Go to ground.news/mentour to get worldwide coverage on Boeing, aviation safety and more. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.
While Boeing isn't responsible for manufacturing this improperly assembled part, any reasonable jet airliner pilot would find the recommendation of using maximum force to overcome a stuck rudder, whether in flight or on the ground, is irresponsible at best and leaves you wondering if there's anyone left at Boeing who knows how their aircraft is supposed to fly or how to safely handle the flight control surfaces without breaking them. This made me remember the AA587 crash right after 9/11 when the pilot flying an Airbus A300 over stressed the rudder and broke off the vertical stabilizer while running into wake turbulence soon after takeoff. Imagine what might happen if you followed Boeing's recommendation while in flight and it broke past whatever limiters, physical or software protection, they have on rudder movement in flight...
@@Hansalicious You mean (GASP!) follows actual science instead of being mindlessly stuck in the "stone age/racism was best let's return to it" mindset?
What else are they supposed to use, harsh language? If you are landing, with a defective part, and it sticks you do what you have to do. It's up to the airlines now to replace the defective part.
As an engineer, I can see "Just kick it hard enough to make it work again" as a very typical engineering solution, it's almost funny. As someone who might be flying on that plane, however, I find it a lot less amusing.
Yes. I too am an engineer. IMHO brute force doesnt really solve issues, sometimes it make the original issue worse, or creates a new problem (like in this case overstressing the cable linkages).
@@AnotherPointOfView944 I was visiting a factory two weeks ago because they had some blockage in their system and the local engineer's first thought had been to cut the pipes open and wash it with a water jet, before welding it back together. While not always productive, 9 out of 10 engineers try brute force first before asking questions; especially the field engineers. It's like software engineers always suggesting rebooting and reinstalling first. It's just a lot less amusing 35000 ft above ground.
I am old enough to remember my grandpa's black and white TV. The picture on it will become bad, and the solution was to give the TV some beating. And depending on what went wrong, we knew where to hit it. But if you think about it, this was a vacuum tube TV, and when they heated up, some of the connectors got dislodged and lost connection. Hitting it correctly would make the vacuum tube fall correctly into their connectors and things will work.
@@gerhardma4687 Plenty of more serious incidents have been covered on this channel where maintenance or flight crews ignored this sort of issue, I get it’s their job but I don’t take it for granted
@@aycc-nbh7289 There are companies that only fly Airbus, while ofc there is a minor chance you will have to fly another company's airplane, but that is too rare, the combined chances that you're both being put in this situation and it will be a crashing Boeing plane, should be less probable than the airbus just crashing in the first place.
It’s not ruined. This wasn’t even a Boeing design issue. Only sensationalist media makes it seem like it has. The MCAS crashes were not an engineering failure. Minor problems like this rudder issue will always arise in a plane with this many variations.
the 737 was a great plane one of the most if not the most sucessfull narrow body airliner it has a very sucessfull career but ultimately it was a 1966 plane that had been re engine and re work to many times from the orginal design the last gen before the max the 737-800ng really was the last variant boeing should have made using the 737 design even that model had to make do with a oval shape engine due to ground clearance issue and the orginal frame have been strecth beyond what was ever inteded for the airframe the max was really just asking to much from the design boeing should have done a ground rebuild like there 787.
Not sure NTSB was totally down with United having taken a 45-tonne aircraft on a test flight to investigate a potentially catastrophic flight control failure BEFORE getting in touch.
@@Steve211UcdhihifvshiAnd yet history is littered with the bodies of people who died in tragedies caused by companies who didn't do this. Nothing wrong with praising companies for continuing to put safety first when that isn't always a guarantee. The bar _should_ be higher without a doubt, but that's just not always the world we live in. After all if the minimum were actually that high we wouldn't have had multiple 737 MAX's suffer horrifying failures with nobody in prison over it...
Actually, Cat IIIC does exist. I took an AA DC-10 flight to London Gatwick many years ago -- looking out the window over the wing, the fog was so thick you could not even see the engine pylon! There was maybe 5 feet of visibility. Smooooth landing, of course -- it was all autopilot. And then we stopped. And waited. Right on the runway, in the fog! Finally we taxied slowly to the gate. Later I stuck my head in the cockpit and asked the pilot if it was dangerous, us stopping on the runway like that, in thick fog. "No", he said. They couldn't see a darn thing, and had to wait for a guide truck with flashing yellow lights to come out and we followed it to the fog-hidden terminal. But there was no danger of another plane landing and hitting us, he said, because we were the only flight right now capable of landing in Cat 3C conditions! No other flights were coming in. He added, "Most airlines do not equip all of their fleet with Cat3C autolanding capability -- the avionics package for it is about a $2 million dollar option. So not every commercial aircraft is equipped with it."
It could be that they were CAT3A. Reason being some types can be certified to no decision height which means they can land without seeing a single light. They still need 75 meters vis (about 250 feet) but that really is nearly nothing and then the vis changes to basically 0 meters after shooting the approach. Im not saying they were not CAT3C but not necessarily .
I am shocked that "disabling" a system means leaving it inside, deactivated but still connected to a "live", and critical system! That is bad, bad engineering.
Not as unusual as you might think, and usual comes down to cost. It is significantly cheaper to have a single assembly line than modify it for a specific model. The fact you are shocked shows how little about engineering you know.
"Disable" means to render unable to act, which doesn't necessarily mean removal. Doing it this way is a very common practice in basically every industry, not just in aviation. Note that, as far as I'm aware, the NTSB is not recommending that disabled equipment be removed from aircraft, only faulty equipment and in that case weather or not the equipment is disabled isn't taken into consideration
This is a heritage from McDonell-Douglas. In the 1990's SAS received a batch of airplanes with a thrust reduction system dormant in the airplane, but SAS didn't know it was there. The TRS was a contributor to the SAS751 crash in Gottröra.
@@SirReginaldBumquistIII If you see humour in wryness, look inside you. Boeing have clearly NOT taken their failings to heart, we have seen no change, and so a shake-up from outside is necessary. A swift kick of memorable and monumental proportions, to remind all large corporations that public safety comes first.
Kinda logical if you think of it KLM is an European company they will opt for Airbus (France, European) over Boeing (USA) except when Boeing can demonstrate it's safer and cheaper. After all it's a business.
@@randar1969, but Boeing CANNOT demonstrate that it is safe. Maybe Europeans may buy "local," but the Dutch are known as money pinchers and will go very often for the cheapest, but not at the cost of safety, which US companies do not care about. It is so money-blindly driven that they continue to support this aviation business.
@@randar1969wrong. Ryan Air being European uses an all Boeing fleet… Fleets in Asia use a lot of Boeing planes too. Please don’t spit out false claims to support a rhetoric that European favor Airbus. KLM is replacing its short haul fleet with A320’s but has still ordered more 777X and 787 Dreamliners into their long haul fleets..
@@kimjong-un464 What did they say that is untrue? KLM is eventually swapping out all 42 of their 737s. They are also retiring their 777-200's with A350-1000. My guess is with the delays in the 777x, KLM will never order another 777.
@@randar1969 You people think of everything in political terms don't you? How much more evidence do you need that it's a complete joke to choose Boeing's new planes, no matter where the Airline is based.
I am a former Boeing employee and their practices at the time I was there were so bad. They literally used scrap parts from a bin to finish the project quick enough The worst thing is that those planes are flying right now somewhere in the world.
I'm a present Boeing employee, and I keep scrap parts away from the production line now. We have several employees walking the floor every day and bring me the parts of dubious provenance to research and scrap if needed. But I agree with you, that should have been implemented from the very start. I'm actually sure some form of this existed until the greedy C-suite did away with QA. greed has killed this Engineering company. And no-one does anything. Where are the federal watchdogs? Oh, wait, Reagan defunded them.
@@ClarencegHammAre you sure? Most people may be looking for other things in flights, especially since they may not necessarily be paying the bills and they may be forced onto Boeing planes if there are last-minute equipment changes.
Hi Markov - thanks! Could you and take this and Rene Fuller's comment beloe to NTSB? @renefuller9241 3 months ago I'm a present Boeing employee, and I keep scrap parts away from the production line now. We have several employees walking the floor every day and bring me the parts of dubious provenance to research and scrap if needed. But I agree with you, that should have been implemented from the very start. I'm actually sure some form of this existed until the greedy C-suite did away with QA. greed has killed this Engineering company. And no-one does anything. Where are the federal watchdogs? Oh, wait, Reagan defunded them.
I already subscribed to Ground News from another creator, but I've been very happy with them. They seem to be a much better sponsor than some other help ones....
"disable this optional system" for flight control systems shouldn't result in parts being left over - if only because the airline's maintenance procedures aren't going to account for the part existing. If it hadn't been moisture ingress after only a few years, in twenty years these things would be seizing up with congealed bearing grease because they haven't been maintained.
That's not really how maintenance works. When a mechanic goes to print out a manual, they have to select the exact tail number so that those instructions match the configuration of that aircraft. I do it all the time and I see entire manual sections that are grayed out after selecting an aircraft because they are for non-applicable hardware. For example my regular aircraft lack air stairs, so any air star references will be cut out of my manuals. Because these air craft have that actuator installed and disabled, there will be references for handling an installed and disabled actuator in the manuals, and regular maintenance will be scheduled by the computer systems.
Adding an optional component to a system often requires dozens of other parts. So, removing a single part wouldn't be the same as restoring the system to what would be the configuration without the option. If some parts involved are structural or large enough to require removing a section of skin, that rework might be expected to be expensive and to introduce a higher risk of failure. There's also the question of what configurations were flight tested during certification and I am guessing that the one part being removed wouldn't have been tested in flight for many reasons.
Ah poor 737, entered service during the 1960s , stretched, re winged, re engined & upgraded to death... For how long can it be milked until a new airframe be developed ? Systems old and new slapped together creating a nightmare for fabricators and maintainers alike ...
