Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA says has no timetable for Boeing 737 MAX's return to service
The Federal Aviation Administration said on Wednesday it does not have a specific timetable on when Boeing Co’s troubled 737 MAX jet would return to service after two fatal crashes (uk.reuters.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I would like to see the reports of the test pilots at Boeing , they must have encountered this problem during the program and what did they do to circumvent. (solve it ) ?
According to a few reports, 1 from a former test pilot, "Boeing never flight-tested a scenario in which the AOA sensor malfunctioned."
not a good test program then
I am definitely a Boeing fan, but if they can't get the Max back into service quick and the 777 properly sorted out, I fear there might be a problem.
Now they have the issue with the leading edge slat tracks on the MAX and NG
And also new issues on the 787-9! What’s going on at Boeing?.....
Nothing that hasn't happened before.
I gotta say, flawed design issues of this magnitude is nothing that has ever happened at Boeing.
The worse that they have had to date outside of the supply issues for the B787 was the jackscrew issue with the B727 (though the MD80 and F27s also had the same issue; the B717 wasn't made at the time), and the B737 rudder issue (USA427) which caused Boeing to redesign the rudder and retrofit all B733s affected by the problem at Boeing's expense.
Outside of that, nothing relative to using Software to fix a hardware design flaw has ever happened before, especially of this magnitude.
The worse that they have had to date outside of the supply issues for the B787 was the jackscrew issue with the B727 (though the MD80 and F27s also had the same issue; the B717 wasn't made at the time), and the B737 rudder issue (USA427) which caused Boeing to redesign the rudder and retrofit all B733s affected by the problem at Boeing's expense.
Outside of that, nothing relative to using Software to fix a hardware design flaw has ever happened before, especially of this magnitude.
The DC-10 had a bumpy start with the cargo door design problems, and the FAA grounded the plane after AA191 crashed. Airbus also had a rough start with its A320 program, and the aircraft garnered a lot of scrutiny following the crash of AF296 with its software that could override pilot inputs.
I wasn't just talking about Boeing.
I wasn't just talking about Boeing.
Yes...the FAA grounded the plane after the first crash, but the design problem was not intentional and it was a hardware "fix".
After the investigation into AF296, the probable cause was "very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; engines speed at flight idle; and late application of go-around power." Some questioned the computers role, but it did not want nose up attitude at such a slow speed and low altitude. And if I remember correctly, Airbus did not have to do a software update to the A320 family.
So no, using software to correct a hardware design flaw, and in itself, the software being flawed, has never happened before.
After the investigation into AF296, the probable cause was "very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; engines speed at flight idle; and late application of go-around power." Some questioned the computers role, but it did not want nose up attitude at such a slow speed and low altitude. And if I remember correctly, Airbus did not have to do a software update to the A320 family.
So no, using software to correct a hardware design flaw, and in itself, the software being flawed, has never happened before.