Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:08 pm

par13del wrote:
A lot of folks are now convinced that if it ain't FBW its not safe, not much for building pilot confidence, but, it is what it is....

Stitch wrote:
Unfortunately, we have proof enough that FBW and Envelope Protection can't always save a plane from poor piloting - AF296, AF447, OZ214, X4888T, etc.

par13del wrote:
...which get's lost in the shuffle when talking about an a/c designed before we were born, has been grandfathered countless times and is not as safe as the NG which it replaces. Yeah, I see what I did there....


But look at the NG - designed before we were born and grandfathered countess times, yet has a very enviable safety record. So the MAX should have been safe. And if Boeing had not tried to cut corners for financial gain and the FAA had not been so embedded and entangled with them that they either could not see those corners being cut or just rolled with it out of expediency, I believe the MAX would have been as safe as the NG.

And now that Boeing has been forced to restore those corners and the FAA (and other regulators) are paying attention, I believe that an RTS MAX will be as safe as the NG when it returns to service because I believe the underlying design is sound. IMO, the problem with MCAS was not MCAS as an idea. The problem was how MCAS was executed (really, how that execution was allowed to mutate into a more dangerous form) and then deliberately hidden by Boeing from regulators and operators and how the FAA by proxy allowed those execution mutations to be hidden in the first place.
 
ClubCX
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
That being said, I am quite confident they expect very few people to actually take them up on the offer because they know most people will have no clue what metal is operating on their flight and for those who do know it will be operated with a MAX, they are probably already effectively locked-in to that flight for whatever reason(s) so they will just "roll the dice" and fly.


It would be in the best interest of the airlines to make the type of aircraft prominent when booking, otherwise people are going to get on the plane, see 737 MAX written on the safety card, freak out and demand to get off, and delay everyone for 20 minutes while their bags are located.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:48 am

Well Tesla stock is through the roof even if their autopilot loves to crash into fire trucks on the shoulder.
 
User avatar
VCVSpotter
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 6:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:28 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Well Tesla stock is through the roof even if their autopilot loves to crash into fire trucks on the shoulder.


Yeah but Tesla actually tells their customers that 'YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION AT ALL TIMES TESLA IS NOT LIABLE' and all the crap that the lawyers force them to say. (I know because they said that to us before we could even see our car lol).
On the other hand, Boeing doesn't tell their operators (at least I don't think they did) that 'Watch out, MCAS may suddenly force the plane into a dive.'
It's comparing apples to oranges, just my 2 cents.
Now back to the 737MAX RTS...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Just a normal teenager juggling AP classes and airplanes. No biggie • Love the 747 & 777-9 • Farewell BA/KL 744s
 
User avatar
TurboJet707
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 11:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am

American architects Victor Hugo Azevedo and Cheryl Lu Xu have a back-up plan for the 737MAX, just in case the return to service will not go as smoothly as hoped:

Image

Image

http://www.evolo.us/the-boeing-737-max-tower/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/boei ... ~bf7e30dc/
 
uta999
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:45 am

A Flight Simulators paradise, especially if a working flight deck is included. Quite a few TCAS alerts though. I actually like it.
Your computer just got better
 
Passedv1
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:50 am

FriscoHeavy wrote:
Stitch wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
I am also surprised they aren't testing the software on the -8MAX as well.


If it works on the frame that is most-affected, then it arguably should work on frames that are less-affected. And if the primary purpose of this flight was to validate the software and procedural changes, then you can plug those into the -8, -9 and -10 simulators with confidence that when pilots train, they're training with known good data.

Aptivaboy wrote:
Concur. I'm also surprised at the relatively small number of test flights.


If the primary focus was validating the fix, you might not need many tests. It either works as expected, or it doesn't. And if it does (which the implication this is the case), then you can proceed with simulator training for flight crews.


We also need to recognize this flight test is not the end of the process, but just another step - and an early step at that - to returning the MAX to service.


I agree that the theory should work just as you pointed out. However, there are a lot of theories that just don't pan out the right way in real life. For Boeing's sake, I hope it does work out by just adding the software to the other models, but after 2 crashes, you'd think they would take the one extra step and test it on all the models (not just in a simulator). I'm a huge Boeing fan and would step on any MAX in a heartbeat, but for the public's sake, just test it on all of the models.

