Boeing's 737 Max: Carrying Passengers Again In December? (sfgate.com) 85
"Boeing's much-maligned 737 Max jet could be cleared to fly again in just a few weeks," reports SFGate, adding that one U.S. airline plans to carry passengers "as early as December."
Although the Federal Aviation Administration has not disclosed a public timeline for the Max's return to service, approval to lift the grounding could come as early as mid-November, according to Reuters. Boeing executives said they expect to gain FAA recertification before the end of the year. The company will also need to get approval from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and Transport Canada, which are conducting their own respective reviews...
American Airlines said it plans to operate one daily Boeing 737 Max roundtrip from Dec. 29 through Jan. 4 between its Miami hub and New York's LaGuardia Airport. If it takes off, American will be the first US carrier to bring back the Max...
Other U.S. airlines operating the Max are taking a wait-and-see approach before assigning the fleet type to flights.
American Airlines said it plans to operate one daily Boeing 737 Max roundtrip from Dec. 29 through Jan. 4 between its Miami hub and New York's LaGuardia Airport. If it takes off, American will be the first US carrier to bring back the Max...
Other U.S. airlines operating the Max are taking a wait-and-see approach before assigning the fleet type to flights.
Hopefully only in the US (Score:1)
No need to murder another bunch of innocents.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be OKed in Europe too with some "to be done in the future" changes required in a new software load coming in a few months. My guess is that if the FAA lifts the grounding order, Europe won't be very far behind.
The regulators have all gone through this aircraft with a fine-toothed comb, it will be one of the safest aircraft in the sky. I'll be happy to fly it and bring the family along to prove I'm convinced they have addressed the problem.
No more funerals for just greed (Score:1)
Re:Hopefully only in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
The really interesting thing is will people fly with it? The online-booking sites I use tell you the aircraft type before you book...
Re: (Score:2)
The really interesting thing is will people fly with it? The online-booking sites I use tell you the aircraft type before you book...
Ah, yes, but how many passengers will care? You are correct, this will be an interesting question and I think by the time the general public is back into flying a few years from now, few will remember all this and I'm guessing most of the booking sites won't be showing anything about 737 MAX on them. The aircraft will be quietly rebranded.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll be happy to fly it and bring the family along to prove I'm convinced they have addressed the problem."
I think I'll drive...
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a Boeing, I'll be going
...
for a drive.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'll be happy to fly it and bring the family along to prove I'm convinced they have addressed the problem."
I think I'll drive...
And you will have a MUCH higher chance of being in a fatal accident. Automobiles have a MUCH higher death rate per passenger mile than any commercial aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, driving's way more fun, U see more, experience the country more, and I've not had a problem with the getting killed thing, not even close. And I don't have to get in a big metal tube with 100 other people and catch their germs, either. Public transport of all flavors sucks for that.
You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll choose planes that actually fly. Customer privilege.
The 737 Max will be airworthy. Everybody is in CYA mode, Boeing, the FAA, Other National Authorities, and even the Airlines. The pilots will be heavily trained, the aircraft will be well maintained and ANY possible fault will be rigorously corrected because nobody wants to be holding the liability bag. This aircraft will be the most scrutinized system flying and likely the safest thing in the sky.
Of course, if you are uncomfortable, feel free to wait for the next flight. The inconvenience will be your c
Re:You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:5, Informative)
The pilots will be heavily trained,
If so, doesn’t that defeat the whole point of the MAX? It was sold to airlines on the basis that the flawed MCAS at the center of this whole ordeal would obviate the need for them to train and certify their 737 pilots on this variant. If that’s no longer the case and heavy retraining will be necessary, the MAX suddenly becomes a LOT less appealing to airlines.
Re:You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:5, Informative)
If so, doesn’t that defeat the whole point of the MAX?
Not quite. It was the point of MCAS.
The real point of the MAX was better efficiency using bigger engines (to compete with Airbus). To put bigger engines on the 737 they had to mount them somewhat forward and higher, which changed the handling dynamic (more thrust pitch-up) and would have required (probably minimal) additional pilot training. Boeing thought they could get away with an automated hidden compensation system called MCAS.
However, MCAS, when given bad info (AOA sensor problems), went berserk and killed people. Previous to the 2 crashes were many reports of the MAX going berserk, but due to the secrecy of MCAS, and the frenetic nature of air travel, and the general nature of human assessment and communication, the problem wasn't fully understood and cataloged until months later with a 2nd crash.
I don't understand the philosophy nor legality of hiding something from the pilots. Machines break. If the humans don't know MCAS even exists, how can they compensate? The hiding of MCAS removed the possibility that the pilots might have been able to save the plane.
Re:You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:5, Interesting)
and would have required (probably minimal) additional pilot training.
Wrong. The new engine creates an unstable pitch behavior at higher angles of attack that are expressly against the letter and spirit of the certification regulations. Proof [ecfr.gov]
MCAS was meant to hide this unstable behavior. Of course this was stupid, and using a single sensor for something as aggressive as this new MCAS was criminally, grossly negligent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MCAS was meant to hide this unstable behavior. Of course this was stupid, and using a single sensor for something as aggressive as this new MCAS was criminally, grossly negligent.
I'd call it more compensating for an undesirable behavior rather than masking it. That's hardly stupid, unless you want to call a yaw damper [wikipedia.org] stupid and invalidate about 60 years of aircraft design.
There are lots of automated systems in any modern transport jet that are there to compensate for undesirable tendencies in certain flight conditions. The stupid thing Boeing did here was the way they implemented MCAS, relying on the single point of failure you mentioned, making it far too easy to fail, as well as
Re: (Score:2)
MCAS was meant to hide this unstable behavior.
Correction: MCAS was meant to pull the wool over regulators' eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Aviation Pete, is bold necessary? Gotta shout? I'm not sure how you proved me Wrong.
When I posted that I was thinking, "someone is going to blast me, yet in agreement with me".
How is what you wrote different from what I wrote? As far as I can tell and read, you agreed with me, just used some different words.
Do you come here just to pick fights and get into flamewars?
Re: (Score:2)
The system wasn't hidden. It was part of the pilot training package. The issue is a very much chicken and egg dilemma. The documentation was part of training, but the system existed so that training would not be required and as such pilots were not obligated to read about it or learn about it.
What was "hidden" (omitted is probably a better word) was some of the details about exactly how to disable it. But the MCAS itself was part of the documentation available.
Re: You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:2)
Re:You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:4, Interesting)
MCAS - Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System
... and that's it; no other mentions.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just getting into ridiculous semantics and pedantry. I'm sorry if you didn't like my wording, "hidden", but IMHO, who gives a *^&% if they mention MCAS, but oops, kind of neglect to tell pilots where the OFF switch is? Isn't that functionally the same as "hidden"? Can you show me in a 737MAX cockpit where the MCAS ON / OFF switch is? Or an entry in a pilot's training manual, or 737MAX flight manual?
Sorry, I'm a bit annoyed- please explain why you're defending Boeing on this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just getting into ridiculous semantics and pedantry. I'm sorry if you didn't like my wording, "hidden", but IMHO, who gives a *^&% if they mention MCAS, but oops, kind of neglect to tell pilots where the OFF switch is? Isn't that functionally the same as "hidden"? Can you show me in a 737MAX cockpit where the MCAS ON / OFF switch is? Or an entry in a pilot's training manual, or 737MAX flight manual?
Sorry, I'm a bit annoyed- please explain why you're defending Boeing on this.
There is NO off switch for the MCAS, but there is an off switch for ALL systems that mess with the stab trim including the autopilot and a whole mass of pilot actions that cause automatic trim systems to kick in. All you folks who start yammering on about how the MCAS was somehow novel or unusual are just making noise based on the press reports, and have little understanding of how modern aircraft systems are designed and used.
I'm not defending Boeing's engineering here, but I'm also not going to blindly
Re: (Score:2)
None of us are "yammering" (and you're kind of one to talk).
The only OFF switch I know if is to turn off electric trim, and direct verbiage from pilots and test pilots is that if you turn off electric trim, you might be in very very big trouble in some situations, especially where you can't crank the manual trim fast enough to keep the plane from crashing, which the "black box" data showed happened in several MAX plane flight "anomalies".
Before I go on, could you please defend your position? You say you're
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing made a mistake. I'm saying that this wasn't due to negligence or malfeasance but a process problem. The software safety/Risk management engineering processes missed some stuff, specifically this MCAS issue. So Boing has liability here, and they've already admitted to it. They will be paying out billions in civil courts over the years to come.
The FAA ALSO made a mistake on this. They approved and oversaw the process that Boing was using to self certify.
You see, I'm not excusing Boeing or the FAA,
Re: (Score:2)
The real point of the MAX was better efficiency using bigger engines (to compete with Airbus). To put bigger engines on the 737 they had to mount them somewhat forward and higher, which changed the handling dynamic (more thrust pitch-up) and would have required (probably minimal) additional pilot training.
Or they needed to redesign the wings around the engines, which would have required additional recertification and training.
I don't understand the philosophy nor legality of hiding something from the pilots.
$
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be brought up in every thread about MAX, usually accompanied by erroneous claims of CoG changes being the cause - it may seem logical, but note that the thrust centerline has not changed much... the engines ar
Re:Heavily trained pilots? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would venture they need to be heavily trained, but, along with any 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' passengers also heavily armoured!
You make it sound like this is some serious problem to deal with. Dealing with an MCAS failure isn't rocket science, it takes about 5 seconds and is not an unfamiliar process for pilots. The "Training" they need is in identifying the problem fast enough and knowing how to adjust the trim should the problem present itself. They also need to know what NOT to do, like don't turn the stab-trim back to ON...
The problem was they didn't have the training to identify the issue, not that they didn't know how to f
Re: (Score:3)
An airplane designed in the 1960s cannot be the safest thing in the sky - it lacks a strong fuselage, envelope protection and a lot of other things that have become mandatory for newly designed aircraft since then but were allowed to be grandfathered for older designs.
It is the by far oldest airliner design out there that is still in regular passenger duty. Even the last passenger Tu-154 has been retired a few days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
https://www.aviation-accidents... [aviation-accidents.net]
https://www.aviation-accidents... [aviation-accidents.net]
This breaking into three parts after a runway overrun is a common occurence for the 737 - far more often than for the A320 - that can crash land and stay relatively intact, like the one in Russia a couple of months ago. Also the pickle fork cracks many 737NG had.
Modern standards for the airframe strength require the fuselage to withstand an AFAIR 20% stronger impact than the old standards valid in the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here are nearly an hours' worth of reasons not to fly on the 737 MAX, and, there's not a single mention of MCAS or software. This was published in 2014, and discusses issues in the physical manufacturing process and Boeing leadership's decisionmaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'm hesitant to fly on any of their planes, since these kinds of problems will affect other models at some point. I haven't flown in years, so I feel perfectly content waiting another day or two to take a different flight. I al
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 Max is museum worthy.
Re:You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:5, Interesting)
The 737-Max flies just fine, it's just that it flies *differently* than the 737-800 and previous generations. Boeing tried to hide this through software and a poorly executed MCAS. They did this to try and make it so the pilots didn't need to take additional training to fly the new type, making it more attractive to the airlines. Turns out that was a mistake. With adequate training to the pilots on how to properly handle the aircraft, it's perfectly safe.
Re: You Guys Can Fly on Them (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The max doesn't stall any more easily than any other airliner. If you're super worried about pitch-up-with-throttle behaviour, you'll have to fly on a plane with high mounted engines. Today that basically limits you to a regional jets, or some museum piece McDonnell-Douglas jets still flying in a few places. But at least you'll have pitch-down-with-throttle behaviour!
Re: (Score:2)
With adequate training to the pilots on how to properly handle the aircraft, it's perfectly safe.
No, it isn't. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the 737MAX is unstable in pitch at higher angle of attack. This is expressly forbidden [ecfr.gov], exactly because it makes this airplane unsafe. To hide this behind a piece of software controlled by a single sensor doesn't make this any better. Not telling the pilots about it is just the icing on the cake. Boeing management should be put behind bars for this.
The best remedy would be a larger horizontal tail. But that requires a strengthened rear fuselage and will cos
Re: (Score:2)
You must have mis-read my previous post. We're in complete agreement; you must just not understand my wording- even though you might think you do, you do not, based on your disputing me previously.
...the 737MAX is unstable in pitch at higher angle of attack.
Please define and explain "unstable" in this context. Or maybe define and explain "stable".
Re: (Score:2)
Stable tends towards level flight, unstable tends away from it.
The 737 MAX is a bad design at best. It represents an ideal example of why self-certification is unacceptable.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll choose planes that actually fly.
Those tend to be the problematic ones, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Bob was a racist. He deserved it!
Re: (Score:2)
Bob once posted a cringey, borderline racist comment on his Myspace page when he was 14 years old, therefore he deserves to be cancel-cultured out of existence.
