Quantcast

The Boeing MAX 8 Accidents

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
This is conversation from Boeing.

Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.
Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.
i think they have figured out that won't work. Lion Air was one of Boeing largest customers.
All this to keep Southwest happy [emoji52]. Still it was Boeing’s responsibility to put safety ahead of Southwest’s business desires.

It is somewhat damning that when Lionair asked for Simulator Training that was turned down because it did not align with Boeing’s business need, and not because it was unequivocally unnecessary as established by facts that have unfolded since then.
 
Last edited:

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,167
Location
Baltimore. MD
This is conversation from Boeing.

Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.
Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.
i think they have figured out that won't work. Lion Air was one of Boeing largest customers.
In 2017, I attended a tire industry conference which featured an entertaining talk by a lawyer about the legal concept of "discovery" and its application to electronic devices. Basically, any person needs to realize that anything transmitted in email, text messages, and even phone mail can be retained (and needs to be retained) and can be demanded by lawyers. Thus, when you communicate using these media, you have consider that what you communicate might be posted on the front page of the New York Times (or even Amtrak Unlimited) one day.

The lawyer told a particularly pointed tale of a lawsuit involving deaths due to mechanical failure of a particular car model where discovery found emails among the manufacturer's engineers referring to the product in question as a "rolling sarcophagus." That case didn't go very well for the manufacturer.

Personally, I figured this sort of stuff out around 1995 (for email, at least). I'm sort of surprised that in 2017 the professional staff at Boeing weren't being trained to watch what they say with their devices.
 

adamj023

Service Attendant
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
107
So much misleading info on here and in the real world on the 737 Max jet. There needed to be an airline with an independent review team which evaluated the source code of the computers to identify any specific condition which could have caused the crash. That has not been done to my knowledge and they have never released specific code which induced the crash itself. When the computers of the A320 derivatives had issues with initial production runs, they made modifications quickly and the issues were well documented as to real causes. With the Max Boeing has not been completely honest nor has the FAA or government as well. An airline or multiple airlines or people who have possession of the jets need an independent reviewer to identify the actual problem. My own belief is not relevant because the real cause needs to be proven. Also remember, airlines can also modify the stock airplane as well once they take possession of the jets so it would need to be known as to how these two specific airlines had equipped their own jets with perhaps differing satellite guidance or other equipment inside the plane itself.

I will only fly on top airlines with well trained pilots and with planes that have know to have had solid safety records and ones that have top maintenance crews and solid knowledge of the jets. Fortunately there are numerous ones across the globe. There are airlines and some planes I will not fly on however even today but fortunately to get to any major place in the world, you can find quality airlines to get there.
 
Last edited:

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
So much misleading info on here and in the real world on the 737 Max jet. There needed to be an airline with an independent review team which evaluated the source code of the computers to identify any specific condition which could have caused the crash. That has not been done to my knowledge and they have never released specific code which induced the crash itself. When the computers of the A320 derivatives had issues with initial production runs, they made modifications quickly and the issues were well documented as to real causes. With the Max Boeing has not been completely honest nor has the FAA or government as well. An airline or multiple airlines or people who have possession of the jets need an independent reviewer to identify the actual problem. My own belief is not relevant because the real cause needs to be proven. Also remember, airlines can also modify the stock airplane as well once they take possession of the jets so it would need to be known as to how these two specific airlines had equipped their own jets with perhaps differing satellite guidance or other equipment inside the plane itself.

I will only fly on top airlines with well trained pilots and with planes that have know to have had solid safety records and ones that have top maintenance crews and solid knowledge of the jets. Fortunately there are numerous ones across the globe. There are airlines and some planes I will not fly on however even today but fortunately to get to any major place in the world, you can find quality airlines to get there.
A bit of a kettle calling the pot black here. The explanation that follows the admonition about "misleading information" itself appears to be full of it based on one pet theory with dubious connections to what is known about the case. [emoji50]

To educate oneself, I'd suggest starting with this thread: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437865

and then following links to various details. You will soon find that the software was a factor but just one. There were a whole host of other things that went wrong. The problem was the whole design philosophy, and when things went wrong, the effort first being focused on trying to cover up instead of trying to own upto the problem and fix it.

Incidentally, now Boeing is saying that return to service is unlikely to happen before the moddile of 2020 if not later.
 
Last edited:

jiml

Conductor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
1,587
Location
Toronto area
In a recent email, AA has indicated that they expect them to be flying again by June 4. This is the first mention of an actual timeframe that I've seen from them, and I've seen nothing to confirm it elsewhere. They also allude to an opt-out provision for passengers unwilling to fly them when returned to service, with details to come. "Details regarding policies and procedures for customers who do not wish to fly on the MAX once the aircraft enters scheduled service June 4 will be released in the coming weeks." I guess they know it's going to be a tough sell.

And this is now up as part of a larger Q&A on their website.
 

Bob Dylan

Conductor
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
20,329
Location
Austin Texas
This reminds meof the never ending Soap Opera called "Days of Our Lives".

And also the hysteria that arose after the DC-10 Crash in Chicago that caused so many air travelers to refuse to fly on them, which made upgrades to FC for Frequent Flyers like me so pleasant! :D

According to a blurb on Goggle News, Southwest Airlines, the Line with the Largest Fleet of them, is considering offering Discounts once they are back in the air.
 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,743
Location
Los Angeles
That DC 10 in Chicago was an ugly sight, I still think about it every time I see a 10, although not often nowadays, a few cargo and a tanker they use for fire retardant drops. I'm hoping we've seen the end of the MAX problems. But, with all the bobbing, weaving and ducking Boeing has done, along with flight crews with varying levels of experience that has me wondering if they are on the same page, especially with a Manuel that has more revision pages than original. I'm not looking forward to boarding one, even with a discount.
 
Last edited:

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
11,544
Location
Texas
The FAA had no logical reason to trust the industry to regulate themselves and they had no business placing a for-profit corporation in charge of safety decisions. The FAA chose to do so of their own volition, and their lazy capitulation makes them complicit and culpable. When it became clear there was a problem with the design the FAA refused to ground the aircraft until every other major authority had already done so. It was only when the aircraft had no remaining path for international deliveries that the FAA finally acted in the most reluctant fashion possible. They're trying to change the narrative now, but the FAA is no hero in this story. They were a willing and necessary participant in this disaster. The FAA will only do the minimum necessary to avoid being replaced with something else. If that means losing hundreds of innocent lives to faster approvals and deeper cost cutting with hand slaps and golden parachutes at the ready then so be it. Nothing that has happened so far is going to prevent this cycle from repeating itself again in the future.
 
Last edited:

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,167
Location
Baltimore. MD
The FAA had no logical reason to trust the industry to regulate themselves and they had no business placing a for-profit corporation in charge of safety decisions. The FAA chose to do so of their own volition, and their lazy capitulation makes them complicit and culpable. When it became clear there was a problem with the design the FAA refused to ground the aircraft until every other major authority had already done so. It was only when the aircraft had no remaining path for international deliveries that the FAA finally acted in the most reluctant fashion possible. They're trying to change the narrative now, but the FAA is no hero in this story. They were a willing and necessary participant in this disaster. The FAA will only do the minimum necessary to avoid being replaced with something else. If that means losing hundreds of innocent lives to faster approvals and deeper cost cutting with hand slaps and golden parachutes at the ready then so be it. Nothing that has happened so far is going to prevent this cycle from repeating itself again in the future.
The FAA, as an agency of the government, is just doing what its political masters tell them to do. For the past 40 years, at least, we've been living in a political zeitgeist that says "regulation is bad." This is what the majority of the voters think, or else they don't know what they're doing, voting for political leaders who are willing to place the managers of a for-profit company in charge of safety decisions. Until the political zeitgeist changes, and anti-regulation politicians start losing elections, nothing's really going to change.
 

PRR 60

Conductor
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
8,348
Boeing even apparently doesn’t feel as confident as American. Maybe the effect of slapping around they got from the FAA.
American is not confident either. Doug Parker (AA CEO) was on CNBC yesterday and said they will be removing the MAX from the summer schedule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jis

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,743
Location
Los Angeles
The 777x is scheduled to make ts first flight today. Another Boeing upgrade, this model has the largest engines ever installed and also wings that fold so it will fit normal sized gates at airports.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
The 777x is scheduled to make ts first flight today. Another Boeing upgrade, this model has the largest engines ever installed and also wings that fold so it will fit normal sized gates at airports.
The 6” larger fan diameter 777X GE9X engines are less powerful than the 777-300 ER GE90-115b engines though. A 777X requires less power to take off than the 77W. That is where the extra long extra efficient light weight CF wings with folding wing tips comes in.
 
Last edited:

jiml

Conductor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
1,587
Location
Toronto area
Those following the Max 8 story may find this an interesting read. The article has a Canadian perspective, but I suspect the basic facts ring true in the US as well. It is in response to accounts of Air Canada flying the Max 8's over 100 times since their supposed grounding, and there is even a railroad tie-in. I am neither endorsing nor disagreeing with the position in the article, but it certainly was thought-provoking.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/disasters-foretold-boeing-737-max-8-and-lac-mégantic/ar-BBZEfdQ?li=AAggNb9&OCID=MF11KM
 
Last edited:

NS VIA Fan

Conductor
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
1,560
Location
Nova Scotia
Prior to the Max8 groundings...WestJet was building a Transatlantic Max8 'mini-hub' in Halifax with routes to Paris, Glasgow, Dublin and London Gatwick. They've had to drop Paris but will still be able to serve the other shorter TATL routes with a Boeing 737-700.....and they've also just added Manchester, UK.

Air Canada had to withdraw their Halifax > London Heathrow Max8.....and Icelandair cancelled the Max8 Keflavik route.

Condor is not affected as they use a Boeing 767-300 on the Halifax route with Frankfurt 4 times weekly.....and now they've added an additional '767 to Munich.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
Meanwhile I suppose Airbus is making a killing with the 321XLR, which arguably is a more capable plane for thin long routes than any of the 737MAXs anyway.
 

PRR 60

Conductor
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
8,348
Meanwhile I suppose Airbus is making a killing with the 321XLR, which arguably is a more capable plane for thin long routes than any of the 737MAXs anyway.
January new orders: Airbus 274 aircraft, Boeing zero. The only good news for Boeing - no 737MAX cancellations in January, so at least their order book stayed steady at 5393 aircraft. There were about 200 MAX cancellations last year.

United and American have ordered 50 of the Airbus 321XLR's each. Also buying 13 321XLR's is JetBlue, signaling interest in the Transatlantic market.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
Apparently FAA's inappropriately pally relationship with those that it governs and regulates goes beyond Boeing. Enter Southwest, the one that wanted to make sure that the 737MAX does not require any extra pilot training. Apparently they have now been found to have additional skeletons in their closet as reported by the Seattle Times via AP:

The airline has flown more than 150,000 flights on 88 jets it bought on the used-plane market and which had unconfirmed maintenance histories, the Transportation Department’s inspector general said in a report. That put more than 17 million passengers at risk, according to the report.

In 2017, FAA inspectors began finding “potentially serious gaps” in Southwest’s process for verifying the condition of the planes, including major repairs that weren’t documented and maintenance records that didn’t meet FAA standards.

Meeting U.S. standards normally takes up to four weeks per plane, but people hired by Southwest approved 71 of the planes on the same day, the inspector general said.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/federal-report-faults-southwest-airlines-and-faa-on-safety/
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
And the saga continues.

https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-737-max-lion-air-simulator/

So now Boeing agrees that Simulator Training for the MAX is necessary. The reason for this change of position may be...

https://beta.canada.com/pmn/business-pmn/faa-tells-boeing-more-training-for-737-max-pilots-may-be-needed/wcm/d8ab4498-30e0-43c4-a18b-2aa70cbd81b2/

more on Boeing's internal communication which strongly suggests that the death of 346 lies entirely on Boeing's shoulders - since afterall they are so clever delivering so called "accurate information" to their customers and shaming them. Actually, I am astonished that they carried out these conversations using a medium that is recorded forever!

Meanwhile, apparently Boeing is yet to submit a final fix that actually works so that the certification process can begin.

Meanwhile, some ominously similar behavior in the space division has come to light in the investigation of why the first unmanned test launch of the Boeing Starliner manned spacecraft failed in achieving its mission. The failures were apparently caused by trivial errors which would have been discovered had Boeing bothered to test the craft's software before sending it up into space. Most astonishingly one comment from Boeing regarding the incorrectly set clock that caused the reignition of the rocket for orbit injection to not take place, was that if there was a crew on board they would have noticed and fixed it!!!! I almost fell off my chair when read that. And if the poor crew failed to do so and blew off into oblivion they would have probably said it was the crew's fault!! Shades of MAX pilot error? Fortunately NASA is tougher on them than the kid gloves FAA.

The result will most likely be that this year only SpaceX will be able to make a manned launch. Boeing will have to wait until they manage to produce a craft that does not fail in trivial ways first.

Incidentally, if you have the time and inclination, read this one about the FAA and weep.

https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Collins Testimony.pdf

Their oversight seems to have made the A320 series a much safer plane than the 737 as they leaned towards following the rules for the A320 while cutting corners for the 737. :(
 
Last edited:
Top