Boeing 737 Max - back in service

[PMP]

9 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

 

Training all pilots to become familiar with a particular aircraft (type rating) is an expensive course requiring many hours in a simulator. This is massively expensive & would have forced some customers to order Airbus' A320NEO. The 737 is the most popular type of airliner,.

An airline wouldn’t have been forced to order airbus products by this. The cost of re-equipping, and operational logistics, with a different type, massively outweighs any additional type rating training that would be needed. If you change type, you still need to do all the relevant crew licences anyway, regardless of everyone else involved in the airline, who will need relevant training for their positions. 
The 737 isn’t the most popular type of airliner, the a320 has overtaken it by a significant amount, something like 2,000 units, and has been so for quite a while. 

[woodenhead]

I think requiring a new system to override pilot inputs on aircraft pitch would suggest the plane is inherently unstable and more than just a training matter.

[APOLLO]

Never flown with Ryan Air or Easy Jet, but flying on a 737 max wouldn't really bother me - probably now the safest airliner out there having had a great deal of development etc to get it right over the last couple of years or so,

 

I used to travel to holiday / visit family in Thailand every other year or so the last 27 years (not this year though). Usually with Emirates in the superb A380. They have around 125 of them, all but six now stored, some rumored never to fly again. Hundreds of pilots sacked (yes sacked), thousands of cabin crew etc also. These will not return quickly (aircraft or crew).

 

I have a sneaky feeling that I may never fly again, and if I do it will be a special, expensive one off  in a few years. Talk now of covid passports to fly. Anyhow Thailand, like Australia is a sealed country for the foreseeable future - no entry for holidaymakers and expensive quarantine etc for the few that qualify to travel (expats returning home mainly).

 

The world's airlines are bleeding to death, most won't recover.

 

Brit15

[30801]

14 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I think requiring a new system to override pilot inputs on aircraft pitch would suggest the plane is inherently unstable and more than just a training matter.

 

Preventing the pilot doing something bad and being inherently unstable are not the same thing. Airliners have done the first thing to some degree for a very long time. The second thing is for fighter jets.

[mezzoman253]

Ryanair have just ordered another 75 737 Max's to add to their already large(135) previous order.

 

We use Ryanair to Memmingen( Munich West) as our daughter and family lives in Germany near Friedrichshafen. No other airlines fly there direct from here, so we're stuck with Ryanair.

 

We accept it for what it is, a cheap and cheerful way to get to where we want to go.  We could fly into FDH with Lufthansa, but that involves going to LHR and changing in FRA, taking much longer and more expensive. 

 

The train is more expensive and even longer.

 

I'm not happy with the 737 Max, yet. That may change dependant on it's coming service record.

 

Ryanair were considering taking the "Max" logo off of their new aircraft to alleviate problems with customer fears. Not sure if that is still the case. At present they haven't taken any deliveries of the "Max".

 

Rob

Edited December 3, 2020 by mezzoman253

[spamcan61]

19 minutes ago, mezzoman253 said:

 

 

Ryanair were considering taking the "Max" logo off of their new aircraft to alleviate problems with customer fears. Not sure if that is still the case. At present they haven't taken any deliveries of the "Max".

 

Rob

Yes, in a Windscale = Sellafield type scenario they're being rebranded 737-801 or something like that - too busy to Google at the mo.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Just for the record, Ryanair’s punctuality record in 2019 (the last full year before the pandemic) was similar to and just lower than BA’s and better than EasyJet’s.

 

Both EasyJet and Ryanair now only allow one small bag, that can be fitted under the seat in front of you, free of charge.

Any additional bags or any larger bags, such as small cabin sized suitcases, which were previously free, are now subject to a charge, unless you purchase a more expensive flexible ticket, or pay for priority boarding, and/or so called “premium seats” nearer to the front of the aircraft.

 

.

 

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I think requiring a new system to override pilot inputs on aircraft pitch would suggest the plane is inherently unstable and more than just a training matter.

I've been following the issue for some time now. MCAS really is there just to compensate for the differences. The airliner is not inherently unstable.

It illustrates how expensive it is to get all pilots rated on a new type (which the MAX would be without MCAS). It takes several weeks including many hours in a simulator.

The really expensive part is the simulator. Thai Airways are hiring out some of theirs for public use for about $1000 per hour just to recoup some of the expenditure rather than leave them idle.

MCAS does away with all this training in favour of a short tablet-based course which took half a day (at least it was supposed to).

