now.
Click to expand...
That's a downside to success. There are so many 737s on the planet that the chances of any airline crash being one is actually pretty high.
 
A United Airlines Boeing 777 (Flight 328 ) leaving Denver for Honolulu has suffered an failure of the engine nacelle (blades are seemingly intact, if wobbly), fortunately with no injuries on the aircraft or on the ground. BBC.



UCEF.jpg


Looks like the failure was during the latter stages of the take-off run or just as the aircraft began to climb, the crew were able to make straight back around to land. Makes me wonder what the fuel weight was - Denver to Honolulu would be quite the tankful.

UCEF2.PNG
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back