Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MAX takes to the skies again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    But other things don't seem to be fixed, such as how a basic electrical design flaw made it through review and approval stages and all the way into production.
    Ok, tell me the technical details that you know and I don't about this design change and its review and approval process.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Ok, tell me the technical details that you know and I don't about this design change and its review and approval process.
      A basic electrical design flaw made it through review and approval stages and all the way into production. Add to that all the technical details you want. It's still outrageous given the circumstances and what is at stake here. Right now, Boeing needs to be extremely careful and thorough when it comes to the 737MAX engineering and production processes. Lemons are a hard sell. Especially obsolete ones.

      Comment


      • Click image for larger version

Name:	2376C7ED-239B-48CF-8654-FB5E997267BC.png
Views:	86
Size:	177.7 KB
ID:	1115751

        Fire Boeing executives immediately!
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post

          The 737 was developed in the turbojet era for operation in regional airports including those without airstairs (jetways had not yet arived). Thus ground clearance above the minimum was only an issue with respect to the deck height.

          The 747 was developed for the turbofan era using the revolutionary new JT9D, a high-bypass turbofan initially developed for the high-winged C5 Galaxy. Boeing thusly provided the 747 with generous ground clearance not only for the 92" fans of the JT9D but also for future evolutions. It would be serviced by large airports with jetways. By the 1970's, engineers had realized that the future would involve increasing bypass ratios and thus larger fans. Every subsequent Boeing airframe could accomodate them. The 767 could carry the same diameter CF-6's used by the 747 (as could the A300 and the DC-10). The 757 could carry the 78" fans of the PW20XX. The GEnx on the 748 carries a 111" fan, yet still fits safely below the 747 wingspan. Even the A200 can comfortably carry 73" fans.

          The 737-Max struggles to handle 69" fans. They must be mounted forward of the wing in a configuration that compromises stability at the edge of the envelope. It should never have been considered as a viable 21st century aircraft.

          Efficiency will always determine commercial airframe design. Environmental sustainability will hopefully also drive design decisions. The CFM56 might be a fine machine but it has to go the way of the steam engine. Boeing designers knew this long ago. The new era of ultra-high-bypass engines began to take form in the mid-1990's. Any production turbofan-powered airliner unable to handle them should have been retired ten years ago.

          When it comes to fans, bigger is better, right up to that line where the drag penalty defeats them. Emerging technology keeps pushing the line further out. Airframers have to keep up.
          Sometimes, I really really wonder, why I only have two friends here in this forum. If you ask me, that should rather be four men: 3WE, Gabriel,
          you,
          and a rather unimportant aviation enthusiast who almost knows nothing about the MCAS problem..

          And why do I know so little about MCAS. Well, Flight Captain Spohr, who is also the CEO of my favorite airline, once said, he is interested in the Boeing 737 again. Which in my eyes makes sense,
          when you know the state of the Lufthansa Boeing 737 fleet shortly before Spohr dissolved it..
          The 737-300 LH fleet between 1986 and 2016 consisted of 46 jets.
          The 737-500 LH fleet between 1990 and 2016 consisted of 33 jets.

          Lufthansa knows the 737 since 1967, when a fleet of 737-100 jets was bought.

          Afaik the last Lufthansa 737 which was bought was a LH Boeing 737-400, back then in the year 1992.

          If you ask me, the 747-400 cockpit is ready for the year 2021, also without HUD.
          If upper and lower EICAS is the secret why Lufthansa Passage still owns a 744 fleet, then I am really happy.
          The 747-400, with PFD screen and ND screen, each one of that for the Captain and the F/O, plus 2 x EICAS, plus the fmc screens, that must have sounded like the unknown future,
          also in comparison to the 737-400.

          And now I know why, after I looked that up. The 737-400 is four years older than the 747-400: inaugurated 1985 in contrast to 1989. Which really is more than nothing, if we speak about computers on board.

          No 737 Next Gen, no Max in the LH fleet, and, what we all are glad about, afaik no MCAS problem in the whole Lufthansa fleet, at least not since 1955!

          So, what I would be interested in at least is the 737-700 and 737-800.

          The 737-Max struggles to handle 69" fans.
          Yes. But didn't they see that problem coming?!

