News

Ethiopian 737-8 MAX down. No survivors.

Discussion in 'AviatorChat.com' started by RWatters, Mar 10, 2019.

  1. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    6,680
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I'm sick and tired of the journalistic sensationalism that surfaces every time the Max burps! This is a good airplane that has a corporate problem thrust upon it. Go ahead, shoot at me!
     
    FERRARI-TECH and Jacob Potts like this.
  2. boxerman

    boxerman F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    May 27, 2004
    11,724
    CT
    Full Name:
    Sean

    I agree. Everytime a plane goes down "eyewitnesses saw smoke", or the engine was "popping". And yes the problem with the plane is corporate, basicaly boeing which had the best brand in the jet airliner buisness has a serious corporate problem. By the looks of things that is nowhere near being adressed, let along reckognized.
     
  3. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    13,441
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    Boeing was planning on an entirely new airplane, but when Airbus announced the A320 NEO series, Boeing figured it couldn't take the time to develop the new airplane, so it was shelved and the 737 MAX was substituted in its place, putting the same engines that the Airbus NEO series was using on the existing 737 - with the problems that have resulted.

    If they had developed the new airplane originally they would have been at least 2-3 years behind Airbus with a true competitor, and a superior airplane. One wonders how many orders they would have sacrificed if they had done that. They may be sorry now that they didn't.
     
  4. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    6,680
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    I see it as a temporary eruption in the progress of the Max. This has happened several times in the introduction of new equipment, although not as technically advanced as this. The one that sticks in my mind is the first B-17 that crashed because the controls were still immovable by external gust locks that weren't removed by someone before flight. Thus, the pre-flight check list was invented. The human element, regardless of how technically remote, will always be a crucial part of any problem or success. The Max will survive.
     
    Jacob Potts and energy88 like this.
  5. boxerman

    boxerman F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    May 27, 2004
    11,724
    CT
    Full Name:
    Sean
    The max renamed will survive, but,
    Boeing needs a new airframe for this space.
     
  6. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed Owner

    Oct 16, 2007
    5,111
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    The development of the 737 successor is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. To justify the new development there needed to be a compelling operating cost savings for the airlines. Unfortunately the next generation engines of the NEO/Max achieved almost all of what was going to be available.

    Much of what this market segment struggles with for a successor is what Boeing is having to currently go through with their new Middle of Market program (757 replacement that is smaller than 787). Can they get the operating costs at the right spot, have an airframe that can withstand the short & medium haul cycles and get an acceptable price point so the airlines buy it. Sure, it would be sexy to have a clean sheet new model but if it really does not deliver substantially improved economics then it likely won't be a success. Something else to consider into this is how an all new aircraft is going to come with new parts provisioning costs at an airline's maintenance bases and at each station they operate from - this was a big factor for Southwest when they transitioned from 737 Classic to NG.
     
    jcurry likes this.
  7. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    13,441
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    Frankly, I think Boeing would have been better off to improve the economics of the 757, which weren't bad to begin with. Give it an updated airfoil and new engines, and it would probably still be competitive today and in the near future, and for much less up-front cost than an entirely new airframe.
     
    boxerman likes this.
  8. energy88

    energy88 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 21, 2012
    12,350
    Fredericksburg, VA & Sarasota, FL
    Full Name:
    John
    IMHO, the 757 is at the bottom of the list for flyer comfort and top of the list for corporate profit. Every 757 I've flown has had extremely uncomfortable seats with leg room between seats always at the absolute minimum. Once, because of weather schedule interruptions, I had to ride in the back of a 757 from NY to Amsterdam for about 8+ hours instead of the 747 I was originally scheduled on. Pure torture!
     
    Steelton Keith likes this.
  9. F1tommy

    F1tommy F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 15, 2007
    7,703
    Chicago USA
    Full Name:
    Tom Tanner
    The 737 and 757 have the same cabin width. My understanding was that the 757 was more expensive than the 737 to manufacture and also had larger heavier landing gear.

    They have kind of turned the 737 into a 757 with stubby landing gear now. To be honest I never liked the 737 after they came up with the 737-300. Awkward looking engines to say the least.
     
  10. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    6,680
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    Years back, my wife and I had a flight from Chicago to Puerto Rico on a 757 and it was an enjoyable and comfortable flight. So, I think that one has to take a look at how the airline treats its customers with the seating configuration. When I was at the Big Kite factory we worked out the most comfortable and optimum pax configurations that we could. The minute that the airlines got the airplane, all of that was thrown out the window along with some of the weight saving options. Some airline standards have to be set before they advertise that some passengers are packed in olive oil and some in recycled water.
     
    Jacob Potts likes this.
  11. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    6,680
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    The 757 is a heckuva good airplane, one of Boeing's best.
     
  12. Tcar

    Tcar F1 Rookie

    That's just silly... that is not a 757 problem, That is a carrier (airline) problem.
     
    Tu160bomber and BMW.SauberF1Team like this.
  13. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed Owner

    Oct 16, 2007
    5,111
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    The 757 was killed because of a lack of sales. At the end Boeing had been looing for an order from Northwest but that order kept lingering unplaced. But, a period of time after the line had been shut down Northwest did want to place the order - too late. IF Boeing had of held on longer the market might have returned soon enough and then later on the A321 would not have its current success. But who would know at the time.

    The 757 has a lot of great attributes as it is longer, has a superior cockpit architecture designed for overwater and lots more range. Normally stretching a fuselage will work but shortening becomes too much of a compromise. So, shortening to make a 737-7, 9 or 9 would not be effective. Also, with Southwest as such a key narrow body customer for Boeing, they want fleet compatibility for parts. [This is why the 737NG never got a far more capable cockpit architecture although Boeing had considered it]
     
  14. jcurry

    jcurry F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 16, 2012
    11,872
    Lk Stevens, WA
    Full Name:
    Jim
    I've heard pilots loved it. They leap into the sky.

    However, do not get stuck sitting in the back of a -300. Your total travel time will double. They actually have time to serve another meal to those in back while the rest of the passengers de-plane.;)
     
  15. energy88

    energy88 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 21, 2012
    12,350
    Fredericksburg, VA & Sarasota, FL
    Full Name:
    John
    Most of my 757 passenger experience was on Continental. Their other aircraft during that time period were perfectly fine.
     
  16. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 19, 2008
    31,844
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    757s were great if you were up front. Flew from Atlanta to Buenos Aires on one. They did have long legs.
     
    Tu160bomber likes this.
  17. BMW.SauberF1Team

    BMW.SauberF1Team F1 World Champ

    Dec 4, 2004
    12,705
    I always liked how the boarding door (at least on the Deltas) was between first class and economy. It is much more intuitive to have a setup like that than having the entire economy class board by walking through first class. Nice and private. Of course that only works on planes with a long enough fuselage...
     
    energy88 likes this.
  18. BMW.SauberF1Team

    BMW.SauberF1Team F1 World Champ

    Dec 4, 2004
    12,705
    So now Boeing's B1 Bombers are grounded...PR nightmare...
     
  19. 11506apollo

    11506apollo Formula 3
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2008
    1,926
    TX CO
    Full Name:
    Claudio
    Maybe its time for Embraer and the Canadians to step in and ocupy Boeing's space created by Boardroom incompetence....
     
  20. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed Owner

    Oct 16, 2007
    5,111
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    AIRLINES
    FAA Details Boeing 737 MAX MCAS Oversight Handover
    MCAS, which provides automatic stabilizer inputs that put the aircraft's nose down, is the focus of the October 2018 crash of Lion Air flight JT610, a 737 MAX 8.
    Sean Broderick | Mar 29, 2019

    FAA retained oversight of the Boeing MAX’s new maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) early on in the aircraft's certification process, but later delegated it to Boeing once the agency was confident the company had the expertise to manage it, FAA acting administrator Dan Elwell told a Senate hearing March 27.

