737 Max - Boeing grounds the fleet after second crash | Production temporarily suspended

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,539
https://www.omaha.com/money/wall-st...cle_900d74a1-c7b3-5ba1-b76b-d58101640c2b.html

In a November television interview on the Fox Business Network, Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg, when asked if information had been withheld from pilots, cited the procedure as “part of the training manual” and said Boeing’s bulletin to airlines “pointed to that existing flight procedure.”

Vice president Mike Sinnett repeatedly described the procedure as a “memory item,” meaning a routine pilots may need to do quickly without consulting a manual and so must commit to memory.

But Lemme said the Ethiopian pilots most likely were unable to carry out that last instruction in the Boeing emergency procedure — because they simply couldn’t physically move that wheel against the heavy forces acting on the tail.

“The forces on the tail could have been too great,” Lemme said. “They couldn’t turn the manual trim wheel.”

The stabilizer in the Ethiopian jet could have been in an extreme position with two separate forces acting on it:

MCAS had swiveled the stabilizer upward by turning a large mechanical screw inside the tail called the jackscrew. This is pushing the jet’s nose down.

But the pilot had pulled his control column far back in an attempt to counter, which would flip up a separate movable surface called the elevator on the trailing edge of the tail.

The elevator and stabilizer normally work together to minimize the loads on the jackscrew. But in certain conditions, the elevator and stabilizer loads combine to present high forces on the jackscrew and make it very difficult to turn manually.

As the jet’s airspeed increases, and with nose down it will accelerate, these forces grow even stronger.

In this scenario, the air flow pushing downward against the elevator would have created an equal and opposite load on the jackscrew, a force tending to hold the stabilizer in its upward displacement. This heavy force would resist the pilot’s manual effort to swivel the stabilizer back down.

...

In the test, the two European pilots in the 737 simulator set up a situation reflecting what happens when the pre-software fix MCAS is activated: They moved the stabilizer to push the nose down. They set the indicators to show disagreement over the air speed and followed normal procedures to address that, which increased airspeed.

They then followed the instructions Boeing recommended and, as airspeed increases, the forces on the control column and on the stabilizer wheel become increasingly strong.

After just a few minutes, with the plane still nose down, the Swedish 737 training pilot flying as Captain is exerting all his might to hold the control column, locking his upper arms around it. Meanwhile, on his right, the first officer tries vainly to turn the stabilizer wheel, barely able to budge it by the end.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,028
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Actually...

At air shows, cumulative orders from the past year are announced. Given the bad publicity, it's understandable that Boeing would refrain from popping the champagne with airlines while announcing orders that were signed in January.

Fact remains that Boeing remains a major player in the narrowbody market because Airbus and Embraer alone won't suffice to fill the demand, they all have years long backlogs.
 

unchanged_lineup

Tarheel Tech Wizard
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
16,757
Location
Leaving A Breakfast On All Of Your Doorsteps
Supports
Janet jazz jazz jam
Actually...

At air shows, cumulative orders from the past year are announced. Given the bad publicity, it's understandable that Boeing would refrain from popping the champagne with airlines while announcing orders that were signed in January.

Fact remains that Boeing remains a major player in the narrowbody market because Airbus and Embraer alone won't suffice to fill the demand, they all have years long backlogs.
Wow though. I used to teach lots of Airbus folks and they always talked about stuff like this.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,202
Actually...

At air shows, cumulative orders from the past year are announced. Given the bad publicity, it's understandable that Boeing would refrain from popping the champagne with airlines while announcing orders that were signed in January.

Fact remains that Boeing remains a major player in the narrowbody market because Airbus and Embraer alone won't suffice to fill the demand, they all have years long backlogs.
It's both. Lots of orders are worked on in the months leading up to Paris or Farnborough ready for signing at the event. Day one is hardly the end of the world but if there's nothing by Sunday then it's big news.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,028
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
It's both. Lots of orders are worked on in the months leading up to Paris or Farnborough ready for signing at the event. Day one is hardly the end of the world but if there's nothing by Sunday then it's big news.
I'm sure there are a few airlines (small operators or incremental orders by big operators) that dropped out after the crashes and switched to Airbus. It's small relative to those who are locked in already. Apparently orders have been coming in since 2011 :eek:

Wow though. I used to teach lots of Airbus folks and they always talked about stuff like this.
Absolutely huge for sure. Air Shows are normally the opposite of apology tours :lol:
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,202
I'm sure there are a few airlines (small operators or incremental orders by big operators) that dropped out after the crashes and switched to Airbus. It's small relative to those who are locked in already. Apparently orders have been coming in since 2011 :eek:
They've averaged between 400 and 900 orders per year for the 737MAX since launch. This year so far? 7.


Massive fundamental incidents like these have led to the end of numerous aircraft over the years. It could be very well be the last 737 model.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,010
They've averaged between 400 and 900 orders per year for the 737MAX since launch. This year so far? 7.


