Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[JohnM]

I am pleased to say that my AA flight MIA-MEX next Saturday, which was originally scheduled as a B738 then got changed to a MAX some time ago, is now back to a B738.

 

[straitman]

Here's a summary of the survey results: Buyers nervous about return of Boeing 737 Max | Buying Business Travel

Interesting though sensationalistic piece IMHO.

In post #1039 I wrote about the wing slot issues that Boeing believed affected 20 737 Max and 21 737 NG planes and the FAA advised airlines to check an additional 179 Max planes and 133 NGs to determine if their parts are also faulty. These were done by and Service Bulletin from Boeing and an Airworthiness Directive from the FAA.
This writer has managed to change that to: The aircraft manufacturer is advising airlines to inspect the slat tracks on all 737s after it identified more than 300 planes likely to have faulty parts.

The FAA also said a part failure would not bring down a plane, but it could damage an aircraft while in flight as the faulty parts could fail prematurely or crack has been changed to it is unlikely that the fault could cause an aircraft to crash, the FAA says a parts failure could cause damage to the plane in flight.

I believe that each of these is different enough from the originals to put doubt into the whole article.

 

[Quickstatus]

I dont even bother reading recent journalists attempts to create news in this subject. Always better to go to the source if possible.
The Slats issue is not even related to the MAX design issue and to juxtapose the two just complicates the narrative.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting though sensationalistic piece IMHO.

In post #1039 I wrote about the wing slot issues that Boeing believed affected 20 737 Max and 21 737 NG planes and the FAA advised airlines to check an additional 179 Max planes and 133 NGs to determine if their parts are also faulty. These were done by and Service Bulletin from Boeing and an Airworthiness Directive from the FAA.
This writer has managed to change that to: The aircraft manufacturer is advising airlines to inspect the slat tracks on all 737s after it identified more than 300 planes likely to have faulty parts.

The FAA also said a part failure would not bring down a plane, but it could damage an aircraft while in flight as the faulty parts could fail prematurely or crack has been changed to it is unlikely that the fault could cause an aircraft to crash, the FAA says a parts failure could cause damage to the plane in flight.

I believe that each of these is different enough from the originals to put doubt into the whole article.

The figure of 300 aircraft requiring checks has been widely reported. Not all planes are likely to be affected though.

The second statement (would not bring down aircraft vs unlikely to crash) is same same?

 

[straitman]

The figure of 300 aircraft requiring checks has been widely reported. Not all planes are likely to be affected though.

The second statement (would not bring down aircraft vs unlikely to crash) is same same?

Just to be clear:
The writer stated “inspect all 737s” which is just a few more than 300.
There is a huge difference between unlikely too and will not.

 

[Quickstatus]

Journalists should report the facts not inject their own embellishments. Close enough is not fact

 

[JohnM]

Journalists should report the facts not inject their own embellishments. Close enough is not fact

Journalist and facts is an oxymoron...

 

[OATEK]

Journalist and facts is an oxymoron...

But just the other day an editor claimed journalists were "truth tellers" - in relation to local events.

I can't help but feel that many articles are trying to fill the void now that things have gone a bit quiet.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There is a huge difference between unlikely too and will not.

Indeed. But unless the FAA has tested the slat failure in flight under various different flying conditions, isn't it possible that they may not be able to say with 100% accuracy that the part failing would not bring down the aircraft?

Plenty of accidents where a part failure has caused an outcome that operators and manufacturers did not predict.

Personally I would rather jouranlists report something, even if they get them slightly wrong, than not report them at all. At the end of the day, So what if the [poor] reporting puts people off flying the 737MAX or the NG? How does that affect anyone except the people who decide not to fly? It doesn't affect any of us.

 

[JinbaIttai]

A Boeing 737 Max being moved across Europe made a forced landing after being denied entry into German airspace

A spokesman for Norwegian told Business Insider the company was trying to move the jet from Málaga, Spain, to its base in Stockholm on Tuesday with no passengers on board.
He said Norwegian was trying to ensure all its 737 Max aircraft were in the same place during preparations for the US air regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, to approve a software update for the plane model that should allow it to fly again.
But the jet was denied entry to German airspace and was instructed by French air-traffic controllers to land the plane in France, he said.

“Just before entering German airspace both the German and French authorities sent a notice that prohibited repositioning flights of the Boeing 737 Max in their airspace,” a statement from Norwegian said. “Our pilots were instructed to land south of Paris.”
Norwegian said the flight had been approved by Eurocontrol, Europe’s air-traffic management organisation, and the European Aviation Safety Agency, Europe’s aviation regulator.

The flight-tracking website FlightRadar24 shows that the plane travelled over France and circled at the German border before landing in France.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A Boeing 737 Max being moved across Europe made a forced landing after being denied entry into German airspace

A spokesman for Norwegian told Business Insider the company was trying to move the jet from Málaga, Spain, to its base in Stockholm on Tuesday with no passengers on board.
He said Norwegian was trying to ensure all its 737 Max aircraft were in the same place during preparations for the US air regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, to approve a software update for the plane model that should allow it to fly again.
But the jet was denied entry to German airspace and was instructed by French air-traffic controllers to land the plane in France, he said.

“Just before entering German airspace both the German and French authorities sent a notice that prohibited repositioning flights of the Boeing 737 Max in their airspace,” a statement from Norwegian said. “Our pilots were instructed to land south of Paris.”
Norwegian said the flight had been approved by Eurocontrol, Europe’s air-traffic management organisation, and the European Aviation Safety Agency, Europe’s aviation regulator.

The flight-tracking website FlightRadar24 shows that the plane travelled over France and circled at the German border before landing in France.

Perhaps this shows some progress since MH17. 'Just because' a flight was approved by Eurocontrol and EASA doesn't mean there shouldn't be additional scrutiny, in this case by Germany. I think this is a positive move.

 

[OATEK]

Can't quite manage a sorry: Boeing says it will take time to win trust

 

[juddles]

From OATEK's link:

"Muilenburg said the US plane maker expected to announce some orders at the show for wider-body jets, but that its main focus at this year's industry gathering was safety."

Main focus on safety?? How good of them......

 

[I love to travel]

Can't quite manage a sorry: Boeing says it will take time to win trust

I suspect that this is going to be one of those business school examples of what not to do in a crisis. Time will tell.

 

[serfty]

Boeing Says It’s Open to Changing the Name of Grounded 737 Max Jet

...
Boeing Co. is open to dropping the “Max” branding for its latest 737 jetliner, depending on an assessment of consumer and airline responses to an aircraft name that’s been tarnished by two fatal crashes and a three-month grounding.
...
“Our immediate focus is the safe return of the Max to service and re-earning the trust of airlines and the traveling public,” Boeing said in a statement after the interview with Smith. “We remain open-minded to all input from customers and other stakeholders, but have no plans at this time to change the name of the 737 Max.” ...

 

[serfty]

Boeing Seeking to reduce some development costs ...

Exclusive: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft - sources

Boeing Co engineers are reducing the scope and duration of certain costly physical tests used to certify the planemaker's new aircraft, according to industry sources and regulatory officials.

www.reuters.com

 

[codash1099]

Boeing Says It’s Open to Changing the Name of Grounded 737 Max Jet

Maybe call it the 737Itreallyissafeyouknoweventhoughwesaidthatbefore

 

[juddles]

Maybe call it the 737Itreallyissafeyouknoweventhoughwesaidthatbefore

Or maybe the 737 SLY, or 737 SHIFTY ?

 

[Happy Trails]

This would soak up a few months' worth of production.

BA parent company reveals plans to buy 200 Boeing 737 Max jets

International Airlines Group announces deal despite safety fears after two crashes

www.theguardian.com

The parent company of British Airways has announced plans to buy 200 Boeing 737 Max aircraft, despite safety fears surrounding the grounded model after two crashes.

Willie Walsh, the IAG chief executive, said: “We’re very pleased to sign this letter of intent with Boeing and are certain that these aircraft will be a great addition to IAG’s short-haul fleet.

“We have every confidence in Boeing and expect that the aircraft will make a successful return to service in the coming months having received approval from the regulators.”

 

[serfty]

This would soak up a few months' worth of production.

I wonder how much of a price discount they received.