Oh Boeing… again 🤬

In a somewhat related question. Due to recent engine issues (both Boeing and Airbus), when do their ETOPS certifications start to come under scrutiny?
 
BobDDuck said:
The cowling and engine case are (generally) the aircraft manufacturer's design, and the stuff that goes inside of them are the engine manufacturer.

@inigo88?
Click to expand...
Fun fact: Boeing originally outsourced the manufacture of 737MAX engine cowlings to Airbus in Spain (but still to Boeing specification).

More recently they switched vendors to both Turkish Aerospace in Ankara and Tata in Hyderabad for the cowls.
 
Minuteman said:
Fun fact: Boeing originally outsourced the manufacture of 737MAX engine cowlings to Airbus in Spain (but still to Boeing specification).

More recently they switched vendors to both Turkish Aerospace in Ankara and Tata in Hyderabad for the cowls.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I was going to say I think both Boeing and Airbus outsourced their engine cowlings to a third party company - I knew a guy who worked on the cowl for the A320neo at UTC for example, but that may have just been part of it.

I think the aircraft manufacturers own the cowl from a requirements level (basically a word doc that says “the cowl SHALL completely contain the engine”, “the cowl SHALL be an aerodynamic shape” etc :) ) but then outsource the rest and pocket the difference as profit.

The subcontracting gets tricky too because sometimes they keep the design authority and give the subcontractor engineering drawings (“build to print”), and sometimes they subcontract design authority AND manufacturing (basically supplier design it as long as you meet X requirements and comply with this interface control document which defines the interface between where the thing we’re responsible for stops and where your responsibility starts). In the latter case the way it’s supposed to work is the buck still stops with the aircraft manufacturer and it’s their responsibility to actively manage the supplier.

As far as the MAX cowl melting down if anti-ice is left on, that’s a high level system architecture decision that is 100% on Boeing and can’t be pinned on any supplier. It would be very easy to add a temperature sensor and a solenoid that throws the switch back to off automatically if it over-temps.
 
alaskadrifter said:
In a somewhat related question. Due to recent engine issues (both Boeing and Airbus), when do their ETOPS certifications start to come under scrutiny?
Click to expand...

The failure has to occur in an etops operating area to count against the required reliability. I know that the one IFS I had on the neo didn't count because we hadn't coasted out yet.
 
Inverted said:
s


Boeing. Same engine in the NEO and on Airbus NEOs, that is not an issue.
Click to expand...
I don't know much about airliners but even I know they're not the same engine, unless you think having an extra turbine stage and a different thrust rating is identical.
 
roundout said:
That seems……something. Unrealistic? idealistic? I’m not sure but it’s definitely something.
Click to expand...

It's how ETOPs is set up. Failure rates have to be below a certain percentage when you are in extend range airspace. To calculate that failure rate you need to only look at failures that occur when there.
 
ZapBrannigan said:

Boeing withdrew their request to certify the Max -7 (and Max -10) without changes to the anti-ice system.

For those who are unaware, the 737 doesn’t have an ice detector or automatic cowl anti-ice. It relies on the crew to turn on and off the cowl anti ice in icing conditions. On the NG, if you forget to turn it off for a while it’s no big deal. On the Max, apparently there is a very slim chance that if you operate it in dry air at a very specific combination of temperature, altitude, phase of the moon etc.… the cowl lip might get too hot, come apart, puncture the fuselage and whatnot.

Boeing wanted to certify the Max -7 anyway based on millions of hours flown with the -8 with no issues, while they work on a fix which they said would take several years.

After the Alaska incident several congress critters said “no more exemptions!”. They already gave Boeing a get out of jail free card on EICAS for the -7 and -10. They’re mad about loose rudder bolts and apparently missing door bolts. So Boeing rescinded their request.

That means waiting for a fix which is likely to add several years to the -7 timeline. Which is no big deal unless you need to replace an aging fleet of hundreds of -700s…

Airbus has no capacity for additional lines to fill that demand. Even if they did they’re dealing with their own P&W GTF issues and apparently an EASA mandate to check for spar cracks.

Embraer doesn’t have anything that can carry 150 pax with the range the -7 promised.

This is bad.
Click to expand...


My dude, you've been around this industry long enough to know that this is business as usual.

Aircraft announcements don't matter. Aircraft options don't matter. Aircraft orders don't matter. Aircraft simulators don't matter.

Aircraft don't matter until you are sitting in it with your name in the log book
 
Inverted said:
Well, it sounds like they will redesign the cowl lip, finally.

100% for sure, this withdrawal of the exemption request was at the behest of the FAA and honestly, it is a really good first step to doing things right at Boeing. The fact that Boeing even made this request is utterly freaking insane and is a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance and cultural issues that Boeing possesses.

Here is the funny thing about pressure, you'd be surprised how quickly Beoing solves this issue when it affects their ability to sell airplanes. I can't stand this about companies. Boeing wants to kick the can of rocks down the road over and over and over simply because they want to sell airplanes. "oh we can't sell and deliver MAX7's because of his cowl lip issue and we will go out of business so FAA please let us sell them anyway."

Watch how freaking quickly a fix happens now. I bet the cowl lip is redesigned or reengineered in 6 months and is ready to go.
Click to expand...

Look at that, a year or less now that their butt is to the fire...

IMG_2046.PNG
 
Oh hey, 50 MAX jets were found to have mis-drilled holes around window frames.

This is a diffrent case than the mis-drilled holes in the aft pressure bulkhead discovered back in August.

www.theguardian.com

Boeing may delay more 737 Max deliveries after incorrectly drilled holes found

Emirates Airlines boss says manufacturer ‘in last chance saloon’ as supplier Spirit AeroSystems finds new production glitch
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Richman said:
My dude, you've been around this industry long enough to know that this is business as usual.

Aircraft announcements don't matter. Aircraft options don't matter. Aircraft orders don't matter. Aircraft simulators don't matter.

Aircraft don't matter until you are sitting in it with your name in the log book
Click to expand...

It is fun watching our coworkers assume the Max 10 is an imminent arrival because the sim's up and running now.

Annnnnything can happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top