Nope (Score:3)
Hell no!
Poor choice of words.. (Score:2)
The question was never about "If it takes off". The concern was always more about if it was going to land.
Re: (Score:3)
The question was never about "If it takes off". The concern was always more about if it was going to land.
Oh, if it gets off the ground, it's going to land... The questions are if you will walk away from the aircraft and will it be useable again when it's all over.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor choice of words.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The question was never about "If it takes off". The concern was always more about if it was going to land.
Even that is not a concern. The question is _how_ it will land and how many of the passengers survive that landing.
Demand? (Score:1)
Is there any, given that we're all still waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine before travel can regain any normality at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any, given that we're all still waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine before travel can regain any normality at all?
You have a point, but the economics of the 737 Max will get it into the air long before COVID-19 is history. The reasons for the 737 Max still exist and the airlines will be moving back to the 737 Max for the same reasons they purchased these aircraft, money. They are not going to let some expensive assets just rot on the ground, they will fly them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plans to carry passengers (Score:3)
We'll see what the passengers think about his.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see what the passengers think about his.
Really?
1} In my experience, most travel doesn't rigidly specify what model aircraft you're going to be on until you're on it. Airlines can switch if required.
2} In my experience, most people on an aircraft only know what it is while the attendants are reading the "this blah-blah-blah has fifteen emergency exits located nowhere near you" material before takeoff.
This is going to be forgotten and ignored, fast.
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely possible to choose an airline that only flies Airbus single isle aircraft, so they physically won't be able to switch to the 737 MAX.
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely possible to choose an airline that only flies Airbus single isle aircraft, so they physically won't be able to switch to the 737 MAX.
But that supposes said airline services the airports and routes that you desire. That is not always the case.
But worst case scenario is that your Airbus only airline suffers a scheduling issue that can easily be solved by leasing an aircraft from another airline, and a 737 Max could be the cheapest option.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, fortunately, both is a non-issue for the airlines I usually use - Lufthansa and Wizzair.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind too that it's also entirely possible to be on the ground, minding your own business and still be killed by a 737 MAX.
Not this passenger (Score:5, Insightful)
No, thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
No, thank you!
Then (assuming post covid flying conditions) you'll hav not very vigilant about what airlines you fly with and what routes you fly on. And even then you'll need to look out the window when you're at gate just to verify that the airline didn't substitute the plane you thought you were flying on for a 737 Max due to scheduling or mechanical issues. At which point you'll either have to fly on a Max or suck up the fees for not getting on the flight.
(Note that I'm also with you on this, I'm just pointing out
Not *this* passenger. (Score:3)
Only after.. (Score:2)
I would travel in one, after all the boeing and faa executives fly on it with their immediate family members for a whole year.
Also, its nice that boeing has a shill in these comments.
This Will Put Quite the Bow on 2020 (Score:2)
What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
flying on it becomes an pre existing condition
do we need them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:do we need them? (Score:5, Insightful)
they have plenty enough aircraft to go around for the air traffic right now
This.
The 737 MAX grounding came as a blessing in disguise for many airlines that had ordered them. With the collapse in air traffic due to Covid, they were not on the hook to pay for airplanes that Boeing could not deliver. I'll bet that if you asked them, they'd be happy to stretch the delivery schedule out for another year or so.
Re:do we need them? (Score:4, Informative)
12% lower fuel consumption maybe?
Confidence crisis in aviation ? (Score:1)
Consumer sentiment matters (Score:1)
As is evident from comments here, many will be reluctant to fly on a MAX, if they know it's a MAX, and Boeing doesn't re-brand it, or the airlines don't try to hide it.
Sometimes, air frames, in passenger service, do not recover from catastrophic but correctable design issues. DH Comet and Lockheed L-188 Electra never did, although both soldiered on in military service (Electra still does, as P3), and the Electra is also still used in cargo service.
Final Destination (Score:2)
Is this to catch those COVID missed?
Flying 737 is optional, not necessary. (Score:2)
All air travel not necessary to survival (which isn't much) is recreational therefore needless. Business can be conducted remotely and really important business flights can be done by private charter. Socialization is more convenient via internet.
COVID proved the world gets on fine with drastically reduced passenger travel (and drastically reduced pollution vs burning millions of tons of jet fuel). That's progress coerced by events.
Fundamentally flawed. (Score:1)