All Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft Grounded

240 posts in this topic

Unbelievable!


 

Quote


US aviation regulators allowed Boeing's 737 Max aircraft to continue flying despite knowing there was a risk of further crashes.

Analysis after the first crash last year predicted there could be up to 15 disasters over the lifetime of the aircraft without design changes.

Despite this, the Federal Aviation Administration did not ground the Max until a second crash five months later.

...

, but the agency did not ground the aircraft until after the 10 March Ethiopia crash, several days after action by other countries.

 

"Was a mistake made?" asked Democrat congressman Henry Johnson.  "Obviously the result was not satisfactory," said Mr Dickson. 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50750746

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dj_jay_smith said:

Unbelievable!

I beg to cynically disagree.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a damage limitation exercise and a distraction. The same guys who managed the project and the same accountants and the same shareholders are still there. Boeing won't change until the whole ethos of the business changes and starts with a change in the mission statement and people with real conviction being put in charge. I hold my breath.

 

Edit: David Calhoun, Boeing's current chairman, will take over as chief executive and president from 13 January.  So more of the same please.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they wanted things done properly, they would cancel production and start a program for retrofitting existing planes with properly balanced engines.

But no... they keep on pushing the blame on software and will keep flying unsafe planes!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MikeMelga said:

If they wanted things done properly, they would cancel production and start a program for retrofitting existing planes with properly balanced engines.

But no... they keep on pushing the blame on software and will keep flying unsafe planes!

It's not the balance of the engines, it's the diameter that causes the problem because they would hang too low if fitted as previous engines were. It needs a complete new wing assembly and then fuselage design so that the wings are higher and the engines naturally are. That would mean a complete new aircraft which would take years to develop. But Boeing went for the cheap and quick option of software controlling the flying controls. They also didn't want to lose ground to Airbus.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, French bean said:

It's not the balance of the engines, it's the diameter that causes the problem because they would hang too low if fitted as previous engines were. It needs a complete new wing assembly and then fuselage design so that the wings are higher and the engines naturally are.

 

Thats been a problem with 737s ever since the first fan engines appeared (the 737-300 IIRC)

The A320 family were designed for fan engines & hence...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little story about the Hercules C130, RAF C1. Some were extended by I think 15' by fitting two plugs in the fuselage, 1 fore and 1 aft of the wing. This caused two problems, first was when they did palletised air drops. Because of the extra length of the fuselage, the last pallet of the drop moved through the fuselage so fast that before the pallet left the fuselage, it was airborne and risked damaging the inside of the fuselage. The newer C130J's bought by the RAF are standard length without the extra plugs. The second problem was on take-off. When the aircraft is rotated nose up to gain height, the back end naturally goes down, pivot point being centre of gravity / centre of pressure, I forget which but it's where the  the main wing is. Again with the stretched aircraft, if a pilot rotated too much, the rear end would slam into the runway on take-off. The urinal dischargers were at that point - two little pipes that point backwards out of the skin and these were often broken off.

 

Not as dangerous as the present Boeing system but a clear example of what goes wrong when new modifications aren't thought through properly.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that even more problems have been found with the aircraft!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/business/boeing-737-max.html

 

Quote

As part of the work to return the Max to service, the company and regulators have scrutinized every aspect of the jet, uncovering new potential design flaws.

...

previously unreported concerns with the wiring that helps control the tail of the Max.

 

The company is looking at whether two bundles of critical wiring are too close together and could cause a short circuit. A short in that area could lead to a crash if pilots did not respond correctly, the people said. Boeing is still trying to determine whether that scenario could actually occur on a flight and, if so, whether it would need to separate the wire bundles in the roughly 800 Max jets that have already been built. The company says that the fix, if needed, is relatively simple.

...

The company may eventually need to look into whether the same problem exists on the 737 NG, the predecessor to the Max. There are currently about 6,800 of those planes in service

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The outgoing CEO of Boeing didn't receive a bonus or severance pay, but still took home 64m USD!

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/boeing-ceo-sacked-payout-compensation-737-max-dennis-muilenburg-a9279686.html

 

Quote


Dennis Muilenburg, who was ousted as Boeing’s chief executive last month as the company contended with the biggest crisis in its history, will depart with more than $60m (£45m), the company said Friday.

Mr Muilenburg will not receive any additional severance or separation payments in connection with his departure, and Boeing said he had forfeited stock units worth some $14.6m (£11.2m).

 

But the value of the other stock and pension awards he is contractually entitled to receive is $62.2m (£47.6m), the company said. Mr Muilenburg also has stock options that could be worth many millions more.

 

 

 

 

The board of directors is obviously not very good at their job, as they had hired me then I would have fucked up just as big for half that amount!!

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that the new CEO will do the right thing and just trash the plane. They will keep pushing for approval, then they sell a few thousands, while quietly developing a new one. This is because several airlines will have serious problems convincing people in flying on them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

I doubt that the new CEO will do the right thing and just trash the plane. They will keep pushing for approval, then they sell a few thousands, while quietly developing a new one. This is because several airlines will have serious problems convincing people in flying on them.

 

The new CEO has a bonus linked to getting the aircraft flying again!!

 

That doesn't fill me with confidence that they will do the right things, but just try to get it in the air again ASAP!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A BBC report last week involved an interview of a test pilot who stated, 'the plane was design by clowns and supervised by monkeys'.  A stellar analogy. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the problems continue:

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/17/boeing_737_flaw/

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Boeing today said another software flaw has been spotted in its star-crossed 737 Max.

The bug was found during an audit of the passenger jet's on-board technology, held last weekend with America's aviation regulator. These technical reviews are expected to turn up glitches and gremlins for Boeing engineers to fix, so this is kinda to be expected.

...

So far, the airliner maker is providing little else in the way of details or descriptions of the issue. So take the following with a pinch of salt.

From what we can tell, and according to ABC News, which cited sources familiar with the case, two of the flight computers stopped communicating with each other during the aircraft's start-up sequence, which normally takes place when the plane is on the ground. This disrupted the power-on monitoring systems. Boeing had just added code to allow the two flight computers to talk to each other – previously they operated more or less independently.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be a Max, they were grounded and not allowed to fly. Overshooting the runway can be caused by any number of things from bad weather (heavy rain), tyre bursting or brake failure. Report said it landed in heavy rain and strong winds.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51384667

 

In those conditions it is difficult for all aircraft to land.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, French bean said:

Overshooting the runway can be caused by any number of things from bad weather (heavy rain), tyre bursting or brake failure.

 

Or pilot error among other things.

 

Boeing stock up 3.65% today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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