Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:38 pm

kalvado wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
Show us the incidents.

Here you go:
http://time.com/5550449/pilots-boeing-737-max-issues/


Though this incident, and it is almost certain to be one incident reported by both crew members, was almost assuredly not an MCAS incident. The reason why is it stopped when the autopilot was disconnected. The concern of the pilots, in light of the lack of MCAS information in the FCOM was that there might be other corner cases they didn't know about. This would be a completely reasonable concern. There are not cases in the ASRS data to last week that included uncommanded stabiliser trim down in non-autopilot operation. There are, however, other cases of 737NGs having uncommanded descents and trim down in autopilot operation. Now ASRS only covers US carriers, but it is very well used, so there is a high likelihood that and US MCAS failure would have been reported.

As for a tendency to pitch up at high-thrust, low-speed, high AOA. This exists already in the 737NG, and other a/c with wing mounted engines. At least one Boeing FCTM for the 737NG has this in it
To recover from a stall, angle of attack must be reduced below the stalling angle. Nose down pitch control must be applied and maintained until the wings are unstalled. Application of forward control column (as much as full forward may be required) and the use of some nose-down stabilizer trim should provide sufficient elevator control to produce a nose-down pitch rate. It may be difficult to know how much stabilizer trim to use, and care must be taken to avoid using too much trim. Pilots should not fly the airplane using stabilizer trim, and should stop trimming nose down when they feel the g force on the airplane lessen or the required elevator force lessen.
Under certain conditions, on airplanes with underwing-mounted engines, it may be necessary to reduce thrust in order to prevent the angle of attack from continuing to increase. Once the wing is unstalled, upset recovery actions may be taken and thrust reapplied as needed.


The MAX will be different to the NG, but it will still have manny of the same characteristics, so it is fairly easy to see the logic that Boeing had when looking at what to/not to change in the manuals. They already had info about thrust and stall plus telling pilots that you do have to trim to get out in some cases. It is also quite easy to see how this is flawed logic. Especially since the NG wording would be somewhat confusing on the Runaway Stab correction:
Runaway Stabilizer
Hold the control column firmly to maintain the desired pitch attitude. If uncommanded trim motion continues, the stabilizer trim commands are interrupted when the control column is displaced in the opposite direction.
Manual Stabilizer Trim
If manual stabilizer trim is necessary, ensure both stabilizer trim cutout switches are in CUTOUT prior to extending the manual trim wheel handles.
Excessive airloads on the stabilizer may require effort by both pilots to correct the mis-trim. In extreme cases it may be necessary to aerodynamically relieve the airloads to allow manual trimming. Accelerate or decelerate towards the in-trim speed while attempting to trim manually.

Would pilots that have tried the first automatically think to do the second when the first was insufficient?

Also, the manual has information on Elevator Blowback, as mentioned in Leehman, though it is buried in the Stall recovery bit:
Nose Low, Wings Level
In a situation where the airplane pitch attitude is unintentionally more than 10 degrees nose low and going lower, the airspeed is increasing rapidly. A pilot would likely reduce thrust and extend the speedbrakes. Thrust reduction causes an additional nose-down pitching moment. Speedbrake extension causes a nose-up pitching moment, an increase in drag, and a decrease in lift for the same angle of attack. At airspeeds well above VMO/MMO, the ability to command a nose-up pitch rate with elevator may be reduced because of the extreme aerodynamic loads on the elevator.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2148
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:40 pm

Interested wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
No other frame had in the last 30 years this rate of accidents to number of operating frames or operating hours.


False. The A320 had its first, second, and third crashes with fewer frames in service than the MAX did with its second (maybe first).


What were the faults/causes of those 3 crashes?

One was the flight control computer overode what the pilot attempted to do.
 
737max8
Posts: 640
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:42 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Nice dodge. Do you have the fleet-wide numbers to make the comparison between AA & WN and the rest? Yes or no?

I work for AA in maintenance we had 41,000 flight hours and WN stated around 60,000, do you have comprehension issues?



Actually WN announced it had nearly 41000 Max operations and about 83,000 flight hours. It wasn't being used on DAL/OKC or MDW/IND.


This made me laugh because I flew a WN 7M8 from OKC-DAL.
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
Virtual737
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:49 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
One was the flight control computer overode what the pilot attempted to do.


That is both true and TOTALLY misleading ;)
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:51 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
Interested wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
In my opinion the only proper fix to the plane is going back to drawing board. Any fixes involving disabling MCAS are complete BS. I would not allow it in any less critical application, let alone airplane. If we can disable MCAS and continue flying normally, when why do we need it to begin with?

