Boeing 737 MAX family NEWS ONLY

New setback in Max 7 and 10 certification.
In the event of a bird strike the CFM Leap mechanically disengages the fan to prevent further vibration damage (like shedding blades). However the fan also supplies the bleed air system to the cockpit and passenger cabin (Engine 1 cockpit, engine 2 cabin), when the fan blade disconnects from the bleed air system it allows noxious fumes to enter these compartments. This discovery has been prompted by an NTSB investigation into several incidents last year where the Max 8 aircraft cockpit filled with smoke from an unknown source, the load reduction device is another undocumented MAX aircraft feature. In the interim aircraft operators have begun independently writing procedures that in the event of a bird strike the bleed air system should be switched off.

airinsight.com

737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 likely to be further delayed |

The latest setback to the Boeing 737 MAX 7 and 10 programs is a load reduction device on the CFM LEAP engine that engages after engine bird strike damage.
airinsight.com airinsight.com
 
Any engineer would have had that case crosschecked during the design. Backflow are pretty standard and not something unknown.
I would guess that the failure here comes from the division of tasks, with people and projects structured around keywords and not much more. Here the bleed air manager never envisioned much of the engine failure cases. Not his domain.
Any rigorous analysis should have detected this. Noxious fumes are also often leaving traces and residues. It is concerning that tracking back their source took so much time.
 
Last edited:
There is an old "war story" that was going around the USMC CH-53E community in the mid-1980s when the Super Stallion was first entering service.

During prototype and developmental testing there were several failures of the tail-fold mechanism (to reduce length when parked on/in a ship)... according to the story, the engineers who designed the hinged joint, the powered latch mechanism, and the drive-shaft mating coupling for the driveshaft to the tail rotor were not told what they were designing it for - they were just given a basic set of specifications.

As the company made all sorts of similar items for many different applications they assumed that it was for a boat to be able to fold the propeller up when in shallow water - something which had VERY different loads and strains than the tail boom of a large transport/cargo helicopter!
 
Meant to post this last week and forgot:

www.flightglobal.com

Judge rejects Boeing plea deal as 737 Max fraud case continues

A federal judge on 5 December rejected Boeing's guilty plea with the US Department of Justice (DOJ), a move that throws fresh uncertainty over the company's 737 Max fraud case and could require Boeing negotiate a new deal.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

TLDR: Judge rejected the new 737 Max Boeing/DoJ plea deal, apparently because he's from Texas and the plea deal said that in selecting the independent compliance monitor proposed by the deal the race of the applicant* would be considered, plus he didn't get enough say in the decision, and the monitor's recommendations weren't mandatory. So now Boeing and DoJ have to negotiate a new plea deal.

Although the DOJ committed to picking monitors “solely based on merit and talent”, O’Connor says he is “skeptical”. He notes that the DOJ’s policies, and a 2021 executive order signed by president Joe Biden, “encourage consideration of race in hiring.”
Click to expand...

* I suspect it was just a standard DEI clause - if you have two equal final candidates, pick the one from the disadvantaged community - and the judge is editorializing for his political base.

The attorneys for the families say the new deal must consider their interests, but I'm really not sure that anything the judge said says that.
 
DWG said:
* I suspect it was just a standard DEI clause - if you have two equal final candidates, pick the one from the disadvantaged community - and the judge is editorializing for his political base.
Click to expand...
The application of that Biden EO has been consideration of race/other protected class FIRST, then competence later if ever.

And it's a screaming violation of the Civil Rights Act, which expressly prohibited the consideration of skin color, race, national origin, sex, or religion...
 
Scott Kenny said:
And it's a screaming violation of the Civil Rights Act, which expressly prohibited the consideration of skin color, race, national origin, sex, or religion...
Click to expand...
AIUI CAA forbids discrimination, not consideration, you can't eliminate systematic discrimination without considering and neutralizing its effects. It's the difference between "All applications must be made in person at the office on the second floor", and "All applications must be made in person at the office on the second floor, the wheelchair accessible lift is to the right."

But off-topic.
 
DWG said:
AIUI CAA forbids discrimination, not consideration, you can't eliminate systematic discrimination without considering and neutralizing its effects. It's the difference between "All applications must be made in person at the office on the second floor", and "All applications must be made in person at the office on the second floor, the wheelchair accessible lift is to the right."

But off-topic.
Click to expand...
If you cannot decide against a candidate based on (census categories), you cannot decide for a candidate based on those categories. Because that means you decided against the other candidates based on those categories.

Courts have ruled that way pretty firmly since the mid 1990s.
 
www.flightglobal.com

Boeing restarts 737 production

Boeing has restarted 737 production and intends within days to resume assembly of 767s and 777s, saying it is bringing its Pacific Northwest facilities back online after halting production for nearly three months due to a machinists' strike.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

Following on from:

www.flightglobal.com

Boeing aims to fully resume Seattle-area production before year-end as safety review continues

Boeing aims this month to fully resume final assembly of commercial aircraft in the Pacific Northwest, having so far held off from rebooting the lines after machinists ended a 53-day-strike in early November.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
DWG said:
www.flightglobal.com

Boeing restarts 737 production

Boeing has restarted 737 production and intends within days to resume assembly of 767s and 777s, saying it is bringing its Pacific Northwest facilities back online after halting production for nearly three months due to a machinists' strike.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

Following on from:

www.flightglobal.com

Boeing aims to fully resume Seattle-area production before year-end as safety review continues

Boeing aims this month to fully resume final assembly of commercial aircraft in the Pacific Northwest, having so far held off from rebooting the lines after machinists ended a 53-day-strike in early November.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
All -

Same song, second verse.....

Boeing and the FAA keep referring to a nebulous rate of 38
B737/P-8 per month, ostensibly because that rate was reached briefly a few years ago.

A specified production rate can no longer be clamored for by management & supervision nor strived mightily to obtain by the workforce independent of ensuring and providing requisite production quality. Those former days are over, or else... Boeing Commercial Aircraft will be.

Neither investors, Boeing, the FAA, Congress, nor Wall Street know" fer sher " what the mothly rate will be. The true levels of quality production line workers can provide is something
that has to be proven and validated on a frequently recurring basis. Things like how well the new training regimine is going and whether it results in the positive quality impacts needed, will be revealed only over time. This reality will resist any attempts to cram production quality into being achieved within some pre-selected time frame, and by extension...production " rate ".

What / how much can be produced with proper Aviation-grade quality and conformity is and end number influenced by a host of variables... like training needs, daily workforce attendance; and supply chain shortages. As long as things like these remain in-flux and fairly unpredictable, skewering production to a punitory " rate " is stupidity beyond reason. The " rate " is going to flux, and in result...the numbers of planes that can be properly produced is going to flux or otherwise dip below pre-established goals. And, for responsible entities to even bring up the pipe dream of catching Airbus; beggars imagination.

The reality is more like:
" Hey... let's see what we can get done this shift... this workday ", and then find out the answer to the same question for the next day; and the next. THEN they can say what rate achieved.


With regards,
357 Mag
 
357Mag said:
Same song, second verse.....

Boeing and the FAA keep referring to a nebulous rate of 38
B737/P-8 per month, ostensibly because that rate was reached briefly a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Neither of the articles actually mentions productions rates: "The airframer is not more specific about production rates, but sources at the company say 737 output is proceeding at a very slow pace."
 
357Mag said:
The reality is more like:
" Hey... let's see what we can get done this shift... this workday ", and then find out the answer to the same question for the next day; and the next. THEN they can say what rate achieved.
Click to expand...
And then they will discover that Day Shift productivity is crap, Swings is not much better, and Nights are what is making up for it.

Why?

Because Upper Manglement holds bigass meetings all afternoon, so Days only works from 6 or 7am till noon, and Swings doesn't start their work till after Upper Manlgement leaves for the day, about 7pm, and works till 11pm.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And then they will discover that Day Shift productivity is crap, Swings is not much better, and Nights are what is making up for it.

Why?

Because Upper Manglement holds bigass meetings all afternoon, so Days only works from 6 or 7am till noon, and Swings doesn't start their work till after Upper Manlgement leaves for the day, about 7pm, and works till 11pm.
Click to expand...
Scott -
Howdy !
" In all humor, there is truth . "

With regards,
357Mag
 
DWG said:
Neither of the articles actually mentions productions rates: "The airframer is not more specific about production rates, but sources at the company say 737 output is proceeding at a very slow pace."
Click to expand...
DWG -
Howdy !

While I did not specifically cite the two articles you mentioned,
I can see how you might have taken it that way.

I DK whether you read " Aviation Week & Space Technology " ?
I have a subscription, and the ongoing travails of Boeing are a frequent topic. I had hoped to specifically re-quote comments made by ( responsible ) Boeing officials to Aviation Week.
I even rifled through our trash, to see if the 11Nov - 24 Nov
issue was still present. Alas, it was already gone.

In that issue ( and many other AW&ST issues from early
Spring - Nov 2024 for example ), there has been no shortage of
comments from multiple Boeing managers ( still ) , talking about rate increases; to include specific numbers of aircraft to be produced per month.

What I decry is rate increase talk from Boeing execs and production managers that is made without accompanying
valid comments about the need for steadfast quality in production ( i.e. flight worthy aircraft ). In other words... any
continued biasing by Boeing of the production "' when ".....
made without constant linkage to the Quality " how ".

Production " rate " is married to production " quality ".
It should not be a " shotgun wedding ".

In the future, I'll be sure to provide quotes and references in a timely fashion, should aforememtioned Boeing practices
continue. I have done so, in the past.

With regards,
357Mag
 
www.flightglobal.com

Boeing needs another regulatory exemption prior to 737 Max 7 and 10 certification

Boeing is seeking temporary regulatory exemptions for a stall-management yaw damper (SMYD) system on the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, saying a classification change left it unable to demonstrate that the systems meet airworthiness standards.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

TLDR: Boeing says it needs an exemption until October 2028 to certify the Stall Manager Yaw Damper on the Max 7 and Max 10, and if it doesn't get it it can't improve safety on every other Max. It's always developed the SMYD to RTCA Level B (Hazardous), but it's now been told it needs to be Level A (Catastrophic). And it says it can't roll out Enhanced AOA protection across the rest of the Max fleet without it.

I really don't know what Boeing are playing at, they should be able to develop an SMYD from scratch in four years, never mind certify an existing one. Could be we're looking at another Chinook HC.3, where Boeing have done safety critical development work without recording it. In which case they'll need to recreate every decision made and why it was made.

And as for holding the safety upgrade for the rest of the fleet hostage to FAA agreeing the exemption....
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom