Flight Tj610 Crashed In The Sea.

[Stuart Galbraith]

We saw something similar here in the 1980's, where factory owners were champing at the bit at all the health and safety inspections. So rather than roll back the health and safety legislation, we just fired most of the health and safety inspectorate. Saved money, saved face, everyone was happy. Well until a factory burned down or someone did something clueless and killed themselves anyway.

 

You are quite right about Bureaucracies, but from my perspective, Bureaucracies under pressure will ALWAYS keep the useless mouths in preference to those at the coal face. Its the way it always works.

[Murph]

Does not look good for Boeing, they apparently knew about this problem for some time.

[Panzermann]

Does not look good for Boeing, they apparently knew about this problem for some time.

 

The FAA has lost trust as well:

 

 

Pontifications: Fluid, dynamic events upend MAX story

 

 

March 20, 2019, © Leeham Co: I’ve been covering or employed in commercial aviation since 1979. I’m an aviation historian buff.

I’ve read all about the groundings of the Douglas DC-6, Lockheed Constellation, Martin 202 and de Havilland Comet. I read about how the Federal Aviation Administration didn’t ground the Lockheed Electra, choosing operating restrictions instead.

I lived through the grounding of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and Boeing 787. As a reporter, I walked through the debris of the American Airlines DC-10 crash that led to the grounding. I went to the crash scene of the Delta Air Lines Boeing 727 at D/FW Airport and I’ve covered many, many crashes through reporting and as a commentator.

I’ve never seen anything evolve in air accidents as has evolved in the Boeing 737 MAX investigations.

(...)

 

 

This report included the startling information that the US Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation.

 

A US criminal investigation, outside of suspected bombing or terrorism, is unheard of in accidents. The only one I can remember is the 1996 crash of a ValuJet DC-9 in which the maintenance company, Sabre Tech, loaded oxygen canisters in the cargo bay, failing to secure the load or cap the canisters.

(...)

Now, with confidence in the FAA shattered by its slow response to grounding—it was the last agency to do so—Transport Canada said, in essence, it won’t take the FAA’s word the problem is solved.

On Tuesday, Europe’s EASA followed suit; it, too, will conduct its own review of the MCAS software upgrade before lifting the grounding order on the MAX.

 

read the whole thing: https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/20/pontifications-fluid-dynamic-events-upend-max-story/

 

 

Canada and EASA are thinking hard about retractingthe certification for the 737max. And looking very hard at anything that came from the FAA in the last few years. Canada does not trust the FAA and wants to look at the MCAS system themselves.

 

 

 

 

meanwhile the flight recorder fo the crashed Lion Air flight sounds like you would expect from pilots in panic flipping through their handbooks: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-crash-exclusive/exclusive-cockpit-voice-recorder-of-doomed-lion-air-jet-depicts-pilots-frantic-search-for-fix-sources-idUSKCN1R10FB

Edited March 20, 2019 by Panzermann

[Stuart Galbraith]

Shit, this is starting to get seriously heavy. Im really beginning to wonder what kind of commercial effect this is going to have on Boeing. The advanced 737's were their main tool in competing with the A320.

 

This was interesting as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pilot-who-hitched-a-ride-saved-lion-air-737-day-before-deadly-crash/ar-BBUZ9uS?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

(Bloomberg) -- As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.

That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia’s investigation.

The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.

The previously undisclosed detail on the earlier Lion Air flight represents a new clue in the mystery of how some 737 Max pilots faced with the malfunction have been able to avert disaster while the others lost control of their planes and crashed. The presence of a third pilot in the cockpit wasn’t contained in Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee’s Nov. 28 report on the crash and hasn’t previously been reported.

Indonesia's Lion Air said Monday, Oct. 29, 2018, it has lost contact with a passenger jet flying from Jakarta to an island off Sumatra. (AP Photo/Trisnadi, File) The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize.

“All the data and information that we have on the flight and the aircraft have been submitted to the Indonesian NTSC. We can’t provide additional comment at this stage due the ongoing investigation on the accident,” Lion Air spokesman Danang Prihantoro said by phone.

