Interesting article.

Not my area of expertise, but the original design/software sounds criminally negligent.

Criminal negligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
Clearly more than "intermediate seriousness", there might be a better phrase for this, like are "are you freaking serious?"

I looked for news on the 737 Max and found this recent article below.

I was curious find out past the headlines of stopped and canceled orders and sought to find out if the assembly lines are still going and at what rate.

As I posed a few pages back, Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita makes many of the 737 Max fuselages.

May 1, 2019
Spirit AeroSystems won’t immediately move on next Boeing 737 increase
https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2019/05/01/spirit-aerosystems-won-t-immediately-move-on-next.html
They are still making 42 of these a month, where are they stacking them up at?

I assume the wing sections are also stacking up somewhere.

It's Tornado season, all those 737 parts being stored outside might take flight sooner than expected.

Boeing Manufacturing Countries.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1556820159.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1556820179.jpg

Boeing is still filling orders for other 737 models, not just the Max.

Man, Jack screws. Jeff, given that jammed j/s's have been an issue for a long time, whether mechanical or aerodynamic load, why hasn't someone come up with an alternative?

Jackscrews can have tremendous leverage on a component like that and one factor that’s important is that the forces on the stabilizer don’t tend to be able to move the jackscrew. The jackscrew can easily move the stabilizer but the stabilizer cannot easily move the jack screw.

Yup, that's why.

A very incomplete list. You will notice that all of the components listed are structural parts and control surfaces. No systems listed - hydraulic, electrical, landing gear, avionics, navigation, environmental, flight controls, etc. There are dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) more suppliers than that. Not to mention who has design responsibility for all of it.

Interestingly, none of the systems, assemblies, or installations implicated in their current issues made this list.

Yup. They will be filling pre-Max orders for some time.

I am not entirely sure (since I have been out of the loop for a couple of years and never worked on Renton aircraft anyways), but it would not surprise me in the least if the affected systems are in place on pre-Max 737 models, if not other Boeing aircraft.

The rather unsophisticated public and press has no idea how new technologies proliferate across the range of currently offered models. The larger twin aisle aircraft, however, are typically flown by more experienced pilots, flying for larger, more successful airlines, and probably would not have the problems demonstrated by second rate third world airlines with under qualified, inadequately trained pilots.

Have they been? Really? My God, there are literally tens of thousands of aircraft in the air today with jack screws utilized to set horizontal stabilizer trim. Hundreds of millions of flight hours. There have been a few notable failures, definitely. Each and every one has been traced to improper maintenance or, at worst, faulty manufacturing resulting in premature component failure. The concept itself is very sound.

We could only dream of such reliability in any of the other mechanical devices with which we surround ourselves. Granted, the price of failure in aviation is much higher than with, say, washing machines, but so is the demonstrated reliability. Anything made by man will never be perfect all of the time. Commercial airplanes are actually about as close as we have ever come.

Didn't know where else to put this, but I enjoyed the video.

I have been to Davis Mothan (where military aircraft are stored) but not to Victorville.

I would love a tour.

<iframe width="1234" height="694" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AKzM9R21LZc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is an interesting thread. I've no technical knowledge of aircraft. Here's my general conclusion from reading all of this - please tell me if you guys disagree?

1. The plane has some problems (MCAS reliance on single sensor, MCAS operation, warnings optional, training procedure and/or manuals incomplete).
2. The problems can be fixed relatively quickly and inexpensively, once the fix is approved, and the fix won't affect the characteristics that carriers bought the plane (economy, performance, etc).
3. A couple hundred people have died, mostly from third-world countries, the probable damages payout is in the few hundreds of millions US$.
4. Carriers have had to ground their planes for a few months, business losses may be in the few-several hundreds of millions US$.
5. Boeing will be raked over the Congressional coals, but the inquiries will show (maybe) negligence rather than deliberate criminality, fraud, or corruption.
6. The only other source of large commercial aircraft, Airbus, has had similar problems.
7. The carriers are not seeing a downturn in demand, they still need the planes that they have on order, and if they abandon their Boeing orders to buy from Airbus, they'll get their planes even later
8. The current production, that is stacking up as work-in-progress, will be delivered to carriers later this year.
9. Boeing is a critical military contractor in addition to a critical commercial supplier.

If this is all correct, seems to me this will cost Boeing around $1BN in damages and not much in lost orders, although some revenue will be shifted from 1H19 to 2H19.

For sure.

Back in the day, when I had my Mooney, I used to subscribe to all the MOT accident reports. They were interesting reading.

This happened just a few miles from my home

good news everyone is ok

bet it flying to Mecca and operated by 3rd world pilot's :rolleyes:

More details.................

Boeing 737 coming from Guantanamo Bay slid off runway and fell into Florida river, officials say
https://wtkr.com/2019/05/03/commercial-jet-carrying-136-passengers-lands-in-water-near-nas-jacksonville-sources-say/
Looks to be an old facility, hemmed in by the river and a highway. Shorter than usual runways?

http://www.scharch.org/Ed_Scharch/08-nas-jax-oper.htm
http://www.scharch.org/Ed_Scharch/na...ax-general.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1556969442.jpg
https://maps-jacksonville.com/nas-jax-map
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1556968854.jpg

NAS Jax is a very modern facility. Home to the P-8 Poseidon and HSM-60 and MH-60R.

I have flown into Jax dozens of times. Beautiful place.

CNN had interviewed a woman on the flight this morning and her profound description of the event was "the landing didn't feel right"!

No ****, way to go CNN.

737-MMA / P8A Poseidon
Thank you for answering my question.

Good to know that the runway is long enough for those two helicopters you listed. ;)

More to that article that is newsworthy.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/04/us/military-plane-crash-bormann-passenger/index.html

Then you've flown over my house dozens of times too. I live on the east side of the river.

Interesting tidbit - the 60 has a forward landing speed of 70kts if required, which they practice all the time.

Among other reasons, that forward air speed helps with loss of tail rotor control or thrust: At certain forward air-speeds the 60 can fly without an operational tail rotor. Lot's of reasons why, but there is at least one instance where a 60, without tail rotor thrust, was able to land at 70kt forward airspeed and control the landing on roll out. The procedure is in NATOPS. Coming into a hover with an controllable or operation tail rotor is not possible.

Jacksonville has really come into it's own since the 90's. In the old days SH-60B's were all in Mayport and the H-3's were in Jax. I went to the FRS requal in Mayport and spent many nights over in Jax with friends of mine on the weekends. Things have changed for the better.

Nice place!