Boeing 737 Max due to resume passenger flights.

[red750]

Many passengers not aware of crashes, others wary of flying in the aircraft.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/us-fliers-less-familiar-with-boeing-737-max-crashes-two-years-on-but-wary-when-reminded-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-BB1chHJu

[Methusala]

Yanks will sell these off so cheaply that discount airlines find them irresistible. We travelers (as always) will be grist to the mill. And so it goes!

[M61A1]

No problem at all really unless you use a third world airline and in that case it really doesn't matter what aircraft you are getting on. 

[facthunter]

It is a faulty design if it needs all that control augmentation. . Nev

[M61A1]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It is a faulty design if it needs all that control augmentation. . Nev

According to Juan Brown MCAS was there to make it feel like the normal 737 to avoid further type training. The procedure for "Runaway Trim" has been in the flight manual the whole time if I understand correctly and the second crash occurred after an AD  regarding this procedure, which makes the incompetence of the pilots inexcusable.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSVtLXtIrw

 

[facthunter]

There will always be people who say" I would be able to handle it".. It's more than feel. No one was filled in on the system or trained properly because it would affect sales It's serious pitching forces with the position of the engines being the basis of the problem . The roller coaster recovery is not really applicable as an option.  It's too slow.. Significant numbers of pilots aren't convinced that it (this plane) is a good thing.. Blame the pilots is as old as the hills and the easy option. IF it was so simple, why has it taken so long? Boeing's reputation is shot and justifiably. There's plenty of other evidence of corner cutting. TRUST will take a long time to return. Nev

[M61A1]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

There will always be people who say" I would be able to handle it".. It's more than feel. No one was filled in on the system or trained properly because it would affect sales It's serious pitching forces with the position of the engines being the basis of the problem . The roller coaster recovery is not really applicable as an option.  It's too slow.. Significant numbers of pilots aren't convinced that it (this plane) is a good thing.. Blame the pilots is as old as the hills and the easy option. IF it was so simple, why has it taken so long? Boeing's reputation is shot and justifiably. There's plenty of other evidence of corner cutting. TRUST will take a long time to return. Nev

While I don't care too much for Boeing, this whole has been nothing more than a witch hunt, promoted by a heap of lawyers and people justifying their jobs, like many other "scandals" in current times.

It's about politics more than anything else.

The actions of the Ethiopian crew were inexcusable as the AD was released addressing the very issue  before it occurred. Finally when they got around to carrying out the correct actions and had it under control, they undid the corrective action.

It has nothing to do with what I "could have handled" and a lot to do with the fact that several other crews have experienced it and and it was a minor occurrence, including the previous crew  prior to the crash on the same aircraft.

[facthunter]

Let's just say we don't agree. IF it were THAT simple it would have been covered just by retraining.. Perhaps we have been referencing different material. This plane is basically unstable in pitch.

[onetrack]

The 737MAX shambles, wasn't just a failure on Boeings part - it was also a major failure on the FAA's part, who became so enamoured with Boeing, and so close to them, that they rubber-stamped everything that Boeing did and wanted.

 

I trust the FAA oversight procedures have improved to ensure that the FAA stays at arms length from Boeing, and that no cosy "one-on-one" relationships between Boeing and FAA executives, can be set up in the future.

Edited December 30, 2020 by onetrack

[Yenn]

And the reason that the FAA got into bed with Boeing was ?

The Yanks could not let European aircraft manufacturers get ahead of their Boeing. A case of keep America Great.

[planedriver]

Sounds now like "if it's Boeing, i'm not going".

I would love to think that it's been affectively sorted before I plant my backside on a Max, but time will reveal all

Edited January 2, 2021 by planedriver

[kgwilson]

Without all of the control augmentation the Max is not a stable aircraft. They have sorted the MCAS and other control systems out now and it has been approved to fly. This does not resolve all of Boeings issues though. The "Profit before Safety" culture is Boeings Archilles Heel. They are finding issues with the 787 and 777 relating to the quality of components and even in the earlier 737NG. Boeing employees blew the whistle 10 years ago and the SBS Doco showed this up. As expected back then, the whistle blowers were sacked & with the power and money of the Boeing organisation everything was pushed under the carpet. I wonder if that Doco was ever aired in the US.

 

David Calhoun who was Chairman of the Board replaced the embattled CEO Dennis Muilenberg to be Chairman of the Board, President and CEO in December 2019. This seems to be uniquely American to be able to hold all 3 of the top roles in an publicly listed company. Boeings share price went from $440 to $95 in a year. Eventually shareholder groups revolted & just last month Calhoun lost the Chairmans role. This can only be good for the organisation as the Board should always have an arms length relationship with the company's operations. During this time when they are selling little except military aircraft to the US government it is a good time to modify their behaviour but with Calhoun still commanding the top 2 roles in the operations of the company I wouldn't expect much change.

[jackc]

On 30/12/2020 at 10:03 AM, M61A1 said:

According to Juan Brown MCAS was there to make it feel like the normal 737 to avoid further type training. The procedure for "Runaway Trim" has been in the flight manual the whole time if I understand correctly and the second crash occurred after an AD  regarding this procedure, which makes the incompetence of the pilots inexcusable.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSVtLXtIrw

 

Quite simply,  they turned an old airframe into a flying pig in the quest to save money.  Rather than embark on a new design they chose to cut corners  and the engine manufacturers put a good sales pitch as part of that plan.

i would call MCAS a bandaid to counter potentially poor flight characteristics of the airframe. In my opinion using something like MCAS was unconscionable, to cover up poor flight characteristics and to think that the FAA sanctioned all this.

Considering the cost to Boeing for this whole debacle, it would have been far cheaper to design a new airframe from the ground up not to mention their reputation has been trashed and they can’t buy that back.

it’s easy to blame pilots but they were not trained, that is also inexcusable.  With the complexity of modern aircraft, you nearly  need a checklist to drive the air conditioning!  No longer can pilots simply ‘fly’ the aircraft anymore using instruments, the ‘computer’ has to get in the way all the time.  Technology is taking us backwards in some ways and that is not a good direction when it comes to aircraft.

 

[kgwilson]

The US dept of Justice has fined Boeing USD 2.5 billion citing the Max fiasco deception, coverup and half truths. Calhoun who was recently stripped of his role as Chairman due to shareholder pressure had this to say.

 

“I firmly believe that entering into this resolution is the right thing for us to do — a step that appropriately acknowledges how we fell short of our values and expectations. This resolution is a serious reminder to all of us of how critical our obligation of transparency to regulators is, and the consequences that our company can face if any one of us falls short of those expectations.”

 

He has been in this and is fully complicit up to his neck for years and would have been biting his lip hard to make that statement. The money is to be split as penalty of USD 243.6 million, compensation to airline customers of USD 1.77 billion and USD 500 million to the crash victim beneficiaries. Boeings share price which fell from $440 to $95 had rebounded to $230 but now is just over $200.

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 30/12/2020 at 10:44 AM, M61A1 said:

While I don't care too much for Boeing, this whole has been nothing more than a witch hunt, promoted by a heap of lawyers and people justifying their jobs, like many other "scandals" in current times.

It's about politics more than anything else.

The actions of the Ethiopian crew were inexcusable as the AD was released addressing the very issue  before it occurred. Finally when they got around to carrying out the correct actions and had it under control, they undid the corrective action.

It has nothing to do with what I "could have handled" and a lot to do with the fact that several other crews have experienced it and and it was a minor occurrence, including the previous crew  prior to the crash on the same aircraft.

Pretty much the whole emphasis on airline safety is organising it so that if the crew stuff up the plane still doesn't crash. The crew is dead, so they don't need to be excused. It is no coincidence that modern risk management began with airlines. The usual response after something goes wrong is to punish/sack/sue the person who did the wrong thing. With airlines, the person who would have been punished was already dead, so they needed a new procedure.

 

It is *inevitable* that pilots will make mistakes. At the moment, there are three fatal accidents per million departures. To have an accident rate that low means that systems have to have been in place to pilot errors. I head once that pilots make about 1.3 mistakes per flight. On a separate occasion, I heard a flying examiner say that they had never examined a pilot and found that they made no mistakes.

 

Blaming pilots is not how aviation safety works.

 

Don't get me started on Bowing. Bowing, and the 737 in particular, had a fantastic reputation. I'm not sure how long its going to take for them to get their reputation back, but I can say that my view of Mercedes Benz is still coloured by their period of bad quality in the early 1990's. F-ck you, Mercedes Benz.

[Methusala]

The 1990's coincided with Daimler-Benz being in bed with Chrysler, a US corporation, No? Anybody see the pattern? Don

[onetrack]

Don, Daimler-Benz did not merge with Chrysler until 1998. APenNameAndThatA speaks of "early 1990's" faulty Mercedes vehicles products.

 

I've seen comments by Mercedes car lovers that they thought the Mercedes cars were good up until 1995, when Daimler-Benz reportedly reduced the engineered lifespan of Mercedes cars, from 30 years, to 20 years.

 

https://www.daimler.com/company/tradition/company-history/1995-2007.html

[kgwilson]

Mercs & BMWs alike are quality vehicles that cost a lot of money. They also require a lot of maintenance to ensure they keep running and this must be done by factory certified technicians (They do not have mechanics any more) and the cost is eye watering. My Japanese Mitsubishi new in 2012 has now been round the clock twice. 2 batteries and 3 sets of tyres plus oil and filters is everything I have had to spend on maintenance. They also had the confidence to give me a 10 year drive train warranty. I could have bought another new one for less than it costs for the Merc maintenance in that time.

Edited January 12, 2021 by kgwilson

[planedriver]

My son had two Merc's given to him, both 1990 -1996 models and they both needed new wiring looms because Merceded decided in their error to use biodegradable wiring insulation, which after a few years fell apart causing fires and all sorts of problems, and very costly to replace..

I'm happy with my 2008 Falcon wagon running on lpg and 400,000km on clock, so it's probably what you call a half life engine.

Sorry about thread drift, back to aviation topic!

Edited January 12, 2021 by planedriver

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 12/01/2021 at 11:34 AM, kgwilson said:

Mercs & BMWs alike are quality vehicles that cost a lot of money. They also require a lot of maintenance to ensure they keep running and this must be done by factory certified technicians (They do not have mechanics any more) and the cost is eye watering. My Japanese Mitsubishi new in 2012 has now been round the clock twice. 2 batteries and 3 sets of tyres plus oil and filters is everything I have had to spend on maintenance. They also had the confidence to give me a 10 year drive train warranty. I could have bought another new one for less than it costs for the Merc maintenance in that time.

When I first came to the UK, I could not believe the cost of Japanese cars... It took a while, then it dawned on me... those made outside the EU were slammed with extortionate customs duties. Also, Nissan discontinued Patrols here (which are one of my faves.. but then.. the 4x4 here is not quite the same as back home, so brute-ish 4x4s are not needed.. despite the many Landrovers I see here).  Hopefully the cost of Japanese cars will come down after Brexit. And bikes. Second hand Japanese bikes here are crazy prices, because new ones are, too. Hopefully they both will decrease, too.

 

Anyway, back t' thread.. I will wait a while before boarding a 737 Max 8.. even after pandemic.. I waited before boarding an A380.. and It's a bit why I like syndicate aircraft.. after the maintenance (CoA), let the other members test the engineer's handiwork 😉