Boeing 737 Max8 Aircraft Crashes and Investigations [Part 8] 24

[Sparweb]

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

thread815-445840
thread815-450258
thread815-452000
thread815-454283
thread815-457125
thread815-461989
thread815-466401

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 (Link from Ethiopia is now broken. See link from NTSB Investigations below)

Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee preliminary report

NTSB Investigations

NTSB Safety Recommendation Report: Assumptions Used in the Safety Assessment Process and the
Effects of Multiple Alerts and Indications on Pilot Performance

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

Pulitzer Prize, For groundbreaking stories that exposed design flaws in the Boeing 737 MAX that led to two deadly crashes and revealed failures in government oversight.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[dik]

...and from the BBC, "The FAA said the Senate Commerce Committee's report contained "a number of unsubstantiated allegations", and that its review of the 737 Max had been thorough. It said it was confident that safety issues with the aircraft had been addressed."

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[FacEngrPE]

The conclusion of the report is really the natural result of having one organization responsible for promotion, and regulation of an industry.

Separating the organization into three entities might be appropriate, as the organizational goal could be aligned with it's function.

Operations - Air Traffic Control
Regulation - Any function related to enforcing or certifying
Promotion - Airport Construction?

The allegations are probably "unsubstantiated" due to the original documents not being appended to the report - all 13000 +/- of them, which would have created a different but equally useless comment about the presentation of supporting information.

Fred

 

[waross]

Should have been;

"The FAA said the Senate Commerce Committee's report contained "a number of unsubstantiated allegations",

<s>I am so happy for the FAA that enough time has passed that they are able to forget over 300 deaths and move forward with more self serving BS.</s>
The FAA has lost most of its credibility and more denial will not help to rebuild credibility.

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

 

[dik]

They left no tern unstoned... "The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA, has told the BBC he is "certain" Boeing's 737 Max is now safe to fly.

Executive Director Patrick Ky said his organisation had "left no stone unturned" in its review of the aircraft and its analysis of design changes made by the manufacturer."

#3 will be more interesting...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I personally think the only reason why the MAX will be the best is can be (but still fundamentally its a pretty horrible Frankenstein compromised design) is because of Canadian and EASA input and Boeings knowledge that in the world wide scope of things a FAA wet cloth wipe to regain approval was pretty much meaningless.

As for the whole setup of the FAA and its remit. I really don't know. It's not as if EASA doesn't have its big issues.

To be honest I don't know how the Canadians have it setup with funding and defined roles etc.

 

[davefitz]

Nothing has changed, the world still rotates around and around. The FAA ( and all other regulatory agencies) are still owned by the major manufacturers that are supposed to be regulated, and the judges in the appeals courts are still golf and dinner partners with the executives of the industries being sued. Ah, the ecology of corruption. How sweet it is. OOPs, time to watch DWTS.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

EASA certainly isn't owned by either of them. And certainly not Boeing.

The FAA is screwed now for a decade at least. And so is Boeing because they have to get certified by all the other authorities the FAA opinion is basically meaningless as no aircraft will survive with just a USA region certification. FAA has two choices leave as is and basically step back and let the rest of the world do the real certification work or go in harder than the rest to prove a point.

But as Boeing seems to have absolutely nothing in the pipeline for at least the next 10 years apart from the 777x which there is absolutely zero demand for and they are going to have to certify it properly with none FAA regulators they are basically screwed.

I still reckon the MAX will end up with less than 2k units produced.

 

[waross]

It will be interesting to see if the coming Biden appointments have any impact on the FAA, either directly or indirectly.

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

 

[Pud]

Not sure if BBC georestricted?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55372499

And EASA approval?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55366320

Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement.

 

[waross]

Ryanair's boss Michael O'Leary talks about the 737-Max.
Except he didn't call it the 737 Max. He repeatedly referred to the "737 8200".
Link
One of the resons but not the only reason that I will pay a premium to avoid Boeing.
"If it's Boeing, I'm not going!"

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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

MAX is the marketing name and covers 4 or 5 type certificates.

The 737-8200 is a 737-8 which is certified for 200 pax onboard which is an extra 22 compared to a normal 737-8 to be honest calling it a 737-8200 is more technically correct than calling it a straight MAX

Personally I am going to call it a Frankenstein cattle truck.

Most of the big regulators have now cleared it again. I haven't seen anything about china. But there is notable differences to do with checklists and the training which are different but not yet full specified. There is also requirements that in the next 1-2 years that they fit more AOA sensors or some other synthetic AoA calculation and add it into the mix for the fault logic to the AoA value to trigger MCAS.

Ryanair is a bit funny it has to replace its fleet within a certain period or it goes outside its business model and incurs huge expense if any of the aircraft hit major maint inspections. It also has to stick with Boeing. It also requires inbuilt steps and there is a couple of other features it uses that nobody else does.

 

[waross]

A rose by any other name...

MAX is the marketing name and covers 4 or 5 type certificates.

Do any of those types NOT have MACS?
I imagine that when a person checks his itinerary, it will list the equipment as "737-8200" rather than a 737-MAX?
That is easy to confuse with a 737-800-NG.
I understand that Boeing is deemphasising the MAX designation.
I don't have your ready familiarization with the various types of Boeing aircraft.
The safest way for me to avoid the MAX and/or MACS is to avoid carriers who fly Boeing equipment whenever I reasonably can.
It's not about safety, it's about trust for Boeing and the FAA.

This is interesting:

There is also requirements that in the next 1-2 years that they fit more AOA sensors or some other synthetic AoA calculation

That's a gamble.
If a MAX goes down for any reason in the next two years it could trigger the end of Boeing in the commercial market.

They left no tern unstoned... "The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA, has told the BBC he is "certain" Boeing's 737 Max is now safe to fly.
Executive Director Patrick Ky said his organisation had "left no stone unturned" in its review of the aircraft and its analysis of design changes made by the manufacturer."

Now is "The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA," meaning the MAX today, or the MAX two years down the road when the remedies have been completely implemented?
While the odds that we will ever meet IRL are quite small, Alistair, the odds that we will meet sitting side by side on a MAX are non-existent.
Time will tell how things will work out for the carriers who have all Boeing fleets.


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

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

they all have it, Its the engines which make them need it.

Ryanair pax really won't care what they fly on as long as its cheap.

Actually I am pretty shocking at spotting aircraft types but the MAX is pretty easy because it just looks strange and wrong with these huge engines sticking out way forward of the wing and they also have a corrugated bit on the back of the pod.

They have the 737-7 737-8 and 737-9 certified already and they were grounded. The 737-10 and this ryanair special 737-8200 are not certified yet.

I believe the AoA stuff will have to be implemented before the 737-10 gets its type certificate.

Everything in aviation is a gamble if they weren't allowed to start delivery's again they more than likely would be finished as well. And absolutely nobody wants a Airbus monopoly even Airbus.

The EASA stuff is pretty safe Norwegian are mid process in the courts to make Boeing take the ones they have back and cancel the rest and get their money back. And with the amount of flying going on just now which isn't looking like much will happen next year to improve things. Ryanair can't get theirs until the 737-8200 get a type variation certification. Nobody wants them in Europe apart from RYAnair and the only reason it wants them is to get rid of its old 737-800 NG before D check.

 

[dik]

...like putting lipstick on a pig.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

designators for type certification are impossible to change after the type certificate is given

For example the type i fly currently is called the A220 it used to be called C series. All the paperwork calls it a Bd500 and that's how its referenced in my license's.

As you say changing the marketing name in this case is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Especially as it just doesn't look right and unique.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Seems the FAA director has form

https://pullingwingsfrombutterflies.com/karlene-petitt-case

The bloke that writes this blog took Thomas cook to task over FTL's as well and won...

 

[waross]

Some related tidbits:
In a decision dated December 21, 2020, federal Administrative Law Judge Scott R. Morris found Delta Air Lines, Inc. guilty of having used a compulsory psychiatric examination as a “weapon” against Dr. Karlene Petitt after she raised safety issues related to the airline’s flight operations.
Delta selected Dr. David B. Altman as the examiner...
Altman received over $73,000 for his psychiatric report....
Dr. Karlene Petitt was subsequently examined by the Mayo Clinic at her own expense.

During the trial, it emerged that Delta had paid Dr Altman $73,000 to conduct the psychiatric evaluation. Ms Petitt had sought a second opinion at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic. The Mayo clinic totally debunked Altman’s diagnosis.
In way of comparison, it was disclosed that Ms Petitt paid only $3,200 in medical fees. Delta Airlines was unable to explain the financial discrepancy between the two examinations.
Judge Morris quoted findings of Dr. Steinkraus of the Mayo Clinic with respect to the diagnosis of Dr. Petitt:
“This has been a puzzle for our group – the evidence does not support presence of a psychiatric diagnosis but does support an organizational/corporate effort to remove this pilot from the rolls. … years ago in the military, it was not unusual for female pilots and air crew to be the target for such an effort.”

Karma's a bitch.
After taking $73.000 from Delta Airlines to end a pilot's career.........
Dr. Altman agreed to be placed on permanent inactive status as a part of a settlement of an action brought by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to revoke or suspend his license, or otherwise subject him to discipline.

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

 

[dik]

So that's where the expression 'pass the mayo' came from...

just jokin' the Mayo is a world class facility... unlike the new CDC. I don't think real integrity has a price... but something less than that, might... it's very sad.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I had a run in years ago with an employer about being sent to their approved doctor for drug testing and liver function analysis which I might add wasn't just me and also included the technicians and other pilots.

The doctor was a well known butcher of an aero medical examiner and most of us avoid him even in shops. He was famous for having a dodgy ECG machine and triggering weeks of heart investigations that always concluded nothing wrong probably a dodgy lead on the initial machine.

I said I would happily go to the drugs clinic in town and pay myself for the liver enzyme test. Nope that wasn't good enough it had to be him. In the end I went to my aeromedical examiner and told him about the reasons I didn't want to go near this other doctor. He then contacted the head scab lifter in the CAA and the company got told, the doctor had to get a new ECG machine. I was confirmed not to be on the wacky baccie and I could double my alcohol intake if I so wished by my normal AME. Its always worth avoiding vegan marathon running AME's. Life is less stressful when you have one that's fat, smokes and has a bottle of medicinal whisky in his bottom drawer not that he ever gave me any of it.

I believe it is now in UK regulations and endorsed by the British Medical Association that they can't make you see any particular doctor. And if you state to the doctor you don't want them touching you and you are only there because the company demands it, they can be taken to task by the BMA and if they do touch you can be done for assault. I haven't heard of anyone in the UK being forced to see a company defined medic in years.

 

[waross]

A friend of mine was seeing a doctor for a work related condition.
This was in a town so closely linked to the oil industry that any doctor who gave a diagnosis that may cost or inconvenience one of the major oil companies would be blacklisted.
The doctor declared several times that the condition was not work related;
And each time he then whispered forcefully;
"See another doctor."


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