Massive fundamental incidents like these have led to the end of numerous aircraft over the years. It could be very well be the last 737 model.
They'll probably just re-brand. For the same reason they refused to do it before - the 737 name carried a lot of weight behind it.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,028
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
They've averaged between 400 and 900 orders per year for the 737MAX since launch. This year so far? 7.


Massive fundamental incidents like these have led to the end of numerous aircraft over the years. It could be very well be the last 737 model.
It's not going to be the last 737 model. You forget how successful this model has been in the narrow body segment.

The 737 max 8... Probably, but if they get clearance from the regulatory authorities, and regain the confidence of major airlines (they most likely will), why would they scrap an entire line?
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,202
It's not going to be the last 737 model. You forget how successful this model has been in the narrow body segment.

The 737 max 8... Probably, but if they get clearance from the regulatory authorities, and regain the confidence of major airlines (they most likely will), why would they scrap an entire line?
They were already planning to replace the 737. The 737 MAX was really only introduced because they couldn't develop the replacement fast enough and Airbus were winning too many orders with the A320neo. It was probably going to be the last model in the line anyway.

If passengers avoid it airlines will react. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened and brought an aircraft's production to a premature end.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,776
It's not going to be the last 737 model. You forget how successful this model has been in the narrow body segment.

The 737 max 8... Probably, but if they get clearance from the regulatory authorities, and regain the confidence of major airlines (they most likely will), why would they scrap an entire line?
Genuine question mate. Do you work with/are invested in Boeing in any way? It’s not meant to be offensive or anything of that sort, but you’ve been quite defensive of them in this thread.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596

and worse..

Who developed the Boeing 737 Max's flawed software? Low-paid temp workers and recent college grads, according to report

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-outsourced-737-max-report-2019-6

Bloomberg's Peter Robison reported on June 28 that Boeing and its suppliers outsourced some of its 737 Max software development and testing to temporary workers. These temp workers, some of whom were recent college graduates, were employees or contract workers for Indian tech firms HCL Technologies and Cyient Ltd.

Some of the testers and developers made as little as $9, the longtime engineers told Bloomberg. Former Boeing flight controls engineer Rick Ludtke said the move to outsource was centered on cost-cutting.
Former Boeing software engineer Mark Rabin told Bloomberg that a manager said at an all-hands meeting that senior engineers were no longer required at the company.

"I was shocked that in a room full of a couple hundred mostly senior engineers we were being told that we weren't needed," Rabin told Bloomberg.

However, Rabin said the code was often "not done correctly" and that a lot of "back and forth" was required to get the code accurate. The coders from HCL were working to specifications established from Boeing engineers.
 
Last edited:

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Since it is a certification problem it is going to take some time. The FAA may allow the Max to operate but most of the World now operates under EASA rules and now EASA is not going to to certify it just because FAA says so. They are going to independently verify everything. This will take time. Now the Air Canada 787 issue has flared up too so Boeing is in a spot of bother as far the certification of aircraft are.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,618

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,202
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change


Max dropped from the name. No real return date as of yet as far as I can tell. This must really be costing them a lot of money at this point.
They said it would cost them over $1b in April, when they still thought it would be flying by the summer. Each aircraft is supposedly costing it's owning airline 150k per day to sit there doing nothing. I'm sure they'll all be chasing Boeing for that too.

Even with all that, they will almost certainly still turn a profit this year. That's how big they are.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,614
It's gonna cost them a big amount of money. But it's Boeing. Their only real competitor is Airbus and the latter can't sweep up the whole market.

So in the long-term they'll be fine I reckon.
They said it would cost them over $1b in April, when they still thought it would be flying by the summer. Each aircraft is supposedly costing it's owning airline 150k per day to sit there doing nothing. I'm sure they'll all be chasing Boeing for that too.

Even with all that, they will almost certainly still turn a profit this year. That's how big they are.

Yeah, they'll survive this, no doubt, but it must be a fortune by now.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-max-american-united-grounding-20190714-story.html

American Airlines don't seem optimistic about a return in the next couple of months (no surprise really).
 

Sassy Colin

Death or the gladioli!
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
70,760
Location
Aliens are in control of my tagline & location
On the one hand, this could be catastrophic for Boeing, but on the other, a lot people have died and many millions (sounds alarmist, but think how many passengers a year are flying in these aircraft) more could be at risk.

They can not allow these planes to fly again until a solution is found. What happens if Boeing goes bust? I'm not sure, presumably the US Government would have to step in?
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,028
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
On the one hand, this could be catastrophic for Boeing, but on the other, a lot people have died and many millions (sounds alarmist, but think how many passengers a year are flying in these aircraft) more could be at risk.

They can not allow these planes to fly again until a solution is found. What happens if Boeing goes bust? I'm not sure, presumably the US Government would have to step in?
:lol:

That isn't happening.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,028
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
That's exactly my point, it's not funny. Neither is people dying plane crashes, which is even less funny.
What's funny is your suggestion that Boeing goes bust.

1. They're not close to going bust

2. They are a critical defense contractor, so the United States would have to step in, IF they were close to going bust

3. They're not close to going bust

That comment is indicative of the hyperbolic rhetoric concerning Boeing over the past few months, but I'll stop here before I'm accused of owning shares in Boeing
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,297
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Next time, don't cut corners.
Absolutely right.
I am certainly not condoning Boeing. But many major companies cut corners and often get away with it.
In this case Boeing didn't. Remember. They were trying very hard to blame the Ethiopian pilots for the catastrophic crash even though they were well aware of the problem.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
28,111
Cynically enough, investors are "OK" with this figure. However , with the possibility of return of service before 2020 rapidly diminishing, this number can get a lot larger.
 

fergieisold

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
7,122
Location
Saddleworth (home) Manchester (work)
Absolutely right.
I am certainly not condoning Boeing. But many major companies cut corners and often get away with it.
In this case Boeing didn't. Remember. They were trying very hard to blame the Ethiopian pilots for the catastrophic crash even though they were well aware of the problem.
Boeing seem like scum to me. I'll actively attempt to avoid flying on their planes. They even conned the relatives out of more significant compensation!
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,297
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Boeing seem like scum to me. I'll actively attempt to avoid flying on their planes. They even conned the relatives out of more significant compensation!
Wouldn't argue with that. They actively targeted Ethiopian Airlines, a customer of Boeing, in order to try to deflect the blame onto what they regarded as a 'third world airline with third world aircrew'. And they have never apologised to them for that.
They then tried to put some blame on the American FAA for not spotting the problem and certifying the aircraft.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,187
Location
Interweb
Absolutely right.
I am certainly not condoning Boeing. But many major companies cut corners and often get away with it.
In this case Boeing didn't. Remember. They were trying very hard to blame the Ethiopian pilots for the catastrophic crash even though they were well aware of the problem.
They almost got away with it as well since accidents did not occur in the west. Just look at some of the posts in this thread by certain posters who were convinced that Boeing did nothing wrong and Asian/African and even European authorities later on were overreacting due to public hysteria.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,297
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
They almost got away with it as well since accidents did not occur in the west. Just look at some of the posts in this thread by certain posters who were convinced that Boeing did nothing wrong and Asian/African and even European authorities later on were overreacting due to public hysteria.
Simply appalling.
In all of this it remains vital to remember those who perished and the families of those.
I suspect that they will have to overcome many obstacles put in their way before they get justice.
 

baskinginthesun

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,102
Boeing seem like scum to me. I'll actively attempt to avoid flying on their planes. They even conned the relatives out of more significant compensation!
They have their hands on a lot of aircraft. It will be close to impossible to accomplish this. You would be better of going on ground transportation.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,028
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Or you know just fly Airbus?
3 issues with this:

1. You immediately rule out airlines that almost exclusively operate Boeing (which is a significant chunk of the worldwide fleet). Depending on where you are, that may complicate travel plans in terms of destination options and fares paid

2. Airlines that operate more than one airframe usually stick to a common airframe for a certain route; however once you book a ticket from A to B, an airline is not responsible for ensuring you fly exclusively on Airbus planes. Routine or extreme circumstances may have you being put on a different airliner than you intended.

3. Or you could find airliners that exclusively operate a combination of Airbus and/or Embraer and/or Bombardier and/or MD. If you are flying from New York to Heathrow you'll be fine. For more specialized routes it may end up costing you more, or taking longer. Or you may be fine.

If you struggle with plane travel already then you should probably stick to Airbus for your sanity. Otherwise, just seems like extra stress for some sense of safety which isn't grounded in much fact.
 

baskinginthesun

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,102
Or you know just fly Airbus?
3 issues with this:

1. You immediately rule out airlines that almost exclusively operate Boeing (which is a significant chunk of the worldwide fleet). Depending on where you are, that may complicate travel plans in terms of destination options and fares paid

2. Airlines that operate more than one airframe usually stick to a common airframe for a certain route; however once you book a ticket from A to B, an airline is not responsible for ensuring you fly exclusively on Airbus planes. Routine or extreme circumstances may have you being put on a different airliner than you intended.

3. Or you could find airliners that exclusively operate a combination of Airbus and/or Embraer and/or Bombardier and/or MD. If you are flying from New York to Heathrow you'll be fine. For more specialized routes it may end up costing you more, or taking longer. Or you may be fine.

If you struggle with plane travel already then you should probably stick to Airbus for your sanity. Otherwise, just seems like extra stress for some sense of safety which isn't grounded in much fact.
I was going to recommend EasyJet as I think they are one of the few airlines in Europe that are an all Airbus fleet.

Careful, Embraer and MD both owned by Boeing now. Well, MD merged with Boeing in the late 90's, I think.
 
Last edited: