Boeing 737 Max8 Aircraft Crashes and Investigations [Part 6] 17

[Sparweb]

This post is the continuation from this series of previous threads:

thread815-445840
thread815-450258
thread815-452000
thread815-454283
thread815-457125

This topic is broken into multiple threads due to the length to be scrolled, and 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.

Some key references:
Ethiopian CAA preliminary report

Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee preliminary report

A Boeing 737 Technical Site

Washington Post: When Will Boeing 737 Max Fly Again and More Questions

BBC: Boeing to temporarily halt 737 Max production in January

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

open the link in a private browser or clear your cookies and the paywall disappears.

Yes it does effect systems quiet negatively. It will take months if not years to chase all the snags out of the stored aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if there will be a name created for this first batch of machines by pilots. And it won't be very nice.

Normally they wouldn't install the engines but looking at the pics of the aircraft parked the noses don't seem to be high and there are no tail supports so maybe they have.

 

[Comcokid]

Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita KS constructs the 737 Max fuselage. Normally these are shipped out by special railcar to Seattle as soon as they come off the production line and would be exposed outdoors no more than a couple weeks. They're quite stacked-up in the available spaces around their plant. I wonder how well they will hold up to months of outdoor exposure. Pictures can be found in the following article.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...production-facility-sit-storage-supplier.html

 

[Sparweb]

It looks like Transport Canada will get the first crack at flight tests after the FAA is done with the 737-Max8.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-737-max-recertification-flight-tests-1.5476130

EASA and other agencies may be planning to do their own tests, but it sounds like they are less willing to "go second". Depending how the events happen in time, there could be significant world attention put on the TC engineers.

It is staggering just how much pressure there is on Canada's aviation industry right now:
- Grounding of a large portion of the passenger aircraft fleet
- Re-certification of the Max
- Investigation of the aircraft shot down by Iran
- Sell-off of many of Bombardier's production lines
- Perpetual indecision in the tactical fighter jet purchase
- And now, route cancellations to Asia
- what else have I missed?

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The regular being taken to court for not having a French speaker onboard or French documentation

Easa are doing there own flight testing as well. Also they are doing their own training assessment.

Only difference is with easa it's not a government funded service. Boeing will have to pay for every single person and for every minute they work on it. Plus expenses.

The only regulator which is not saying what it wants is the Chinese. Which I might add have alot of the orders. It's aviation market alot seem to think is about to contract. You have the trade war on going and alot of the Chinese orders I suspect they won't want delivery for a couple of years at least. So they may stretch things out.

 

[Sparweb]

If I follow what you're saying...
Do you figure the Chinese can wait until after Nov 8th to see which way the trade-war wind blows before accepting delivery on any more US made aircraft? Hmm that's interesting - and yes I do believe the Chinese would think that way.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It not a question of waiting they will just not certify it again until they want the airframes delivered. They will just say mcas is an antistall system.

But to be honest I suspect nobody else will be getting Max's delivered by Nov the 8th 2020 anyway.

They are chasing their tails getting the dual computers working. And let's face it the avionics takes about 4 years to normally sort out. And it's never right for the first year flying. Every solution seems to cascade more issues.

And this wiring loom being completely outside the modern certification standard. The whole reason for that standard was the number of cases of hot shorts. And the max has already proved that it's a killer when you can't control the stab. The safety record of the Ng doesn't really get round it as 30 000 cycles is considered high usage in the fleet but it's life span is 90 000 and you wouldn't expect those sorts of issues until the second half of its life span. And the FAA knows that fine.

If they have to rewire it then every aircraft is going back to the factory for a level D strip down.

And they are are still talking about mcas being an antistall system.


Unless of course you meant Nov 8th 2021 but even that's not 100% it will be flying everywhere in the world.

 

[Sparweb]

Unless of course you meant Nov 8th 2021 but even that's not 100% it will be flying everywhere in the world.

Maybe the yanks can postpone the election until 2021, so that the Democrats can find a credible candidate!

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I see what your on about now.

The which septic bum is in the seat won't make any difference to the engineering.

The aviation slump has been due for a couple of years now.


Corona virus is just adding insult to injury.

European aviation will take a hit due to the likely no deal Brexit. 25% of intra EU flights involve landing in the UK as part of the pair.

Asia was struggling anyway mainly due to the age old problem of too many bases and ill thought out expansion and ego driven business plans and fighting over routes.

I fully expect the next two years to be a series of airlines going bust globally.

In fact Boeing penalty payments will help more than a few out.

We shall see... But the political stuff will only kick in once the engineering is sorted. And only after production is restarted. As we both know if that hasn't started by June then it's going to take years to recover.

I am 80% certain that thier won't be any max delivery's by November.

The elephant in the basement is that the Ethiopian report will definitely be out before recertification. I am pretty sure that will raise additional issues.
Which if the aircraft was flying again could be resolved while it flying the line. Now the issues will need power pointed to death and resolved and fixed before delivery.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

If you have run out of free articles open the link in a private browsing window.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...re-training-for-737-max-pilots-may-be-needed/

Seems that the new training is still not fit for purpose. I am getting a feeling that they will make it a new type and restrict flying it and the NG at the same time ie multi type qualified. One of these cases that the planes are so similar but fundamental procedures are different that confusion may occur when human factors line up.

I have a sneaky suspicion if you put the same pilots through the NG sim they would have similar issues with the warning and autopilot system on it as well.

This confusion with sensor and instrument mismatches and what the autopilot is doing I personally believe is universal to all grandfather types. The training we do has always centred around engine failures. With the V1 cut in icing conditions with a contaminated runway being deemed the most challenging. To be honest its not on relatively modern pref A western designed aircraft which have been around since the 70's. This doesn't go for soviet designed and built aircraft. Old engines were shite and did fail regularly but these days I have shut 1 engine down in 17 years and 8500 hours of flying. A lot of pilots will never land single engine in real life. But yet we do minimum 4 engine failures per sim session of 4 hours, 2 handling and 2 monitoring. The OPC/LPC and LVP session its at least 4 each. Electrical bus failures are a pain in the arse especially in the Q400 where you have 5 seconds to spot a single warning light for a bus failure. After that it sheds everything half the instrument panels turn off, half the lights on the cap go on and there is no indication of what was the first one to light up. If you spot the light its one switch and everything goes back to normal. If you don't and go for fixing the reds first your going to shut an engine down. And you get such a bollocking for just trying the one switch first if you miss it. I suspect because it ruins the whole setup for the scenario and makes life too easy. They always put it on when your busy dealing with something else and its an additional light. Once your a cynical auld bugger like me you can see the lead up to it and when it goes on you stab your finger on the cap light and call it immediately or just lie and call it when the attention getter goes off.

Its extremely rare in the sim that we go above FL100 unless we are doing decompression training. We have instrument scenarios once every three years and to be honest the QRH checklists all revolve around you getting the right one to start with. There is no help deciding which checklist to go for. Once you have the right checklist then its relatively simple to sort it out. Go down the wrong path and it can get very interesting relatively quickly.

Aircraft which have been modernised over the years and stretched under grandfather rules are a mish mash of original and add on's / upgrades. The interaction between the different systems is sometimes counter intuitive. I have made comments before about rad alt. In its original form it was a nice way of spotting that you hadn't set your altimeter set properly. If it failed which it did regularly it was no big deal they had 10 days to fix it and everyone was happy. These days its linked to so many systems and there is a cascade of issues which effect multiple other systems. The two big ones are TCAS and EGPWS. Both are downgraded to such an extent that they create more problems than they are meant to solve. The solutions is to pull CB's and kill both systems properly. But that's not meant to happen in flight because there is nothing in the QRH telling you to pull the CB's. Thankfully modern RAd alts rarely fail.

I believe after the AF447 airbus forced operators and changed the sim syllabus to include a mandatory set of instrument scenarios so they would be better prepared if it happens again.

So this training issue is more to do with a failure of the global training system to keep up with changing aircraft and the realistic threats to daily flying. And per say its not a MAX issue, but it has highlighted it and they will have to solve it before it can fly again. But what it will mean though is Airlines will get absolutely hammered in additional training costs. Which they bought the aircraft with the promise that training was going to consist of 30 mins on an Ipad.

BTW I can't say anything publicly about what's being released but this corona virus is going to start hitting public transport extremely hard in the next month. More than a few airlines will be more than happy now that the max is grounded.
I expect a lot of airports are going to be setting up medical stations and screening pax in and out terminals. Pax numbers are going to reduced significantly until it plays out. Airlines are going to run out of crew rapidly if they are getting sent home for 2 weeks if someone onboard is tested positive. In fact its almost worth getting it now and then getting it over and done with. Once you have had it and are immune the overtime prospects are rather tasty.

I have 4 days left to fly this month and then into vacation 100's of miles away from any airport and then start type rating. But I am expecting the type rating to be cancelled at some point.

Only issue I have is I have to take down a wooden barn and put in a new foundation..... And hate working with concrete.

 

[waross]

Electrical bus failures are a pain in the arse especially in the Q400 where you have 5 seconds to spot a single warning light for a bus failure. After that it sheds everything half the instrument panels turn off, half the lights on the cap go on and there is no indication of what was the first one to light up.

This rant is aimed at the industry, Alistair. Nothing personal.
That's incredible.
In the early '80s I was designing control systems for lumber kilns.
We had a similar problem. About six safety shutdowns, but once a shut down was triggered the shut down itself would light up most of the other alarms.
My boss wanted an indication of which safety was the original cause of the shutdown.
No problem.
There was an inexpensive alarm module on the market which would piggy back the safety shut downs and reliably indicate the first to trip.
First to trip is also a fairly simple relay circuit.

In the mid '80s, different industry, similar problem.
I was faced with upgrading an oil heater in a refinery by, among other things, changing from relay control to PLC control.
Originally this heater had no indications of why it had shut down.
The plant went down and the instrument mechanic struggled for two and a half days.
The general manager stepped in and demanded that the instrument mechanic allow me to assist.
When I upgraded to a PLC, it only took a few lines of code in the PLC to give a reliable indication of the first safety to trip.
In the real world "First to trip" indication was a mature technology 40 years ago.
I understand the issues with certification etc. but this is not rocket science and has been around for a long long time.


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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I don't take it personally at all.

Your completely right.

The first dash 8 was rolled out the hanger in 1983... and the electrics haven't changed much since.

You will be pleased to know that all clean sheet designs in the last 10 years have a thing called ECAM which does record the faults and the order they came in... And also links them in subtrees so if a warning is caused by the first one then it shows it. It will also give you the correct QRH checklist for the fault. If another more important fault comes up while your working your way through it then it will move that faults checklist to the front of the Q. This is displayed on a screen in front of both pilots. If you subsequently alter the configuration of a system forgetting that it needs to remain none standard then it will re activate the checklist showing that something is not configured correctly.

The 737 max doesn't have any of that. It still runs a horrible paper book which is stored behind one of the pilots seats like the Q400 has. Q400 could have had a ECAM and hot wing anti-ice but the regulators said that if it had that then it would need a completely separate type rating to the 100/200 and 300. So they got rid of it all. We also have condition levers which are connected to absolutely nothing. There is 4 microswitches for the positions and engine configurations change depending which one is active. Originally they had planned for 4 buttons to do exactly he same thing. But again this was deemed to cross the line for requiring a type rating.

The 737 could have had it on the NG but they decided it was cheaper not to.... And pilots could just use the paper book. For the max it would of meant a rather largish change in procedures a load of additional sensors and 30 mins on an ipad would not be sufficient.

 

[waross]

Engineering by MBA?

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Not completely because they have been doing this grandfather stuff since the 60's. And quiet a lot of it is solid engineering, why re-certify something that works?. But then again 60 years later it should have been updated even if it still works.

Its the frame work which is at fault, there is no life span of the grandfather stuff or for that matter a limit how much stretching and polishing a turd you can do. Some of the systems on the 737 where a pain in the bum from the first aircraft out the hanger. Pilots have bitched and complained about them since then. They are still the same because they work and still spit out a 0-24V signal which is then used by something else.

There is nothing to force improvement apart from if it kills someone.

The regulations need a serious update to account for modern tech and also human factors and pilot profile including typical working lifestyle.

 

[Sparweb]

The regulations need a serious update to account for modern tech and also human factors and pilot profile including typical working lifestyle.

Be careful what you wish for. Babies and bathwater etc.
When this is a case where the design rules were there but weren't applied, and the overseers should have caught it, but were too few and underfunded to catch it, and the engineers knew but would lose their job if they spoke up, you have a situation where the design rules aren't the problem, it's the people not applying these rules who are.

People drive the speed limit when it's enforced. With no cops on the highway, most people will drive a lot faster. If you think the rule is the problem, tell me this: What do you think happens if you lower the speed limit on a road but do absolutely nothing to enforce the limit?

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I agree about the wiring looms issue. I also have a suspicion that they knew fine about the reg and didn't want to comply with it for what ever reason. So just did what they wanted on the presumption that the aircraft would be flying before someone noticed. And once it was flying and working they could spin a line using the NG safety record to not have to change it. Now they are going to have to change it to get the plane certified again outside US airspace. I suspect they will have to change it for inside US airspace as well because of the amount of face that the FAA has lost.

I am just waiting for an announcement that they are going to have to rewire it, but that will be through the financial declarations.

The main issue I was on about is still using a 1960's caution warning system with paper QRH on a modern full EFIS flight deck. They should have tackled that with the NG never mind the MAX. There should be a time limit/upgrade limit for new tech. eg 10 years time you have to have it on any new models on a type cert and you can only have 1 iteration during that time. So if you went 717-200 to 400 with a 300 released in the middle then the 400 would need the tech. If you released the 717-300 after 6 year it would be able to use grandfather. Type approval on year 11 and they need to have it. Basically its only a period to allow projects which had started before the rule came in to complete.

This picture shows a Airbus QRH on the left and a 737 max QRH on the right. Dark stormy night day 6 of 10 hour days sector 24 which one do you want your pilot dealing with at 3 am in the morning? BTW the Q400's is half the thickness of the 737 QRH and its still a pain finding the right page.

What do you think happens if you lower the speed limit on a road but do absolutely nothing to enforce the limit?

Funny enough we don't actually break the limits flying professionally at least with the operators I have worked for. Until they put cameras on the flight deck nobody has a clue what we can see out the window at 200ft on an ILS. Those days are long gone now that minimums where a number on a bit of paper and the main goal was to land. We all pretty much know these days that death is likely to occur if we don't comply. Speeding in a car generally doesn't result in the perpetrators death regularly. Its more likely to kill 3rd party's in urban environments.

The FDR is down loaded every three days and the computer runs through all the flight parameters so the flight safety officer knows if you have busted any limitations so we are more than likely the most enforced profession out there and tested. Professional check every 6 months. Every single flight 3800 parameters are recorded every 3 seconds. And every flight is analysed to ensure that aircraft and company operational limits have been met.

 

[RVAmeche]

Spar,

I think a better analogy would be car makers knowingly not complying modern safety standards. How would the public feel if the new Ford Mustang didn't have airbags or any new safety features because the manufacturer "grandfathered" it from the 60s? Granted, it's not perfect analogy but I think it illustrates the concept.

Luckily enough for Boeing and the others, the general public are blissfully ignorant of the planes they're flying in.

 

[LittleInch]

Luckily enough for Boeing and the others, the general public are blissfully ignorant of the planes they're flying in.

Right up until they get a reputation for falling out of the sky without warning and killing everyone on board....

That's going to be the next thing if they ever get these planes back flying is any incident with a 737 Max, be it pilot error or weather or anything in the first 12-24 months after starting again and the airplane will be tarnished for a long period, possibly fatally.

Looking at the car analogy, the Ford Pinto is remembered only for its propensity to apparently burst into flames when hit from behind. The actual facts seem to be that it was no worse than many others, but once it got that reputation..... Mind you if the alternative was the AMC Gremlin [sic].

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Airbags is only out because it's to small an additional safety benefit.

The stuff I am talking about is in the same league as headlights for driving at night.

 

[LittleInch]

Sparweb - Is it time for part 7 yet?

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

 

[Tomfh]

its propensity to apparently burst into flames when hit from behind. The actual facts seem to be that it was no worse than many others, but once it got that reputation

27 people died due to Pinto explosions from rear end collisions. Were others really that bad? Seems a lot of people to die from a particular type of failure.