The problem with theories is that they work...until they don't. In theory, you'd take out the longest mortgage possible on house because with low interest rates, you'd make more by being invested in good, growth stock mutual funds. The reality is, the people who file bankruptcy are the ones with mortgage and debt. The reality is, you build wealth and financial independence by paying off your home and debt. The reality is, people become ill and can't work. The reality is, while it will usually work, the market does go down from time to time and would yield that theory useless. It's long winded way of saying that theories are good, but in every day practice, don't always stack up.

Come on Boeing, put every day pilots behind the wheel of every MAX model and get it right -- not just in theory.



In theory, the MCAS is supposed to activate so rarely that pilots don't even need to be told about it.

In my opinion, Boeing used up all of it's privilege to save money in testing due to hypotheses with regards to the MAX. At this point, You have two -8's that crashed, the tests need to be performed on a -8's. I think the tests need to be performed on all of the variants.

The burden of proof is on Boeing at this point. There cannot even be an appearance of the taking of shortcuts.
 
pune
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:56 am

TurboJet707 wrote:
American architects Victor Hugo Azevedo and Cheryl Lu Xu have a back-up plan for the 737MAX, just in case the return to service will not go as smoothly as hoped:

Image

Image

http://www.evolo.us/the-boeing-737-max-tower/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/boei ... ~bf7e30dc/


pretty ingenious, I do hope it becomes a reality and not an imagination. I am sure there would be challenges but probably they would have to figure out how to do things. It could also be a tourist attraction, sort of.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:53 am

TurboJet707 wrote:
American architects Victor Hugo Azevedo and Cheryl Lu Xu have a back-up plan for the 737MAX, just in case the return to service will not go as smoothly as hoped:

Image

Image

http://www.evolo.us/the-boeing-737-max-tower/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/boei ... ~bf7e30dc/


Could they not do this with all those planes that are been retired earlier than planned. Must be easy to find birds with 0 to really low scrap value.
 
AndoAv8R
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:29 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:13 pm

I read Monday that there are additional re-certification flights coming up soon with FAA pilots. Anyone know how many and how many days this campaign will be? I assume its also going to be N7201S as well.

Also has anyone heard how the campaign from last week went, any major glitches?
 
Noshow
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:04 pm

Aren't these the ones with real world airline pilots but under FAA's watch? FAA was reported to have finished it's own test pilot flights.
 
Opus99
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:20 pm

AndoAv8R wrote:
I read Monday that there are additional re-certification flights coming up soon with FAA pilots. Anyone know how many and how many days this campaign will be? I assume its also going to be N7201S as well.

Also has anyone heard how the campaign from last week went, any major glitches?

Alaska airline CEO says his VP for safety told him they went very very well
 
elbandgeek
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:38 pm

JonesNL wrote:
TurboJet707 wrote:
American architects Victor Hugo Azevedo and Cheryl Lu Xu have a back-up plan for the 737MAX, just in case the return to service will not go as smoothly as hoped:

Image

Image

http://www.evolo.us/the-boeing-737-max-tower/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/boei ... ~bf7e30dc/


Could they not do this with all those planes that are been retired earlier than planned. Must be easy to find birds with 0 to really low scrap value.


I love this concept and would absolutely live there, and I agree I do think it could work with any retired frame in reasonable condition. The bigger issue I see is that it's pitched as an affordable housing soultion which would be great if it would be but let's be honest with ourselves, it would be a magnet for gentrification and they'd charge 2k for a one bedroom :roll:
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2692
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:56 pm

pugman211 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
Once (If) deliveries restart, the next problem is that few airlines are in a position to pay for or use said new airplanes.

Airlines with the largest MAX orders are probably in the weakest position to finance them in great numbers, at least for the next couple of years.

Expect 50% of the built frames to struggle to get finance in place, prior to delivery.


But, if Boeing concentrate on frames already delivered instead of new builds off the line, then the cost is a lot less for the airlines and that in turn gives a bit of time for the airlines to recover surely?


I think Boeing's customers will insist on fixing the Max's they already own & getting them back in the air first.

IIRC, WN, AA , and UA were planning on replacing older 737NG's that are close to heavy checks
with their already bought and paid for Max's.

I'm convinced clearing the backlog of undelivered Max's will take a lot longer than Boeing thinks, due to the
current finances of their customers.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:41 pm

par13del wrote:
Trust in the MAX is temporary at best until there is another incident, even if just a runway excursion with no fatalities.
The a/c was initially designed in the 19060's and it makes no difference how advanced the wings, engines or electronics are, folks will still say it is not FBW and that will be the end of the discussion. A lot of folks are now convinced that if it ain't FBW its not safe, not much for building pilot confidence, but, it is what it is....

And yet PIA just managed to land a full FBW airplane gear up and crash it during a go-around. Point is people will most likely get their sense of confidence (or lack thereof) from the airline. The airlines will run PR campaigns along the lines of "we are confident it is safe but if you have concerns you can rebook without a change fee". Most customers book on cost and convenience. I don't see that changing due to the MAX crisis. Heck I see people deciding to act as if COVID is no longer a thing, they can rationalize almost anything.

VCVSpotter wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Well Tesla stock is through the roof even if their autopilot loves to crash into fire trucks on the shoulder.

Yeah but Tesla actually tells their customers that 'YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION AT ALL TIMES TESLA IS NOT LIABLE' and all the crap that the lawyers force them to say. (I know because they said that to us before we could even see our car lol).
On the other hand, Boeing doesn't tell their operators (at least I don't think they did) that 'Watch out, MCAS may suddenly force the plane into a dive.'
It's comparing apples to oranges, just my 2 cents.
Now back to the 737MAX RTS...

Yes, but Tesla also sells the feature as AutoPilot and describes it as a self driving car, Elon says it is feature complete, yada yada. I hope someone sues the balls off them for false advertising and wins.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:02 pm

par13del wrote:
A lot of folks are now convinced that if it ain't FBW its not safe, not much for building pilot confidence, but, it is what it is....

Stitch wrote:
Unfortunately, we have proof enough that FBW and Envelope Protection can't always save a plane from poor piloting - AF296, AF447, OZ214, X4888T, etc.

par13del wrote:
...which get's lost in the shuffle when talking about an a/c designed before we were born, has been grandfathered countless times and is not as safe as the NG which it replaces. Yeah, I see what I did there....


But look at the NG - designed before we were born and grandfathered countess times, yet has a very enviable safety record. So the MAX should have been safe. And if Boeing had not tried to cut corners for financial gain and the FAA had not been so embedded and entangled with them that they either could not see those corners being cut or just rolled with it out of expediency, I believe the MAX would have been as safe as the NG.

And now that Boeing has been forced to restore those corners and the FAA (and other regulators) are paying attention, I believe that an RTS MAX will be as safe as the NG when it returns to service because I believe the underlying design is sound. IMO, the problem with MCAS was not MCAS as an idea. The problem was how MCAS was executed (really, how that execution was allowed to mutate into a more dangerous form) and then deliberately hidden by Boeing from regulators and operators and how the FAA by proxy allowed those execution mutations to be hidden in the first place.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:17 pm

That double hiding part is the dangerous thing. I agree with the "history" and how MCAS got beyond what it had been intended to be. But this bad energy to hide things in order to not bust budgets or timeframes must never be allowed to happen again.
I think Boeing is honest with their mods now but another accident and the MAX will be toast. But if it finally gets certified to be safe now things might quiet down and it might have many happy years.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:28 pm

Well the Europeans seem to be pushing for more FBW type tech which is most likely impossible for the MAX since it is not by design FBW, so the fudging with the third AOA sensor and the major changes to the human / machine interface, none of which were required for the NG to be safe. As you say, if the MAX was done properly....unfortunately that ship has long since sailed.
We know that the MAX when RTS occurs will still have out-standing items that Boeing has agreed to clear, I expect sparks to fly IF they reveal that what they agreed to is no longer economically viable.

The issue with the MAX being safe going forward is whether it will be produced long enough to clear its current bad name, the saying is that time heals all, for the MAX that is the million dollar question.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:37 pm

par13del wrote:
The issue with the MAX being safe going forward is whether it will be produced long enough to clear its current bad name, the saying is that time heals all, for the MAX that is the million dollar question.


I expect COVID has added five years, minimum, to the EIS plans for NSA/737RS at Boeing and NRA at Airbus. As such, I expect MAX (and the neo) to be in production into the next decade, easily.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:04 pm

Stitch wrote:
par13del wrote:
The issue with the MAX being safe going forward is whether it will be produced long enough to clear its current bad name, the saying is that time heals all, for the MAX that is the million dollar question.


I expect COVID has added five years, minimum, to the EIS plans for NSA/737RS at Boeing and NRA at Airbus. As such, I expect MAX (and the neo) to be in production into the next decade, easily.



With 400 already produced frames, and assuming RTS is approved in September, how long will it take to clear that backlog? As well, are all the produced frames wanted, given the current climate?

I would imagine will take quite a long time to clear.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:27 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
With 400 already produced frames, and assuming RTS is approved in September, how long will it take to clear that backlog? As well, are all the produced frames wanted, given the current climate?


Well before COVID, airlines wanted around 1200 neo and MAX per year based on production rates for each at 50+ per month. Obviously that demand has cratered in lock-step with the cratering in traffic, but if demand had stayed current, Boeing arguably would have been limited only by available manpower to get a frame ready for service as airlines would have arguably wanted them ASAP.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4113
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:49 pm

Stitch wrote:
par13del wrote:
A lot of folks are now convinced that if it ain't FBW its not safe, not much for building pilot confidence, but, it is what it is....

Stitch wrote:
Unfortunately, we have proof enough that FBW and Envelope Protection can't always save a plane from poor piloting - AF296, AF447, OZ214, X4888T, etc.

par13del wrote:
...which get's lost in the shuffle when talking about an a/c designed before we were born, has been grandfathered countless times and is not as safe as the NG which it replaces. Yeah, I see what I did there....


But look at the NG - designed before we were born and grandfathered countess times, yet has a very enviable safety record. So the MAX should have been safe. And if Boeing had not tried to cut corners for financial gain and the FAA had not been so embedded and entangled with them that they either could not see those corners being cut or just rolled with it out of expediency, I believe the MAX would have been as safe as the NG.


Irony one: what brought down the two Max's has nothing to do with said grandfathering.

Irony two: While Boeing knows very well how to design and implement a safe non-FBW design as demonstrated by NG, in order to handle the big engines, Boeing had to introduce some form/level of hidden FBW (called MCAS) for stability augmentation in some part of the approved flight envelope.

Irony three: That part-FBW functionality now requires design and safety standards associated with FBW.
i.e. you can't assign that much flight control authority to a (hidden) automatic system (MCAS), without the associated end-to-end system reliability mainly in terms of sensors and flight control computer.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
kalvado
Posts: 2736
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:06 pm

PW100 wrote:
Irony one: what brought down the two Max's has nothing to do with said grandfathering.

Irony two: While Boeing knows very well how to design and implement a safe non-FBW design as demonstrated by NG, in order to handle the big engines, Boeing had to introduce some form/level of hidden FBW (called MCAS) for stability augmentation in some part of the approved flight envelope.

Irony three: That part-FBW functionality now requires design and safety standards associated with FBW.
i.e. you can't assign that much flight control authority to a (hidden) automatic system (MCAS), without the associated end-to-end system reliability mainly in terms of sensors and flight control computer.

Great summary.
However, I think there still may be some grandfathering bit in here. They kept the old hydraulic computer which simulates yoke force. Why didn't they replace it with something more modern? I suspect it would be too big of a change. And likely they couldn't easily modify it...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:12 pm

PW100 wrote:
Irony one: what brought down the two Max's has nothing to do with said grandfathering.

Irony two: While Boeing knows very well how to design and implement a safe non-FBW design as demonstrated by NG, in order to handle the big engines, Boeing had to introduce some form/level of hidden FBW (called MCAS) for stability augmentation in some part of the approved flight envelope.

If not for grandfathering, Boeing would have bitten the financial bullet and raised the gear so that the engines could be installed to mitigate the need for MCAS. As the grandfathering effectively lowered the development cost, they chose that option. Look at the 777X, they bite that bullet and spent the money, my opinion is that they could have done the same with the MAX, the development time was long enough, I think they elected the cheapest route.
PW100 wrote:
Irony three: That part-FBW functionality now requires design and safety standards associated with FBW.
i.e. you can't assign that much flight control authority to a (hidden) automatic system (MCAS), without the associated end-to-end system reliability mainly in terms of sensors and flight control computer.

The issue here is the price Boeing has to pay for the two crashes, the other regulators only have a leg to stand on in relation to FBW because of the crashes, see the NG, it is as safe as any FBW a/c. The hammer will be held over the MAX going forward, any incident will raise the specter of crashes and lack of FBW.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:40 pm

PW100 wrote:
Irony three: That part-FBW functionality now requires design and safety standards associated with FBW.
i.e. you can't assign that much flight control authority to a (hidden) automatic system (MCAS), without the associated end-to-end system reliability mainly in terms of sensors and flight control computer.

If Boeing had not botched (fudged?) the SSA then they would have needed end-to-end reliability in sensors and FCC all along.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:28 pm

par13del wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Irony one: what brought down the two Max's has nothing to do with said grandfathering.

Irony two: While Boeing knows very well how to design and implement a safe non-FBW design as demonstrated by NG, in order to handle the big engines, Boeing had to introduce some form/level of hidden FBW (called MCAS) for stability augmentation in some part of the approved flight envelope.

If not for grandfathering, Boeing would have bitten the financial bullet and raised the gear so that the engines could be installed to mitigate the need for MCAS.

Discussed at length already. Whatever makes you bite a major overhaul like raising the gear, as you say, the design /certification effort is such that the right call is a clean sheet.
Problem is not grandfathering in itself, but it's the fact they had to push too far the concept to close the business case. And nothing stopped them!

No internal independant design departement flagged an issue of this released design (by clowns).
No design assurance system reviewer (airworthiness departement) identified the weakness of the design organisation. (checked by.....)
An agency assuming the way it control the two previous point was robust enough, (supervised by monkey)

Nothing made them realise they were building a hole in their swiss cheese layer...
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
jamincan
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:01 pm

par13del wrote:
PW100 wrote:
If not for grandfathering, Boeing would have bitten the financial bullet and raised the gear so that the engines could be installed to mitigate the need for MCAS. As the grandfathering effectively lowered the development cost, they chose that option. Look at the 777X, they bite that bullet and spent the money, my opinion is that they could have done the same with the MAX, the development time was long enough, I think they elected the cheapest route.


I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but it seems strange to me that changing the landing gear is a significant enough change that the certification couldn't be grandfathered, but that changing the engines and their position to such an extent isn't considered such a significant change. How is that justified?
 
Noshow
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:26 pm

Changing the gear length means changing the gear bays requiring changing the wing structure and finally some new wing.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4649
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:32 pm

jamincan wrote:
par13del wrote:
PW100 wrote:
If not for grandfathering, Boeing would have bitten the financial bullet and raised the gear so that the engines could be installed to mitigate the need for MCAS. As the grandfathering effectively lowered the development cost, they chose that option. Look at the 777X, they bite that bullet and spent the money, my opinion is that they could have done the same with the MAX, the development time was long enough, I think they elected the cheapest route.


I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but it seems strange to me that changing the landing gear is a significant enough change that the certification couldn't be grandfathered, but that changing the engines and their position to such an extent isn't considered such a significant change. How is that justified?


Changing the gear height means you can't grandfather the overwing exits, requiring slides now and then you're into very spendy recertification territory.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
par13del wrote:
Trust in the MAX is temporary at best until there is another incident, even if just a runway excursion with no fatalities.
The a/c was initially designed in the 19060's and it makes no difference how advanced the wings, engines or electronics are, folks will still say it is not FBW and that will be the end of the discussion. A lot of folks are now convinced that if it ain't FBW its not safe, not much for building pilot confidence, but, it is what it is....

And yet PIA just managed to land a full FBW airplane gear up and crash it during a go-around. Point is people will most likely get their sense of confidence (or lack thereof) from the airline. The airlines will run PR campaigns along the lines of "we are confident it is safe but if you have concerns you can rebook without a change fee". Most customers book on cost and convenience. I don't see that changing due to the MAX crisis. Heck I see people deciding to act as if COVID is no longer a thing, they can rationalize almost anything.


