General Aviation Thread

[cdxbow]

Too bad the FAA couldn't discover these issues beforehand, it would have benefitted all parties including Boeing. I guess having a regulatory body for safety notifications and approvals ( sort of) that also has a mandate to promote aviation wasn't such a good idea.

Too bad Boeing didn't stop to think that putting engines too large to fit under the wings of a 60 year old aircraft might be a bad idea. Too bad Boeing didn't stop to think that putting these over large engines forward of their normal position and making the aircraft apt to stall under thrust was a bad idea. Too bad Boeing tried to use software to fix a hardware problem, and that software was poorly designed, seemingly untested in certain conditions and then implementing it without telling anyone. Bizarre.

And a pox on Boeing for trying to blame the pilots.

I agree the FAA is too close to industry, but in this case, this plane should never have got off the drawing board.

The plane represents a sad decline in Boeings culture, putting $$$$$ way before safety.

 

[John Fedup]

I agree, the 737 MAX was a poor quick-fix solution for competing against the
A320neo and both were stop gaps against the C-series. Both companies feared a new player screwing with their duopoly. At the time, both companies had most of their resources committed to new wide bodies so clean sheet designs for new single aisle jets were off the table. The A320 was a better upgrade starting point than the 737. As it turned out, collapsing oil prices, geared turbine delays, buyer timidity, and Bombardier incompetence eliminated any threat to the duopoly but clearly Airbus came out on top. They got the C-series for next to nothing and the upgraded A320/321 upgrades are doing well.

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting article from the New York Times about the quality of FAA governance of certification of commercial aircraft.

The Roots of Boeing’s 737 Max Crisis: A Regulator Relaxes Its Oversight

 

[John Fedup]

“Interesting “ really doesn’t convey much about this article, perhaps depressing works better. Sorry for this political comment but this one result from the Republicans long term battle against regulation. One has to wonder what kind of compromises the FAA made to appease Boeing on the getting the Dreamliner out the door on time?

The article mentions the difficulty in understanding the software behind the MCAS by the FAA. (See @nagimozart, Apr 20/19). Almost all vendors are struggling to find good software people and the FAA is no exception. Just look at LM’s troubles with ALIS software! Airbus has had its share of software issues too. It will be interesting to see how the various international aviation safety regulators interact with each other in the future. I assume many base their decisions on information they receive from the FAA. The same applies to the European aviation organization as well. Are they just as compromised by Airbus as the FAA is with Boeing?

 

[Ananda]

Comac Forges Ahead with C919 Flight Tests | Air Transport News: Aviation International News

Meanwhile C919 continue it's progress. Despite it also faced software integration problem. This potentially can lock out Chinese Huge market in the future for Max and A320.
Thus getting to Chinese market this time will be crucial for Max, and the delay or possible hold on production can only benefit the momentum of C919. 737 Chinese users (which are huge) perhaps will stay on bit longer with their current 737NG..and bypass Max to go to this C919..at least for their domestic market first.

 

[John Fedup]

Negative stories on the MAX continue. The BBC report contains details from a former Boeing manager about the huge pressure applied to engineers to reduce costs and minimize details on changes to speed up FAA certification on the MAX. As a frequent flyer, I am starting to feel uncomfortable about boarding WJ or AC 737MAXS when they return to service. Don’t think I am alone on this concern.

Work on Boeing crash plane ‘not adequately funded’

 

[John Fedup]

Apparently the A320 has a problem similar to the MAX but not as severe under certain circumstances. It was discovered during testing after finding the same issue the A321LR. Manual changes must be updated within 30 days. Both Leap and PW-GT versions are effected. Is sticking different engines on a existing airframe and expecting software to compensate for changed flight characteristics really a good idea? Perhaps but it seems more testing is needed to verify correct operation.

A320neo also potentially vulnerable to pitch-up scenario

 

[John Fedup]

Japan’s 1991 Air Force One 747-400 is for sale at $28 million. At this bargain price, Trump should buy it so he can still enjoy the Air Force One experience when he is hopefully voted out of office.

PICTURES: ‘Japanese Air Force One’ for sale

 

[ngatimozart]

Japan’s 1991 Air Force One 747-400 is for sale at $28 million. At this bargain price, Trump should buy it so he can still enjoy the Air Force One experience when he is hopefully voted out of office.

PICTURES: ‘Japanese Air Force One’ for sale

Maybe your great and glorious leader, praise be upon him, should acquire one for himself so that he can travel in the luxury that he has become accustomed too after he's been fired in October. I understand that you have massive portraits of him in your house and prostrate yourself before them every morning.

 

[John Fedup]

Maybe your great and glorious leader, praise be upon him, should acquire one for himself so that he can travel in the luxury that he has become accustomed too after he's been fired in October. I understand that you have massive portraits of him in your house and prostrate yourself before them every morning.

Actually the portraits are rather small but I have hundreds of them on rolls even though I flush several away every day.

As for acquiring the Japanese jet, Japan better insist on a cash payment transaction in yen.

 

[John Fedup]

Some more 737 MAX drama, a former Boeing employee takes the Fifth to dodge supplying documents. Rather strange that a technical test pilot feels it is necessary to withhold documentation unless of course he falsified test data. Why he would do that, if in fact he did, is even more bizarre as there isn't much to be gained for him as far as I can tell.

Former Boeing official subpoenaed in 737 MAX probe won’t turn over documents, citing Fifth Amendment protection

 

[Ananda]

Boeing 777X Suffers Testing Setback | Air Transport News: Aviation International News

This year is not a good year for Boeing..and seems it will still be challenging next year also. With continous problem on 737Max, the latest testing incidents on 777X can potentially delayed further introduction of 777 9.