          I mean, I really love this platform, because for alot of things which I write there is the evidence in the database. Lufthansa 737-300 back then in 1987 (!), on my home airport.
          Now I ask that question again.
          Didn't they see that problem coming. The 737-300 already does not provide space below the nacelle where you could drive thru with a follow me car:

          https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10116105

          You see that even the men in the background are much higher than that tiny gap below the 737-300 nacelle. How much is that... clearly less than 3 feet (90 cm), I would guess!

          And the 737 has been developed through the years for
          bigger range
          and
          bigger passenger capacity.

          [Sorry. That again is a forum entry with Gabriel's length. But sometimes it really does not fit into a shorter fuselage..]

          Why has Boeing stopped to produce the B763ER passenger version? Which since I am an aviation enthusiast does not need MCAS. For up to 5900 nautical miles and up to 250 passengers. That are numbers which still in the year 2021 are as far away as a distant dream, for each 737 pilot.

          Imho, a single aisle jet should end somewhere at 3500 nautical miles and 200 passengers. Then the 3-4-3 seat configuration or something like that takes over.

          Or what would you say?

          PS: A 737 Max 10, and I only know that something like that exists since one minute.
          Compared to a 763ER.
          I would not stretch a 737 until it looks like a 747 who had an impact. The Max 10 seems to be good for 220 pax and up to 3300 nautical miles?
          Well, I don't know if a 744 doesn't look a bit empty with less than 250 pax, but 3300 nautical miles is clearly more than the shortest commercial 744 route which I know.

          The competition did not come from outside. Boeing inflated (dt.: aufblasen) the 737 until the 763ER looked like a dwarf.
          Last edited by LH-B744; 2021-05-16, 01:09. Reason: 763ER instead of a 737 max 10 , if you ask me.
          The German long haul is alive, since more than 60 years.
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
            A basic electrical design flaw made it through review and approval stages and all the way into production. Add to that all the technical details you want. It's still outrageous given the circumstances and what is at stake here.
            Design flaws make it through review, testing and approval all the time in all industries. You make a design, it looks sound, make the calculations, it should be ok in theory, make a prototype, test it, it passes, make a small pilot run of 10 with production methods, test all 10, it passes, then you implement a 100% test in production, it passes in the first 49 times, and the instance #50 it fails.

            Contain, investigate root cause, define corrective actions.

            Standard process.

            Have you seen Space-X's Starship program?

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post

              A basic electrical design flaw made it through review and approval stages and all the way into production. Add to that all the technical details you want. It's still outrageous given the circumstances and what is at stake here. Right now, Boeing needs to be extremely careful and thorough when it comes to the 737MAX engineering and production processes. Lemons are a hard sell. Especially obsolete ones.
              Hi Evan. Hi Gabe. Have I mentioned that before.. Evan is our friend, he sees the world through the eyes of a pilot who loves his life. Or even better, through the eyes of a passenger. I once was a passenger on a flight where the Flight Captain really tried to apologize for the bad weather which we had to expect at my home airport on our way back from Malpensa International.
              It was an Eurowings Airbus A320, which is not only a German airline, but an airline with our headquarter on my home airport, EDDL Lohausen International.
              I still dream of this Flight Captain. We really started at MXP at a sunny late afternoon and we landed here in darkness and deluge masses of rain. And on short final to the ..
              I mean that must've been the EDDL 05R.
              Because a/c who are bigger than the (rather weak) Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner III always get clearance for the longer EDDL 05R when the wind is ok, otherwise you'll get the 23L . Which is even long enough for the LH-B744 and for the LH-B748.
              Back to that A320 Flight Captain. By his voice, I'd assume that he is at least as old as me. He had that typical sonorous voice of an experienced Flight Captain, which we all love so very much.

              Have you ever heard A320 Flight Captain Chesley Sullenberger III with his Original voice? 43 years old, or 48, and with his baritone voice our A320 Captain said something like that, and again, I can only repeat the Original, in German. If you really have no Alexa on your desk, which is able to translate, then come back here, and I'll translate for you.
              But this is what he said, on our way back from Italy.