You make it sound like Trigger's broom from Only Fools And Horses Explainer if you haven't seen it: There’s a great gag from an episode of Only Fools and Horses where street sweeper Trigger has been rewarded by his local council for using the same broom for 20 years. “This old broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.”
The thing is the embodiment of corporate cost-cutting. It's actually quite hideous to look at. Old fashioned front end. Flat-bottomed engines. No landing gear doors. Gaudy double winglets.
It was working great for Boeing until the max. If Boeing didn’t screw up the design of mcas, I think we would all be praising Boeing for keeping such a classic airplane in service.
I can understand why Air Italy wanted IIIB, you definitely need that at Milan Linate because of the fog there. I arrived there one evening some years ago and it was so foggy the bus to the terminal got lost and had to be "talked down" by the tower.
The lack of clarity over this rudder problem prompted me to de-board a flight earlier this year (2024). They seemed to appreciate my concern (as an investigative journalist specialising in health & safety and its regulation). Another truly great analysis, Mentour.
For me it's not the fact there's problems with components, these things are designed and built by people and there's always going to be mistakes, flaws and failures. It's the poor response by Boeing or lack of response entirely, they don't seem to take these issues seriously enough or have any urgency and when they do eventually publish guidance it's poor and not safe. They are their own worst enemy and simply need to do better.
Boeing needs complete shaking up and down of its management. Recommending solution which can just increase danger tells managers doing decisions haven't earned single penny of their salaries. Hard to see any situation in which it would be good idea to do something, which could cause rudder to suddenly move as much as it can...
They don't care. People will still fly in their planes and they will still gain money. Why would they care if money is still coming? That's the reality of big companies.
Couldn't agree more. As a former QA Manager I can see a systemic, rather than specific, problem. They need to revamp the entire operation and organizational culture.
"when they do eventually publish guidance it's poor and not safe". At the very least for this particular issue there ISN'T any more guidance other than "Check parts and replace if found defecttive. If shit goes sideways mid flight use brute force"
I am an old fan, and though I was involved in aviation for the largest part of my life, it was not as a pilot. Yet I am addicted to you channel for its brilliance, deep research, brilliant scripting and delivery. This was a classic, and like all of them the explanation was made understandable even to an 8o year old! Thank you
What a tribute to the training and professionalism of the pilots of United. No one in the cabin was even aware of the problem and the tracking showed little to no deviation from the centerline of the runway. Wow.
Hats off the United Airlines maintenance team for not whipping this and signing it off. They held their ground and didn’t release the plane back into service without a solid fix.
Jeez, what else would maintenance do but ground the aircraft? Anything ATA 27 is always taken very seriously by maintenance. More seriously than production it seems.
Thanks Petter, best description I have seen of this issue. (As a retired 737 captain with around 27k hours total, I didn’t know the full story until watching your video.) And yes, I’d still fly the Max in a heartbeat. All the same, Boeing have a very big hole to dig themselves out of, which is a real pity.
Many years ago I was on a delayed flight that landed at Heathrow airport in THICK fog, so thick that as the plane came to a halt, the pilot informed us it was a fully automated landing and that he had to wait for a ground vehicle with a "FOLLOW ME" board to come out to us and guide us off the runway and to the terminal gate. It was back in the 1990s but it sounds like a CATIIIC landing based on your description.
Every single arrival in that foggy time did the same thing. And there are many days each year where the weather is like that. So, there are thousands of people "who were on that flight".
Your flight could have been on a British European Airways De Haviland / Hawker Siddeley Trident. They were operating CATIIIc into Heathrow in the late sixties. At that time no other airline had the operational capability.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the basic issue with the 737 Max. This was not just a new variant of the 737 series, it was a totally new aircraft that was dressed up to look like a 737 to save a huge amount time and money getting the aircraft certifications done... The FAA was fully aware of that but given that it is filled with former Boeing employees, accepted the reduced certification process. The 737 Max needs to be re-certified as a new aircraft for it to be safe, the failings will mostly get found in that process because it forces Boeing to do the FULL testing work.
Here in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, the St. John's International Airport was upgraded with special fog equipment because too many days of foggy weather were closing the airport. I'm sure there are several Cat3C landings here every month.
Landed in a condition similar to what you described in 13:52 in Delhi during winters when it was foggy to the point where we could not even see the engine cowling outside the windows
I really like that you make sure to separate the "myths" going around about incidents like this and to refute the ones that are either not true or just not connected to these current issues.
Also the 787 made to the newspapers again because of a criminal investigation conducted by the Italian authorities on two subcontractors of Leonardo, which produces parts for the 787. Apparently, they were using substandard materials that resulted in parts with reduced mechanical strength. The authorities say that more than 4000 spare parts worldwide could be involved.
I still refuse to fly on any Boeing Max plane, but will say this video was very insightful and offered way more context than what I’ve heard before about this incident. Keep up the great work! 👍
I graduated with an engineering degree 20 yrs ago. Boeing was considered a great place to work back then, it had that reputation of being an “engineers company”. So sad to see what it’s become.
The positive thing is the problems are no longer beeing hidden like before. Mistakes are possible, but pretending it's all no problem is the major issue.
And exactly how do you know problems are not being hidden? I am a retired airline mechanic and I could tell you tales that might make you give up flying.
Tbf, it is hard to spot a manufacturing problem, if you are not aware of any faults. I'm more annoyed at the airlines that noticed the problem a couple of years ago and somehow neglected to notify the rest of the world.
Tbf, it is hard to spot a manufacturing problem, if you are not aware of any faults. I'm more annoyed at the airlines that noticed the problem a couple of years ago and somehow neglected to notify the rest of the world.
I recently flew on the Lufthansa 747 from Seoul to Frankfurt, it was an amazing experience to fly on the queen of the skies. It reminds me of how good Boeing can be, I really hope that they can return to how they used to be. I want to confidently say again in future "If it aint Boeing I aint going."
I love the 747. I love riding in them. As an old retired mechanic, I always liked Boeing, 40yrs. . This rudder failure really bothered me. The plug door, not so much. MCAS, absolutely should never have happened.
A whole new channel to launch ?!.. 🤩Can't wait to see it ! Petter is going to become the most powerful aviation blogger across UA-cam (not mentioning a successful prior pilot career). Bravo and godspeed! 🙏
Hi Mentour! I’m not sure about the FAA regulations, but for EASA the subdivision of CAT III into a, b and c does not exist anymore. All charts Low Vis minima are now just CAT III. The difference lies now in capability of the aircraft and company/ pilot certification. The minima will read: Company- followed by an RVR value depending on the airport/ state (usually between 175 and down to 75m RVR). In my company we subdivide CAT III approaches in CAT III with DH or without DH. With DH (at our company 50ft) can be flown with a fail passive system (single auto pilot, or CAT III single as Airbus likes to call it) and with minimum RVR of 175m. CAT III with no DH, has the minima af 0ft and minimum RVR of 75m and requires the aircraft to be CAT III Dual. (Fail operational, 2 autopilots active).
after hearing that boeing engineers have said they would never fly on the planes because they saw how production was done on them recently... that's telling something real awful. I inadvertedly went checking for family and friends' flights too to be airbus instead of boeing, I lost that much trust in them. corporate greed took over truly, instead of wanting to bring something remarkable to aviation.
Some airline pilots feel the same way... Have a family member that's a 20+ yr pilot for a major airline and he won't fly anything Boeing (Airbus only) as a choice.
@@t.n.-js6ei Crazy! The people involved in management must be well aware that it could also be their family or someone close to them riding on a Boeing, right? They have to be aware...
@@WHJeffByeah is true, all my classmates have finished flight training and those who decided to pay for a type rating all of them are paying for an Airbus type rating. No one wants to fly Boeing 😂 We might have to fly a Boeing because beggars cant be choosers (it’s difficult to get a job with no experience) but no one wants it as a first option.
It‘s interesting to see that once again a disabled extra feature is causing unexpected trouble. Although the door plug is a completely different structure or component it is in a way connected. It shows that an application which is not regularly used may show a surprising behaviour at a random moment and no checklist exists which would offer the flightcrew a guideline to deal with it. In a way this is also applicable to the MCAS case as it was also a hidden feature at the time. Only equipment with an actual use should be installed on an aircraft. Then it is regularly used and maintained and a failure may become visible quicker and in a controlled environment.
@@paulholmes672 You are right, Boeing seems to have little to do with any of their aircraft anymore since it is usually their subcontractors who produce all the shoddy work. But it is Boeing getting the credit when it works, Boeing who earn the dollars and Boeing who are responsible to make sure that everything fits together. Which they clearly don't...or at least didn't in the past few years.
What a great narrator and story teller. This guy could describe washing dishes and make it seem interesting. So when the topic is aviation, he makes every story a worthwhile adventure.
Thanks for everything sir. I could take you as a speaker in any of the other podcasts vlogs I listen to. I suffer from stress and anxiety and you have a very calming effect on me. You are simply excellent!
I am an aerospace actuator test engineer. I can see why this kind of moisture ingress issue from assembly is hard to get caught during the actuator production. Environmental testing and waterproofness testing are only being done during the qualification phase of the actuator. There’s no practical method to conduct this kind of test on every actuator during the production acceptance test. The only way to make sure the part is assembled right is solely depends on QC during the assembly process. We could caught any hydraulic seal leaks internally or externally by testing. But you have to take the unit apart to check water ingress from environmental seal. Or purposefully add a moisture sensor into the unit when designing the actuator which is rather rare.
Could Collins not also have used a bearing that is sealed on both sides, since it's apparently possible to install it upside-down, so as not to rely so much on the case staying sealed? That seems like almost a design flaw, or a lack of redundancy where it could help and not cost a lot.
You can do an air pressure test. Even though water tight isnt always air tight, youll know the back pressure/leak flow of a good part and bad parts. Still the better way would be inspection of the seals before final assembly. I designed one years ago that used light beams to check seals were installed and oriented correctly on a piston, pretty straightforward.
As an outside observer without piloting experience (I'm going into the medical field) this really feels like Boeing had to go out of their way to make these mistakes. I thought the boeing 737 was a stable flying platform before the "upgrades" yet somehow in the span of a few years it seems like they somehow have gone straight backwards via their QC elimination tactics and top-heavy, business-first MBA focus that has resulted in embarrassment after embarrassment. MBAs have no business making engineering/piloting impacting decisions. Boeing is now a perfect example of this.
My brother in law is a pilot for a major airline and he flies only Airbus planes. Not a fan of anything Boeing, considering he has nearly 24yrs of flight experience, this holds a lot of weight.
@@ChrisDied Context? different fields have different skillsets and preconceptions, my guy. Somebody whose a mechanic thinks differently then someone who is a doctor.
In the '50s, in a Canberra's fast climb test fligth, Roland Beamont had a similar issue with the ailerons. It's related on his great book: "Testing Early Jets". Greetings from Patagonia, Argentina ! 🇦🇷
RGAs always has problems. As i remember i replaced 3 of them so far. But they generates fault codes before a complete jam. Also at installation a lot of sealant use required iaw AMM. So i am a little bit confused. Some info needs to be clear out.. thank U😊
The 787 and older 777 were built when Boeing was good. Look at the problems they are having with the 777X though. It's not an aircraft thing, it's a modern Boeing thing
@@mattevans4377 To be completely fair to boeing the extra info i've heard on the 777X issue indicates the fault is with general electric and the data they provided to Boeing for designing the thrust links. There's apparently an issue with excessive flexing in the engine itself which is generating cyclic load rates well above what boeing were expecting based on the info they were given. I haven't been able to confirm the info i saw, so apply some salt till we get an official confirmation. but if acurratte thats not on boeing in the slightest, they did everything right.
Thank you Petter and the team for continuing to adhere to high quality informative and factual reporting. I have 100% confidence in relaying information from Mentour Pilot.
Wow, the moment when the captain realized the rudder pedals were stuck must have been terrifying. His quick thinking to use the nose wheel tiller shows incredible skill and calm under pressure. It’s astonishing how such a small malfunction, like the rollout guidance actuator freezing, can escalate so fast and impact the entire aircraft's control system. This really highlights the importance of thorough inspections and rapid responses. Great explanation of a complex incident!
May I thank and be amazed by the bravery of the pilots (test pilots?) who took the problem aircraft airborne again to recreate the situation, which then was recreated, taking on personal risk to make flying safer for everybody? I have the utmost respect for pilots in general, and test pilots I just absolutely think the world of. I don't know how they do it, I don't know what kind of personality it takes to do what they do.
We had exactly the same situation many years ago at BA back in the day. G-BGJI is the aircraft I worked on which went out of control on a test flight. The rudder was the chief suspect and they sent it back up to try and get it to act up again. Nuts.
@@nimedave I thought of that incident right away. The new situation was nowhere near as dangerous, but stepping into an aircraft you *know* is defective is incredible.
@@Larry-mk9ry I don't believe they're testing spin-recovery on those airplanes. There are spin states that are expected to end in a "lithobraking maneuver", no matter what the pilot does.
yeah, I can see where jumping on the rudder pedal while rolling at high speed is probably not the best idea. but it leaves me wondering, how many landings are done with no rudder input? it seems to me like getting all the way to the ground before realizing the rudder was stuck would be unusual.
@@kenbrown2808 My understanding is that the rudder was not stuck. The pedals were stuck. Until autopilot was disengaged, the pilot flying was not attempting any rudder pedal inputs.
@slartybarfastb3648 yes, and how common is it to land without any pedal inputs? Addendum: I'm asking because it sounds to me like if it is less than a cat 3b landing, the pilot has hands and feet on the controls, and i would think the conditions where the plane would align perfectly with no rudder input would be uncommon.
If I remember correctly, didn’t the old 747 have a rudder problem as well, if memory serves correctly (although I am getting older now 😅) they corrected it by putting a block in the way, to prevent it from to far over
Wow! Thank you, sir, for this video. Reminds me, despite the differences, of the rudder issue that affected Eastwind Airlines - which you referenced. Thank you for the posting. Ugh! I think that reference makes me feel old.
Yes, I still remember the first few Boeing videos where Petter was still super in denial about the severe problems in Boeing's safety culture that were already emerging. I understand that emotion can bias anyone's perception though and it's good that he has come around in light of overwhelming evidence.
The weird thing is rudder hard over has always been an issue on boeing planes. In fact, in response to quite a few dangerous emergencies involving the 747-400, they found the PCU controlling the rudder was inexplicably vulnerable to fatigue cracks. While they built in a failsafe system to neutralise the possibility of a hardover, they couldn't determine what caused the cracks to happen so readily.
I got an ad from a pilot supplies shop this morning advertising 2025 Boeing Calendars. They will of course be delivered in 2029, some pages will fall out, and it will come with 9 extra months...
The idea that you should basically just twat the rudder pedal really hard to unjam the part is certainly less than ideal. I should imagine the rudder system's components are fairly robust, but doing that is hardly going to do the rest of the components any favours.
10:55 I just realized that recreating the look of a computer screen being recorded with a camera in a room is now a symbol of computer-based investigation and authenticity in documentaries, and I'm not sure how to feel about it.
Sounds like what they call a russian doll. That camera can be tampered with, so you have to install yet another camera and screen. Rinse and repeat... cheers! / CS
I haven't watched this yet. But I'm beginning to think that anything found on a 737 is now a major issue according to the press and non-aviation types. The thing is that it's Boeing's fault for being in this mess. I know in manufacturing QC you never want to to many failures in a row because it results in a microscope effect and everything you do is now magnified. NOW, I'll watch this video and hope that it's not as bad as the headlines make it out to be. ADDED after watching whole vid.....Yeah, applying maximum force during any part of a stabilized approach or Take-off is to say the least NOT my best option, and that's being very kind with the wording....
How about applying the following test to this piece of news. Were it to be discovered that Airbus has produced multiple airplanes that have a defective part that can cause the plane's rudder to be stuck, with the potential of causing the plane to exit the runway at high speed on landing, would you consider that newsworthy? If so, should it not be newsworthy even in case of Boeing?
There's a reason why my now favorite airline uses all airbus a320 fleet. Sure, accidents can happen with them too, but at least not because some greedy bean counters in Virginia or Chicago wanting more yearly bonus.
@yourbuddy6556 Just on a completely objective note: the A320 family in the 2020s is a better aircraft. One pilot rating from 319 to the XLR. CEO+NEO. Bigger cargo hold. Less noise. and so far, better quality control. It's just objective data... the downside is a long waiting queue to get the machines
I think the fact that you have to start with ‘no, no that rudder problem you’ve already heard of, another one’ says a lot 😬🫣 Boeing really has turned into a bit of a basket case recently, perhaps their staff being on strike and not knocking out new aircraft will temporarily raise the safety average! 😬
This happened on my United flight last August. Pilot came on the intercom and said the rudder pedal was stuck and this was the first time he ever encountered this issue. Thankfully this was noticed before we took off and we deplaned. Good work Boeing!
I love it, Petter that you are always open to closing gaps in your knowledge and to learning from others. I'm thinking about 13:50 to 14:00 in this video where you invite input from other people. I honour your humility. Thanks for two great channels!
As a retired major airline captain who retired in 1994 after flying for 9 years between US and various EU airports, I am amazed you would state that CAT 3 Charlie does not happen routinely. Perhaps not in 737s, but I personally have made numerous such landings in the B767, which has 3 autopilots, all of which must be connected in order to start the approach. On many of these landings the centerline lights became visible only after the nose was automatically lowered by the autopilots. On one of these landings at Geneva we did, as you mentioned, have to request a follow-me truck guide us off the runway and to the gate. But a well trained crew, while totally concentrating on the approach, does not at all feel scared or terrified as you implied. On these landings the rudder pedals were not usable until the auto pilot was disengaged.
While the NTSB wants Boeing to do more, we have to understand that Boing has a rather complex decision tree they refer to before taking any action. Let me see if I can lay it out for you…. When an incident is reported: 1) Was it USA based or a foreign country? a) If foreign - ignore it and give the CEO a bonus. b) If USA - was it reported in the media? i) if no - ignore it and give the CEO a bonus ii) If yes activate the lobbyists and media relations to say the problem is being looked into. Activate the lawyers to see if any sub-suppliers can be blamed. When a near miss occurs: 1) Same as above When an accident occurs: 1) Was anyone killed? a) If no - treat as a near miss and give the CEO a bonus. b) If yes - were they a third world country or first or second world country? ii) If third world was it the first time? a) If yes treat as a near miss and give the CEO a bonus b) if no, offer all the victims families $100 to forgo the right to sue and then go to first or second world accident. c) if it was a first or second world country i) activate the lobbyist and PR group ii) start working to dampen and neutralize any FAA recommendations iii) Start making lowball offers to victims families to reduce lawsuits as much as possible. iv) Start preparing CEO’s resignation letter and negotiating a generous leaving pay package. v) look at sub-suppliers to see who can be blamed. Did I miss something?
Yes. The above scenarios have been shortened and replaced with the following: For a reported incident: Blame Trump For a near miss: Blame China For accidents: Blame Russia. Allow FBI to investigate it. Whistleblowers "dismissed". Bailout monies approved. No bonus withholding allowed. Increase DEI hiring/Wokeness to deflect future blame. Carry on. Apply above to all Boeing Air/Space/Military/Government divisions. Carry on.
....about 40 years ago had a friend that worked at Boeing as a jig-maker. He told me that, because of the initial design, there were 4 major bolts that held the vertical stabilizer of a 737 on, and that once in place, you couldn't get to one of those four bolts, and that they just shipped them with three. I'm not an engineer, but, it always seemed odd to me that they couldn't engineer a way out of that situation..... just a thought......................
I’m flying on the Max tomorrow. I feel safe by the NTSB and worrisome about Boeing at the same time. Boeing really needs to change their attitude and actually put safety back on top of the list above all else.
