I can’t believe I am reading the suggested solution is to overpower, or, at least to try until you break something else, or, jam it. Utterly dumbfounding. But, this is the world we live in today.
The suggestion for pilots (the flight manual tells pilots) to “use maximum force” to free a stuck rudder on the Boeing 737NG or MAX could be extremely risky, especially when you consider what happened to American Airlines Flight 587 over Jamaica Bay in 2001. In that accident, the first officer applied aggressive rudder inputs after takeoff, which caused the vertical stabilizer to snap off the aircraft. The excessive side-to-side rudder movements created more force than the stabilizer was designed to handle. Without the stabilizer, the plane crashed, killing everyone (265) on board.
Just like the Airbus A300 in the AA587 crash, the 737 MAX has limits on how much force its vertical stabilizer can handle. When Boeing tells pilots to stomp on the pedals to free a jammed rudder, they’re setting the stage for a potentially dangerous situation. If the rudder suddenly becomes unstuck, it could swing all the way to one side, causing an abrupt, extreme deflection. This could put massive stress on the vertical stabilizer—just like what happened on Flight 587. The stabilizer might not be able to handle the sudden force, leading to structural failure or loss of control.
In simple terms, “pushing with maximum force” could make things much worse. Instead of solving the problem, it risks breaking the plane’s structure—a lesson we should have learned from AA587. The NTSB is right to be concerned, and Boeing needs to find a better solution than “just push harder.”
The word “suggesting” seems to be quite an understatement.
You missed this…
The investigation determined that moisture can get inside the rollout guidance actuator, which is only used during CAT IIIB approaches…
Just like there’s a Va/Maneuvering Speed at which an aircraft will stall before the structure is damaged by excessive loads (https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2015/Nov/V_Speed_Review.pdf), might there theoretically also be a–I’ll call it “Vmr”, e.g. V-maximum-rudder–a speed below which no combination of maximum rudder deflections would damage the vertical stabilizer?
Looking at the far ends of the speed spectrum, certainly jamming the rudder back and forth at 0 kias won’t cause vertical stabilizer damage. Doing so at 120 kias would probably be structurally sound but produce some terribly dangerous yaw and stall condition. Jamming it back and forth at 350 kias likely would do damage to the vertical stabilizer. Raf references AA587; what would it’s approximate airspeed have been about 1m:30s after departing the runway? 180kias? That airspeed would obviously be beyond my theoretical “Vmr,” for a loaded A300 at least, given the outcome. So… maybe around 150-170 kias for my theoretical “Vmr”?
Bottom line, they have known defective parts on in-service airframes, and apparently have issued no specific recommendations on how to deal with it. The NTSB points out that the recommended action in the event of rudder freezing during landing, per the flight manual (not a specific recommendation to this situation), is potentially dangerous and could result in sudden, uncontrolled extreme rudder deflection and loss of control on roll out. Given Boeing’s recent history - especially around the Max - how could this possibly have slipped through and gotten to the point where the NTSB had to issue a public news release? At this point, one would expect that even a totally dysfunctional organization would be on high alert to mount an “all hands on deck” response to anything associated with the words “defective” “Max” “safety”. Boggles the mind.
The NTSB Urgent Safety Recommendations News Release is here: NTSB Issues Urgent Safety Recommendations on Boeing 737 Rudder System
Considering to grief the FAA is giving SpaceX, where is the FAA on this issue?
Raf, it wasn’t a single forceful application of rudder that brought down AA587, it was the repeated reversals of the rudder that snapped off the tail. One application of ‘maximum force’ won’t do it.
1 reply
It is a different 737 rudder actuator problem, but doesn’t this bring to mind USAir Flight 427? I knew several people who perished on that flight. It seems like this would be a ground the fleet and fix it fast issue.
David, you’re absolutely right that the AA587 crash wasn’t caused by a single forceful rudder application, but rather by repeated and aggressive rudder reversals. The NTSB investigation concluded that the rapid, alternating rudder inputs created extreme lateral forces that exceeded the vertical stabilizer’s design limits, causing it to snap off.
One application of full rudder might not have caused structural failure, but the repeated inputs amplified the aerodynamic forces beyond what the aircraft was designed to withstand. This highlights both the sensitivity of the rudder system and the importance of understanding how multiple inputs in quick succession can have a cumulative effect on the structure. Airbus made significant design and training updates to address these concerns after the incident, recognizing that even within normal operating parameters, repeated rudder use could lead to catastrophic results under certain conditions.
Following the AA587 accident, Airbus made changes to its flight control systems to prevent pilots from over-stressing the vertical stabilizer with excessive rudder inputs. These changes include modifications to pilot training and flight control system logic.
Seattle Times reports that a bearing was installed backwards during manufacture, thus seal did not keep moisture out.
NTSB Issues Urgent Safety Recommendations on Boeing 737 Rudder System
I’m not sure what bearing this has on the rudder issue but a quick and inexpensive stopgap that Boeing could use to address this might just be a slow anti-icing drip using a good lead based (and might be toxic) solution until the affected bearings are replaced. A more permanent solution would be to use mega heating pads (that keep my cat warm on those cold winter evenings) adjusted for the ambient tail temps. Somehow I don’t think heated rudder pedals would do the trick, but who knows?
Hardly old news. The incident happened in Feb of this year and the preliminary report identifying the cause was issued in March. The NTSB just issued their “urgent” news release. The point, is that Boeing did not get in front of this issue or the story. The NTSB clearly feels it is an urgent safety issue and that Boeing has not addressed it. At a minimum, a PR failure on Boeing’s part and at worst another example of not moving swiftly to address a real safety issue. Either way, inexcusable in light of their current reputational crisis.
2 replies
If were Boeing’s CEO I’d have the MCAS software modified to wiggle the rudder every now and then!
1 reply
How about getting some knockoff actuators from an Asian manufacturer, delivered by Amazon, installed by a junior Boeing engineer on graveyard shift. Fix is as good as gold, price is right and Bobs’ yer uncle!
Did Boeing and FAA not determine cause much earlier and notify the operating industry? NTSB reports take a long time to issue.
The offending part is in the tail.
Well, in this case it was a supplier error - Rockwell-Collins, which the new boss of Boeing headed.
It does seem Collins, Boeing, and FAA were slow.
Cause was determined by cold soak testing the actuator from the problem airplane and another one UA removed.from another airplane as a result of a bulletin from Boeing which UA had requested - date of bulletin not specified.
NTSB is not clear enough when that was, problem flight was in February 2024, but one sentence in the report says testing was in July - yet the NTSB’s press release says cold soak testing of the suspect unit started on February 28 with a meeting at the manufacturer’s facility (but work started earlier it seems).
NTSB says Collins notified Boeing of 357 actuators, in August, Boeing then issued a bulletin.
NTSB has not filled a Docket with details on this.
It is concerning, a bulletin should have been issued far earlier identifying the problem and recommending inspection. (The airplane can be flown without the offending unit, which is only used to keep airplane on the runway during CATIIIB landing during which airplane will touch the ground.) Boeing used to be very good at providing early notification of an event and factors, and updating that.
NTSB’s concern this month is with Boeing’s recommendation to just push harder. (Linkage at the offending unit is designed to break but at higher force than the flight crew used.)
And then there’s the issue about all the other actuators in service/in the field that could affect other aircraft.
1 reply
Boeing is coming apart at the seems as I predicted when the 787 issues began to appear. It’s all just the tip of the iceberg. The effect of decades of cultural rot are finally coming to light. Boeing can’t stop this, or, fix it. It’s just to deep and has been going on way to long. Bye bye Boeing.
Remember Enron? It was during that period that business culture began to shift to what it is today. A lot of companies have been infected since then and have paid the price. Management and majority shareholders benefit, everyone else loses.
1 reply
I get where you’re coming from, Tommy, but Boeing is just too important to America’s defense and commercial aviation for the government to let it collapse. If things get worse, the government would probably step in. But relying on that kind of support shouldn’t let Boeing off the hook for its problems. Look at what happened to General Motors during the 2008 crisis. The government bailed them out, but they still had to make big changes, like bringing in new leadership and reorganizing how they operated. Boeing might face something similar—a shake-up in leadership and how they run things. I don’t think Boeing will fail completely, but I do think a major overhaul is coming if they don’t fix their issues soon.
2 replies
Unfortunately Raf, the government is a big part of the problem.
I think bringing Spirit aerosystems back under Boeing’s control together with a productive relationship with the FAA may be the best way to begin to “right the ship”,
2 replies
@Tom & @Tommy: If Boeing gets close to collapse, it’s likely the government would step in to help, much like they did with General Motors in 2008. When GM received a bailout, it came with tough conditions—requiring them to overhaul leadership and completely restructure their operations.
Boeing could find itself in a similar position if its issues continue to spiral. Given its critical role in national defense, commercial aviation, space exploration, and its influence on the broader economy, government assistance may be inevitable. But any intervention won’t come without hard demands for change. Boeing would need to confront its deep-rooted corporate and labor culture problems, fix its broken supply chain, and overhaul its internal organization. Repairing relations with the FAA and addressing labor disputes would also be non-negotiable.
This won’t be easy—in fact, if it were, these problems would have been fixed long ago. Boeing must tackle these challenges head-on or risk collapse. The path forward will be difficult, but without bold and decisive action, Boeing could face an end far more severe than just a temporary setback. Time is running out, and only through a serious transformation can Boeing secure a future.
2 replies
That’s what messages from Boeing to all operators are for, and FAA ADs are for.
Did GM really get fixed? I don’t think so.
Takes leadership, current boss Mary seems better but may be getting stale - happens in bureaucracies, happened to the guy who took over Boeing and straightened the B787 project out.
Leaders enunciate values, coach to achieve, and fire as needed.
