What's new

Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max

Dante80

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
996
Reaction score
5
Country
Greece
Location
Greece
Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max
By Clare Duffy, CNN Business, January 6, 2020

V0mdwAw.jpg


New York (CNN Business)Hundreds of 737 Max jets are sitting, grounded, as Boeing awaits approval from aviation regulators for the troubled plane to return to flight. But now, the company has discovered yet another potential hurdle.

The plane was grounded worldwide in March after two crashes that killed 346 people. The company determined a software fix was likely to correct the issue with the automatic safety feature that caused the crashes.

However, as part of a December audit of the plane's safety ordered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing (BA) found "previously unreported concerns" with wiring in the 737 Max, according to a report earlier Sunday from the New York Times. The company informed the FAA last month that it is looking into whether two sections of wiring that control the tail of the plane are too close together and could cause a short circuit — and potentially a crash, if pilots did not react appropriately -— the Times reported, citing a senior Boeing engineer and three people familiar with the matter.

A Boeing spokesperson confirmed the report to CNN Business on Sunday, saying the issue was identified as part of a "rigorous process" to ensure the plane's safety.

"Our highest priority is ensuring the 737 Max meets all safety and regulatory requirements before it returns to service," the spokesperson said. "We are working closely with the FAA and other regulators on a robust and thorough certification process to ensure a safe and compliant design."

The spokesperson said it "would be premature to speculate" whether the discovery will lead to new design changes for the plane, or further extend the timeline for its recertification.
It will be a challenge for Boeing's new chief executive, David Calhoun, who officially takes over the job on January 13 after former CEO Dennis Muilenburg was ousted on December 23.

"A change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders," the company in December.

Earlier in December, the company announced it would take the dramatic step of suspending production of the 737 Max in light of the continued setbacks to recertification.

Orders for the 737 Max dried up following the grounding, and it wasn't until November that Boeing recorded its first new orders since the grounding. In the meantime, the company had continued to produce the planes at a rate of 42 jets a month, in hopes of a quick recertification by airline regulators around the globe.

But as the process was pushed into 2020, Boeing said the plane's uncertain future had forced it to pause production and prioritize the delivery of the approximately 400 airplanes it has in storage.

Source :. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/05/business/boeing-737-max-wiring-issue/index.html
 
.
At what point do you just cut your losses and develop a clean design small airplane?
That new plane will be a guaranteed success so the only risk Boeing faces is short term loss in profits.
 
.
At what point do you just cut your losses and develop a clean design small airplane?
That new plane will be a guaranteed success so the only risk Boeing faces is short term loss in profits.

It takes YEARS to go through the process of having a plane certified. Moving a wiring harness or fixing a software problem is doable. Fixing a structural defect is when you toss in the towel.
 
.
It takes YEARS to go through the process of having a plane certified. Moving a wiring harness or fixing a software problem is doable. Fixing a structural defect is when you toss in the towel.
very true.
But it has already been one year with no date in sight.

It's a hard one for Boeing as they gambled wrong and lost big time.

They really should have replaced the 737 before the Max, but they just had to take one more spin of the wheel.

I really enjoy flying the 787, I kind of which they had a new 737 that was a smaller 787.
 
.
It takes YEARS to go through the process of having a plane certified. Moving a wiring harness or fixing a software problem is doable. Fixing a structural defect is when you toss in the towel.
Bad design + bad software is a killer combo ... as shown in the 737 Max
 
.
In hindsight, you could view this as a perfect storm. When A320neo came out, it became imperative for Boeing to provide a close to 15% fuel efficiency upgrade to the 737. The original plan before that was to go for a new design, applying the lessons learned from the Dreamliner. Sadly, the proposal was shelved for a number of years, and the only avenue forward by 2011 was to essentially re-engine the 737.

This could have worked. The plane already carried a 40+ year pedigree as well as an astonishing market share on its class. A competent upgrade/continuation would have been enough to match the neo, and then use said market share, industrial support base and relations with the clients to push it through.

They rushed it though. Not only did they push to expedite the certification process to catch the neo, but in the process failed in their own review process for the aircraft (after pressuring the FAA to delegate a good chunk of said review to themselves).

The rest is history.
 
.
very true.
But it has already been one year with no date in sight.

It's a hard one for Boeing as they gambled wrong and lost big time.

They really should have replaced the 737 before the Max, but they just had to take one more spin of the wheel.

I really enjoy flying the 787, I kind of which they had a new 737 that was a smaller 787.
You fly the 787? for which airline?
 
. . . . .
At what point do you just cut your losses and develop a clean design small airplane?
That new plane will be a guaranteed success so the only risk Boeing faces is short term loss in profits.

Having worked in the industry (I worked in an aviation company appraise risk and actuarial task). This never happens.

In term of certification. There are something called "Gentlemen Agreement" between Aviation Bodies (like FAA, CAA, EASA) and company. What it does is that the certification body will give you a certification even if the design is flawed, and you will need to promise to fix that problem in X amount of time. Which sometime they do, sometime they actually don't.

Why I am telling you this? In term of risk, say 3 out of 400 plane went down because of this flaw. You are talking about 200-300 millions in compensation. And probably a hike in insurance premium next, and then they force you to fix it, and pay another 4 or 500 millions (I don't know how much to fix this software glitch, as I have no data) the thing is, if they defer your certification, your company will lose Billions of dollars in contract, which is less preferable than having the aircraft certify now and fix the problem later.

The new plane will still be the same, becuase this have been done for a long long time (I think it started with DC-10 in 1970s.) So yes, in term of number, a few plane crash actually did less damage to losing time to push the plane when they need to sell it, and that is why you have the 737 MAX things now. And this is basically happened to DC-10, Concord and Boeing 767.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom