103
votes
Boeing wants US FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Over pilots' objection, Boeing seeks safety exemption for MAX 7
- Authors
- Dominic Gates
- Published
- Jan 5 2024
- Word count
- 1777 words
Ahh, the Boeing 737 MAX 7, a comedy of errors, corner cutting, and corporate greed.
First we have that little problem we all remember in the MCAS, their band-aid fix to a bad design that also had no redundancy, no documentation, along with collusion and cover-ups, that cost the lives of 346 people.
Then there's the lightning exemption because the Stall Management Yaw Damper can't actually handle being struck by lightning, so they're going to use an outdated part from a previous plane (the 737 NG, which is where the MCAS problem above originates) while they pinkie swear that they'll have it fixed by 2027 when the 737 MAX 10 is ready.
Next there's the EICAS exemption. You see when Boeing had that little problem mentioned above, the US passed the U.S. Aircraft Safety and Certification Reform Act of 2020 in response, requiring airliners to be fitted with an engine-indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS) to prevent this shit from happening again. Boeing, boo-hoo-hoo'd their way to an exemption of a fucking law written in response to their own fuck-ups and don't have to actually install the safety measure until around 2030.
And then now we have this, an exemption to more safety rules. According to the article, the problem is that the anti-icing system for the engine nacelles will overheat and cause structural damage if it is left on for any more than 5 minutes after icing conditions dissipate. Boeings interim fix is simply to tell pilots shut it down when not in use, but there are no alerts or indicators that this needs to happen, "they just have to remember to do it". I'm not a pilot and maybe I'm the only one with this opinion, but asking already busy pilots to remember to do something within 5 minutes of external conditions changing or else your engine nacelle could fall off seems just a little crazy.
The article doesn’t talk about how long it would take for sufficient damage to occur and it sounds like this is a problem for all the MAXs (which are still flying), not just the new MAX 7, so
presumably its not something that happens rapidly but still...
The most interesting part of the article to me is the fact that: 'Boeing’s petition states that the potential breakup of the engine pod was discovered through analysis and flight testing and could happen only in the case of “multiple, independent system failures during specific operational and environmental conditions.”
Ok, but then... : 'Notably, among the various regulations Boeing wants exempted from is one requiring the jetmaker to prove that any “single failure or malfunction or probable combination of failures (that) will jeopardize the safe operation of the airplane … is extremely remote.”'
So, let me get this straight:
According to Boeing, a provably trustworthy and in no way questionable company, this situation is extremely unlikely and requires multiple failures which, if true, might be reasonable but they want an exception so they don’t actually have to prove it that it's "extremely remote".
Remember kids: If it's a Boeing, I ain't going.
I really really hope they don't get the exemption, and get some extra scrutiny instead. This is insane that they think they shouldn't be subject to checks notes safety regulations 😂 Do they not remember the 747 MAX issues?
Sadly it took a series of other countries grounding the 737 MAX before the FAA took action against Boeing. I don't expect anything other than the FAA granting yet another exemption.
Looks like this discussion is timely given another MAX incident just occurred involving the fuselage this time.
Literally one day later: a 737 Max 9 had a fuselage blowout at 16K feet and the FAA has grounded over a hundred of the planes.
I'm seeing in some of the reports that the passengers meant to be in front of the affected area were absent, fortunately, but a nearby teenager had his shirt ripped off by the decompression.
Worse, if I recall correctly. There were two "redundant" MCAS systems, each with its own computer and sensor. If one of the two failed, the system would trigger. So if you assume a false positive is no big deal, this is actually redundant. If a false positive is a problem, you've now installed two systems that can fail, and one failing is sufficient to enter a dangerous state. Or in other words:
by adding a spare, you've doubled the probability of failure.
As I recall, the MCAS standard package didn't include an "AoA disagree" light either, and MCAS came on automatically when the autopilot engaged, making it very hard for pilots to even know what was happening. Boeing's fix was to roll the light and manual MCAS disable out to all units, not just the ones that paid extra.
It shouldn't be a problem at all to look at the rest of the sensor suite of the plane and figure out which of the AoA sensors is more plausible and ignore the other. Speed and air pressure and maybe a few more data points should give you a pretty good idea of whether you're in the realm where stalls are at all plausible and what your AoA should be. If only one of the sensors deviates from that expected value, ignore it.
