Another 737 Max Design Flaw, Not Just Software
Hundreds of 737 Max jets are grounded as Boeing seeks approval to return the planes to active service. Unfortunately, the and FAA audit turned up a new problem, wiring.
Please note It’s Not Just Software: New Safety Risks Under Scrutiny on Boeing’s 737 Max.
The company is looking at whether two bundles of critical wiring are too close together and could cause a short circuit. A short in that area could lead to a crash if pilots did not respond correctly, the people said. Boeing is still trying to determine whether that scenario could actually occur on a flight and, if so, whether it would need to separate the wire bundles in the roughly 800 Max jets that have already been built. The company says that the fix, if needed, is relatively simple.
The company may eventually need to look into whether the same problem exists on the 737 NG, the predecessor to the Max. There are currently about 6,800 of those planes in service. The senior Boeing engineer said that finding such problems and fixing them was not unusual and not particular to the Max or to Boeing.
Long Standing Issue
My aviation contact offered these comments.
Yes, it’s a long standing issue with wire bundles being too close to each other, overheating and causing a fire. Problems continue. it is a 1960’s design that was continually modified. There should have been a new design 15 yrs ago, but it didn’t happen.
World demand has shifted to single aisle airplanes (like 737) from the double aisle (like 787, 777). Airbus is flat sold out for years with the A320 series and cannot alone satisfy world demand. That is why the MAX backlog has held up.
Asia growth in passenger traffic is huge. Before the crashes, Boeing was making 52 MAXes a month and had plans to go to 57 and later 62. In my day, 10 airplanes a month was considered good.
Suppliers Hit
The Wall Street Journal reports Boeing 737 MAX Problems Hit Supplier Triumph Group’s Stock and Bonds
“Moody’s could downgrade Triumph if MAX production doesn’t resume before second half of 2020”
Delays and Costs Mount
Every delay, even minor wiring issues add to problems at Boeing.
Further compounding the delays, the FAA is thinking of imposing mandatory simulator training on the MAX.
Boeing’s Max Crisis Takes Another Costly Turn
Bloomberg reports Boeing’s Max Crisis Takes Another Costly Turn
The airplane maker on Tuesday said it would recommend pilots undergo flight-simulator training on its 737 Max before the embattled plane returns to service, reversing its previous stance that computer-based education would be sufficient. The about-face on training amounts to a concession that the Max was in fact fundamentally different than earlier 737s and that pilots weren’t properly informed of or prepared to deal with its features – despite Boeing’s repeated efforts to argue otherwise in the initial certification process and throughout the Max crisis.
And make no mistake, this decision will cost Boeing. The company reportedly made a deal with Southwest Airlines Co. to reduce the cost of each Max plane by $1 million if simulator training was required. Southwest ordered 280 Max jets so that alone may be a hit of nearly $300 million.
Trump Getting Anxious
Trump is anxious to get these planes back into service because Airbus is picking up orders and Boeing isn’t.
Thus this pontification from Leeham.
Airbus Almost Certain to be Hurt by MAX Crisis
Please consider Pontifications: Airbus Almost Certain to be Hurt by MAX Crisis
InLNA’s2020 Outlook last week, we pointed out that the long-running trade war between the US and European Union could be coming to a head this year. Airbus and the EU are waiting for the World Trade Organization’s authorization to impose tariffs on US products. This decision is expected in May or June. Boeing is expected to be the first target. The Trump Administration last year imposed a 10% tariff on Airbus aircraft.
As 2019 ended, LNA began hearing some ominous reports from multiple sources about what’s coming this year.
1: The Trump Administration is thinking about increasing the tariffs on Airbus aircraft from 10% to 25%. It has WTO authority to boost tariffs to 100% of the value of the airplanes.
2: The Administration is said to be unhappy with EASA, the European certification regulator, taking the stance it has, insisting it wants to independently review and recertify the MAX.
3: And, unrelated to the MAX, the Administration is said to be unhappy that the EU is dragging its feet in approving the Boeing-Embraer joint venture.
As we wrote last week, this is an election year and Donald Trump is running for reelection. Upping the ante in the European trade wars will make him look tough to his base. Never mind that the Federal Reserve concluded the trade wars are hurting the US economy, businesses and workers.
Airbus is almost certain to become a target for higher tariffs. I won’t rule out adding the Mobile (AL) final assembly line to sanctions despite Alabama being the No. 1 supporter of Trump. There is no way Alabama will vote for a Democratic challenger to Trump; it’s a completely safe state.
In Praise of Leeham
My contact has nothing but praise for the analysts at Leeham.
“Leeham is one of the top aviation consultants and respected. They have lot of contacts.”
One Front War
Whether or not Trump’s Mideast War Fiasco affects things is a mystery, but I have long suspected Trump would ratchet up tariffs on the EU once he had a trade deal with China.
My rationale is Trump does not want to fight a trade war with China and the EU at the same time.
Of course the details of Trump’s Amazing Trade Deal are a complete mystery, China disputes some of the reporting, and it isn’t signed yet, but presumably the deal is amazing.
Regardless, the key point is we will soon be down to a one front trade war.
Once that happens, there is every reason to suspect Trump will suck Airbus into the Boeing crisis, further slowing global trade.
Meanwhile, please note Housing Consistent With a Recession in 2020.
Good luck with that.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Again I would like to point out how we tend to ignore the obvious until it becomes a major threat.
The C919, being built by Chinese state-owned aviation manufacturer Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (COMAC), is a perfect example of Chinese intentions and is a kick in the teeth of those endorsing free trade. COMAC has spent 11 years and $6.5 billion developing the C919, which is seen as China’s answer to the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320. The article below gives the details behind this threat to Boeing’s dominance.
“The FAA found a new wiring issue.”
…
Has DJT fired the inspector yet?
Tesla: Putting exploding cars on the highway
Boeing: Putting exploding planes in sky
Innovation!
Put the 2 together. Some news that (probably) an EV caught fire in car park at Norwegian airport and caused flight delays. You can’t make this stuff up.
When was the last time an ICE did that?
Actually, the last time ICE car burnt down a parking garage full of cars was this week – link to dagbladet.no
But look at % of EV smoking vs their population on the roads. Higher prevalence.
Meanwhile next big growth area for flight is short haul electric. Lets see what happens. Thermal runaway is hard to stop in a high energy density battery stack.
Yeah, I also looked into % of EV smoking vs their population on the roads.
They catch on fire less often %-wise than ICE cars.
You have been brainwashed by mainstream media into believing that EVs catch up on fire more often than ICE counterparts.
There are at least 3x sets of data to collect and sift.
A) Fires per billion miles driven.
B) Fires as a percentage of total fleet.
C) Catastrophic fires per billion miles and as per-centage of fleet.
These also need to take into account cause of fire.
Was it as a result of impact/accident or “other”.
“Other” covers the Norwegian case and best looked as catastrophic fire as % of total fleet manufactured – it was stationary, not impacted in accident and would not have been an older vehicle.
You then get the appropriate figure. Taking into account age of vehicle also helps eliminate human error in servicing.
EV are still in learning mode. Wasn’t so long ago it was common to fail the scissor test – side impact from sliding into lamp post, bollard – resulting in cell rupture with fire resulting.
Have to wonder if the Norwegian incident was whilst being charged.
What do you mean with
The recent Norwegian airport fire was cause by Opel Zafira – a diesel car. Not an electric car. Please check the link I sent from the local Norwegian news outlet and translate it.
Your favorite US news outlets such as zerohedge.com would never publish a correction, because ICE fires are deemed “boring” and, more importantly, it would be embarrassing for them to admit they jumped to conclusions too early by blaming EVs.
Ok, but I would still be wary of EV vs same age ICE.
I call BS on the wiring story, and my aviation contact has stated that is all ok, except for the regulators taking too long.
“Airbus is no different.”
Precisely
Trump should be showing administrators at the FAA and Boeing’s board the door for criminal activity and negligence. Unfortunately he has been slow to act on the entire 737 max issue and his hand was forced by the EU.
unf-AirBus? Boeing, Instead of spending on quality and engineering, they outsourced to an Indian company and bought back stock. Now they are looking at issuing debt so they can pay for the mistakes of the past.
Also blame the FAA – by creating regulations with thresholds, engineering to the regulations (if we can still call it a “737” our customers save billions, and we save billions in certification) instead of building the best engineered plane.
And the wall street bean counting at any cost including lives:
link to qz.com
McDonell Douglas built airplanes as tanks, Boeing was second, and Airbus third in quality. You don’t see too many old Airbus flying, you see some old Boeing jets flying, and most older jets flying are MDD.