Proper values are the purpose of the product - fly passengers well while making a profit to pay investors and fund future products. Not easy but it is the only way.
Microsoft’s boss just tried a Reset, told staff connected to security “Don’t tell me everything is great.” (Trigger was the Crowdstrike botch of software that was embedded in Windows, cause many business’ terminals to be out of operation for days.)
1 reply
That’s only a piece.
Problem is bureaucracy, workers and managers not focussed on quality productivity, procedures too cumbersome and blathery, …
Boeing has been a bureaucracy as long as I have been connected to them or use of their airplanes.
Yes, GM got fixed after the bailout. They’re profitable, saved thousands of jobs, and are now leading in electric vehicles. Mary Barra has pushed GM forward, making big moves in EVs and modernizing the company. Sure, there are still challenges, like adapting to new markets and handling recalls, but GM’s in a far better position than Boeing.
Now, let’s talk about Boeing. While GM is making strides, Boeing is still a mess. They’re stuck dealing with the fallout from the 737 MAX disaster, production delays, and a tarnished reputation. Boeing’s leadership didn’t handle things well, cutting corners on safety and landing themselves in regulatory trouble. Instead of focusing on innovation, they’re busy trying to clean up their own mess.
GM’s leadership is forward-thinking, while Boeing’s is more about damage control. Financially, GM’s solid, but Boeing? They’ve lost billions, and their future is still shaky. So, if you think GM didn’t get fixed, take a hard look at Boeing. GM’s moved on from its crisis, while Boeing is still drowning in theirs.
2 replies
I’m now realizing that the rollout guidance actuator is always connected so risk is there in airplanes with the feature.
It can be left out by operator, I presume covered by Minimum Equipment List and maintenance instructions.
You left out " In March 2009, after the company had received $17.4 billion in bailouts but was not effective in a turnaround, President Barack Obama forced the resignation of CEO" and " Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the United States Department of the Treasury invested $49.5 billion in General Motors and recovered $39 billion when it sold its shares on December 9, 2013, resulting in a loss of $10.3 billion."
So US taxpayers lost money, not just debtors.
Mary Barra came later.
Serious consideration should be given to breaking a company up, competent people can restore the worthwhile pieces.
But governments prop up incompetence, including by trade barriers - read about the Chicken Tax’ result of US government taxing small trucks, which led to Japanese companies going upmarket.
Look at steel companies in the US - financially struggling, but an upstart showed how to make rebar then moved up to coiled strip and plate and structural steel: Nucor, now largest steelmaker in the US. And Brits and other European steel makers opened plants in the US.
But the US is blocking sale of the remaining old steel company, which had survived by concentrating on specialty steels requiring much expertise, to Japanese interests.
Nope.
Quick ‘change of culture’, deliberate development of fraudulent accounting.
Nothing like Boeing.
Did GM get “bailed out”? I guess it depends on what you consider a “bailout”. A new company was formed that was owned by the US Government, the Canadian Government, and the UAW healthcare trust. The new company acquired the desirable assets of GM, including the name. The old GM, then Motors Liquidation Company, went bankrupt and had its shares cancelled. Shareholders lost everything. Bondholder lost up to 90%. A bit like the Smith family buying the Jones farm on the courthouse steps and leaving the “Jones Farm” sign in the yard and calling it a “Jones Farm Bailout”.
2 replies
Elton, I understand—good point. The U.S. government called its help for GM a “bailout” because it saved thousands of jobs, stabilized the economy, and rescued a major American company during the 2008 financial crisis. Shareholders and bondholders took a hit, but the intervention kept the auto industry alive and allowed the government to recover much of its $50 billion investment. It sent a clear message that the government could act decisively during a crisis, even if it wasn’t a free pass for everyone involved.
What could happen next.
Boeing may face a similar scenario if its problems escalate. Boeing isn’t just about airplanes—it’s a linchpin of national defense and space exploration, making it vital to the economy. If things worsen, the government might be forced to intervene, as it did with GM. However, Boeing would likely face strict conditions—restructuring, leadership changes, and major operational shifts. The goal would be to prevent economic collapse, but shareholders could still suffer heavy losses, just like GM’s investors did.
1 reply
Raf, A Boeing restructuring could follow a similar pattern, and I think any restructuring is likely to do so. It’s not the same situation though. GM et.al. were part of the much larger financial crisis. Absent that, they may simply let Lockheed, Bell, Textron, RTX, etc pick over the bones. We really need what Boeing does, I’m less sure we need Boeing. Too big to fail is too big. Sad to see how bad it’s gotten though.
Elton, spot on! “We really need what Boeing does…” sums it up perfectly.
The government wouldn’t be saving Boeing “the company” for its name or brand alone, but rather Boeing “the capabilities”—the tech and infrastructure that keep the U.S. dominant in aerospace and defense. That’s the real concern.
I read Wikipedia as saying there was money provided by government, before the bankruptcy.
