Boeing 737 Max: the saga continues…

[mikegarrison]

38 minutes ago, tater said:

If they were changed, is there a non-zero chance that doing all the work doesn't add a new problem (unintentionally)?

There is always a non-zero risk for any change.

[Kerbart]

20 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

This issue has been around for months.

(...)

But, well, politics and PR. They may end up requiring moving the wires.

I’m not an expert on aviation safety. But the older models have a proven track record of safety with the wiring. And right now, Boeing’s word that “trust us, it’s the same wiring” doesn’t have that much value...

[AngrybobH]

5 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Cert rules get deviations a lot. Not just to save money, but because this is engineering.

As I understand it, the deviations are applied for before manufacturing, not after. From an engineering perspective, if the wiring is actually the same as the NG, then it has proven itself and leaving it alone is fine. Which that is why deviation rules exist. But, the law and engineering are two different things. I agree that changing something to a less proven design (but meets a safety reg) has it's own risks but rules have been written for reasons(not all good ones). I am certainly glad that I do not have to make this call. If you say fine keep it and a plane crashes because of this issue, you are at fault. The same thing happens if you change it and it causes a crash. So, defaulting to the law is probably the only 'right' way to handle it.

 

[mrfox]

Boeing has a bit of a history of sinning first and asking for forgivness later. Sadly, the FAA also has a bit of a track record of caving to Boeing demands - as in this following example regarding a change to the lightning protection on the 787 that happened last year.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-engineers-objected-to-boeings-removal-of-some-787-lightning-protection-measures/

 

The FAA initially rejected the removal of the foil from the wing on February 22, when its certification office ruled that Boeing had not shown, as regulations required, that the ignition of fuel tank vapor by a lightning strike would be extremely improbable, defined in this case as likely to occur no more than three times in a billion flight hours.

By then Boeing had already built about 40 sets of wings without the foil.

Facing the prospect of not being able to deliver those airplanes, Boeing immediately appealed. FAA managers reversed the ruling exactly a week later — just days before the unrelated crash of the second 737 MAX.

Edited March 12, 2020 by mrfox

[mikegarrison]

Boeing has announced that they will rewire all the 737 Max airplanes.

[StrandedonEarth]

39 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Boeing has announced that they will rewire all the 737 Max airplanes.

Ouch. That'll be expensive. I figured another option would be for the FAA to allow it but heavily fine Boeing, but rewiring them might be cheaper than the fine. Better PR too.

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Ouch. That'll be expensive. I figured another option would be for the FAA to allow it but heavily fine Boeing, but rewiring them might be cheaper than the fine. Better PR too.

That wouldn't make any sense. Either they accepted the argument that it's safe (or at least, safer than rewiring) or they didn't. And they didn't accept it. They don't let people just pay to operate in an unsafe condition.

When they issue fines, the fines are always for previous violations, not as a payment to allow future violations.

[StrandedonEarth]

33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

That wouldn't make any sense. Either they accepted the argument that it's safe (or at least, safer than rewiring) or they didn't. And they didn't accept it. They don't let people just pay to operate in an unsafe condition.

When they issue fines, the fines are always for previous violations, not as a payment to allow future violations.

My logic was that they accepted the wiring in the NG as safe enough, and *might* have let them use the same design in the Max *if* they had asked first. So the fine would be for not following procedure and asking for the variation/exception first. I hadn't heard that the FAA didn't accept the argument that it's safe(r) as is..

The FAA has egg on their face for letting several issues slip by, so they had to play hardball, which is fine.

[mikegarrison]

36 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

The FAA has egg on their face for letting several issues slip by, so they had to play hardball, which is fine.

I disagree about this. Ideally the FAA (and other regulatory agencies) should be making technical decisions based on technical merit, not because "they have egg on their faces". But they are a) human beings and b) a government agency, so in the real world they are going to be subject to public and political pressure.

[Gargamel]

Another one went down apparently, but it seems to be a -500.  Not a MAX.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/pk-clc#26860e0e

[Miguelsgamingch]

24 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Another one went down apparently, but it seems to be a -500.  Not a MAX.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/pk-clc#26860e0e

As it says here

A Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-500 operating flight SJ182 from Indonesian capital Jakarta to Pontianak has crashed shortly after departure from Jakarta.

Radar contact with the Boeing 737 was lost about five minutes after departure and ADS-B flight tracking services showed the aircraft making a rapid descend.

There currently is no information on the condition of the crew or passengers. According to local Indonesian media, there were 56 passengers and 6 crew members on board of the aircraft. Small debris from the aircraft has been recovered by rescue teams.

The aircraft involved is registered as PK-CLC, a 26-year old Boeing 737-500 that was first delivered to Continental Airlines in 1994. Sriwijaya Air took delivery of the plane in 2012 and has operated it ever since.

As I Can see It The Plane Turned And Then Fall Into The Ocean?

Allot Of Maybe Reasons on how the plane crash

Human Error?

Hydraulics failure?

Who Knows?

[Gargamel]

3 minutes ago, Miguelsgamingch said:

As it says here

Says where?  I got some headlines pop up, but nobody had published an article when I posted. 

[YNM]

On 1/9/2021 at 7:10 PM, Gargamel said:

Says where?  I got some headlines pop up, but nobody had published an article when I posted. 

Directly from the affected country here.

Article from BBC Indonesia (google-translated)

Additional article from Kompas.com (from Indonesian national newspaper Kompas) (google-translated, although some images don't show up so here's the original)

Images of the debris found so far (translated version)

Seems to me a combination of bad weather and bad aircraft condition from either bad maintenance or old age (probably not helped by the ticket price freeze w/o any government support and reduced passenger amount [and as such revenue] from the pandemy). Definitely not the same error as 737MAX have (or, well, had), and yes this time you may blame us, unlike last time.

EDIT : CNN coverage

When the crash happened, it rained where I live (to the east of Jakarta). There were reports that bad weather were to be expected around the capital.

Boeing 737-500 retains many users here, since these days the only jet planes of that size would be an Embraer or the CS100/300 (now A220), and that'd also mean pilot re-training.

EDIT 2 : Graph of the fall from planefinder.net :

What I find interesting is that the speed actually also decreases while descending. While this means that they weren't intentionally slamming it into the ground, it means that the descent was intended... but why so far ?

I'm wondering if it's a wrong barometer setting... Given the storm condition, could it be that they set their barometer too high, therefore causing altimeter readings that were too high ? But 737s are equipped with radar altimeter as well up to 2500 ft so they should've known ? (idk if this plane had an operational one though)

EDIT 3 : sorry, read the time backwards !

EDIT 4 : Given the sudden deceleration and falling out of the sky, I'm expecting a mid-air breakup. Really sorry for reading the graph backwards. Stall speeds are basically free-fall velocity, right ?

EDIT 5 : Turbine from one of the engine has been extracted (translated, original). It is in parts and no-longer encased. Deffo not the same as the MAX (where they lifted the whole core intact, just separated from the outer casing). Maybe the engine somehow exploded ? Or it broke after something else explodes... or just on contact with water.

Edited January 10, 2021 by YNM

[WestAir]

On 1/9/2021 at 7:41 AM, YNM said:

Given the sudden deceleration and falling out of the sky, I'm expecting a mid-air breakup.

The crash area is very small. I strongly doubt this was a mid air breakup.

On 1/9/2021 at 7:41 AM, YNM said:

Stall speeds are basically free-fall velocity, right ?

Stalls are not necessarily free falls and can happen at any airspeed, including very fast speeds.

On 1/9/2021 at 7:41 AM, YNM said:

Maybe the engine somehow exploded ? Or it broke after something else explodes... or just on contact with water.

Very likely structural damage caused by terrain.

Quote

What I find interesting is that the speed actually also decreases while descending.

If this data is made from recorded groundspeeds, then it's only relevance is to show us that the descent became more vertical over time, rather than showing us either indicated or true airspeed.

As far as speculation goes, this crash is very tough. All we know is it hit the water intact at a near vertical profile while transmitting data until impact. Much like the Atlas 767 crash, we're going to need the flight data recorder and voice recorder to put together the pieces.

Edited January 11, 2021 by WestAir
Spelling

[YNM]

4 hours ago, WestAir said:

The crash area is very small. I strongly doubt this was a mid air breakup.

I'm not sure, we haven't even found the majority of the aircraft's body yet. The altitude when the crash happened were only at 3000 m. The sea there is fairly shallow (not beyond 50 m deep).

Black boxes signal has been found last night, said "only 200 m apart from each other", but it hasn't been recovered yet. (translated / original)

 

Also, some have drawn some lines to the bleed air check valve corrosion that might happen if the type was parked for a long time. (translated / original) I'd say that this might not be it though until we have more data available.

In any case, it's an odd crash. But I expect it to be nothing like the MAX just for the reason that it survived flying for 26 years before it.

Edited January 11, 2021 by YNM

[WestAir]

10 hours ago, YNM said:

I'm not sure, we haven't even found the majority of the aircraft's body yet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55614074

"He added that it was possible that the plane broke apart when it hit water, based on debris found so far.

"It possibly ruptured when it hit waters because if it had exploded mid-air, the debris would be distributed more widely," said Nurcahyo Utomo."

As for any sort of dual engine failure, that would not result in the accident we've seen. We used to do those for fun in the sim if we had time to burn and finished all our important sim stuff for the day, though I'm not sure how Indonesian training works.

If I were to take a complete shot in the dark with no other information than what's been shown, I'd say this were something along the lines of American Airlines Flight 587. It might explain why fishermen claim to have heard bangs prior to the crash. I will say that I've always been critical of people who play investigator prior to the facts, so feel free to be critical of my presumption lol.

 

[YNM]

3 hours ago, WestAir said:

I've always been critical of people who play investigator prior to the facts, so feel free to be critical of my presumption lol.

No problem. We only have very few data to work with anyway.

3 hours ago, WestAir said:

If I were to take a complete shot in the dark with no other information than what's been shown, I'd say this were something along the lines of American Airlines Flight 587.

I've been wondering if the reason they only took so few debris was because there aren't any large parts left anyway, and/or they're piled on so you have to take up the bits on the top first... Like you most likely wouldn't be able to lift out any part of the plane intact. If this was the case then yeah this might be closer to a slamming break into the water. A stall/flat spin would do that sort of thing I suppose.

3 hours ago, WestAir said:

As for any sort of dual engine failure, that would not result in the accident we've seen. We used to do those for fun in the sim if we had time to burn and finished all our important sim stuff for the day, though I'm not sure how Indonesian training works.

Well, this is a medium-sized airline, so it sees a lot of stuff but it doesn't have every stuff. The largest airline (Lion Air) have their own training/simulation centre, and the flag carrier (Garuda Indonesia) owns a large maintenance facility. Most of the other airlines here use their services AFAIK.

Edited January 11, 2021 by YNM

[mikegarrison]

7 hours ago, WestAir said:

I will say that I've always been critical of people who play investigator prior to the facts

... as you should be.

[Shpaget]

A bit of an update on this front.

A Texas judge ruled that the people killed in the two Boeing 737 Max crashes are "crime victims" *, which potentially opens a new can of worms for Boeing. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/22/business/boeing-737-max-crime-victims/index.html

 

*not that the crashes themselves are crimes, but that crimes (negligence and similar regarding procedures, system safety and redundancy) have led to the crashes.

[Gargamel]

Having seen some of the articles and documentaries on the fiasco, I am not surprised this is going criminal.   When you eliminate a "Stop Work" safety and QA system, and intentionally replace it with one that punishes, or at least suppresses, safety and QA reports for the sake of production schedules, then of course you're flirting with negligence. 

[Shpaget]

I guess, this might be the best place for this. Not related to MCAS, but it is a 737 Max in question.

On January 5 2024 Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 suffered a midflight fuselage failure (altitude of 16 000 ft). A decent chunk blew out. Luckily, no fatalities.

The aircraft in question is brand new, having first flown on October 15 2023.

FAA grounded 171 737 MAX 9  (including all 65 in Alaska Airlines fleet).

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-safety-board-investigating-alaska-airlines-boeing-737-max-9-emergency-landing-2024-01-06/

 

 

This is in addition to this bit from December 28 2023 

"Under consultation with the FAA, Boeing has issued a Multi-Operator Message (MOM), urging operators of newer single-aisle airplanes to inspect specific tie rods that control rudder movement for possible loose hardware."

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closely-monitoring-inspections-boeing-737-max-airplanes

Edited January 6 by Shpaget

[tater]

Door plug failure. I read that in the 2 flights before this the aircraft had some sort of pressurization warning.

What a mess.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

47 minutes ago, tater said:

Door plug failure. I read that in the 2 flights before this the aircraft had some sort of pressurization warning.

What a mess.

Flew one of those home a couple of days ago... the stew kept looking at the door and commenting 'that looks weird'.

Thankfully, nothing exciting happened.

Also - re the pic above: row 26 does not look like an exit row.  

(or rather, not a planned exit row)

[Shpaget]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Also - re the pic above: row 26 does not look like an exit row.  

(or rather, not a planned exit row)

Apparently, it is an optional emergency exit that was factory sealed since that particular cabin configuration doesn't require emergency exit there.

[PakledHostage]

Emergency Airworthiness Directives happen to all types. People love to bash on the 737 Max (and some of it is warranted), but grounding of a fleet for a quick round of inspections isn't unique to that type. It happens with some regularity; it  just usually isn't this public.