Boeing 737 Max8 Aircraft Crashes and Investigations [Part 4] 28

[Sparweb]

This is the continuation from:

thread815-445840
thread815-450258
thread815-452000

This topic is broken into multiple threads due to the long length to be scrolled, and many images to load, creating long load times for some users and devices. If you are NEW to this discussion, please read the above threads prior to posting, to avoid rehashing old discussions.

Thank you everyone for your interest! I have learned a lot from the discussion, too.

My personal point of view, since this falls close to (but not exactly within) my discipline, is the same as that expressed by many other aviation authorities: that there were flaws in an on-board system that should have been caught. We can describe the process that "should have happened" in great detail, but the reason the flaws were allowed to persist is unknown. They are probably too complex to reveal by pure reasoning from our position outside of the agencies involved. Rather, an investigation of the process that led to the error inside these agencies will bring new facts to light, and that process is under way, which will make its results public in due time. It may even reveal flaws in the design process that "should have" produced a reliable system. Every failure is an opportunity to learn - which is the mandate of the agencies that examine these accidents.

Some key references:

Ethiopian CAA preliminary report

Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee preliminary report

The Boeing 737 Technical Site


No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I suggest you do.

It's usually a factor with runway excursions.

Last sector shitty weather, pissing down with rain, blowing a gale the pilots want to get home don't want to divert and all the Hassel that's involved in that. Anyway they would miss thier jump seat ride home and would have to pay for a hotel room if they were a regional operator in the US.

See the dash crash report for a typical regional pilots life style.

Approach goes unstabilised they don't go around Vref +30 over the numbers contaminated runway...and off the runway they go at relatively low airspeed so nobody gets killed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tran...-bay-skids-off-runway-winds-up-florida-river/

There is usually 5-10 a month going off road globally depending on the season.

It's just as likely to happen in the US as anywhere else.

To be honest if your going to go off runway the 737 is the aircraft to do it in. They have done it so many times over the years and very few killed. Pull them out the grass NDT the gear swap any engine that's sucked mud, light fires and go flying again. You can turn them round in under 12 hours if they have gone into the retard pit.


More enlightened company's change the crews every day so when your on your last day of a block the other pilot is on there first day. This causes a major increase in crew planning load. So alot of airline's block roster so pair up a crew and then plan them as a unit for the block. Which gives you the crew at the same fatigue level on the last day. Plus more than likely fed up with each other after having spent 12 hours day with 3ft of air between you for 6 days. Which just adds to the mix for the Swiss cheese holes to line up.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

An airline we all know that doesn't skimp on training, maint is top notch. Has world class top employee relations with crew. No excuse it's was poorly trained foreign crew. They are all 3000 plus first officers and 8k plus captain's.

And in the retard pit.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c1378c5&opt=0

Have a look at the news listing it proberly only picks up about 10-20% of the minor stuff like lighting strikes and bird strikes that cause damage. Fumes and the like 50% and 90% of the major stuff.

See for yourself how many runway excursions are occurring. Never done it myself yet... But until I am permanently grounded I will never say it won't happen to me.

 

[3DDave]

Alistair,

On the one hand Burbank is tight, not like this one

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=220473

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It's 2000 meters and 33 meters wide. More than enough full flaps for a decent properly trained crew with an arse covering grumpy auld captain in the left hand seat who can apply appropriate risk assessment with no recourse for thier command descions. And I have never heard any pressure for southwest crews. They really are a top notch airline

It just renforceses how lucky I am at work. Had a discussion the other day on ops Freq with the dispatcher about a fueling issue and when I was at the loosing my rag point of getting the technicians to the aircraft to dip the tanks or fill the witch up to 5220 kg full so I knew what was in the tanks, A voice was heard saying dispatch do as you have been fing been requested by the captain. Report to the chief pilots office at 7am Monday for debrief. A clinical German will be re-educating said dispatcher and their boss if the email I received on the subject will occur. It was the flight ops director doing a C of A test flight with caa test pilot on board who heard my frustration.

