How much longer to fix the 737 Max

The article is interesting. FAA took away Boeing’s ability to “self release” their product. The FAA is onsite releasing their product instead. This happens when the company is found to release product with non-conformances. That is what the article is about, not the fly-ability of the Max
 
AGLyme said:
The article is interesting. FAA took away Boeing’s ability to “self release” their product. The FAA is onsite releasing their product instead. This happens when the company is found to release product with non-conformances. That is what the article is about, not the fly-ability of the Max
Click to expand...

I didn't see any non-conformances mentioned. I'd guess it is more of an all-powerful bureaucracy cracking skulls because people in the bureaucracy are embarrassed and are also upset with Boeing's pressure/attitude around getting the airplane back in service.
 
You are correct but it’s the essential implication of taking away a company’s right to self release.
 
Gordon Bethune got it right with you can make a pizza that is so cheap no one will buy it. Upper management's inability to see the forest for the trees crosses all industries and knows no bounds.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
no....it's a bigger problem than just the MCAS....it's a production quality issue too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...ns-linger-on-boeing-737-max-fix/#58f178258888

"The Federal Aviation Administration is taking back the sole authority to issue airworthiness certificates for new 737 MAX aircraft for an indefinite period"

"As Reuters has reported, the FAA issued a letter to Boeing on Tuesday notifying them of the decision.

Citing the large number of 737 MAX planes that will need vetting that have piled up in storage as Boeing has continued production despite the global grounding of the plane, the FAA said it will “retain authority to issue airworthiness certificates and export certificates of airworthiness for all 737 MAX airplanes” for an indefinite period, until the Administration is satisfied that Boeing has “fully functional quality control and verification processes.”

This move follows critical findings by the Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) into the Boeing 737 MAX certification process which, among various critical technical observations, raised questions on whether there was undue pressure on the Boeing-based quality control and certification teams to clear the aircraft for service. It also follows repeated statements by the FAA that it would do a thorough review of the aircraft before approving its re-launch and not be limited by a pre-set timeline for approval."

"Transport Canada Civil Aviation, questioning whether the Boeing 737 MAX’s MCAS system should simply be eliminated rather than relying on Boeing’s software fix."
Click to expand...

I did not read anything in the link that showed that they found production quality issues. I just saw that there is a back log of planes that need to be certified. The FAA is in reaction mode (perhaps rightly so), and they are not trusting Boeing to self certify all of those backed up aircraft.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
Bell 206, no I don't have the procedure for overriding a defective version of autopilot that is taking over an airliner. Not too amazing since I don't fly that or any other airliner. You write how easy and standard it is, should have been a snap, was all due to the 3rd world FO not having thousands of hours. It's is too bad you were not on that crew to save them and all the passengers.
Now, the step up thing for you to do it volunteer to be on the crew or even a passenger for the first test flights when and if Boeing does them in the future. They probably need someone to show them how easy it is.
Click to expand...

No doubt Boeing failed in its software design and product documentation. But there really were substantial pilot errors. I agree that the pilots should not have been in that situation, but had they followed the procedures that were published, there would not have been an accident.
 
PPC1052 said:
I did not read anything in the link that showed that they found production quality issues. I just saw that there is a back log of planes that need to be certified. The FAA is in reaction mode (perhaps rightly so), and they are not trusting Boeing to self certify all of those backed up aircraft.
Click to expand...
So....where would one have "quality control" issues?
 
Halted Boeing shares for trading pending big announcement today
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
So....where would one have "quality control" issues?
Click to expand...

Reading the article, I did not see anything in the article that showed that the FAA found "quality control issues." That's your term; not the FAA's. The FAA cited the back log of planes that need to be certified. The closest to that claim in the article is this statement:

[T]he FAA said it will “retain authority to issue airworthiness certificates and export certificates of airworthiness for all 737 MAX airplanes” for an indefinite period, until the Administration is satisfied that Boeing has “fully functional quality control and verification processes.”
​
The article then places this statement in the following context:

This move follows critical findings by the Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) into the Boeing 737 MAX certification process which, among various critical technical observations, raised questions on whether there was undue pressure on the Boeing-based quality control and certification teams to clear the aircraft for service.​

This suggests to me that the problem giving rise to this decision in certifying the design, not the production of individual units to comply with the type certificate.

