Will it ever fly?

[+ glutes]

Engine goes out on takeoff on a new plane, happens daily.

[Max]

Engine goes out on takeoff on a new plane, happens daily.

 

Unless you've seen more than I have about this incident, you have no clue as to what actually happened. The press reports do not contain any details, nor do the ATC recordings I've heard. We'll know more if/when there's an NTSB report (which is unlikely because while engine shut-downs in flight are not frequent, they certainly do occur). Could have been anything from a bird ingestion to temperature warning - or just about anything else.

 

Of course, the LEAP engine (made by CFM, not Boeing) also powers the Airbus A320neo, so any issue attributable to the engine is certainly not limited to the 737.

[+ oldNbusted]

Unless you've seen more than I have about this incident, you have no clue as to what actually happened.

 

 

Are you saying you have no clue what happened? Because you already posted your conclusion:

 

is of no significance at all.

[Max]

Are you saying you have no clue what happened? Because you already posted your conclusion:

 

It has no meaning at all in relation to the MCAS system - the subject of discussion for the last several dozen posts.

[+ quoththeraven]

It has no meaning at all in relation to the MCAS system - the subject of discussion for the last several dozen posts.

That's not the same as having no significance whatsoever, which is what you appeared to be saying. Isn't it more accurate to say that how significant it is depends on what was going on? If it's a known factor that affects planes in general, like ingesting a bird, it isn't significant. If it's something else that is peculiar to this particular Boeing, that seems significant.

[Max]

If it's something else that is peculiar to this particular Boeing, that seems significant.

 

...the LEAP engine (made by CFM, not Boeing) also powers the Airbus A320neo, so any issue attributable to the engine is certainly not limited to the 737.

[+ quoththeraven]

I don't care who made it. Once it goes in a Boeing product, its performance becomes a Boeing problem too. And are you saying those are Boeing's only choices?

 

Boeing's status is an issue because it's a US-based company and its only competitor is European, which means there are multiple reasons why the US government has incentive to go easier on and boost Boeing. Applying that preference to safety and safety inspections is a problem, and being hypervigilant to ensure that's not what's going on is justified, as far as I'm concerned.

[Max]

I don't care who made it. Once it goes in a Boeing product, its performance becomes a Boeing problem too. And are you saying those are Boeing's only choices?

 

Boeing's status is an issue because it's a US-based company and its only competitor is European, which means there are multiple reasons why the US government has incentive to go easier on and boost Boeing. Applying that preference to safety and safety inspections is a problem, and being hypervigilant to ensure that's not what's going on is justified, as far as I'm concerned.

 

The CFM LEAP-1B is the only engine offered for the 737 MAX series. But the LEAP engine is also used by Airbus on the A320neo. So any "engine" issue is not limited to Boeing.

 

Should we not have the same concerns about Embraer or Airbus aircraft certified by EASA?

[+ glutes]

he emerging 737 MAX scandal, explained

It’s more than bad software.

 

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

[+ glutes]

The longer it takes, the more fundamental the flaw.

 

More than five months after a brand-new Boeing 737 MAX 8 commercial jet went down in Indonesia, the manufacturer is still working on a software fix for the plane’s flight control systems.</p><p data-elm-loc="2">The fix and its related pilot training are seen as important steps toward convincing regulators worldwide that the 737 MAX 8 and 9, which have been grounded for more than two weeks, are safe to fly.</p><p data-elm-loc="3">A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said Monday that the agency expects to receive the final package of software and training updates for review “over the coming weeks," reflecting a delay from its initial timeline. Boeing had initially planned to submit the fix for FAA review last week. ~WAPO~

[+ quoththeraven]

The CFM LEAP-1B is the only engine offered for the 737 MAX series. But the LEAP engine is also used by Airbus on the A320neo. So any "engine" issue is not limited to Boeing.

 

Should we not have the same concerns about Embraer or Airbus aircraft certified by EASA?

Do they have a habit of falling out of the sky? If not, it seems unlikely that the engine is the problem.

 

ETA: Now that I've read the Vox piece @Oaktown posted, I see the engine is involved, but only in the sense that the plane was redesigned to accommodate it, as the Boeings are lower to the ground than the Airbuses. So it's not the engine itself that's the issue as much as the redesign that using the more fuel efficient engine required.

Edited April 3, 2019 by quoththeraven

[+ glutes]

More grist for the mill:

 

The Senate transportation committee said Tuesday that multiple whistleblowers have warned of serious safety issues in the government's safety inspection program for new aircraft, including Boeing's 737 max jet that's crashed twice since October.

"Allegation from these whistleblowers include information that numerous FAA employees, including those involved in the Aircraft Evaluation Group (ARG) for the Boeing 737 MAX, had not received proper training and valid certifications," the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation said in a letter to the FAA's acting administrator on Tuesday.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-faa-whistleblowers-say-safety-inspectors-lack-training-2019-4

[Max]

he emerging 737 MAX scandal, explained

It’s more than bad software.

 

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

The longer it takes, the more fundamental the flaw.

 

More than five months after a brand-new Boeing 737 MAX 8 commercial jet went down in Indonesia, the manufacturer is still working on a software fix for the plane’s flight control systems.</p><p data-elm-loc="2">The fix and its related pilot training are seen as important steps toward convincing regulators worldwide that the 737 MAX 8 and 9, which have been grounded for more than two weeks, are safe to fly.</p><p data-elm-loc="3">A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said Monday that the agency expects to receive the final package of software and training updates for review “over the coming weeks," reflecting a delay from its initial timeline. Boeing had initially planned to submit the fix for FAA review last week. ~WAPO~

Do they have a habit of falling out of the sky? If not, it seems unlikely that the engine is the problem.

 

ETA: Now that I've read the Vox piece @Oaktown posted, I see the engine is involved, but only in the sense that the plane was redesigned to accommodate it, as the Boeings are lower to the ground than the Airbuses. So it's not the engine itself that's the issue as much as the redesign that using the more fuel efficient engine required.

More grist for the mill:

 

The Senate transportation committee said Tuesday that multiple whistleblowers have warned of serious safety issues in the government's safety inspection program for new aircraft, including Boeing's 737 max jet that's crashed twice since October.

"Allegation from these whistleblowers include information that numerous FAA employees, including those involved in the Aircraft Evaluation Group (ARG) for the Boeing 737 MAX, had not received proper training and valid certifications," the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation said in a letter to the FAA's acting administrator on Tuesday.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-faa-whistleblowers-say-safety-inspectors-lack-training-2019-4

 

You know what, guys? I think you’re right. Let’s all short BA and watch the stock crash together. We’ll make millions!

 

To our friends at the SEC: I’m just entertaining these xxxx While I may or may not buy new or additional BA shares, I am in no way attempting to actually influence the market for this security.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Cooper

[Max]

Do they have a habit of falling out of the sky? If not, it seems unlikely that the engine is the problem.

 

ETA: Now that I've read the Vox piece @Oaktown posted, I see the engine is involved, but only in the sense that the plane was redesigned to accommodate it, as the Boeings are lower to the ground than the Airbuses. So it's not the engine itself that's the issue as much as the redesign that using the more fuel efficient engine required.

 

Lower to the ground to be more fuel efficient. That sounds serious...

[737MAX]

Ya’ll need to CALM DOWN

[mike carey]

Ok, so this is a completely different tack than the recent serious posts in this thread, but it's a cute story. This 10 year old boy sent a hand written letter to the CEO of Qantas asking for advice on running an airline. I had seen a response to him from Alan Joyce on social media but the airline invited him to Sydney and put out a proper press release on the 'meeting'.

 

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-hosts-10-year-old-ceo-for-airline-executive-summit/

[+ glutes]

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-hosts-10-year-old-ceo-for-airline-executive-summit/

 

I wanna buy some Qantas & Oceania Express stock!

Edited April 3, 2019 by Oaktown

[+ glutes]

“Does pure, unbridled capitalism work? I guess that depends whether you are on the board of Boeing – or on board a Boeing.”

 

~Bill Maher~

[Max]

Do they have a habit of falling out of the sky? If not, it seems unlikely that the engine is the problem.

 

ETA: Now that I've read the Vox piece @Oaktown posted, I see the engine is involved, but only in the sense that the plane was redesigned to accommodate it, as the Boeings are lower to the ground than the Airbuses. So it's not the engine itself that's the issue as much as the redesign that using the more fuel efficient engine required.

 

The diversion of the WN airplane being ferried to storage was due to an engine issue. At least according to the only two people present at the time.

[Max]

Ok, so this is a completely different tack than the recent serious posts in this thread, but it's a cute story. This 10 year old boy sent a hand written letter to the CEO of Qantas asking for advice on running an airline. I had seen a response to him from Alan Joyce on social media but the airline invited him to Sydney and put out a proper press release on the 'meeting'.

 

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-hosts-10-year-old-ceo-for-airline-executive-summit/

 

That's cool. Will certainly inspire that young man to learn. Good for Joyce.

[Max]

“Does pure, unbridled capitalism work? I guess that depends whether you are on the board of Boeing – or on board a Boeing.”

 

~Bill Maher~

 

I'm suspicious that Comrade Bill would not set foot on an airplane produced in any other than a capitalist system. The Antonov, Tupolev, Ilyushin brands are hard to find...

[instudiocity]

Reading all these posts reminds me that a layman without knowledge of the intricate details of a product can reach some extreme positions.

 

Let me throw this monkey wrench into the discussion: All air carriers have their own design specifics that are different from other carriers... i.e. an American 737-800 would need about 3 months in a Delta hanger to bring that 737-800 into compliance with Delta's Part 135 Certification, pilot training regimen and it ain't just a new paint job. The entire aircraft's systems must be brought into compliance with each specific airline's certification to operate.

 

Also, that are multiple vendors attaching a multitude of products to these aircraft that do so AFTER Boeing or AirBus design and manufacture a plane. There is no such thing as sole responsibility. Even now Boeing, in conjunction with the other vendors contributing systems and products to the 737-MAX8 are examining what needs to be done to correct the issues that have been identified in the crashes. Boeing's name may be on the plane and the news media needing one big scapegoat only reports about Boeing but there's an entire industry the aircraft.

[Max]

Reading all these posts reminds me that a layman without knowledge of the intricate details of a product can reach some extreme positions.

 

Let me throw this monkey wrench into the discussion: All air carriers have their own design specifics that are different from other carriers... i.e. an American 737-800 would need about 3 months in a Delta hanger to bring that 737-800 into compliance with Delta's Part 135 Certification, pilot training regimen and it ain't just a new paint job. The entire aircraft's systems must be brought into compliance with each specific airline's certification to operate.

 

Also, that are multiple vendors attaching a multitude of products to these aircraft that do so AFTER Boeing or AirBus design and manufacture a plane. There is no such thing as sole responsibility. Even now Boeing, in conjunction with the other vendors contributing systems and products to the 737-MAX8 are examining what needs to be done to correct the issues that have been identified in the crashes. Boeing's name may be on the plane and the news media needing one big scapegoat only reports about Boeing but there's an entire industry the aircraft.

 

I thought Part 135 governs charter (and government operations and helicopters) and Part 121 governs scheduled air carriers (ie. Delta and American). Or do both Parts 135 and 121 apply to commercial carriers?

 

If the MCAS system proves to be the common denominator in these crashes (and that appears to be the case), it is an OEM installed system and would be found on all MAX8, MAX9 and MAX10 aircraft.

[+ glutes]

Trump's going to love this. A "shithole country" is telling that world that his favorite company (Boeing) and his FAA dropped the ball? Standby for an assault by Tweet.

 

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — The Ethiopian Airlines pilots performed all the procedures recommended by Boeing to save their doomed 737 Max 8 aircraft but could not pull it out of a flight-system-induced dive, a preliminary report into the crash concluded Thursday.

In a brief summary of the much anticipated preliminary report on the March 10 crash, Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges told reporters that the “aircraft flight-control system” contributed to the plane’s difficulty in gaining altitude from Addis Ababa airport before crashing six minutes later and killing all 157 on board.

[+ oldNbusted]

Boeing killed a planeful of people.

 

And some say this kind of carnage is absolutely necessary...