It especially worrisome that it can lose it during take off, when airplane is deliberately at higher than normal AoA, and the protection is vital. At the same time the invalid input during take off is extremely dangerous.

Now, regarding the redundancy. 3x redundancy with 2 out of 3 voting is nice when you have extremely reliable input to begin with, say on the order 1 incident in a million of flights. In this case 2 out of 3 makes the MTBF so high that realistically we should never see 2 sensors fail.

But we are dealing with 2 fatal incidents in 18 month x 350 planes. And god knows how many similar incidents that did not end in tragedy. That's a crappy track records. 2 out of 3 can't make this acceptably reliable.


The stats are actually far worse than you describe

There were only 350 planes flying at the end of 18 months

At the start there would be far far less.

The more planes introduced the more potential for systems error and human error combined

And yet two of the largest airline WN with 34 and AA with 24 and over 100,000 hours had zero incidents.


strange argument. being underrepresented in the sample and showing no crash is conclusive for what?

Only one fifth of MAX have an N reg. The reason why the other 4/5th had a much better chance for a crash.
And we still have no inkling on why wrong AoA data was handed to MCAS.

To go into the absurd but not improbable ( bugs are like that):
Cause could be some position computation that has a bug for negative/eastern latitudes.
Position is irrelevant but the bug's effect is toggling a bit in the AoA value.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:52 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Interested wrote:
Can you answer me now as I have no idea on the crashes you refer to?


My point exactly.

Nice try on the red herring to distract from the fact that the A320 had a worse crash/in-service airframe ratio.


What red herring?

And how did airbus sort their problems?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:54 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
One was the flight control computer overode what the pilot attempted to do.

And a good thing (TM). landing in trees vs falling out of the sky. ( see the TK 737 @ AMS )

Have you really thought about what you wrote?
Murphy is an optimist
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:19 pm

keesje wrote:
I love the up beat tone here. But I'm afraid some process improvement opportunities surfaced & this goes a bit further then an FAA review of a software fix & a 15 minutes of pilot training as well as some self-guided instruction. But that's just my impression.


True that. The FAA is no position to re-issue an new certification, as it is now under investigation for screwing up the original one. I mean, with the amount of certification work that they outsourced back to Boeing, the original certificate should be completely scrapped and the whole process needs to be done from scratch. This time properly, by FAA engineers.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11134
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:20 pm

Could we please stick to the topic that being the grounding of the 737MAX
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
It doesn't matter what you asked. Most engineers I know are complete morons, the whole having a degree thing is meaningless when it comes to good design, evaluation, and safety.

Bless you!
My partner used to work in a research lab with more PhD's than windows.
Often quite brilliant at what they did, but you wouldn't want to put your life in their hands. :lol:


Heh, my statement might have been a bit abrasive but I'm frequently stunned at how often I need props or visual aids to convey really basic concepts to certain engineers out there. I had to make a guy look up PTFE/Teflon on Wikipedia one day because I couldn't get him to understand that the hard plastic I was holding was not teflon, it was some other plastic that had been misordered, and how it was not acceptable for its intended use.
情報
 
uta999
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:24 pm

It will be very interesting when this worldwide ban is eventually lifted, how many airlines, crews and passengers refuse to accept the type as safe. While some on here will say that 99% of passengers don't know their 737MAX from a DC-8, that is no longer true thanks to Twitter, Facebook and 24-hour news alerts on the phone. The flying public suddenly become spotters. The FAA and Boeing have created a real mess for themselves here.

I suspect some regulatory authorities (EU, Canada & China) will be very slow in lifting the current ban.
Your computer just got better
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:32 pm

Jouhou wrote:
I was holding was not teflon, it was some other plastic that had been misordered, and how it was not acceptable for its intended use.


What makes an engineer in context of your writ? i.e. what kind of qualification path are we looking at?
Murphy is an optimist
 
oschkosch
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:37 pm

uta999 wrote:
It will be very interesting when this worldwide ban is eventually lifted, how many airlines, crews and passengers refuse to accept the type as safe. While some on here will say that 99% of passengers don't know their 737MAX from a DC-8, that is no longer true thanks to Twitter, Facebook and 24-hour news alerts on the phone. The flying public suddenly become spotters. The FAA and Boeing have created a real mess for themselves here.

I suspect some regulatory authorities (EU, Canada & China) will be very slow in lifting the current ban.
very true! Here is an example from Germany. The well known Bild Newspaper, basically the biggest German yellow press.


https://m.bild.de/geld/wirtschaft/wirts ... obile.html

The headlines:

NEUE DETAILS ÜBER BOEINGS TODESFLIEGER Ist der Konkurrenzkampf mit Airbus schuld am Absturz?

American Airlines streicht pro Tag 90 Boeing-Flüge +++ Zudem drohen Boeing Schadenersatzzahlungen in Milliardenhöhe an die EU

Translation:
New details about Boeing's plane of death
Is the competition battle with Airbus the cause of the accident?
AA cancels 90 Boeing flights per day
Boeing furthermore may have to pay billions in compensation penalties to the EU.

The penalties part refers to us government support for the Dreamliner.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:51 pm

I'd like to know what 'tentatively' means in this context. Aren't they rushing it a bit?

https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/24/faa ... Na7CEr7MLU
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2471
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:56 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Interested wrote:
Can you answer me now as I have no idea on the crashes you refer to?


My point exactly.

Nice try on the red herring to distract from the fact that the A320 had a worse crash/in-service airframe ratio.


The 737 is on the same certificate since 1965. The A320 was a brand new design. Red herring indeed.

Failures of Boeing and FAA:

1) FAA allowing Boeing to certify their own plane. WTF?
2) Boeing only using ONE AoA sensor for MCAS. Again, WTF?
3) Not informing pilots about this feature until after the Lion Air crash. Once again, WTF.

What Boeing did was criminal. You think given that the FAA's reputation is now garbage, other regulatory agencies around the world are going to believe them if they certify it as airworthy? :rotfl:
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:01 pm

Interested wrote:
What red herring?

And how did airbus sort their problems?


What part of "red herring to distract from the fact that the A320 had a worse crash/in-service airframe ratio" don't you understand?

A statement was made, and it was false. Simple as that.
 
ZKCIF
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:10 pm

Folks, no one is contesting that the EIS of A320 into service was troublesome. however, sadly, the standards were different. we cannot REASONABLY compare 1989 and 2019. or would anyone like to return to 1989. at that rate and the number of flights today, we would have a major crash every 10 days. Just think of that.
That is why the sad story of A320 is already irrelevant
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:11 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Interested wrote:
What red herring?

And how did airbus sort their problems?


What part of "red herring to distract from the fact that the A320 had a worse crash/in-service airframe ratio" don't you understand?

A statement was made, and it was false. Simple as that.


But I didn't make the statement?
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
I was holding was not teflon, it was some other plastic that had been misordered, and how it was not acceptable for its intended use.


What makes an engineer in context of your writ? i.e. what kind of qualification path are we looking at?


Someone with a degree in "mechanical engineering" assigned to the job "mechanical engineer".
情報
 
StTim
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:24 pm

All - I suspect many on here vehemently supporting the MAX as safe would have a different position if it was the A320 in the frame. I also suspect there are many on the opposite side as well.

I am neither. I would worry about any plane from any manufacturer that was introduced in the 21st century that had such a poor record and was found to have such flawed logic in its systems.

The topic at hand is the MAX - not whataboutism on any other frame.
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:33 pm

StTim wrote:
All - I suspect many on here vehemently supporting the MAX as safe would have a different position if it was the A320 in the frame. I also suspect there are many on the opposite side as well.

I am neither. I would worry about any plane from any manufacturer that was introduced in the 21st century that had such a poor record and was found to have such flawed logic in its systems.

The topic at hand is the MAX - not whataboutism on any other frame.


I am independent as well. I certainly have in the back of my mind when I was younger hearing bad stuff about airbus. And also at some stage about DC10 planes??

I'm an amateur who just goes OCD at times on topics as you've seen on here

I've only ever associated Boeing with success tbh and I'm just very surprised by what I've discovered about their operation lately.

Of course they need to come through this and I'm sure they will but they need a huge rethink and look at themselves. Which again I'm sure they will.

A new boss coming in and putting safety first will be more than enough to turn things round slowly but surely about how I feel about Boeing.

Uptil now I've always felt 100 per cent safe on Boeing planes and would want to feel that way again

The other plane I like flying on is the dreamliner. You can tell my ignorance as I actually have no idea who makes that. I just know it a dreamliner?
Last edited by Interested on Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:47 pm

ZKCIF wrote:
Folks, no one is contesting that the EIS of A320 into service was troublesome. however, sadly, the standards were different. we cannot REASONABLY compare 1989 and 2019. or would anyone like to return to 1989. at that rate and the number of flights today, we would have a major crash every 10 days. Just think of that.
That is why the sad story of A320 is already irrelevant

You'd better sum up those crashes that were caused by design defects as I can't reproduce your philippic samples.
1988 Habsheim Pilot errror alleviated by brand new FBW
1990 Indian Airlines Flight 605 unstabilised approach, lands too early. hits embankment.
1992 Air Inter Flight 148 CFIT
1993 Lufthansa Flight 2904 not enough load on MLG, remedy reduce min required load. ( But a long chain of pilot error up front.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... amily#A320

for a brand new concept in flying planes : cudos to Airbus. really done well!
Murphy is an optimist
 
Bradin
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:07 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
I'd like to know what 'tentatively' means in this context. Aren't they rushing it a bit?

https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/24/faa ... Na7CEr7MLU


While I'm not sure from a "tentative" means from the FAA, I do know from a software perspective that code can be compared. Mixed in the software code is probably legacy 737NG software code, as well as the new 737-Max Code. I'm fairly confident that there is a comparison or documentation that directly shows what has been updated since the last approved set of software code and the approval process isn't as labor intensive as one is lead to believe.

ZKCIF wrote:
Folks, no one is contesting that the EIS of A320 into service was troublesome. however, sadly, the standards were different. we cannot REASONABLY compare 1989 and 2019. or would anyone like to return to 1989. at that rate and the number of flights today, we would have a major crash every 10 days. Just think of that.
That is why the sad story of A320 is already irrelevant


Respectfully, as long as there are humans designing aeroplanes, and human pilots, the standards are the same because we are all flawed individuals. Mistakes will happen, and we learn from them. We do our best to elevate the standards, but those mistakes will still creep in from time to time.
 
User avatar
BobleBrave
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:22 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
The numbers are readily available if you do you’re research, both carriers have released the data. AA has around 41,000 flight hours in the Max and WN had around 60,000 hours

I work for AA in maintenance we had 41,000 flight hours and WN stated around 60,000, do you have comprehension issues?


Why can't you read up this thread before talking down to people ? All those statistics related questions were already put to bed around p.40. :banghead:

100 000 hours is absolutely nothing, 737NG worldwide fleet reach that flight time every 3 days.

At the end of the day, the 737MAX is the ONLY recent design (2000 onward) that has been flown into the ground (twice), and with a relatively small and recent fleet in service compared to 380, 787, 350, 320n, 330n...
It's not because your flight sample is american that it is reliable.
Last edited by BobleBrave on Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bob le Brave
 
art
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:22 pm

Interested wrote:
Of course they need to come through this and I'm sure they will but they need a huge rethink and look at themselves. Which again I'm sure they will.

A new boss coming in and putting safety first will be more than enough to turn things round slowly but surely about how I feel about Boeing.


I do not think that Boeing will make safety supreme unless they get into a situation where they lose a vast amount of money through some failure due to not to making safety supreme. Safety may be of supreme importance to the designers and engineers in the company but I don't think that is the case for the company managers. I think they look for what they see as a balance between profit and safety where safety is important but not supremely important. Hence the decision to re-engine the 737 even though they were aware that ehgine location would be far from optimum, rather than going for a clean sheet design with no such problem.
 
jomur
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:58 pm

Bradin wrote:

I'm fairly confident that there is a comparison or documentation that directly shows what has been updated since the last approved set of software code and the approval process isn't as labor intensive as one is lead to believe.



But making sure it does what it is supposed to to in EVERY possible conceivable situation to satisfy every other worldwide regulatory body probably would be...
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2487
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:00 pm

The FAA is to Boeing as Arthur Andersen was to Enron?
 
MrBretz
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:16 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
It doesn't matter what you asked. Most engineers I know are complete morons, the whole having a degree thing is meaningless when it comes to good design, evaluation, and safety.

Bless you!
My partner used to work in a research lab with more PhD's than windows.
Often quite brilliant at what they did, but you wouldn't want to put your life in their hands. :lol:


As far as Enron and Arthur Anderson as compared to Boeing and the FAA, you might want to ask these guys.
Last edited by MrBretz on Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3856
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:30 pm

Interested wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
spinotter wrote:

It's not at the level of Boeing employees that anyone is worrying about non-western employees, but at the level of pilots. But I think that most people have accepted that these accidents could have happened anywhere. What are people's thoughts about the lack of such accidents in the USA/Canada/etc.? Did pilots in this region get more training in MCAS? Should the airlines (JT/ET) involved be assigned a portion of the blame for inadequate training?


Well I think there have been incidents in North America regarding MCAS but no crashes thankfully, I would chalk this up to the US, Canada, Europe etc. have pilots whom started on Cessna's and learned worked their way up to the airlines or were military/air force pilots. They know how to fly first and where as the growing aviation industry in Africa and Asia trains pilots on simulators and might not have the experience of aviating first. I am not saying the crews are necessarily incompetent but they might lack the full experience of just taking over the plane manually that a pilot who flew bush planes when they were a kid might.

I would tend to think that AC pilots probably got full training on the Max because there was no 737's in their fleet prior to them getting them in 2017. I think all of the other airlines that operate the MAX had the 737 in their fleet to begin with so I have no idea if they got the full training.


They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
speedking
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:56 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:

Well I think there have been incidents in North America regarding MCAS but no crashes thankfully, I would chalk this up to the US, Canada, Europe etc. have pilots whom started on Cessna's and learned worked their way up to the airlines or were military/air force pilots. They know how to fly first and where as the growing aviation industry in Africa and Asia trains pilots on simulators and might not have the experience of aviating first. I am not saying the crews are necessarily incompetent but they might lack the full experience of just taking over the plane manually that a pilot who flew bush planes when they were a kid might.

I would tend to think that AC pilots probably got full training on the Max because there was no 737's in their fleet prior to them getting them in 2017. I think all of the other airlines that operate the MAX had the 737 in their fleet to begin with so I have no idea if they got the full training.


They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


Or build a car with an ABS system with only one speed sensor in one wheel. If it breaks, the ABS will brake the car hard every fifteen seconds. And no warning light. You would need to read the manual to know to switch the ABS off from a separate switch to disable the brakes and then use the hand brake to stop the car.
It still would make the already safe car more safe!
 
boerje
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:07 pm

speedking wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:

They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


Or build a car with an ABS system with only one speed sensor in one wheel. If it breaks, the ABS will brake the car hard every fifteen seconds. And no warning light. You would need to read the manual to know to switch the ABS off from a separate switch to disable the brakes and then use the hand brake to stop the car.
It still would make the already safe car more safe!


The owners manual wouldn't mention the ABS functionality. That information would only be found in the car repair and servicing manual...
 
oschkosch
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:19 pm

speedking wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:

They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


Or build a car with an ABS system with only one speed sensor in one wheel. If it breaks, the ABS will brake the car hard every fifteen seconds. And no warning light. You would need to read the manual to know to switch the ABS off from a separate switch to disable the brakes and then use the hand brake to stop the car.
It still would make the already safe car more safe!
Actually no. When the abs aka speed sensor is defective the brakes don't brake every few seconds. A defective sensor would mean that you can still use your brakes as normal, just you might face blocking brakes instead of the stuttered braking which is from the abs system. That's why abs means anti blocking system :-)

The sensor itself is not defined as being safety relevant, as the brakes still work without the sensor.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
bob75013
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:46 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:

Well I think there have been incidents in North America regarding MCAS but no crashes thankfully, I would chalk this up to the US, Canada, Europe etc. have pilots whom started on Cessna's and learned worked their way up to the airlines or were military/air force pilots. They know how to fly first and where as the growing aviation industry in Africa and Asia trains pilots on simulators and might not have the experience of aviating first. I am not saying the crews are necessarily incompetent but they might lack the full experience of just taking over the plane manually that a pilot who flew bush planes when they were a kid might.

I would tend to think that AC pilots probably got full training on the Max because there was no 737's in their fleet prior to them getting them in 2017. I think all of the other airlines that operate the MAX had the 737 in their fleet to begin with so I have no idea if they got the full training.


They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


I suspect you are not old enough to remember that seat belts and airbags WERE extra cost options when they first came out??
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:47 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:

Well I think there have been incidents in North America regarding MCAS but no crashes thankfully, I would chalk this up to the US, Canada, Europe etc. have pilots whom started on Cessna's and learned worked their way up to the airlines or were military/air force pilots. They know how to fly first and where as the growing aviation industry in Africa and Asia trains pilots on simulators and might not have the experience of aviating first. I am not saying the crews are necessarily incompetent but they might lack the full experience of just taking over the plane manually that a pilot who flew bush planes when they were a kid might.

I would tend to think that AC pilots probably got full training on the Max because there was no 737's in their fleet prior to them getting them in 2017. I think all of the other airlines that operate the MAX had the 737 in their fleet to begin with so I have no idea if they got the full training.


They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts

Airbags and seatbelts and backup warning devices are mandated by law in the USA.
So a car manufacturer would be breaking the law by making them optional.
Rest assured that the buyers are paying for them, though.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2148
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:55 pm

LTC8K6 wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:

They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts

Airbags and seatbelts and backup warning devices are mandated by law in the USA.
So a car manufacturer would be breaking the law by making them optional.
Rest assured that the buyers are paying for them, though.

At one time they weren’t.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:56 pm

bob75013 wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
Interested wrote:

They may not have faced the same issues and may have better maintenance teams as well

It's irrelevant IMO as we aren't supposed to be designing planes that need more competent people to maintain or fly them to keep them safe

We are supposed to be designing planes that are safer in the first place


Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


I suspect you are not old enough to remember that seat belts and airbags WERE extra cost options when they first came out??

50 resp. 40 years ago.
today they are compulsory, part of the basic set capabilities a car must meet to be certified.

So you say Boeing still tries to get away selling as "Xtra" the options from half a century ago?
( you have a point. the 737 is from that time frame.

The basic Ford Model-T with new flashy panels and a compressor cum supercharged 6 liter engine but still the old brakes, 3 pedal gear selection, seats, no belts, a windscreen made of plain glass panes perfect for cutting up your daughters face, a control column like an iron spear ready to pierce the drivers chest sold as most modern car, best of the best all others only catching up. barely. That is the car equivalent of the 737MAX :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
THS214
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:58 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Interested wrote:
What red herring?

And how did airbus sort their problems?


What part of "red herring to distract from the fact that the A320 had a worse crash/in-service airframe ratio" don't you understand?

A statement was made, and it was false. Simple as that.


You know that it was 30 years ago? What you say is that we don't want to learn. I hope you don't work in any critical part of the chain.
 
asdf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:09 pm

Interested wrote:
See I must be a Boeing fan. Just Googled dreamliner and that's Boeing as well. I love those planes

Please don't tell me they rely on MCAS to be safe!!


no

complete FBW
like a post-2000 plane should be

complete other animal
 
speedking
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:11 pm

oschkosch wrote:
speedking wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:

Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


Or build a car with an ABS system with only one speed sensor in one wheel. If it breaks, the ABS will brake the car hard every fifteen seconds. And no warning light. You would need to read the manual to know to switch the ABS off from a separate switch to disable the brakes and then use the hand brake to stop the car.
It still would make the already safe car more safe!
Actually no. When the abs aka speed sensor is defective the brakes don't brake every few seconds. A defective sensor would mean that you can still use your brakes as normal, just you might face blocking brakes instead of the stuttered braking which is from the abs system. That's why abs means anti blocking system :-)

The sensor itself is not defined as being safety relevant, as the brakes still work without the sensor.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Yes of course. ABS system doesn't do that. Luckily it is not built like MCAS.
 
Bradin
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:23 am

jomur wrote:
Bradin wrote:

I'm fairly confident that there is a comparison or documentation that directly shows what has been updated since the last approved set of software code and the approval process isn't as labor intensive as one is lead to believe.



But making sure it does what it is supposed to to in EVERY possible conceivable situation to satisfy every other worldwide regulatory body probably would be...


Respectfully, I believe it's impossible to identify every possible conceivable situation.

For example, both Boeing and the FAA learned after the fact they needed to design testing parameters around lithium ion batteries after the fires in the 787.

If that was truly possible to identify every possible conceivable situation, we would not be having massive aeroplane engineering or other engineering problems in the first place.

We design for what we can, and we try to engineer tolerances and buffer so that if something does fail, it fails securely and correctly. Not everything will always fail in that way because we are mortal.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:42 am

Bradin wrote:
jomur wrote:
Bradin wrote:

I'm fairly confident that there is a comparison or documentation that directly shows what has been updated since the last approved set of software code and the approval process isn't as labor intensive as one is lead to believe.



But making sure it does what it is supposed to to in EVERY possible conceivable situation to satisfy every other worldwide regulatory body probably would be...


Respectfully, I believe it's impossible to identify every possible conceivable situation.

For example, both Boeing and the FAA learned after the fact they needed to design testing parameters around lithium ion batteries after the fires in the 787.

If that was truly possible to identify every possible conceivable situation, we would not be having massive aeroplane engineering or other engineering problems in the first place.

We design for what we can, and we try to engineer tolerances and buffer so that if something does fail, it fails securely and correctly. Not everything will always fail in that way because we are mortal.


It was known before the 787 burning batteries that a burning lithium ion battery were dangerous. Those batteries are not based on a watery solvent, but a hydrocarbon solvent. Like putting a few liters of oil with a heating element in it in the electric cabinet. Other users of big lithium ion batteries were already using a similar solution like the containment Boeing in the end designed. After the first incident Boeing and the FAA fought foot and nails to not ground the 787. The sense for safety when something goes wrong seems to be off at Boeing and the FAA, they rather wait for a serious accident than grip in, the moment the realization hits, that something is dangerous.
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:21 am

A few thoughts on this after the weekend: As a friend put it this past weekend (hates Trump) says it’s the best thing he’s done as POTUS and didn’t even know about it until I told him.
These are 3rd world airlines operating this airplane with an apparent software problem. Thus, the skill-set isn’t there among foreign nations to troubleshoot the software during a stall. It needs to be banned until they can figure it out.

I do blame Boeing more for several reasons:

1. The fast rollout of the 737 MAX was completely unnecessary as other 737 variants were still very strong selling.

2. The 787 battery leak which lead to many diversions (and fixed) wasn’t criticized hard enough by the Obama Administration.

3. Boeing is dressing up a 50+ year old plane as something “new” but frankly the 737 ran it’s course with the 900ER variant.

4. The 737–900ER has major performance issues with things like tail tipping, runway overruns during snowstorms, and weight restrictions (EG: see UAL at ORD it happens yearly.) The MAX could've been in for worse.

5. The fact the MAX is a public weakness black-hole as the small lavs, extremely tight seat pitch don’t really help UAL, SWA, AA’s image to replace the 757 with. It frankly just looks like a giant P.O.S. interior wise. Trip reports on Youtube illustrate this well.

6. Boeing taking the 737 to make it work to (barely) transatlantic crossings is a risk, and likely as result of shutting down the 757 in 2005.

7. Boeing should’ve been more innovative after the 787 delays and launch a proper 757 replacement (EG: 797) to compete with the A321 NEO and not the MAX. They didn’t and it’s a “steady eddie” platform and a cheap makeover to compete with it.

8. Boeing’s lack of accountability for this situation is almost as bad as the DNC being transparent.

9. The public really is down with this aircraft being banned. The rollout was sketchy as hell and Boeing doesn’t want to take the heat for it.

10. Cross-check all software issues before a release. I do this in my job, why can't Boeing freaking own up or do it?

Obviously, the 50 year old frame doesn't matter nearly as much as software rollout or Boeing's track record with new releases on variants as of late.
Last edited by N649DL on Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:26 am

The 737 NG has a whole suite of systems bolted onto it that were not part of the original 737 design.

Speed Trim that essentially creates artificial longitudinal stability by inputting trim toward the trimmed speed.

Elevator Feel Shift which increases Hydraulic Pressure to introduce a nose down tendency at high low airspeed.

And now the MAX has MCAS.

Isn't it true that all of these systems all have to do with trying to keep an airplane that doesn't really fly anything like the original, close enough to flying like the previous derivative to maintain the original type.

If this is true, isn't it time we take a look at what is allowed while maintaining the same type certification.

One of the causes that I see of this MAX mess is that the MAX is a derivative of the NG which is itself a derivative of the classic, which us itself a derivative of the 100/200. It seems that the short cuts in certification taken (when compared to new type) compound any errors/oversights when the derivative in question is so far removed from the original.

To a avoid a new type, the FAA allows the comparison to be made to the previous derivative . Shouldn't the comparison have to be made to the original. Maybe there should be a cutoff where, say after 30, 40, 50 years we all agree that design, testing standards, etc. have progressed to the point where an extension of a current type is no longer in the best interest of aviation safety?

If the MAX was a brand new type, and the design that engineers came up with was such that you had to build at least 3 different computer modules to keep the airplane flying within reasonable parameters, would that be considered acceptable? I hope it wouldn't be.
Last edited by Passedv1 on Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:32 am

Passedv1 wrote:
The 737 NG has a whole suite of systems bolted onto it that were not part of the original 737 design.

Speed Trim that essentially creates artificial longitudinal stability by inputting trim toward the trimmed speed.

Elevator Feel Shift which increases Hydraulic Pressure to introduce a nose down tendency at high low airspeed.

And now the MAX has MCAS.

Isn't it true that all of these systems all have to do with trying to keep an airplane that doesn't really fly anything like the original, close enough to flying like the original to maintain the original type.

If this is true, isn't it time we take a look at what is allowed while maintaining the same type certification.

One of the causes that I see of this MAX mess is that the MAX is a derivative of the NG which is itself a derivative of the classic, which us itself a derivative of the 100/200. It seems that the short cuts in certification taken (when compared to new type) compound when the derivative in question is so far removed from the original.

To a avoid a new type. The FAA allows the comparison to be made to the previous derivative . Shouldn't the comparison have to be made to the original. Maybe there there should be a cutoff where, say after 30, 40, 50 years we all agree that design, testing standards, etc. have progressed to the point where an extension of a current type is no longer in the best interest of aviation safety?

