WIll you fly a Boeing 737 Max when it returns to the sky?

[Steve5380]

2 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

Obviously there were enough business people and others for whom the time saving was worth it. If it was just up to me I'd prefer first class if I could afford it. I suppose one reason is the same as why countries like Japan, China, Germany, France and so on have very high speed trains and these speeds get faster every few years. There is a huge market for them.

 

 

Business people have their travel costs paid by their companies,  so high ranking executives had no penalty flying the Concord. This may have even raised their prestige.

 

About high speed trains,  I see their advantages in pushing the reliability of trains higher rather than in their higher speeds.  It seems to be a matter of pride to have the fastest trains. We know that the kinetic destructive energy raises with the square of the velocity.  So the velocity of trains should be kept as low as it is practical. 

.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Steve5380

[Steve5380]

The news are out.

 

Now that covid-19 has surged again in the US,  these US carriers American Airlines and United still plan fill up their planes.

Infectious disease experts have repeatedly claimed that masks alone cannot offer reasonable protection, but safe distancing is still necessary.

How can these airlines be allowed to do what they are doing?  

Where is the government's responsibility to assure passenger safety?  

The planes may not fall from the sky, but surely people will die from the virus after being bunched together for many hours of flight.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/american-joins-united-plans-fill-planes-capacity-190100997--abc-news-topstories.html

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doctor-cross-country-united-airlines-flight-scarier-volunteering/story?id=70604160

[InBangkok]

8 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

It seems to be a matter of pride to have the fastest trains. We know that the kinetic destructive energy raises with the square of the velocity.  So the velocity of trains should be kept as low as it is practical. .

 

Why should it be merely a matter of pride? I know nothing about physics but governments and private companies would hardly invest in higher speed trains unless there was an actual demand for them. In Japan, there are three types of shinkansen. From fastest to slowest they are the Nozomi, Hikari and Kodama. Between Tokyo and Osaka the Nozomi takes approx. 2 hours 30 minutes, the Hikari 3 hours and the Kodama over 4 hours. Unreserved seats in the three types are around ¥14,500, ¥13,500 and less for the Kodama. I cannot find official occupancy levels but whenever I have taken the shinkansen during daytime they have been very full. They also leave and arrive exactly on time.

 

And here's the rub. There are around 9 or 10 trains per hour and it is more expensive to take the Nozomi or Hikari trains than to fly by JAL or ANA. The reason for that is that city centre to city centre shinkansen are faster and vastly simpler than flying! If the USA bothered to invest in high speed rail links between, say, LA and San Francisco or the New York, Boston and Washington corridor, the amount of carbon emissions would surely be reduced very considerably.

 

But back to the thread topic. Yet more problems have arisen for the 737 Max. A few days ago foreign regulators have informed Boeing that they want further upgrades to flight control systems. Whilst individually they are not critical, taken together they could create a critical problem.

 

Quote

The required changes to the flight control systems highlight weaknesses in the 737’s inherited avionics systems. The fixes could add substantial cost to the MAX program and might slow the ramp-up of deliveries Boeing needs to recover its cash flow . . . EASA has identified three issues that will require substantial redesign. Transport Canada has focused on one.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/foreign-regulators-demand-substantial-new-changes-to-boeing-737-max-flight-controls/

[singalion]

On 6/26/2020 at 3:47 AM, Steve5380 said:

Both the Concord and the 380 represent excesses.  The strive of humanity to travel at ever higher speed,  or with ever larger capacity, size of the machines. Their successes and failures are being debated but maybe such experiences had to happen.  They add to a collection of dramatic engineering tragedies. 

 

From the Tower of Babel that lead to the multiple languages,  the tragedy of Icarus who flew too high, the burning of the Hindenberg that used H2, the sinking of the Titanic that traveled too fast,  all good material for dramas.  Should the grounding of the 737-Max be added to the "tragedies"?  Time will tell.

 

I need to rebut on your point of excesses.

Probably too many Americans driving SUVs and for plenty of years much too big cars have been excesses and certainly not considering the environment (and they are still driving such excessive cars), but I don"t think the A380 was an excess. It was a requirement during a boost of air travel.

Would an aircraft had been ordered for 250 planes?

 

Maybe the A380 was not very prevalent in the US, but between Europe and Middle East, Australia and in Asia, the A380 is used on shuttle destinations. Don't forget your American airlines are not known for customer service and being the finance fittest.

Dubai Singapore, Dubai - Shanghai. Singapore to HK, Singapore to Sydney, London, Frankfurt, Paris. At least on SQ, most of these shuttles were full with passengers. SQ was flying to everywhere with the A380. Even on the route to Jakarta 1 1/2 hrs flight, they had an A380!

Just the past 2 years, since the economy in China has been decreasing, the airlines took a toll. (And eventually, the rise of many budget airlines eating into the big airline's market share).

Plus, Emirates noted the same decline and the extreme expansion is not possible to all routes. Maybe Emirates has reached its limits on passenger attraction and ending subsidies from the UAE the consequence was a requirement on price adjustments and then being less booked due to a price surge. I don't need to transfer in Middle East if I can book a direct flight to Asia on a different airline but quite the same price.

 

I m quite convinced the times of heavy flights will return. For certain major hubs, Dubai, Hongkong, Singapore, Shanghai, Qatar, Bangkok, Paris, Frankfurt, the A380 will play a role.

And don't forget, some airlines do not intend to mix different aircrafts from different manufacturers as this increases maintenance and spare part stock.

 

What I see for the future, the A380 will be offered on a reconfiguration with more space and less passenger capacity. I m not as pessimistic as the Board of Airbus on the A380.

Greta can call into our hearts, but too many are addicted on traveling and the hubs will soon need the A380 again. (On a note: Emirates has just relaunched the passenger flights...)

 

And let's praise Airbus: With the huge artificial bird A380 the company Airbus showed, reduction in fuel consumption is possible. Boeing prior to that never looked into fuel reduction for overhauls or new models. That was excessive!

[Steve5380]

30 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

 

Why should it be merely a matter of pride? I know nothing about physics but governments and private companies would hardly invest in higher speed trains unless there was an actual demand for them. In Japan, there are three types of shinkansen. From fastest to slowest they are the Nozomi, Hikari and Kodama. Between Tokyo and Osaka the Nozomi takes approx. 2 hours 30 minutes, the Hikari 3 hours and the Kodama over 4 hours. Unreserved seats in the three types are around ¥14,500, ¥13,500 and less for the Kodama. I cannot find official occupancy levels but whenever I have taken the shinkansen during daytime they have been very full. They also leave and arrive exactly on time.

 

 

Pride is a very natural human motivation.  Car manufacturers are affected by this.  Wasn't pride a motivator in the Concord and the A380?

Advances in technology give a push to increase the maximum speed of trains.  But this does not mean that they should travel at such maximum speed. In fact, they do not.   And the demand for these trains would not necessarily be lower if they travel slower.   In your example from Japan, there is demand for the one that takes 4 hours even if there are others that take 3 hours and 2 1/2 hours. And there is demand as long as they offer advantages over flying. 

 

Pride also motivates the construction of ever higher skyscrapers.  I visited the Petronas Tower and the Taipei 101 when they were the tallest in the world. Today, they have been vastly passed over by other newer structures.  What sense does it make to have an 800 meter tall building in  Dubai, with all that dessert land around it?  

 

48 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

 

But back to the thread topic. Yet more problems have arisen for the 737 Max. A few days ago foreign regulators have informed Boeing that they want further upgrades to flight control systems. Whilst individually they are not critical, taken together they could create a critical problem.

 

 

It is really scandalous how the ergonomics and safety were left out of the design of the 737 Max.  From a single failure that can trigger multiple confusing alarms to the stick shaker that if faulty the pilot should disable by unscrewing a fuse... and the "synthetic" speed sensor left out because it would have required the retraining of the pilots....  yuck!

[Steve5380]

5 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

I need to rebut on your point of excesses.

Probably too many Americans driving SUVs and for plenty of years much too big cars have been excesses and certainly not considering the environment (and they are still driving such excessive cars), but I don"t think the A380 was an excess. It was a requirement during a boost of air travel.

Would an aircraft had been ordered for 250 planes?

 

 

My opinion of excesses is not rebutted by mentioning other excesses.  I fully agree that the popularity of SUVs and pickup trucks in the US is a vast excess.  The same is the construction of ever bigger houses in the US for the middle class that can afford them.  

That something is build bigger to satisfy an increasing demand does not negate that it might be an excess.  The cost of commercial flying has decreased enormously since it was started.  By becoming increasingly inexpensive it has created an enormous demand for flights, therefore the demand for ever increasing capacity in airplanes.  Maybe there is an excess of flying today?  But it would be a departure from the topic of the thread to discuss all the excesses that exist today,  starting with the excess of human population  

[singalion]

1 hour ago, InBangkok said:

 

Why should it be merely a matter of pride? I know nothing about physics but governments and private companies would hardly invest in higher speed trains unless there was an actual demand for them. In Japan, there are three types of shinkansen. From fastest to slowest they are the Nozomi, Hikari and Kodama. Between Tokyo and Osaka the Nozomi takes approx. 2 hours 30 minutes, the Hikari 3 hours and the Kodama over 4 hours. Unreserved seats in the three types are around ¥14,500, ¥13,500 and less for the Kodama. I cannot find official occupancy levels but whenever I have taken the shinkansen during daytime they have been very full. They also leave and arrive exactly on time.

 

And here's the rub. There are around 9 or 10 trains per hour and it is more expensive to take the Nozomi or Hikari trains than to fly by JAL or ANA. The reason for that is that city centre to city centre shinkansen are faster and vastly simpler than flying! If the USA bothered to invest in high speed rail links between, say, LA and San Francisco or the New York, Boston and Washington corridor, the amount of carbon emissions would surely be reduced very considerably.

 

But back to the thread topic. Yet more problems have arisen for the 737 Max. A few days ago foreign regulators have informed Boeing that they want further upgrades to flight control systems. Whilst individually they are not critical, taken together they could create a critical problem.

 

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/foreign-regulators-demand-substantial-new-changes-to-boeing-737-max-flight-controls/

 

 

wow that's getting interesting.

 

The trains in US are on the level of the first class compartments in India with similar rail structures (bumpy). The dirt level is the same or on greyhound level.

US never invested in upgrading their train routes.

Or look at the New York subway? What an old train system. Maybe it has been kept on this level for memory reasons.

The US is stuck on many infrastructure items on a developing country level. Probably some rail links in South Africa are better than in the US.

Trains in US are used for some city connections, but nobody ever invested into the train network.

 

I don't think the inventions will be coming from the US on such infrastructure. And look at Boeing, most Boeing  planes are copying the advances invented by Airbus.

But what is something Boeing developed as an advancement?

 

This is somehow my point on the Singapore-KL speed train: If the one way ticket is around S$100, taking a flight is still a cheaper option. Who is going to sit 4 hours in a train (or longer as they are increasing the stops in Malaysia on a weekly basis in the past (ha ha)), when you can reach downtown KL in just 1 1/2 hours and with lower costs?

I know the project is on hold at the moment but they are coming back soon.

 

Regarding the 737 Max. The outcome could be, the plane is just not viable any longer. The longer the airlines wait, the lower the interest. The name of the 737 Max might be too damaged to gain sufficient track record to become anything successful. For sure, any scrutiny will be deeper and stricter by any civil aviation authority.

Boeing might put the plane on rest.

Edited June 27, 2020 by singalion
- picture removed

[InBangkok]

3 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Pride is a very natural human motivation.  Car manufacturers are affected by this.  Wasn't pride a motivator in the Concord and the A380?

 

Unquestionably - to both assertions. But if pride is the only motivator for technological advance, the human race would likely be set back a good two millennia. Was pride the reason for Edison inventing DC electricity? Nope. It was about pure cash profit. For Tesla, inventing AC electricity was perhaps as much an issue of pride as anything else. And he won the battle although Edison today gets most of the credit. The NASA Moon programme was definitely a pride venture, although its underlying motive was to get there before the Soviets who were then ahead in the space race. Yet the NASA programme resulted in many technological advances that benefitted the average man and women on earth, including the Nike Air shoe!

 

Thankfully the human mind is basically curious. And for some people curiosity leads to new inventions. And eventually these inventions spawn a whole host of other new inventions. Alan Turing and the computer in the 1940s. Would he have believed the computing power of modern phones? Edward Jenner came up with the vaccination as a way of controlling the spread of smallpox. Was that pride? I doubt if pride played any part. Where would we be today with vaccinations? What about the Wright Brothers and flight? Sure, they made a lot of money but I doubt if either had any idea whatever of the new technologies that would result from their first controlled powered heavier than air flight. Could they even have comprehended the possibility of either Concorde or the A380? Unlikely.

 

You question vanity projects like the world's tallest buildings. I do not believe they were merely a result of a pride factor. The Petronas Twin Towers to a certain extent put Kuala Lumpur on the world map. It even featured in several major international movies. In 1955, pride certainly led the City Council of Sydney to launch an international design competition for the building of an Opera House on the harbour. Jorn Utzon's winning design was just a series of sketches as he never believed he would win it. The actual building of the Opera House was massively complex and led to new methods of construction and other innovations - albeit at vast cost overruns. The Council could have chosen a building with four brick walls with sails painted on them. Instead Utzon's Opera House has for dozens of years been Australia's No. 1 attraction. It symbolises Australia as much as the Taj Mahal symbolises India. There is nothing wrong with pride as most times it results in major benefits.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by InBangkok

[InBangkok]

2 hours ago, singalion said:

Who is going to sit 4 hours in a train (or longer as they are increasing the stops in Malaysia on a weekly basis in the past (ha ha)), when you can reach downtown KL in just 1 1/2 hours and with lower costs?

 

I have actually taken the bus from Singapore to KL and found it infinitely preferable to dragging myself out to Changi, going through Immigration and Security checks, waiting for an aircraft that will probably be late, taken the short flight, gone through immigration again and then the train to KLCAT. Vastly cheaper - and with an 11:00 am departure from the City Centre I was the only passenger 😁

Edited June 27, 2020 by InBangkok

[upshot]

6 hours ago, singalion said:

 

I need to rebut on your point of excesses.

Probably too many Americans driving SUVs and for plenty of years much too big cars have been excesses and certainly not considering the environment (and they are still driving such excessive cars), but I don"t think the A380 was an excess. It was a requirement during a boost of air travel.

Would an aircraft had been ordered for 250 planes?

 

Maybe the A380 was not very prevalent in the US, but between Europe and Middle East, Australia and in Asia, the A380 is used on shuttle destinations. Don't forget your American airlines are not known for customer service and being the finance fittest.

Dubai Singapore, Dubai - Shanghai. Singapore to HK, Singapore to Sydney, London, Frankfurt, Paris. At least on SQ, most of these shuttles were full with passengers. SQ was flying to everywhere with the A380. Even on the route to Jakarta 1 1/2 hrs flight, they had an A380!

Just the past 2 years, since the economy in China has been decreasing, the airlines took a toll. (And eventually, the rise of many budget airlines eating into the big airline's market share).

Plus, Emirates noted the same decline and the extreme expansion is not possible to all routes. Maybe Emirates has reached its limits on passenger attraction and ending subsidies from the UAE the consequence was a requirement on price adjustments and then being less booked due to a price surge. I don't need to transfer in Middle East if I can book a direct flight to Asia on a different airline but quite the same price.

 

I m quite convinced the times of heavy flights will return. For certain major hubs, Dubai, Hongkong, Singapore, Shanghai, Qatar, Bangkok, Paris, Frankfurt, the A380 will play a role.

And don't forget, some airlines do not intend to mix different aircrafts from different manufacturers as this increases maintenance and spare part stock.

 

What I see for the future, the A380 will be offered on a reconfiguration with more space and less passenger capacity. I m not as pessimistic as the Board of Airbus on the A380.

Greta can call into our hearts, but too many are addicted on traveling and the hubs will soon need the A380 again. (On a note: Emirates has just relaunched the passenger flights...)

 

And let's praise Airbus: With the huge artificial bird A380 the company Airbus showed, reduction in fuel consumption is possible. Boeing prior to that never looked into fuel reduction for overhauls or new models. That was excessive!

Like your take on this. Sounds really hopeful for the A380 or at least planes of those specific for the future.

[upshot]

2 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

I have actually taken the bus from Singapore to KL and found it infinitely preferable to dragging myself out to Changi, going through Immigration and Security checks, waiting for an aircraft that will probably be late, taken the short flight, gone through immigration again and then the train to KLCAT. Vastly cheaper - and with an 11:00 am departure from the City Centre I was the only passenger 😁

 When ever I go to KL for work or play, its the luxury bus for me back and forth.. Better than planes for sure. For one thing the new airport is outside of KL and only make sense if I happen to visit my relative in Seremban. If not, its a long taxi ride or train ride to KL City. The so called "first class" coach (cost $50 each way) ride is like 4 hours plus and the time flies by really quickly in a comfy seat that has vibration and reclining to almost a bed stance and a video channel to boot. Hassle free and a hostess to serve your meal and drinks. Nothing beats that level by comparison to budget air or even full fare planes like SIA or MAS.

 

The express Train project would be a welcome idea for sure.... if it ever takes off. Malaysia tend to drag its feet and get temperamental where politicking with Singapore is concern.

[InBangkok]

2 hours ago, upshot said:

Like your take on this. Sounds really hopeful for the A380 or at least planes of those specific for the future.

 

I fear the future of the A380 is not so rosy. Without the 114  A380s currently operated by Emirates the plane would surely have died before now. Emirates has actually cancelled most of the next 36 A380s it ordered in early 2018.  Even worse, the first 12 Emirates planes were leased and the leases expire next month. So they will be handed back by EK to the leaseholder. Arbus now has only 9 of the aircraft currently on order and has already announced it is shutting down its production line.

 

On the A380 used for the daily BKK/HKG /BKK route, EK had stripped out its first class suites and reduced business class to about 46 seats. So it carried 615 passengers. When I took it every few months, it seemed to be very full.

Edited June 27, 2020 by InBangkok

[Steve5380]

 

7 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

You question vanity projects like the world's tallest buildings. I do not believe they were merely a result of a pride factor. The Petronas Twin Towers to a certain extent put Kuala Lumpur on the world map. It even featured in several major international movies. In 1955, pride certainly led the City Council of Sydney to launch an international design competition for the building of an Opera House on the harbour. Jorn Utzon's winning design was just a series of sketches as he never believed he would win it. The actual building of the Opera House was massively complex and led to new methods of construction and other innovations - albeit at vast cost overruns. The Council could have chosen a building with four brick walls with sails painted on them. Instead Utzon's Opera House has for dozens of years been Australia's No. 1 attraction. It symbolises Australia as much as the Taj Mahal symbolises India. There is nothing wrong with pride as most times it results in major benefits.

 

 

I also admired Sydney's Opera House.  But I only saw it from the outside, there was nothing performed inside at the time that I was interested in watching.

 

Summing up:  LET'S NOT BE ASHAMED OF OUR PRIDE   

[Steve5380]

7 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

I have actually taken the bus from Singapore to KL and found it infinitely preferable to dragging myself out to Changi, going through Immigration and Security checks, waiting for an aircraft that will probably be late, taken the short flight, gone through immigration again and then the train to KLCAT. Vastly cheaper - and with an 11:00 am departure from the City Centre I was the only passenger 😁

 

I have never taken a flight between Singapore and KL.  Instead,  I have traveled countless times in both directions with Aeroline coach bus between Harbourfront and KLCC,  and had nice walks under the Petronas Towers and the KLCC park to and from the hotel Impiana where I always stayed.  I very seldom took taxis in SG, KL, BKK.  Walking is enjoyable!

 

Ah, and my first trip from SG to KL was by train.  It took forever, but I enjoyed seeing all the vast plantations on the way.  I like to travel by (slow) train,  remainder of my infancy where I liked the rattling and shaking and I admired the big steam locomotives so much!   

.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Steve5380

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

I also admired Sydney's Opera House.  But I only saw it from the outside, there was nothing performed inside at the time that I was interested in watching.

 

Just so you know, it's crap! After Utzon was fired, the civil servants took over. They then switched the large opera house and made it the concert hall. The State Theatre became the small opera theatre with a tiny orchestra pit and no wings space. The Concert Hall has just been closed for a US$150 refit. The distinguished actor John Malkovich once said the acoustics in the concert hall "would do an aeroplane hanger a disservice!" (I knew I should get this thread back to aircraft 😲 ). But fabulous building outside.

 

By the time Frank Gehry designed the titanium clad Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, those who commission iconic arts buildings had started to realise that what goes on inside is actually more important than the look outside!

[Guest better to retire?]

Boeing 737 Max certification flight tests to begin on Monday: Sources

Published Straits Times Jun 28, 2020, 12:50 pm SGT

 

SEATTLE/WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - Pilots and test crew members from the US Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing Co aim to kick off a certification test campaign for the 737 Max on Monday (June 29), expected to last at least three days, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The flight test is a pivotal moment in Boeing's worst-ever corporate crisis, long since compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic that has slashed air travel and jet demand.

The grounding of the fast-selling 737 Max in March 2019 after crashes killed 346 people in Ethiopia and Indonesia triggered hundreds of lawsuits, investigations by Congress and the Department of Justice and cut off a key source of Boeing's cash.

 

After a preflight briefing over several hours, the crew will board a 737 Max 7 outfitted with special test equipment at Boeing Field near Seattle, one of the people said.

The crew will run methodically scripted mid-air scenarios such as steep-banking turns, progressing to more extreme maneuvers on a route primarily over Washington state. The flight plan could include touch-and-go landings at the eastern Washington airport in Moses Lake, and a path over the Pacific Ocean coastline, adjusting the course as needed for weather conditions and other factors, one of the people said.

 

Pilots will also intentionally trigger the reprogrammed stall-prevention software known as MCAS faulted in both crashes, and will likely perform a full aerodynamic stall, the people said.

 

 

The tests are meant to ensure that new protections Boeing added to the MCAS flight control system are robust enough to prevent the scenario pilots encountered in both crash flights, when they were unable to counteract the system and grappled with several factors like "stick shaker" column vibrations and other warnings, one of the people said.

 

Boeing and the FAA declined to comment.

Boeing has wrestled for months with painstaking software system upgrades, wiring changes, documentation, and dress rehearsals. That includes hundreds of hours inside a 737 Max flight simulator at Boeing's Longacres facility in Renton, Washington, and hundreds of hours in the air on the same 737 Max 7 test airplane without FAA officials on board.

At least one of those practice flights included the same testing parameters expected on Monday, one of the people said.

 

After the flights, FAA officials in Washington and the Seattle area will analyse reams of digital and paperwork flight test data to assess the jetliners' airworthiness.

Likely weeks later, after the data is analysed and training protocols are firmed up, FAA Administrator Steve Dickson, a former F-15 fighter pilot who has promised that the 737 Max will not be approved until he has personally signed off on it, will board the same plane to make his assessments, two of the people said.

 

If all goes well, the FAA would then need to approve new pilot training procedures, among other reviews, and would not likely approve the plane's ungrounding until September, the people said.

 

That means the jet is on a path to resume US commercial service before year end, though the process has been plagued by delays for more than a year.

 

[InBangkok]

 

Quote

 

The tests are a milestone for Boeing, but even if they go well, months of further safety checks will be needed . . .

It could take weeks to analyse data from the test flights. But even if this process is successful, further flying, training of pilots, and clearance from European and Canadian regulators will be needed.

The European Aviation Safety Agency has maintained that clearance by the FAA will not automatically mean a clearance to fly in Europe.

 

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53212274

[Guest bus to KL]

On 6/27/2020 at 10:22 PM, Steve5380 said:

 

I have never taken a flight between Singapore and KL.  Instead,  I have traveled countless times in both directions with Aeroline coach bus between Harbourfront and KLCC,  and had nice walks under the Petronas Towers and the KLCC park to and from the hotel Impiana where I always stayed.  I very seldom took taxis in SG, KL, BKK.  Walking is enjoyable!

 

Ah, and my first trip from SG to KL was by train.  It took forever, but I enjoyed seeing all the vast plantations on the way.  I like to travel by (slow) train,  remainder of my infancy where I liked the rattling and shaking and I admired the big steam locomotives so much!   

.

 

 I took only once a bus from KL back to Singapore. The trip was 8 hours or longer.

 

The bus broke down just after a 2 hours drive. Plenty of bus drivers from the same company gathered at the side of the highway to discuss for hours what to do and even caused the passengers in other busses to wait and instead of taking in passengers from our bus and drive on, it was like a cakap cakap merokok break for the drivers.

After spending two hours at the side of the highway, another bus came to pick us up. The bus driver still insisted on driving into that rest stop (Yong Peng) just 1 hour before the customs, even after all passengers asked him not to stop. (if he had to pee, could have driven into a rest stop at the highway rest stops). We wasted another hour. As it was a Sunday, traffic is higher at the Malaysian Immigration and Tuas. At the end still had to travel from Golden Mile back to my home in the middle of the night and spending on cab.

Never took any bus again for the KL trip. And with plenty of Malaysian public holidays, the highways often very jammed.

 

One of my Ang Moh colleagues took a bus trip as his brother was on holiday in town and they wanted to visit the KLCC. It took them 12 hours to reach KL, they wasted the money for the first night at a hotel because only booked into the hotel at 10am on the next day and took another bus 7 hours back to Singapore on the next day. This was just 2 years ago. They actually spent the weekend in the bus. I told myself. hm nothing has changed with the buses to KL.

 

Taking a flight to KL is very convenient. Even if you don't want to spend the RM45 for the KLIA ekspres train, can take a bus for about RM 8 - 15, takes just 35 - 45 mins depending on the traffic. I mostly bribed the driver with a RM 10 note and he drove me as the first person to my hotel... (yeah I m bad I know, but mostly got a boy waiting for me... ha ha). Those who prefer a car, grab had this RM58 offer all the time from the airport to downtown KL.

 

Taking a flight is much more time efficient.

The only downvote is for the Malaysian Immigration at both KLIA and KLIA2. Queues are getting longer and longer to clear the immigration. (maybe not now, but just like January, February 2020 it was horrible). it took at least 1 1/2 hours if not longer. They changed the queue system at KLIA2 but not to the better... To clear immigration at KLIA is not much better or faster than KLIA2.

Nothing compares here to Singapore immigration (unless you happen to arrive when 5 different A380 landed from big cities in Asia and the Singaporean automated immigration is full of people).

 

But I find the flights still faster and more time efficient than taking a bus.

[Steve5380]

5 hours ago, Guest bus to KL said:

 

 I took only once a bus from KL back to Singapore. The trip was 8 hours or longer.

---

But I find the flights still faster and more time efficient than taking a bus.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your problems with buses.

 

But in my use of the "Aeroline coach bus" between SG and KL  I never experienced a break down, the trip usually lasted 5 hours,  and costed about SGD$32.

Ride was comfortable, customs clearing was fast, although I could have preferred less time spent at the two intermediate bus stops.

[InBangkok]

Boeing's 737 Max aircraft has completed its FAA test flight programme. So now Boeing has to wait possibly for months before the data is fully analysed and the aircraft is cleared to fly again in US airspace. Thereafter airlines have to be consulted, pilots trained and a huge public relations campaign organised to persuade the flying public that the plane is in fact safe. 

 

At the same time, Boeing has been slammed by the Report from the Department of Transportation 's Inspector General. The Report makes clear that there were many major faults at Boeing. It adds that the company made a corporate decision to all but deliberately lie to the FAA regarding the MCAS system and various other issues with the new plane in order to obtain quick - and in the event - faulty certification. Prior to certification, Boeing technicians had undertaken 87% of what was supposed to be the FAA's own work.

 

This whole affair has cost Boeing to date US$18 billion. Sitting on their lawyers' desks is another large bunch of law suit fillings from the airlines and passengers of the crashed planes, many airlines seeking massive compensation for severely delayed deliveries, and the additional costs of the now essential repairs to the hundreds of already constructed and parked all over the USA and other parts of the world, and future Max aircraft. I doubt if airlines which have paid their deposits and received delivery contracts will be prepared to pay more to help Boeing just because Boeing made such disastrously wrong decisions. The irony is that the Company's original idea of designing a completely new aircraft would have cost considerably less!

 

https://simpleflying.com/737-max-inspector-general/

 

 

[InBangkok]

Slightly on a tangent British Airways, the world's largest operator of passenger 747-400s  has announced it is immediately retiring its last 747-400 aircraft. It had intended keeping them in service until 2024 but now all 31 will be sold or sent for scrap.

 

Although this was inevitably going to happen, it leaves me with a small tear in my eye. Virtually all my long haul flying over close to 4 decades was on 747s. My first was an Air France 747-200 from Paris to Hong Kong stopping en route at Dubai. Bombay and Bangkok. Oddly I cannot recall my last. I think it was London to Hong Kong on CX.  I loved that aircraft. I admit I was not crazy with BA's forward/backward 8-across seating in biz class, but it was ok if I could get a particular seat I liked.  Other airlines had much more pleasant configurations in most of the 747 models. 

[Guest updates]

Boeing given long list of proposed fixes for return of 737 Max grounded after two fatal crashes

While the European Aviation Safety Agency has not yet been able to conduct its own test flights of the Max, Boeing has demonstrated compliance under the European standards.PHOTO: AFP

Published

Aug 4, 2020, 10:22 am SGT

 

WASHINGTON (BLOOMBERG) - US aviation regulators have proposed a long list of fixes to Boeing's grounded 737 Max in one of the most extensive set of requirements the agency has issued following an accident.

 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Monday (Aug 3) asked for public comment on the changes it expects to require to the plane linked to two fatal crashes.

In addition to fixes specific to the system implicated in the accidents, it would mandate broad computer changes to improve reliability, add a warning light that was inoperative in the two crashes and require rerouting electrical wires that do not meet safety rules.

 

The release of the FAA proposal shows that, after 16 months of the plane's grounding and a series of investigative reports and congressional hearings, aviation regulators are satisfied that the fixes will allow the plane to safely resume service. Flight tests of the redesigned systems by FAA were completed July 2.

The agency "has preliminarily determined that Boeing's proposed changes to the 737 Max design, flight crew procedures and maintenance procedures effectively mitigate the airplane-related safety issues" revealed in the crashes, it said in a summary report it included with the proposal.

The step is a welcome milestone, but needs to be approached with caution because other critical regulators in Europe and Canada have not acted, said Mr Richard Aboulafia, an industry analyst with Teal Group.

 

"We'll see what the commentary period brings and we'll see, most importantly, what the international partners do," Mr Aboulafia said.

 

While the European Aviation Safety Agency has not yet been able to conduct its own test flights of the Max, Boeing has demonstrated compliance under the European standards, the FAA said in its summary of the review.

 

The FAA's proposal for fixes and a preliminary report on its findings from its own internal investigation provide the most detailed accounting to date by the agency on the plane's original shortfalls and what went wrong in the two crashes.

The actions would cost US airlines about US$1 million (S$1.4 million) for the 73 planes registered in the country, the FAA said.

 

The agency did not estimate how much it would cost to make the required changes on the several hundred jets registered in other countries and did not account for Boeing's costs.

 

The Chicago-based manufacturer may cover some of the airlines' repair costs under warranty, FAA said.

The FAA also proposed requiring a test of the sensor - known as an angle of attack vane - that failed in the crashes and giving each aircraft a test flight before it is permitted to return to service.

The fixes outlined by FAA apply only to the Max models, but the agency said Boeing is considering some changes to the 737 Next Generation family, which preceded the Max but were not susceptible to the same failure. Boeing has sold more than 7,000 Next Generation planes, meaning costs could be higher if upgrades are eventually required.

"We're continuing to make steady progress towards the safe return to service, working closely with the FAA and other global regulators," Boeing said in an e-mailed statement. "While we still have a lot of work in front of us, this is an important milestone in the certification process."

 

The public has 45 days to comment on the FAA's plans. That means the plane most likely cannot get the official go-ahead to return until October at the earliest.

With airlines having to retrain pilots and perform maintenance on the grounded fleet, it will take weeks or months longer before the planes begin carrying passengers.

The changes listed by the FAA track with those that have been discussed for months, indicating no new problems were found in the later stages of the agency's review.

A pair of crashes - each tied to the same flawed system that malfunctioned and repeatedly dove the planes - killed 346 people less than five months apart.

 

The first occurred on Oct 29, 2018, in the Java Sea shortly after takeoff from Jakarta. The second was on March 10, 2019, in Ethiopia. The plane was grounded worldwide three days after the second crash.

The FAA said that a feature, known as Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), had failed to meet safety requirements because it could fail with a single malfunctioning sensor and its repeated attempts to push down a plane's nose could overpower pilots who did not react properly.

MCAS was installed to meet FAA safety requirements, the agency said.

 

In both crashes, a malfunctioning sensor that erroneously reported the planes were pointed too high began automatically and repeatedly pushing down the noses of the jets.

Boeing's engineers assumed that pilots would know how to disable the motor driving down the nose and the procedure for doing so is taught to all 737 pilots. But both crews apparently became confused during the emergencies and neither was able to do so.

 

The redesigned system will have multiple protections to prevent such crashes in the future.

 

n addition, there will be training for pilots and documentation of how the system works to help crews prepare for failures in the future. Boeing is also revising eight emergency procedures in its flight manuals for the plane, FAA said.

 

Originally, pilots were not told about the system. Both the company and the FAA did not realise it could pose a danger.

The accidents also prompted a re-examination of the 737 Max's flight-control computer, which led to a redesign of that system as well in an attempt to make it more resilient against failure.

 

Finalising new pilot training will be done separately by an FAA panel that will also give the public a chance to comment on the changes.

Instead of firing repeatedly, it can only activate once in the new design. It checks data from two sensors instead of one. And its power to dive a plane has been reduced.

 

[Guest updates]

Boeing 737 Max’s Europe Flight Test Still on Hold as FAA Moves Ahead

Siddharth Philip 5/08/2020

 

 

---

 

Boeing 737 Max’s Europe Flight Test Still on Hold as FAA Moves Ahead

 

 

(Bloomberg) -- Travel restrictions brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic continue to slow the re-certification process for Boeing Co.’s 737 Max in Europe, even after U.S. aviation regulators moved a step closer to allowing the grounded jet to fly again.

 

 

 

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency said it’s still working with Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration to find a solution that would allow it to conduct its own test flights for the jet. None of the flights, a prerequisite for the Max’s return to service in Europe, have been scheduled.

 

“Good progress has been made but there is still some work which Boeing needs to complete,” EASA said by email, without elaborating. “In the light of this position, and in common with the FAA, we cannot yet predict a firm schedule for the return to service and the ungrounding of the aircraft in Europe.”

The FAA on Monday asked for public comment on proposed changes it will require for recertification of the Max, which was grounded after two crashes killed 346 people. Boeing has said it expects to resume deliveries of the narrow-body plane this year.

 

Boeing shares rose 1.4% to $164.47 at 12:25 p.m. in New York. The stock dropped 50% this year through Monday, the worst performance on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

 

The FAA’s action shows that, after 16 months and numerous probes and congressional hearings, aviation regulators are satisfied that the fixes will allow the plane to safely resume service. Flight tests of the redesigned systems by the FAA were completed July 2.

 

“We continue to make steady progress towards safely returning the airplane to service, working through the rigorous process laid out by the FAA, EASA and other authorities,” Boeing said by email, without commenting on European test flights. “Safety remains our priority and the regulators will continue to determine the schedule for return to service.”

In addition to changes specific to the system implicated in the accidents, the FAA proposal would mandate broad computer changes to improve reliability, add a warning light that was inoperative in the two crashes and require the rerouting of electrical wires that don’t meet safety rules.

 

“EASA has been working closely with the FAA and Boeing throughout with the common aim of returning the 737 Max to service as soon as possible, but only once we are convinced it is safe,” the European agency said.

 

(Updates with Boeing comment in seventh paragraph. A previous version of this story corrected the death toll from the crashes.)

 

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

 

 

[InBangkok]

17 hours ago, Guest updates said:

WASHINGTON (BLOOMBERG) - US aviation regulators have proposed a long list of fixes to Boeing's grounded 737 Max in one of the most extensive set of requirements the agency has issued following an accident.

 

The task ahead of Boeing seems much larger than will warrant a return to the skies this year. The extensive changes mandated by the FAA - a body which was clearly negligent when it came to certifying the plane as airworthy in the first place - will require substantial modifications and additions to the software of all 387 Max-8 planes that had been delivered and then grounded plus the 400 planes produced since the grounding order in March last year. Changes are also required in the wiring. Each of these 787 aircraft will need to be gone over in minute detail to ensure they are in fact ready to fly. The maintenance time required per plane will surely require a large workforce and a lot of time.

 

It was reported some time ago that debris was found in an engine of one aircraft. How many other engines have debris? Not all the aircraft have been stored in ideal low humidity conditions. Will the long storage time have had any effect on the airframes or the delicate instruments? Being stored is not like flying when an aircraft spend a lot of time in the much lower humidity found at 10,000 meters and above.

 

I am sure Boeing and airlines will make every effort to ensure that the Max is indeed airworthy this time around. But given the enormity of the mistakes made during the design process and the problems affecting its manufacture, I will remain one member of the flying public who will never trust the safety of this aircraft.

 

On pprune.org, the professional pilots rumour website, one poster made this comment yesterday, "This whole thing feels like a fudge."

[Guest next one]

never ending story? new problems with other planes??? What is with Boeing??

 

 

Boeing Grounds Eight 787 Jets After Flaws Create Risk of Failure

Julie Johnsson and Anurag Kotoky 7 hrs ago 29/08/2020

 

(Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. grounded eight of its 787 Dreamliner jets for inspection and repair after finding two manufacturing flaws that together could compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft.

The distinct issues involve the composite barrel sections at the rear of the wide-body plane, which are melded together at a Boeing plant in South Carolina. Together, the flaws cause the fuselage sections to fall short of the planemaker’s standards for withstanding stress, creating a risk of in-flight failure.

 

Boeing has found that the rest of the global Dreamliner fleet meets those standards, known as limited load capability, a person familiar with the matter said. However, Boeing is analyzing data to determine whether it needs to take further action such as recommending inspections of other Dreamliners in use, said the person, who asked not to be identified as the matter is confidential.

 

“We are taking the appropriate steps to resolve these issues and prevent them from happening again,” Boeing said by email. The company said it has “fully briefed” the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and is “conducting a thorough review into the root cause.”

 

 

Air Canada, United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Singapore Airlines Ltd. said they each had one of the affected planes. United said its Dreamliner had been in service before the airline was notified by Boeing.

 

The problems add to a series of woes for Boeing, which is working to end a global grounding of the workhorse 737 Max that was imposed in March 2019 after two crashes killed 346 people. Changes to the narrow-body’s flight control system are being testing by regulators, and the plane is expected to be cleared for flight by year-end. Boeing also is grappling with structural cracks involving so-called pickle forks in an earlier generation of the 737.

 

The 787 has become a critical source of cash for Boeing during the Max crisis. It is popular with airlines for its fuel efficiency and creature comforts that lessen the effects of jet lag. The limited grounding isn’t likely to snarl airline operations, since the long-distance flights for which the Dreamliner is used have diminished during the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Boeing rose less than 1% to $175.71 at 3:14 p.m. in New York. The stock had tumbled 47% this year through Thursday, the sharpest decline on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The Dreamliner issues were first reported by the Air Current blog and come as Boeing studies consolidating production of the 787 in a single location. The model is built in Everett, Washington, as well as at a nonunion factory in South Carolina. That facility, which is devoted to the 787, has suffered quality lapses and was part of a 2015 case brought by the FAA that prompted Boeing to pay a $12 million penalty.

 

Boeing fabricates Dreamliner barrels from strands of carbon-composite tape laid down by giant robots on the North Charleston, South Carolina, campus. Workers then meld together two of the sections with a rear bulkhead that helps maintain cabin pressure.

Shim Installation

The first issue affecting the grounded aircraft involves shims that are built to a robot’s precise, laser-guided measurements to fill any gaps where the two barrels are joined to ensure that stresses are distributed as designed. Some of the gaps were improperly filled, according to the Air Current. The aircraft also were found to have roughness on the inner skin of the barrel wall. Combined, the two issues meant that the segments might not withstand the required structural loads, the Air Current said.

 

Boeing is separately addressing another concern: that faulty shim installation on its own might contribute to structural fatigue. The company is analyzing data on the 977 Dreamliners already in service to determine if additional action, including inspections, is required, the person familiar with the matter said.

 

The FAA said it is engaging with Boeing regarding the flawed Dreamliners. The agency has the option to issue emergency orders if it believes urgent action is needed.

Because the planes are built in the U.S., the FAA will take the lead in determining what type of inspections and repairs are needed after consulting with Boeing. Other regulators would typically adopt the FAA’s requirements.

 

The Dreamliner, Boeing’s marquee wide-body jet, experienced a series of early teething problems that caused it to enter the market more than three years late in 2011. Regulators grounded the aircraft for three months in early 2013 after two lithium-ion batteries incinerated.

 

The 787 hadn’t experienced significant in-service issues involving its carbon-composite structure until the current grounding. Boeing touted robotically produced shims for the aircraft as a means to reduce inspections, the Seattle Times wrote in 2019.

 

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

[InBangkok]

The first enquiry results are starting to come in - and they are damning for both Boeing and the US FAA.  

 

Quote

 

"The Max crashes were not the result of a singular failure, technical mistake, or mismanaged event," the committee report says. Instead, "they were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing's engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing's management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA."

 

The House Transportation Committee released an investigative report produced by Democratic staff on Wednesday morning. It documents what it says is "a disturbing pattern of technical miscalculations and troubling management misjudgments" by Boeing, combined with "numerous oversight lapses and accountability gaps by the FAA."

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913426448/congressional-inquiry-faults-boeing-and-faa-failures-for-deadly-737-max-plane-cr

[singalion]

Boeing ‘gambled with public safety’ in run-up to two deadly crashes

Cost cuts and lack of scrutiny contributed to 737 Max disasters, say US politicians

Jasper Jolly

Wed 16 Sep 2020 13.04 BST Last modified on Wed 16 Sep 2020 18.57 BST the Guardian

 

Boeing grounded its 737 Max planes after two deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019. Photograph: Elaine Thompson/AP

Boeing jeopardised the safety of passengers by cutting costs on the development of the 737 Max and escaped scrutiny from regulators before software flaws contributed to two fatal crashes of the aircraft, according to a report by US politicians.

The US manufacturer was forced to ground its bestselling plane after the crashes of a Lion Air 737 Max in 2018 and an Ethiopian Airlines jet in 2019. The crashes killed 346 people.

In a report published on Wednesday, the committee on transportation and infrastructure, made up of members of the US House of Representatives, said there had been “repeated and serious failures” by Boeing and its regulator, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in allowing the faulty aircraft to carry passengers.

The committee’s chair, the Democratic representative Peter DeFazio, said Boeing and the regulator “gambled with public safety in the critical time period between the two crashes”.

DeFazio said the committee found a “broken safety culture at Boeing” and “gaps in the regulatory system at the FAA that allowed this fatally flawed plane into service”.

The report comes as Boeing hopes for the imminent recertification of the 737 Max after software fixes and a new round of testing. The return of the plane to service is a key target for the manufacturer, which is cutting about 16,000 jobs under the twin financial pressures of the 737 Max scandal and the coronavirus pandemic, which has forced it to cut production further.

 

The report, the result of 18 months of investigations, found that Boeing pushed to cut costs in order to compete with its European rival Airbus.

The report said: “There was tremendous financial pressure on Boeing and the 737 Max programme to compete with Airbus’ new A320neo aircraft. Among other things, this pressure resulted in extensive efforts to cut costs, maintain the 737 Max programme schedule, and avoid slowing the 737 Max production line.

“The committee’s investigation has identified several instances where the desire to meet these goals and expectations jeopardised the safety of the flying public.”

Boeing also made faulty design assumptions, particularly with regards to pilots’ response if a crucial system malfunctioned. The system, the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, was designed to push the nose of the plane down under certain conditions to prevent it stalling, but it kicked in on both fatal flights shortly after takeoff because of a faulty sensor.

 

The report was also scathing about Boeing’s relationship with the FAA, and about the regulator’s ability to scrutinise the US manufacturer’s actions. Boeing withheld information from the regulator, its pilots and the public, and the manufacturer had too much influence over the FAA, the report said.

In its response to the committee’s report, Boeing said the 737 Max would – once it had regained regulatory approval – be “one of the most thoroughly scrutinised aircraft in history”. Boeing had “full confidence in its safety”, it said.

 

“We have learned many hard lessons as a company from the accidents of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, and from the mistakes we have made,” Boeing said. “As this report recognises, we have made fundamental changes to our company as a result, and continue to look for ways to improve.”

[Steve5380]

17 hours ago, singalion said:

 

In its response to the committee’s report, Boeing said the 737 Max would – once it had regained regulatory approval – be “one of the most thoroughly scrutinised aircraft in history”. Boeing had “full confidence in its safety”, it said.

 

“We have learned many hard lessons as a company from the accidents of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, and from the mistakes we have made,” Boeing said. “As this report recognises, we have made fundamental changes to our company as a result, and continue to look for ways to improve.”

 

Scrutiny definitely helps identify mistakes, which when corrected, increase safety.  But its contribution to safety does not go beyond that.

The bad design, copied from the previous model for expedience and modified to add the larger engines, remains there no matter the scrutiny.

 

So many rabid conservatives in the US (many of them pro-Trump) are strongly against government oversight, calling it an intrusion of evil power into the private sector, which they think can better check on itself.  They fail to realize that private companies can be as corrupt as public bureaucracies.  I would not regain confidence in Boeing because they make "fundamental changes".  This "fundamental" can be anything!   And "improvement" can be improved return to investors.

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

The bad design, copied from the previous model for expedience and modified to add the larger engines, remains there no matter the scrutiny.

 

And that is precisely why I will not fly that aircraft. It has a 1960s low slung body that has remained all but unchanged on to which new bits have been added each time a new version was rolled out. In my layman's view, the larger engines necessary for fuel efficiency and longer range should have resulted at the least in an increase in the length of the landing gear. This would have set the aircraft higher off the ground and thus avoided the need to have the engines protrude above the wings and disrupt the airflow over them. In my experience no there aircraft requires this. So Boeing has created what is basically an unstable plane. Let us pray that once it is back in the air there is no further deadly crash. If there is, it may well spell the death knell of a plane that should never have got off the drawing board in the first place.

[Steve5380]

1 hour ago, InBangkok said:

 

And that is precisely why I will not fly that aircraft. It has a 1960s low slung body that has remained all but unchanged on to which new bits have been added each time a new version was rolled out. In my layman's view, the larger engines necessary for fuel efficiency and longer range should have resulted at the least in an increase in the length of the landing gear. This would have set the aircraft higher off the ground and thus avoided the need to have the engines protrude above the wings and disrupt the airflow over them. In my experience no there aircraft requires this. So Boeing has created what is basically an unstable plane. Let us pray that once it is back in the air there is no further deadly crash. If there is, it may well spell the death knell of a plane that should never have got off the drawing board in the first place.

 

In engineering we often find solutions that are creative, ingenious, simple, and... wrong.

 

For the MAX they extended the nose landing gear (it must have been too complicated to extend the ones under the wings), and they moved the engine forwards and up.  This affected the aerodynamics, so they added an electronic servo control to compensate if necessary for the increased frontal lift.  It is a pity that Boeing made it an expensive option to have an indication of disagreement between the two speed sensors, only one of which activates the electronic servo.  If so, this situation might never have happened.  Electronic servo controls are acceptable solutions in new jet fighters of sophisticated design that are very unstable and need them to fly, but they don't have so much at stake:  if the electronic servos fail the pilot can eject.  In commercial airplanes, to eject is not an option.

 

After the irresponsibility of the initial MAX modification kludge, the first serious mistake was to make a safety improvement an expensive option.  The second, and most damaging one, was to allow the second crash to happen after the problem was discovered in the first one. What has come to Boeing, they deserve it.

 

[InBangkok]

On 9/18/2020 at 10:30 AM, Steve5380 said:

For the MAX they extended the nose landing gear (it must have been too complicated to extend the ones under the wings), and they moved the engine forwards and up.

 

The existing versions of the 737 Max  - 7, 8 and 9 - have the same nose landing gear length as previous 737 models. Only for the longer, larger Max 10 version have they found a way to come up with a means of extending the front landing gear yet make it fit into the existing wheel well. No version 737-Max 10 has yet been delivered.

[Guest Guest]

.... and just how many of you ever thanked Boeing and marveled at their safe and fantastic engineering work when the planes flew you safely from one point to another?  

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest said:

.... and just how many of you ever thanked Boeing and marveled at their safe and fantastic engineering work when the planes flew you safely from one point to another?  

 

What an odd comment! Companies and corporate cultures change. When Boeing was based outside Seattle it was an engineering based aircraft company. After it moved its headquarters to Chicago it became a money-oriented firm. What did it do with Trump's massive tax break - meant to increase wages of employees? It bought its own stock to raise the price of its shares and increase the wealth of its stockholders. The change in culture became obvious when the 787 had major battery problems which resulted in several aircraft self-combusting. Mercifully that did not happen in mid-air. Then the absolute disaster of money over engineering in deciding to revamp a 1960s airframe instead of designing a new plane. The 737 Max not only killed several hundred souls, it nearly destroyed the company - and it was Boeing's own fault as has been made perfectly clear by the recent Congressional inquiry findings. Now we are learning of problems in both the 777 and new problems in the 787s.

 

I flew a couple of times on the 707 and hundreds of times on the 747 and it variants. The 747 was a fantastic aircraft. I loved it. But no company can rely on its record if it then changes its corporate culture to put cash before engineering excellence.

[Steve5380]

On 9/19/2020 at 1:18 AM, InBangkok said:

 

I flew a couple of times on the 707 and hundreds of times on the 747 and it variants. The 747 was a fantastic aircraft. I loved it. But no company can rely on its record if it then changes its corporate culture to put cash before engineering excellence.

 

This is true.  Many companies did rely on their engineering excellence until it changed,  and their prestige went down the drain.  It seems that we Engineers are as important as the Masters in Business Administration, and in some safety sensitive products, even more important.

 

When I look at the 737 MAX as an engineer,  I understand the complexity of the problem Boeing was facing, the difficult redesigns that were required to increase the clearance of the plane from the floor.  I learned that landing gears are not trivial!  The discovery that from a well behaved plane the new one had developed a tendency to have the front lifted, to the point that it could eventually stall, must have been a crisis.  The solution with the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Enhancement System) was not completely wrong and could have been free of problems if it had been done right.  But even the wrong implementation, always a possibility, should have surfaced had they done sufficient testing, simulation of all its potential failure modes and eliminated them.  To the lack of these they added the lack of teaching and training of pilots with the MCAS, maybe afraid that pilots and customers learned of the serious stability problem that lead to the need for the MCAS.  Secrecy is never good.  In addition to now changing the corporate culture away from the priority of profit, they should fire all the upper engineering management, who went along with the unfortunate competitive rush, and only retain those who are needed to preserve the engineering know-how of the company.     

[InBangkok]

As the 737 Max gets closer to flying passengers again in the USA and with American Airlines announcing pilot training will start in November, cockpit crew representatives in the United Kingdom are still unhappy with aspects of the aircraft's modifications. Although the 737 Max will now have two angle of attack sensors as standard, the British Airline Pilots Association wants to know what happens if these were ever to provide two different readings. Among its concerns is that there should in fact be three such sensors as there are on the Airbus A320s. Another concern focuses on how pilots will have to trim the horizontal stabiliser.

 

Quote

 

The FAA’s notification states that a revised checklist for manually trimming the horizontal stabiliser will note that a “two-pilot effort” may be used.

“Requiring both crew members to turn the trim wheel simultaneously in a non-normal scenario is extremely undesirable,” says BALPA, adding that it “goes against all philosophies” of having flying pilot operating the controls and a non-flying pilot reading the quick-reference handbook.

The union points out that the Max has a smaller-diameter trim wheel, which enables larger display screens in the cockpit, and wants “assurance” that a single pilot can still turn the wheel at airspeeds of perhaps 40kt beyond the maximum operating limit speed.

It also suggests that Boeing should revisit procedures such as the “rollercoaster” manoeuvre to mitigate significant retrimming problems.

This manoeuvre involves trimming nose-up by repeatedly pulling on the control column until the nose is far above the horizon, and trimming as column back-pressure is released – a similar principle to easing pressure on a fishing line while rapidly winding the reel in order to maintain a pull on the catch.

 

 

Will this delay certification of the aircraft by European regulators?

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/uk-pilots-seek-assurance-on-sensor-and-trim-aspects-of-737-max-redesign/140287.article

[Steve5380]

21 hours ago, InBangkok said:

As the 737 Max gets closer to flying passengers again in the USA and with American Airlines announcing pilot training will start in November, cockpit crew representatives in the United Kingdom are still unhappy with aspects of the aircraft's modifications. Although the 737 Max will now have two angle of attack sensors as standard, the British Airline Pilots Association wants to know what happens if these were ever to provide two different readings. Among its concerns is that there should in fact be three such sensors as there are on the Airbus A320s. Another concern focuses on how pilots will have to trim the horizontal stabiliser.

 

 

I didn't know that in a modern commercial passenger plane the pilot still operates directly the flight control surfaces, although with some assistance.  But should the power assistance fail, it is his force what moves the elevators.  This is similar to the power steering in our cars that assist with driving, but should the assisting fail, by the belt to the power steering pump breaking or by fluid leak,  we can still steer the moving car with not too much force;  even an old lady can keep driving the car all the way to the mechanic. 

 

It should have been simple for the Boeing designers to measure the maximum pull on the cables that drive the elevators in the most extreme conditions, with the plane at its maximum speed and without "roller coasters".  Then estimate how much is a reasonable force required by the pilot to set the necessary trim on the trim wheel, and evaluate the link between the cables and the pilot.  If the 737 Max requires excessive force, there is a simple, inexpensive fail-proof solution that is a reduction gear.  Such a gear can reduce the force required by the pilot by say, a factor of three, with the only compromise that he has to turn the wheel an angle three times as large.  And other simple changes could be made in the link between the cables and the pilot's hand. Then the pilot alone could have been able to control the plane after disconnecting the MCAS, and the second crash could have been averted.

 

LOL! I should get myself to be contracted by Boeing as an engineering consultant  

.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Steve5380

[InBangkok]

9 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

It should have been simple for the Boeing designers to measure the maximum pull on the cables that drive the elevators in the most extreme conditions, with the plane at its maximum speed and without "roller coasters".

 

But that might have cost another $100 per plane and we know from published accounts that the directive to the engineers was save money at all costs! 👿

[Guest news from Europe]

Europe regulator sees November lifting of Boeing 737 MAX flight ban

Reuters 25/09/2020

 

PARIS (Reuters) - Boeing's grounded 737 MAX could receive regulatory approval to resume flying in November and enter service by the end of the year, Europe's chief aviation safety regulator said on Friday.

 

"For the first time in a year and a half I can say there's an end in sight to work on the MAX," said Patrick Ky, executive director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

 

EASA expects to lift its technical ban "not long" after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), probably in November, but national operational clearances needed for individual airlines to resume flying in Europe could take longer, he said.

 

"We are looking at November," he said when asked when the technical ban would be lifted. China is expected to take longer to give its own approval, he said, without elaborating.

 

Cologne-based EASA, which regulates air safety in 32 mainly European Union countries, has locked horns with the FAA and Boeing over the scope of an international review into 737 MAX systems following two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019.

 

All but one of the differences has been resolved, he said, with EASA, supported by some unions, calling for pilots to be able to manually cut power to a "stick shaker" alarm system suspected of distracting Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crew.

 

The main focus of the review has surrounded black-box evidence that bad data from a single faulty flight-angle sensor triggered a cockpit software system that repeatedly pointed the aircraft's nose down and overwhelmed the crew on both flights.

 

Boeing has said inputs from both "angle of attack" sensors on the MAX will be used in the modified aircraft, instead of just one in the past, but EASA has called for a third "synthetic" sensor to provide independently computed data.

 

Ky said Boeing had agreed to install the computerised third-sensor system on the next version of the plane, the 230-seat 737 MAX 10, followed by retrofits on the rest of the fleet later.

 

Turning to Boeing's next development, Ky said EASA would examine the 400-seat 777X development "much more closely" than it would have done if the MAX grounding had not happened and pay particularly close attention to flight control systems.

[InBangkok]

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has finally cleared the Boeing 737 Max aircraft to fly again over European airspace. It has asked for a third angle of attack sensor to be fitted at a later date. Boeing intends to do this in time for the larger 737 Max 10 due to roll out in 2022. It will then retrofit the earlier models. All Airbus aircraft have three sensors.

 

Despite approvals now from the FAA and EASA, I will still not fly a 737 Max in future. Plonking large more powerful engines that stick up above the wings on to a more than 50 years old airframe is not my idea of a modern aircraft. I am sure millions will not be concerned. I am.

[Guest GuestAlex]

Of course, rich people like us, have not flown for nearly a year. It is time to splurge. It is ok to quarantine when I arrive and return. Rich people like us dobt have to worry about leave or no pay. It is really time to splurge. Spend everyone!!!

[Steve5380]

10 hours ago, InBangkok said:

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has finally cleared the Boeing 737 Max aircraft to fly again over European airspace. It has asked for a third angle of attack sensor to be fitted at a later date. Boeing intends to do this in time for the larger 737 Max 10 due to roll out in 2022. It will then retrofit the earlier models. All Airbus aircraft have three sensors.

 

Despite approvals now from the FAA and EASA, I will still not fly a 737 Max in future. Plonking large more powerful engines that stick up above the wings on to a more than 50 years old airframe is not my idea of a modern aircraft. I am sure millions will not be concerned. I am.

 

Most of my flying has been long haul, where the 737 is not used.  I might fly less in the future, and if here and there a convenient short haul flight is on a 737 Max I will accept this as a slightly lower probability of survival.  I cannot cut all the dangers in my life,  and air flight does not contribute much to them.

 

 

10 hours ago, Guest GuestAlex said:

Of course, rich people like us, have not flown for nearly a year. It is time to splurge. It is ok to quarantine when I arrive and return. Rich people like us dobt have to worry about leave or no pay. It is really time to splurge. Spend everyone!!!

 

Bah,  not all people become rich by splurging!  Air flight still pollutes the earth and vacation destinations are far from being open and filled with the attractions they had before the pandemic.  On the positive side,  it is being found that air travel does not have to be as infectious as originally thought.  With a good N95 mask,  the risk of flying may be much lower than the risk of going to a church!  

[InBangkok]

9 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

Most of my flying has been long haul, where the 737 is not used.

The whole point of the 737 Max and its competitor the Airbus A320 Neo is airlines can fly the Atlantic with cheaper to operate narrow body aircraft. The Max will easily fly from the East Coast of the USA to many European destinations.

[Steve5380]

15 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

The whole point of the 737 Max and its competitor the Airbus A320 Neo is airlines can fly the Atlantic with cheaper to operate narrow body aircraft. The Max will easily fly from the East Coast of the USA to many European destinations.

 

US East Coast to Europe is not such a long distance.  I usually fly to Asia via the Pacific,  from Houston direct to Tokyo and from there to BKK or SIN.  Or maybe from Houston direct to Hawaii, or to Australia with some intermediate stop.  This calls for 777s or 787s. 

[InBangkok]

58 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

US East Coast to Europe is not such a long distance.  I usually fly to Asia via the Pacific,  from Houston direct to Tokyo and from there to BKK or SIN.  Or maybe from Houston direct to Hawaii, or to Australia with some intermediate stop.  This calls for 777s or 787s. 

Very few single aisle aircraft flew between the US East Coast and Europe. I can only think of one - BA's premium Airbus 318 all biz class service from London's City Airport. But that requires an intermediate stop at Shannon in Ireland. The whole point of the A320 Neo and 737 Max is to cross the Atlantic easily in smaller cheaper to operate aircraft.

 

The Max would have no problem flying between Houston and Hawaii with plenty of fuel to spare. Many will fly that route once the aircraft is back in the air. To get to Tokyo on that plane you would have to pray hard.

 

Personally I find the idea of an 8 or 9 hour flight on a narrow body aircraft totally depressing. I'll always opt for a wide body jet.

Edited October 18, 2020 by InBangkok

[Steve5380]

10 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

 

Personally I find the idea of an 8 or 9 hour flight on a narrow body aircraft totally depressing. I'll always opt for a wide body jet.

 

 

Me too.  In long haul flights I like to get up often (therefore I choose an isle seat), walk to the back, hang around there for a while, then return to the front through the opposite isle, then cross somewhere to my isle and walk back to my seat.  

[drektster]

b737 is use since the 60s. all jet with more than 2 engines were soon to be obsolete when they allows twinjet to fly across ocean. during the time of trijet and quadjet the engine were smaller, just like the b737. airlines soon wanted their narrow bodied plane to fly a longer range. hence the larger engine appears. following the taking over of boeing by MD. the last airplane safer for all is the b777.

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, drektster said:

following the taking over of boeing by MD. the last airplane safer for all is the b777.

Just for accuracy, McDonnell Douglas did not take over Boeing. It was technically a merger but the Boeing name survives while McDonnell Douglas is basically history in the passenger jet market.

 

You are correct. Once oceanic travel across the Atlantic started, four engines were essential, party because engines were not as efficient in those days. Same when Pacific routes started. Another reason is there was what is termed an ETOPs requirement. All twin engine passenger jets had to fly routes that were not more than one hour from a diversion airport in case a fault developed mid-air. Over water it was therefore essential to have 3 engines (like the Lockheed Tristar and the MD10/MD11) or 4 engines like the Boeing 707s and 747s.

 

With the improvement of engine efficiency, the ETOPS regulation changed. By the mid 1990s the Boeing 777 was permitted an ETOPS range of 180 minutes. By 2009 the ETOPS range for twin engine jets changed again to 240 minutes, thereby permitting flight over almost the entire planet. Even later it was extended to 330 minutes.

 

This is one of the reasons why the A380 jet failed. At the time it was conceived in the mid-1990s the 777 was almost the only long haul twin engine jet able to cross the Pacific. Then Airbus assumed that with the very fast rise in air traffic, landing slots at major airports would be rationed. Better to have one plane with lots of passengers than two with less. But by the time the plane was introduced by SIA in late 2007, other twin engine jets could fly ultra long haul routes. When the price of fuel rocketed to almost US$150 per barrel in 2008, 4 engine jets were a luxury few airlines could afford. The A340, the A380 and the Boeing 747 were then doomed.

Edited October 18, 2020 by InBangkok

[Steve5380]

15 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

You are correct. Once oceanic travel across the Atlantic started, four engines were essential, party because engines were not as efficient in those days. Same when Pacific routes started. Another reason is there was what is termed an ETOPs requirement. All twin engine passenger jets had to fly routes that were not more than one hour from a diversion airport in case a fault developed mid-air. Over water it was therefore essential to have 3 engines (like the Lockheed Tristar and the MD10/MD11) or 4 engines like the Boeing 707s and 747s.

 

With the improvement of engine efficiency, the ETOPS regulation changed. By the mid 1990s the Boeing 777 was permitted an ETOPS range of 180 minutes. By 2009 the ETOPS range for twin engine jets changed again to 240 minutes, thereby permitting flight over almost the entire planet. Even later it was extended to 330 minutes.

 

 

You are right, the ETOPs (set of rules for Extended Operation) have changed with time allowing for flying at further distances from alternate airports.  But the reason was not increased engine efficiency but increased reliability.   And not all twin engine planes have the same ETOPS requirements.  Redundancies and care of maintenance also come into play.   A certain plane model needs to be approved for a certain ETOPS range.  In addition,  the airline must receive ETOPS approval for the route of the plane and the kind of maintenance it gives it.  We should feel comforted by all the regulations that exist to make flights as reliable as possible   

[Steve5380]

Regulators today have certified the Boeing 737 MAX to return to service.  Soon they will fly commercially again.

 

This marks the end of the 20 months saga where Boeing rewrote the whole software that controls this model.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boeing-737-max-wins-regulator-approval-return-skies/story?id=74261174&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed

 

I have decided that I will not mind flying in this plane in the future.  Although it is physically perhaps a clumsy adaptation of an old model, this was not the reason for its two fatal crashes, but a serious oversight in the design of its software and its pilot training.  These problems have been fixed.  It is very improbable in the new design that a software glitch will be able to bring down the plane again.

 

I wish the Boeing 737 MAX a safe and long future service.

[InBangkok]

The European Aviation Safety Association has now followed its American counterpart in certifying the Boeing 737 Max for return to passenger service. 

 

Quote

In order to return to service, existing planes will now have to be equipped with new computer software, as well as undergoing changes to their wiring and cockpit instrumentation. Pilots will need to undergo mandatory training, and each plane will have to undergo a test flight to ensure the changes have been carried out correctly.

https://www.bbc.com/news/55366320

 

In future, EASA has confirmed it will no longer depend on US certification for new passenger aircraft. It will undergo its own separate certification studies.

 

Notwithstanding all the changes to what was very obviously a flawed and rushed design that led to so manny deaths, I maintain my view that I will not travel on a 737 Max. I came to the same view with the 787 Dreamliner when its batteries started fires on board. I decided not to fly it until three years after its reentering service. Since then I have taken about half a dozen 787 flights and found it a comfortable aircraft, although I do prefer flying on the competing Airbus A350. Now Boeing has been facing allegations of yet more problems with the 787 (see link). Until those problems have been fully analysed and corrected, that aircraft is also on my no fly list. Not that this will be a major problem as very few will be able to travel in Asia for many months to come.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/08/business/boeing-787-flaw-orders-deliveries/index.html