They need to pay their employees more than 28$ an hour. When I read that a Union member installing wings on 737 is making 28$ an hour I almost 💩 myself. Amazing that the directors and management make hindreds of thousands a year and the most important jobs get little. Sad company Boeing. Recently flew on A380. Beautiful plane
I would love it if you did an episode about the 'tin can' rudder issues that took 427 down! I lived within a half hour of that crash and it's what started my fascination with aircraft accidents and incidents and the process of discovering the issues and rectifying them. I attended the public memorial service and my next door neighbor was the chaplain for the workers on the site.
I feel the media is a bit harsh on Boeing...but to be fair to the media, Boeing unfortunately brought the magnifying glass on themselves with the failures of the MAX and MCAS. Had those failures not ended in hundreds of deaths, I don't imagine the media really going all in on any new story that developed with the 737. It's a shame, the 737 is an amazing aircraft and a storied one for Boeing. But as the saying goes...you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become to villian. And the 737 has certainly seem itself become a villian, through years of new variants of the type...
Are they really? I think it is not even barely enough how they are treated. A design flaw can happen everybody is human but first to deliberately lie to the authoritiesfor years in itself should be a criminal charge also for the person doing the decisions even without anybody ending up dead. And then having not a functional quality insprection, no recording what so ever should result in a complete shutdown.
Boohoo media too harsh on boeing... Facts say boeing deliberately made the decision to cut corners and put their profit first, over your safety. Your moral compass needs urgent recalibrating
Crazy advice to use force while the aircraft is moving. If done at the wrong time and/or the rudder re-freezes in a deflected position, then you are stuffed. I didn't remember the hard-over issues from the 90s, that you mentioned. Amazing as the 707 suffered rudder hard-overs in the 1960s!
I wish I could find the reference to a statement Boeing management made to the engineers: there is nothing inherently special about an aircraft. You’re making toasters, a commodity product. I wonder if Amazon removed it from the book I have on it.
I guess today, it is more of a legacy mode, not that often used anymore due to safety restrictions. In an emergency, no reason to let the autopilot do the landing after touchdown.
If you really needed to. The rules go out of the windows in an emergency. If you had justify your actions at the board of enquiry, then anything goes. Capt A350
The answer to your question is no. This is a routine approach to airports that are certified for Cat3 approaches, and has been in use long before I retired from a major USA airline in 1994. The autopilots are truly amazing. When the nose of the aircraft is lowered by the autopilots (3 were required on the B767) the left wheel of the nose gear would be on the left of the painted yellow centerline, and the right wheel on the right side of the paint.
Everything's fine. Although planes don't have parachutes, the executives who crashed Boeing have big golden parachutes and will be largely compensated for their mistakes.
I had something similar happen to me in an airplane without this part. During landing (I can't remember if I was PF or the FO, with no tiller) we noticed the plane wasn't turning at all at low speed using the rudder pedals and I had to take the high speed exit using the tiller. Other than the surprise of it, at the last moment it wasn't a big deal to be honest, my instinct was to grab the tiller inmediately. The pedals were moving but the plane did nothing at low speeds. There is even a MEL item for this where you steer the plane on takeoff and landing using the tiller only. I was amazed when the engineers managed to fix it in like 15 minutes just doing some tests in the E&E bay. By the way CAT III A, B and C doesn't exist anymore. Now we only have CAT III with different DH/RVR requirements. Nice video, I wasn't aware of the details about this latest problem.
So you say that during a landing you "can't remember if I was PF or the FO, with no tiller", then say "I had to take the high speed exit using the tiller" in the same sentence? lol Nice try, Cap'n Crunch.
#1 objective for major complex r&d project was cutting costs as much as possible. Then everyone can act surprised when fucking around phase has ended and finding out phase is ongoing.
"No one sitting behind the pilots noticed anything" - good job pilots! It is very reassuring to see training and professionalism work as they should. Especially when Boeing is not... Although... The "fix" being "just kick it very hard" is rather caveman of them... Not what I expect from a modern aviation company.
Go to ground.news/mentour to get worldwide coverage on Boeing, aviation safety and more. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.
Let us get back to Boeing 747s (long distance) and DC3s (medium and short distance) and some Airbuses and all these problems will never arise again.
How hard would it be to test rudder authority during turns to intercept the approach course?
While Boeing isn't responsible for manufacturing this improperly assembled part, any reasonable jet airliner pilot would find the recommendation of using maximum force to overcome a stuck rudder, whether in flight or on the ground, is irresponsible at best and leaves you wondering if there's anyone left at Boeing who knows how their aircraft is supposed to fly or how to safely handle the flight control surfaces without breaking them. This made me remember the AA587 crash right after 9/11 when the pilot flying an Airbus A300 over stressed the rudder and broke off the vertical stabilizer while running into wake turbulence soon after takeoff. Imagine what might happen if you followed Boeing's recommendation while in flight and it broke past whatever limiters, physical or software protection, they have on rudder movement in flight...
What are your thoughts in this causing a similar issue as the MD-80 rudder incident?
@@Hansalicious You mean (GASP!) follows actual science instead of being mindlessly stuck in the "stone age/racism was best let's return to it" mindset?
"If critical systems fail during landing, just use brute force."
Thank you boeing, you never cease to entertain.
The second part is even more interesting: "if brute force does not help, you're screwed. 'Boeing' is the sound the aicraft will make on contact"
What else are they supposed to use, harsh language? If you are landing, with a defective part, and it sticks you do what you have to do. It's up to the airlines now to replace the defective part.
Someday they will actually try and nake broken planes as a joke and it will be the only one without flaws.
Disgraceful behaviour once again from Boeing!!!
@@jeromethiel4323erm.. perhaps investigate why??????
As an engineer, I can see "Just kick it hard enough to make it work again" as a very typical engineering solution, it's almost funny. As someone who might be flying on that plane, however, I find it a lot less amusing.
Yes. I too am an engineer.
IMHO brute force doesnt really solve issues, sometimes it make the original issue worse, or creates a new problem (like in this case overstressing the cable linkages).
@@AnotherPointOfView944 I was visiting a factory two weeks ago because they had some blockage in their system and the local engineer's first thought had been to cut the pipes open and wash it with a water jet, before welding it back together. While not always productive, 9 out of 10 engineers try brute force first before asking questions; especially the field engineers. It's like software engineers always suggesting rebooting and reinstalling first. It's just a lot less amusing 35000 ft above ground.
I am old enough to remember my grandpa's black and white TV. The picture on it will become bad, and the solution was to give the TV some beating. And depending on what went wrong, we knew where to hit it.
But if you think about it, this was a vacuum tube TV, and when they heated up, some of the connectors got dislodged and lost connection. Hitting it correctly would make the vacuum tube fall correctly into their connectors and things will work.
Yeah what's the big deal, just add it to the check list..
Percussive maintenance🐸
Kudos to the flight and maintenance crews for acting on it immediately and reproducing the issue
Uhh, what else are they there for? I simply expect that when it comes to safety-related problems.
They probably attempted to reproduce the event themselves because they have no faith in Boeing addressing the issue until there's a serious incident 🤨
@@gerhardma4687 Plenty of more serious incidents have been covered on this channel where maintenance or flight crews ignored this sort of issue, I get it’s their job but I don’t take it for granted
@@gerhardma4687 you must be new here, lol
Lol think before speaking.@@gerhardma4687
i had a flight in august that was scheduled to use the max 8. Seeing us approaching an A330 instead was a huge, huge relief
Haha indeed
But what if you had a last-minute equipment change or cancellation that forced you onto the MAX 8?
@aycc-nbh7289 then he would be in exactly the same place he started in... What's your point?
@@kishc4509My point is that the aircraft our flights happen on may not be our choices.
@@aycc-nbh7289 There are companies that only fly Airbus, while ofc there is a minor chance you will have to fly another company's airplane, but that is too rare, the combined chances that you're both being put in this situation and it will be a crashing Boeing plane, should be less probable than the airbus just crashing in the first place.
It's such a shame how Boeing ruined the legacy of the 737. I'm not American nor a Boeing fan but even I feel the pain of how badly they've fallen off.
I would tend to agree. I have flown the 737 for my entire career and always enjoyed it
@MentourNow i enjoyed how you flew it as well
It’s not ruined. This wasn’t even a Boeing design issue. Only sensationalist media makes it seem like it has. The MCAS crashes were not an engineering failure. Minor problems like this rudder issue will always arise in a plane with this many variations.
the 737 was a great plane one of the most if not the most sucessfull narrow body airliner it has a very sucessfull career but ultimately it was a 1966 plane that had been re engine and re work to many times from the orginal design the last gen before the max the 737-800ng really was the last variant boeing should have made using the 737 design even that model had to make do with a oval shape engine due to ground clearance issue and the orginal frame have been strecth beyond what was ever inteded for the airframe the max was really just asking to much from the design boeing should have done a ground rebuild like there 787.
@@The_ZeroLineMCAS only using a single sensor as its data source sounds like an engineering failure to me.
Kudos to United for taking the incident seriously and quickly investigating and reporting their findings, and to the NTSB for getting the message out.
Not sure NTSB was totally down with United having taken a 45-tonne aircraft on a test flight to investigate a potentially catastrophic flight control failure BEFORE getting in touch.
?KUDOS? its their ficking responsability to do this as a bear friggin minimum.
@@Steve211UcdhihifvshiAnd yet history is littered with the bodies of people who died in tragedies caused by companies who didn't do this. Nothing wrong with praising companies for continuing to put safety first when that isn't always a guarantee. The bar _should_ be higher without a doubt, but that's just not always the world we live in. After all if the minimum were actually that high we wouldn't have had multiple 737 MAX's suffer horrifying failures with nobody in prison over it...
@@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi: bare, not bear, while you're whining about something wrong...
UAL is a serious corporation,.
Actually, Cat IIIC does exist. I took an AA DC-10 flight to London Gatwick many years ago -- looking out the window over the wing, the fog was so thick you could not even see the engine pylon! There was maybe 5 feet of visibility. Smooooth landing, of course -- it was all autopilot. And then we stopped. And waited. Right on the runway, in the fog! Finally we taxied slowly to the gate. Later I stuck my head in the cockpit and asked the pilot if it was dangerous, us stopping on the runway like that, in thick fog. "No", he said. They couldn't see a darn thing, and had to wait for a guide truck with flashing yellow lights to come out and we followed it to the fog-hidden terminal. But there was no danger of another plane landing and hitting us, he said, because we were the only flight right now capable of landing in Cat 3C conditions! No other flights were coming in. He added, "Most airlines do not equip all of their fleet with Cat3C autolanding capability -- the avionics package for it is about a $2 million dollar option. So not every commercial aircraft is equipped with it."
It makes sense to install it on planes that will often land in bri'ish "countries".
I'm glad you shared this! Good ol DC10
According to everyone I've talked to, American spared literally no expense on their DC-10s, so this doesn't surprise me.
How can the guide truck see to guide the plane when the pilots couldn't see?
It could be that they were CAT3A. Reason being some types can be certified to no decision height which means they can land without seeing a single light. They still need 75 meters vis (about 250 feet) but that really is nearly nothing and then the vis changes to basically 0 meters after shooting the approach. Im not saying they were not CAT3C but not necessarily .
I am shocked that "disabling" a system means leaving it inside, deactivated but still connected to a "live", and critical system! That is bad, bad engineering.
Not as unusual as you might think, and usual comes down to cost. It is significantly cheaper to have a single assembly line than modify it for a specific model. The fact you are shocked shows how little about engineering you know.
"Disable" means to render unable to act, which doesn't necessarily mean removal. Doing it this way is a very common practice in basically every industry, not just in aviation. Note that, as far as I'm aware, the NTSB is not recommending that disabled equipment be removed from aircraft, only faulty equipment and in that case weather or not the equipment is disabled isn't taken into consideration
This is a heritage from McDonell-Douglas. In the 1990's SAS received a batch of airplanes with a thrust reduction system dormant in the airplane, but SAS didn't know it was there. The TRS was a contributor to the SAS751 crash in Gottröra.
That's the whole meaning of disabled.
Yes, tell that to human DNA.
Good Report bad parts are always a problem.
That cure is the same as needed by Boeing. A swift kick.
install boot rubber grommet
🤣
This isn't funny at all people died
@@SirReginaldBumquistIII If you see humour in wryness, look inside you. Boeing have clearly NOT taken their failings to heart, we have seen no change, and so a shake-up from outside is necessary. A swift kick of memorable and monumental proportions, to remind all large corporations that public safety comes first.
@@JelMain a grown man giving replies like that smdh
I think KLM replacing their 737 fleet with A-320neo family aircraft is an excellent choice.
Kinda logical if you think of it KLM is an European company they will opt for Airbus (France, European) over Boeing (USA) except when Boeing can demonstrate it's safer and cheaper. After all it's a business.
@@randar1969, but Boeing CANNOT demonstrate that it is safe. Maybe Europeans may buy "local," but the Dutch are known as money pinchers and will go very often for the cheapest, but not at the cost of safety, which US companies do not care about. It is so money-blindly driven that they continue to support this aviation business.
@@randar1969wrong. Ryan Air being European uses an all Boeing fleet… Fleets in Asia use a lot of Boeing planes too. Please don’t spit out false claims to support a rhetoric that European favor Airbus. KLM is replacing its short haul fleet with A320’s but has still ordered more 777X and 787 Dreamliners into their long haul fleets..
@@kimjong-un464 What did they say that is untrue? KLM is eventually swapping out all 42 of their 737s. They are also retiring their 777-200's with A350-1000. My guess is with the delays in the 777x, KLM will never order another 777.
@@randar1969 You people think of everything in political terms don't you? How much more evidence do you need that it's a complete joke to choose Boeing's new planes, no matter where the Airline is based.
I am a former Boeing employee and their practices at the time I was there were so bad. They literally used scrap parts from a bin to finish the project quick enough The worst thing is that those planes are flying right now somewhere in the world.
I'm a present Boeing employee, and I keep scrap parts away from the production line now. We have several employees walking the floor every day and bring me the parts of dubious provenance to research and scrap if needed. But I agree with you, that should have been implemented from the very start. I'm actually sure some form of this existed until the greedy C-suite did away with QA. greed has killed this Engineering company. And no-one does anything. Where are the federal watchdogs? Oh, wait, Reagan defunded them.
Smart people don't go by boeing anyway
@@ClarencegHammAre you sure? Most people may be looking for other things in flights, especially since they may not necessarily be paying the bills and they may be forced onto Boeing planes if there are last-minute equipment changes.
Hi Markov - thanks! Could you and take this and Rene Fuller's comment beloe to NTSB?
@renefuller9241
3 months ago
I'm a present Boeing employee, and I keep scrap parts away from the production line now. We have several employees walking the floor every day and bring me the parts of dubious provenance to research and scrap if needed. But I agree with you, that should have been implemented from the very start. I'm actually sure some form of this existed until the greedy C-suite did away with QA. greed has killed this Engineering company. And no-one does anything. Where are the federal watchdogs? Oh, wait, Reagan defunded them.
Most underrated channel. Am not a flying person still periodically watch this... As the presentation and video is so much clarity ❤
Thanks!
I already subscribed to Ground News from another creator, but I've been very happy with them. They seem to be a much better sponsor than some other help ones....
Much much better. BH makes me sick.
"disable this optional system" for flight control systems shouldn't result in parts being left over - if only because the airline's maintenance procedures aren't going to account for the part existing. If it hadn't been moisture ingress after only a few years, in twenty years these things would be seizing up with congealed bearing grease because they haven't been maintained.
Ikea construction. Mind you, I just had a dust extractor from Amazon arrive, missing two screws.
That's not really how maintenance works. When a mechanic goes to print out a manual, they have to select the exact tail number so that those instructions match the configuration of that aircraft. I do it all the time and I see entire manual sections that are grayed out after selecting an aircraft because they are for non-applicable hardware. For example my regular aircraft lack air stairs, so any air star references will be cut out of my manuals. Because these air craft have that actuator installed and disabled, there will be references for handling an installed and disabled actuator in the manuals, and regular maintenance will be scheduled by the computer systems.
Adding an optional component to a system often requires dozens of other parts. So, removing a single part wouldn't be the same as restoring the system to what would be the configuration without the option. If some parts involved are structural or large enough to require removing a section of skin, that rework might be expected to be expensive and to introduce a higher risk of failure. There's also the question of what configurations were flight tested during certification and I am guessing that the one part being removed wouldn't have been tested in flight for many reasons.
@@JelMaindon’t be mean to IKEA. I’m not aware of their products killing hundreds of people.
@@Synergy7Studiosjust like how there where instructions on the use of the MCAS in the flight manu.... Oh wait.... There weren't any.
Ah poor 737, entered service during the 1960s , stretched, re winged, re engined & upgraded to death... For how long can it be milked until a new airframe be developed ? Systems old and new slapped together creating a nightmare for fabricators and maintainers alike ...
You make it sound like Trigger's broom from Only Fools And Horses
Explainer if you haven't seen it:
There’s a great gag from an episode of Only Fools and Horses where street sweeper Trigger has been rewarded by his local council for using the same broom for 20 years.
“This old broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.”
The thing is the embodiment of corporate cost-cutting. It's actually quite hideous to look at. Old fashioned front end. Flat-bottomed engines. No landing gear doors. Gaudy double winglets.
@@Rachel_M_ Which itself is a reference to theseus ship
Airframe of Theseus
It was working great for Boeing until the max. If Boeing didn’t screw up the design of mcas, I think we would all be praising Boeing for keeping such a classic airplane in service.
I can understand why Air Italy wanted IIIB, you definitely need that at Milan Linate because of the fog there. I arrived there one evening some years ago and it was so foggy the bus to the terminal got lost and had to be "talked down" by the tower.
The lack of clarity over this rudder problem prompted me to de-board a flight earlier this year (2024).
They seemed to appreciate my concern (as an investigative journalist specialising in health & safety and its regulation).
Another truly great analysis, Mentour.
For me it's not the fact there's problems with components, these things are designed and built by people and there's always going to be mistakes, flaws and failures. It's the poor response by Boeing or lack of response entirely, they don't seem to take these issues seriously enough or have any urgency and when they do eventually publish guidance it's poor and not safe. They are their own worst enemy and simply need to do better.
Ah… And the new CEO coming from Collins tells us everything we need to know… what a disgrace!!! 🤦🏻♂️
Boeing needs complete shaking up and down of its management.
Recommending solution which can just increase danger tells managers doing decisions haven't earned single penny of their salaries.
Hard to see any situation in which it would be good idea to do something, which could cause rudder to suddenly move as much as it can...
They don't care. People will still fly in their planes and they will still gain money. Why would they care if money is still coming? That's the reality of big companies.
Couldn't agree more. As a former QA Manager I can see a systemic, rather than specific, problem. They need to revamp the entire operation and organizational culture.
"when they do eventually publish guidance it's poor and not safe".
At the very least for this particular issue there ISN'T any more guidance other than "Check parts and replace if found defecttive. If shit goes sideways mid flight use brute force"
Thanks to have clarified this prb with the rudder hard issue.. At first I thought it was this one coming back again. Thanks for your vids.
You bet! 💕💕
Exactly what I was thinking. Also thanks for not rushing to get the video out but taking the time to review incident thoughtfully
Not yet convinced; the problem was with different hardware; but were there similar systemic problems.
Perhaps the biggest industrial own goal in corporate history?
I agree. The moment he said there was an issue with the rudder I immediately thought of the hard-over issues that caused those accidents
I am an old fan, and though I was involved in aviation for the largest part of my life, it was not as a pilot. Yet I am addicted to you channel for its brilliance, deep research, brilliant scripting and delivery. This was a classic, and like all of them the explanation was made understandable even to an 8o year old! Thank you
What a tribute to the training and professionalism of the pilots of United. No one in the cabin was even aware of the problem and the tracking showed little to no deviation from the centerline of the runway. Wow.
Hats off the United Airlines maintenance team for not whipping this and signing it off. They held their ground and didn’t release the plane back into service without a solid fix.
Agree. They may have saved lives
Jeez, what else would maintenance do but ground the aircraft?
Anything ATA 27 is always taken very seriously by maintenance.
More seriously than production it seems.
@@spotthedod I'm sure you can find airlines throughout the world where this would have been swept under the carpet.
Thanks Petter, best description I have seen of this issue.
(As a retired 737 captain with around 27k hours total, I didn’t know the full story until watching your video.)
And yes, I’d still fly the Max in a heartbeat.
All the same, Boeing have a very big hole to dig themselves out of, which is a real pity.
And it seems to this non-pilot Boing continues to dig, but deeper rather than up.
I am sorry. Fly at your own risk. I am not stepping a foot on a MAX.
@@moonshot5050 The media has poisoned you if STILL think the MAX is unsafe to fly on... 🙄
@@moonshot5050same
When its Boeing, I'm not going.
Many years ago I was on a delayed flight that landed at Heathrow airport in THICK fog, so thick that as the plane came to a halt, the pilot informed us it was a fully automated landing and that he had to wait for a ground vehicle with a "FOLLOW ME" board to come out to us and guide us off the runway and to the terminal gate.
It was back in the 1990s but it sounds like a CATIIIC landing based on your description.
someone that posted above must have been on your same flight! They recalled it was on a DC-10
see if you can find the comment :)
@@user-xc7lq3cl7f the other guy was going to London Gatwick. Not Heathrow.
Every single arrival in that foggy time did the same thing. And there are many days each year where the weather is like that.
So, there are thousands of people "who were on that flight".
@@user-xc7lq3cl7f Are DC-10s still flying?
Your flight could have been on a British European Airways De Haviland / Hawker Siddeley Trident. They were operating CATIIIc into Heathrow in the late sixties. At that time no other airline had the operational capability.
Just got this channel recommended. Been an avid fan of the main for 3 months now. You're skill of presenting information concisely is so impressive!
you like the hand flapping eh?
Everyone seems to be forgetting the basic issue with the 737 Max. This was not just a new variant of the 737 series, it was a totally new aircraft that was dressed up to look like a 737 to save a huge amount time and money getting the aircraft certifications done... The FAA was fully aware of that but given that it is filled with former Boeing employees, accepted the reduced certification process.
The 737 Max needs to be re-certified as a new aircraft for it to be safe, the failings will mostly get found in that process because it forces Boeing to do the FULL testing work.
This is the answer. Not sure why pilots flying it - aren’t being more vocal demanding this.
So does the Airbus A32X Neo need to be certified like this?
Here in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, the St. John's International Airport was upgraded with special fog equipment because too many days of foggy weather were closing the airport. I'm sure there are several Cat3C landings here every month.
Landed in a condition similar to what you described in 13:52 in Delhi during winters when it was foggy to the point where we could not even see the engine cowling outside the windows
And was that CAT II ?
I really like that you make sure to separate the "myths" going around about incidents like this and to refute the ones that are either not true or just not connected to these current issues.
Thanks for a clearer and fuller explanation of this than I'd heard elsewhere, especially the part about the different plane configurations.
Also the 787 made to the newspapers again because of a criminal investigation conducted by the Italian authorities on two subcontractors of Leonardo, which produces parts for the 787. Apparently, they were using substandard materials that resulted in parts with reduced mechanical strength. The authorities say that more than 4000 spare parts worldwide could be involved.
whops! Any links?
I still refuse to fly on any Boeing Max plane, but will say this video was very insightful and offered way more context than what I’ve heard before about this incident. Keep up the great work! 👍
Wild that Boeing's guidance on the matter was essentially: "Kick it to fix it."
That should always be the Hail Mary fix for a $100 million plane
That's how I train my wife.
Sounds like that is how they build their planes.
And your guidance is…?
@@petep.2092 Never get on a 737
I graduated with an engineering degree 20 yrs ago. Boeing was considered a great place to work back then, it had that reputation of being an “engineers company”. So sad to see what it’s become.
greed will always end up as a race to the bottom
In truth, it was already going downhill 20 years ago. It just took longer for disaster to manifest.
@@Boababa-fn3mr agreed. The McDonnell Douglas culture was slowly ruining it and the cracks hadn’t begun to show yet.
i believe they're nasdaq company now
@@ukjunglist26Who says there is no greed involved in Airbus?
The positive thing is the problems are no longer beeing hidden like before. Mistakes are possible, but pretending it's all no problem is the major issue.
And exactly how do you know problems are not being hidden? I am a retired airline mechanic and I could tell you tales that might make you give up flying.
Which is why its important to vote correctly. Giving businesses free reign for maximum profits…. Results in hiding problems.
Problems are still being hidden...
I see that you included your two fluffy puppies as part of your team montage. They appear to be very enthusiastic team members. 😀❤👍
It’s a little disconcerting to find out that the part wasn’t assembled correctly.
Where was their quality control? Were there none?
The executives couldn't care less. They have their pockets guaranteed
Tbf, it is hard to spot a manufacturing problem, if you are not aware of any faults. I'm more annoyed at the airlines that noticed the problem a couple of years ago and somehow neglected to notify the rest of the world.
Tbf, it is hard to spot a manufacturing problem, if you are not aware of any faults. I'm more annoyed at the airlines that noticed the problem a couple of years ago and somehow neglected to notify the rest of the world.
not the first time it happened this year
I've seen the empty mounting brackets for this actuator up on the tail many times and wondered what it was for.
I recently flew on the Lufthansa 747 from Seoul to Frankfurt, it was an amazing experience to fly on the queen of the skies. It reminds me of how good Boeing can be, I really hope that they can return to how they used to be. I want to confidently say again in future "If it aint Boeing I aint going."
yeah they find new problems but it's a good thing you cannot fix what you do not find think about it
I love the 747. I love riding in them. As an old retired mechanic, I always liked Boeing, 40yrs. . This rudder failure really bothered me. The plug door, not so much. MCAS, absolutely should never have happened.
@@oldmech619I'm sure you'd be bothered if you had been sitting next to it as the door flew off and you were sucked out.
I'm sure the 747 was built in Seattle long before the merger.
They scare the hell out of me, I have 1.6 million business miles flying, no way I'd get on their union made junk
A whole new channel to launch ?!.. 🤩Can't wait to see it ! Petter is going to become the most powerful aviation blogger across UA-cam (not mentioning a successful prior pilot career). Bravo and godspeed! 🙏
Hi Mentour! I’m not sure about the FAA regulations, but for EASA the subdivision of CAT III into a, b and c does not exist anymore. All charts Low Vis minima are now just CAT III. The difference lies now in capability of the aircraft and company/ pilot certification. The minima will read: Company- followed by an RVR value depending on the airport/ state (usually between 175 and down to 75m RVR). In my company we subdivide CAT III approaches in CAT III with DH or without DH. With DH (at our company 50ft) can be flown with a fail passive system (single auto pilot, or CAT III single as Airbus likes to call it) and with minimum RVR of 175m. CAT III with no DH, has the minima af 0ft and minimum RVR of 75m and requires the aircraft to be CAT III Dual. (Fail operational, 2 autopilots active).
after hearing that boeing engineers have said they would never fly on the planes because they saw how production was done on them recently... that's telling something real awful. I inadvertedly went checking for family and friends' flights too to be airbus instead of boeing, I lost that much trust in them. corporate greed took over truly, instead of wanting to bring something remarkable to aviation.
Some airline pilots feel the same way... Have a family member that's a 20+ yr pilot for a major airline and he won't fly anything Boeing (Airbus only) as a choice.
@@t.n.-js6ei Crazy! The people involved in management must be well aware that it could also be their family or someone close to them riding on a Boeing, right? They have to be aware...
I too will not get in boeing, I have 1.6 million business miles
What if any of you are forced to get into a Boeing plane due to a last-minute equipment change or cancellation?
@@WHJeffByeah is true, all my classmates have finished flight training and those who decided to pay for a type rating all of them are paying for an Airbus type rating. No one wants to fly Boeing 😂 We might have to fly a Boeing because beggars cant be choosers (it’s difficult to get a job with no experience) but no one wants it as a first option.
It‘s interesting to see that once again a disabled extra feature is causing unexpected trouble. Although the door plug is a completely different structure or component it is in a way connected. It shows that an application which is not regularly used may show a surprising behaviour at a random moment and no checklist exists which would offer the flightcrew a guideline to deal with it. In a way this is also applicable to the MCAS case as it was also a hidden feature at the time. Only equipment with an actual use should be installed on an aircraft. Then it is regularly used and maintained and a failure may become visible quicker and in a controlled environment.
"Not assembled correctly" is pretty much what I am expecting at this point. Boeing's "X days without manufacturing issues" counter can be reset.
Resetting the counter is just part of normal opening procedures in the morning at this point
@@connermurphy8059 at some point its just "the thing we have to keep at 0, noone knows what its for"
Boeing had nothing to do with the assembly of the Rollout Actuator, it was built by Collins Aerospace.
@@paulholmes672 You are right, Boeing seems to have little to do with any of their aircraft anymore since it is usually their subcontractors who produce all the shoddy work. But it is Boeing getting the credit when it works, Boeing who earn the dollars and Boeing who are responsible to make sure that everything fits together. Which they clearly don't...or at least didn't in the past few years.
I don't know, it might be going up right now. Can't assemble an aircraft wrong if you're not assembling aircraft.
What a great narrator and story teller. This guy could describe washing dishes and make it seem interesting. So when the topic is aviation, he makes every story a worthwhile adventure.
Thanks for everything sir. I could take you as a speaker in any of the other podcasts vlogs I listen to. I suffer from stress and anxiety and you have a very calming effect on me. You are simply excellent!
At this point, flaws have Boeing 737.
Not really.. the foundation is good, especially the NG
@@MentourNow Dawg it's a joke🙏
@@AlfaOxTrot.Shirley you aren't serious.
@@MentourNow You're supposed to be flying the whole plane, not just the foundations.
@@AlfaOxTrot. Your pfp 💀
I am an aerospace actuator test engineer. I can see why this kind of moisture ingress issue from assembly is hard to get caught during the actuator production. Environmental testing and waterproofness testing are only being done during the qualification phase of the actuator. There’s no practical method to conduct this kind of test on every actuator during the production acceptance test. The only way to make sure the part is assembled right is solely depends on QC during the assembly process. We could caught any hydraulic seal leaks internally or externally by testing. But you have to take the unit apart to check water ingress from environmental seal. Or purposefully add a moisture sensor into the unit when designing the actuator which is rather rare.
Could Collins not also have used a bearing that is sealed on both sides, since it's apparently possible to install it upside-down, so as not to rely so much on the case staying sealed? That seems like almost a design flaw, or a lack of redundancy where it could help and not cost a lot.
You can do an air pressure test. Even though water tight isnt always air tight, youll know the back pressure/leak flow of a good part and bad parts. Still the better way would be inspection of the seals before final assembly. I designed one years ago that used light beams to check seals were installed and oriented correctly on a piston, pretty straightforward.
As an outside observer without piloting experience (I'm going into the medical field) this really feels like Boeing had to go out of their way to make these mistakes. I thought the boeing 737 was a stable flying platform before the "upgrades" yet somehow in the span of a few years it seems like they somehow have gone straight backwards via their QC elimination tactics and top-heavy, business-first MBA focus that has resulted in embarrassment after embarrassment.
MBAs have no business making engineering/piloting impacting decisions. Boeing is now a perfect example of this.
My brother in law is a pilot for a major airline and he flies only Airbus planes. Not a fan of anything Boeing, considering he has nearly 24yrs of flight experience, this holds a lot of weight.
The problem is that Boeing took shortcuts by not re-doing the flight test program.
Why mention what field you going into?? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@ChrisDied Context? different fields have different skillsets and preconceptions, my guy. Somebody whose a mechanic thinks differently then someone who is a doctor.
@@Magnet977 lool.... ok bud..... you are not even in the field, yet you mention it..... 😆🤣🤣🤣🙃
In the '50s, in a Canberra's fast climb test fligth, Roland Beamont had a similar issue with the ailerons.
It's related on his great book: "Testing Early Jets".
Greetings from Patagonia, Argentina ! 🇦🇷
RGAs always has problems. As i remember i replaced 3 of them so far. But they generates fault codes before a complete jam. Also at installation a lot of sealant use required iaw AMM. So i am a little bit confused. Some info needs to be clear out.. thank U😊
Whats happening to Boeing whistle blowers is appaling.
They are probably...dis mounted. In a ding dong ding world. Furnised by...and for ....maniacs
What's happening to Boeing whistleblowers?
Yeah there being murdered
@@toms1348one got murdered, not sure about the other one
Petter needs to watch out
You'd think the 777 and 787 would have more drama, but just like in any family, the smallest one's the most troublesome
haha
The 787 and older 777 were built when Boeing was good. Look at the problems they are having with the 777X though. It's not an aircraft thing, it's a modern Boeing thing
@@mattevans4377 To be completely fair to boeing the extra info i've heard on the 777X issue indicates the fault is with general electric and the data they provided to Boeing for designing the thrust links.
There's apparently an issue with excessive flexing in the engine itself which is generating cyclic load rates well above what boeing were expecting based on the info they were given. I haven't been able to confirm the info i saw, so apply some salt till we get an official confirmation. but if acurratte thats not on boeing in the slightest, they did everything right.
@@mattevans4377 Safe to say that anyone who has any mild interest in Boeing knows just how much they're messed up now
@@mattevans4377 and u think every other boeing aircraft were squeaky clean and everything worked the first time during development ? cmon now
Thank you Petter and the team for continuing to adhere to high quality informative and factual reporting. I have 100% confidence in relaying information from Mentour Pilot.
Wow, the moment when the captain realized the rudder pedals were stuck must have been terrifying. His quick thinking to use the nose wheel tiller shows incredible skill and calm under pressure. It’s astonishing how such a small malfunction, like the rollout guidance actuator freezing, can escalate so fast and impact the entire aircraft's control system. This really highlights the importance of thorough inspections and rapid responses. Great explanation of a complex incident!
May I thank and be amazed by the bravery of the pilots (test pilots?) who took the problem aircraft airborne again to recreate the situation, which then was recreated, taking on personal risk to make flying safer for everybody? I have the utmost respect for pilots in general, and test pilots I just absolutely think the world of. I don't know how they do it, I don't know what kind of personality it takes to do what they do.
Let's not forget all the test passengers who ride these every day.
We had exactly the same situation many years ago at BA back in the day. G-BGJI is the aircraft I worked on which went out of control on a test flight. The rudder was the chief suspect and they sent it back up to try and get it to act up again. Nuts.
@@nimedave I thought of that incident right away. The new situation was nowhere near as dangerous, but stepping into an aircraft you *know* is defective is incredible.
@@renerpho From memory it was corroded pins on the yaw damper computer I think.
@@Larry-mk9ry I don't believe they're testing spin-recovery on those airplanes. There are spin states that are expected to end in a "lithobraking maneuver", no matter what the pilot does.
yeah, I can see where jumping on the rudder pedal while rolling at high speed is probably not the best idea. but it leaves me wondering, how many landings are done with no rudder input? it seems to me like getting all the way to the ground before realizing the rudder was stuck would be unusual.
@@kenbrown2808 My understanding is that the rudder was not stuck. The pedals were stuck. Until autopilot was disengaged, the pilot flying was not attempting any rudder pedal inputs.
@slartybarfastb3648 yes, and how common is it to land without any pedal inputs? Addendum: I'm asking because it sounds to me like if it is less than a cat 3b landing, the pilot has hands and feet on the controls, and i would think the conditions where the plane would align perfectly with no rudder input would be uncommon.
Not so. Watch the clip again.
@@leisti what's not so?
@kenbrown2808 Sorry for the confusion. I was replying to @slartybarfastb3648's claim that "My understanding is that the rudder was not stuck."
If I remember correctly, didn’t the old 747 have a rudder problem as well, if memory serves correctly (although I am getting older now 😅) they corrected it by putting a block in the way, to prevent it from to far over
And the 707.
Wow! Thank you, sir, for this video. Reminds me, despite the differences, of the rudder issue that affected Eastwind Airlines - which you referenced. Thank you for the posting.
Ugh! I think that reference makes me feel old.
I assume you still have feelings for the 737.
Hope everything turns to better future soon.
I do to.
Yes, I still remember the first few Boeing videos where Petter was still super in denial about the severe problems in Boeing's safety culture that were already emerging. I understand that emotion can bias anyone's perception though and it's good that he has come around in light of overwhelming evidence.
@unvergebeneid he is a Boeing fan I know
@@unvergebeneid I guess he's had experience with older models of the 737 and not so much with the current ones.
@@AnetaMihaylova-d6f Because Boeing just rule ! Airbus is just an flying coffin !
The weird thing is rudder hard over has always been an issue on boeing planes. In fact, in response to quite a few dangerous emergencies involving the 747-400, they found the PCU controlling the rudder was inexplicably vulnerable to fatigue cracks. While they built in a failsafe system to neutralise the possibility of a hardover, they couldn't determine what caused the cracks to happen so readily.
This isn’t the first time Boeing 737s have had major rudder issues…(Flashbacks to the 1990s)
I got an ad from a pilot supplies shop this morning advertising 2025 Boeing Calendars. They will of course be delivered in 2029, some pages will fall out, and it will come with 9 extra months...
😂😂😂😂😂
The idea that you should basically just twat the rudder pedal really hard to unjam the part is certainly less than ideal. I should imagine the rudder system's components are fairly robust, but doing that is hardly going to do the rest of the components any favours.
10:55 I just realized that recreating the look of a computer screen being recorded with a camera in a room is now a symbol of computer-based investigation and authenticity in documentaries, and I'm not sure how to feel about it.
Sounds like what they call a russian doll. That camera can be tampered with, so you have to install yet another camera and screen. Rinse and repeat... cheers! / CS
I haven't watched this yet. But I'm beginning to think that anything found on a 737 is now a major issue according to the press and non-aviation types. The thing is that it's Boeing's fault for being in this mess. I know in manufacturing QC you never want to to many failures in a row because it results in a microscope effect and everything you do is now magnified. NOW, I'll watch this video and hope that it's not as bad as the headlines make it out to be. ADDED after watching whole vid.....Yeah, applying maximum force during any part of a stabilized approach or Take-off is to say the least NOT my best option, and that's being very kind with the wording....
You're on the right track, about the news and in terms of Boeing's oversight...
How about applying the following test to this piece of news. Were it to be discovered that Airbus has produced multiple airplanes that have a defective part that can cause the plane's rudder to be stuck, with the potential of causing the plane to exit the runway at high speed on landing, would you consider that newsworthy? If so, should it not be newsworthy even in case of Boeing?
There's a reason why my now favorite airline uses all airbus a320 fleet. Sure, accidents can happen with them too, but at least not because some greedy bean counters in Virginia or Chicago wanting more yearly bonus.
@yourbuddy6556 Just on a completely objective note: the A320 family in the 2020s is a better aircraft. One pilot rating from 319 to the XLR. CEO+NEO. Bigger cargo hold. Less noise. and so far, better quality control. It's just objective data... the downside is a long waiting queue to get the machines
Except Airbus in general seems to have landing gear issues.
Great report Petter. From a long time viewer, also watch Juan Browne ✈️🤙🏻
This one of the very best channels on UA-cam. Thanks for sharing
I think the fact that you have to start with ‘no, no that rudder problem you’ve already heard of, another one’ says a lot 😬🫣
Boeing really has turned into a bit of a basket case recently, perhaps their staff being on strike and not knocking out new aircraft will temporarily raise the safety average! 😬
757 is my favorite Boeing. Change my mind.
@@PsRohrbaugh I can't disagree. 757 is the sexiest airliner ever built. Big cans and long legs.
727 🤝 757
Flying ✏️
787 *mic drop*
@@usefirefox 787 is a contender, but it had such a troubled rollout.
This happened on my United flight last August. Pilot came on the intercom and said the rudder pedal was stuck and this was the first time he ever encountered this issue. Thankfully this was noticed before we took off and we deplaned. Good work Boeing!
Another tale that never happened. lol
I love it, Petter that you are always open to closing gaps in your knowledge and to learning from others. I'm thinking about 13:50 to 14:00 in this video where you invite input from other people. I honour your humility. Thanks for two great channels!
As a retired major airline captain who retired in 1994 after flying for 9 years between US and various EU airports, I am amazed you would state that CAT 3 Charlie does not happen routinely. Perhaps not in 737s, but I personally have made numerous such landings in the B767, which has 3 autopilots, all of which must be connected in order to start the approach. On many of these landings the centerline lights became visible only after the nose was automatically lowered by the autopilots. On one of these landings at Geneva we did, as you mentioned, have to request a follow-me truck guide us off the runway and to the gate. But a well trained crew, while totally concentrating on the approach, does not at all feel scared or terrified as you implied. On these landings the rudder pedals were not usable until the auto pilot was disengaged.
Perfect timing to watch this video since I just flew into Newark on a 737 a week ago.
Are you sure you're really not a week late?
Boeing makes an aircraft fitted with faulty parts and expects the purchaser to fix it. Great product!!
While the NTSB wants Boeing to do more, we have to understand that Boing has a rather complex decision tree they refer to before taking any action. Let me see if I can lay it out for you….
When an incident is reported:
1) Was it USA based or a foreign country?
a) If foreign - ignore it and give the CEO a bonus.
b) If USA - was it reported in the media?
i) if no - ignore it and give the CEO a bonus
ii) If yes activate the lobbyists and media relations to say the problem is being looked into. Activate the lawyers to see if any sub-suppliers can be blamed.
When a near miss occurs:
1) Same as above
When an accident occurs:
1) Was anyone killed?
a) If no - treat as a near miss and give the CEO a bonus.
b) If yes - were they a third world country or first or second world country?
ii) If third world was it the first time?
a) If yes treat as a near miss and give the CEO a bonus
b) if no, offer all the victims families $100 to forgo the right to sue and then go to first or second world accident.
c) if it was a first or second world country
i) activate the lobbyist and PR group
ii) start working to dampen and neutralize any FAA recommendations
iii) Start making lowball offers to victims families to reduce lawsuits as much as possible.
iv) Start preparing CEO’s resignation letter and negotiating a generous leaving pay package.
v) look at sub-suppliers to see who can be blamed.
Did I miss something?
Yes. The above scenarios have been shortened and replaced with the following:
For a reported incident: Blame Trump
For a near miss: Blame China
For accidents: Blame Russia. Allow FBI to investigate it.
Whistleblowers "dismissed". Bailout monies approved. No bonus withholding allowed.
Increase DEI hiring/Wokeness to deflect future blame. Carry on.
Apply above to all Boeing Air/Space/Military/Government divisions. Carry on.
This is one of the best technical channels on youtube. Simply outstanding.
Very thoughtful and indept handling of this issue - Great video.
....about 40 years ago had a friend that worked at Boeing as a jig-maker. He told me that, because of the initial design, there were 4 major bolts that held the vertical stabilizer of a 737 on, and that once in place, you couldn't get to one of those four bolts, and that they just shipped them with three. I'm not an engineer, but, it always seemed odd to me that they couldn't engineer a way out of that situation..... just a thought......................
Pilot: Boeing help, Rudder stuck!!
Boeing: Just use Boot force ( the pun was intended )
I’m flying on the Max tomorrow. I feel safe by the NTSB and worrisome about Boeing at the same time. Boeing really needs to change their attitude and actually put safety back on top of the list above all else.
you'll be fine, but yeah, you also shouldn't have to be in the position of wondering 😒
Boeing won't change. That costs money. Boeing have to keep the fat cats and shareholders happy.
They need to pay their employees more than 28$ an hour. When I read that a Union member installing wings on 737 is making 28$ an hour I almost 💩 myself. Amazing that the directors and management make hindreds of thousands a year and the most important jobs get little. Sad company Boeing.
Recently flew on A380. Beautiful plane
Buy extra insurance because it's a 50-50 crapshoot bro
I would like to remind everyone that this channel is happy, healthy and well adjusted with no thoughts of self harm whatsoever.
I would love it if you did an episode about the 'tin can' rudder issues that took 427 down! I lived within a half hour of that crash and it's what started my fascination with aircraft accidents and incidents and the process of discovering the issues and rectifying them. I attended the public memorial service and my next door neighbor was the chaplain for the workers on the site.
ILS Cat C is a truly eyeless approach
The pilots are provided with Bibles and requested to pray during ILS Cat C landing 😂
I feel the media is a bit harsh on Boeing...but to be fair to the media, Boeing unfortunately brought the magnifying glass on themselves with the failures of the MAX and MCAS. Had those failures not ended in hundreds of deaths, I don't imagine the media really going all in on any new story that developed with the 737.
It's a shame, the 737 is an amazing aircraft and a storied one for Boeing. But as the saying goes...you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become to villian. And the 737 has certainly seem itself become a villian, through years of new variants of the type...
Are they really? I think it is not even barely enough how they are treated. A design flaw can happen everybody is human but first to deliberately lie to the authoritiesfor years in itself should be a criminal charge also for the person doing the decisions even without anybody ending up dead.
And then having not a functional quality insprection, no recording what so ever should result in a complete shutdown.
The 737 is no longer a great aircraft. It’s a modified 1960s airframe that should have been retired 20 years ago.
@ian7379 yes most people cannot get it .this plane is OUTDATED
After what happened to Lyon Air and Ethiopian Air with the MCAS system I really have no sympathy for Boeing.
Boohoo media too harsh on boeing...
Facts say boeing deliberately made the decision to cut corners and put their profit first, over your safety.
Your moral compass needs urgent recalibrating
Confess Pete… you stopped flying to avoid the Max 😂
Lol can't say I could even blame hin
lolol!
Crazy advice to use force while the aircraft is moving. If done at the wrong time and/or the rudder re-freezes in a deflected position, then you are stuffed.
I didn't remember the hard-over issues from the 90s, that you mentioned. Amazing as the 707 suffered rudder hard-overs in the 1960s!
I really appreciate the thorough and in depth explanation of the problem and how to resolve it.
"We make airplanes, not burguers" says It all about the nowadays situation of Boeing...
starting pay at most burger joints greatly exceeds starting pay for mechanics ...
bloated Executive pay is insult to injury.
I wish I could find the reference to a statement Boeing management made to the engineers: there is nothing inherently special about an aircraft. You’re making toasters, a commodity product. I wonder if Amazon removed it from the book I have on it.
Isn't Cat 3C for situations where go-around isn't really possible and plane has to land no matter what? (like lack of fuel or some other issue)
If conditions are too poor to clear the runway after landing, then yeah it must basically be an emergency landing.
I guess today, it is more of a legacy mode, not that often used anymore due to safety restrictions. In an emergency, no reason to let the autopilot do the landing after touchdown.
If you really needed to. The rules go out of the windows in an emergency. If you had justify your actions at the board of enquiry, then anything goes. Capt A350
The answer to your question is no. This is a routine approach to airports that are certified for Cat3 approaches, and has been in use long before I retired from a major USA airline in 1994. The autopilots are truly amazing. When the nose of the aircraft is lowered by the autopilots (3 were required on the B767) the left wheel of the nose gear would be on the left of the painted yellow centerline, and the right wheel on the right side of the paint.
@@ronb.6582 Ah, technology. The true god we should all worship.
Everything's fine. Although planes don't have parachutes, the executives who crashed Boeing have big golden parachutes and will be largely compensated for their mistakes.
You do an excellent job at describing all the details involved in this subject
I had something similar happen to me in an airplane without this part. During landing (I can't remember if I was PF or the FO, with no tiller) we noticed the plane wasn't turning at all at low speed using the rudder pedals and I had to take the high speed exit using the tiller. Other than the surprise of it, at the last moment it wasn't a big deal to be honest, my instinct was to grab the tiller inmediately. The pedals were moving but the plane did nothing at low speeds. There is even a MEL item for this where you steer the plane on takeoff and landing using the tiller only. I was amazed when the engineers managed to fix it in like 15 minutes just doing some tests in the E&E bay.
By the way CAT III A, B and C doesn't exist anymore. Now we only have CAT III with different DH/RVR requirements.
Nice video, I wasn't aware of the details about this latest problem.
So you say that during a landing you "can't remember if I was PF or the FO, with no tiller", then say "I had to take the high speed exit using the tiller" in the same sentence? lol
Nice try, Cap'n Crunch.
So it seems Boeing has been treating the issue like a PR disaster and just wanted it to silently go away, but now it backfired 🤦♂️
Are you surprised?
@@renerpho Nope. It's Boeing being Boeing
#1 objective for major complex r&d project was cutting costs as much as possible. Then everyone can act surprised when fucking around phase has ended and finding out phase is ongoing.
"No one sitting behind the pilots noticed anything" - good job pilots! It is very reassuring to see training and professionalism work as they should. Especially when Boeing is not...
Although... The "fix" being "just kick it very hard" is rather caveman of them... Not what I expect from a modern aviation company.