|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by calman014
(Post 12669581)
I have worked on several commercial types, both from Boeing and Airbus.
Boeing used to have pretty solid safety procedures and almost every system onboard had a backup of some kind and in some cases 2, this is referred to as "Redundancy". Admittedly that was before we had "glass cockpits" full of screens rather than the old analog dials for the various sensors and indicators needed to fly. Only last week, a plane was forced to land due to complete cockpit display failure. When Airbus released its first models, Boeing was the first to criticise, as Airbus depended heavily on computer aided flight. You may have seen some shots of airbuses pulling some pretty impressive manouvers at airshows for example, where the computer would override inputs from the pilot and not allow him or her to push the aircraft out of its safe flying envelope. The 737 has been a mainstay of all airlines for many years, but to stretch a plane, hang extremely powerful engines on the wing which wasn't really designed for the type and then to expect software to compensate for the inherent instability is not a good strategy, nor is still trying to call it a 737 and use the historical safety record to try and push sales. As usual a frantic attempt to capture the market. I think that this has been a massive blunder of Boeing and it will be interesting to see how this develops. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
It really is a minefield. My family hates asking me questions because when they do I start by assuming they know nothing and try to explain some basic principles first, some of which they will already know and this tends to turn them off, but.....
When writing operating manuals you should always start from the premise that the reader doesn't necessarily know what you know. It's characteristic of poorly written documents that as a reader you encounter gibberish intelligible only to those who wrote it. Even so, expensive mishaps can slip through, and continuing the aviation theme... For example the brand new pre-delivery Etihad A340 that drove itself into a wall during an engine run-up test because, for whatever reason, the pilots failed to understand that a safety feature made sure that the brakes were off when the engines were under power to ensure that the plane couldn't land with the brakes on. It was just unfortunate that a wall was in the way. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Looks like Boeing has completed the test flights and will be moving towards certification.
85% of MAX operators have experienced the software fix in simulators. 120 test flights with 230 hours of airtime. https://globalnews.ca/news/5179786/b...eKxfCfpDb2nLAI |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12672588)
Looks like Boeing has completed the test flights and will be moving towards certification.
85% of MAX operators have experienced the software fix in simulators.120 test flights with 230 hours of airtime. https://globalnews.ca/news/5179786/boeing-software-update-ceo/?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=GlobalNews&fbclid= IwAR25AM-WjAe1rwF3OyBw62KKLdFoF9pN-aeiiKvDywDrneKxfCfpDb2nLAI I read this to mean that, since the MAX has only two angle of attack sensors, then the system will compare the output from each and if they vary by a predetermined amount then the data will be deemed to be faulty and the son of MCAS will not be triggered. But, MCAS was developed to prevent the aircraft from attaining an attitude that could result in a stall, and it was apparently not made generally available to those who might need to know of it's existence. So, what happens if one sensor genuinely indicates a high nose-up attitude whilst the other is faulty but indicates level flight? Apparently a warning light will indicate sensor conflict but that's all. What hasn't been addressed is the aberrant nature of the aircraft's behaviour. Boeing is placing responsibility on the pilots to recognise and correct flight issues generated by having stretched the 737 airframe to accomodate larger engines instead of having decided to develop a new airframe. I know that's why we have pilots and no doubt they'll be on the lookout for this issue.. but unexpected consequences can arise from pilots predisposed to expect one problem when a completely different problem might exist. I trust that aircrew flying in the MAX will command a premium and ensure their insurance is up to date. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
There is a clue in how the engines on 787 Max are positioned on to the wings:
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
“A well made aircraft will more or less fly itself when you let go of the controls†|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Edo
(Post 12672722)
There is a clue in how the engines on 787 Max are positioned on to the wings:
The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice It makes me wonder if the commercial aircraft side of Boeing will ever recover from this.... |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12672853)
It makes me wonder if the commercial aircraft side of Boeing will ever recover from this....
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ware-developer This is the best summary of the problem I've read. Indirectly the reasons given for failure in the article are why I suggest Boeing will recover. Greed. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
So the remaining family members of two Ontario family’s taking Boeing to court over this !! https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalne...-families/amp/ |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
CEO at the shareholder's meeting today.
