Have any UK or European airlines or regulators grounded the 737 Max aircraft?

Have any UK or European airlines or regulators grounded the 737 Max aircraft?

Yep and the list is growing.

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/boeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-airlines-crash/index.html

Boeing's share price drop is now on par with day after Sept'11 drop.

Just announced 38 minutes ago, FAA grounds 737 Max, grounding now effectively worldwide.

The next disaster for Boeing will be when the first airline cancels an order in favour of an A320neo. Others will quickly follow.

Just announced 38 minutes ago, FAA grounds 737 Max, grounding now effectively worldwide.

The next disaster for Boeing will be when the first airline cancels an order in favour of an A320neo. Others will quickly follow.

Might provide Airbus with a much needed 'lift' as it scrambles for new business post A380

BG

Just announced 38 minutes ago, FAA grounds 737 Max, grounding now effectively worldwide.

The next disaster for Boeing will be when the first airline cancels an order in favour of an A320neo. Others will quickly follow.

Might provide Airbus with a much needed 'lift' as it scrambles for new business post A380

BG

There are only two players and both have previously suffered loss of sales and retaliatory action by unhappy airlines due to delays and groundings. The few sales of the B747-8i was in part due to the delay of the A380, Ethiopian Airlines bought A350's due to delays in B787 etc.

So yes Airbus has got a win this time, but they have also lost before.

Boeing 737-Max Project Management however should be lined up in front of the firing squad for allowing such a basic issue to sneak into production.  The 737-Max now has the world's worst safety record for a commercial Passenger Jet Aircraft, yes with time it will loose it.

Korea has also complied banning from he skies.

The 737-Max is now basically banned world wide until the Boeing fix is implemented and pilots trained.

The plot thickens guys based on the below



and now wonder if Boeing knew about the issues but continued to allow the planes to fly.

The plot thickens guys based on the below

and now wonder if Boeing knew about the issues but continued to allow the planes to fly.

A couple of points..................

It is very unlikely Boeing knew for certain there was a problem, there not completely stupid.

Software faults that cause a program to go on "an unknown excursion" are notoriously difficult to to track down as its usually caused by two or more unlikely events occuring either together or in a particular sequence. Such a situation is almost impossible to simulate as the number and timing of such events can be astronomical.

The more complex one makes something, ie the more pieces or steps on puts in the more unreliable a system will get.

Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in software. This is OK as long as the software is reliable (Note 1), sadly on the Max 8 this is NOT the case.

Note 1: The british Tornado fighter (and in fact most modern fighters) are intentionally made unstable so they can change direction VERY quickly, as built they would be unflyable. There rendered flyable by having a complex massively redundant computer system that flies the aircraft. The pilots controls input into this system telling the aircraft what the pilot wants it to do.

woodford

Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in software

All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.

From Wikipedia

In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.

So it isn't  immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....

Peter

More revelations overnight with a cockpit recording released of the last minutes of the plane where the pilots are trying to diagnose the problem where the stall system had engaged pointing the nose down.

Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in software

All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.

From Wikipedia

In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.

So it isn't  immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....

Peter

The point is they shifted the  centre of gravity, and that is a recipe  for disaster.

Bye the way about the modern fighters (and almost any modern combat aircraft), like the tornado, these are now so complex they usually only have a 50% availibility, tthe rest being in some kind of maintenence.

woodford

A couple of days ago on an ABC News TV early morning news show they had an Australian pilot on. He stated he had a friend that was pilot in charge of a 777 that was taking off behind the 737 Max 8 that crashed, his friend told him as soon as the MAX 8 got off the ground the pilot radioed to the tower he was getting unreliable airspeed indications. The Australian pilot stated this is the same as the  Lion air crash. He went on to say if the crew is very well trained the situation can be handled OK, he also stated that aircraft MUST be designed to be flown by ALL pilots not just the 10% who are well trained.

woodford

Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in software

All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.

From Wikipedia

In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.

So it isn't  immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....

Peter

The engines were indeed moved forwards and upwards for the 737 MAX, not backwards.

This would suggest that the tendency to pitch up - the reason for adding the MCAS - is down to aerodynamic factors, not the weight distribution. My guess would be that the nozzle being up closer to the wing is causing the fast moving exhaust from the engine (fast moving = low pressure) to stall the wing at low speeds, where the exhaust from a traditional below-wing engine would be well clear of the wing.

Note 1: The british Tornado fighter (and in fact most modern fighters) are intentionally made unstable so they can change direction VERY quickly, as built they would be unflyable. There rendered flyable by having a complex massively redundant computer system that flies the aircraft. The pilots controls input into this system telling the aircraft what the pilot wants it to do.

You might be thinking of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has largely replaced the Tornado.

The Panavia Tornado was developed by Germany, Britain and Italy in the late 1960s and early 1970s (first flight 1974) and is an inherently stable airframe with electro-hydraulic controls. It certainly isn't super-manoeuvrable, it's basically a downsized version of the F-111 with very similar manoeuvrability optimised for bombing runs. In many ways the Tornado was quite unsophisticated for the time of its development, considering that nations like France, the USA and USSR were working on early fourth generation fighters (including super-manoeuvring) around the same time, but it did end up proving to be a reliable low-cost option which worked well for Britain, Italy and Germany in the various low-level conflicts where it was deployed (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).

Remember too that the original 737-100/200 only had 14000 - 16400 lbf thrust engines, while the new 737-MAX has up to 29300 lbf thrust per engine.

The newer versions because of their length also have to be careful to not tail-strike on rotation (another reason for the wing being moved backwards, and engines forward for CoG and nacelle ground clearance considerations).

It's a 50+ year old airframe design being taken to the absolute limit.

You might be thinking of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has largely replaced the Tornado.

The Panavia Tornado was developed by Germany, Britain and Italy in the late 1960s and early 1970s (first flight 1974) and is an inherently stable airframe with electro-hydraulic controls. It certainly isn't super-manoeuvrable, it's basically a downsized version of the F-111 with very similar manoeuvrability optimised for bombing runs. In many ways the Tornado was quite unsophisticated for the time of its development, considering that nations like France, the USA and USSR were working on early fourth generation fighters (including super-manoeuvring) around the same time, but it did end up proving to be a reliable low-cost option which worked well for Britain, Italy and Germany in the various low-level conflicts where it was deployed (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).

I have a soft-spot for the Tornado.  A very effective ground-attack aircraft with great payload capacity and 'on-the-deck' flight characteristics.  It's performance at the 2001 Avalon Airshow was memorable.

Boeing has made a basic error in the 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have fitted heavier engines further back on the wings causing the aircraft to be tail heavy and instead of making a new wing and or engine mounts they have tried to cure the error in software

All the information I've found suggests that the engines were actually moved forward and upward to accommodate their larger diameter. I have heard the statement about the engines being moved back but I've found nothing to support it. Something else might have altered the balance. The wing was altered between the 400 and 800 series but only the winglets were changed for the -8.

From Wikipedia

In mid-2011, the objective was to match the A320neo's 15% fuel burn advantage, but the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency.

So it isn't  immediately clear why the extra concern about stalling required the new software....

Peter

The engines were indeed moved forwards and upwards for the 737 MAX, not backwards.

This would suggest that the tendency to pitch up - the reason for adding the MCAS - is down to aerodynamic factors, not the weight distribution. My guess would be that the nozzle being up closer to the wing is causing the fast moving exhaust from the engine (fast moving = low pressure) to stall the wing at low speeds, where the exhaust from a traditional below-wing engine would be well clear of the wing.

Note 1: The british Tornado fighter (and in fact most modern fighters) are intentionally made unstable so they can change direction VERY quickly, as built they would be unflyable. There rendered flyable by having a complex massively redundant computer system that flies the aircraft. The pilots controls input into this system telling the aircraft what the pilot wants it to do.

You might be thinking of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has largely replaced the Tornado.

The Panavia Tornado was developed by Germany, Britain and Italy in the late 1960s and early 1970s (first flight 1974) and is an inherently stable airframe with electro-hydraulic controls. It certainly isn't super-manoeuvrable, it's basically a downsized version of the F-111 with very similar manoeuvrability optimised for bombing runs. In many ways the Tornado was quite unsophisticated for the time of its development, considering that nations like France, the USA and USSR were working on early fourth generation fighters (including super-manoeuvring) around the same time, but it did end up proving to be a reliable low-cost option which worked well for Britain, Italy and Germany in the various low-level conflicts where it was deployed (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).

Oops sorry, Yes, its the Typhoon is the fighter I was thinking of NOT the Tornado.

woodford

Remember too that the original 737-100/200 only had 14000 - 16400 lbf thrust engines, while the new 737-MAX has up to 29300 lbf thrust per engine.

The newer versions because of their length also have to be careful to not tail-strike on rotation (another reason for the wing being moved backwards, and engines forward for CoG and nacelle ground clearance considerations).

It's a 50+ year old airframe design being taken to the absolute limit.

Its likely the increased thrust causing the nose to pitch up is the issue, you get this on a Cessna 182 when one needs to "go around", ie abort a landing, opening the throttle causing a massive pitch up, (Note 1). In fact one of the requirements for the type endorsement is that one has enough strength to hold the yoke in when one opens the throttle  on a "go round".

Note 1:The Cessna being a high wing aircraft the overall drag centre being a good distance above the engines thrust line, so increasing engine thrust causes the nose to pitch up.

You are correct Another issue IS the 50 year old design. The Australian pilot on ABC News stated the MAX 8 was STILL relying on the original 50 year old type approval with all modifactions since then seperately approved. He also stated the MAX 8 was so different it really requires is own type approval.

woodford

What Boeing should be doing, warning a woodford opinion......................


When ever an automatic system checks either airspeed or angle of attack, it SHOULD look at 3 parameters, Airspeed, Angle of attack and engine thrust. In ALL aircraft these are closely related, given any two, the third one can be accurately determined. If the system sees the angle of attack increase THEN either the airspeed MUST decrease or the engine thrust increase. If this does NOT happen then the reading is in error. This is one of the most BASIC relationships in flight. Boeing is clearly NOT doing this.

woodford

Bad news for Boeing, Garuda Indonesia has kicked open the floodgates by announcing their intention to cancel the remaining part of their 737 Max order.

Now they have taken the first step, others will surely follow.

This will be a major headache for Donald Trump to deal with, since Boeing is too big to fail and the US government cannot afford not to back it.

It is pointless speculating about the cause of the accidents. Let the investigations run their course. Here’s two Airbus accidents, an A330 and an A300, that were predominantly caused by pilot error, but in which design flaws could arguably be a contributing factor. Note how far forward of the wing the engines are in both designs.

Pilots managed to stall the aircraft after the pitot tubes iced up, causing erroneous airspeed indications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

The co-pilot used light aircraft techniques and snapped the vertical stabilizer off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

It is pointless speculating about the cause of accidents. Let the investigations take their course. Here’s two Airbus accidents, an A330 and an A300, that were predominantly caused by pilot error, but in which design flaws could arguably be a contributing factor. Note how far forward of the wing the engines are in both designs.

Pilots managed to stall the aircraft after the pitot tubes iced up, causing erroneous airspeed indications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

The co-pilot used light aircraft techniques and snapped the vertical stabilizer off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

I regard both of these as pilot error, in both cases the controlling pilots miss understood aircraft performance through lack of/poor training, the effect of technology in both cases was minimal, ie in both cases an experienced pilot would have had little problems. For the MAX 8 the same applies, ie a well trained pilot would have little problem.

woodford

Post Script............

Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river)  are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.

woodford

Post Script............

Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river)  are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.

woodford

Emirates have been increasing their back to basics training and now encourage their pilots to manually fly below 10,000'.

Back to basics being,
- check your horizon (not impacted by any systems failure)
- check your throttles/push throttles to (I think) 90%

Have these two correct chances are you will stay airborne.

Post Script............

Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river)  are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.

woodford

Emirates have been increasing their back to basics training and now encourage their pilots to manually fly below 10,000'.

Back to basics being,
- check your horizon (not impacted by any systems failure)
- check your throttles/push throttles to (I think) 90%

Have these two correct chances are you will stay airborne.

Going back to basics..................

-You NEVER rely on a single instrument or observation

-Scan ALL primary flight instruments
These being Airspeed, Artifical horizon, Turn and slip indicator, Directional gyro, Vertical speed indicator, Compass, angle of attack (if fitted. Note 2) (Note 1).
-Check aircraft attitude by looking fwd

This sequence allows the pilot to confirm exactly what the aircraft is doing.

Note 1: By scanning all these one will immediately pick up any instrument that fails and one can then take steps. On most modern airline aircraft all this info is displayed on a single CRT display.

Note 2: I have yet to see a light aircraft with an angle of attack display, most airline aircraft display this on the primary CRT display, an exception appears to be the 737 MAX in which its an optional extra, and therefore usually not fitted.

The primary flight instrument is the airspeed indicator if you lose this on a light aircraft you in REAL difficulties. If one has an angle of attack indicator, one can fly successfully using the indicator and the throttles. The flight manuals will have a table showing Angle of attack, throttle position and the resulting airspeed.

woodford