8 ms·

Is there a point at which it makes more sense for Boeing to cancel the MAX and start over with a new airframe? Personally I don’t love the idea of flying on on

Is there a point at which it makes more sense for Boeing to cancel the MAX and start over with a new airframe? Personally I don’t love the idea of flying on one of these at this point, no matter how many tweaks they make. I’m sure many others will feel the same. At what point is a new airframe the better PR move for all involved?

cmurf 7y ago
No it doesn't. No reason backed by facts available to the public for decertifying the airplane have arisen. The worst case scenario (for Boeing), at this point, is the FAA and/or other aviation regulators, decide that the differences require different type certification for the aircraft and therefore mandate a unique type rating by pilots to fly the plane. That would require they be trained about those differences.
- chvid 7y ago
  Would that not have all the companies that bought the MAX asuming that they would not have to retrain their pilots asking for some $$$ or even cancelling?
  - cmurf 7y ago
    I'm not sure I'm parsing this question correctly, but it sounds like a contracts question, and I'm not at all privy to the contract between any airline and Boeing, whether they have any contingency for this. The actual risk is complex, an airline with more capacity depending on the new model has more risk as they take on new planes and retire old ones, but does the contract reflect that complexity? I have no idea. For all I know, there's generic terms for handling all certification problems that crop up, including airworthiness directives from the FAA that affect A&P's rather than pilots. It might be the two sides split the cost 50/50 for all I know, or maybe they use binding arbitration to keep the airing of dirty laundry as much out of the public view as possible.
- salawat 7y ago
  If I may direct your attention to FAR 25.173... And https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the... There are more than enough reasons to reasonably decertify the aircraft. When you start doing things that "fly-in-the-face" of industry best practice, and begin requiring the most liberal interpretation possible of regulations as written, it's time to start dialing back what you're willing to let slide. Even with these "minor tweaks" to every fuselage, the airframe can reasonably be assumed to have further problems. As a for instance, what happens if a dual flameout in flight occurs? Does the Ram Air Turbine make enough power to run the Flight Control Computer and all it's dependencies to ensure the MCAS functionality stays intact until the plane can be safely touched down? If not, will there be simulator training so pilots are prepared? There is more than enough publicly available information to be cause for concern.
  - dunmalg 7y ago
    >As a for instance, what happens if a dual flameout in flight occurs? Does the Ram Air Turbine make enough power to run the Flight Control Computer and all it's dependencies to ensure the MCAS functionality stays intact until the plane can be safely touched down? Isn't MCAS a solution to address greater nose pitch-up due to stronger thrust vectoring effects from the new engines? In a dual engine flameout where all thrust is lost, doesn't thrust vectoring cease to be an issue?
    - salawat 7y ago
      It's not actually the thrust MCAS counters; that is counterable by elevator alone. MCAS counters extra lift generated by the nacelles shape and position at high Angle of Attack. No thrust is required to reproduce the aerodynamic effects MCAS is intended to counter. That's why this damn kludge of a system is so concerning. It's an active airworthyness hack to counter a passive aerodynamic characteristic of the airframe. So if a double flameout occurs, killing all power, and killing the Flight Control Computer due to unreliable voltage being supplied from the Ram Air Turbine, the pilots are stuck flying a glider that'll try to pitch into a stall on them if they aren't careful. Again, normally wouldn't worry about something like this, but they missed/intentionally left out the single AoA sensor... So...yeah... I have severe concerns about this design, and the effort put into known, unlikely, but highly severe failures.
Waterluvian 7y ago
I haven't done the napkin math but I'm going to guess scrapping 500 jets would bankrupt the company (or at least trigger a too big to fail bailout).
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  And the rest: "As of January 31, 2019, Boeing had 5,011 firm orders from 79 identified customers for the 737 MAX" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_... 4,500 orders (edit: potentially) cancelled, any thoughts what that would do to planned income?
  - ill737airbus 7y ago
    I'll raise you an Airbus for 4500 dollars from the South China seas my friend. Boing is going boing my compadres. Rip boing.
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  The PR fail with the 737 MAX might also bankrupt the company if no one wants to fly on them. I know what I would do as CEO facing those two dire futures.
  - lrem 7y ago
    What do you do if you don't want to fly a particular plane, but both direct connections for a trip you need to make are flying it?
    - mattlondon 7y ago
      Fly with a different airline? Don't fly at all? Take the train? I already use sites like seatguru.com to work out the best seats on flights - I guess I'll now be checking to see if it is a boeing plane or not before booking.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
JKCalhoun 7y ago
They've past that point in my book. I'll never fly the MAX. They should cut their losses.
- jhayward 7y ago
  You should probably not fly any 737, then, because it's had just as many bad, bad design flaws that killed people. Oh, and it's also the most successful commercial aircraft in history.
  - mantap 7y ago
    The 737 had those rudder issues but it didn't have the incompetent design of the 737 MAX.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      I'm not sure the plane loads of passengers killed would agree with your professional opinion of design competence. Edited to add: the rudder design was "new" to the industry, in that it had a single control surface activated by a single control mechanism with no redundancy (sound familiar?). The rudder control valve in question had been found to malfunction on 747-200's earlier and was replaced in the entire 747 fleet. The 737's were not replaced until after more fatalities. The point of all this is that there are "incompetence" narratives that can be woven around all major design issues in commercial aircraft. To say "I'll ever fly one" displays a lack of understanding of what makes commercial aviation the safest way to travel, and what the risks actually are.
      - mantap 7y ago
        The point is that the MAX design flaw is so shallow. It uses a single sensor. If the sensor malfunctions during flight, then the software instructs the aircraft to dive into the ground. No right-minded person would ever design a flight control system like that. It's not merely wrong but wrong in such a basic way, as if designed by a child. Such a situation reasonably makes people question whether the MAX project was managed by competent individuals, which is obviously a prerequisite for many people to fly in one.
ethbro 7y ago
> Personally I don’t love the idea of flying on one of these at this point, no matter how many tweaks they make. I’m sure many others will feel the same. I would rather fly on one of these once they're back in the air. The alternative to found and fixed issues is not a lack of issues.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  The fact that they found and fixed a handful of issues does not mean that the plane now has less issues than other planes...
  - cglace 7y ago
    The amount of scrutiny this plane is going to be under is insane. I think once it is back in the air we can rest assured the kinks have been worked out.
    - user5994461 7y ago
      Deep scrutiny only has moderate impact when it comes to finding and fixing bugs. An issue can be extremely difficult to identify and understand in the first place. Assuming you can find it anyway, the fix is very costly both in financial and political terms. All things considered, most problems just remain under the carpet. For a comparable case. Think of the unwanted acceleration in the Toyota car. A software bug that caused multiple deaths. Toyota didn't admit to having any bug. The first audit found glaring quality issues but no explanation for the unwanted acceleration. It's only few years later that another audit identified how to trigger it, well, 10 different ways to make it happen.
      - cglace 7y ago
        Reading through the Wikipedia page on the Toyota pedal issue it claims it was a physical problem.
        user5994461 7y ago
cadence- 7y ago
I’m with you on this. If they allow this plane to fly again, I’ll be actively avoiding it when booking my tickets. Even if that means much higher ticket prices. It would take many years of flawless service of this plane to change my mind.
WalterBright 7y ago
The 737 airframe is a well understood and well tested one. Designing a new airframe means a lot of unknowns.
HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
None. Bear in mind that most of the flying public aren't even aware that there's a problem, so the only issue is getting the airplane airworthy. PR is a "minor" issue that only affects the airlines and that segment of business travel that are aware of the problem. Don't forget that people forget stuff quickly because there's always something new to worry about. And for me, personally? If the corrected airplane is deemed airworthy by the appropriate regulatory bodies, I'll have no problem flying on it.
- nexuist 7y ago
  >If the corrected airplane is deemed airworthy by the appropriate regulatory bodies, I'll have no problem flying on it. I disagree, and I think this is really what makes the situation a far larger issue within the aviation community. It was approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies despite the serious failures by Boeing engineers and managers to identify and correct the MCAS problems before it was deployed into the field. It's not a case of some crazy fluke that nobody knew was going to happen. This was a single sensor (aka a single point of failure) on a system that could nosedive a commercial airliner against the will of any human on or off board. You could ask anyone: "Is it a good idea to put a sensor on this plane that, if it malfunctions, will force the yoke forward and cause the plane to crash?" Not a single soul alive would think it is. The fact that the FAA had the opportunity to tell Boeing to GTFO with this insane decision but didn't makes them a political body (i.e. pay for play, they wanted Boeing to generate 737 MAX sales even if it killed people) at worst and incompetent (they genuinely didn't realize the MCAS had problems) at best. The FAA has, so far, miraculously avoided political controversies throughout its history and has always been regarded as a reputable, trustworthy body that deserves the privilege to regulate airways both in and out of U.S. territory. Losing their reputation could hurt air travel safety for decades to come.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
    You disagree that I'll have no problem flying on it ;-) Look, I haven't worked in aviation electronics, but I have worked in another Federally regulated industry for a long time. Having "seen the sausage being made" as it were, none of this 737-MAX shenanigans surprises me. Perhaps that informs my opinions!

