Jump to content

Will it ever fly?


glutes

Recommended Posts

Posting w/o comment:

 

A former Boeing official who played a key role in the development of the 737 MAX has refused to provide documents sought by federal prosecutors investigating two fatal crashes of the jetliner, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Mark Forkner, Boeing’s chief technical pilot on the MAX project, invoked the privilege in response to a grand jury subpoena issued by U.S. Justice Department prosecutors looking into the design and certification of the plane, the person said.

Invoking the Fifth to avoid testifying, while a legal right, is sometimes interpreted as an admission of guilt. Its use to resist a subpoena for documents is less common and may only imply a dance between prosecutors and defense attorneys, legal experts say.

Forkner, now a first officer for Southwest Airlines, referred questions to his attorney when reached by phone. His attorney, David Gerger, of Houston, did not respond to inquiries.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/former-boeing-official-subpoenaed-in-737-max-probe-wont-turn-over-documents-citing-fifth-amendment-protection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this BusinessInsider piece, the 737Max will never fly again. If it does, it will be in the US only, and because of lobbies and corruption and MAGA. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency will not approve Max simply because it is a flawed design. Relying on a software to fix this issue was dumb to begin with...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-flight-system-faa-oversight-2019-7

 

CEO Muilenburg expressed that the biggest concern for Boeing is “regulator alignment”. The 737 MAX could return to service on a country-by-country basis, is “a possibility” he said at a conference Wednesday.

Oh boy Maxi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CEO Muilenburg expressed that the biggest concern for Boeing is “regulator alignment”. The 737 MAX could return to service on a country-by-country basis, is “a possibility” he said at a conference Wednesday.

That's a possibility, and it could return in the US and under a possible new UK civil aviation authority. Less likely in the EU and they would apply their rules to any airline flying into the EU not just EU flag airlines. I'm not confident Australian or Canadian regulators would clear it (and from having watched US carriers track over Canada on US internal flights that could be a problem if Canada banned it from their airspace). Other than that, AU and CA would not affect the big picture. China is another big market, and regardless of the merits Trump could scupper any chance of regulatory approval there.

 

That's not necessarily bad for Boeing, they have other aircraft that they can keep making, and they will sell albeit not into the same market segments. As a case study, Qantas has gone heavy on Boeing for long haul (cancelled A380s and retained B787 orders) but short haul single aisle it's gone in big on A320 variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not clear as to why the 737MAX isn't back in the air yet. Isn't this just a matter of fixing the software and providing the pilots with some additional training? Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not clear as to why the 737MAX isn't back in the air yet. Isn't this just a matter of fixing the software and providing the pilots with some additional training? Or am I missing something?

 

There is also some concern that a mid-development decision to change the engine size affected the integrity of the entire plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aircraft design should allow hands-off horizontal flight, i.e., center of gravity should align with the center of lift. This is violated for the 737Max because the new engines would not fit properly under the wing due to the relatively short landing gear (designed for the smaller engines) so the engines were moved forward enough to require constant deployment of control surfaces. This is a inherent design flaw, for which there is no fix.

 

You are incorrect. All airplanes should fly without pilot input in level, unaccelerated flight when trim settings are appropriate. And the 737 (all versions) will do that. If you define the use of trim as "deployment of control surfaces" then essentially all aircraft have that same requirement. The MCAS has nothing to do with straight, level, unaccelerated flight.

 

I'm still not clear as to why the 737MAX isn't back in the air yet. Isn't this just a matter of fixing the software and providing the pilots with some additional training? Or am I missing something?

 

And lots of paperwork. And while they were re-working the MCAS, they identified other issues to address. Once the software is done, they have to decide how much and what type of training pilots will need. Then they have to document all that, get it reviewed by the FAA and others. Wouldn't surprise me if it's early 2020.

 

There is also some concern that a mid-development decision to change the engine size affected the integrity of the entire plane.

 

I have seen no such discussion in professional aviation publications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in your defense, it was almost six weeks ago after all...and many thought the planes would be back in the air by now.

Thanks! I do remember having the thought. I hadn't remembered posting it, and I didn't want to go through 20 pages... All I remember was that I still wasn't clear on the reasoning, but your response did clarify things for me. I think everything takes longer with the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen no such discussion in professional aviation publications.

 

 

thanks for the reply......there has been much made of the engine modification and related mounting concern in this thread and in the news......do you have any observations at all about this other than to say you've seen nothing about it (in "professional aviation publications")?........appreciate your comments

Edited by azdr0710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LATimes, not a professional aviation publication, but this will give Max a start:

 

Must Reads: How a 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 Max jet.

 

By RALPH VARTABEDIANSTAFF WRITER

MARCH 15, 2019

 

6 AM

A set of stairs may have never caused so much trouble in an aircraft.

First introduced in West Germany as a short-hop commuter jet in the early Cold War, the Boeing 737-100 had folding metal stairs attached to the fuselage that passengers climbed to board before airports had jetways. Ground crews hand-lifted heavy luggage into the cargo holds in those days, long before motorized belt loaders were widely available.

That low-to-the-ground design was a plus in 1968, but it has proved to be a constraint that engineers modernizing the 737 have had to work around ever since. The compromises required to push forward a more fuel-efficient version of the plane — with larger engines and altered aerodynamics — led to the complex flight control software system that is now under investigation in two fatal crashes over the last five months.

 

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LATimes, not a professional aviation publication, but this will give Max a start:

 

Must Reads: How a 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 Max jet.

 

By RALPH VARTABEDIANSTAFF WRITER

MARCH 15, 2019

 

6 AM

A set of stairs may have never caused so much trouble in an aircraft.

First introduced in West Germany as a short-hop commuter jet in the early Cold War, the Boeing 737-100 had folding metal stairs attached to the fuselage that passengers climbed to board before airports had jetways. Ground crews hand-lifted heavy luggage into the cargo holds in those days, long before motorized belt loaders were widely available.

That low-to-the-ground design was a plus in 1968, but it has proved to be a constraint that engineers modernizing the 737 have had to work around ever since. The compromises required to push forward a more fuel-efficient version of the plane — with larger engines and altered aerodynamics — led to the complex flight control software system that is now under investigation in two fatal crashes over the last five months.

 

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html

 

Sure. LA Times. About as authoritative in aviation as is your "hold my cards close" investment advice.

 

My planned 10 year hold investment is up about 2%.

 

When do your put options expire @Oaktown?

 

 

 

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by the return to flight of the Concorde, not likely to be a factor.

 

https://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Many-Consumers-Dont-Want-to-Fly-the-737-Max-When-it-Returns

 

ha!....the Concorde's travails and the 737 Max's hardly compare......

 

by the way, still waiting for a reply about my engine mount question!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Many-Consumers-Dont-Want-to-Fly-the-737-Max-When-it-Returns

 

ha!....the Concorde's travails and the 737 Max's hardly compare......

 

by the way, still waiting for a reply about my engine mount question!

 

How are they different? Both flawed design to be corrected and returned to flight.

 

I'll go find the missed question too...didn't ignore intentionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply......there has been much made of the engine modification and related mounting concern in this thread and in the news......do you have any observations at all about this other than to say you've seen nothing about it (in "professional aviation publications")?........appreciate your comments

 

The larger engine nacelle required a more forward and upward mount below the wing. This lead to the development of MCAS. It's not a fundamental flaw that renders the aircraft unsafe. The flawed design of the MCAS (primarily that it relied on only one input source) is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...