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

[MDFC Manager]

1 to 5 billion to ground them for 3 months in terms of expectation. Not that much of an issue for Boeing who post revenues or circa 100b yearly.

The bigger issue would be to undermine the confidence in their aircrafts. Their stock had seen a major hit since the crash plummeting with 11%.

Think they were just about to launch their new flagship as well?

 

[Enigma_87]

Think they were just about to launch their new flagship as well?

aye. Think Washington state gave him a tax rebate to fund the manufacturing works and is on course of unveiling this year with tests underway.

 

[11101]

1 to 5 billion to ground them for 3 months in terms of expectation. Not that much of an issue for Boeing who post revenues or circa 100b yearly.

The bigger issue would be to undermine the confidence in their aircrafts. Their stock had seen a major hit since the crash plummeting with 11%.

It could be the beginning of the end for the 737 family. They were already looking at a brand new design and in the past orders have always dropped after crashes and groundings like this.

 

[Enigma_87]

It could be the beginning of the end for the 737 family. They were already looking at a brand new design and in the past orders have always dropped after crashes and groundings like this.

Yeah, real possibility of this.

Wonder how the new flagman will be accepted and if it will gain major share, considering Airbus are dropping the A380. Not that it hasn't got any competition, mind, but can gain significant market share if it is a good model and from what I've read seems like they've done a good job there.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

What's the importance of the distinction, in this case? The system is designed and delivered in a way which increases the likelihood of a specific issue during take off, and it appears to have been an unusually common and evidently quite dangerous issue. If they can't execute the function, why is that not a significant problem which justifies the cautious response?

Yeah, operating effectiveness is important. Don't get me wrong. It's also an easier fix. The dichotomy comes from the relationship of the designers to the system, they know it and understand it so they have zero issues operating it. Then you put a system into a production environment and after a while discover that some of your operators struggle with certain situations. From my view this is what's happened here.

 

[11101]

Yeah, real possibility of this.

Wonder how the new flagman will be accepted and if it will gain major share, considering Airbus are dropping the A380. Not that it hasn't got any competition, mind, but can gain significant market share if it is a good model and from what I've read seems like they've done a good job there.

The 737 replacement? It's still a good 10 years off, 10 years is a long time with a potentially flawed product and Airbus selling more A320s than they can make.

Boeing seem to have a bit of a design issue at the moment. The 787 was nearly a disaster, they were very lucky none of them actually crashed. If the 777X encounters problems they could be in real trouble.

 

[11101]

But by doing so, didn't Boeing change their design paradigm that "pilot has full control" at all times? Surely the possibility of multiple sources of control surface input would seem very foreign to 737 pilots with thousands of flight hours ?

In the Airbus 320 family this issue does not exist because the whole concept is for the pilot to give pitch/roll speed targets with the stick and let the FCs determine the rest.

I am aware you probably already know this, however it might be beneficial to other posters.

Kind of. Most big aircraft have yaw dampers but the 737 never needed anything to control its pitch before now.

Reading up on the MCAS it looks like the issue is to do with lift produced by the engine covers. They don't generate lift in level flight but with the nose up they begin to, which pushes the nose even further up as the new engines are now further in front of the centre of gravity than before. The MCAS is designed to stop that by pushing the nose down, which is nothing unusual. What's different is that in the MAX to counter that the pilot has to adjust the trim or switch it off, simply pulling back on the yoke won't do it anymore, the MCAS will override it and keep pushing the nose down. A quick thinking pilot might realise this and adjust the trim or switch it off, but a less experienced pilot will be pulling the yoke back all the way into the ground. Boeing's problem is they didn't tell anyone the new aircraft did this.

 

[The Firestarter]

Kind of. Most big aircraft have yaw dampers but the 737 never needed anything to control its pitch before now.

Reading up on the MCAS it looks like the issue is to do with lift produced by the engine covers. They don't generate lift in level flight but with the nose up they begin to, which pushes the nose even further up as the new engines are now further in front of the centre of gravity than before. The MCAS is designed to stop that by pushing the nose down, which is nothing unusual. What's different is that in the MAX to counter that the pilot has to adjust the trim or switch it off, simply pulling back on the yoke won't do it anymore, the MCAS will override it and keep pushing the nose down. A quick thinking pilot might realise this and adjust the trim or switch it off, but a less experienced pilot will be pulling the yoke back all the way into the ground. Boeing's problem is they didn't tell anyone the new aircraft did this.

Isn't the bolded part exactly what one of the pilots did in the AF crash? The computer issues around 50 stall warnings , but instead of putting the nose down to do a basic stall recovery , the pilot kept the stick back up.

 

[11101]

Isn't the bolded part exactly what one of the pilots did in the AF crash? The computer issues around 50 stall warnings , but instead of putting the nose down to do a basic stall recovery , the pilot kept the stick back up.

I think so. Wasn't the more experienced pilot pushing the stick down but didn't know the junior pilot was counteracting it by pulling his stick back? The aircraft didn't know who to listen to so ignored them both.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I think so. Wasn't the more experienced pilot pushing the stick down but didn't know the junior pilot was counteracting it by pulling his stick back? The aircraft didn't know who to listen to so ignored them both.

I think it's exactly that as far as I recall. Once the pilots panic it's over.

 

[The Firestarter]

I think so. Wasn't the more experienced pilot pushing the stick down but didn't know the junior pilot was counteracting it by pulling his stick back? The aircraft didn't know who to listen to so ignored them both.

I think either one of the pilots had priority , or it went in some weird mode where the inputs were summed and produced a zero output. I remember from the transcript that the captain entered the cockpit and ordered them to push the stick down but they had lost too much altitude by that point...

 

[Arruda]

AF crash is still partly a mystery because the actions of the most junior pilot are completely incomprehensible. He caused the initial stall for no understandable reason, then corrected it, then caused another, and when the First Officer understood the problem and tried to save the plane, Bonim kept pulling the yoke back making the FO efforts fruitless.

It's very weird. It's like if a surgeon started doing random actions in the middle of a simple surgery instead of performing how he has trained for.

Something like a minor stroke perhaps? Complete disorientaton? Even the later doesn't justify some of those actions.

This dude makes some interestibg recreations of major crashes, using Flight Simulators and data from the CVR and flight data recorder. The videos are short and very informative, providing a more dinamic and real time understanding of what's happening than just reading.


It just doesn't make sense why that stick is always pushed back. At least in these 737-MAX we have an understandig of what leads the pilots to do that wrong choice. In the AF you just can't.

 

[The Firestarter]

AF crash is still partly a mystery because the actions of the most junior pilot are completely incomprehensible. He caused the initial stall for no understandable reason, then corrected it, then caused another, and when the First Officer understood the problem and tried to save the plane, Bonim kept pulling the yoke back making the FO efforts fruitless.

It's very weird. It's like if a surgeon started doing random actions in the middle of a simple surgery instead of performing how he has trained for.

Something like a minor stroke perhaps? Complete disorientaton? Even the later doesn't justify some of those actions.

This dude makes some interestibg recreations of major crashes, using Flight Simulators and data from the CVR and flight data recorder. The videos are short and very informative, providing a more dinamic and real time understanding of what's happening than just reading.


It just doesn't make sense why that stick is always pushed back. At least in these 737-MAX we have an understandig of what leads the pilots to do that wrong choice. In the AF you just can't.

Everything that you listed is a possibility, but I'd two more: inadequate training or personnel selection . Some people are just not equipped to be pilots.

 

[Skills]

1 to 5 billion to ground them for 3 months in terms of expectation. Not that much of an issue for Boeing who post revenues or circa 100b yearly.

The bigger issue would be to undermine the confidence in their aircrafts. Their stock had seen a major hit since the crash plummeting with 11%.

The market doesn't really have a choice. It's either Airbus (A320) or Boeing (737), and they'll go for the aircraft that will make them more money over its years in service. The average passenger hasn't got a clue which aircraft they're flying on and which engine they're flying with. Eventually the hysteria will die out and I don't think it will even make a dent in their order book.

 

[VorZakone]

This is like Volkswagen in terms of actual impact on the company. A short chaotic time, but Boeing will be fine eventually. Just like Volkswagen is fine now.

These immensely large corporations don't just go down like that.

 

[11101]

AF crash is still partly a mystery because the actions of the most junior pilot are completely incomprehensible. He caused the initial stall for no understandable reason, then corrected it, then caused another, and when the First Officer understood the problem and tried to save the plane, Bonim kept pulling the yoke back making the FO efforts fruitless.

It just doesn't make sense why that stick is always pushed back. At least in these 737-MAX we have an understandig of what leads the pilots to do that wrong choice. In the AF you just can't.

Not sure if its covered in that video but one thing that did come out of the investigation was why he kept re-stalling it. Up to a certain angle of attack the A330 produces a stall warning. Once you go over it the aircraft thinks it must be an error and goes silent, but in their case it wasn't an error. They did manage to get the nose down but once the AoA dropped a little to a more normal reading the stall warning came back on, and the reaction was to pull back on the stick again.

Just complete spatial disorientation and poor training, but Air France went through a period a few years ago of trying to crash just about every aircraft type they owned.

The market doesn't really have a choice. It's either Airbus (A320) or Boeing (737), and they'll go for the aircraft that will make them more money over its years in service. The average passenger hasn't got a clue which aircraft they're flying on and which engine they're flying with. Eventually the hysteria will die out and I don't think it will even make a dent in their order book.

I don't think it will be that easy. The DC10 put an end to McDonnell Douglas as a serious commercial aircraft manufacturer and the Comet finished DeHavilland entirely. Boeing aren't going anywhere but the 737 could cause real problems for them.

 

[Arruda]

Not sure if its covered in that video but one thing that did come out of the investigation was why he kept re-stalling it. Up to a certain angle of attack the A330 produces a stall warning. Once you go over it the aircraft thinks it must be an error and goes silent, but in their case it wasn't an error. They did manage to get the nose down but once the AoA dropped a little to a more normal reading the stall warning came back on, and the reaction was to pull back on the stick again.

Just complete spatial disorientation and poor training, but Air France went through a period a few years ago of trying to crash just about every aircraft type they owned.

Yes, but the stall warning never went silent, except for that brief period in which they regained control. My trouble is understanding why would anyone pull back on the stick after re-stalling. I don't know much about flying, but won't that further increase the angle of attack?

If you look at the conversations between them (hence why the video is good, as it times them with the behaviour of the plane) both more senior pilots had no idea the younger pilot was pushing back the stick and he did it for the entire fall of the plane, which took about 4 minutes. They just felt like they had no control but had no understanding why, when the answer was right there in the cockpit. They only realise he's pulling the stick back when they're seconds from crashing.

 

[The Firestarter]

This is like Volkswagen in terms of actual impact on the company. A short chaotic time, but Boeing will be fine eventually. Just like Volkswagen is fine now.

These immensely large corporations don't just go down like that.

Nobody is even suggesting Boeing is going down.

 

[11101]

Yes, but the stall warning never went silent, except for that brief period in which they regained control. My trouble is understanding why would anyone pull back on the stick after re-stalling. I don't know much about flying, but won't that further increase the angle of attack?

If you look at the conversations between them (hence why the video is good, as it times them with the behaviour of the plane) both more senior pilots had no idea the younger pilot was pushing back the stick and he did it for the entire fall of the plane, which took about 4 minutes. They just felt like they had no control but had no understanding why, when the answer was right there in the cockpit. They only realise he's pulling the stick back when they're seconds from crashing.

The video is wrong if it says that. The stall warning went silent when the aircraft considered the readings to be invalid (in this case too extreme to be correct) but came back on when they fell into what was a more normal stall range. I doubt we'll ever know why the pilot kept pulling back, i guess just poor training and a natural reaction at the thought of hitting the ground.

 

[Enigma_87]

The market doesn't really have a choice. It's either Airbus (A320) or Boeing (737), and they'll go for the aircraft that will make them more money over its years in service. The average passenger hasn't got a clue which aircraft they're flying on and which engine they're flying with. Eventually the hysteria will die out and I don't think it will even make a dent in their order book.

You are right about the average passenger he doesn't know, neither care most of the cases.

Passenger opinion wouldn't make a difference to the airline, but safety record does. If entire line is problematic orders might take a hit as especially small airlines can go under just with one crash like that.

Airlines usually cut corners and work with very little margin, they can't afford to lose a plane or get their fleet grounded, especially small ones.

Not that it's a problem to Boeing, they will just offer a different line if they don't work out the problems with the MAX 8, but the 737 is here to stay - it's the most sold jet ever and has more than half of century history in service.

 

[Enigma_87]

The 737 replacement? It's still a good 10 years off, 10 years is a long time with a potentially flawed product and Airbus selling more A320s than they can make.

Boeing seem to have a bit of a design issue at the moment. The 787 was nearly a disaster, they were very lucky none of them actually crashed. If the 777X encounters problems they could be in real trouble.

The biggest problem to me was going for the amended type of certificate on the MAX 8 as part of the 737, instead of a new one.

It's obvious most of the pilots lack sufficient training and due to that the problems mount. There are many differences, even the clock is part of the LED display now, yet in order to cut training costs they only extended the program and license.

The ASRS resume says it all really:

“B737MAX Captain reported confusion regarding switch function and display annunciations related to ‘poor training and even poorer documentation.’”

 

[adexkola]

You are right about the average passenger he doesn't know, neither care most of the cases.

Passenger opinion wouldn't make a difference to the airline, but safety record does. If entire line is problematic orders might take a hit as especially small airlines can go under just with one crash like that.

Airlines usually cut corners and work with very little margin, they can't afford to lose a plane or get their fleet grounded, especially small ones.

Not that it's a problem to Boeing, they will just offer a different line if they don't work out the problems with the MAX 8, but the 737 is here to stay - it's the most sold jet ever and has more than half of century history in service.

Following from that, it makes Aircraft OEMs less susceptible to these kinds of crises. Given the backlog of orders, and the concentration of technical expertise in Boeing and Airbus (the others don't have the range).

Boeing may have to take a financial hit in order to maintain demand for it's product, but airlines will take a Boeing today over an Airbus 5 years from now.

Rolls Royce went through worse with the turbine failure on the Trent 1000s, and swallowed the loss on their books, but are still taking orders.

 

[Enigma_87]

Following from that, it makes Aircraft OEMs less susceptible to these kinds of crises. Given the backlog of orders, and the concentration of technical expertise in Boeing and Airbus (the others don't have the range).

Boeing may have to take a financial hit in order to maintain demand for it's product, but airlines will take a Boeing today over an Airbus 5 years from now.

Rolls Royce went through worse with the turbine failure on the Trent 1000s, and swallowed the loss on their books, but are still taking orders.

Yeah, naturally, Boeing aren't going away. They will take the financial hit and move on.

It's not like SW will start ordering A320's and retrain all their pilots, given they have over 700 planes in service - all Boeing...

 

[Il Prete Rosso]

From my perspective there's an abundance of evidence that the plane is airworthy and very little evidence that it is not.

I'm not disagreeing with you there but if there's similarities between two events in where the loss of life is likely, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Do I think there may be an overreaction...maybe, but I would prefer Boeing do its job to verify that the aircraft is 100% not likely to crash because of a mixup between hardware and software.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I'm not disagreeing with you there but if there's similarities between two events in where the loss of life is likely, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Do I think there may be an overreaction...maybe, but I would prefer Boeing do its job to verify that the aircraft is 100% not likely to crash because of a mixup between hardware and software.

Just thought it occurred a bit early and as such it appeared to be a case of same plane = problem. Canada was the only nation that gave an indication that they actually reviewed evidence to make their decision. Once there was an indication of empirical review it's a fair decision.

 

[The Firestarter]

Just thought it occurred a bit early and as such it appeared to be a case of same plane = problem. Canada was the only nation that gave an indication that they actually reviewed evidence to make their decision. Once there was an indication of empirical review it's a fair decision.

Didn't Boeing formally request the grounding? I presume they have uncovered something, or have already been aware of a problem prior to that.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Didn't Boeing formally request the grounding? I presume they have uncovered something, or have already been aware of a problem prior to that.

All of our discussion happened prior to that.

 

[The Firestarter]

All of our discussion happened prior to that.

Yeah, but you are assuming that no regulator that banned the aircraft prior to that did so based on any data , and while there might have not been official communication on that , I am pretty sure that certain facts get shared quicker than that within the industry. So probably most countries decision was based on some, just not yet officially released, information.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Yeah, but you are assuming that no regulator that banned the aircraft prior to that did so based on any data , and while there might have not been official communication on that , I am pretty sure that certain facts get shared quicker than that within the industry. So probably most countries decision was based on some, just not yet officially released, information.

One would expect at least a degree of transparency, though. Canada straight up declared their decision was based on new data they'd received earlier that day. Why couldn't anyone else say the same?

 

[Ramshock]

Following from that, it makes Aircraft OEMs less susceptible to these kinds of crises. Given the backlog of orders, and the concentration of technical expertise in Boeing and Airbus (the others don't have the range).

Boeing may have to take a financial hit in order to maintain demand for it's product, but airlines will take a Boeing today over an Airbus 5 years from now.

Rolls Royce went through worse with the turbine failure on the Trent 1000s, and swallowed the loss on their books, but are still taking orders.

How do these things get to production and operational stage without thorough testing?

 

[11101]

How do these things get to production and operational stage without thorough testing?

The Trent 1000 issues show how safety is supposed to work.

You can't test for everything, some things show up over time or in specific conditions you can't replicate in a test. The Trent 1000 did about 3000 hours of tests before the first 787 flew with a customer but it's no substitute for the millions of hours they rack up in commercial service. The maintenance checks are designed to catch anything new and in that case it did, before it caused any real damage.

 

[adexkola]

How do these things get to production and operational stage without thorough testing?

1. Luck. Aerospace components go through rigorous stress testing that exceeds what they are expected to see in service

2. Unknown modes of failure that have not been discovered yet. Once they occur, the corrective learning is swift.

 

[UweBein]

Wow, there are reports that Boeing intentionally misinformed FAA during the approval process.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Wow, there are reports that Boeing intentionally misinformed FAA during the approval process.

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Adisa]

Don't think Trump has appointed anyone to run the FAA over two years in.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[UweBein]

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

Apparently, for some aspects Boeing was allowed to control itself. What could possibly go wrong, eh?

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[MDFC Manager]

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

Apparently, for some aspects Boeing was allowed to control itself. What could possibly go wrong, eh?

Especially when we've already seen FAA feck up in the past..

 

[Skills]

How did they manage to get certified by EASA then?