6 ms·

US regulators to examine Boeing 737 Max production

94 points by dlcmh 4y ago

throwaway4good 4y ago
Examine what production? Surely no-one is buying this airplane any more ...
- bdlowery 4y ago
  I’ve flown on the Max at least 10 times now. They’re being used everywhere around the globe daily, and they’re being produce too.
- throwaway4good 4y ago
  Why would anyone buy the Boeing 737 max when they can buy the Airbus A320neo for about the same price? Even the Chinese are giving up on Boeing even though they were supposed to be forced to buy them per the Trump phase 1 trade deal.
  - SEMW 4y ago
    Many possible reasons. Eg Ryanair operates a completely uniform fleet, 100% 737s, and their current operating model relies on all of their pilots and crew being able to operate whatever aircraft is available. Adding a few airbuses means a split fleet, causing significant logistical and training costs. And their customers are evidently happy to prioritize flight cost over their aversion to the 737max, so why would they switch? Also, an aircraft being on the market doesn't mean you can actually order one and get it anytime soon. Airbus has like a 10-year backlog for A32x deliveries.
    - rob74 4y ago
      ...and just to make sure that any possible aversion is, er, averted, they have renamed their 737 MAX to "737-8200" (and rely on journalists publishing press releases without research to improve its reception: https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-ryanairs-737-aircrafts-7148066 https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-...).
      - GekkePrutser 4y ago
        That was always the model designation though, 737-MAX is just branding. And 8200 is just one of its specific versions. For example the 737-NG was called 737-600 through 737-900 (different versions) They did indeed drop the MAX branding and replaced it with the numeric designation because MAX got a bad name after their screwup. But they didn't invent the new name, it was always there.
    - agsnu 4y ago
      I don't understand why anyone would fly Ryanair ;)
      - moravak1984 4y ago
        Sometimes there is no choice, e.g. Prague-Malaga. The alternative routes that go on sane airlines require changing planes. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment :)
  - ralph84 4y ago
    Path dependence. For an existing 737 operator, a completely different type has to bring more to the table than about the same price.
  - chx 4y ago
    Facts: 1. Boeing was running multiple studies to replace the 737 -- and possibly the 757 with the same plane -- https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/07/204506/the-737-story-smoke-and-mirrors-obscure-737-and-airbus-a320-replacement.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flight... 2. Boeing Chairman President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney in 2011 February said > We’re gonna do a new airplane. We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias is to not re-engine, is to move to an all-new airplane at the end of the decade, or the beginning of the next decade. For source, put that quote into Google, it's everywhere. 3. Less than a year later, Southwest Airlines bought 150 of this very re-engineered plane. The 737 replacement plane disappeared. The 757 still has no replacement, twenty years after it was canned. The hole this created for the above 200 seats segment is well visible: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg (I posted this image to SE after digging it out of some ancient blog post) 4. The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining > Not only did Southwest management not want their pilots who flew the earlier model 737 NG to have to train in a flight simulator for the MAX, they insisted to Boeing that even classroom training be off the table, the filing shows. Southwest insisted on a clause in the sales contract stipulating a penalty of $1 million per airplane delivered if that standard wasn’t met. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal-filing-reveals-southwest-airlines-proposed-a-ploy-to-deceive-faa-on-boeing-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal... Rumor: It was Southwest Airlines threatening Boeing to buy Airbus instead if it delivered anything but a 737 to them that created the 737 MAX in the first place. Now you know how far a single-plane airline would go to avoid buying a different plane.
    - msbarnett 4y ago
      > The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining This is somewhat inaccurate (and appears to trade on the oft-repeated but completely incorrect misunderstanding that the MCAS acts as a sort of “normal 737 emulator”). In fact, the MCAS exists because without it the MAX would be 100% uncertifiable for commercial flight. The central problem is that, due to the lopsided aerodynamics of the MAX, as the nose of the MAX moves up and approaches a stall, the forces on the pilot’s stick “invert” such that it becomes easier to continue to pull into the stall than push away from the stall. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to have inverted stick forces at any angle. When Boeing realized this, they decided to implement a kind of hack that would use the trim to put pressure on the nose downwards to counteract the forces on the stick such that they never invert. The MCAS is the system that commands this downwards trim. The desire to avoid retraining led Boeing to conceal the existence of the MCAS, but it is not why it exists. The plane flatly is uncertifiable without it. No amount of training would change this, as inverted stick forces are a failure of fundamental airworthiness requirements.
  - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
    Airbus literally doesn't have the production capacity to take over Boeing's orders. Long term maybe BAA is screwed.
- msbarnett 4y ago
  > Examine what production? Surely no-one is buying this airplane any more ... Instead of making assumptions, you could easily just find the facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_... There are over 4000 orders still outstanding. Hence the ABC investigation repeatedly finding engineers on the project citing time pressure in the manufacturing process: they’ve got a huge backlog of orders.
  - njdarger 4y ago
    According to that graph the MAX has suffered a 320 unit net order loss since 2018, the year they started falling out of the sky. So it's actually worse than "no-one is buying this airplane "...
londons_explore 4y ago
They'll spend 2 years visiting factories and interviewing people... And then another year writing a report... And it will have some conclusions about 'more robust processes'... And it will be largely ignored... The whole exercise seems like a way to officially do nothing while not looking like nothing is being done.
- metadat 4y ago
  Please excuse the crudeness.. But what a joke. When did this kind of activity ever save a life where airplanes are involved? I'd prefer the NTSB run the review, at least they don't fuck about playing political games. Once a human life ends, that's it. In time my and your turn will come, too, without exception. Too many people have died early already due to Boeing's negligence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mrjin 4y ago
  Here is what I learnt from the past news: 1. FAA let Boeing do its job. 2. Boeing screwed up. 3. Pilots raised concerns but dismissed without any investigation. 4. Planes crashed and people died. 5. Boeing CEO walked away with packages and nothing happened to FAA. 6. Pseudo investigation concluded and 373 Max flew again. 7. Sh*t happened again. I'm wondering if Boeing would still be able to get away with it.
  - silvestrov 4y ago
    The real issue is if FAA still can get away with it or if the international community will stop viewing FAA as the golden standard and instead be rather sceptical of their judgements. If FAA no longer sets the standard other countries use, then that is a real loss of power.
    - SkyMarshal 4y ago
      That seems to have already happened in China at least.
jmole 4y ago
If the problem is the computer systems, what good will it do to watch them being made?
- msbarnett 4y ago
  It’s not just the computers. The linked ABC report goes into the details: > More than 42 incidents involved equipment malfunctions, and on more than 40 occasions, flight crews chose to ground the affected aircraft while problems were fixed. > … > In one incident on an American Airlines flight in April last year, multiple systems including both autopilot functions stopped working soon after take-off. On landing, the crew found the backup power unit, considered vital for safe flight, had failed and was emitting a strong electrical smell. >… > He said some other reports raised by the ABC were bizarre, such as an incident involving a United Airlines flight last August where fuel was found leaking into an overhead passenger bin. Fuel reserves are located in the wings. >… > One mechanic said they observed sub-standard manufacturing and testing of the planes, which resulted in wires being left exposed and debris such as rubbish, metal slivers and washers lodging itself inside various parts of the plane, which could lead to electrical short circuits or fires. >… > Griffith University's Dr Carim Jr reviewed several incidents from last year involving malfunctions with the MAX's stabiliser trim and said failures involving the component were "quite concerning". etc
gmiller123456 4y ago
Link to the actual DOT memo [pdf]: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Audit%20Announcement%20-%20FAA%20Oversight%20of%20Boeing%20737%20and%20787%20Production.pdf https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Audit%20Announce... Air carriers transported more than 330 million passengers worldwide on Boeing aircraft in 2021.1 With the return to service of its 737 MAX aircraft2 and increasing demand for air travel, Boeing delivered more than 160 new aircraft to air carriers in the first half of 2022, with a backlog of nearly 4,200 aircraft on order. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for overseeing the safety of passenger aircraft in the United States, including ensuring that aviation manufacturers such as Boeing meet safety requirements when producing and delivering new aircraft. However, since 2019, a number of concerns have been raised regarding production of the Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft—the two production lines with the largest number of aircraft on order. Boeing has not delivered any 787 aircraft in over a year due to production quality issues, and in December 2021, FAA mandated inspections on certain previously delivered 787 aircraft due to reports of missed requirements during assembly. In addition, a number of complaints to Congress, FAA, and our office have alleged ongoing production deficiencies and undue pressure on Boeing staff in the 737 and 787 production lines. In light of these concerns, the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its Subcommittee on Aviation requested that we evaluate FAA’s oversight of Boeing aircraft production. Accordingly, our audit objectives will be to evaluate FAA’s oversight of Boeing 737 and 787 production, specifically its processes for (1) identifying and resolving production issues and (2) addressing allegations of undue pressure within the production environment. We plan to begin the audit in July and will contact your audit liaison to schedule an entrance conference. We plan to conduct our audit at FAA Headquarters and regional offices responsible for overseeing Boeing production, as well as relevant Boeing locations. If you have any questions, please contact me or Tina Nysted, Program Director.
baby 4y ago
I urge everyone to read about Feynman’s participation in the investigation of the challenger disaster: https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3570/1/Feynman.pdf https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3570/1/Feynman.pdf It’s only 17 pages and it has humor and is a page turner. It’s a good or a bad story depending on points of views, nonetheless a great behind the scene story.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  Thanks for the read! I believe the general concept people cite here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance although it's interesting that Feynman hypothesised the 'loss of a common cause' as the fundamental issue - in other words, NASA had lost a unified purpose after successfully going to the moon and in trying to justify its existence had effectively turned the managers into a political class who could lie better to secure funding and political support if they were unaware of engineering problems. The actual engineers in Feynman's story hadn't normalised deviance, they just were essentially blocked from effecting change upwards.
pixiemaster 4y ago
RIP Boeing
euroderf 4y ago
Could this all somehow be fixed by unwinding the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition, and is such an unwinding even possible ? Asking for a friend.

94 points by dlcmh 4y ago

throwaway4good 4y ago

Examine what production? Surely no-one is buying this airplane any more ...

bdlowery 4y ago
I’ve flown on the Max at least 10 times now. They’re being used everywhere around the globe daily, and they’re being produce too.
throwaway4good 4y ago
Why would anyone buy the Boeing 737 max when they can buy the Airbus A320neo for about the same price? Even the Chinese are giving up on Boeing even though they were supposed to be forced to buy them per the Trump phase 1 trade deal.
- SEMW 4y ago
  Many possible reasons. Eg Ryanair operates a completely uniform fleet, 100% 737s, and their current operating model relies on all of their pilots and crew being able to operate whatever aircraft is available. Adding a few airbuses means a split fleet, causing significant logistical and training costs. And their customers are evidently happy to prioritize flight cost over their aversion to the 737max, so why would they switch? Also, an aircraft being on the market doesn't mean you can actually order one and get it anytime soon. Airbus has like a 10-year backlog for A32x deliveries.
  - rob74 4y ago
    ...and just to make sure that any possible aversion is, er, averted, they have renamed their 737 MAX to "737-8200" (and rely on journalists publishing press releases without research to improve its reception: https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-ryanairs-737-aircrafts-7148066 https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-...).
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      That was always the model designation though, 737-MAX is just branding. And 8200 is just one of its specific versions. For example the 737-NG was called 737-600 through 737-900 (different versions) They did indeed drop the MAX branding and replaced it with the numeric designation because MAX got a bad name after their screwup. But they didn't invent the new name, it was always there.
  - agsnu 4y ago
    I don't understand why anyone would fly Ryanair ;)
    - moravak1984 4y ago
      Sometimes there is no choice, e.g. Prague-Malaga. The alternative routes that go on sane airlines require changing planes. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment :)
- ralph84 4y ago
  Path dependence. For an existing 737 operator, a completely different type has to bring more to the table than about the same price.
- chx 4y ago
  Facts: 1. Boeing was running multiple studies to replace the 737 -- and possibly the 757 with the same plane -- https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/07/204506/the-737-story-smoke-and-mirrors-obscure-737-and-airbus-a320-replacement.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flight... 2. Boeing Chairman President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney in 2011 February said > We’re gonna do a new airplane. We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias is to not re-engine, is to move to an all-new airplane at the end of the decade, or the beginning of the next decade. For source, put that quote into Google, it's everywhere. 3. Less than a year later, Southwest Airlines bought 150 of this very re-engineered plane. The 737 replacement plane disappeared. The 757 still has no replacement, twenty years after it was canned. The hole this created for the above 200 seats segment is well visible: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg (I posted this image to SE after digging it out of some ancient blog post) 4. The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining > Not only did Southwest management not want their pilots who flew the earlier model 737 NG to have to train in a flight simulator for the MAX, they insisted to Boeing that even classroom training be off the table, the filing shows. Southwest insisted on a clause in the sales contract stipulating a penalty of $1 million per airplane delivered if that standard wasn’t met. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal-filing-reveals-southwest-airlines-proposed-a-ploy-to-deceive-faa-on-boeing-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal... Rumor: It was Southwest Airlines threatening Boeing to buy Airbus instead if it delivered anything but a 737 to them that created the 737 MAX in the first place. Now you know how far a single-plane airline would go to avoid buying a different plane.