The Indonesia safety committee report said the plane had had multiple failures on previous flights and hadn’t been properly repaired.

Representatives for Boeing and the Indonesian safety committee declined to comment on the earlier flight.

The safety system, designed to keep planes from climbing too steeply and stalling, has come under scrutiny by investigators of the crash as well as a subsequent one less than five months later in Ethiopia. A malfunctioning sensor is believed to have tricked the Lion Air plane’s computers into thinking it needed to automatically bring the nose down to avoid a stall.

[Panzermann]

The newest 777-9 models is just as grandfathered from the 777W which was gradnfathered from the first 777, the latter which by now are already going to the scrapyard. Who knows which bomb is hidden in the -9 with its new wings, new cockpit, new engines, new tails, new landing gear, new dimensions,...?

[sunday]

The newest 777-9 models is just as grandfathered from the 777W which was gradnfathered from the first 777, the latter which by now are already going to the scrapyard. Who knows which bomb is hidden in the -9 with its new wings, new cockpit, new engines, new tails, new landing gear, new dimensions,...?

 

The folding wingtips are new, but the general airframe is not so modified from the original 777.

Edited March 21, 2019 by sunday

[MiloMorai]

 

The newest 777-9 models is just as grandfathered from the 777W which was gradnfathered from the first 777, the latter which by now are already going to the scrapyard. Who knows which bomb is hidden in the -9 with its new wings, new cockpit, new engines, new tails, new landing gear, new dimensions,...?

 

The folding wingtips are new, but the general airframe is not so modified from the original 777.

 

Folding wing tips?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Been on carrier aircraft for the past 70 odd years. The only difficulty will arise if its new materials, or if they end up flying far more hours than carrier aircraft do. I somehow doubt they will get more stressed with the amount of take off and landing loads the navy puts on them.

 

I think the 777 and 787 are solid aircraft, the question has to be asked, why did this one apparently turn out so different? Did the accountants and Bureaucrats take the company over from the engineers?

[MiloMorai]

These don't fold.

​

[Stuart Galbraith]

Looks just like an F4.

[Josh]

The folding wings are so it fits in standard 777 slots on the ground. The extra wing area improves fuel efficiency apparently.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, I can see the logic of it. Manufacturers have been talking about doing it for years. And you could do it on a C47 anyway.

[JasonJ]

The folding wings are so it fits in standard 777 slots on the ground. The extra wing area improves fuel efficiency apparently.

 

Was the case for the zero. One version had the folding tips to fit in carriers. There was a later version that had the tip area just simple removed resulting in a little less surface area with shorter wing span. It resulted in better roll speed and faster dive speed but reduced range which was problematic for some of the long range missions and because of that, pilots seemed to have preferred the zero models that had the wider wings for better fuel efficiency, IIRC.

Edited March 21, 2019 by JasonJ

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, Ive heard that same thing on some videos Jason. Some of the pilots in the sans wingtip version knew they didnt have the range to come back, but they will went anyway.

 

So the idea of folding wingtips is clearly a good one. We shall hope its an engineering solution, and not an accountant driven one.

[Panzermann]

One way out is either flying wings or lifting body designs, becasue the wingspan overall can be smaller again. It is a real problem to park those big wingspan aeroplanes on airfields and near terminals. Heck, when the 747 came they had to build new terminals and new terminals were required for the A380 as well. Also fuel efficiency is better, when the whole airplane is a wing and adds lift and less drag.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There was a configuration I saw being mooted a good 3 decades ago, where you would have the wings go up in a giant arc, so it actually forms a ring over the top. Would have looked like a flying Jelly doughnut, which gets my vote clearly.

Nobody seems to have had the courage to try it yet. Im sure it would have had disadvantages in crashes, not least it would have been a right pig to have got the fireman to shoot water up at the top of the ring if it was on fire.

 

Lifting bodies are probably a better idea. In fact the configuration we have for airliners today is positively ancient. its not really moved on that much from the DC4 when you stop to think about it.

[Panzermann]

There was a configuration I saw being mooted a good 3 decades ago, where you would have the wings go up in a giant arc, so it actually forms a ring over the top. Would have looked like a flying Jelly doughnut, which gets my vote clearly.