The middle market for 757 replacement increasingly being taken by A321 XLR, as Boeing customers that waiting for Boeing alternative (the potential 797) sees it will be put behind by Boeing due to their need to finish Max problem and catch up 777 X as A350 also shown increase attraction to Long Term Boeing customers.

Is not easy for Airlines that already used Boeing to change to more Airbus.. besides Airbus back log orders..also the need to change Pilot Rating from Boeing to Airbus and consequences on logistics can add more costs in short-medium term.

On the paper, this should provide opportunity for C919 and MC-21..as seems some Airlines want alternative from Max or A320 neo..but I still don't see for considerable future the Chinese and Russian medium single aisle can create big market outside their own country.

 

[John Fedup]

China's domestic market is the C919's starting point and it is large enough to give this homegrown product some momentum. The MC-21 lacks this advantage. I agree, due to Boeing's MAX and now 777X issues, the NMA opportunity will be likely lost to the A321 LR and the forthcoming A321 XLR. They might as well forget the 797 concept and start thinking about building a blended wing body airliner.

 

[Ananda]

They might as well forget the 797 concept and start thinking about building a blended wing body airliner.

Well John, with what's going on in Airline Industry, I don't see Airbus or Boeing will invest on 'unconventional' design. They will stick to what the market wants..which is more efficient conventional two engine design.

Airbus try to goes with 'bit' deviation with extra large four engine jumbo, and only sligthly more than a decade has to throw a towel.

Even with all the talk of to bring back supersonic airliner..I still don't see it will happen soon.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well John, with what's going on in Airline Industry, I don't see Airbus or Boeing will invest on 'unconventional' design. They will stick to what the market wants..which is more efficient conventional two engine design.

Airbus try to goes with 'bit' deviation with extra large four engine jumbo, and only sligthly more than a decade has to throw a towel.

Even with all the talk of to bring back supersonic airliner..I still don't see it will happen soon.

There were quite a few problems with adopting the A380, which is why I suspect that it has largely gone by the wayside.

The aircraft itself was so much large, heavier, and with greater ground pressure than other airliners that airports had to upgrade their facilities in order for A380's to operate from them. In some cases, I suspect that carrying out upgrades was not possible (IIRC some runways needed lengthening, and other had to have taxiways widened) while others the upgrades were possible, but not economically practical and/or feasible. What airport, especially a fairly busy one, would like to shut down for a period of time because the runways and taxiways are being redone to accommodate A380's, particularly if there might only be one or two such flights in a week? Also, how happy and willing would the airports be to pay for the upgrades? Of course the airlines could fund the upgrades, but that would just increase their costs to adopt the A380.

I do sort of wonder how much input Airbus sought, or how much was accepted, from commercial airline operators.

 

[John Fedup]

The A380 story is interesting. I do recall Boeing's marketing experts ruled against a larger 4 engine version jet to compete against the A380. They seemed to have been proven right. Hard to blame Airbus for trying however, the 1,500 plus 747s seemed to be a huge opportunity for replacement with something even bigger. Not sure what the performance of large turbofans was when the A380 was being designed. Clearly the large twin wide bodies are what most airlines want. Perhaps Boeing's idea of folding wings on their 777x could have made the A380 a little more attractive.

 

[Ananda]

The aircraft itself was so much large, heavier, and with greater ground pressure than other airliners that airports had to upgrade their facilities in order for A380's to operate from them. In some cases, I suspect that carrying out upgrades was not possible (IIRC some runways needed lengthening, and other had to have taxiways widened) while others the upgrades were possible, but not economically practical and/or feasib

I think beside that, the changing business model in Airline Industry contribute significant factor also. Airbus betting on Hub to Hub business model like what Emirates does. However most airline with the advancement of ETOPS capabilities now more focus on direct routes or smaller hub model.

The order number of large wide bodies (777X and A350-1000) is relatively lower than medium wide bodies (787, A350-900/800 and A330 Neo). Some industry analysts contribute this to Airline focusing more to direct routes.
Even longer range single aisle narrow bodies like A321LR/XLR or MAX10 also getting traction. Talk with a colleague of mine that handle Garuda's account on his bank, whom says there indications that Garuda in negotiations with Boeing to change their 49 MAX8 order to combination of 787 and MAX10.

This trend showing more and more in Bigger Airlines where they are focusing more on longer range Airliners on the form of Medium Wide Bodies and Long Range Narrow Bodies. While left shorter routes to their subsidiaries.

However this seems at the cost of decreasing order numbers of large wide bodies..at least relative as percentage of the market.
Definitely no place left on Ultra Large Wide Bodies like A380 and 747-8.

 

[John Fedup]

The freighter version of the 747-8 will survive a little longer until new twin engine widebody freighters arrive.

 

[Ananda]

Apparently the A320 has a problem similar to the MAX but not as severe under certain circumstances. It was discovered during testing after finding the same issue the A321LR. Manual changes must be updated within 30 days.

https://simpleflying-com.cdn.amppro.../simpleflying.com/lufthansa-a320-cog-economy/

Further development of potential 'angle of attack' problem on A320 family. However seems so far the A320 computer did not override the pilot, unlike what happened on MAX.

This shown that both Airbus and Boeing design, actually shown some weaknesses when putting new engine on their 'old' single aisle narrow bodies..
Still, so far Airbus seems have better software solution.

 

[John Fedup]

It seems one 737 MAX has been flying in Canada. Air Canada was granted permission by Transport Canada to fly a MAX for keeping Air Canada pilot trainers current. This was necessary because the airline was not a legacy 737 operator. Guessing the decision to switch from A320 to 737 MAX has been painful. The 737 MAX used has now been returned to Arizona for storage.

Lone Boeing 737 Max criss-crossed Canada for pilot checks during grounding