Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 22
#1702214
Not entirely surprising. I recall that previous reports told us that the FAA had relied heavily on Boeing's own testing and its own assessment of the results.

Given what has happened, the FAA's own testing will be especially rigorous, and they're unlikely to allow even minor flaws through, expecting the flight crew to cope.
By riverrock
#1702259
From the reports, this is an issue in the potential fix found during testing in a simulator rather than an issue in the system that was installed in aircraft. Sometimes testing finds things - hopefully for Boeing's sake it is an easy software tweak.
User avatar
By Iceman
#1702276
It is a sign of the complexity of aircraft, and the accuracy of simulators these days that simulators will find design problems that the aircraft engineers didn't know they had. It used to be the case that an aircraft was designed in advance of its simulator, and design flaws went unnoticed. Now, due to system complexity, the design of an aircraft's simulator often parallels that of the real aircraft and the simulator will be finding design flaws before the aircraft ever gets to market. The fact that Boeing considers the type rating on this new variant to be the same as recent previous variants, and the lack of emphasis placed on the AoA system failure modes probably means that there are new failure modes that won't have made their way through to the 737 simulators.

The deeper the authorities now dig on the issues with this aircraft, the more they will probably find. I think that the return to service path will be rather more protracted than people currently expect.

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By Rob L
#1702375
IEEE wrote:For some this is aerodynamic malpractice of the worst kind.


This is from FF page 16, where joe-fbs quotes the IEEE.

I think the IEEE author is quite right, and for them to come out with such a statement will excite the US (and other) class-action lawyers out of their socks.

There are some solemn photos on the web of 737 Max parked all over the USA (indeed, parked in Seattle car parks!)

Would you be the first passenger in one when they get re-certified?
By Dominie
#1702386
Iceman wrote:...
The deeper the authorities now dig on the issues with this aircraft, the more they will probably find. I think that the return to service path will be rather more protracted than people currently expect.

Iceman 8)

And that is partly because it's an old design and so could have all sorts of issues buried deeply whch will now come out because the FAA are (at last) doing the job themselves and not relying on Boeing.

I agree that it could be ages yet; it'll be a brave man who signs it off without exhaustive checks being completed satisfactorily, and I doubt that people will accept the "it's a modification of a 1960s design and so it doesn't have to meet current standards" argument (which, by the way, is something that Piper and Cessna also rely on).
User avatar
By Waveflyer
#1702389
Rob L wrote:There are some solemn photos on the web of 737 Max parked all over the USA (indeed, parked in Seattle car parks!)


Aircraft numbers amaze me, Airbus build about 60 A320 variants every month!

Just out of interest has anybody any idea how many B737 Max aircraft are parked up?
User avatar
By Dave W
#1702390
Dominie wrote:...t the "it's a modification of a 1960s design and so it doesn't have to meet current standards" argument (which, by the way, is something that Piper and Cessna also rely on).

Good job, really - otherwise there'd be a pretty tiny GA fleet under decades old.

And it's not as though engineering design faults are a high cause of fatal GA accidents. New doesn't automatically mean safer.
#1702434
Rob L wrote: Would you be the first passenger in one when they get re-certified?


That's the trillion dollar question.

Without having a superstitious bone in my body, and as a believer and the professionalism and technical ability of engineers, there's not a chance that me or mine will be getting on a B737MAX for years to come.

Not. A. Chance.
OpenCirrus619 liked this
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1702442
Waveflyer wrote:Just out of interest has anybody any idea how many B737 Max aircraft are parked up?
It's around 380 + 52+ 42*3(soon to be 4) = 560ish, + any built not yet delivered when it was grounded (20-40?).
Rob L wrote: Would you be the first passenger in one when they get re-certified?
Yup. I'd take extra care when crossing the road AND buy a lottery ticket. And so will everyone else for $20 off the ticket price.

This guy,[edit] a 777 P2[/edit], has a good take on things IMO
Last edited by neilmurg on Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
By Dominie
#1702450
Dave W wrote:
Dominie wrote:...t the "it's a modification of a 1960s design and so it doesn't have to meet current standards" argument (which, by the way, is something that Piper and Cessna also rely on).

Good job, really - otherwise there'd be a pretty tiny GA fleet under decades old.

And it's not as though engineering design faults are a high cause of fatal GA accidents. New doesn't automatically mean safer.

Err... how about seat belts/harnesses, seat design (eg headrests), flammable materials (esp cockpit trim), egress (single door!) and crash survivability in general for starters?
By Dominie
#1702452
Bill McCarthy wrote:As they have been grounded for so long - how many pilots have gone “out of date” on type and need requalification ?

That's easy - Boeing will say that you're OK if you're still current on a different mark of 737, or else an hour in the sim will do fine! :wink:
#1702456
With the rumblings of litigation in the background, and it's cosy relationship with Boeing now under an intense international spotlight, I'd venture to suggest that the Max, when it eventually gets an honest and true certification, will be one of the safest,most airworthy big commercial jets to take to the skies in the last 30-or- so years.

Were the screamliner, sorry, Dreamliner to have had such monitoring, assessment and oversight, they wouldn't be flying around with their batteries in big tin boxes with drainpipe smoke-vents. :twisted:
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 22