FAA finalizes inspection directive on Boeing 737 MAX planes

[turbinetree]

Source: Reuters

BUSINESS NEWS JUNE 24, 2020 / 10:24 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Wednesday finalized a directive requiring airlines to complete inspections on a key component that could make Boeing 737 MAX airplanes vulnerable to interference from high-power radio frequency transmitters before returning to service.

Boeing Co (BA.N) in December issued a service bulletin that disclosed procedures for detailed inspections and repairs or replacement if needed for panels on top of the engine housing that may not ensure adequate shielding of the underlying wiring. The FAA proposed an airworthiness directive in February to mandate inspections. The 737 MAX, Boeing’s best-selling plane, has been grounded since March 2019 after crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people.

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-faa/faa-finalizes-inspection-directive-on-boeing-737-max-planes-idUSKBN23V251

[maxsolomon]

1. This sounds unrelated to the cause of the crashes?

But yay, I guess. Go FAA!

[Johnny2X2X]

2. 737 MAX will be the safest plane in the air when it returns to service

It's been through the ringer and back again, it's a great design with the best engines and FMS ever made.

[Steelrolled]

8. My thoughts exactly.

I would be happy to always fly on 737 MAX once they return (I assume they will renamed to something boring like 737-700 and claim it is essentially a new model).

[Dogboyzdad]

12. Not so great

An airplane that can't be flown without computer assistance due to its weird weight distribution is not such a great idea.

[abqtommy]

3. A lot of people who trusted Boeing, the FAA and tRUMP are now dead. Many of us won't forgive

or forget...

[LiberalArkie]

4. I wonder if that was one of the main problems. There is an awful large amount of high powered RF

devices around an airport. Both of the crashes occurred right after takeoff.

[DENVERPOPS]

5. Nope

purely software and lack of Pilot training.

But what amazes me, is all the other problems they have found in the new 737 in addition to that problem.........

They tried to do a hap hazard, fast and dirty engineering job on the 737 to compete with the new Airbus, and it bit them in the ass big time........

[burrowowl]

6. You nailed it.

[Steelrolled]

9. Perhaps the FAA should start a detailed investigation of other airliners.

I imagine there is much to be found. I'm wondering if some of the stuff found on the 737-MAX applies to other 737 models.

[Johnny2X2X]

10. It was not a software issue

Although it did have a software fix. It was a design issue, the software was functioning as designed.

[DENVERPOPS]

11. The entire reason for the Software design

was that they had to change the angle of the front of the new larger engine upwards to give proper clearance between the engine and the ground....
So, the software was a symptom of the engine mounting redesign.

Granted, if the pilots had been trained, and the software didn't have a shortcoming, many lives would have been saved.
As a pilot, you shouldn't have to turn off the computer (software) to get the plane to fly properly, which was done by several pilots on previous flights that didn't crash......

Right after it happened, there was a great article explaining the entire mess. I wish I could find it and send it to you.

He explained it starting with how the 737 was about to be outdone by the new Airbus. The new Airbus was about to take over the entire market and the 737 would be left in the dust. The 737 had been Boeing's cash cow for decades, and they were gonna lose it. Boeing realized that to properly use the more fuel efficient engines would require a redesign of the entire aircraft, which would take 5 years. If they just added the new bigger engine, they wouldn't have to do an entire redesign....However, the new engine would be too close to the ground on the front of the engine. Soooo they just pointed the front of the engine upwards, increasing the ground clearance. The software was to compensate for the engines pointed upwards which would exert a constant upward force on the plane in the air.

Anyway there's an article out there explainging the entire 737 debacle in great detail if you can find it.....

[Steelrolled]

13. Yeah, there have been quite a few air accidents resulting

from pilots misunderstanding of (or lack of experience with) computer systems. The one that always comes to mind is that French flight that originated in South America and crashed in the Atlantic. It is an incredible story.

[EX500rider]

14. Yeah Air France Flt #447 was a sad story...

...the Co-Pilot stalled it from 35,000ft all the way down to the ocean, kept the stick back due to erroneous speed indications.
The Sr pilot should have taken over imo.


Basically:
The pilots had not applied the unreliable-airspeed procedure.
The pilot-in-control pulled back on the stick, thus increasing the angle of attack and causing the aircraft to climb rapidly.
The pilots apparently did not notice that the aircraft had reached its maximum permissible altitude.
The pilots did not read out the available data (vertical velocity, altitude, etc.).
The stall warning sounded continuously for 54 seconds.
The pilots did not comment on the stall warnings and apparently did not realize that the aircraft was stalled.
There was some buffeting associated with the stall.
The stall warning deactivates by design when the angle of attack measurements are considered invalid, and this is the case when the airspeed drops below a certain limit.
In consequence, the stall warning came on whenever the pilot pushed forward on the stick and then stopped when he pulled back; this happened several times during the stall and this may have confused the pilots.
Despite the fact that they were aware that altitude was declining rapidly, the pilots were unable to determine which instruments to trust: it may have appeared to them that all values were incoherent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

[Steelrolled]

15. What I always find remarkable about that flight

was that one pilot was pulling up, and the other pilot was pushing down, AT THE SAME TIME. And even through there was an alarm about this, they didn't seem to notice. I think they had too many alarms going off.

I remember that aspect of the accident caused some debate, because I believe Boeing (at that time at least) had the yokes mechanically linked, so the pilots could sense if they were fighting each other. I'm guessing there are also advantages for the Airbus approach.

I also remember that the Airbus pilot were trained that when in doubt, pull up, because the computer will not allow a stall to occur. Turns out this is not always true - the computer turns off certain features in certain cases.

[EX500rider]

16. Yeah they were going so slow the computer thought they must be on the ground..

.....that's why when he pulled up (into a slower stall) the "stall" warning stopped going off, as they were going too slow for it to apply (or so Airbus thought) so when it nosed down and increased speed the warning would go off again....I just can't imagine any trained pilot pulling the nose up to try and get out of a stall...they had some serious lack of coordination there between the Sr pilot and co-pilot. Almost no crew resource management going on.

[rickford66]

7. Take your time Boeing.

No need to rush. You got time to test everything down to the last rivet.