Any objective view will conclude that MCAS was a feature operative on the MAX series to counter a propensity of the airplane to raise the nose and potentially stall as power is applied from the larger and more powerful engines. It will also conclude that MCAS relied on a single sensor with a history of failure in use. It will also conclude that systems intended to alert pilots on sensor failure were optional extras, available at extra cost. CEO stated "safety systems on its 737 Max jets were properly designed". This statement is an indictment of Boeing's design procedures. It is difficult to understand that obvious questions that should have properly been asked at the design checking and certification steps were simply not asked or perhaps ignored. This CEO oversaw the manufacture of unsafe aircraft, how can he remain CEO after stating they were properly designed? |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
A worrying admission:
"Boeing has admitted that it knew about a problem with its 737 Max jets a year before the aircraft was involved in two fatal accidents, but took no action." Q. What else does Boeing know about it's products that could impact safety? A. We'll never know, so best get drunk next time you sit in one of their tin cans. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by dave_j
(Post 12679977)
A. We'll never know, so best get drunk next time you sit in one of their tin cans.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
The FAA has created another joint board in regards to the 737 MAX.
The new one consists of experts from NASA, the US Air Force and DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, none of which were involved in the initial certification process. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...upgrade-review The Joint Authorities Technical Review the FAA set up met last week, made up of authorities from 8 countries, and tasked with doing a comprehensive review of the 737 MAX certification process. Report from this group is due in 90 days, and is separate from the certification of the new software. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-certification Wise of the FAA not to go alone, and if/when the fix is approved and planes in the air, it will have been a mix of agencies and countries who approved it and not relying on Boeing or the FAA alone. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Boeing say's they are done with the software fix. Next stage is trying to get certification, certification flights have not yet been scheduled.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/boeing...zceeF1kf5i7xGE |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Typically in modern America, the "Administration" blames foreign pilots for the Max failures -
Article |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Not related to software but the FAA has found some issues with certain 737 NG's and MAX aircraft leading edge slat tracks that were not manufactured correctly by the sub-contractor who made the part.
The issue affects 133 NG and 179 MAX aircraft. Boeing has not yet submitted the software for approval. https://globalnews.ca/news/5344272/b...-Jy-FPfrrOopqY |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
I've just received an updated itinerary from AC: our flight to Montreal is now going to be on an Airbus 321 rather than the 737 MAX this is in early August.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Snowy560
(Post 12692535)
I've just received an updated itinerary from AC: our flight to Montreal is now going to be on an Airbus 321 rather than the 737 MAX this is in early August.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12692527)
Not related to software but the FAA has found some issues with certain 737 NG's and MAX aircraft leading edge slat tracks that were not manufactured correctly by the sub-contractor who made the part.
Q. If the part was badly manufactured and forms part of a batch of poorly manufactured parts, how was it discovered? Q. Did one fail in flight or was it detected on the ground? Q. If detected on the ground how was it not detected when installed? Q. Was Boeing informed by the supplier or was it informed by a customer or did it find out for itself? A. from Boeing ???? |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by dave_j
(Post 12692611)
So part of a wing has been badly manufactured and installed on new aircraft... "potential problems discovered in one batch of “slat tracks†produced by a supplier."
Q. If the part was badly manufactured and forms part of a batch of poorly manufactured parts, how was it discovered? Q. Did one fail in flight or was it detected on the ground? Q. If detected on the ground how was it not detected when installed? Q. Was Boeing informed by the supplier or was it informed by a customer or did it find out for itself? A. from Boeing ???? "The company discovered the problem Friday, when Boeing was meeting with the parts supplier. Boeing employees noticed some of the parts were not heat treated, which led them to believe there might be a safety issue." Doesn't appear any airlines have had any issues. "The company and the FAA said it has not been notified of any incidents related to the tracks on operating flights, and the fix should take a couple days to complete." https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/busin...ies/index.html |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
This really calls into question the quality control both at the supplier end and during assembly. The fix may only take a couple of days per plane, but all 737s (not just the Max) now have to be checked under an FAA directive.
Boeing needs to get their act together pdq. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12692612)
CNN article below has a bit more info.
"The company discovered the problem Friday, when Boeing was meeting with the parts supplier. Boeing employees noticed some of the parts were not heat treated, which led them to believe there might be a safety issue." Doesn't appear any airlines have had any issues. Heat Treatment is a vital part of the manufacturing process. It determines the structure, strength and stress of finished items and generally discolours the finished part. In this case that's apparently how it was uncovered. But the supplier needs to answer some serious questions and Boeing needs to be asking them and should buy the person who found the problem a pint. The last thing it needs is part of a wing falling off because yet another procedure wasn't followed correctly. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Looks like the software fix and pilot training recommendations have been submitted to various regulators.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...al-regulators/ "chief financial officer and executive vice president for strategy, said Boeing has turned over to the regulators its software fix for the 737 MAX flight-control system, as well as recommendations for additional pilot training and is now answering detailed technical questions from all corners of the globe every day." |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
American Airlines has adjusted their schedule to remove MAX aircraft now until September 3, previously they had removed MAX for their schedule until August 9. The schedule change will result in 115 daily flights being cancelled.
Southwest and United have not yet changed, and have MAX removed until August 3rd and 5th as previously announced. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...through-sept-3 |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
My AC flight to Montreal which has been rescheduled an hour earlier to a A320, is for August 8 so I guess AC are taking a similar approach.
I don't think it's going to work to get the 737 MAX back in service too early because there'll be a perception the Approval has been rushed and the plane may still not be safe. Not that I think it'll be safe anyway frankly but I'm a most nervous passenger. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
They have. MAX is off AC schedule until Sept 2 currently.
AC has also chartered at least one 767 from a US charter airline to help cover some if its needs.
Originally Posted by Snowy560
(Post 12695777)
My AC flight to Montreal which has been rescheduled an hour earlier to a A320, is for August 8 so I guess AC are taking a similar approach.
I don't think it's going to work to get the 737 MAX back in service too early because there'll be a perception the Approval has been rushed and the plane may still not be safe. Not that I think it'll be safe anyway frankly but I'm a most nervous passenger. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Our Air Canada 737 flights from Toronto to Shannon (July) were rerouted through Heathrow with a 1 hr 15 minute connection time. When I expressed concern that that might be enough time to transit through Immigration and was told that if I missed the flight I would have to rebook another flight at my cost. The next connection was 6 hours. I was then offered a connection via Gatwick. The agent had no idea about geography. I proposed Toronto to Dublin on the inward flight and Shannon via Heathrow on the return flight as it was a better connection. I was told no I couldn't do that because it would involve more than one airport! I asked to speak with a manager and was told that managers don't speak with customers. I could have booked initially Toronto to Dublin at a lesser cost but chose to pay more for a direct flight to Shannon. I was not impressed with Air Canada's customer service.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by thistlehollyberry
(Post 12695795)
Our Air Canada 737 flights from Toronto to Shannon (July) were rerouted through Heathrow with a 1 hr 15 minute connection time. When I expressed concern that that might be enough time to transit through Immigration and was told that if I missed the flight I would have to rebook another flight at my cost. The next connection was 6 hours. I was then offered a connection via Gatwick. The agent had no idea about geography. I proposed Toronto to Dublin on the inward flight and Shannon via Heathrow on the return flight as it was a better connection. I was told no I couldn't do that because it would involve more than one airport! I asked to speak with a manager and was told that managers don't speak with customers. I could have booked initially Toronto to Dublin at a lesser cost but chose to pay more for a direct flight to Shannon. I was not impressed with Air Canada's customer service.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 12695836)
AFAIK you don’t do immigration when transferring to another flight |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by thistlehollyberry
(Post 12695795)
Our Air Canada 737 flights from Toronto to Shannon (July) were rerouted through Heathrow with a 1 hr 15 minute connection time. When I expressed concern that that might be enough time to transit through Immigration and was told that if I missed the flight I would have to rebook another flight at my cost.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Gordon Barlow
(Post 12695846)
As far as I recall, if an airline books you with a short connection time it must honour the ticket. (If you miss the connection, they must carry you on the next flight with no charge.) That's always been my experience with BA, going through LHR to Norway. But maybe it applies only if it's the same airline on both legs. Or, they might have changed since the last time I flew that way four years ago. What's the story today?
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by thistlehollyberry
(Post 12695856)
I thought so too which is why I asked the question just to make sure. Agent told me if the flight was late they would rebook the next flight at no charge, if we missed connection because of passport control or security then it was at our cost. The connecting flight would be with Air Lingus. Trip Advisor suggests that 1 hour 15 minutes is not enough time as we would be going through Immigration as the next leg was a domestic flight. I was surprised since this was not something that was our fault but Air Canada's responsibility since we had made a booking for a direct flight and they changed changed it because of the 737 issue. Again, the agent did not seem to be sure of anything and she may have given us wrong information. She also was suggesting rebooking flight out of Gatwick instead of Heathrow which certainly would complicate matters even further. Annoyed because we could have booked Air Transat into Dublin at the time of initial booking at a cheaper rate.
The 737 issue is causing AC issues, they are really short aircraft this summer, and some routes simply cannot be flown due to lack of aircraft. Did you try calling back to get another agent? Sometimes with call centers its better to simply hang up and try again with another person. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by thistlehollyberry
(Post 12695795)
Our Air Canada 737 flights from Toronto to Shannon (July) were rerouted through Heathrow with a 1 hr 15 minute connection time. When I expressed concern that that might be enough time to transit through Immigration and was told that if I missed the flight I would have to rebook another flight at my cost. The next connection was 6 hours. I was then offered a connection via Gatwick. The agent had no idea about geography. I proposed Toronto to Dublin on the inward flight and Shannon via Heathrow on the return flight as it was a better connection. I was told no I couldn't do that because it would involve more than one airport! I asked to speak with a manager and was told that managers don't speak with customers. I could have booked initially Toronto to Dublin at a lesser cost but chose to pay more for a direct flight to Shannon. I was not impressed with Air Canada's customer service.
In this instance, you are being offered a routing via LHR because the direct Toronto-Shannon flight is suspended due to the MAX grounding. (As is my frequent route, St John's-London). AC are absolutely responsible for getting you onto another flight if you miss the connection, given that they are booking the whole thing for you. If I look at Toronto to Shannon flights today, it picks up AC848 to London and AC6917 a codeshare flight operated by Aer Lingus. The bolding is important. AC has a codeshare agreement with Aer Lingus so they are 100% responsible for getting you to destination in the event of a misconnect. If a call centre employee tells you different then they are wrong. Hang up and call again. The Heathrow connection tool indicates that this connection is possible but tight: https://www.heathrow.com/flight-conn...-JUL-2019/2/7E (I picked a random date in July). Both flights are from Terminal 2. In terms of offering alternative flights - you did the right thing in investigating alternatives and proposing them to the agent. Again, trying with a different agent might obtain better results. It is AC who have inconvenienced you through the MAX grounding (Although it's not their fault). HTH AX |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
[QUOTE=Atlantic Xpat;12696006]AC's customer service frequently fails to impress... :-)
The Heathrow connection tool indicates that this connection is possible but tight: https://www.heathrow.com/flight-conn...-JUL-2019/2/7E (I picked a random date in July). Both flights are from Terminal 2. .Thank you for this great reference tool. Previously we had a 3 hour connection in Heathrow - Shannon-Heathrow-Toronto so no incoming immigration involved. - we caught the flight with 10 minutes to spare even though flight was on time. For some reason with construction and security that morning nothing was moving so as you can appreciate I was a little gun-shy about a 1 hr 15 minute connection time with immigration thrown into the mix. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
In an ideal world we'd look at the MAX design, we'd consider the reasoning behind it's conception, we'd understand why it was built as it was and we'd throw the result into the bin and screw the lid on tightly so it would never see the light of day.
But it didn't happen, Boeing built and sold hundreds of these to greedy businesses and continues to give birth to over 40 every month to be parked in safe places awaiting their turn to serve a reluctant customer base. We live in the real world. These flawed mutant descendants of a successful dynasty should have been culled but who could be found to wield the knife? The truth of the matter is that, much like those undeserving banks of 2008, this spawn of Boeing is simply too financially shackled to the profit to be allowed to fail. Like the bereaved spouse of times past where a respectable time must have passed before a new spouse is taken, the MAX must serve it's time before being allowed back to join the ranks of wealth generating transports. So.. when all the dust has settled, will this black sheep be allowed back into the family? I suspect that the price of black wool will take some time to match that of the white and it may be that given time the black sheep mightyet be shuffled into retirement early if it's fleece fails to earn it's feed. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
American Airlines plans to have executives and management fly on MAX aircraft with crews once the ban is lifted before placing them back into revenue service as a way to boost confidence in passengers.
https://business.financialpost.com/t...box=1560372194 |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12697242)
American Airlines plans to have executives and management fly on MAX aircraft with crews once the ban is lifted before placing them back into revenue service as a way to boost confidence in passengers.
https://business.financialpost.com/t...box=1560372194 |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12697242)
American Airlines plans to have executives and management fly on MAX aircraft with crews once the ban is lifted before placing them back into revenue service as a way to boost confidence in passengers.
|
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by caretaker
(Post 12697606)
Reminded me of Y2K and the scare that air traffic control would fail and non-compliant on-board systems would make airplanes fall out of the sky; there was a rumour that the Chinese tech experts who told their leadership they had successfully protected against any mishap - were required to be airborne at midnight.
Those computers we were using were so old, from the early 80;s, original computers the airline put in when they opened the station in 1984 or so. Green or orange screen, and had to learn and memorize crazy entries to do things. If back in the day you ever wondered why check in agents typed so much, if only you could see the amount of entries that needed to be done to complete tasks. Nothing like the point and click of today. |
Re: Boeing 737 Max 8
Originally Posted by MidAtlantic
(Post 12697593)
What makes them think that would boost confidence? Seems like an act of desperation to me.
American, United, Westjet CEO's have all said they will be on their airlines first flight, AA seems to have gone further by saying executives will also be flying on training flights prior to the plane going back into service. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:40 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.