CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

Everything in the news here in the US indicates that the plane crashed at Naval Air Station Jacksonville due to very severe crosswinds in a lightning storm.
It was a charter flight, the weekly DoD shuttle from Gitmo to NAS JAX. No injuries although a small infant was kept in the base hospital overnight as a precaution.
 
Yay and Nay

If a Singapore A320 crashes because a discovery drives onto a runway - people will cancel flights with Singapore, will cancel flights that use A320s and some will just cancel flights.

So thanks to the ill informed commentary* and the ability to comprehend facts fuckwits do disproportionately affect airlines thus the knock on can affect the industry. The 737 ( model doesn't matter 737 is the bit that will stick) story is gaining traction public perception may well have disproportionate affect.

So whilst I agree with you that its bollocks and twattery to even remotely connect the incidents - theres no disagreement there - The Media however will do so however tenuously and ill informed public will simply see another 737 accident. And so I agree with Baglock incidents that they will be conflated in the publics mind -
At this point its worth remembering at this point that
A )60% of people today read no further than the headline - hence the prevalence of misleading soundbites and the cult of St Jeremy of Corbyn.
And B) 50% of people are dumber than average

*Such as CNN and its MH370 will struggle to maintain altitude if it runs out of fuel and Air France xxx** may have broken up as it approached the speed of light being 2 of my favourites

**xxx The one that disappeared in the South Atlantic with blocked P+S system
There have been several posts on this thread so far citing news stories about opinion polls which said that people would be reluctant to fly in Boeing 737 Max planes once they have returned to service. Many airlines will fly a limited number of different models, so some will be well known to use a lot of 737 Max planes.

Given the thin profit margins that airlines fly on, not a lot of passengers have to pick airline "B" over airline "A" for A's profit margins to suffer noticeably. So there is no need for 100% of the flying public to decide they would rather not fly on a Boeing in order for this to make a noticeable impact. It just requires enough people at the margin to make that decision. And if 'A' cuts prices to try to overcome that, they have to cut prices for everyone, so this comes straight out of their bottom line.

For an airline who are weighing the option of ordering more Boeing 737 Maxes versus buying some Airbus (or Bombardier) equivalents, they have to weigh that risk against whatever discounts Boeing is going to offer them. If Boeing either cuts prices more or loses sales, it still costs them money either way.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. Didn't look like an MCAS related incident, but the inherent aerodynamic characteristics is still the driving cause?
No, it isn’t. It may be a contributing factor. More likely is a poor decision. Because of this:

Aircraft aquaplaning has (almost) nothing to do with aerodynamic characteristics of any aircraft. It’s a function of fluid contamination of the runway, usually standing rain water, and the tyre pressure(s) of the landing gear. A rough formula to give the speed at which aquaplaning will always be a risk on a paddling pool runway is:

V (speed in knots) = 9 (rootsquare (tyre pressure / Specific Gravity)

The specific gravity of water is so close to 1 that it’s good enough for government work.

Aquaplaning is a risk inherent to landing on a (properly) flooded runway and one reason that runway drainage and porosity is so good. Usually. If it gets to the stage where the runway just can’t cope and is flooded, my first option was always to hold off until fuel was a factor, then divert somewhere more suitable. If landing was necessary at a flooded base, there’s a technique for every type to minimise the risk of departing the runway or its overrun.
Exactly. Severely impressed by the formula for it too!I vaguely remember learning it!

Among other things, positively planting the ship. Something the meat down the back doesn't realise when they applaud a greaser.
Love it! 5 knots down the strip onto a mahoosive runway, grease it on = My Hero. Fighting the bloody thing all the way down in shit weather onto a short runway, plant it = You new to this son?

To which my answer has been on a number of occasions “do I come to your place of work and tell you how to sweep up?”

My friends the Engineers won’t thank you for greasing it in either as it wears tires faster, particularly on a wet runway as there is a longer time frame during which a very thin layer of superheated steam is trapped between the tyre and the friction surface of the runway which buggers up the vulcanisation of the rubber.

Apparently.
 
Yup. Reverted rubber. Costly on tyres as well as brake pads due to the poor braking action of slippery rubber.
 
Only remembered because friends banged out on aquaplaning off the side of a waterlogged runway. Unfortunately no-one had told us that what was published as friction surface only began ~1500’ ft in from the threshold. Nice.
Maybe more of us need to think more about contaminated performance? It’s certainly on the CAA’s Significant Seven list of top risks (or at least Runway Excursions generally are). It’s not helped by dud info as above though! For years landing in some places in the wet was “interesting” because of all the rubber deposits in the Touch Down Zone. I assume someone somewhere scared themselves as it’s niw fairly routine to see the worst offenders NOTAMed as such. Anyone going to Corfu?
 
Boeing say they have completed writing and testing the software changes needed to deal with the MCAS problems in the Boeing 737 Max.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/boeing-737-max-software-pilot-training-1.5139466?cmp=rss
Boeing says it has finished with its updates to the flight-control software implicated in two deadly crashes involving its 737 Max, moving a step closer to getting the plane back in the sky.
Boeing say they have flown 207 test flights with the new software.
Chicago-based Boeing said it has flown 207 test flights with the new software.
Next upcoming is a yet to be scheduled certification flight with the US FAA.
The next major step is a certification flight with FAA representatives. That flight has not yet been scheduled.
At least some regulators in other countries however want to require additional pilot training in simulators. This could delay returning planes to service for weeks or longer.
Some foreign regulators and safety experts say pilots should practice responding to the new software in flight simulators — a requirement that would delay the plane's return by weeks or months.
Boeing and the US FAA however are still resisting the idea that pilots need simulator training.
Paul Hudson, president of the travel-consumer group FlyerRights.org, said Boeing and the FAA seem determined to resist simulator training.
 
Boeing and the US FAA however are still resisting the idea that pilots need simulator training.
Seems odd since Boeing were accusing the pilots of not responding properly to the malfunction...
 
I'd like to see the look on the faces of the Boeing and US FAA heads when someone asks them that one!
We'd like to save a few $$$, again
 
I recall being "firmly planted" at ATL in an MD80 when there was an issue with the flaps refusing to fully deploy, so we came in at an "enthusiastic" rate of knots.
So firmly planted that the flight attendant (an ATL native) turned distinctly pale & the front left overhead luggage locker partially broke free of its mount.
The wailing from cattle class was entertaining, as was explaining to the aforementioned flight attendant why I appeared unconcerned & kept reading my book. (What's the point in spending what might be the last few moments of one's life in a state of abject fear when there's f*ckall one can do about the situation).
Sounds like my landing on a shitty Greek island. Mucho big thump, many OH lockers spewing, shrieks aplenty and then panic.

Click on.

"Ah, apologies Ladies and Gentlemen, island seems to be somewhat higher than I remember it"

Click off.
 
Given what is at stake, surely it is in Boeing's interests to appear, and be, as safety-conscious as possible (even at the cost of placing a costs/time demand upon operators)?
A potential PR disaster if they appear to be trying to eliminate costs at the expense of safety.

Appearance is everything
 
Given what is at stake, surely it is in Boeing's interests to appear, and be, as safety-conscious as possible (even at the cost of placing a costs/time demand upon operators)?
Big remediation/much additional training required a de facto admission that something was indeed adrift in past.

No doubt a Corporate Lawyer at work telling them to play that down
 
Given what is at stake, surely it is in Boeing's interests to appear, and be, as safety-conscious as possible (even at the cost of placing a costs/time demand upon operators)?
The Boeing 737 Max is supposed to be one of the major financial underpinnings of the company for some years to come. The biggest selling point for it is that there are loads of older 737s already flying, and so there are loads of pilots already qualified to fly them.

Boeing has been selling the Max to those many, many, existing customers on the basis that they don't have to retrain their 737 pilots beyond handing them an iPad with a quicky one hour update course on it. That means that when an airline receives their next 737 Max they can just take whatever existing 737 qualified pilot they have handy and give him the iPad and an hour later he's considered qualified to fly a Max, MCAS and all. That is a big cost saving in terms of manpower for airlines.

If you require simulator training, now you have to start booking simulator time (not cheap) and sending pilots away on courses. If an airline has to do that, then they might start seriously looking at what else might be on the market, in which case an old plane from Boeing that has been warmed over with updates multiple times may not look so attractive as one of the newer designs from Airbus or Bombardier.

Remember the massive US tariffs that Boeing wanted to put on Bombardier's C-Series? They said they needed those to protect the 737 Max from competition.

For the US FAA, Boeing is one of the US national champions, and they want to do what they can to support US industry.

So the incentives for Boeing and to the US FAA haven't changed. They see the recent crashes as just being a little glitch which will soon be forgotten, and so have no wish to change from their original course.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top