United Airlines moving its Boeing 737 MAX jets to short-term storage in Arizona

[turbinetree]

Source: Reuters

Business News
August 28, 2019 / 8:28 AM / Updated 27 minutes ago

Tracy Rucinski 2 Min Read

CHICAGO (Reuters) - United Airlines (UAL.O) is starting to move its 14 Boeing 737 MAX jets to short-term storage in Phoenix, Arizona, which has better weather for stored aircraft and where it will be easier to prepare them for commercial flight again, the carrier said on Wednesday.

Boeing Co’s (BA.N) 737 MAX fleet was grounded worldwide in March after two fatal crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed a total of 346 people within five months.

The aircraft maker is working on a fix for the software at the center of both crashes and is aiming to get the jet back in the air as soon as October, Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg told Reuters on Tuesday.

Once the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration approves the new software and pilot training, airlines will have to upload the software changes and run a series of maintenance checks on the jets before flying them again with passengers.



Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-united-arlns-boeing/united-airlines-moving-its-boeing-737-max-jets-to-short-term-storage-in-arizona-idUSKCN1VI1G0

[bucolic_frolic]

1. If bedbugs don't stop you

MAX will.

I'm staying home to watch movies.

[Gumboot]

2. Bizarre that those desert boneyards...

... are now filling up with brand new planes. 31 SouthWest 737Max's have been baking in the SW California desert sun for most of this year. I'm wondering how that's affecting the composite materials they're built from. Hmmm...

[KY_EnviroGuy]

5. Many items could cause early failures in the future from sitting idle....

rubber hydraulic and pneumatic seals (all things rubber), turbine, landing gear and pump bearings, massive quantities of electronics. Although I would bet they are spinning these turbines every week or so.

I would not want the job of writing a restart procedure manual for this nightmare.....

[jimmil]

3. Soooo......

It was just a small little software fix and the planes will be flying soon... Or so they said. To me, an old software weenie from way back, your product being taken off the market this long indicates there was a much bigger problem in the first place. Being an old software weenie I would place a bet that the marketing weenies had put the pressure on to get this out the door and get revenue coming in. How many times did I hear that if we left it to the engineers to release something, nothing would ever be released? There was something really wrong with the Max and you can bet the Boeing executives have spent a lot of time in Washington covering their collective asses. I am surprised they haven't found some junior engineer to use as a scapegoat and pointed all the fingers at them.

[pimpbot]

6. They outsourced to India

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

because you know.. Writing life safety critical software is the same as writing the next Candy Crush .

[jimmil]

9. I have never had outsourced code work.

I'm not saying it never does, only I have not had any to work. The worst part is the hardest problems to find were almost always found in the field where a fix effects the most people and it cost the most to repair. I always told my people that making software function correctly is easy. Making software function when everything is incorrect is the hardest. If your software has to work every time 75% of it is what happens in an error situation.

[MicaelS]

10. From your experience ...

Is this a software only problem, or could it hardware based, or both?

The Max was an update of a 50-year-old design, and the changes needed to be limited enough that Boeing could produce the new planes like cookie cutters, with few changes for either the assembly line or airlines.

If it's software only, since they know the problem, why is the fix taking so long?

[jimmil]

11. I'll not speculate...

So let me speculate. No, not really. Keep in mind there are two rather large agencies involved here. One is Boeing of course and the second is the FAA. Both will be under the microscope when the plane takes back to the air. There can't be ANY screw ups.

I don't have a clue on how the manufactures get away with building an airplane on the same type certificate for 50 years when it is clear there have been major changes to the airframe, power, and avionics. Any dealings I have had with the FAA they have tried busting your balls. The poor FAA schlub probably just takes Boeing's word for things as having inspectors knowing everything about every airplane out there is impossible.

As far as knowing the problem and fixing it, with literally a million lines of code involved you just can't go in and make a change and Bob's your uncle. You have to find it, patch it, test it, submit design documentation, have design approved, implement the code changes, unit test it, submit results, integration test it, submit results, system test it (simulator), submit results, submit the changes and results to the oversight committee, before you even go into Beta test (flight testing). It is a long process. We were extremely fast at responding to field problem taking 9 months for the entire process. I worked for companies that took 18 - 24 months to implement changes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Let me add to what jimmil wrote:

All of the new testing around any fixes will be based on new safety assessments of any code, sensors, systems and structures which could be involved. When systems need to be single and multiple fault tolerant, the number of conditions in a failure mode analysis to formulate integration and verification plans and procedures grow geometrically.

My understanding is that part of the strategy for maintaining the 737 model with a set of changes and updates was to avoid having to have every commercial pilot go through training and clearance to fly a whole new model of aircraft. The MCAS was one of the items planned to make the MAX work like the previous versions.

[SharonAnn]

15. Marketing says "Sometimes you just have to shoot the engineer" or it's never "done".

[SharonAnn]

16. Marketings types say "Sometimes you just have to shoot the engineer." to get the product out.

[keithbvadu2]

7. D'ya think Boeing pilots have been trained in overriding the glitch?

D'ya think Boeing pilots have been trained in overriding the glitch?

[Maxheader]

8. That's too bad..

No idea where the company is on fixing the problem..And then there is that little thing called public relations..Will people fly on them once its ok?

[BannonsLiver]

12. There are a lot of people saying this plane will never be safe to fly

Engineers, pilots who have flown it, others in the aviation community. There are a variety of opinions available for those that are interested. After considering these opinions, I tend to believe the plane has inherent design flaws.

[Sherman A1]

14. Hopefully they can then be towed to a scrap yard

The underlying design of the aircraft is flawed. The move of the pylons to accommodate the more fuel efficient engines changed the Center of Gravity making the plane less stable. Software isn’t the problem, design is.