Alot of other pilots are not as lucky as southwest pilots or me.

 

[3DDave]

And wet, with a tailwind. And apparently over-weight. Poor judgement to not divert.

So how does an Ethiopian pilot blow a runway twice the length on a nice day? It's long enough to land, stop, and take-off again without turning the plane. And they still put it into the weeds.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Same as Airfrance killing Concorde off.

First world nation. All pilots done the 6 year aviation degree, 4 years training thousands of hours on the line on the premiere fleet still screwed it up....

The fo had more hours than most 737 cockpits crew combined.

Over weight, tail wind, third set of eyes in the cockpit with zero role flying the machine still everyone dead as a dead thing.
But then again a US military crew managed to bang in a C16 into Coco beach in cavo on a 1800 meter runway while talking to a tower 20km away and didn't go off the end of the runway....

 

[VEBill]

Remember that this is the Engineering Failures & Disasters Forum. The ET302 final report will almost certainly be focused 80%+ on the aircraft design, its certification and all that surrounds it. It's huge, vast, industry changing. It's therefore a bit odd to characterize the MCAS design flaws as merely being "a problem", while using the adjective "glaring" to describe gaps in pilot training. The crew responses are certainly a contributing factor, and worth perhaps 20% of the report. It'll be interesting to see what conclusions are reached about the design of the aicraft itself (the user interface) being a contributor to those responses.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Lionair report will be out first in about 18 months time.

Hopefully though the FAA and congress though will have sorted things out before that. And their solution to the whole certification and training will be acceptable to the other WW aviation authorities.

To note though everyone is focusing on MCAS. The whole power of the trim stab V elevator and using the trim stab to sort out any issues with the flight envelope, which also links in to what's an acceptable authority of the manual trim system if the trim stab is used needs to be addressed. Then if it is used what level of redundancy and critical flight control system certification is required on anything that has an input into controlling the trim stab.

Changing a few lines of code is not going to get the max flying again outside US airspace. And I can't see the FAA releasing it until the other authorities are happy.



Oh and the days of a A319 pilot being able to walk across the apron and jump into a A320neo are numbered as well. So its not just a picking on Boeing thing all the OEM's are going to be hit.
The NEO apparently has some handling differences on rotate which can catch people out. Possibly leading to tail scrape.

 

[waross]

I have a question concerning the need for the new planes.
Of the grounded planes, how many were needed to service increased passenger numbers and how many were replacements for older less efficient planes?
How many flights have been cancelled and how many are being serviced with the older planes at the older ticket prices.
There is no question that the airlines are taking a big hit after paying for aircraft that they can't use.
Apart from that, how many flights have actually been cancelled and how many will be serviced with existing (and paid for) aircraft.
I suspect that the impact on ticket revenue may be less than we have been led to believe.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[Lou Scannon]

Well, from a personal aspect, I had a vacation for booked in January to Peru and Mexico in June on airlines that use 737 and similar size aircraft. Just days after the 737Max grounding, Travelocity notified me that my itinerary had been rearranged due to flight cancellations. The Plan B itinerary created by Travelocity and/or the airlines was not acceptable, but fortunately, through consultation on the phone with Travelocity, they proved to be very helpful and accommodating, and came up with a Plan C itinerary that was just fine, and with no change fees on my part. FWIW, on 5 flights so far out of 6 flights total, 4 were nutted (i.e. completely full).

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It depends on the company.

You won't get true numbers on the subject to be honest because its market price sensitive information which may change the way the airline gets credit on spare parts and fuel.

Most airlines plan there routes at least 6 months in advance and put the seats on sale. Commercial will have the list of aircraft avaiable and will plan for that. If an aircraft is due to be delivered then they will plan for its use a week after its meant to arrive but could be less.

Now if its a fleet expansion then if it doesn't turn up they will wet lease in another operator to run the routes until the aircraft is avialble.

If its replacement then the aircraft its replacing will be due to go back to the lease company on a certain date. If you have a pesamestic planner they will have some breathing space built in. If they arn't it could be the old aircraft will be due to be returned the day the new aircraft comes into service. Now when you return an aircraft you usually notify the leasing compmnay 3-6 months before the event and then the leasing compnay sells it on as a "live" aircraft to another operator. A live aircraft gets a better hire rate than one thats been sitting for even a month so once you have told them that's it.


Now there are other costs involved as well. You will recruit and train for the new aircraft approximately 3 crews per aircraft so 6 pilots and 12 cabin crew and 1 technician so @200k . In europe anyway their salarys will have to be paid even if they don't fly. US they just get kept at home unpaid. Aircraft don't sit on the ground for free you have parking and maint costs. The technicans will have to do checks on them every 48 hours and do engine runs when the engine OEM says so. They can go into long term staorage mopde which cuts this down but it cost money to put them in and takes 2-3 days to take them out. BY the looks of things in Europe they are all in long term storage now.

Currently in europe the companys that bought them for expansion are laying off crew. Airlines who are replacing have suspended recruitment. Even to the point people have resigned from current jobs with start dates and the day before they were due to turn up they got a phone call saying don't turn up tomorrow.

As for covering the routes there is an utter lack of cover now and the price of a wet lease has gone through the roof and several companys are making a fortune out of it. Also in the EU if the flight gets canceled due to no aircraft then the airline has to pay compensation to the tune of 400-600 euro per flight per pax. All the max operators have basically soaked up all the wet lease spare capcity in europe now. So if an aircraft goes tech there is basically nothing to cover it. The boys and girls at TItian are flying their bums off (Titian makes its buisness out of short notice save the day wet leases).

The ones that are replacing this winter or next year have bigger issues. The current aircraft may need to go into heavy maint if the lease is extended which will remove them anyway for 1-2 months and cost loads of cash plus all your budgets are going to get blown out the window. If you send them back all your sales for next summer season are out the window all the spare capacity is gone with the companys that have planes delivered.

Come septemeber a load of airlines will go bust which will help but won't solve the issue.

As the ticket price is linked to market demand then across the board prices will rise and it doesn;t matter if the airline is a 737 max operator or not they take the market price.

So expect prices to rise as airlines charge the market rate for demand meets supply.

As someone else said in these threads basically half the supply of single isle medium haul aircraft is currently suspended world wide. And there is no supply to replace the demand at what ever price, the production is spoken for for the next 6 years. So world wide they have to get the MAX flying again.

Quite what they are going to do about sims I have no clue... It takes 18 months lead time to buy a sim. If they have to develope a hybrid hydralic electro sim to be able to simulate control forces on the MAX then 24months. They will have to get something like 3000 crews through training before airlines can start using them again unrestricted. Even if they can use the current NG sims to do it its going to take months with every NG sim in the world running 24H which they pretty much are already. Currently there is one full motion sim in the USA with MAX flight dynamics programmed and apparently its electro servo and can't produce the control forces that you need to simulate a MAX going crazy Ivan.

Ticket revenue I expect to increase hugely for none max operators. Those who have leap engined aircraft types will be getting huge returns on there capital.

To be honest this is an engineering disaster and failure but its going to turn into a huge Economic disaster for the whole industry. And the pax will pay for it.

 

[waross]

Thanks for the background, Alistair and thanks for sharing your re-booking experience Hemi.
Another question:
What is the feasibility of fitting the original engines in place of the Leap engines on the aircraft that are already built?
That may avoid some bankruptsies by getting the seats back into the air.
Bear in mind that without the Max, most of those airlines would have been in line waiting for the Airbus product.
Yes, there will be a cost.
However the cost may be a small fraction of the alternative.



Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[Lou Scannon]

Oh my...

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[IRstuff]

Weren't the new engines one of the primary selling points of the MAX? Going back to the old engines makes the MAX a bigger fuel guzzler.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[charliealphabravo]

Another rushed or half-baked cobbling of engines and airframes is likely to result in more accidents. Better the beast that we know.

The fastest/safest solution will include hardware changes to the MAX such as redundancies for the AOA sensors, training, and whatever else the experts deem is needed to put the MAX where it should have been from the beginning. If the public trust won't accept that then it sounds like Boeing is in for some dark days ahead and we will all be paying until new equipment rolls off the assembly line.

 

[LittleInch]

I wonder how much the "Substantial discount" was that BA/IAG got???

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...iag-reveals-plans-buy-200-boeing-737-max-jets

Delivery 2023 so they will assume it will all be sorted out by then....


Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Sparweb]

As someone else said in these threads basically half the supply of single isle medium haul aircraft is currently suspended world wide. And there is no supply to replace the demand at what ever price, the production is spoken for for the next 6 years. So world wide they have to get the MAX flying again.

And yet, I know of one aircraft lease company with serviceable CRJ's still parked on the ramp...

can't produce the control forces that you need to simulate a MAX going crazy Ivan.

Isn't the 737Max actually attempting to do an "English Bunt" or an "Outside Loop"?
The Crazy Ivan being more of a horizontal maneuver...


No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I can see where your going with crazy Ivan being horizontal. I think someone started using it because it was a sharp change of direction and alot of us were waiting for the conspiracy theorys to start that it was sabotage by a certain country.

Crj doesn't have the range or the capacity to replace a 737. You would need two of them. In Europe it's a not very common rating for pilots to have. The transfering on to the easa reg can be problematic and expensive depending on the fit although crj is 1990 so might be not to bad. They should all have egpws and TCAS.

Crj 100 pax 1600 mm

737 160 pax 2600 nm.

The range isn't really an issue but the loosing 60 pax at 600 euro a head when they paid 300 euro a ticket is. So they get refund plus 600 for two sectors so call it 20k per sector lost for using a crj instead of a 737 before you add in the cost of the wet lease.

8 sectors a day 160 000 EUR per day ...

It's cheaper using a twin isle on short sectors and keep the Ng on the long routes if the runways are long enough both ends. Plus no issues with movement slots.

They need aircraft crew and maint and AOC through the correct authority for your area for wet lease.

But come September then commercial will have a different plan for the winter season. Just now is fire fighting, September they will have a different plan. There will be the aircraft that are grounded over the winter to be used so the pressure will be off. Then they will have to decide what to do next summer and if its likely the max will be flying again.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

IAG is just a letter of intent no money has changed hands or airframes ordered. Willie is right it's in nobody's interest to have only one supplier of airframes. BA won't be taking them. It will be Vueling I suspect.

And I personally just thought here we go another 15 years of legal nonsense about selling for less than cost price with the price they will have got them for. All the Boeing legal tricks will get thrown back in their faces with gusto. Wasting money and oxygen talking nonsense when everyone is as bad as each other and doing the same thing. Money spent on lawyers that could have been spent on engineering and tooling.

Old engines are not an option. The leap engines are giving outstanding fuel consumption. We are talking 1600kg an hour compared to a 737-500 at 2300 kg an hour in the cruise.

And to be honest mcas has highlighted other issues with the NG certification so just changing the engines isn't going to get it flying again any quicker.

The A321 XLR 757 replacement order in the US is more interesting that IAG's letter of intent to be honest. Boeing have bet on twin isle aircraft with the 777 so have nothing to take it on. 100 tons capable of crossing the pond it will open up loads of regional airports for transatlantic. I am sure there are loads of routes in Asia it will be good for. The likes of easyJet will be able to go long haul with very low training costs and a unified short/long haul roster the savings are collosal.

The Chinese of course will be flying them about at FL200 using the fuel to do normal sector lengths.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

A good article detailing the history of how MCAS got to where it was in the production models.

I suspect that 3 seconds is going to get changed. BUt to be honest with all the alarms going off you could give it 30 seconds and still not be assured that the pilots would locate the core issue.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/