ET crash ADD NBO

[Undried Plum]

To be fair to those guys: being responsible for the production of a best-selling aircraft, which probably doesn't qualify for a Type Certificate, must surely be the **** job in the world.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, on one hand, why take it?
On another hand, maybe they've discovered it and the company's processes aren't safe and have quit, rather than being sacked?
It's impossible to work out the levels of competency or morality of either of the 'retirees' from the info we have.

[llondel]

Sounds like an excellent way of shedding a lot of expensive senior management, just appoint them to that role and wait for them to quit.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I would expect the next one, if not the previous one, have quite a large payoff negotiated given that it's a poisoned chalice. It's more likely to be an expensive way of shedding excellent senior management.

[Rwy in Sight]

Not trying to drift the thread away but can we be sure that other aircraft certified decades ago with the same rating don't have similar unknown issues?

[Boac]

In a word, no.

[Rwy in Sight]

Boac, I haven't read such a (simultaneously) scary and funny answer in a long long time. As a matter of fact I like to have Slasher's answer on that about the A320 the aircraft I was thinking about when asked the question. Although as I am thinking again the 777 has been certified in 1994

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Aviation is not an exact science. There is a long history of aircraft which have developed unexpected faults, often fatal ones. Other aircraft are therefore highly likely to have had hidden faults which circumstances never quite triggered.
Then there are the faults which a very few may know about, or suspect, but for whatever reason they keep them hidden. The Tornado F3 had a problem with the ejection seats which meant an ejection could result in a broken neck. Only squadron bosses were told. Ours promptly told all of us. It is strongly suspected that it did eventually kill one navigator, but was never officially acknowledged.
Then there are the faults that occur because of administrative errors. The Bulldog flew for 13 years with a half a gee higher clearance than the Release to Service permitted, and naturally students pulled the wings to the maximum as often as possible. Nobody had a clue how that one happened. They eventually found out and cut the limit, but it was decided to quietly forget about finding out how much extra damage had been done, as that was too expensive, and hope the wings didn't fall off before it was retired. They didn't.
Then there's also the problems which weren't designed in but unknowingly occur because the way the aircraft is used or maintained is different from how the designers intended. And again the consequences may or may not be suspected. And they may derive from ordered things like checklists, or from what pilots or engineers are in the habit of doing. I could list examples of all of these.
It's a crapshoot, basically. Fate is the Hunter.

[Slasher]

As a matter of fact I like to have Slasher's answer on that about the A320 the aircraft I was thinking about when asked the question.

RiS the 318/319/320/321 are ok. The 320 neo is no different to the 320 ceo except for eng thrust increase and adjustment to the FBW software. The 321 has a slightly different wing to reduce Vlof body angle during flap 1 T/O and during landing flare (reducing chances of tailstrike). FBW software is the same as 320.

The 320 was a real heap of sh!t in 1988 as the "Chainsaw" prang proved. Nowadays not so bad.

[Undried Plum]

For years the F-16 had a semi-hidden 'feature'. It was famous for being able to pull 9g, but that was only allowed in symmetrical, ie non-rolling flight. At roll rates of 20°/sec or more it was limited to only 5.5g.

An entire USAF squadron was wrecked by the pilots being unaware of that limitation. In 'dog-fighting' manoeuvres they joyfully pulled and rolled and overstressed the airframes in torsion so severely that every one of the aircraft was grounded and scrapped.

The fbw software was subsequently modded to make the pilot aware if he's reaching that limit.

[Boac]

I suspect there, as I said , hidden gotchas on all aircraft, Airbus included, that have yet to be 'discovered'.

Whilst I was well aware, for example, of the effort required in the Jurassic and Classic 737 to move the manual trim wheel (the reason the cranking handles were offset by ?90 degrees?), it had not penetrated my feeble brain that the NG wheel was that much smaller and that I doubt many of the lovely ladies with whom I flew would in fact have been able to move it sufficiently in some situations - and, indeed, whether I would! It would appear I was lucky to have never been in that situation. A simple consideration like the hand-over of control suddenly takes on a new dimension.

[OFSO]

The next 737MAX to be delivered (eventually) to Ryanair isn't a 737MAX. It's a 737-8200. That should sort it..

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Boeing have opened a helpline also, 1-800 ITS FUCT

[Woody]

Looking like a convenient excuse for Harpair to reorganise.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Ryanair has said it will be forced to cut the number of summer flights it operates next year blaming further expected delays before the Boeing 737 Max is allowed to fly again.
The airline said it could be as late as December before regulators clear the aircraft to return to the skies after two fatal crashes.
It was awaiting delivery of 58 planes before next summer but it now expects to receive just over half of those.
It could also close bases as a result.
The airline said it was in talks with airports about which of its hubs could suffer cuts.
"We are starting a series of discussions with our airports to determine which of Ryanair's underperforming or loss making bases should suffer these short term cuts and/or closures from November 2019," the airline's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, said in a statement.
Ryanair added that it would talk to its staff and unions about the planned closures, which it said were "directly caused" by the delays delivering the 737 Max.

[G-CPTN]

Ryanair added that it would talk to its staff and unions about the planned closures, which it said were "directly caused" by the delays delivering the 737 Max.

That doesn't make sense . . .

As an aside, have Boeing stopped building 737 Max?
If they had confidence, they would build and stockpile (though they might have a cashflow problem).

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

They are still building. They are now filling the parking lots at Renton with jets

5d113a830a2849596b6bb993-1536-768.jpg (102.04 KiB) Viewed 252 times

More here:

[barkingmad]

What a pretty colour of green ! !

Maybe some were for Aer Fungus before it all went pear-shaped?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

pears are green, so could be

[barkingmad]

Oh dear, it continues to get worse! Boeing setting aside nearly five thousand million dollars for the Max fiasco.

I don’t use the “billion” word, when used in the electronic meeja it manages to sound like million and so the masses don’t realise the awful sums involved. Especially when it’s taxpayer money involved.

[OFSO]

....and that's just compensation. Wonder if it takes into account pending lawsuits. There are obviously internal costs on top of this, such as modifying all aircraft manufactured since the grounding. Boeing still say the aircraft will be flying again in the last three months of this year. I would not bet on it.