So this literally just happened:
Alaska Airlines Grounds Fleet of Boeing 737 Max 9 Jets After Midair ‘Incident’
The mid air incident? A giant hole was ripped out of the fuselage after an explosive decompression event.
Really feeling like Boeing really needs to stop getting the benefit of the doubt by the FAA. I realize it's a slightly different model, but the Boeing Max in general has been a disaster.
I love how the headlines were first reporting it as a "window" blowing out. For those unaware, Boeing didn't suddenly start installing floor to ceiling windows in their planes. That's a "permanent plug" where a door could be optioned if the seating arrangement on the plane is dense enough to require another emergency exit.
Also, that's a brand new plane, delivered on October 31, 2023, entered service on November 11, 2023 and had flown 144 times before this "incident".
Credit to the crew for getting it back on the ground immediately as it happened right after takeoff and it was only 20 minutes from liftoff to landing. Also why you should always wear your seatbelt when seated.
What's the odds, given the age of the plane and such, that this was recently an emergency exit that was swapped out by the customer? How frequently are these swapped? Because if that's a more-or-less routine thing the customers do themselves, then this could also be a colossal maintenance fuckup.
Zero. It was delivered that way and configuration changes that would lead to such are done during major refurbishments, not three months into the plane's service.
I think that things like that would extremely rarely, if ever, be swapped out by the customer airline. The number of exits and their locations is determined by the seating arrangement on the plane, and to completely redo the interior layout of the plane and change out sections of fuselage would be a massive change.
I'm very much getting the feeling that the US wants to prop up the company via preferential treatment by the FAA. Which looks bad domestically and abroad. Perhaps a better option for the US govt would be to ease immigration of skilled workers for Boeing or similar moves, rather than slacking on safety.
Meanwhile an Airbus in Japan had one of the worst accident imaginable that should've been unsurvivable, and all ~380 passengers and crew made it out alive.
Boeing's problems aren't the result of a skilled worker shortage. Rather, they're the end product of a corporate institutional culture that stopped prioritizing good engineering over maximizing share price.
If ever a business should have become an employee-owned cooperative, it's Boeing - the engineering culture there used to be among the most safety-conscious in the world. Heck, when I took safety engineering coursework in the 1990's, half of our case studies were published by Boeing. Boeing workers were fearless and impeccably conscientious in discovering, analyzing, and remediating the slightest issue.
I'm not sure the company is salvageable at this point, since they're still putting out the same cosmetic marketing B.S. on a page that's barely been updated since 2014. Boeing should probably should be nationalized (and we don't do that in the good old U.S. of A.), since at least then it will stop being a source of revolving-door regulatory capture at the FAA, or taken private to minimize exposure to financialization and the whims of the stock market.
Oh, I'm not pretending to know what the solution to boeing's problems would be, that was more an example of the kind of "reasonable" protectionism / favoritism the US Govt could employ to protect Boeing - which is a company the US can't afford to lose completely, as it's kind of a crown jewel of US industry, both in airliners and in defense.
As for actual actionable things one could do, I agree with you. Short term profit orientation needs to go, lots of managers need to start thinking differently or go. I'm going to assume the engineers are entirely on board with improving safety culture, and will probably be a driving force of that change if you let them. So let them. Probably also want to evaluate whether you can fill manager ranks with people with engineering backgrounds rather than business backgrounds - I imagine that's a key one. All of those are decisions that need to come from corporate leadership and aren't typically mandated externally.
Interestingly, you're essentially describing pre-McDonnell Douglas merger Boeing. They used to be a great company run by the engineers. Then the merger happened, MD bean counters took over, and here we are. It's quite sad.
There are many factors to consider when planning air travel: when to leave and return, direct/nonstop or dealing with layovers, airline loyalty status, and of course price. There's probably more, but those are the big ones.
Never did I think that I might have to consider the plane manufacturer as part of that decision making process. 😑
Unfortunately, Southwest Airlines has the largest share of flights out of my home airport. And Southwest exclusively flies 737s...which they're trying to replace with MAXs.