Nobody seems to have had the courage to try it yet. Im sure it would have had disadvantages in crashes, not least it would have been a right pig to have got the fireman to shoot water up at the top of the ring if it was on fire.

 

Lifting bodies are probably a better idea. In fact the configuration we have for airliners today is positively ancient. its not really moved on that much from the DC4 when you stop to think about it.

 

 

I do not think a "ring wing" is worse than a T rudder, which many rear engine aeroplanes have.

 

There is the concept Aurora D8 with a lifting body design, but it stays in teh concept phase. Although I think it would be buildable today. And there is the Frigate Ecojet with an oval body with lift properties. One of the ideas for the A380 was to join two A340 fuselages and give it lifting propeeties as well. But all these designs have problems with the pressurization, putting lots of wear on it. A round tube is much better at withstanding pressure. Hence most aeroplanes being tubes with wings.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Easier to build too, I would imagine. And cheaper.

[MiloMorai]

Boeing charged airlines for safety upgrades, https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/revealed-boeing-charged-airlines-extra-money-key-safety-upgrades-missing-crashed-planes/?utm_source=push_notifications

[Stuart Galbraith]

Cheeky bastards. Can you imagine the furore there would be if you charged consumers for an airbag and a seatbelt in a car as optional extras?

Edited March 21, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

Takata sold defective car airbags that were made in Mexico, resulting in unnecessary deaths and millions of recalled cars. Takata filed for bankruptcy in 2017, got sold to a Chinese company.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-takata-bankruptcy-ruling/judge-approves-takatas-u-s-bankruptcy-plan-idUSKCN1G10SW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation

[JWB]

The folding wings are so it fits in standard 777 slots on the ground. The extra wing area improves fuel efficiency apparently.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device

[Nobu]

Boeing charged airlines for safety upgrades

 

The investigation is not going well for Boeing and the FAA, to put it mildly.

 

It has not yet come to this, but the CEO of Boeing might want to begin consideration of doing the honorable thing for his company and his country.

[sunday]

 

There was a configuration I saw being mooted a good 3 decades ago, where you would have the wings go up in a giant arc, so it actually forms a ring over the top. Would have looked like a flying Jelly doughnut, which gets my vote clearly.

Nobody seems to have had the courage to try it yet. Im sure it would have had disadvantages in crashes, not least it would have been a right pig to have got the fireman to shoot water up at the top of the ring if it was on fire.

 

Lifting bodies are probably a better idea. In fact the configuration we have for airliners today is positively ancient. its not really moved on that much from the DC4 when you stop to think about it.

 

 

I do not think a "ring wing" is worse than a T rudder, which many rear engine aeroplanes have.

 

There is the concept Aurora D8 with a lifting body design, but it stays in teh concept phase. Although I think it would be buildable today. And there is the Frigate Ecojet with an oval body with lift properties. One of the ideas for the A380 was to join two A340 fuselages and give it lifting propeeties as well. But all these designs have problems with the pressurization, putting lots of wear on it. A round tube is much better at withstanding pressure. Hence most aeroplanes being tubes with wings.

 

 

There is also the problem of evacuation of very wide passenger cabins, they need a lot of emergency exits, and the corresponding traverse aisles.

[Panzermann]

Oh yes, of course, sunday. Having three or maybe even four aisles sounds like a nightmare for evacuation.

 

 

---

 

Boeing charged airlines for safety upgrades

 

The investigation is not going well for Boeing and the FAA, to put it mildly.

 

It has not yet come to this, but the CEO of Boeing might want to begin consideration of doing the honorable thing for his company and his country.

 

The extra warning light was not required by the FAA so it costs extra. Capitalism, baby!

 

 

And no, they won't do the honorable thing. They are going to sue for a big golden parachute, if they have to. The real scandal is, that the FAA could not do the certification on their own and had to offload work on Boeing (sure, I would have liked to write my own tests in school) and that they grandfathered so much. There have been complaints decades ago from Boeing competitors (well Airbus mostly) that the 737 gets a pass so often.