737 MAX

[HeyEng]

There is also an issue with the engine anti-ice. The LEAP engine nacelle lip uses more composite materials than the legacy nacelles and can catastrophically fail if the anti-ice is left on in dry conditions for more than five minutes! The AD warns this could result in “an un-powered off-field landing”!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17197/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

Edited February 8 by HeyEng

[SurelySerious]

There is also an issue with the engine anti-ice. The LEAP engine nacelle lip uses more composite materials than the legacy nacelles and can catastrophically fail if the anti-ice is left on in dry conditions for more than five minutes! The AD warns this could result in “an un-powered off-field landing”!
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17197/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

Yeah…but it shouldn’t be on without visible moisture or a contaminated surface, so this damage occurs outside of proper system operation. Not a real shocker.

[HossHarris]

Yup. Nobody ever forgets to turn it off ….

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Yeah…but it shouldn’t be on without visible moisture or a contaminated surface, so this damage occurs outside of proper system operation. Not a real shocker.

 

2 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Yup. Nobody ever forgets to turn it off ….

Lol, exactly. Forgetting to turn off the anti-ice for 5 minutes and you get a total engine failure? That's the definition of a "real shocker."

[nunya]

55 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Lol, exactly. Forgetting to turn off the anti-ice for 5 minutes and you get a total engine failure? That's the definition of a "real shocker."

[BashiChuni]

post of the year so far ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ hahahahahahahaha

[HeyEng]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Yeah…but it shouldn’t be on without visible moisture or a contaminated surface, so this damage occurs outside of proper system operation. Not a real shocker.

And of course anti-ice valves never stick in the open position! 
Boeing has auto anti-ice systems that automatically turn on and off during icing conditions but to maintain the same type rating as legacy 737 aircraft, these type of systems are not installed on the Max.
The Max with the LEAP engines should have had a new type certificate but Southwest would have not have purchased the aircraft to begin with and so Boeing did a lot of pounding a square peg in a round hole to emulate handling characteristics of legacy 737.

Even the NG had a different wing and cruised faster than the 100 to 600 aircraft and it could be argued that Boeing should have changed the type certification back then. 

[ClearedHot]

It never ends with this POS.

US FAA mandates Boeing 737 MAX rudder loose bolt inspections

[ClearedHot]

Boeing may be prosecuted after breaking safety agreement that prevented criminal charges for 737 crashes, US DOJ says

Alleging that Boeing lied (shocker), about safety changed that were made.

[Biff_T]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Boeing may be prosecuted after breaking safety agreement that prevented criminal charges for 737 crashes, US DOJ says

Alleging that Boeing lied (shocker), about safety changed that were made.

Good.  Maybe we can actually hold  Boeing accountable for making pieces of shit both for the USAF and civilian world.  Monopolies are not good for competition and and definitely not good for making end products that are safe and effective vs. a product that constantly needs more work to function as advertised.   

Fuck Boeing.  They are not as good as they think they are.  

[herkbier]

Too big to fail, or be meaningfully punished. 

[Inertia17]

22 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Boeing may be prosecuted after breaking safety agreement that prevented criminal charges for 737 crashes, US DOJ says

Alleging that Boeing lied (shocker), about safety changed that were made.

Definitely wouldn't want to be a witness on that trial.

[disgruntledemployee]

[Biff_T]

15 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going....to make it through the flight without losing a part.  

Edited May 17 by Biff_T
Fat fingers

[ClearedHot]

Anyone have more details?

The AvHerald is reporting that on May 25, 2024, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 MAX (N8825Q) experienced Dutch Roll while en route from Phoenix to Oakland, carrying 175 passengers and 6 crew.

The crew regained control and landed safely in Oakland. Post-flight inspections revealed substantial structural damage, including to the standby power control unit (PCU) and its mounts, leading the FAA to classify the incident as an accident and open an investigation.

[disgruntledemployee]

19 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Anyone have more details?

The AvHerald is reporting that on May 25, 2024, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 MAX (N8825Q) experienced Dutch Roll while en route from Phoenix to Oakland, carrying 175 passengers and 6 crew.

The crew regained control and landed safely in Oakland. Post-flight inspections revealed substantial structural damage, including to the standby power control unit (PCU) and its mounts, leading the FAA to classify the incident as an accident and open an investigation.

Not this one specifically, but UAL had a rudder issue recently. Culprit was a disabled, but still installed rudder servo.

Here is the explanation from the link below.

The incident airplane was delivered to the airline in February 2023. The aircraft was configured with "a rudder SVO-730 rollout guidance servo that was disabled per UAL’s delivery requirements to reconfigure the autoflight system from CAT IIIB to CAT IIIA capability."  Investigators stated that although the servo was disabled, it remained mechanically connected to the upper portion of the aft rudder input torque tube by the servo’s output crank arm and pushrod. The rollout guidance servo was removed from the incident airplane and subjected to cold soaking to determine if the cold had adversely affected the torque required to move the servo’s output crank arm.  Per the report, at room temperature it was found that the torque to rotate the servo’s output crank arm was within design specifications.  After the unit was then “cold soaked” for one hour and the test was repeated, it was found that the torque to move the servo’s output crank arm was significantly beyond the specified design limits.  "Because the servo output crank arm is mechanically connected to the rudder input torque tube, the restricted movement of the servo’s output crank arm would prevent the rudder pedals from moving as observed during Flight 1539 and the test flight," the report said.

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-investigates-boeing-rudder-malfunction-incident-in-newark/