If you have evidence that Boeing's manufacturing of the MAX (as opposed to the design of the MCAS system) has been shoddy, please share.
 
Warlock said:
Halted Boeing shares for trading pending big announcement today
Click to expand...

Trading has resumed post announcement. +$10 pre-market

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg is out, company names Chairman David Calhoun as successor

The Boeing Co. (BA) said Monday it has named Chairman David Calhoun as its chief executive and president, replacing Dennis Muilenburg, who has resigned. The company said board member Lawrence Kellner will become non-executive chairman of he board with immediate effect. Boeing Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith will serve as interim CEO during a brief transition period. "The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers and all other stakeholders," the company said in a statement. Muilenburg had come under pressure following the grounding of the company's 737 Max fleet after two fatal accidents. Shares were halted premarket for the news, but have gained 1.7% in 2019, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 22% and the S&P 500 has gained 28.5%.

-Ciara Linnane; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com

> Dow Jones Newswires
 
Turn them into water bombers and send them around the world. Design a new airplane to take into account modern technology, require a new type rating.
 
kgruber said:
Turn them into water bombers and send them around the world. Design a new airplane to take into account modern technology, require a new type rating.
Click to expand...

You hit the key point. I don't see the Max getting re-certified until it requires a new type rating.
 
Bell206 said:
Not exactly. The aircraft works just fine without the MCAS system installed. The issue was it did not meet one aspect of the Part 25 certification requirement that requires the pilot's control feedback to be linear to the angle of attack. i.e., the control get "heavier" the more the nose raises. This was the only reason for the MCAS installation. It was not installed because the new engines caused the aircraft to be uncontrollable.

Because the MAX's engines are located higher and more inline with the wing leading edge, once the angle of attack gets very extreme at the edge of the aircraft operating envelope, the pilot's control forces would become lighter vs heavier as the aircraft went into rocket mode. The MCAS system was added to provide an artificially heavier pilot control feedback via trimming the horizontal stabilizer up thus satisfying the Part 25 certification requirement. When functioning properly, the MCAS would only engage in extreme flight attitudes within specific configurations. And since there was an existing emergency procedure for a runaway horizontal stabilizer in the AFM, it was thought that a properly trained crew could handle a MCAS system failure.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining that to me, I confess I don’t know much about airliner flying, having flown nothing bigger than a C172 myself so please bear with me.

But I have been cogitating on what you said and I can’t figure out how that changes my point. If putting bigger engines on the plane brings it out of compliance with part 25 (even if it flies just fine), then doesn’t that amount to the same thing? The MCAS is software to bring it into compliance, and the software messes up requiring the pilots to be trained in handling a software problem that wouldn’t have existed in the first place if the plane weren’t fitted with different engines than originally designed for.

What am I missing?
 
Flying_Nun said:
Trading has resumed post announcement. +$10 pre-market

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg is out, company names Chairman David Calhoun as successor

The Boeing Co. (BA) said Monday it has named Chairman David Calhoun as its chief executive and president, replacing Dennis Muilenburg, who has resigned. The company said board member Lawrence Kellner will become non-executive chairman of he board with immediate effect. Boeing Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith will serve as interim CEO during a brief transition period. "The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers and all other stakeholders," the company said in a statement. Muilenburg had come under pressure following the grounding of the company's 737 Max fleet after two fatal accidents. Shares were halted premarket for the news, but have gained 1.7% in 2019, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 22% and the S&P 500 has gained 28.5%.

-Ciara Linnane; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com

> Dow Jones Newswires
Click to expand...

I have no idea if it is so, but being reported here in Norway that he was fired, not that he resigned.
 
I'm just wondering if the MAX is going to put Boeing out of business. The MAX mistake is going to cost Boeing many billions of dollars. How do you recover from something like that?
 