I know commercial flying is the safest form of transportation. I flew plenty last year, mostly on Boeing jets. Still though. Get it together, Boeing.
On the subject of choosing airplane manufacturers: if you ever have the chance, take a flight on an Embraer. I flew on one unplanned this year and absolutely fell in love with their planes. They designed the fuselage specifically to maximize passenger head room. They also designed the seating to maximize legroom. It felt like a free upgrade to a higher class ticket, just by getting a different aircraft. Now I would be willing to pay extra to get an Embraer (not much extra because I am cheap, but some extra).
The legroom is usually something the airline configures more than the manufacturer. The manufacturer only has certain configurations available, of course, but Embraer likely has low legroom configurations.
Welp, the FAA couldn't ignore this one.
US FAA orders Boeing 737 MAX 9 planes grounded after blowout
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-safety-board-investigating-alaska-airlines-boeing-737-max-9-emergency-landing-2024-01-06/
Getting to this whole fiasco late, but you're 100% right.
Which is of course why it's extra frustrating that you are both spending money to make sure that doesn't happen, and are rewarded with people basically just pocketing the cash and crapping out trash. It's literally the worst of both worlds.
I don't think so. If there was political will it would be possible, though certainly not trivial, to nationalize Boeing and excise the ghost of McDonnell Douglas that's ruined the company through endless bean counting nonsense. Call it corporate chemotherapy.
The 787 is a genuinely good plane, the 777 is too. The problem isn't with the engineers, it's with management. Unfortunately I'm not convinced there is political will to do the right thing.
Airbus isn’t funded by governments. That’s factually wrong.
Ahh what an eerily prophetic post: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/business/alaska-airlines-flight-portland-landing.html
From no less than a Boeing 737-9 Max. I guess some problems really do solve themselves (fortunately, without bloodshed this time). Events like these make me understand how conspiracy theories start to form.
I wonder where the door (or chunk of regular fuselage?) landed. Hopefully nobody got hurt. That would be one heck of a thing to wake up to in your back yard.
In a science teacher's backyard, apparently.
Huh. I've been following this story since last night, and this is the first time I've thought about where the door would have gone. I haven't heard any reports of it destroying anything or hurting anyone at least.
Juan Brown (Broncolirio on YT) mentioned they'll be looking for it for the investigation.
Videos from a 737 Technical Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw4eQGAmXQ0
Follow up specifically about the plug and how it's fitted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o
The plane that suffered an inflight blowout was restricted because of concern over a warning light
I can somewhat get still flying it after the first warning if they inspected the plane and found no obvious issues. Maybe even after the second warning, too, since it could mean a faulty sensor.
With three warnings though? That's a pattern. I feel it should have been grounded and given a thorough inspection at that point, because that meant either there was a genuine problem risking depressurization or the sensor was faulty, and neither option is acceptable.
United finds loose bolts on plug doors during 737 Max 9 inspections
Alaska too
What a massive fuckup. Yay Boeing.
Oh, btw, if I understand correctly what's going on here, the door/plug is pressed against the frame by cabin pressure, and needs to move down a bit to fit through the frame. Which is prevented by a set of bolts. Those bolts are (presumably) tightened to a torque spec and (definitely) secured against shaking loose with safety wire. Either the bolts were improperly tightened, or the wire was missing, is the leading theory afaict. I'm sure the NTSB is taking a real good look at what they can find of the bolt (holes) on the accident aircraft and any other affected 737 Max 9s - or other aircraft with plugs of the same manufacture/design.
Correction: The affected bolts apparently do not have safety wire, as seen here. In this picture of the NTSB, you can see the sleeve that attaches to the door is still on the hinge pin in the aircraft, meaning at least part of the failure was to do with the sleeve detaching from the door. Which is the job of precisely those loose bolts we can see in the other picture.
Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7
@mycketforvirrad if you don't mind, would you add the crashes.plane tag to this topic? I know the story isn't really about a plane crash but the comments have been taken over by that and I'd like to filter it the topic out.
Individual topics have an ignore button for that purpose.
Your wish is my command!
Thanks!
I mean, why not? Ignoring safety regulations worked out well for that little submarine this summer.