              Meine sehr geehrten Fluggäste. Hier spricht Flugkapitän [Joachim Schmidt, der Name wurde geändert] . Wir befinden uns im Endanflug auf den Flughafen Düsseldorf-Lohausen, und ich habe leider schlechte Nachrichten. Uns erwartet schlechtes Wetter in Deutschland. Da können wir hier im Cockpit, das sind der Erste Offizier Becker und ich, leider nicht viel dran ändern. Die Temperatur auf Lohausen wenn wir aussteigen wird nur +11°C betragen, und aufgrund von Wind kann es kurz vor dem Aufsetzen zu ein paar Wacklern kommen. Trotzdem hoffe ich, Sie haben sich während unseres Fluges aus Mailand wohl gefühlt und beehren uns bald wieder hier bei Eurowings. Ich darf alle Personen an Bord bitten sich nun zur Landung anzuschnallen.

              As far as I remember he did not repeat that speech for his passengers in English, at least not to its full extent. Which imho was not either necessary, a German airline, a German crew, and a German destination. He only could have tried it with italiano, as we took off at Milano Malpensa on that day.

              But that was a really helpful Flight Captain, with an almost complete ATIS on final, also for his passengers. A kind of prototype for me, I wouldn't say that with a big difference. The only little difference would be my voice, which is only 43 years old. I don't quite reach the Sullenberger baritone, not yet. But I try. I mean, his voice has an advantage of 28 years, compared to mine.

              "Although we experienced a basic electrical design flaw, I hope that you enjoyed this flight with our 737 Max 10. Germany welcomes us with rather bad weather. That is something which we here in the cockpit, F/O Becker and me, are not able to completely change. The temperature at Lohausen when we exit the jet will be only... "

              No. Nooo. I am able to beg for pardon due to bad weather which might shake the jet a little bit. But if you ask me, you choose one aircraft, and if more souls than only your F/O and you are on board,
              you MUST be convinced of your aircraft. And I am convinced of the LH-B744.

              So, I didn't say that the 737 Max 10 is a basic electrical design flaw. That was our friend Evan.

              And the alternate? Sullenberger would say, the A320. Our CEO Spohr, who also is an A320 Flight Captain, would say the same.


              PS: Although, I can feel a little bit of that what Spohr feels, when he says, he somehow is interested again in the 737, even with MCAS. Probably he expects, that with all his knowledge and experience about the A320 alpha protection mode, he should definitely be able to understand how a 737 Max 10 must be flown so that all souls on board arrive at the planned destination,
              without one injury.
              I know almost nothing about an A320, my "ladder" to Randazzo's 744 simulator was (slightly shortened), 737-400, 330-300 (by CLS), 340-300, and then the Lufthansa 747-200 simulator,
              with INS. When you know how to operate a 742 INS, then you are ready for the 744.

              Together with Captain Spohr, I could dare the 737 Max 10, for a test flight without passangers, even with MCAS. But only when I am his F/O in the 737. I really trust him.
              Last edited by LH-B744; 2021-05-16, 10:04. Reason: Der Kutscher kennt den Weg. In English, the Captain knows how to dominate the MCAS, for a test flight.
              The German long haul is alive, since more than 60 years.
              The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
              And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
              Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                Design flaws make it through review, testing and approval all the time in all industries. You make a design, it looks sound, make the calculations, it should be ok in theory, make a prototype, test it, it passes, make a small pilot run of 10 with production methods, test all 10, it passes, then you implement a 100% test in production, it passes in the first 49 times, and the instance #50 it fails.
                You are right, we need to know the finer details of this, but the reports and the AD describe a basic circuitry grounding issue. That would seem to be an issue of either circuitry planning, surface-to-surface contact or conflicting materials. Those are fundamental things that engineering should catch let alone never botch in the first place. You are also right that things slip through, but those things tend to be more concealed, phenomenal and related to unforeseen interactions with other components or the operating environment.

                Have you seen Space-X's Starship program?
                I'm glad you brought up this analogy. Space-X is intentionally using a fail-fast process they call 'iterative design' to speed up engineering at a high cost in terms of prototypes. Rather than scrutinize and anticipate every flaw before testing, they are willing to sacrifice multiple testbeds to get in the air and gather more data more quickly. Do we want Boeing to do this in-service with the MAX? Do we want to be their testbed?