cmurf 7y ago

No it doesn't. No reason backed by facts available to the public for decertifying the airplane have arisen. The worst case scenario (for Boeing), at this point, is the FAA and/or other aviation regulators, decide that the differences require different type certification for the aircraft and therefore mandate a unique type rating by pilots to fly the plane. That would require they be trained about those differences.

chvid 7y ago
Would that not have all the companies that bought the MAX asuming that they would not have to retrain their pilots asking for some $$$ or even cancelling?
- cmurf 7y ago
  I'm not sure I'm parsing this question correctly, but it sounds like a contracts question, and I'm not at all privy to the contract between any airline and Boeing, whether they have any contingency for this. The actual risk is complex, an airline with more capacity depending on the new model has more risk as they take on new planes and retire old ones, but does the contract reflect that complexity? I have no idea. For all I know, there's generic terms for handling all certification problems that crop up, including airworthiness directives from the FAA that affect A&P's rather than pilots. It might be the two sides split the cost 50/50 for all I know, or maybe they use binding arbitration to keep the airing of dirty laundry as much out of the public view as possible.
salawat 7y ago
If I may direct your attention to FAR 25.173... And https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the... There are more than enough reasons to reasonably decertify the aircraft. When you start doing things that "fly-in-the-face" of industry best practice, and begin requiring the most liberal interpretation possible of regulations as written, it's time to start dialing back what you're willing to let slide. Even with these "minor tweaks" to every fuselage, the airframe can reasonably be assumed to have further problems. As a for instance, what happens if a dual flameout in flight occurs? Does the Ram Air Turbine make enough power to run the Flight Control Computer and all it's dependencies to ensure the MCAS functionality stays intact until the plane can be safely touched down? If not, will there be simulator training so pilots are prepared? There is more than enough publicly available information to be cause for concern.
- dunmalg 7y ago
  >As a for instance, what happens if a dual flameout in flight occurs? Does the Ram Air Turbine make enough power to run the Flight Control Computer and all it's dependencies to ensure the MCAS functionality stays intact until the plane can be safely touched down? Isn't MCAS a solution to address greater nose pitch-up due to stronger thrust vectoring effects from the new engines? In a dual engine flameout where all thrust is lost, doesn't thrust vectoring cease to be an issue?
  - salawat 7y ago
    It's not actually the thrust MCAS counters; that is counterable by elevator alone. MCAS counters extra lift generated by the nacelles shape and position at high Angle of Attack. No thrust is required to reproduce the aerodynamic effects MCAS is intended to counter. That's why this damn kludge of a system is so concerning. It's an active airworthyness hack to counter a passive aerodynamic characteristic of the airframe. So if a double flameout occurs, killing all power, and killing the Flight Control Computer due to unreliable voltage being supplied from the Ram Air Turbine, the pilots are stuck flying a glider that'll try to pitch into a stall on them if they aren't careful. Again, normally wouldn't worry about something like this, but they missed/intentionally left out the single AoA sensor... So...yeah... I have severe concerns about this design, and the effort put into known, unlikely, but highly severe failures.

Waterluvian 7y ago

I haven't done the napkin math but I'm going to guess scrapping 500 jets would bankrupt the company (or at least trigger a too big to fail bailout).

tempguy9999 7y ago
And the rest: "As of January 31, 2019, Boeing had 5,011 firm orders from 79 identified customers for the 737 MAX" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_... 4,500 orders (edit: potentially) cancelled, any thoughts what that would do to planned income?
- ill737airbus 7y ago
  I'll raise you an Airbus for 4500 dollars from the South China seas my friend. Boing is going boing my compadres. Rip boing.
JKCalhoun 7y ago
The PR fail with the 737 MAX might also bankrupt the company if no one wants to fly on them. I know what I would do as CEO facing those two dire futures.
- lrem 7y ago
  What do you do if you don't want to fly a particular plane, but both direct connections for a trip you need to make are flying it?
  - mattlondon 7y ago
    Fly with a different airline? Don't fly at all? Take the train? I already use sites like seatguru.com to work out the best seats on flights - I guess I'll now be checking to see if it is a boeing plane or not before booking.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

JKCalhoun 7y ago

They've past that point in my book. I'll never fly the MAX. They should cut their losses.

jhayward 7y ago
You should probably not fly any 737, then, because it's had just as many bad, bad design flaws that killed people. Oh, and it's also the most successful commercial aircraft in history.
- mantap 7y ago
  The 737 had those rudder issues but it didn't have the incompetent design of the 737 MAX.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    I'm not sure the plane loads of passengers killed would agree with your professional opinion of design competence. Edited to add: the rudder design was "new" to the industry, in that it had a single control surface activated by a single control mechanism with no redundancy (sound familiar?). The rudder control valve in question had been found to malfunction on 747-200's earlier and was replaced in the entire 747 fleet. The 737's were not replaced until after more fatalities. The point of all this is that there are "incompetence" narratives that can be woven around all major design issues in commercial aircraft. To say "I'll ever fly one" displays a lack of understanding of what makes commercial aviation the safest way to travel, and what the risks actually are.
    - mantap 7y ago
      The point is that the MAX design flaw is so shallow. It uses a single sensor. If the sensor malfunctions during flight, then the software instructs the aircraft to dive into the ground. No right-minded person would ever design a flight control system like that. It's not merely wrong but wrong in such a basic way, as if designed by a child. Such a situation reasonably makes people question whether the MAX project was managed by competent individuals, which is obviously a prerequisite for many people to fly in one.

ethbro 7y ago

> Personally I don’t love the idea of flying on one of these at this point, no matter how many tweaks they make. I’m sure many others will feel the same. I would rather fly on one of these once they're back in the air. The alternative to found and fixed issues is not a lack of issues.

jakobegger 7y ago
The fact that they found and fixed a handful of issues does not mean that the plane now has less issues than other planes...
- cglace 7y ago
  The amount of scrutiny this plane is going to be under is insane. I think once it is back in the air we can rest assured the kinks have been worked out.
  - user5994461 7y ago
    Deep scrutiny only has moderate impact when it comes to finding and fixing bugs. An issue can be extremely difficult to identify and understand in the first place. Assuming you can find it anyway, the fix is very costly both in financial and political terms. All things considered, most problems just remain under the carpet. For a comparable case. Think of the unwanted acceleration in the Toyota car. A software bug that caused multiple deaths. Toyota didn't admit to having any bug. The first audit found glaring quality issues but no explanation for the unwanted acceleration. It's only few years later that another audit identified how to trigger it, well, 10 different ways to make it happen.
    - cglace 7y ago
      Reading through the Wikipedia page on the Toyota pedal issue it claims it was a physical problem.
      - user5994461 7y ago

cadence- 7y ago

I’m with you on this. If they allow this plane to fly again, I’ll be actively avoiding it when booking my tickets. Even if that means much higher ticket prices. It would take many years of flawless service of this plane to change my mind.

WalterBright 7y ago

The 737 airframe is a well understood and well tested one. Designing a new airframe means a lot of unknowns.

HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago

None. Bear in mind that most of the flying public aren't even aware that there's a problem, so the only issue is getting the airplane airworthy. PR is a "minor" issue that only affects the airlines and that segment of business travel that are aware of the problem. Don't forget that people forget stuff quickly because there's always something new to worry about. And for me, personally? If the corrected airplane is deemed airworthy by the appropriate regulatory bodies, I'll have no problem flying on it.

nexuist 7y ago
>If the corrected airplane is deemed airworthy by the appropriate regulatory bodies, I'll have no problem flying on it. I disagree, and I think this is really what makes the situation a far larger issue within the aviation community. It was approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies despite the serious failures by Boeing engineers and managers to identify and correct the MCAS problems before it was deployed into the field. It's not a case of some crazy fluke that nobody knew was going to happen. This was a single sensor (aka a single point of failure) on a system that could nosedive a commercial airliner against the will of any human on or off board. You could ask anyone: "Is it a good idea to put a sensor on this plane that, if it malfunctions, will force the yoke forward and cause the plane to crash?" Not a single soul alive would think it is. The fact that the FAA had the opportunity to tell Boeing to GTFO with this insane decision but didn't makes them a political body (i.e. pay for play, they wanted Boeing to generate 737 MAX sales even if it killed people) at worst and incompetent (they genuinely didn't realize the MCAS had problems) at best. The FAA has, so far, miraculously avoided political controversies throughout its history and has always been regarded as a reputable, trustworthy body that deserves the privilege to regulate airways both in and out of U.S. territory. Losing their reputation could hurt air travel safety for decades to come.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
  You disagree that I'll have no problem flying on it ;-) Look, I haven't worked in aviation electronics, but I have worked in another Federally regulated industry for a long time. Having "seen the sausage being made" as it were, none of this 737-MAX shenanigans surprises me. Perhaps that informs my opinions!