19 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I'm not sure where this comes from... I didn't ridicule another company's standards or training... I said perhaps they don't maintain their aircraft or train to a standard that allows .10 approaches.  This appears to have been a correct statement, if the reason is that the company chooses to continue to operate a software version with known deficiencies instead of going through the minimal workload to install a properly working software version, doesn't it?

Maxs are fully capable of RNP .10 approaches, that's all.

I must have read too much into your post initially and wrongly interpreted it that way. Apologies for that. I’m glad you replied and further clarified that was not the case. 
 

Going back to the issue of the RNP AR bulletin… MAXs should indeed be fully capable of RNP 0.10 approaches but unfortunately those presently equipped that specific GE FMC hardware number are not allowed to do it per bulletin until update 14.2 comes around. 
I can understand that operators who do not frequently use RNP AR approaches prefer to wait it out instead of coming up with the requested dollars to swap out FMC hardware. 
 

Regards, Sylvain

16 hours ago, MikeH99 said:

Since when would an aircraft be allowed to carry commercial passengers when its FMC resets mid flight..... 

You would be surprised how long we have  to keep flying with known software errors before a fix can come out to solve it (or better said - manages to get through the full certification process so that it can be rolled out to the airlines under a new version number)

As long as the conditions in which those software bugs will happen are considered to be sufficiently remote crews simply have to work their way around it with the info given by Boeing in the bulletins. 
 

For those interested you can find some info about the various 737 FMC software versions here:
http://www.b737.org.uk/fmc.htm

Regards,
Sylvain

2 hours ago, Sylle said:

I can understand that operators who do not frequently use RNP AR approaches prefer to wait it out instead of coming up with the requested dollars to swap out FMC hardware. 

Typically (and in this case) there's another solution that is quite cost-effective: simply roll back to an older version of the FMC software that is known to work correctly.  We've had to do that once or twice; I remember one new software version introduced this absolutely bizarre bug of blanking the entire CDS (literally, all 6 screens) when a particular approach into Barrow was executed.  It took about a day to roll the software back on the entire fleet, without taking delays.  

In this case of the RNP issue, there's no need to pay for new hardware, or even to wait for new software, when rolling back to a previous version is an option.  Of course, depending on level of reliance on RNP procedures even that may not pencil out... Just pointing out it's an option.  

On 1/9/2024 at 4:34 AM, MikeH99 said:

Since when would an aircraft be allowed to carry commercial passengers when its FMC resets mid flight..... 

There's all kinds of stuff that can legally be inop on an aircraft while it's on revenue flights with pax, like all autopilots being out for example. Under CDL (like MEL but for damaged or even missing hardware instead of inop systems) you can even fly with a winglet missing on one side.

Edited January 10, 20242 yr by threegreen

7 minutes ago, threegreen said:

 you can even fly with a winglet missing on one side.

And some pilot's like to test that theory "on the fly" 🙂

 

Not belittling an aircraft incident...but nobody was harmed, except for maybe the pilot's ego. 🙂 

 

 

Old Boeing saying:

30 minutes ago, threegreen said:

There's all kinds of stuff that can legally be inop on an aircraft while it's on revenue flights with pax, like all autopilots being out for example. Under CDL (like MEL but for damaged or even missing hardware instead of inop systems) you can even fly with a winglet missing on one side.

Can MEL A/T could just imagine Sim Pilots getting annoyed at that.

18 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Old Boeing saying:

What blew out there isn't a door though, but a door plug. The MAX 9s with an actual door are cleared to fly. It increasingly looks like the plug may not have been properly secured by not tightening the required bolts or completely omitting them. Whether that's on Boeing, Spirit as a supplier or a MX outfit remains to be seen, though Calhoun of Boeing has admitted to a "quality escape", whatever that means.

50 minutes ago, threegreen said:

What blew out there isn't a door though, but a door plug.

it's just a joke 🙂

20 hours ago, threegreen said:

There's all kinds of stuff that can legally be inop on an aircraft while it's on revenue flights with pax, like all autopilots being out for example. Under CDL (like MEL but for damaged or even missing hardware instead of inop systems) you can even fly with a winglet missing on one side.

If the autopilot is MELed the aircraft cannot be flown in RVSM airspace, which means flights have to be conducted below FL290. “Old school” pilots would probably have no problem hand-flying an entire trip - “children of the magenta line” less so.

Flights with an inop APU or one inop pack are quite common. An inop display unit is usually permitted, but it may have to be moved to a specific position in the panel (typically the copilot’s MFD). 

6 hours ago, threegreen said:

What blew out there isn't a door though, but a door plug. The MAX 9s with an actual door are cleared to fly. It increasingly looks like the plug may not have been properly secured by not tightening the required bolts or completely omitting them. Whether that's on Boeing, Spirit as a supplier or a MX outfit remains to be seen, though Calhoun of Boeing has admitted to a "quality escape", whatever that means.

I would say it's on Boeing.  Whoever did the actual work (and that was probably Spirit, and this should end with them out of business for sure), it says Boeing on the certificate... They're responsible for condition of the aircraft at time of delivery.  It's their choice to contract work out or not, which work to contract out, and how much oversight to exercise over that work.  Clearly, they chose poorly.

And regarding MELs... Just about anything on an airplane can be MEL'd, just possibly with restrictions.  I'll tell you one thing that CAN'T be MEL'd (on my plane): all four coffee makers.  That's a refusal.  But, quadruple redundancy.  That's more redundancy than just about anything else on the airplane.  There was a time when Boeing knew what was important...  😁

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

all four coffee makers.  That's a refusal.  But, quadruple redundancy.

Well, as long as there's at least one functioning coffee maker, the flight crew can keep swigging multiple cups of coffee. That will prevent them from being timed out while waiting on engineering to complete a repair. That's how FTL works, right? 🙃

11 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I would say it's on Boeing.  Whoever did the actual work (and that was probably Spirit, and this should end with them out of business for sure), it says Boeing on the certificate... 

Spirit Aerospace build the fuselages and deliver them with the plugs installed to Boeing. During final assembly Boeing employees remove the plugs to facilitate installation of seats and other interior. Plugs are re-installed at the end of this process.

It’s all points strongly to shoddy workmanship and QA at Boeing.

17 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

If the autopilot is MELed the aircraft cannot be flown in RVSM airspace, which means flights have to be conducted below FL290. “Old school” pilots would probably have no problem hand-flying an entire trip - “children of the magenta line” less so.

Flights with an inop APU or one inop pack are quite common. An inop display unit is usually permitted, but it may have to be moved to a specific position in the panel (typically the copilot’s MFD). 

Reference bolded quote. When training on the B727 and discussing the MEL with regard to inop packs, our instructor related an old airline incident where somehow the baggage handlers or those in charge of them were not advised of this in relation to the aircraft they were loading and as a consequence a caged and sedated dog was loaded in the forward hold for the several hour flight. With one pack inop there was no heating available to the forward hold and unfortunately poor old doggo didn't make it. After this event, I think the B727 was referred to by baggage handlers as the 'puppy snuffer' but this occurred all back in the late 70's and 80's so I'm not sure how true to life the story was. In any case, it was a salutary lesson. Whenever we had live or do not freeze (DNF) science cargo aboard, our checklist always took that extra step to ensure the Captain was aware and that the packs were serviceable before flight and which hold said freight was in. We didn't experience inop packs that often (we only had the two B727's, a larger fleet would see more of this type of MEL's on the tarmac in any given period), but enough for it to become an HQ issue if the dots joined up.