 

[Jeff Smith]

There was another problem with the MCAS which has not been mentioned and is the result of a severe and inconceivable system design flaw.  Those familiar with aircraft systems design will be familiar with duplex and triplex  systems.  Basically for any control system related to safety of flight there are duplicated or triplicated sensors to tell the software program what is going on.  If one fails it uses the next, and so on.  The MCAS used an Angle of Attack (AoA) indicator (presumably coupled with airspeed) to determine whether to activate the stick pusher.  The B737 MAX has a two AoA sensors but for some (insane) reason the MCAS only used one and did not revert to the other channel if it failed.  Apparently there was an option to add a signal disagree indicator.  If the MCAS AoA indicator failed the system would activate repeatedly.....

 

Regarding the fixes to get them airborne again.  The MCAS, now uses both AoA sensors and the indicator-disagree is standard equipment.  If the MCAS is triggered it only operates once.

 

As a retired aerospace engineer I would feel safe enough to fly in one.  The irony here is that when the Airbus A320 was introduced there were people unwilling to fly on them due to the software flight control system - they wanted to stick with Boeing and its mechanical flight control system.....

[30801]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

The B737 MAX has a two AoA sensors but for some (insane) reason the MCAS only used one and did not revert to the other channel if it failed.  Apparently there was an option to add a signal disagree indicator.  If the MCAS AoA indicator failed the system would activate repeatedly.....

 

The apparent sloppiness was I belive because MCAS was considered an aid and not a critical system. Go figure. 

 

As I understand it MCAS also had a software bug. The trim was never supposed to move beyond the pilot's ability to overcome it with the elevators. When the autopilot was turned off and then back on as happened in the second crash MCAS lost its position and could move the trim beyond its intended limit. 

[PMP]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

 

 

As a retired aerospace engineer I would feel safe enough to fly in one.  

Me too (not a eng though) The core airframe is clearly safe there's 300'ish been flying for about two years previous to the accident flights, which uncovered the MCAS horror story. Its not a problem that will mean a fundamental redesign of the airframe or its components though clearly its not been a simple resolution.

[Ron Ron Ron]

A massive corporation like Boeing, has been brought almost to the edge of bankruptcy over the MAX debacle.

Now threatened further by the effects of Covid on the global civil aviation industry and lack of orders. 

I cannot imagine them risking anything but scrupulous rigour in getting this problem safely sorted out.

Apart from the massive financial failure, if they get it wrong surely senior executives and others in the organisation would be putting themselves at serious personal risk of criminal prosecution?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[mezzoman253]

Further to my earlier post re Ryanair order.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55177846

 

Rob

[brianusa]

From the viewpoint of just former airline flier, this poor original airframe has undergone so many changes and engines, its  a marvel it can still be called a 737 dash whatever!  Its been stretched and widened way beyond the original concept, surely it would have been better for Boeing to have designed new plane as apparently they are considering now.  No MAX problems which would have saved them the embarrassment of the recent crashes which would never have happened!

     Brian.

[rob D2]

9 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I follow a few aviation channels so I have learned a little about this.

 

I'll refuse Ryanair for this reason.

I've flown with them once & it was a rough flight: The plane turned into a steeply banked turn immediately after take off, landed at what appeared to be way too fast & then taxied to the terminal at about twice the usual speed.

 

Most accidents are usually caused by several factors, not just one. Pilots should know how to override any failure, but this was not a part of the NG to MAX crossover training.

The MAX was deigned around minimal re-training for the thousands of NG flight crews. (A short, cheap tablet based course instead of many hours in an expensive simulator) Boeing management felt that MCAS could cope with the differences (which many of their engineers were & still are very angry about).

 

Software & hardware changes have been mentioned lots in the MAX issue, but not training.

Until I hear that training has been revised, I'll choose an airbus airline.

 Am we just dispel a few myths here ,

What you thought was a steep bank , probably wasn’t , modern aircraft shout at you if you exceed the very conservative limits and then you get a phone call from the airline safety department once the thing has downloaded the event .

 

What you thought was a high landing speed , probably wasn’t , the 737 sits low and it doesn’t have much wing so the approach speed is quite high relative to the size of the aircraft . Same thing again , if you are fast over the fence you invalidate the aircraft stopping performance, and yes it downloads the QDR ( quick data recorder ) and it’s a phone call or an email or tea and no biscuits again .

 

And let’s not start on hard landings. You want to place it, end of story, as Boeing suggests . Hard landings start at 1.8 G on most Boeing’s , effectively this is no flare ( no reduction in descent rate at all )

 

I’mwith you on the taxiing though, often got overtaken by Ryanair on a parallel.

 

I’m not getting into the MAX debate , but as has been said the design started in 1969 and it was a step too far in mods and trying to keep up with the A320NEO, and is subject to some serious compensation claims.

[30801]

36 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

A massive corporation like Boeing, has been brought almost to the edge of bankruptcy over the MAX debacle.

Now threatened further by the effects of Covid on the global civil aviation industry and lack of orders. 

.

 

On the other hand an efficient plane that you don't have to retrain your pilots for is what you want these days.

Which is where the MAX came in. 

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, 30801 said:

 

On the other hand an efficient plane that you don't have to retrain your pilots for is what you want these days.

Which is where the MAX came in. 

 

A previous efficient design, modified with uprated power which took it outside the original safe flight envelope.

 

Equivalent to a basic Austin / Morris Mini, fitted with a 2020 F1 engine to improve performance, but retaining the original wheels, tyres, brakes, steering and bodywork.  Boeing then fit their computer assisted control to keep the Mini in a straight line, but fail to train the drivers in what they have done...

 

As you rightly say...  that is where the MAX came in.

 

Julian

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

2 hours ago, brianusa said:

From the viewpoint of just former airline flier, this poor original airframe has undergone so many changes and engines, its  a marvel it can still be called a 737 dash whatever!  Its been stretched and widened way beyond the original concept, surely it would have been better for Boeing to have designed new plane as apparently they are considering now.  No MAX problems which would have saved them the embarrassment of the recent crashes which would never have happened!

     Brian.

Yes, it has been stretched, but so was the -800.  The fuselage diameter is actually the same as the B707, B727 and B757.  Slightly less than the A320.  

[Legend]

15 hours ago, woodenhead said:

The big difference with the 737 over the other airliners being developed was the engines - they stuck massive engines on the Max and this software solution was the fix to return the aircraft to stability.  I.E. they took a stable aircraft in the 737 and made it unstable then used software to fix the issue they had created.   Hopefully the 787 and 777 the design was holistic to the airframe, wings and body to generate a stable design and they didn't need a piece of software to keep it straight.

 

Lesson: it's ok to design aircraft that shouldn't fly but do only because of computers if you're building a military single seater that has to be an odd shape for stealth, but if you are expecting that computers will always work in a civilian passenger airliner then you've lost the plot.

Yes I understand about the engines being further ahead and higher and that the 787 ,a new design ,and 777X are not affected by this . But my point was more around the corporate ethos that thought it was OK to install MCAS and not think it was worthwhile telling the pilots , or the attitude to safety that thought it was ok to have one sensor to determine attitude of plane .  I always thought control systems were Triplicated .  Could there be surprises in these aircraft programs ?

[Legend]

9 hours ago, brianusa said:

From the viewpoint of just former airline flier, this poor original airframe has undergone so many changes and engines, its  a marvel it can still be called a 737 dash whatever!  Its been stretched and widened way beyond the original concept, surely it would have been better for Boeing to have designed new plane as apparently they are considering now.  No MAX problems which would have saved them the embarrassment of the recent crashes which would never have happened!

     Brian.

interestingly Ryanair are just going to call the Dash 8s , no reference to MAX at all . I think they just ordered a further 70 of them . No doubt it’s a good time to buy a MAX , sorry -8 from Boeing . I’m sure you can negotiate a huge discount . 

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Yes, it has been stretched, but so was the -800.   ....

 

The -900 is even longer.

 

 

.

[Barry O]

13 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

Yes, in a Windscale = Sellafield type scenario they're being rebranded 737-801 or something like that - too busy to Google at the mo.

No windscale has always been windscale. Sellifield is tge name used for other bits of the site.. or it was when I visited UKAEA Windscale and then BNFL Sellafield...

 

 

[Barry O]

Boeing must be offering very large discounts to get people to by more of a "tainted" airplane. I wait to what happens when rhinoair land one at Leeds Bradford in the usual strong winds..

 

The teaining of pilots in emergency procedures is a must. Making changes to flight simulators costs money..you need to make big savings to get a return for the training.. so boing must be giving a lot of discount..

 

Baz

[30801]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

 or the attitude to safety that thought it was ok to have one sensor to determine attitude of plane .  I always thought control systems were Triplicated .  

 

As I understand it MCAS didn't tick the box of being a control system it was simply an aid. Never mind it was an aid that could nosedive the plane into the ground.

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, rob D2 said:

 Am we just dispel a few myths here ,

What you thought was a steep bank , probably wasn’t , modern aircraft shout at you if you exceed the very conservative limits and When you get a phone call from the airline safety department once the thing has downloaded the event .

 

 

 

Surely, what we mean by "steep" as aviation experts and what is "steep" in terms of passenger comfort are two very different things. I remember being taken to the Paris air show by a friend in the late 70s and being totally amazed at the aerobatics that can be performed with a large airliner.

 

If any of you have followed that link to the Ryanair guy's blog and videos, the 737 Max can take off at a truly remarkable climb angle. But I don't think the passengers would enjoy it and the drinks trolleys will need to be very well anchored.