Continued: Boeing 737 MAX Foreign Object Situation is Much Worse
Continued: Boeing 737 MAX Foreign Object Situation is Much Worse

Boeing 737 MAX Testing Reveals New Design Flaw

Aaron Hilsz-Lothian·
737 MAXAviation NewsBoeing

The Federal Aviation Administration has identified a new design flaw within the Boeing 737 MAX, adding to the crisis surrounding it since the loss of two aircraft and 346 lives.

But before we review the newly identified issue, we must refresh our memories on what exactly happened.

Since the loss of Lion Air JT610 and Ethiopian Airlines ET302, Boeing has been entangled in a mess of legal, regulatory and passenger exchanges.

Boeing 737 MAX testing reveals new design flaw
Crash site of Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX that operated ET302

The initial lack of clarity and ongoing investigation has only recently brought to light what Boeing hid, angering the aviation industry and sparking a large collection of questions.

Powered by two forward-mounted raised CFM LEAP engines, the 737 MAX demonstrated poor handling aerodynamics during development, so Boeing developed the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to prevent the nose from pitching up in flight.

Boeing 737 MAX testing reveals new design flaw
Boeing 737 MAX Flightdeck

However, the angle of attack data was only being supplied from one sensor, should that sensor fail to provide the correct data then the MCAS would kick in, pushing the nose of the aircraft down and thus preventing a stall.

The result of this one sensor input is what is suspected to be the cause of 346 people, in the two 737 MAX 8 aircraft, to lose their lives.

For more details on MCAS, see the following article:

Boeing to upgrade 737 MAX flight control software

Software Update Problems

Unfortunately for Boeing, the software update for MCAS has encountered a new problem. This will likely leave the worldwide fleet of 737 MAX aircraft grounded for a few months longer.

During simulator testing, the Federal Aviation Administration identified a data processing issue that affects pilots performing the recovery procedure for a runaway stabiliser.

Contacting Flight Global, the FAA noted pilots were unable to quickly and easily follow the required procedures to arrest a runaway stabilizer.

Boeing states the FAA “Identified an additional requirement that it has asked the company to address through the software changes that the company has been developing for the past eight months”

What Does This Mean for Airlines?

Since regulators one by one grounded the 737 MAX in March, airlines have been under enormous stress trying to operationally and financially support flights without the aircraft.

Various return times have circled the media, with airlines scheduling for August and September with some even as early as July.

Boeing 737 MAX testing reveals new design flaw

The latest news that Boeing’s new software requires additional work will add to the pressure within the industry and will test the patience of some airlines.

The end result will see the aircraft as the most scrutinized in history, however with airlines tapping their fingers at the bottom line and passenger confidence rapidly declining as the media covers the crisis, the aircraft will likely live a largely scarred life.

Suggestions to rename the aircraft or even completely redesign the engine/wing aerodynamics have been tossed around, however the price and time frame would send Boeing tumbling.

The key factor to revival here is Boeing winning passenger and airline confidence back and a fix that will guarantee a successful and safe lifetime of an aircraft.

As a passenger, would you fly on the 737 MAX when it returns?

Aaron Hilsz-Lothian

Based in Sydney Australia, Aaron currently works as as a load control planner among the regional operation centre of a major airline. In addition to this, he has multiple years of experience in a frontline aviation environment including ramp, customer acceptance and freight. Writing casually for Sam Chui since 2018, he intends to use his experience in the industry to answer everyday questions that passengers often ponder and to shed light on the complex systems that make aviation so fascinating.

Related Posts

18 Responses

  1. No way. Can’t take boeing’s word for it. It makes America look bad. We already have the worst made cars and now this? Everything is about profits, stocks. Companies want results now.
    In Europe they have a different philosophy. Even look at the Japanese. They don’t make planes but make the most reliable cars because they’re not looking for a quick money making stock prices. We need to learn from them. But that will never happen as Corporate greed takes over.

    Reply

    1. I will not fly Boeing Max. The planes are just too complex…too smart for their own good. If a plane needs special computer functions because it is ill designed then the planes should be banned forever. The whole engine and wing alterations are NOT part of the original design.

      The recent revelations of airframe mis-assembly and airframe failures during accidents should be sharply addressed by the FAA. This plane is DANGEROUS.

  2. YES I WOULD. THEY WILL TEST THIS PLANE OVER & OVER AGAIN, & REDESIGN THE FLAWS & UPGRADE THE NEW TECHOLOGY TO INSURE THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
    BOEING IS AN EXCELLENT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, & THEY WILL NOT DISAPPOINT THE AIRLINES, OR THEIR CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE FLOWN THEM OVER THE YEARS.

    SAFETY & COMFORT HAS BEEN THEIR PRIORITY, & I BELIEVE THIS WILL CONTINUE. THANK YOU FOR MANY YEARS OF SAFE, RELIABLE TRAVEL.

    Reply

    1. That last statement really conflicts with reality. it’s obvious greed took priority over safety & comfort this time.

  3. I remember when the 787 started flying, they had to ground those because of the battery issues. The bugs with the battery issues are resolved now, but that seemed to be an issue that should have been dealt with up front. Now the 737 MAX is grounded due to issues that should have been dealt with up front. It makes me wonder if when the 777X comes out, they are going to find issues with them too. It may get grounded after they start flying for airlines as well. If I were the airlines, I wouldn’t trust Boeing. I remember when Delta said they don’t want to buy experimental aircraft (referring to new Boeing aircraft). I can see where they are coming from now.