  - msbarnett 4y ago
    > The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining This is somewhat inaccurate (and appears to trade on the oft-repeated but completely incorrect misunderstanding that the MCAS acts as a sort of “normal 737 emulator”). In fact, the MCAS exists because without it the MAX would be 100% uncertifiable for commercial flight. The central problem is that, due to the lopsided aerodynamics of the MAX, as the nose of the MAX moves up and approaches a stall, the forces on the pilot’s stick “invert” such that it becomes easier to continue to pull into the stall than push away from the stall. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to have inverted stick forces at any angle. When Boeing realized this, they decided to implement a kind of hack that would use the trim to put pressure on the nose downwards to counteract the forces on the stick such that they never invert. The MCAS is the system that commands this downwards trim. The desire to avoid retraining led Boeing to conceal the existence of the MCAS, but it is not why it exists. The plane flatly is uncertifiable without it. No amount of training would change this, as inverted stick forces are a failure of fundamental airworthiness requirements.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  Airbus literally doesn't have the production capacity to take over Boeing's orders. Long term maybe BAA is screwed.
msbarnett 4y ago
> Examine what production? Surely no-one is buying this airplane any more ... Instead of making assumptions, you could easily just find the facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_... There are over 4000 orders still outstanding. Hence the ABC investigation repeatedly finding engineers on the project citing time pressure in the manufacturing process: they’ve got a huge backlog of orders.
- njdarger 4y ago
  According to that graph the MAX has suffered a 320 unit net order loss since 2018, the year they started falling out of the sky. So it's actually worse than "no-one is buying this airplane "...

londons_explore 4y ago

They'll spend 2 years visiting factories and interviewing people... And then another year writing a report... And it will have some conclusions about 'more robust processes'... And it will be largely ignored... The whole exercise seems like a way to officially do nothing while not looking like nothing is being done.

metadat 4y ago
Please excuse the crudeness.. But what a joke. When did this kind of activity ever save a life where airplanes are involved? I'd prefer the NTSB run the review, at least they don't fuck about playing political games. Once a human life ends, that's it. In time my and your turn will come, too, without exception. Too many people have died early already due to Boeing's negligence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mrjin 4y ago
Here is what I learnt from the past news: 1. FAA let Boeing do its job. 2. Boeing screwed up. 3. Pilots raised concerns but dismissed without any investigation. 4. Planes crashed and people died. 5. Boeing CEO walked away with packages and nothing happened to FAA. 6. Pseudo investigation concluded and 373 Max flew again. 7. Sh*t happened again. I'm wondering if Boeing would still be able to get away with it.
- silvestrov 4y ago
  The real issue is if FAA still can get away with it or if the international community will stop viewing FAA as the golden standard and instead be rather sceptical of their judgements. If FAA no longer sets the standard other countries use, then that is a real loss of power.
  - SkyMarshal 4y ago
    That seems to have already happened in China at least.

jmole 4y ago

If the problem is the computer systems, what good will it do to watch them being made?

msbarnett 4y ago
It’s not just the computers. The linked ABC report goes into the details: > More than 42 incidents involved equipment malfunctions, and on more than 40 occasions, flight crews chose to ground the affected aircraft while problems were fixed. > … > In one incident on an American Airlines flight in April last year, multiple systems including both autopilot functions stopped working soon after take-off. On landing, the crew found the backup power unit, considered vital for safe flight, had failed and was emitting a strong electrical smell. >… > He said some other reports raised by the ABC were bizarre, such as an incident involving a United Airlines flight last August where fuel was found leaking into an overhead passenger bin. Fuel reserves are located in the wings. >… > One mechanic said they observed sub-standard manufacturing and testing of the planes, which resulted in wires being left exposed and debris such as rubbish, metal slivers and washers lodging itself inside various parts of the plane, which could lead to electrical short circuits or fires. >… > Griffith University's Dr Carim Jr reviewed several incidents from last year involving malfunctions with the MAX's stabiliser trim and said failures involving the component were "quite concerning". etc

gmiller123456 4y ago

Link to the actual DOT memo [pdf]: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Audit%20Announcement%20-%20FAA%20Oversight%20of%20Boeing%20737%20and%20787%20Production.pdf https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Audit%20Announce... Air carriers transported more than 330 million passengers worldwide on Boeing aircraft in 2021.1 With the return to service of its 737 MAX aircraft2 and increasing demand for air travel, Boeing delivered more than 160 new aircraft to air carriers in the first half of 2022, with a backlog of nearly 4,200 aircraft on order. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for overseeing the safety of passenger aircraft in the United States, including ensuring that aviation manufacturers such as Boeing meet safety requirements when producing and delivering new aircraft. However, since 2019, a number of concerns have been raised regarding production of the Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft—the two production lines with the largest number of aircraft on order. Boeing has not delivered any 787 aircraft in over a year due to production quality issues, and in December 2021, FAA mandated inspections on certain previously delivered 787 aircraft due to reports of missed requirements during assembly. In addition, a number of complaints to Congress, FAA, and our office have alleged ongoing production deficiencies and undue pressure on Boeing staff in the 737 and 787 production lines. In light of these concerns, the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its Subcommittee on Aviation requested that we evaluate FAA’s oversight of Boeing aircraft production. Accordingly, our audit objectives will be to evaluate FAA’s oversight of Boeing 737 and 787 production, specifically its processes for (1) identifying and resolving production issues and (2) addressing allegations of undue pressure within the production environment. We plan to begin the audit in July and will contact your audit liaison to schedule an entrance conference. We plan to conduct our audit at FAA Headquarters and regional offices responsible for overseeing Boeing production, as well as relevant Boeing locations. If you have any questions, please contact me or Tina Nysted, Program Director.

baby 4y ago

I urge everyone to read about Feynman’s participation in the investigation of the challenger disaster: https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3570/1/Feynman.pdf https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3570/1/Feynman.pdf It’s only 17 pages and it has humor and is a page turner. It’s a good or a bad story depending on points of views, nonetheless a great behind the scene story.

bigDinosaur 4y ago
Thanks for the read! I believe the general concept people cite here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance although it's interesting that Feynman hypothesised the 'loss of a common cause' as the fundamental issue - in other words, NASA had lost a unified purpose after successfully going to the moon and in trying to justify its existence had effectively turned the managers into a political class who could lie better to secure funding and political support if they were unaware of engineering problems. The actual engineers in Feynman's story hadn't normalised deviance, they just were essentially blocked from effecting change upwards.

pixiemaster 4y ago

RIP Boeing

euroderf 4y ago

Could this all somehow be fixed by unwinding the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition, and is such an unwinding even possible ? Asking for a friend.