CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

There’s only one person that makes the final decision. Me. Any airline that forced the issue would be on very thin ice legally both from a straight authorisation point of view and from an employment law POV if they hoofed the pilot. Apart from anything else the Air Navigation Order and our Ops Manuals are explicitly clear on my primary role; the safe conduct of the flight.

In making that decision I’d seek guidance from Engineering and ask the view of my oppo. If either have any doubts, there is no doubt. I’m firmly of the opinion that being around to be told I was wrong is a better option than not being around.

I’ve actually been in the situation where I’ve binned it based on the best info I could get and was subsequently found to have called it wrong. I got given some tech feedback which was useful knowledge gained but the only feedback I got on my decision was “wrong call but for the right reasons, keep it up”. Long may that continue.

I can’t speak for other operators but in the developed world there are varying levels of subtle pressure applied but I’d very much doubt anyone would get disciplined for it. Any Captain that folded shouldn’t be in the left seat anyway.

I get @CrashTestDummy ’s point about being the first up but again, it’s a personal call and re the Max, my management are under no illusion that many will take some convincing. As for someone ordering you to get in a Lynx and fly following the death of friends, that shows an appalling lack of awareness on a man management level and IMHO, a disgraceful abuse of authority worthy of Court Martial at the command level. That said, I’m wholly unfamiliar with the incident in question.
 
Mate of mine (JB) was the first pilot to get the runaway- on the Dorbaum training area near Münster. He was quite shaken to say the least.
I bet!
 
Boeing are now saying they don't expect to get approval to put the Boeing 737 Max back in the air until June or July.
Boeing says 737 Max won't be back in the air until summer, shares drop
Boeing Co. shares fell Tuesday after the planemaker told airlines and suppliers it now forecasts it does not expect to win approval from regulators for the return of the 737 Max to service until June or July — significantly longer than some forecasts — a source briefed on the matter said.
Part of the issue is the new pilot training requirements.
The new estimate, which was reported earlier on Tuesday by CNBC, is based on a number of factors, including new anticipated pilot training requirements. Reuters reported last week that regulators had been pushing back the time needed to approve the plane.
Boeing are talking to banks about borrowing another $10 billion to tide them over.
Reuters reported on Monday that Boeing is in talks with banks about borrowing $10 billion US or more amid rising costs after the two crashes involving the 737 Max.
 
Boeing are now saying they don't expect to get approval to put the Boeing 737 Max back in the air until June or July.
Boeing says 737 Max won't be back in the air until summer, shares drop


Part of the issue is the new pilot training requirements.


Boeing are talking to banks about borrowing another $10 billion to tide them over.
Did Boeing specify In which year this was likely to happen?.

The prospect looms (or beckons) that the 737 MAX will never fly commercially again.

Would YOU want to fly in one?.
 
Would YOU want to fly in one?.
If it receives approval and the pilots have the confidence to fly it then yes, it'll be the safest plane in the skies!
 
The head of Boeing has said that they are not going to scrap their 737 Max. The fact that this question even comes up tells something about how the company and the plane are perceived at this time.
Boeing CEO says company won't scrap 737 Max
Calhoun said the company isn't considering scrapping the Max and expects it will continue to fly for a generation.
He also said that Boeing are designing an all new mid-size plane, but it's not clear if this is intended to replace their 737 Max.
He disclosed that Boeing is starting with a "clean sheet of paper" on a new midsize airplane but it is not clear if the company is scrapping the existing design.
 
OK fück them too.
I (and others - far more knowledgable) actually blame them (I will call them McD) more than Boeing. Boeing traditionally had a very conservative safety culture (a lot of over-engineering in place)....but after the "merger/takeover" it just was basically run by the bean counters from McD.
 
Interesting gossip coming out of Seattle...

New broom - 737 to go to a holding pattern, ‘clean sheet’ 797 replacement to be expedited to market.
 
I (and others - far more knowledgable) actually blame them (I will call them McD) more than Boeing. Boeing traditionally had a very conservative safety culture (a lot of over-engineering in place)....but after the "merger/takeover" it just was basically run by the bean counters from McD.
It doesn't really matter where the originally came from. The company is Boeing and is run by (now ex-) Boeing managers, who failed in their duty of oversight. Trying to pass the buck to a company that hasn't existed for nearly 25 years is a bit of a joke.
 
It doesn't really matter where the originally came from. The company is Boeing and is run by (now ex-) Boeing managers, who failed in their duty of oversight. Trying to pass the buck to a company that hasn't existed for nearly 25 years is a bit of a joke.
I agree....McD was primarily a mil aircraft manufacturer and Boeing was "too kind" to them after the merger. I am not saying Boeing is not at fault, just that they seem to have gotten overrun by the practices of the company they took over.
 
Interesting gossip coming out of Seattle...

New broom - 737 to go to a holding pattern, ‘clean sheet’ 797 replacement to be expedited to market.
Fine.

Some might say, THAT is what they should have done in the first place, rather than "develop" the 737 MAX !! :( .

HOWEVER . . . . what are they going to do about the more than 400 x 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility; and (at the end 2019), a total of 791 x 737 MAX which are already with airlines - all of which it is understood have also been grounded ?!

Alternative solutions were suggested earlier . . . .

B). Re-engine the aircraft with an earlier - proven - type of engine/pylon (***), even if this is less fuel efficient?
(***) Such as the CFM International CFM56-7 series engine, successfully used on the predecessor Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), of which it is understood (at 30 November 2019), a total of 7,092 x 737NG have been ordered, and of which 7,046 have been delivered!!

This could/would be a possible immediate/mid-term solution, and possible long term/permanent solution for some . . the “737 MAX Lo”.

and/or,

D). Employ lengthened landing legs to lift the whole aircraft the required amount, that would then allow Boeing to re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient, engines more rearwards, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Gen aircraft.

This would be a long term/permanent solution . . . the “737 MAX Hi”.

Note: My consultancy fees, are VERY reasonable ;) !!

With more than 400 x 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility, including on employees’ staff car-parking areas, at the Renton factory, and also at a civilian airfield.

And, it is understood, that at the end 2019, a total of 791 x 737 MAX were already with airlines - all of which it is understood have also been grounded.


What is to be done with all of them . . . ?

[Continued . . .]

B). Re-engine the aircraft with an earlier - proven - type of engine/pylon (***), even if this is less fuel efficient?
(***) Such as the CFM International CFM56-7 series engine, successfully used on the predecessor Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), of which it is understood (at 30 November 2019), a total of 7,092 x 737NG have been ordered, and of which 7,046 have been delivered!!

This could/would be a possible immediate/mid-term solution, and possible long term/permanent solution for some . . the “737 MAX Lo”.

Low cost. Low aircraft height. Low risk. Low(er) fuel efficiency.

At least such a (temporary?), measure would put hundreds of aircraft back into service; allow others to be delivered; relieve timetables; begin to earn some revenue with which to pay lease premiums; and, help airlines/Boeing to “bed-in” and mature all the other new “systems” associated with the 737 MAX.

It would be a serendipitous coincidence if the (temporary) replacement 737 Next Gen engine/pylon, bolted to exactly the same bolt-hole position on the wing of the 737 MAX. However, one can imagine the designer’s inclination to COPY&PASTE such a proven, established, feature/detail.


NOTE: using the 737 Next Gen engine and shorter pylon, on the 737 MAX, does not mean the re-engined 737 MAX reverts to, becomes, a 737 Next Gen.

The 737 MAX, includes many other developments over, improvements to, the earlier 737 Next Gen. These include aerodynamic changes such as new, different, distinctive split-tip winglets, and airframe modifications.

“Other improvements include a re-contoured tail cone; revised auxiliary power unit inlet and exhaust; aft-body vortex generators removal; and, other small aerodynamic improvements”.

“The 8 in (20cm) taller nose-gear . . ; the main gear and landing gear and supporting structure are beefier; fuselage skins are thicker in some places . . . Rockwell Collins will supply four x 15.1 inch (380mm) landscape liquid crystal displays 9LCD), as used on the 787 Dreamliner”.

More visible, obvious, to passengers “The 737 MAX (features) the ‘Boeing Sky Interior’ with overhead bins and LED lighting based on the Boeing 787’s interior”.

This possible suggested solutions, would allow Boeing to totally remove, “wipe”, the unreliable, discredited “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS) computer programme from the 737 MAX.
With more than 400 x 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility, including on employees’ staff car-parking areas, at the Renton factory, and also at a civilian airfield.

And, it is understood, that at the end 2019, a total of 791 x 737 MAX were already with airlines - all of which it is understood have also been grounded.


What is to be done with all of them . . . ?

[Continued . . .]

D). Employ lengthened landing legs to lift the whole aircraft the required amount, that would then allow Boeing to re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient, engines more rearwards, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Gen aircraft.

This would be a long term/permanent solution . . . the “737 MAX Hi”.

High(er) cost. High(er) structural/component changes. High aircraft height . . . . High(er) fuel efficiency.

To accommodate an even still larger engine, it was proposed (in mid-2016), for the MAX 10, that stronger wings, and longer telescoping landing gear, be adopted.


NOTE: “ . . the proposed MAX 10 included . . . semi-levered landing gear design (which) has a telescope oleo-pneumatic strut with a down-swinging lever to permit a 9.5 inches (24cm) taller gear. Driven by the existing retraction system, a shrink-link mechanical linkage mechanism at the top of the leg - inspired by carrier aircraft designs - allows the gear to be drawn in and shortened while being retracted into the existing wheel well . . ”.

If it is feasible, acceptable to lift the 737 MAX 10, yet higher . . . it is suggested that if the new MAX 10’s longer telescoping landing gear, was to be adopted for all the earlier 737 MAX variants . . . this would/should allow the 737 MAX’s fuel efficiency CFM International LEAP-1B engines, to be then repositioned (using a similar pylon to that on the 737 Next Generation), more rearwards, but still BELOW the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Gen, aircraft?

This possible suggested solutions, would allow Boeing to totally remove, “wipe”, the unreliable, discredited “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS) computer programme from the 737 MAX.
 
Fine.

Some might say, THAT is what they should have done in the first place, rather than "develop" the 737 MAX !! :( .

HOWEVER . . . . what are they going to do about the more than 400 x 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility; and (at the end 2019), a total of 791 x 737 MAX which are already with airlines - all of which it is understood have also been grounded ?!

Alternative solutions were suggested earlier . . . .

B). Re-engine the aircraft with an earlier - proven - type of engine/pylon (***), even if this is less fuel efficient?
(***) Such as the CFM International CFM56-7 series engine, successfully used on the predecessor Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), of which it is understood (at 30 November 2019), a total of 7,092 x 737NG have been ordered, and of which 7,046 have been delivered!!

This could/would be a possible immediate/mid-term solution, and possible long term/permanent solution for some . . the “737 MAX Lo”.

and/or,

D). Employ lengthened landing legs to lift the whole aircraft the required amount, that would then allow Boeing to re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient, engines more rearwards, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Gen aircraft.

This would be a long term/permanent solution . . . the “737 MAX Hi”.

Note: My consultancy fees, are VERY reasonable ;) !!
Perhaps I'm the only one who suspects one or both of those solutions accompanied by a re-branding excercise: 737 MAX HiLo becomes 797
 

Latest Threads

Top