LongRoadBob said:
I have no idea if it is so, but being reported here in Norway that he was fired, not that he resigned.
Click to expand...

Probably given the opportunity to “voluntarily” resign with a severance package, or else be kicked out with nothing.
 
Rushie said:
If putting bigger engines on the plane brings it out of compliance with part 25
Click to expand...
Rushie said:
What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Technically, the engines did not bring the aircraft out of compliance as that falls under a different sub-section in Part 25. That part was fine. The out-of-compliance had to do with the flight controls and aircraft handling. Had there been room to stow longer landing gear that would have been their 1st option. It maybe semantics to you, but it is different in my experience.
 
Rushie said:
Probably given the opportunity to “voluntarily” resign with a severance package, or else be kicked out with nothing.
Click to expand...
Which is a shame - if there is no consequences to CEOs ( you get a sweet severance package one way or another ) then we are talking here just carrots and no sticks ...
 
Warmi said:
Which is a shame - if there is no consequences to CEOs ( you get a sweet severance package one way or another ) then we are talking here just carrots and no sticks ...
Click to expand...

Depending on the package, it’s not like you never need to work again. And you still have to explain the separation. When you get high up in management there are other terms attached to the package such as cooperating on the side of the company in any future legal battle, not disclosing corporate secrets, and so on. They’re buying something for the money, they’re not just giving the guy they don’t want anymore a big Christmas present.

To follow the idea of making the lead engineer fly the test flight, maybe the CEO should ride along too. After all, engineers often want to do stuff that’s rejected by management because of cost, or some other reason, maybe they want to virtue signal being green or I dunno, saving face when there is a lot of public and political pressure, like the case of the cold O rings.

I will add to that outdated but wonderful observation about the engineer doing the test flight, the lead software guy should be on board too. All coders working on commercial jets should be mandated to be pilots themselves, at least a PPL IR MEL.

AKBill said:
I would think the CEO of Boeing has enough cash stashed he does not need to worry about unemployment benefits..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

One would hope. But if stashed in retirement accounts you take a big tax hit for early withdrawals, and you’re stuck with a big mortgage and living expenses. Naturally it’s hard to feel sorry for big corporate fat cats but the great majority of managers are not filthy rich.
 
PPC, if all that is needed to fly the 737 safely is to "follow the procedures that are published" and there would not be a problem. Then why did U S authorities ground all the planes, instead of just insisting that crews learn and train, maybe in a simulator, these procedures? And where do you think they were published, since a big selling point for the plane was that it didn't need any additional training to fly it over the previous models. And according to recently found testimony, one or more of Boeing engineers knew before flight that the MCAS was trying to take over and outwrestle the pilots.

Think of this, two Toyotas are driving down the highway, when without warning the Takata air bag blows up in the drivers face. The first car is an older lady and she cant see and crashes. The 2nd driver is Lewis Hamilton and he manages to hit the brake and full lock steering and spin the car to a stop safely. Where is the defect, is the fault with Takata or the old lady?
 
Last edited:
Hindsight is at least 20/15, but Boeing would've been better off paying every airline to get a new type-rating for a new aircraft. ... Despite that, it seems that management culture in production of aircraft had gotten seriously off kilter, and this hard hit - devastatingly costly to 345 families - may right the ship and prevent worse mishaps that could've come down the road had this not happened.


That's my "glass not empty" take. The new CEO has his work cut out for him - excising a culture of efficiency in a cost-cutting world!! hahahaha..... and replacing it with a culture that is as efficient as best-practice will allow.

In the end, Boeing survives - 737max becomes 738 or 797 or something, MCAS gets demoted - hopefully booted altogether, any systems that can control flight get redundant sensors, and the world (and Boeing) moves on.
 
Flying_Nun said:
Trading has resumed post announcement. +$10 pre-market

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg is out, company names Chairman David Calhoun as successor

The Boeing Co. (BA) said Monday it has named Chairman David Calhoun as its chief executive and president, replacing Dennis Muilenburg, who has resigned. The company said board member Lawrence Kellner will become non-executive chairman of he board with immediate effect. Boeing Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith will serve as interim CEO during a brief transition period. "The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers and all other stakeholders," the company said in a statement. Muilenburg had come under pressure following the grounding of the company's 737 Max fleet after two fatal accidents. Shares were halted premarket for the news, but have gained 1.7% in 2019, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 22% and the S&P 500 has gained 28.5%.

-Ciara Linnane; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com

> Dow Jones Newswires
Click to expand...
I suspect, but can't prove, that the FAA and some politicians wanted him out before they'd approve the plane. Again, just speculation.
 
Re, Gordon Bethune's book about bringing Continental out of the cellar is really good. His success is mostly two part. first negative attitudes of all the employees and next focus on wrong things like too cheap commuters ( pizza so cheap no wants to eat it) as well as 747s that were too expensive to profit, so he knew what things he needed to change.
 
Last edited:
Bill Greenwood said:
PPC, if all that is needed to fly the 737 safely is to "follow the procedures that are published" and there would not be a problem. Then why did U S authorities ground all the planes, instead of just insisting that crews learn and train, maybe in a simulator, these procedures?
Click to expand...

Public outcry.

Even if they didn't think something was truly wrong with the aircraft and/or published procedures, they had to do it to assuage concerns from the public.
 
I'm sure its not all public pressure but there sure is a lot of it driving the bus IMHO. I mean there were "journalist" "exposing" the whole "DIY FAA approval system" for ratings & clickbait everywhere.

Then any flaw discovered in any Boeing product is immediately pounced on and shot all over the news relentlessly, and not a peep on similar quality issues throughout the industry on non-Boeing products.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
And where do you think they were published, since a big selling point for the plane was that it didn't need any additional training to fly it over the previous models.
Click to expand...

Airspeed Unreliability checklist
 
Greg Bockelman said:
And/or runaway trim checklist.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was about to add that, too.

And while we are at it, do they really need to publish that when you have an in-flight failure of the flight controls that you should take the damn plane out of service?
 
Last edited:
The "fix" is to cut the wire going to the MCAS breaker and give the pilots a few hours on the simulator to learn how to fly an airplane that is lighter on the stick than 3 pounds of force per 10 knots. Actually a few hours dual in a Pitts or an Extra 400 will do it nicely. (the CFI will likely have to handle the landings)
All accidents have a chain that caused them. In this one the first link of the chain (and the biggest) is the FAA Type Certification regs.. Without them there would have been no MCAS and no crashes.
(Lots of other links to blame on Boeing - and their corporate culture that is the twin of the one that took GM down)
signed: an old GM salaried guy
 
Flying_Nun said:
I have no doubt he was fired. The announcement is corporate PR spin.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just had the impression from the report here that they didn’t even pretend he resigned as is usually the case. Again, don’t know the exact way they announced it though. Could be wrong.
 
Warmi said:
Which is a shame - if there is no consequences to CEOs ( you get a sweet severance package one way or another ) then we are talking here just carrots and no sticks ...
Click to expand...

They have always played by different rules. Where you or I would be summarily fired, with no severance we’ve had golden parachutes (fitting name, **** on folk) for many decades now even for people who obviously didn’t do the job, and ran a company into the ground with bad decisions. It’s rarified air at their levels.

I’m not outraged, or bitter. Just ironic. It’s just the way it has been for a long time now.
 
This is not the first time that Boeing has faced a crisis after launching a new plane with innovative technology. In 1965, three Boeing 727-100 passenger jets crashed in less than three months in the United States while coming into land, killing a total of 131 people
 
AKBill said:
I'm just wondering if the MAX is going to put Boeing out of business. The MAX mistake is going to cost Boeing many billions of dollars. How do you recover from something like that?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I haven't dug too deep but it looks like Boeing has somewhere in the neighborhood of $10B in cash, and did about $100B in revenue last year. Yes, this will hurt them for a while, but it won't kill the company. I'm sure their 2019 profits will look pretty dismal, but "pretty dismal" for a company Boeing's size is still a big ol' bucket of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top