And my son-in-law just got back from a trip to Nairobi - though not through Addis.
And I've been thinking about how that long ago adventure caused my brain and body to linger on this story. Human minds steer us in so many strange ways.
But later I started wondering about whether Alaska Airlines flies 737 MAX planes.
Alaska Airlines website has a page listing all their aircraft. They say they have 162 Boeing 737 aircraft, but the pictures they have up of 737s are of 737-900ER, 737-900, 737-800, and 737-700 models only. No 737 MAX planes.
However, according to Airways Magazine in a Feb 19, 2019 article:
As revealed by RoutesOnline, Alaska Airlines has outlined the start of its Boeing 737 MAX 9 network operations, scheduled to begin in July 2019. . .So if I've got this right, they have some 737 MAX models scheduled to come on line in July this year. And they changed all their 737 MAX 8 orders to MAX 9s.
The carrier converted 15 of its 737 MAX 8s it had on order to the larger MAX 9 variant back in May 2018, bringing the total commitment to 32.
Deliveries are to commence this year through to 2023, according to Boeing and Alaska Airlines.
So, what's the difference between MAX 8 and MAX 9?
This discussion from Motley Fool - Feb 2018 really focuses on the business aspects - the bigger ones are selling better:
The 737 MAX 7 attracted little interest from airlines, as its relatively small size means unit costs are higher. Boeing eventually changed the MAX 7's specifications to add 12 more seats, while increasing its commonalities with the 737 MAX 8 to reduce development costs.
Demand for the 737 MAX 9 was a little better, but still underwhelming. Boeing doesn't provide an official breakdown of its 737 MAX orders by variant, but one third-party analysis pegged the number of MAX 9 orders at approximately 410 as of a year ago. For comparison, Airbus currently has 1,920 orders for its competing (but somewhat larger) A321neo.
Stuck in the middle
At last year's Paris Air Show, Boeing launched the 737 MAX 10, a model that can fit 12 more seats than the MAX 9. The MAX 10 has roughly the same capacity as Airbus' A321neo, and will likely have similar unit costs.
Not surprisingly, airlines and aircraft leasing companies responded much more positively to the 737 MAX 10 than to the MAX 9. Boeing garnered 361 orders and commitments for the 737 MAX 10 in the span of a week during the air show.
Boeing has specs for all four varieties here.
But we're still early on here. We don't know for certain whether the crash in Addis Ababa was due to the same reason as the earlier crash in Indonesia.
From The Points Guy on a post today about flying on a 737Max :
"These two incidents have many passengers and crew asking whether the 737 MAX is safe to fly. A Miami-based flight attendant who wished to remain anonymous told TPG that she “no longer feels safe on the 737 MAX” and that she no longer “trusts” the aircraft. The Chinese and Indonesian governments have ordered their airlines to ground 737 MAXs, and Ethiopian Airlines, Royal Air Maroc and Cayman Airways have also suspended 737 MAX operations.
It’s important to note that the 737 MAX represents a small subset of the overall 737 family. Since the first Boeing 737 was delivered to Lufthansa in 1967, Boeing has delivered more than 10,000 737 aircraft and has approximately 5,000 more orders on the books. Of these, only 350 (or 3.5% of all deliveries) are of the 737 MAX variant. Still, if you’re trying to avoid traveling on a 737 MAX until an investigation into the Ethiopian crash is complete, here’s how you can identify on which 737 variant you’re flying."
 |
| Image from The Points Guy |
You should go to the site because he has lots of pictures, but two key things you can see on the Max planes are:
- The engine casing is visibly serrated
- The wing tips split (though Alaska Airlines shows 737-800s and 900s with split wing tips too.)
He also shows how to figure out what kind of plane you'll fly on when you're booking a flight.
Here's a bit more from The Points Guy post about the 737 Max planes, that gets into why some suspect - from the fact that both the Indonesia and Ethiopia flights crashed right after take-off - this is related to the 737 MAX:
While we don’t yet know the cause of the Ethiopian crash, and the Lion Air one is still being investigated as well, there’s an important distinction from a safety perspective. Only the MAX models have the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), software that automatically pitches down the nose of the plane to prevent a stall, which likely played a part in the Lion Air accident. [emphasis added]Again, from today's Gizmodo article:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not ordered anyone to stop using the Boeing 737 Max-8, but customers are understandably concerned. Some people are even taking to social media to tell Southwest and American that they’ll be cancelling their flights because they want to avoid that particular aircraft.From what I can tell Southwest and American are the two airlines that are currently flying the 737-MAX-8.
But if all the MAX models use MCAS software, it would seem (but then nothing is what it seems) that it wouldn't matter if it was a 737 MAX -8, -9, of -10.
Note: This is not an area I know much about. I'm relying on what others have written, so look at this as notes to use as a starting point. Verify anything that is important.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhen the confusion clears, I think you'll find these two events are rooted in the proficiency of the individual aircrews and the "cultures" of the 3rd world companies involved, which is why the US and European carriers are not reacting.
Much has been made of the new stability software which Boeing installed to offset the different weight/thrust factors caused by bigger engines on the "MAX" variants. It's likely that the engineers, thinking like engineers didn't expect the public relations effect of not publicizing this modification.
This system, if failed, behaves exactly like the system which it augments. "Runaway trim" is an event which, while not common, is well-documented in air carrier manuals, checklists and aviation literature generally. It is routinely tested in the semi-annual simulator sessions which airline crews undergo. The trained reaction is to disable the system using a pair of prominently placed and labelled switches convenient to either pilot. Even the little airplanes I have flown for 50 years are required to have an easily reached circuit breaker to disable the electric trim systems.
The public is very quick to respond to perceived clusters of calamity and blame whichever element is "new" It happened with three fatal crashes early in the history of the Boeing 727, to cite just one example
You may recall, I spent 30years in the FAA. Although I didn't work in the part of the agency which oversees airline operations, I know several people who do. One of whom recently wrote:
"I think we would do well to exam the regulatory framework and safety mindset of both civil aviation authorities. Before either of these accidents Boeing had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the government of Indonesia to cooperate in the regulatory, industrial, infrastructure and personnel development as well as safety and operational assessments of its civil aviation system. Boeing regulatory affairs representatives worked with the Indonesian Civil Aviation Authority in regaining FAA International Aviation Safety Assessments (IASA) Category 1 status. Similarly Boeing recently supported Ethiopia in its attempt to maintain a FAA IASA Category 1 rating. In other words both countires failed to meet the very basic ICAO Annex operational and airworthiness standards. And were FAA IASA Cat 2 countries (IAW litle or no aviation safety regulations.)
A few years ago an ICAO Safety Audit of the Ethiopian civil aviation system found in a 141 page report in part, that...
- Ethiopia Civil Aviation Authority has not developed and promulgated operating regulations that are in conformance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 6. In practice, various Annex 6 provisions are being implemented; however, there is no technical directive or regulation requiring such implementation. The Ethiopian regulations do not include, among other requirements, the following:
...
c) flight manuals revisions and parameters of flight data recorders;
d) implementation of a system for providing flight information to operations staff and flight crew;
e) aircraft certification and operating limitations;
f) required training for flight operations officers;..."
In short, relax, and trust Alaska Airlines, they remain the best.
Ad summum!
Bill Butler
Ashland, Oregon
Thanks, Bill. I was hoping you might fill in some of the blanks.
ReplyDeletecouple developments since I posted the above:
ReplyDeleteA. Boeing has written a software mod. As near as I can tell, it doesn't alter the MCAS, but does transmit an alarm to the pilots when MCAS activates. Seems like a PR move to me, One would think that an uncommanded pitch down would be alarming enough.
The European Aviation Safety Agency has not only grounded their fleet, but has banned operation of the subject aircraft by anyone in European airspace. Seems like an excess of caution, but my "inner cyniic" is aware that the two biggest nations in the EU are selling a competing aircraft.
WB
One other Boeing action today:
ReplyDeleteEvery aircraft has a set of checklists which prescribe exact actions for every routine event, some as mundane as: "Engine Start" and some OhMyGawd events like "Engine Fire"
There is also a short list of "Memory Items" for every emergency, i.e. the things you should be doing while reaching for the printed checklist. Part of the process to certify each pilot on the particular aircraft is to require repeated demonstration of the Memory Items under the stress of simulator emergency scenarios.
Today, Boeing moved "Stabilator Trim--Off" from the Memory list to the printed list.
One additional factoid:
ReplyDeleteEthiopian co-pilot had 200 hours total flight time. In the US, you cannot get an interview with an air carrier without 1500 hours including some specialized experience and training.
Thanks for the updates. I heard you in the background as Sen. Blumenthal was outraged about these planes still flying. Your voice made me think his reaction was a bit over the top. But I still have questions.
ReplyDelete1. Why would they move "Stabilator Trim - Off" from the memory list? Why now? Doesn't seem like a good pr move.
2. My understanding is that all the MAX planes should have the same issue, right?
3. One analyst I heard suggested that FAA depended too much on Boeing for expertise in matters like this. Thoughts?
Memory items rely on...well...memory, which in turn relies on a certain level of competence and composure.
ReplyDeleteFAA is no different than any other government agency, it lacks the expertise and staffing for real-time regulation of the regulated. It can only enter into contractual agreements with manufacturers and operators whereby they obtain approval for their intended actions and then the agency periodically checks for compliance. Public Administration 201.
Any self-proclaimed "analyst" who doesn't understand this is wasting your time.