Boeing Lounge Boeing 737 LRD

ZapBrannigan

ZapBrannigan

If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
I want to vent for a minute regarding Boeing/CFM’s latest “WTF were they thinking” scenario - LRD. (Load alleviation device - prevents the engine from coming apart in the event of catastrophic failure. Unfortunately it doesn’t close the bleed valve so the cabin fills with smoke when it activates)

Right after takeoff you have an engine failure. While you're flying the engine failure procedure, LRD activates and smoke fills the cockpit. Now you have to get the mask and goggles on, continue to fly the EP, while visibility in the cockpit is reduced to as little as 5 inches, and, oh by the way, after you're finished with the engine fire, severe damage checklist, also run the smoke in the cabin checklist.

Try this while flying a Reno engine out profile.

Look, I love the 737. But every day it seems like another smack in the face from this Jurassic Jet that is decades removed from the kind of technology that could make it easier to analyze and take action to cascading failures.

Not to mention my airline’s failure to incorporate devices such as VisionSafe or autoland that might put the airplane safely back on the ground if these kinds of failures occur.

Yeah, I'm getting a little angry about the whole thing. It’s one thing after another with this airplane and there is no realistic alternative for fleet replacement. Even if they signed on the dotted line for Airbus today, it would be well into the 2030s before they would be on property in any meaningful number.
 
There would be a different risk reward ratio if the aircraft were actually being delivered. Now you have all the issues you mentioned, as well as comfort/modern issues that aren't safety related. Other than back pain etc. AND on top of all that you have delivery delays that are borderline comical. Except it's not funny. It's certainly slowing all of our careers down quite a bit.

For your shop the MAX 7 delays are horrible. And as you've mentioned there is no viable alternative.
 
FWIW, I think the bleed valve is “part of the airframe” and its design/integration is controlled by Boeing.

So I doubt it was a situation like Boeing saying “Hey we’d like to have another interface for closing the valve,” and CFM didn’t come back with “Pay me.”

I would suspect it was Boeing chasing the belief that “changes cost money, justify it.”
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I want to vent for a minute regarding Boeing/CFM’s latest “WTF were they thinking” scenario - LRD. (Load alleviation device - prevents the engine from coming apart in the event of catastrophic failure. Unfortunately it doesn’t close the bleed valve so the cabin fills with smoke when it activates)

Right after takeoff you have an engine failure. While you're flying the engine failure procedure, LRD activates and smoke fills the cockpit. Now you have to get the mask and goggles on, continue to fly the EP, while visibility in the cockpit is reduced to as little as 5 inches, and, oh by the way, after you're finished with the engine fire, severe damage checklist, also run the smoke in the cabin checklist.

Try this while flying a Reno engine out profile.

Look, I love the 737. But every day it seems like another smack in the face from this Jurassic Jet that is decades removed from the kind of technology that could make it easier to analyze and take action to cascading failures.

Not to mention my airline’s failure to incorporate devices such as VisionSafe or autoland that might put the airplane safely back on the ground if these kinds of failures occur.

Yeah, I'm getting a little angry about the whole thing. It’s one thing after another with this airplane and there is no realistic alternative for fleet replacement. Even if they signed on the dotted line for Airbus today, it would be well into the 2030s before they would be on property in any meaningful number.
Click to expand...



Wait, y’all don’t have autoland?


What’s the lowest hand flown mins you can do to a CAT II or III runway?
 
ZapBrannigan said:
Look, I love the 737. But every day it seems like another smack in the face from this Jurassic Jet that is decades removed from the kind of technology that could make it easier to analyze and take action to cascading failures.
Click to expand...
Er, well, yes, it is...by literal Congressional and regulatory fiat, and to accommodate the needs to not retrain anyone for any reason ever.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
6,6,3 hand flown using the HGS.

Would be fun after flying all night on a redeye to hand fly a cat 3 into the sun, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
You’ll get to find out soon, with your redeyes coming online before too long.

