Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems

Danoff
I wonder if that's not the blade that failed. That could be damage from debris. Some of the results of the failure often get projected forward and sucked back in to the engine (the blade next to it looks like it's missing).
Click to expand...

Blimey, bang on!

AV Herald
- The inlet and cowling separated from the engine
- Two fan blades were fractured:
+ One fan blade was fractured near the root
+ An adjacent fan blade was fractured about mid-span
+ A portion of one blade was imbedded in the containment ring
+ The remainder of the fan blades exhibited damage to the tips and leading edges
Click to expand...

Danoff
Isn't that basically what the aviation industry does constantly for like... everything? Swap, retrofit, re-certify, re-engineer, bandaid, inspect, polish?
Click to expand...

In this case it depends how much work is required to fit a different manufacturer's engine. The plane's overall structure can take two objects of x mass that produce n thrust at that position, that's what it's designed to do.

The nature of the connections is what matters - were all three manufacturers given an interface template to work to, or do the wing struts (and connectable services like oil, bleed air, fuel, electricals) need to be reconfigured for different type?

I have no idea, but I do wonder if the fact that these PW4000s are still in service is because it's complicated to change them for another type and the risk isn't (wasn't?) that high.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
I wonder if that's not the blade that failed. That could be damage from debris. Some of the results of the failure often get projected forward and sucked back in to the engine (the blade next to it looks like it's missing).
Click to expand...

Ah, you're right, I didn't notice that.
 
TenEightyOne
I have no idea, but I do wonder if the fact that these PW4000s are still in service is because it's complicated to change them for another type and the risk isn't (wasn't?) that high.
Click to expand...
United has a pretty crap reputation from a cultural standpoint, at all levels, so I'd lean toward the latter. PW does the major servicing and apparently they thought they were fine. That and the fact that with good servicing any turbofan is designed to last for decades, if only to pay off itself and its mx plans. If they switched engines then those engines would have to live on for just as long all over again and by that point 777s will probably be in limited service.
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
I have no idea, but I do wonder if the fact that these PW4000s are still in service is because it's complicated to change them for another type and the risk isn't (wasn't?) that high.
Click to expand...

The farther I go into the 777 history with the PW4000-112, the more I think this was either a fluke or just insufficient inspection. It looks like this particular engine model has been in service for quite some time with a good track record.

If this were United not conforming to the inspection intervals I'm guessing the P&W 777s wouldn't have been grounded. So probably the most we see out of this is a shortened inspection interval (again, just an uneducated guess).
 
Last edited:
So, a classic case of metal fatigue going unnoticed by maintenance crews. Another embarrassing stuff-up from a mediocre airline.
 
es07k089f6j61.jpg


 
As of this afternoon, I can live to tell about my flight on a 737 MAX 9. There's not much to say; it's just another 737, from the interior look and feel of things.


I sat somewhere behind the "U" but aft of the starboard engine.

Flight was nearly-full, from what I could tell. I didn't get a look at the final seat map, since I'd chosen my seat and noted they didn't switch out the aircraft type (which they did to my return flight last Thursday). United did not seem to make mention of it being a "MAX" at the gate, and didn't mention it when boarding nor during the safety demonstration. United also gives the option to swap out your itinerary if you're not inclined to fly on a 737 MAX, but I have no idea how they'd rebook you if it's not a common route with available options.

The only oddity was that they asked passengers to refrain from using the included charging ports during takeoff and landing procedures, but they didn't seem to enforce it in any meaningful way. They mentioned it once before we backed away from the gate, and I suppose the flight crew doesn't want one more thing to police on top of mentioning "put your phone on airplane mode" and "wear your mask properly".
 
Last edited:
There's finally been a formal, close-to-source explanation of events when a Polish 737 operated by RyanAir was forced to land in Minsk, Belarus, where journalist Roman Protasevich was removed from the flight. At the time much was made of the fact (if indeed it was a fact) that a Belarusian Mig-29 "forced" the plane down despite initial reports suggesting that events were driven by ATC.

Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryan Air, has now given the press more details. The pilots were informed by Belarusian ATC that they had information about a bomb aboard their plane which would detonate if they continued into Lithuania, their destination. The pilots tried to make contact with their operations centre but were told by Belarusian ATC that the Polish Ryan Air centre was not answering the phone

On asking about the threat level the pilot was told that the situation was a 'red alert' and that the plane should immediately land in Minsk. The pilots duly diverted to Minsk where a full security sweep of the plane took place. During this search five people went AWOL: Protasevich, his girlfriend Sofia Sapega, and three tourists who had been 'heading on to Belarus anyway'. Or, as O'Leary says he's been assured, they were KGB officers waiting to apprehend Protasevich and Sapega. The pilots were then put under pressure to say that they'd made the abnormal diversion voluntarily, something which they refused to do.

As a result of the incident Belarusian flights are banned from EU airspace and European flights are not flying into or across Belarus. That demonstrates the significance of this event - it's a dishonest, political diversion of a sovereign flight by a foreign country carrying foreign nationals and goes against the entente cordiale that is intended to keep international air travel safe and secure.
 
R1600Turbo
I think this belongs in here. I'm not following this discussion, just thought it might be of some interest.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, this seems like a case of what the government is struggling with across the board - keeping talent. On the pilot side of things, the Air Force has been in a serious bind for a while because they simply can't offer the pay and quality of life that civilian operations can, so most experienced military pilots leave for airlines or charter operations. Sounds like the FAA can't even keep lawyers lol. And apparently a court room is a good networking environment?
 
Keef
Sounds like the FAA can't even keep lawyers lol. And apparently a court room is a good networking environment?
Click to expand...
That's about the most positive read of the situation possible. Although given how the article talks about how easy the prosecution went on Boeing, it certainly seems plausible that this is all part of some deal that was made. It's one thing to move from one job to another because you're offered a better package, it's another to softball a prosecution because the defendant is offering you that better package.
 
www.reuters.com

Ex-Boeing 737 MAX chief technical pilot indicted for fraud

A former chief technical pilot for Boeing Co was charged with fraud on Thursday for deceiving federal regulators evaluating the company's 737 MAX jet, hindering the ability to protect airline passengers and leaving "pilots in the lurch," the U.S. Justice Department said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Mark Forkner, 49, was indicted by a grand jury in Texas on six counts of scheming to defraud Boeing's U.S.-based airline customers to obtain tens of millions of dollars for Boeing, the government said.

Boeing declined to comment. A lawyer for Forkner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to the indictment, Forkner, largely in the run-up to the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to approve the 737 MAX in 2017, provided the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group with "materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete information" about a new part of the flight controls for the Boeing 737 MAX, called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).

....

"In an attempt to save Boeing money, Forkner allegedly withheld critical information from regulators," said Chad Meacham, the acting U.S. attorney for Northern Texas. "His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency's ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 MAX flight controls."
Click to expand...
 
Dennisch
There's footage of it going down (if it isn't fake) and judging by the speed, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a pilot suicide.
Click to expand...
From the footage I saw, the plane was in a near-perfect (as in perfectly perpendicular to the horizon) vertical dive. There's just no way it could be anything else but intentional suicide.
 
You'd want to be generous and suggest the autopilot had an error configuring the Z and Y axes but it seems unlikely.
 
That is really not a good look for Boeing. That plane had only been in service two months.
Fortunate that it happened during the climb when people would have been still wearing seatbelts. Otherwise the kid who had his shirt ripped off would have almost certainly gone with the shirt.
 
To be clear, that doesn't normally happen.

Barring equipment failure, seems like an FA didn't or forgot to lock/arm the door properly. Not a minor mistake.
 
Last edited:
Based on the pics and the article saying that exit is only used in some configurations, it shouldn't have been touched at any point.
 
Barra333
some configurations
Click to expand...
Refering to the model of the aircraft. According to this technical video, these mid cabin emergency exits are used on four of the many models of 737, including this one, a MAX-9. This segment starts at 38:40.



Apparently this door opens very similar to the main door on the CRJs and Challengers I've flown. While opening, the door literally lifts upward on slides and then rotates downward. They're not easy things to open. The doors on my planes are damped so they fall slowly, I'm not sure if this emergency door is damped or not.

God only knows how this door came open in this case, but what we do know is that if the door is installed, closed, and armed correctly, it can't open on accident. And according to this section of the website, at least the 900ER which is equipped with these doors has a caution light which illuminates when the doors are not full locked and/or armed. The 737 and several older Boeings have notoriously obtuse caution and warning message systems so I have no clue how that integrates into the plane's computers. What I do know is that on my Bombardier, the second we start engines any monitored doors unlocked the warning system lights up like a Christmas tree.
 
Last edited:
Barra333
Based on the pics and the article saying that exit is only used in some configurations, it shouldn't have been touched at any point.
Click to expand...
Keef
Refering to the model of the aircraft. According to this technical video, these mid cabin emergency exits are used on four of the many models of 737, including this one, a MAX-9. This segment starts at 38:40.



Apparently this door opens very similar to the main door on the CRJs and Challengers I've flown. While opening, the door literally lifts upward on slides and then rotates downward. They're not easy things to open. The doors on my planes are damped so they fall slowly, I'm not sure if this emergency door is damped or not.

God only knows how this door came open in this case, but what we do know is that if the door is installed, closed, and armed correctly, it can't open on accident. And according to this section of the website, at least the 900ER which is equipped with these doors has a caution light which illuminates when the doors are not full locked and/or armed. The 737 and several older Boeings have notoriously obtuse caution and warning message systems so I have no clue how that integrates into the plane's computers. What I do know is that on my Bombardier, the second we start engines any monitored doors unlocked the warning system lights up like a Christmas tree.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a door, but according to Alaska Airlines that door is permanently plugged and wouldn't be operated by any cabin crew.

This is the exact plane, with the affected section circled:

1704553425905.jpeg
 
Famine
It's definitely a door, but according to Alaska Airlines that door is permanently plugged and wouldn't be operated by any cabin crew.

This is the exact plane, with the affected section circled:

View attachment 1317047
Click to expand...
It helps to actually see the plug where it's suppose to be. That's definitely a plug with a normal window and no pressure vent like the door would have.

You'd think getting rid of moving parts and procedures would reduce points of failure...
 
Last edited:
Famine
Here it is. Or rather here it isn't:

View attachment 1317052
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine that whatever the procedure was for permanently fixing this door had nothing to do with the failure. I'm sure someone has been combing through that change looking for something that was missed. It makes sense to me to ground any plane that had that performed on it until the failure can be better understood, at least out of a sense of caution.
 

Latest Posts

Back