Ethiopian 737-8 MAX down. No survivors.

With the motor in the back some kind of asssit at the wheel would help I imagine, but as you said more complexity to the situation. A box of wheeties to each pilot is easier.

 

Was just thinking about this more .....
The wheel and cable system from the cockpit to the jackscrew in the tail is designed based on FAA regulations regarding min and max pilot effort. Thus the cables (braided steel wire) and associated brackets and pulleys are all designed around the resulting system forces due to the applied pilot effort. Adding a motor at the wheel that could provide more input force than the current manual pilot effort would result in a re-design of the entire system. Motor at the wheel would also need to have ability to be back-driven by existing FCS motor at the actuator. Basically you start going down a big rabbit hole, although the MCAS system was its own rabbit hole by scabbing onto a system where it was not part of the original design.

 

Yes I see where this would be going.

Oh well, seemed like a good idea. I'll stick to building houses.

 

Just delete the MCAS code and let the trim switches control the motor. I'm not sure why they continue to overthink this. Maybe it is hubris "that deleting the code is admission of guilt".....they passed that mark two crashes and 400+ dead passengers ago. Delete the code and the runaway trim problem goes away. Sure....as a "safety program" it won't force the nose down but haven't we already established that is a bad idea?

 

Unfortunately for Boeing, the MCAS is only there to allow the 737 Max to satisfy FAA control loading requirements in one specific corner of the flight envelope. Remove the code and the aircraft will either fail certification completely or fail to be considered a 737 variant ....either would be disastrous for sales.
All the software trickery is only there to compensate for the difficulty of mating modern large diameter engines onto an airframe with short undercarriage legs. I feel that in its previous iteration the 737 had reached the natural end of its development and should have been replaced with a clean sheet design. Maybe Boeing is thinking the same now.....

 

Probably unfair but here it is...

Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

 

All companies do that, including Ferrari and yours I bet. Not a good thing, but to be competitive Boeing is forced to do it, but not to the degree Bloomberg would make you think.

 

All in the name of the relentless pursuit of profits.... even after the lost revenue from grounding the planes until they get a firmware update, and paying out the inevitable lawsuits Boeing'll still be in the black, right?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/boeing-earnings-q4-2018.html

4.2 Billion in earnings for the last 3 months of 2018. Nice war chest.

 

French consulting firm Archery Strategy Consulting, that I never heard of until today...and can't say if they are serious or not...said yesterday that they believe the "737 Max" might well not return to the skies before 2020, and they believe that the final cost for Boeing might be "above 10 billion". They are quoted by most of the press this morning (sorry if the example is in french)

https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/aeronautique/737-max-l-addition-pourrait-depasser-les-10-milliards_661824

Rgds

 

Once the grounding is lifted, how long will it take to deliver all of the aircraft that were completed and stores during the grounding?

I assume there are test flights and such for each aircraft. Will it take a long time to work that backlog?

 

A bunch of friends and family members work for Air Canada. They are expecting no earlier than xmas, with the contingency plans covering until at least next February.

You're 100% correct, each stored aircraft will need recommissioning checks (think fluids, consumables, etc), test flightS (plural), and every pilot will need competency checks (and likely retraining). I'm sure plenty of notice will be given, but it will still take at least a few weeks to clear all the backlog. We've seen a couple moving around under ferry permits.

I expect the biggest challenge after re-certification will be convincing the public that it's safe again. I don't think any aircraft has ever faced that kind of scrutiny before (DC10 probably comes closest).

 

First order cancellation by "Fly a deal" form Saudi Arabia: 30 confirmed and 30 options cancelled.
And no...I might be French, but I'm not necessarly an Airbus fan, so I'm not rejoicing in this; I like flying in Boeings, especially the "Triple 7"; will do again in two weeks...loved the 727 also, Air Inter/Air France kept some flying for the flights to Corsica well into the nineties, to my great pleasure. Was disappointed when they replaced these with A320s.
I'm just interested in the facts, and the way the "Max" situation is handled.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48899588

Rgds

 

If Boeing had continued to do things the way they were done on the 777 and 727 there would be no problems now. I'm toying with writing my experiences on how each program on which I worked (all but the 737) had their own faces depending on their times of beginning. The best of all was the 777.

 

I think they paid too much attention to Southwest. Too many compromises to keep them happy.

 

Like cancelling the 757 in favor of revising the 737 one too-many times...

 

Your long-awaited sequel, Bob?

 

I flew on a Delta 757 yesterday...I love that thing. So nice being able to board and not having to walk past 2 dozen rows to sit in row 24...only was about 8 rows past the door.

 

The Dreamliner is an awesome airplane. No one has anything as innovative and user friendly to the passengers.

