Boeing 737 MAX 9

[havoc]

u-boat said:

That’s why the experts in the FAA or CAA or any regulatory body haven’t grounded all Max variants.

The FAA is clearly being overly influenced by Boeing. There have been numerous articles and expose's about it. And there has notably been no cleaning of house / change of senior staff at either organisation...almost as if they don't care they've been found out!


Also, the different xAA's, as a matter of professional courtesy, almost always rubber-stamp the certifications of the 'local' authority (so for US mfrs the CAA will take whatever the FAA says as gospel, and vice-versa for UK mfrs). I think, because there were multiple MAX crashes, that courtesy was suspended. But we've no reason to think that it hasn't been resurrected.


...so as far as the MAX series goes, I really don't trust them. Always remember your plane was built by the lowest bidder...and in this case one which has got the certifying authority in its pocket...

[craigjm]

DaveGrohl said:

UK registered planes are MAX 8 so currently not affected, apparently.

Might this change? We’re scheduled to fly on one next Sat.

How do you know you will be on a max 8 and not an 800?

[stevemcs]

craigjm said:

How do you know you will be on a max 8 and not an 800?

Different shaped engines, different style winglets, Ryanair have an additional emergency exit which on a seat plan will have 2 seats on their own. Apu in tail is different.

[craigjm]

stevemcs said:

craigjm said:

How do you know you will be on a max 8 and not an 800?

Different shaped engines, different style winglets, Ryanair have an additional emergency exit which on a seat plan will have 2 seats on their own. Apu in tail is different.

No sorry that’s not what I meant. I know they look different but how does he know that a max 8 will be used on the flight he is on a week in advance. That’s like saying the cab that’s gonna turn up in a week will be a Nissan. Yes they often use the same planes on a route but they have plenty of 800s at their disposal too so it’s not guaranteed it will be a max 8

[havoc]

u-boat said:

This doesn’t really sound reasonable.

You’re saying the CAA almost always rubber stamps the FAAs decisions about airworthiness.
Then you point out the CAA didn’t do that with the max after the MCAS crashes,
But now you’re saying they’re likely now rubber stamping the FAAs decisions about the max.

I'm saying it took multiple fatal crashes for other agencies to decide to revoke an airworthiness certificate issued by one of their brethren.

I'm then saying that said brethren has re-issued an airworthiness certificate following fixes by Boeing, which under the existing courtesy arrangement these agencies almost have to take as read. The alternative is for the whole system to break down if they decide they have to test everything themselves.


I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that it relies upon no agency being a bad actor. And who in those sort of leadership positions wants to be the one to stick their head up and say "we don't trust the FAA anymore" - political fallout would be immense!

[havoc]

u-boat said:

That doesn’t explain why you think the CAA would rubber stamp (apparently obviously poor FAA decisions) then stop doing it then now apparently returning to doing it all on the same aircraft.

Do you think the FAA think the MAx 8 is safe and the non plug door max 9s or are they bowing to supposed pressure from Boeing and other parts of the government?

Do you think the CAA then think the max 8 is safe or the non plug door max 9s are safe or do you think they’re blindly going along with the FAA?

If so why do you think the CAA are now rubber stamping the FAA when previously they didn’t on the max?

FAA are definitely (and excessively) influenced by Boeing - that much has been established several times over by people far more expert than me.

MAX series were returned to service without a full fix for MCAS.

8s vs 9s - I've not enough info to comment, so I won't. But for that failure to happen to a 2 month old plane in the way it did (no damage to fasteners or mounting brackets) suggests a lack of QC in Seattle or a fundamental design flaw. Given I doubt even Boeing and the FAA are dumb enough to sign off a fundamental flaw, occams razor points us at a QC problem in Seattle.

CAA won't have inspected any of the planes personally - as I've said before, they rely on the professional competence of their overseas peers, that's how it works. So CAA will not venture an opinion contrary to the FAA as that's politically far too dangerous a place to go.

And I don't think they've yo-yo'd from trust/no-trust/trust in the FAA. I think it's a bureaucratic issue - their default position is "FAA are professional and reliable, just like us". The MCAS crashes meant that everyone (better late than never) had to react and ground the bloody things. Boeing say they've fixed it, FAA go "yes they have, they can fly again", the rest of the world follows their SOP of "trust our overseas peers" - I THINK (can someone in the industry confirm?) that it's an almost automatic rubber-stamp by the CAA.


...and besides, I think this is a different issue with the plane - this isn't a major design/OS flaw like MCAS, this is suggestive of a cultural issue within the plant. Which given the lack of problems with anything to previously come out of there (737 previously was amongst the safest planes in the world, statistically), would imply that either this IS a random one-off (as Boeing would have you believe), or there's been a change in manufacturing or inspection-and-sign-off procedures recently.

If MCAS hadn't happened to the same planes, this would probably be being chalked up as a random failure, because Boeing's historic record had been so good. But for this to follow MCAS has got a LOT of hackles raised. Two different safety-critical fk-ups to the same model within an (aviation-wise) short space of time is not a good look, and anyone involved in safety/inspection does NOT believe in coincidence.




TLDR: Because bureaucracies take forever to change.

[s1962a]

u-boat said:

s1962a said:

u-boat said:

Irrelevant stuff

Do you have a view on Boeing and it's current quality control issues?

Yes I fly them and frequently work with the CAA.

I think there has been issues particularly with outsourcing and cost cutting but I’m happy with the oversight of the FAA and the CAA. I don’t think the CAA are rubber stamping FAA decisions.

I’d happily get on a Max today.

As usual I think there’s a lot of hyperbole in here and it’s telling that so few aviation experts post on PHs any more.

Those issues (in bold) are the ones that are of the greatest concern. How can anyone be sure that those quality control issues didn't occur with the existing Max 8 or 9 fleet that is already in service? They have said that there has been an inexperienced workforce making these planes since a lot of experienced people left after Covid, so don't you think it's prudent they check all their existing planes for defects before assuming all is ok?

I will vote with my feet and won't fly on a Max jet till their quality control issues have been independently verified to be resolved, and existing planes are checked.

[Southerner]

Is this another?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-boe...

“ The AAIB's incident log describes the aircraft experiencing a "high speed and high nose down pitch attitude" during a go-around procedure. “

“ Notably, flight records show the aircraft did not operate for two days following the incident, raising questions about potential concerns with the relatively new Boeing airliner. “

[LivLL]

Southerner said:

Is this another?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-boe...

“ The AAIB's incident log describes the aircraft experiencing a "high speed and high nose down pitch attitude" during a go-around procedure. “

“ Notably, flight records show the aircraft did not operate for two days following the incident, raising questions about potential concerns with the relatively new Boeing airliner. “

It happened Dec 4th 2023

[Southerner]

LivLL said:

Southerner said:

Is this another?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-boe...

“ The AAIB's incident log describes the aircraft experiencing a "high speed and high nose down pitch attitude" during a go-around procedure. “

“ Notably, flight records show the aircraft did not operate for two days following the incident, raising questions about potential concerns with the relatively new Boeing airliner. “

It happened Dec 4th 2023

Has it been in the public domain though until now? It being pumped out as news suggests possibly not?

[havoc]

Southerner said:

Is this another?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-boe...

“ The AAIB's incident log describes the aircraft experiencing a "high speed and high nose down pitch attitude" during a go-around procedure. “

“ Notably, flight records show the aircraft did not operate for two days following the incident, raising questions about potential concerns with the relatively new Boeing airliner. “

The flight profile described WOULD fit with the problems they've allegedly fixed...