    MCAS, which provides automatic stabilizer inputs that put the aircraft's nose down, is the focus of the October 2018 crash of Lion Air flight JT610, a 737 MAX 8. The system is also being eyed in the March 10 crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302, also a MAX 8. In both cases, the new aircraft struggled to maintain altitude and dove to impact.

    "As a new device on an amended type certificate, we retained the oversight [of MCAS],” Elwell said. As the organization designation authorization process for the MAX was refined “under very strict review,” MCAS was among the items shifted to the manufacturer.

    The revelation, made before the US Senate aviation and space subcommittee chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), sheds additional light on how MCAS was vetted and approved, and suggests FAA had more input on the system than previously understood.

    In written testimony presented to the subcommittee, Elwell said the agency “was directly involved in the System Safety Review” of MCAS.

    “FAA engineers and flight test pilots were involved in the MCAS operational evaluation flight test” and 133 of the 297 MAX certification flight tests, he said. Elwell could not immediately provide a timeline on when MCAS was delegated to Boeing, as part of the certification process.

    The acting administrator said MCAS—added to the MAX to make it handle like its 737NG predecessor in certain fight profiles—was not flagged by pilots as a relevant change from the 737NG during certification.

    The 737 MAX flight standardization board (FSB), made up of 737NG pilots from carriers around the world, flew 737 MAX aircraft and simulators to compare the two models—a routine process when manufacturers develop new models under amended type certificates.

    “After many scenarios and flights in all regimes, there was a consensus that there was no marked difference in the handling characteristics of these two aircraft,” Elwell said. This, he explained, was the primary reason that more information on MCAS was not provided to pilots.

    The Lion Air probe is focusing on how pilots reacted when MCAS, which was relying on erroneous angle-of-attack (AOA) data, pushed the nose down when the pilots did not want the flight-control inputs. Boeing, relying on the FSB feedback and the concept that MCAS was an expansion of the 737NG speed-trim system (STS) and not a standalone addition to the design, did not include MCAS-related training in the 737 MAX documentation. MCAS is not referenced in 737 MAX flight manuals.

    Boeing first alerted the pilot community to it shortly after the Lion Air 737 MAX crashed, when initial information from the probe suggested that MCAS may have activated during the accident sequence.

    Data pulled from the Lion Air aircraft’s flight data recorder shows the pilots used manual inputs to counteract MCAS, but the system—still being fed incorrect AOA data—kept responding with nose-down inputs. They apparently did not diagnose the problem as a runaway stabilizer, which is what Boeing and FAA expected would happen if MCAS malfunctioned. Both 737NG and MAX pilots are given the same checklists for runaway stabilizer, including a step to activate cut-out switches that cut power to the stabilizer. It is supposed to be memorized.

    “Pilots are trained that if they get an input that they did not ask for, they go through the appropriate procedure,” Elwell said.

    Runaway stabilizer on the 737NG and MAX “presents itself the same way, and it's dealt with the same way,” he added.

    Cruz pressed Elwell, noting that pulling back a 737NG yoke, which pulls the nose up, activates column cut-out switches that interrupt STS-related automatic stabilizer movements. But because MCAS is designed to push the aircraft's nose down, it bypasses the same switches on the MAX.

    Elwell responded by noting—correctly—that the 737NG and MAX “stabilizer runaway” checklist does not include pulling back on the yoke.
     
  21. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    13,441
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    To me, that sentence is the "smoking gun".
     
    TheMayor likes this.
  22. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 19, 2008
    31,844
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    The B-1B was actually built by North American Aviation, which Boeing bought. Not sure whether Boeing has a service contract on those or not.
     
  23. mike01606

    mike01606 Formula Junior

    Feb 21, 2012
    791
    Cheshire UK
    Full Name:
    Mike M
  24. xs10shl

    xs10shl Formula 3

    Dec 17, 2003
    2,017
    San Francisco
    I'm not an aeronautical expert by any means, but I'm confused by the lack of inputs into the MCAS. If I'm an anti-stall device, wouldn't I care most about sustained airspeed, which, in the case of the Boeing solution, is not even an input?
     

Share This Page