Don't fly on a 737-MAX

TimmyO

Danny1969 said:

Kittyfrisk said:

stickyfiddle said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

If I were a passenger, I'd want to be sure that regular routine checks were being carried out. 
There should be a comprehensive risk assessment detailing the maintenance tasks & frequency to be carried out, but I wouldn't know what the detail of that would be.

There is a list of operators who aren't allowed into the UK airspace because they don't have the required service and maintenance records or there's some other issues related to safety. So if you are abroad and taking a flight then it's worth checking the list before you get on a plane operated by a company you aren't familiar with. 

https://www.caa.co.uk/media/5fwfpd4s/uk-air-safety-list-31-may-2023.pdf


All planes have detailed regular service procedures, many essential after so many flight hours but some optional at the operators discretion. This can be anything from greasing a bearing to completely removing all the engines and replacing all the internal parts of the jet turbine. 

Sometimes operators try to cut corners. One decided to use a forklift to support an engine while the main engine mount was replaced ... this led to the area of the wing where the engine mounts being damaged and the engine falling off not long after takeoff. 
Ground staff in Canada got their litres and gallons mixed up once ... resulting in a plane taking off with only a quarter of the fuel it needed for the journey ... so it ran out and by sheer luck the pilot was a skilled glider operator and managed to keep the thing in the air long enough for a safe landing. 

In Australia ground staff let a plane take off with the pitot tube covers still on (they use them there because insects nest in them otherwise. This led to no airspeed indicators and very nearly the loss of the plane and all it's passengers in the ocean. 

The covers have massive dangling red signs saying "remove before flight"

Flying isn't as safe as people think it is. It is statistically safe but there's a lot more close shaves than people are aware off. 

If an aircraft takes off without enough fuel or with ground equipment attached there is only one person accountable and they sit in the front left seat. 

DuploLicks

TimmyO said:

If an aircraft takes off without enough fuel or with ground equipment attached there is only one person accountable and they sit in the front left seat. 

My wife?

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

*Checks Flight Radar to see what plane my flight to Turkey in March will use*  Phew, it's an Airbus - think I'm OK!

Scary stuff though, great to hear no-one was injured or worse.

CavemanGrogg

danishbacon said:

FAA has now grounded over 100 max

Not surprised given the model's history.  As somebody who has followed this model since it's release - not through an interest in airplanes rather through an interest in the financial implications and reactions to the model and it's ''performance'',I'm extremely surprised that;

1, Boeing elected to continue with the 737 Max, instead of scrapping it and starting from scratch

2, The FAA allowed Boeing to continue with the 737 Max, rather than forcing them to retire the design

I would honestly be shocked if Boeing didn't have orders cancelled because of this, and I'm willing to bet pounds to pennies that everybody who is currently flying these planes, or have an order in for these planes right now, are clenching their cheeks so tightly right now that they are following and scrutinising not just Boeing and the 737 Max, but also the FAA given the history of the 737 Max, and the fiasco with the FAA to get the 737 Max certified.

victorludorum

elstoof said:

The airline web page will tell you the plane model for the route you’re booking, right around the point it asks you to select your seats. You can also check the flight number in flightradar24 and see the equipment used for the last 7 days

Planes do get changed though when there's maintenance issue, or in my case recently when Easyjet had to hire a plane and crew  from a 3rd party company for some reason or other (plain white plane and crew wearing neutral dark blue uniforms).

menamestom

Was just looking if Ryan Air have these Aircraft and they do.  I’m flying to Spain at the start of Feb.  Fortunately Ryan air don’t have this deactivated exit, they have full emergency exits in these positions.  

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-737-alaska-airlines-window-b2474265.html


Interestingly Ryan air have a big order with Boeing for more 737-MAX aircraft, but have been threatening to pull out of the contract due to late deliver forecasts.  This pressure can’t be helping Boeing who are probably doing everything they can to get order times down.
Personally I’d rather fly in an older plane than a brand new one.

https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-considering-canceling-boeing-737-max-order/

Chalky

The 737 Max is an INTENTIONALLY bodged design intended to cheat the Pilot Type Rating system.  What could possibly go wrong?

darthed1981

Some companies are just too big to fail...

Boeing - hold my beer...

You can imagine the discussion...

"The 737-Max has so many design flaws we had to check nobody who worked on it designed the Austin Allegro..."

"Well, we need to develop a new small airliner from scratch..."

"That will take 5-10 years to get to market, in which time we will give that entire market to Airbus..."

"Oh... well let's keep pushing to keep our shit planes flying then..."

Very different but I remember the desperation to keep building anti-sub aircraft in the UK was so extreme they rebuilt the 50-year old Nimrods AGAIN to try and make the MRA4... and aircraft so dreadful that in hindsight the fact anyone thought it was a good idea seems incredible.

The fact Boeing are going "Yes, it's still a 737, you don't need to re-qualify your pilots" to airlines all over the world who promptly lose a load of them to pilots not knowing how they work properly... and they are still pushing forwards, shows just how much clout Boeing have.

Deadman

Nimrod. Bitter sweet that it took the 2006 incident for people to sit up and realise the MAA was required. I’m very glad it did too, the regulatory article framework is pretty robust if, like most things in life, followed correctly.

Haych

A few years ago I watched a documentary on flight safety and if you believe the conclusion then commercial aviation is literally a money driven industry in that decisions on safety are made on a cost basis.

I.E., what will it cost to implement this safety device/technology/procedure/regime against what will it cost to compensate families of passengers who die if we don't.

If I recall correctly the program was something to do with Doppler weather radar at certain airports and the knock on cost it would bring to the airlines if implemented at airports that arguably need it.

It was suggested that an airline is more likely to spend money on in flight entertainment than adding the latest a greatest safety equipment - one will cost a lot more and won't attract nearly the same number of paying passengers.  The program stated that the cost for paying out after an accident is often far lower so the safety aspect is ignored as an accepted risk.

Quite a sobering thought that your safety is worth less than the chunk of cash they'd have to give to your loved ones if they kill you.

That program was aired a while ago (although not decades ago), maybe the industry has changed since then.  I'd certainly like to think so.

darthed1981

That is pretty much a standard accusation at any industry where safety is a concern, automotive for example, where it was even a joke in Fight Club, and to be fair, a $7bn award was once made to the victims of unsafe fuel tanks.

There must be a significant element of truth to it in any industry.  The problem is that there is ultimately nobody in power in a big business whose main job is being moral.  CEO is responsible to the board who expect him to hit money-making targets, board is responsible to shareholders who want dividends.  There is no basis in big-business for anyone to say "actually, we need to lose a few billion here, but it might well save lives..."

It's why regulators are so important and why Boeing being so tight with the FAA is a big problem.

Haych

darthed1981 said:

That is pretty much a standard accusation at any industry where safety is a concern, automotive for example, where it was even a joke in Fight Club, and to be fair, a $7bn award was once made to the victims of unsafe fuel tanks.

There must be a significant element of truth to it in any industry.  The problem is that there is ultimately nobody in power in a big business whose main job is being moral.  CEO is responsible to the board who expect him to hit money-making targets, board is responsible to shareholders who want dividends.  There is no basis in big-business for anyone to say "actually, we need to lose a few billion here, but it might well save lives..."

It's why regulators are so important and why Boeing being so tight with the FAA is a big problem.

I totally get that, but I suppose once I was young and naive and just expected that aviation would be such a tight industry to find a safety loophole to poke a sewing needle through.  It seems if you have enough money you could drive a bus through a lot of them!

JezWynd

menamestom said:

Was just looking if Ryan Air have these Aircraft and they do.  I’m flying to Spain at the start of Feb.  Fortunately Ryan air don’t have this deactivated exit, they have full emergency exits in these positions.  

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-737-alaska-airlines-window-b2474265.html


Interestingly Ryan air have a big order with Boeing for more 737-MAX aircraft, but have been threatening to pull out of the contract due to late deliver forecasts.  This pressure can’t be helping Boeing who are probably doing everything they can to get order times down.
Personally I’d rather fly in an older plane than a brand new one.

https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-considering-canceling-boeing-737-max-order/

Just the kind of thinking that put them in this mess.

ICBM

darthed1981 said:

You can imagine the discussion...

"The 737-Max has so many design flaws we had to check nobody who worked on it designed the Austin Allegro..."

"Well, we need to develop a new small airliner from scratch..."

"That will take 5-10 years to get to market, in which time we will give that entire market to Airbus..."

"Oh... well let's keep pushing to keep our shit planes flying then..."

Very different but I remember the desperation to keep building anti-sub aircraft in the UK was so extreme they rebuilt the 50-year old Nimrods AGAIN to try and make the MRA4... and aircraft so dreadful that in hindsight the fact anyone thought it was a good idea seems incredible.

The fact Boeing are going "Yes, it's still a 737, you don't need to re-qualify your pilots" to airlines all over the world who promptly lose a load of them to pilots not knowing how they work properly... and they are still pushing forwards, shows just how much clout Boeing have.

The irony is that Boeing already had the ideal aircraft to compete with the Airbus A321 - an efficient, long-range, large narrowbody - the 757, a design 15 years younger than the 737, which with some upgrades would have been a better choice than the re-re-heated 737MAX... but they stopped production in 2004. I think they've started looking into it again - the 757-Plus.

Grangousier

Talking to my wife about this earlier - it's something she pays a lot more attention to than me - she said that basically McDonnell-Douglas was destroyed by its accounting division cutting everything in pursuit of more profits, then when Boeing bought them the same people went on to do the same thing to them. Is that the case? It satisfies my anti-corporate, anti-financialised capitalism bias so I may choose to believe it anyway. 

euan

Yes that was part of the 737 Max documentary. 

m_c

Boeing's problem is Pilot training.
The key selling point of the 737 was that you don't need to re-train pilots. If they could fly the original 737 from the 60s, they only needed minor update training.

However the 737 NG (the predecessor to the MAX) was getting hammered on efficiency by the Airbus equivalent offerings, as Airbus had actually made the investment in a newer designs that could actually work with the newer larger engines, so airlines were looking elsewhere.
Boeings solution was to play with the engine mounts to squeeze the engines on, which led to the software changes to make the plane flyable, but glossed over that fundamental change to avoid re-certification and pilot training, which ultimately resulted in the two crashes.
One of the major purchasers of the MAX had explicitly specified in their contract that the MAX would require no additional training to fly, so there was big financial pressure to avoid mandatory training.


Boeing could have started designing a new airframe years ago, but they knew it would likely hand a good number of their customers to Airbus. If customers are going to have to retrain their pilots, then why would they buy a new unproven aircraft?

Chalky

m_c said:

Boeing's problem is Pilot training.
The key selling point of the 737 was that you don't need to re-train pilots. If they could fly the original 737 from the 60s, they only needed minor update training.

However the 737 NG (the predecessor to the MAX) was getting hammered on efficiency by the Airbus equivalent offerings, as Airbus had actually made the investment in a newer designs that could actually work with the newer larger engines, so airlines were looking elsewhere.
Boeings solution was to play with the engine mounts to squeeze the engines on, which led to the software changes to make the plane flyable, but glossed over that fundamental change to avoid re-certification and pilot training, which ultimately resulted in the two crashes.
One of the major purchasers of the MAX had explicitly specified in their contract that the MAX would require no additional training to fly, so there was big financial pressure to avoid mandatory training.


Boeing could have started designing a new airframe years ago, but they knew it would likely hand a good number of their customers to Airbus. If customers are going to have to retrain their pilots, then why would they buy a new unproven aircraft?

That's not quite right.  Reports that I read said the experienced Boeing designers knew from the start that the larger engine thrust would alter the flight characteristics sufficiently to cause a new type rating.  They were overruled and some of the older ones decided to step away and retire.  The MCAS was an intentional bodge solution, developed very quickly with negative design review comments largely overriden to achieve deadlines.  This is a key point that MCAS was not an original design component, and its implementation contributed nothing to the aircrafts efficiency or safety (it was also a mechanical change, not just software).  It was purely to cheat the type rating process.

PS Trim runaway/adjustment errors have caused so many crashes even in light aircraft that some say they don't believe that any experienced Boeing designer actually proposed it.

Kittyfrisk

Not claiming particular relevance but I found this interesting  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47553174

Musical_Mystery_Tour

menamestom said:

Was just looking if Ryan Air have these Aircraft and they do.  I’m flying to Spain at the start of Feb.  Fortunately Ryan air don’t have this deactivated exit, they have full emergency exits in these positions. 

In fact, Ryanair don't  operate the aircraft variant which was involved in this incident; which was a 737-9. The 737 variants Ryanair operate are the 737-700 NG, the 737-800 NG, the 737-8 (MAX), and they have ordered the 737-10 (MAX). They also operate some Airbus A320s in the guise of Lauda, of which they are the parent company.

Ryanair is actually the largest operator of the MAX by some margin. As such, it was they which - at the height of the bad publicity following the two crashes and the grounding of the new MAX type - were instrumental in making Boeing stop featuring the word 'MAX' on the side of the new type, instead referring to it as the 737-8.

Because Ryanair use the 737's built in airstairs to board, so they save money on not using the airbridges at airports, they didn't want passengers walking up to the aeroplane type and seeing the word MAX on the side of it. Most passengers wouldn't know, when boarding a 737 MAX, that the winglet type, the serrated rear of the engine cowlings and their larger diameter with different fan blades, are all identifying features for a MAX, so this is not a big deal, but the word MAX on the side of it would be inescapable to even the least plane-spotterish passenger.

Boeing management was reluctant to rename the type to another actual name other than MAX (previous variants are referred to as originals, classics and next generation), since that would have amounted to an acknowledgement that things were really bad in public perception terms. Such an outright admission would have put their jobs at risk, but because Ryanair threatened to cancel its order and swap to the A320 which probably would have sunk Boeing altogeher, they sort of blagged it a bit and adopted the same nomenclature used for the newest variant of the Boeing 747, which had previously used the sequential model names 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400, but then switched to 747-8 for the new model, so dropping the name MAX for the most part was able to be made to look like an already planned decision.

It's not the first time a big customer has influenced what Boeing has done with the 737. Back when the first 737 variant came out, a large US airline which had been a big customer for the type threatened to buy the BAC 1-11 instead of the new version of the 737. This was because Boeing had made their new 737 variant a bit longer and so it was planned to give it a taller tail fin to maintain stability. The airline in question said that havig a taller tail would mean it would not fit in all their newly constructed hangars and so they would instead buy the 1-11,. On hearing this and at risk of losing its biggest customer, Boeing offered to redesign the tailfin by keeping it the same height and instead adding a dorsal extension fillet to the front of it, which they had done years before to the later variants of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bomber, so they knew ths was a comparatively easy redesign fix.

Thus when you look at the Boeing 737 version apart from the first one and see the fillet in front of its tail fin, now you know why that is there.