    Reply

  4. No I dont want to fly on 737 max only have one life.
    This plane will have to be flying commercially for at least two years with no crashes for me to feel reassured in the aircraft.

    Reply

  5. Well, well–good old Boeing historically as been a stellar air frame designer of both commercial and military aircraft. However, when “business” and “profitability” issues take prescience over quality design and safety, and in a competitive effort to satisfy a missing link in their commercial airliner offerings, software band-aids to fix either deficient or different design characteristics is NOT the way to go. If as a result you don’t have an offering in a particular airliner product or segment…don’t cheat, don’t cheapen the product characteristics (safety options or additional backup systems cost extra), and stop trying to block competitors’ aircraft offerings through lobbying for nasty and unreasonable tariffs (Bombardier–now Airbus A220 family). There’s just NO price on safety, people’s lives, and quality design and workmanship. Boeing needs to clean up its act or risk further tarnishing their decades old reputation for building exceptional aircraft–remember there’s another way to loose market share! Just do it right…go back to the drawing board and just get it right. Meanwhile, I’ll be keenly watching aircraft model usage…other 737 series are a good choice and an industry workhorse, as are the Airbus family of 319’s, 320’s, 321’s etc. The short of it–Boeing, concentrate on excellence–it’s your core business–after all.

    Reply

  6. the Pinto of the airwaves, will not be on my list of aircraft to enjoy, if a plane doesn’t want to fly, why would I want to fly with it. Our FAA should be ashamed, and held accountable! Boeing for cutting corners, lack of real world testing, will pay the price for years and years to come.
    Our FAA should have Airbus do the recertification of the Max!

    Reply

  7. I have no problem flying on a 737 MAX! I have flown on them way before the debacle. Had no issues whatsoever! It is too bad that Boeing has rushed the Max and cut corners to get it to market. The other issue is that Airlines are also cutting corners to save money and not properly train their Pilots, so I am thinking that it is both The Boeing Company and the airlines, primarily the ones that are in other countries, not all of them that cut corners. I am sadden that this has happened. I am hoping that Boeing and the FAA get this resolved quickly BUT with enough time to get all the “bugs” out before recertifying and getting Max back in the air!

    Reply

    1. You really can’t blame the airlines for the problems with the 737 MAX. It was even discovered that the simulators Boeing built did not correctly behave as the aircraft did in the situation the pilots found themselves in. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to tell the customers what training the pilots need to fly their aircraft and in this case, Boeing deliberately tried to avoid a scenario where additional simulator training was required.

      This one is entirely Boeing’s fault, not the airlines and not the pilots! They did exactly what Boeing told them they needed to do!

      The FAA is also responsible of course because they trusted Boeing too much to almost self-certify the plane, there should be a separate enquiry into why the fox was allowed in the hen’s coup.

  8. Need to scrap the jet and start over. I won’t fly on a max again. Boeing is a business, so I understand WHY they did what they did, but the consequences for trying to beat Airbus for American Airlines’ business is now going to haunt the manufacturer. It’s an inherently flawed jet that was rushed. Not interested in risking my neck for their shoddy design, no matter how they re-brand. They should be forced to mothball the fleet, cease production, and start over. It’s their fault for doing what they did.

    Reply

  9. “Powered by two forward-mounted raised CFM LEAP engines, the 737 MAX demonstrated poor handling aerodynamics during development, so Boeing developed the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to prevent the nose from pitching up in flight.”

    This is not quite true, MCAS was a requirement the FAA introduced in order for the 737 MAX to keep the same type rating as the rest of the Boeing 737 family.

    Having the same type rating means you do not need additional simulator training for the pilots to be able to fly it so it makes it more desirable for customers already flying other 737s.

    Trying to retain the same type rating was also the reason why they only used one alpha vane sensor instead of both of them.

    The moral is don’t cut corners and don’t allow the regulators to be in bed with the manufacturers.

    The max did not handle poorly, just differently. MCAS assisted the pilots by making the plane behave similarly to the other 737s.

    Reply

  10. No way…. I said this from the beginning and it’s becoming clearer each day, the 737 is an over engineered platform. Boeing was overly hasty and too focused on profits and this is a huge miss. It’s even more disturbing is that Boeing tried in vain to crush the A220/C-series program while they rushed to create the MAX disaster. They also have had many QA issues with their plant in South Carolina. Boeing management should be ashamed and disgraced, but they aren’t and it’s a company that is clearly too focused on profits. So to sum it up, I have no confidence in the MAX.

    Reply

  11. I probably would, but only if I believed they have carried out properly implemented re-certification. However even then I would select alternative aircraft types on my particular route if possible. Boeing and the FAA have put profit over safety. It will take a very long time for them to recover. I only hope this isn’t the tip of the iceberg.

    Reply

  13. What worries me is the report that some pilots may lack the physical strength to operate the–is it the trim tab?–in the event of an emergency.

    Reply

    1. That’s because of physics not pilots strength. There’s a great deal of strain on a jackscrew when it’s at it’s maximum setting from the aerodynamic forces operating against the elavator at speed.

      In addition, the size of the elavator has increased but they’ve tried to keep the trim wheel small which gives the pilots less leverage to counter balance the forces.

  14. Typo – “…and easily follow the required procedures to arrest a runway stabilizer.” Should be “runaway” stabilizer.

    Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.