If the MAX was a brand new type, and the design that engineers came up with was such that you had to build at least 3 different computer modules to keep the airplane flying within reasonable parameters, would that be considered acceptable? I hope it wouldn't be.


It's 3 things that can go wrong that add to the risk of flying the plane and lead to more chance of human error on the ground with maintenance and in the air with pilots

Which to me doesn't add up

And the latest one seems the most risky of the lot
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:44 am

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ax-crashes

Investigation launched into how FAA certifies planes

One thing that review needs to do is look at the report the FAA made themselves on future best practise in 2002 to see they don't even follow their own guidelines or advice any more

It's out of control
Last edited by Interested on Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Bradin
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:46 am

Via New York Times: In Test of Boeing Jet, Pilots Had 40 Seconds to Fix Error

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/busi ... error.html

Fair Use Excerpt:

During flight simulations recreating the problems with the doomed Lion Air plane, pilots discovered that they had less than 40 seconds to override an automated system on Boeing’s new jets and avert disaster.


Also of interest, it reads like there is a logic error in the software.

In the current design, the system engages for 10 seconds at a time, with five-second pauses in between. Under conditions similar to the Lion Air flight, three engagements over just 40 seconds, including pauses, would send the plane into an unrecoverable dive, the two people involved in the testing said.
 
Interested
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:49 am

Bradin wrote:
Via New York Times: In Test of Boeing Jet, Pilots Had 40 Seconds to Fix Error

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/busi ... error.html

Fair Use Excerpt:

During flight simulations recreating the problems with the doomed Lion Air plane, pilots discovered that they had less than 40 seconds to override an automated system on Boeing’s new jets and avert disaster.


Also of interest, it reads like there is a logic error in the software.

In the current design, the system engages for 10 seconds at a time, with five-second pauses in between. Under conditions similar to the Lion Air flight, three engagements over just 40 seconds, including pauses, would send the plane into an unrecoverable dive, the two people involved in the testing said.


Good job these were Western Test Pilots and knew what to expect. Sounds like they found it tough
Last edited by Interested on Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
boerje
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:16 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:57 am

WIederling wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:

Oh I agree 100% and it looks horrible for Boeing that they offered extra safety features at an additional cost.
That is like a car manufacturer charging extra for airbags and seat belts


I suspect you are not old enough to remember that seat belts and airbags WERE extra cost options when they first came out??

50 resp. 40 years ago.
today they are compulsory, part of the basic set capabilities a car must meet to be certified.

So you say Boeing still tries to get away selling as "Xtra" the options from half a century ago?
( you have a point. the 737 is from that time frame.

The basic Ford Model-T with new flashy panels and a compressor cum supercharged 6 liter engine but still the old brakes, 3 pedal gear selection, seats, no belts, a windscreen made of plain glass panes perfect for cutting up your daughters face, a control column like an iron spear ready to pierce the drivers chest sold as most modern car, best of the best all others only catching up. barely. That is the car equivalent of the 737MAX :-)


Unfortunately not all new cars have basic safety features we have in the developed countries. In India for example airbags will only be made a mandatory fitment this year.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19175
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:20 am

Bradin wrote:
Also of interest, it reads like there is a logic error in the software.

In the current design, the system engages for 10 seconds at a time, with five-second pauses in between. Under conditions similar to the Lion Air flight, three engagements over just 40 seconds, including pauses, would send the plane into an unrecoverable dive, the two people involved in the testing said.


We knew this shortly after the Lion crash when Boeing fessed up about MCAS. Boeing's original 'reminder' said something to the effect (can't find exact wording just now) "left unchecked, MCAS can render the plane uncontrollable" (may have said unrecoverable).

The article is pointing out that just three full cycles of MCAS activity (10s trim down, 5s pause, 10s trim down, 5s pause, 10s trim down) without any pilot counter action will leave the plane unrecoverable.

It was shocking when we found out about it. It's still absolutely shocking that Boeing would design such a system, have it rely on a single sensor, have it certified and not tell pilots about it. :banghead:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:25 am

boerje wrote:
[Unfortunately not all new cars have basic safety features we have in the developed countries. In India for example airbags will only be made a mandatory fitment this year.


Things develop. there are always early adopters and follow ups.
Are seat belts mandatory? Is their use mandatory? :-)

Then some safety thingies appear to not work as expected.
( deadly roll overs and passengers thrown out of the car seem to be US specific
in and environment of airbags and belts being mandatory.)
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos