GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently November 13 19, 11:11 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
PostPosted: July 29 19, 1:14 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24787
Location: St. Louis
time lapse of grounded Boeing 737 max being parked/stored. premature question, but what happens to these planes if they never get off the ground again? Once had FMV of ~$125 Million per plane. The article cites 180 planes mfg but parked (if my decimals are correct, that means $22.5 billion worth. )

I don't think this includes those grounded but already in airline fleets.

Can they part them out? (My gut says no, not much substantially of a plane that is retired can be used again)

Any info? Looking at you (again) AW.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 29 19, 1:46 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 24244
Location: Thinking of the Children
I have no real idea about any of this, so take it fwiw.

I have no idea what woul dhappen if they never get re-certified. Though, I'm fairly confident it will happen at some point. It's not so much that the plane isn't airworthy. It's the manner that they made it airworthy and how that correlates to the type rating, training, et al that's caused the problem.

Obviously the problem of MCAS is well known at this point, and that's a relatively straightforward fix. And, while the MCAS certainly needed to be fixed, it's not unreasonable to say proper training would have possibly prevented the crashes even with the MCAS malfunctions; in particular on the Ethiopian Airlines crash it looks like the pilots almost fixed it. The lion air flight had the exact same issue on the previous flight and the pilots knew how to navigate the situation. And, then the issue should have been fixed on the ground, but it wasn't and the pilots didn't know how to react. In other words, it's not that the plane itself won't fly. It's that the plane has to be flown a certain way, and the pilots need to know what the potential problems are and how to address them.

But, my guess is that the FAA is really looking into the details like they probably should have done in the first go around of certification. That's why, if I was Boeing, I would go on record of when it will regain it's certification (like a year or two from now) because at this point it looks like they're having problems getting that certification when in reality it is probably pretty close to getting it. It's just that these things take time.

I'm going to guess not much of the plane could be salvaged and reused. Planes are highly sophisticated (duh) and everything fits together like a puzzle. Trying to use a piece from the 737 max on a 787 or something I'd guess would be like taking two identical pictures and cutting one into a 100 piece puzzle and the other into a 1,000 piece puzzle. The appearance may be identical, but good luck fitting one of those 100 puzzle pieces into the 1,000 piece puzzle. Maybe stuff like seats, wire, wheels, yokes, etc could be reused but....shoot, they're really in bad shape if they're disassembling them all.

Personally, and I know I'm in the minority here, when they get re-certified I won't have any hesitation to ride on one. But, I do think that it's a major dilemma that they're going to face. Some airlines have even come out and said they won't charge more and will allow passengers to opt out from riding on them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 30 19, 6:27 am 
Offline
gone fission
User avatar

Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Posts: 8043
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Freed Roger wrote:
time lapse of grounded Boeing 737 max being parked/stored. premature question, but what happens to these planes if they never get off the ground again? Once had FMV of ~$125 Million per plane. The article cites 180 planes mfg but parked (if my decimals are correct, that means $22.5 billion worth. )

I don't think this includes those grounded but already in airline fleets.

Can they part them out? (My gut says no, not much substantially of a plane that is retired can be used again)

Any info? Looking at you (again) AW.


If the MAX never gets recertified, Boeing will likely just convert them back into 737s. The frame is still the same, the controls are mostly the same, but the interiors are laid out somewhat differently. Of course, they'd have to get approval from each customer that has those planes on order in order to get them converted into their predecessor. I don't really foresee any of the customers balking at getting the planes converted back to regular 737s and instead choosing to cancel their orders outright. Their other option would be to place an order for new planes from either Airbus or Boeing and wait several years (perhaps up to a decade) for them to be finished.

Boeing is rapidly running out of storage space since they're continuing to pump out new 737 MAX planes along with their other various orders, so they're going to have to start sending the new production planes out to their long-term storage boneyard pretty soon (somewhere out in the desert in like Arizona, California, or Nevada).

That's where the "new" 747s that Trump purchased for his new Air Force Ones were stored. They were originally purchased by a Russian airline that later went bankrupt and shut down before the planes were ever delivered, so they'd been sitting outside for almost a decade before Trump purchased them for pennies on the dollar from Boeing to have them retrofitted and upgraded into the current iteration of Air Force One.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 6:42 am 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 24244
Location: Thinking of the Children
I know I've posted some of this guys vids before, but these two really summarize everything nicely and I enjoyed them and found them to be extremely educational.

This one is an overall recap about how the 737 Max was born (with some extra about American Airlines that I hadn't read); the requirements for pilots to obtain a new type rating; detailed info on what they did specifically to retain the same type rating (yoke pressure and what not); the flaws on the plane and what helped to create them along with the original design of MCAS and how it went off the rails; and then touches on the fixes.



And, this one goes into more detail about what they're doing to get it re-certified and how the Europen equivalent to the FAA (EASA) is not taking the FAA's word for it this time and requiring that they (EASA) get to inspect certain portions of the plane before re-certifying it which along with some other things are causing delays likely meaning the Max won't be re-certified this year. My main takeaway although it may be reading between the lines a little too much is that the FAA may be more willing to allow the Max to retain the same type rating as the 737 while EASA may not.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 9:09 am 
Offline
tl;dr

Joined: May 21 09, 12:41 pm
Posts: 4632
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
And, this one goes into more detail about what they're doing to get it re-certified and how the Europen equivalent to the FAA (EASA) is not taking the FAA's word for it this time and requiring that they (EASA) get to inspect certain portions of the plane before re-certifying it which along with some other things are causing delays likely meaning the Max won't be re-certified this year.


My main takeaway from the quoted portion about EASA wanting to physically inspect the planes before re-certifying them causing delays is that Boeing isn't really fixing anything properly up front thinking that the FAA and EASA will just take them at their word which is clearly not worth much these days as far as I'm concerned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 12:40 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 24244
Location: Thinking of the Children
tlombard wrote:
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
And, this one goes into more detail about what they're doing to get it re-certified and how the Europen equivalent to the FAA (EASA) is not taking the FAA's word for it this time and requiring that they (EASA) get to inspect certain portions of the plane before re-certifying it which along with some other things are causing delays likely meaning the Max won't be re-certified this year.


My main takeaway from the quoted portion about EASA wanting to physically inspect the planes before re-certifying them causing delays is that Boeing isn't really fixing anything properly up front thinking that the FAA and EASA will just take them at their word which is clearly not worth much these days as far as I'm concerned.

It's kind of nuanced, and I'm not sure what to take away from it right now.

On the one hand, it's not like the design of the plane is inherently dangerous. Yes, there's the big [expletive] up with MCAS, but at this point its well known and has been addressed. Reducing its ability to override pilot inputs, only letting it correct once isntead of infinite times, using two alpha vanes instead of one, shutting off if the vanes disagree, etc. From my limited understanding, that's a viable fix. And, just a guess, but I don't think Boeing really wants to go down this road with this airplane a second time. So, I tend to believe them and people like Juan in the video if they say the issue has been addressed. Plus it just passes the logic test.

Regarding EASA's comments, like I said, what's their end goal here? Obviously, they are likely wary of the FAA/Boeing at this point and rightfully so. But, why only look at the changes to the Max? If there was no trust, wouldn't they want to look at the entire plane, why trust FAA/Boeing with a large chunk of the airplane's design if that's the case? It makes sense that they may want to make their own determination if the Max requires a different type rating if the FAA isn't going to require one.

Not sure how the certification process for the 787 Dreamliner went, but I'd guess that would come back on the table if there was a sincere lack of trust in Boeing/FAA and EASA just followed the FAA's lead on that one as well.

A lot I don't know, and I'm just spitballing here. But, that's my take on EASA at the moment. I of course reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. This was the first I'd heard of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 13 19, 4:11 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11490
Location: Austin
Finally had a chance to think about this and still have a lot of questions. The explanation for the motivation for MCAS in that video, I think, is slightly wrong. He describes it as being all about stick force and pilot feedback, but stick force is already an artificial computer generated outcome on the 737 and has been since the beginning. In a simple plane, stick forces come from aerodynamic load on a mechanically controlled surface. That doesn’t work on big jets, so the 737 has always had an elevator feel computer to create appropriate column forces for the pilots. If the issue was only column forces, there would be no need for an MCAS system that could actually move the tail — just tweak the feel computer code.

Actually, the problem is in the real pitch stability and the restoring force at high AoA. Planes are supposed to have a linear pitch restoring force so every degree away from the trim point produces a proportional pitch restoring force back to the trim point. Take your hands off the controls, and the plane should return on its own to trim pitch. The Max engines apparently disturb this restoring force at high AoA, so the automatic tail movement was introduced to reproduce the needed nose down restoring force. But this concept seems broken from the beginning to me as it is a one way ratchet. To mimic the old restoring force, the tail should also trim back nose up once AoA decreases, which it (for good reason) never did. If the function activates, the plane is dumped into a mistrim condition, and worse, the pilots were never given any training letting them know a new system could do this. I can’t understand how this ever could have been considered a transparent, no knowledge required, augmentation. If it works precisely as intended, it will still produce a trim change pilots must recognize and later correct. Then comes the dramatic extension of MCAS authority for low speed with repeated triggering. I have yet to see any good technical accounting of the thinking behind this expansion. Seems to have just been thrown in because of a test pilot suggestion. Clearly, no one thought through the safety implications, but I still don’t even really understand for what reason you’d want this at all.

And then the actual implementation of the function was inexcusably shoddy — relying on a single sensor when two are available and apparently doing no sanity checking whatsoever to reject obviously faulty sensor data. The loss of trust here is richly deserved.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Donnie Ebert, ghostrunner, InvincibleCakeEater and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group