 

I don't know if anybody is waiting for a sequel but I have a never ending image of the differences in the programs on which I worked and how they affected the company. All were successful but every one of them required a base of hard work and quality. No work-around gimmicks or " creative business plans".

 

Headquarters in Chicago, lots of MBA's and Lawyers, youre going to get lots of work around gimicks and creative buisness plans.

However a visionary of the type that built boeing post ww2 would see very clearly that regardless of how smoothly the best case for the 737 mnax goes forwards, the 737 brand and Boeing are tarnished. Fine in an enviroment where the only alternative is sold out near forver, but those conditions can and do change fast.

What Boeing needs is a new plane in this category, something that makes people and airlines notice that this is a leading companay and leading into the future. Otherwise a decade from now Boeing witll be in serious crap.

lets not forget that before jets Douglass was the airliner leader. lets not forget that the Electra even once fixed never recovered. Today Boeing has seriosu competition, and this comes from a company that no one took too seriously 30 yeras ago. A company that saw the future was twins, a compnay that designed for cargo pallets, a company that is seriously still growing and at least as big as boeing, a comnpany that swooped in and bought he bombardier program for peanuts.
However Airbus is only halfway though the A320 program, theyre not about to design a new plane. Boeing can and must, esp as this class of aircraft is the 30 year future..

 

The 737 has had serious issues in the past and survived, even thrived. Was very surprised the model was able to get past the rudder actuator issue. More than a couple significant incidents and crashes involving over 150 fatalities and yet it was never grounded nor restricted. After the CO Springs crash I was apprehensive to fly on the plane. But they corrected the issue, and since then the model has indeed been a best seller. So never say never.

 

The move to Chicago was the dumbest move ever and started the subtle downward slide of the company's character where it has become a two-headed beast where one head continually blunts the good work of the other. Now, it is obvious that a subsurface transformation has reared its ugly head with disastrous results. I'm not alone in my thinking that Boeing is suffering from DD....Douglas Disease. The way things changed after Douglas moved in is very evident in the approach of new programs and skimping money first and engineering second. Boeing has got to return to the old ways that made it a great company. Solid engineering first, well trained mechanics, strict Quality Control, stable and controlled business plans that eliminate the pie in the sky whizzbang "cost cutting magic" that has now cost this company billions. Choke collars should be put on the magic thinkers and bean counters that have led the company down a slippery slope.
I'm not terribly smart when it comes to strategic analysis and all that like some of you are but I put in 45 years working for a company that ran a taught ship and had one objective...to build that best airplanes that could be produced. I sure don't see that now.

 

But this time it was grounded and is a global scandal. This time Airbus has its game on. You can also only stretch piece of gum so far. Yes they can put articulated landing gear on it and raise the height for even bigger engines, but that again is another work around. Yes the public will forget, or no one will care or really know what plane theyre getting on anyway. But that strategy just leads to a continual erosion of Boeing in the most profitable and most volume part of the market.

True airleiners are tubes with wings and tails attached, and the 737 tube is adequate and the wings and tails work. So maybe a new plane is not such a huge efficiency leap. But perception is everything, as is leadership.. Detroit big 3 lost out while other lead and invoated, they used to own that 70% of their market.

Airbus intialy lost out with the A320 because it was more expensive to produce and less fuel efficient, but the a320 had intirnsic growth in its bones the 737 cannot match and now Airbus is in the pound seat. The long range transatlantic A320 going into production has no competitor, and who'l buy and even more stretched 737 after this.

 

This is simply a fantastic post and says it all.

 

I should clarify my statement about is being done at the Kite Factory. The engineering staff in PD is one of the best in the world, the engineering in the project (production) side are an unknown factor to me now since so many gray beards are gone and took vast amounts of skill, knowledge, years of experience, and most important, their dedication to their job and good character. These two disciplines produce outstanding work , the best in the world. BUT it is squandered when the business combines get their hand on it and work hard to figure work-arounds, cost cuts, and worst of all, off loading production contracts to unvetted and unskilled "partners." The 787 debacle was a wake up call that I don't think has awakened everybody in Chicago yet. The big domes back there have found another cost cutting idea. To get rid of Quality Control. I'm willing to bet that the Einstein that figured this out has never been near the production floor or involved in the complicated processes of putting a Big Tin or Plastic bird together. Obviously he hasn't read the reports of finding tools and debris in the closed compartments of some of the airplanes on the line and in those that have been delivered. From my experience years back, there would be no yelling or mean talk about this kind thing. There would have been swift changes and removals (not just the tools or debris) and a strict tightening of operations FROM THE TOP DOWN.