Having to fly one/find your way to the gate after a CDO/highspeed/lean over was absolutely dreadful.
 
Minuteman said:
FWIW, I think the bleed valve is “part of the airframe” and its design/integration is controlled by Boeing.
Click to expand...
Well never mind! LRD is a CFM thing I didn’t even know about.

www.seattletimes.com

FAA team recommends Boeing MAX design change and pilot notification

An internal memo recommends a design change to fix an engine risk on the 737 MAX, in addition to informing pilots of the risk and changing takeoff procedures.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com

“The internal FAA memo, reviewed by The Seattle Times, is highly critical of Boeing for not informing pilots about the existence of the engine component that activates when the engine is severely damaged, called the load reduction device, or LRD.
…
A broken fan blade will throw the engine’s rotating parts off balance and cause heavy vibration throughout the intricate mechanism that can lead to further damage.

When this happens, the new LRD activates, shearing some bolts and disconnecting the fan from the engine core. The fan blades then spin freely and the vibration is minimized.

In the Southwest incidents, the violence of the engine fan breakup caused an oil leak from the engine sump. Ignited by the hot engine, the burning oil then sent smoke and fumes inside the airplane.
The memo cites a Boeing presentation stating that “the release of oil from the sump is an expected result of LRD activation.”
 
1000% rumor, of the my brother's wife's second cousin said type, but I've also been around Navy maintenance chiefs for long enough to know sometimes what they say is true.......one of our line MX guys asked me the other day, during his check-in during a turn at one of our maintenance outstations, if we had started using the new MAX procedure. I said I had no idea what he meant. According to him, it will shortly be revealed that all MAX takeoffs, regardless of takeoff performance requirements, will be bleeds off to mitigate this whole smoke/fumes in event of fan failure scenario. No idea if this is true. But I think MikeD will suddenly want to fly MAX's if it is
 
///AMG said:
1000% rumor, of the my brother's wife's second cousin said type, but I've also been around Navy maintenance chiefs for long enough to know sometimes what they say is true.......one of our line MX guys asked me the other day, during his check-in during a turn at one of our maintenance outstations, if we had started using the new MAX procedure. I said I had no idea what he meant. According to him, it will shortly be revealed that all MAX takeoffs, regardless of takeoff performance requirements, will be bleeds off to mitigate this whole smoke/fumes in event of fan failure scenario. No idea if this is true. But I think MikeD will suddenly want to fly MAX's if it is
Click to expand...
It is one of the recommendations from the FAA,

In the meantime, the AVP urges 737 Max pilots be instructed to take-off with the left Leap-1B’s bleed air system shut off (which would prevent cockpit smoke), or with both engines’ bleed air disabled.

from this,
www.flightglobal.com

NTSB investigating 737 Max smoke incident amid Leap-1B ‘load reduction device’ scrutiny

An engine-related concern involving Boeing's 737 Max has caught the attention of both the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and a Federal Aviation Administration panel, which has reportedly recommended new pilot procedures and a change to software that manages the engine bleed air system.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

To @ZapBrannigan's point though, if you are flying a complex special engine failure dp and this happens this will be a handful to say the least. They are going to have to come up with some way to mitigate the risk out of that, so maybe instead of all takeoffs being bleeds off just do them on complex EO DPs, or as you said do them bleeds off for everything.

It also makes me wonder how Airbus has sorted this out given they use the LEAP on the NEO as well.
 
///AMG said:
1000% rumor, of the my brother's wife's second cousin said type, but I've also been around Navy maintenance chiefs for long enough to know sometimes what they say is true.......one of our line MX guys asked me the other day, during his check-in during a turn at one of our maintenance outstations, if we had started using the new MAX procedure. I said I had no idea what he meant. According to him, it will shortly be revealed that all MAX takeoffs, regardless of takeoff performance requirements, will be bleeds off to mitigate this whole smoke/fumes in event of fan failure scenario. No idea if this is true. But I think MikeD will suddenly want to fly MAX's if it is
Click to expand...
There goes all the effort at fuel savings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top