737 Max

[jsglow]

The United Kingdom just grounded 'em.  Senators from both sides of the aisle calling for the same.  And without mentioning them specifically by name, I'd say the FAA might want to pay attention to the  President's tweet.

MUpilot.  Talk to us brother.

[Not A Serious Person]

Germany, France, Ireland, and Turkey also grounded them this morning.

Side note: the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of just 30 stocks, Boeing with a $377 price (down from $425 yesterday) has the highest weighting in the index.

Each dollar move in a constituent stock moves the DJIA about 7 points.  Boeing is down $23 as a write (now about 161 points) and was down about an equal amount yesterday. 

So while the S&P 500 is up big the last two days, the DJIA is about unchanged, all because of Boeing.

[MUBurrow]

Germany, France, Ireland, and Turkey also grounded them this morning.

Side note: the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of just 30 stocks, Boeing with a $377 price (down from $425 yesterday) has the highest weighting in the index.

Each dollar move in a constituent stock moves the DJIA about 7 points.  Boeing is down $23 as a write (now about 161 points) and was down about an equal amount yesterday. 

So while the S&P 500 is up big the last two days, the DJIA is about unchanged, all because of Boeing.

Quick response to your side note - this is a great example of just how bad our temperature gauges of "the economy" are. And then we all get together and politically yell at each other with the assumption that if those meaningless measurements go down, we have to do something. A measurement of the economy that bites it because the world is saving people from dying on a potentially faulty Boeing aircraft is bad measurement of the economy.

[Cheeks]

The United Kingdom just grounded 'em.  Senators from both sides of the aisle calling for the same.  And without mentioning them specifically by name, I'd say the FAA might want to pay attention to the  President's tweet.

MUpilot.  Talk to us brother.

From a pilot friend of mine who is as far left as you can imagine....said today. “First time ever I agree with one his tweets”

How in the hell can Boeing build the MCAS (whatever it is called) system and NOT tell airlines.   That cannot be true, can it? 

[GooooMarquette]

Quick response to your side note - this is a great example of just how bad our temperature gauges of "the economy" are. And then we all get together and politically yell at each other with the assumption that if those meaningless measurements go down, we have to do something. A measurement of the economy that bites it because the world is saving people from dying on a potentially faulty Boeing aircraft is bad measurement of the economy.

I'm truly amazed anyone pays attention to the Dow at all. Even in terms of the broad picture of the markets, you'd be better off watching the S&P 500, the NASDAQ or even the Russell 2000.

[GooooMarquette]

How about being on a 737 Max headed to the UK, when the UK decided to prohibit them from its airspace? 

From CNN: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/boeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-airlines-crash/index.html

While waiting for her flight from Istanbul to Birmingham, United Kingdom, Sara Tor heard the airport intercom announce her plane was changing — to a Boeing 737 MAX 8.

"I hate flying as it is," she told CNN. "When I saw it was one of the new ones I was absolutely terrified."
Nevertheless, she boarded Turkish Airways flight 1969 for the four-hour flight.

About two hours into the flight, she says she noticed something odd.

"Well they didn't tell us straight away but I could feel something was different," she says. "And the map on the screens was showing we'd turned back."

The pilot then announced they would be turning back to Istanbul because UK airspace was closed, citing weather conditions. (Around that time, the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK closed the airspace to all Boeing 737 MAX model planes.)

The flight turned around and landed about two hours later at the same airport from where they left.

Tor says Turkish Airways told the passengers they will be put on a Wednesday morning flight instead.

Sounds like a fun flight....

[Cheeks]

Quick response to your side note - this is a great example of just how bad our temperature gauges of "the economy" are. And then we all get together and politically yell at each other with the assumption that if those meaningless measurements go down, we have to do something. A measurement of the economy that bites it because the world is saving people from dying on a potentially faulty Boeing aircraft is bad measurement of the economy.

Might also be a buying opportunity if it turns out that these two crashes were due to the airlines operating them.  Claims in this crash that smoke was coming out of rear after take off, which should have nothing to do the anti-Stall system they put in...I would think.

Generally speaking i’m Not sure the stock market is supposed to be an economic gauge of health anyway.  Much better metrics for that.

[GooooMarquette]

Might also be a buying opportunity if it turns out that these two crashes were due to the airlines operating them. 

Even if the wrongdoing was totally on BA, it still might be a buying opportunity. The market typically overreacts to a sudden crisis, like the privacy issues at FB.

[DegenerateDish]

I was on a 737 Max 9 to/from LAX to Maui in the last week.

[D'Lo Brown]

Even if the wrongdoing was totally on BA, it still might be a buying opportunity. The market typically overreacts to a sudden crisis, like the privacy issues at FB.

Maybe, but I wouldn't recommend it. Boeing is setting up for a rough slog. The company will be fine but strictly dealing with the stock itself... Could be a death by a thousand papercuts situation until the investigations are complete. Lion Air is already switching to Airbus, and tons of airlines are  currently contracted to receive a 737 MAX. FAA investigations take time. We will learn about the black box soon enough but the likelihood that it completely clears Boeing is probably a fantasy. That will open Boeing up to uncertainty, unable to put it behind them quickly, and then perhaps a small story here and there about further airline defections. Each of which would cause the stock price to fluctuate.

Investing in Boeing prior to the FAA report is a roll of the dice. If you want to live the next year on the edge and dedicate yourself to following every last Boeing update/rumor/etc, then go for it, maybe you could get lucky.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I spent 6 years working in aerospace and only left recently.  In aerospace, they overtest every single part and system to an impossible degree and redesign stuff until it passes these tests.  Wait until the investigation is complete to see what happened first.  Could be a coincidence.

[D'Lo Brown]

Even if the wrongdoing was totally on BA, it still might be a buying opportunity. The market typically overreacts to a sudden crisis, like the privacy issues at FB.

Also I meant to add, the Facebook scenario isn't really comparable. Regardless of the crisis that happened, or any future ones, we still put 100% faith in Facebook to figure it out themselves. Our approach to them is entirely hands off... There is no FAA that monitors Facebook, Google etc. The best enforcement we have is the US Congress, most of which struggles to get their printer to work or needs their grandchildren to help them install an app on their phone. All you really had with Facebook is the public outrage... Facebook has no competition, either. There was no teeth.

There is a lot of teeth with this Boeing issue, strictly when it comes to investing. Boeing has direct competition. If this turns out to be a software/automation issue (seems probable), then that will be a further wedge between them and Airbus because Airbus already had a better reputation with software/automation. Airlines will switch to buying Airbus. Where else were people going to go to do Facebook type stuff? Where were advertisers going to go to target people better? Little actually changed for Facebook even with the public outrage, a lot could change for Boeing.

[reinko]

I was on a 737 Max 9 to/from LAX to Maui in the last week.

BWI->BOS on Southwest yesterday, reading about the crash in the Times on my phone, check that little backseat pocket thing about the aircraft... sure effin’ enough...

[jsglow]

If this does turn out to be a software issue worthy of correction, I wonder how hard that will be?

I'm not an engineer but I heard something today that said that the necessary placement of these new super efficient engines has tweaked the 'balance' on the plane under certain circumstances and that the computer helps to deal with that in certain attitudes.

I don't want to start any false rumors and really don't know what I'm talking about but I will tell you that from my seat building a plane with 'perfect' flight characteristics is 100x better than building a plane with crappy flight characteristics that gets another mile per gallon.  And engineers do get sh*t wrong.  Well, not MU engineers!   

Again, I'm not all that interested in the stock market impact or even Boeing's competitive position relative to Airbus.  I really hope you pilots and engineers can read some technical stuff and come here reporting in English for mortals like me.  Obviously, we're VERY early in the investigation.  But 2 in the dirt in 5 months ain't nothing.  Maybe unrelated, but not nothing.

[D'Lo Brown]

If this does turn out to be a software issue worthy of correction, I wonder how hard that will be?

I'm not an engineer but I heard something today that said that the necessary placement of these new super efficient engines has tweaked the 'balance' on the plane under certain circumstances and that the computer helps to deal with that in certain attitudes.

I don't want to start any false rumors and really don't know what I'm talking about but I will tell you that from my seat building a plane with 'perfect' flight characteristics is 100x better than building a plane with crappy flight characteristics that gets another mile per gallon.  And engineers do get sh*t wrong.  Well, not MU engineers!   

Again, I'm not all that interested in the stock market impact or even Boeing's competitive position relative to Airbus.  I really hope you pilots and engineers can read some technical stuff and come here reporting in English for mortals like me.  Obviously, we're VERY early in the investigation.  But 2 in the dirt in 5 months ain't nothing.  Maybe unrelated, but not nothing.

From what I've read, the antistall system was put in to deal with this weight distribution issue because if it wasn't there, the operation of the plane would be different enough to require significant additional training for pilots that were previously proficient in flying the 737. I would assume that any FAA directive to remove this system would therefore require that additional training related to the differences in flight characteristics between the 737 and the 737 MAX. But that is pure speculation, I don't actually know.

There are a ton of rumors flying around about the system "rebooting" after the pilot turning it off (as they are meant to in the scenario of runaway trim), I've read all sorts of theories. I only mention this because it illustrates that the fix is totally related to what the actual issue was/is... Since we don't know the issue yet (still entirely possible that it is training, maintenance, or user error, too), it's tough to say what the impact will be.

[jsglow]

From what I've read, the antistall system was put in to deal with this weight distribution issue because if it wasn't there, the operation of the plane would be different enough to require significant additional training for pilots that were previously proficient in flying the 737. I would assume that any FAA directive to remove this system would therefore require that additional training related to the differences in flight characteristics between the 737 and the 737 MAX. But that is pure speculation, I don't actually know.

There are a ton of rumors flying around about the system "rebooting" after the pilot turning it off (as they are meant to in the scenario of runaway trim), I've read all sorts of theories. I only mention this because it illustrates that the fix is totally related to what the actual issue was/is... Since we don't know the issue yet (still entirely possible that it is training, maintenance, or user error, too), it's tough to say what the impact will be.

1) I like training.
2) I don't let mortals drive my vintage stick shift convertible either.
3) I thought we covered this 'computer taking over everything' stuff in 2001, A Space Odyssey when I was 8 years old.

All kidding aside, I can actually picture POTUS saying exactly that...... and being right.

[D'Lo Brown]

1) I like training.
2) I don't let mortals drive my vintage stick shift convertible either.

Ahaha.

Yeah, I was also thinking about the training impact, if that is the reasoning for why this system was created (to make it more similar to normal 737 flying). I am not a pilot, but I'm wondering about Boeing's bulletin that says they should switch this system off? If they are saying to switch it off in the runaway trim scenario then do the pilots need to be trained in the actual characteristics of the 737 MAX as if it is an entirely new plane?

They are saying that without the antistall system, the nose of the plane has a tendency to tilt up. Would this add to the disorientation to the pilot in the situation of a runaway trim (by turning the antistall system off) - oh crap, now I have to deal with even weirder flight characteristics while I'm trying to save the plane from disaster? I believe I saw that the Lion Air pilot was exerting an extreme amount of pressure on the control column. Again, not a pilot so I could be totally wrong, but seems like just another wrench to throw in by basically making them fly an entirely different plane in a true emergency.

[jsglow]

I know, hey?  I want his job EASY.  It is never good up front when a pilot has a wtf moment.  Like never.

Where the heck is Eng?  I let him hang around with me to answer this stuff!

[dgies9156]

Years ago, a PanAm 747 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The media went nuts, initially suggesting it was PanAm's maintenance that caused the accident. Thousands and thousands of bookings disintegrated and PanAm went into bankruptcy. There were lots of reasons why PanAm failed, but one contributing factor was the media-induced panic about maintenance procedures after Lockerbie.

Today, we know the PanAm 747 was brought down not by bad maintenance but by a bomb in what became a case of premeditated murder by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. That eventually was covered but the damage had been done.

In the early days of the 727, the unique "T" tail arrangement created problems that led to stalls and crashes, including a big one outside Cincinnati. In time, pilots learned how to fly the 727. There wasn't anything wrong with it; rather the ops and some procedures needed change. There was no mass hysteria and now grounding. Pilots became more careful.

In case of the 737 Max, the groundings and hysteria are premature. It's significant that both planes crashed in third-world countries where aviation safety and oversight are nowhere near what it is in the United States. United, American and Southwest all operate the same plane and, as best I know, have had no problems. To some degree, I wonder whether some of this is political, especially in the European Union where the major member countries are manufacturing the Airbus A320 family, which is a direct competitor of the 737 Max.

[DegenerateDish]

FWIW, Ethiopian Airlines has an incredibly high safety and maintenance record, third world country or not. Generally regarded as the safest and best airline to fly on the African continent.

[jsglow]

Years ago, a PanAm 747 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The media went nuts, initially suggesting it was PanAm's maintenance that caused the accident. Thousands and thousands of bookings disintegrated and PanAm went into bankruptcy. There were lots of reasons why PanAm failed, but one contributing factor was the media-induced panic about maintenance procedures after Lockerbie.

Today, we know the PanAm 747 was brought down not by bad maintenance but by a bomb in what became a case of premeditated murder by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. That eventually was covered but the damage had been done.

In the early days of the 727, the unique "T" tail arrangement created problems that led to stalls and crashes, including a big one outside Cincinnati. In time, pilots learned how to fly the 727. There wasn't anything wrong with it; rather the ops and some procedures needed change. There was no mass hysteria and now grounding. Pilots became more careful.

In case of the 737 Max, the groundings and hysteria are premature. It's significant that both planes crashed in third-world countries where aviation safety and oversight are nowhere near what it is in the United States. United, American and Southwest all operate the same plane and, as best I know, have had no problems. To some degree, I wonder whether some of this is political, especially in the European Union where the major member countries are manufacturing the Airbus A320 family, which is a direct competitor of the 737 Max.

A thought that has crossed my mind.

[JWags85]

FWIW, Ethiopian Airlines has an incredibly high safety and maintenance record, third world country or not. Generally regarded as the safest and best airline to fly on the African continent.

Exactly.  The Lion Air flight was one thing as low cost Asian characters have always been points of concern (hence why airports like HKG have secondary security checkpoints before boarding cause they don't trust connecting flights).

But Ethiopian is a fantastic airline, Star Alliance member, new planes, thought of as a jewel of the continent airline wise.

[D'Lo Brown]

Years ago, a PanAm 747 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The media went nuts, initially suggesting it was PanAm's maintenance that caused the accident. Thousands and thousands of bookings disintegrated and PanAm went into bankruptcy. There were lots of reasons why PanAm failed, but one contributing factor was the media-induced panic about maintenance procedures after Lockerbie.

Today, we know the PanAm 747 was brought down not by bad maintenance but by a bomb in what became a case of premeditated murder by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. That eventually was covered but the damage had been done.

In the early days of the 727, the unique "T" tail arrangement created problems that led to stalls and crashes, including a big one outside Cincinnati. In time, pilots learned how to fly the 727. There wasn't anything wrong with it; rather the ops and some procedures needed change. There was no mass hysteria and now grounding. Pilots became more careful.

In case of the 737 Max, the groundings and hysteria are premature. It's significant that both planes crashed in third-world countries where aviation safety and oversight are nowhere near what it is in the United States. United, American and Southwest all operate the same plane and, as best I know, have had no problems. To some degree, I wonder whether some of this is political, especially in the European Union where the major member countries are manufacturing the Airbus A320 family, which is a direct competitor of the 737 Max.

Great post btw, nothing that I disagree with.

However, are we sure that the bolded is actually the case? From a spectator's perspective it would seem most likely that the actual reason these flights ended in disaster was that the pilot did not have enough altitude to pull the plane's trajectory up out of a nosedive. At a higher altitude there would have (possibly) been enough vertical distance to recover (by gaining enough speed/averting an aerodynamic stall) and land the plane safely. If you take this perspective, which is entirely theoretical on my part by the way because it assumes there wasn't a mechanical issue, then it is entirely possible (if not likely) that several other airlines have experienced sub-disaster issues that haven't yet entered the public discussion.

If my memory serves, one flight had this occur around 6 minutes in, and the other was like 13 minutes (somewhere around there). Who is to say that if it happened 20 minutes in, or 2 hours in, that it would have also led to disaster? The issue may have been that the pilots did not have enough time to get through all of their checklists and make the adjustments... If they had more height, maybe we aren't even talking about 737 MAX's today.

[Not A Serious Person]

In the last 30 minutes ...

*FAA FINDS NO BASIS TO GROUND BOEING 737 MAX AIRCRAFT THUS FAR

So every country that allows the 737 MAX to fly has grounded it EXCEPT the US and Canada.

[Cheeks]

Boeing changing the software....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-make-key-change-in-max-cockpit-software-11552413489