                Again, I'm concerned with signs that the broken upper-management culture at Boeing is still broken and too shareholder focused. I see a grounding like this for ANY basic circuitry issue to be a symptom that pressure is still being placed on engineering and production to cut corners in favor of expediency. You should note that the reason we don't know more is the result of efforts to keep us from knowing more. Transparency must become part of Boeing's culture as well. (Note also: detailed diagrams I once posted on this forum of the 737 rudder and elevator systems were deleted at Boeing's request). I mean WTF?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post

                  Hi Evan. Hi Gabe. Have I mentioned that before.. Evan is our friend, he sees the world through the eyes of a pilot who loves his life. Or even better, through the eyes of a passenger. I once was a passenger on a flight where the Flight Captain really tried to apologize for the bad weather which we had to expect at my home airport on our way back from Malpensa International.
                  It was an Eurowings Airbus A320, which is not only a German airline, but an airline with our headquarter on my home airport, EDDL Lohausen International.
                  I still dream of this Flight Captain. We really started at MXP at a sunny late afternoon and we landed here in darkness and deluge masses of rain. And on short final to the ..
                  I mean that must've been the EDDL 05R.
                  Because a/c who are bigger than the (rather weak) Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner III always get clearance for the longer EDDL 05R when the wind is ok, otherwise you'll get the 23L . Which is even long enough for the LH-B744 and for the LH-B748.
                  Back to that A320 Flight Captain. By his voice, I'd assume that he is at least as old as me. He had that typical sonorous voice of an experienced Flight Captain, which we all love so very much.

                  Have you ever heard A320 Flight Captain Chesley Sullenberger III with his Original voice? 43 years old, or 48, and with his baritone voice our A320 Captain said something like that, and again, I can only repeat the Original, in German. If you really have no Alexa on your desk, which is able to translate, then come back here, and I'll translate for you.
                  But this is what he said, on our way back from Italy.

                  Meine sehr geehrten Fluggäste. Hier spricht Flugkapitän [Joachim Schmidt, der Name wurde geändert] . Wir befinden uns im Endanflug auf den Flughafen Düsseldorf-Lohausen, und ich habe leider schlechte Nachrichten. Uns erwartet schlechtes Wetter in Deutschland. Da können wir hier im Cockpit, das sind der Erste Offizier Becker und ich, leider nicht viel dran ändern. Die Temperatur auf Lohausen wenn wir aussteigen wird nur +11°C betragen, und aufgrund von Wind kann es kurz vor dem Aufsetzen zu ein paar Wacklern kommen. Trotzdem hoffe ich, Sie haben sich während unseres Fluges aus Mailand wohl gefühlt und beehren uns bald wieder hier bei Eurowings. Ich darf alle Personen an Bord bitten sich nun zur Landung anzuschnallen.

                  As far as I remember he did not repeat that speech for his passengers in English, at least not to its full extent. Which imho was not either necessary, a German airline, a German crew, and a German destination. He only could have tried it with italiano, as we took off at Milano Malpensa on that day.

                  But that was a really helpful Flight Captain, with an almost complete ATIS on final, also for his passengers. A kind of prototype for me, I wouldn't say that with a big difference. The only little difference would be my voice, which is only 43 years old. I don't quite reach the Sullenberger baritone, not yet. But I try. I mean, his voice has an advantage of 28 years, compared to mine.

                  "Although we experienced a basic electrical design flaw, I hope that you enjoyed this flight with our 737 Max 10. Germany welcomes us with rather bad weather. That is something which we here in the cockpit, F/O Becker and me, are not able to completely change. The temperature at Lohausen when we exit the jet will be only... "

                  No. Nooo. I am able to beg for pardon due to bad weather which might shake the jet a little bit. But if you ask me, you choose one aircraft, and if more souls than only your F/O and you are on board,
                  you MUST be convinced of your aircraft. And I am convinced of the LH-B744.

                  So, I didn't say that the 737 Max 10 is a basic electrical design flaw. That was our friend Evan.

                  And the alternate? Sullenberger would say, the A320. Our CEO Spohr, who also is an A320 Flight Captain, would say the same.


                  PS: Although, I can feel a little bit of that what Spohr feels, when he says, he somehow is interested again in the 737, even with MCAS. Probably he expects, that with all his knowledge and experience about the A320 alpha protection mode, he should definitely be able to understand how a 737 Max 10 must be flown so that all souls on board arrive at the planned destination,
                  without one injury.
                  I know almost nothing about an A320, my "ladder" to Randazzo's 744 simulator was (slightly shortened), 737-400, 330-300 (by CLS), 340-300, and then the Lufthansa 747-200 simulator,
                  with INS. When you know how to operate a 742 INS, then you are ready for the 744.

                  Together with Captain Spohr, I could dare the 737 Max 10, for a test flight without passangers, even with MCAS. But only when I am his F/O in the 737. I really trust him.
                  Jibber jabber as usual, and Evan is self admittingly not a pilot!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    You are also right that things slip through, but those things tend to be more concealed, phenomenal and related to unforeseen interactions with other components or the operating environment.
                    And you are again factually wrong about that. Designs fails happen because of a rainbow of reasons ranging from incorrect or incomplete modeling (modeling I mean in the theoretical sense, for example neglecting factors that were not totally negligible) to human error (think bugs in computer programs).
                    This issue with the grounding could have been something ranging from some obscure and complicated and unforeseen interaction between materials to an "oh shit" moment.

                    I'm glad you brought up this analogy. Space-X is intentionally using a fail-fast process they call 'iterative design' to speed up engineering at a high cost in terms of prototypes.
                    It's not that simple, I am afraid. Have you thought of the consequences of having a catastrophic failure mode with a 1-in-50 chances of occurring in any given flight?

                    Again, I'm concerned with signs that the broken upper-management culture at Boeing is still broken and too shareholder focused.
                    I share that concern.

                    I see a grounding like this for ANY basic circuitry issue to be a symptom that pressure is still being placed on engineering and production to cut corners in favor of expediency.
                    Now you are talking out of your waste system's rear outflow valve.
                    What you say can perfectly be the case. Or could perfectly be not.
                    And as far as I know, you (and I) have not the slightest idea of what this change was about, let alone what motivated it, let alone how much undue pressure from management there was.

                    You should note that the reason we don't know more is the result of efforts to keep us from knowing more.
                    I am sure the FAA knows all the details. Unfortunately (because I don't like it) the industry in general has evolved to a situation where intellectual property and secrecy has become very valuable.

                    Transparency must become part of Boeing's culture as well. (Note also: detailed diagrams I once posted on this forum of the 737 rudder and elevator systems were deleted at Boeing's request). I mean WTF?
                    If also found examples where Airbus was very vague about issues, and I don't know if they would be happy with you if you publish their intellectual property for the public to see.
                    Try to publish a block diagram of the motherboard of a MacBook Air. Apple will NOT be happy (and this is real, not hypothetical).
                    Again, I am not defending this, I don't like it, but that's how it works.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

                      Jibber jabber as usual, and Evan is self admittingly not a pilot!
                      Unless they revive the SR-71 converted freighter program. Then I might consider it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Try to publish a block diagram of the motherboard of a MacBook Air. Apple will NOT be happy (and this is real, not hypothetical).
                        Again, I am not defending this, I don't like it, but that's how it works.
                        AFAIK, no MacBook Air has plunged into the ground killing many hundreds of people. When it comes to playing your cards close to your vest, the intellectual property ship has sailed on Boeing, I'm afraid. The public has a right to transparency regarding something that represents a public existential threat. The nature of an AD issue (or how a flawed enpennage design lacks redundancy) cannot be considered intellectual property if the public trust means anything at all.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          AFAIK, no MacBook Air has plunged into the ground killing many hundreds of people. When it comes to playing your cards close to your vest, the intellectual property ship has sailed on Boeing, I'm afraid. The public has a right to transparency regarding something that represents a public existential threat. The nature of an AD issue (or how a flawed enpennage design lacks redundancy) cannot be considered intellectual property if the public trust means anything at all.
                          The FAA is (supposed to be) there to represent the public interests. They have access to Boeing's intellectual property, and are obliged to respect it.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • Fire Boeing executives immediately!

                            https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...essna-spar-ad/
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • flew in a max the other day MIA-PTY. aside from engines sound being different, it's the same ol same ol. oh yeah, brilliantly, they managed to make the shitter even smaller! pretty soon they will remove them altogether and hand out bags.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                                flew in a max the other day MIA-PTY. aside from engines sound being different, it's the same ol same ol. oh yeah, brilliantly, they managed to make the shitter even smaller! pretty soon they will remove them altogether and hand out bags.
                                That is not an intrinsic characteristic of the MAX. The airlines are free to order it with a decent lavatory, as well as order new NGs (or retrofit old ones) with the new mini-lav, as they are already doing.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X