FBW doesn't say much. You can easily crash the airplane if the Airbus flies in alternate law flight mode.
Good moaning!
 
sgbroimp
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:00 pm

ClubCX wrote:
Stitch wrote:
That being said, I am quite confident they expect very few people to actually take them up on the offer because they know most people will have no clue what metal is operating on their flight and for those who do know it will be operated with a MAX, they are probably already effectively locked-in to that flight for whatever reason(s) so they will just "roll the dice" and fly.


It would be in the best interest of the airlines to make the type of aircraft prominent when booking, otherwise people are going to get on the plane, see 737 MAX written on the safety card, freak out and demand to get off, and delay everyone for 20 minutes while their bags are located.


I have been on many flights where the card simply says A320 or 737, so doubt this needs to be a real issue. Also, I recall after the spate of DC-10 incidents/accidents, especially after the ORD crash, that American and others removed the DC10 labeling from the fuselage. I think probably by the time of RTS the world will have moved on to other more pressing issues, if it has not already (Covid 19, as example).
 
IADFCO
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:13 pm

Noshow wrote:
Changing the gear length means changing the gear bays requiring changing the wing structure and finally some new wing.


Not necessarily. Landing gears introduce concentrated loads that can be distributed without having to modify the wing box. Certainly a new wing would not be required.

I'm not implying that changing the landing gear would be trivial, because there is really no extra room down there, so some extensive redesign would indeed be needed. However, I don't share the equivalence that many here seem to make, that if you touch the landing gear you might as well go clean sheet. A redesigned landing gear would not affect the aerodynamic and structural loads in cruise in any significant way. Compare that with a clean sheet wing redesign.

This is all academic, though. The "new landing gear" train has long left the station, it it ever was in it.
 
744SPX
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm

My guess is its going to take between 1500 and 2500 order cancellations within the next 12-18 months to cause Boeing to consider abandoning the MAX. Possible, but we are a long way from there.

Depends on:

-Passenger acceptance
-Re-entry into service
-Covid

Of course one more accident -or frankly, a near accident caused by inherent instability- and that will be all she wrote.

Frankly, Boeing is pretty lucky so far considering they deserve to have to build an all new aircraft.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2736
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:34 pm

IADFCO wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Changing the gear length means changing the gear bays requiring changing the wing structure and finally some new wing.


Not necessarily. Landing gears introduce concentrated loads that can be distributed without having to modify the wing box. Certainly a new wing would not be required.

I'm not implying that changing the landing gear would be trivial, because there is really no extra room down there, so some extensive redesign would indeed be needed. However, I don't share the equivalence that many here seem to make, that if you touch the landing gear you might as well go clean sheet. A redesigned landing gear would not affect the aerodynamic and structural loads in cruise in any significant way. Compare that with a clean sheet wing redesign.

This is all academic, though. The "new landing gear" train has long left the station, it it ever was in it.

Two factors about landing gear:
1. overwing exits have no slides - and they are at maximum permissible height for a jump. Any raizing of the wing would require new evacuation scheme - which would need to be compliant with modern regulations. Slides weight is also not trivial
2. No room between wheels of stowed landing gear - so gear mounting points would need to be moved. That is a bit of a wing issue. Next, gap between engine and gear is also not too wide - engine may need to be moved as well. So tail stabilizer needs to be bigger.... So this ends up being quite a daisy chain...
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:53 pm

Stitch wrote:
But look at the NG - designed before we were born and grandfathered countess times, yet has a very enviable safety record. So the MAX should have been safe.


Not if the very things that make the MAX different than the NG are why MCAS was needed and therefore indirectly led to two MAX's crashing the way they did. As much as Boeing didn't want their customers to realize it, the MAX and NG are different aircraft and the pilots should have been trained as such. But their alleged "sameness" was the MAX's main selling point, and that's why we're here today.
 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:42 am

elbandgeek wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
TurboJet707 wrote:
American architects Victor Hugo Azevedo and Cheryl Lu Xu have a back-up plan for the 737MAX, just in case the return to service will not go as smoothly as hoped:

Image

Image

http://www.evolo.us/the-boeing-737-max-tower/
https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/boei ... ~bf7e30dc/


Could they not do this with all those planes that are been retired earlier than planned. Must be easy to find birds with 0 to really low scrap value.


I love this concept and would absolutely live there, and I agree I do think it could work with any retired frame in reasonable condition. The bigger issue I see is that it's pitched as an affordable housing soultion which would be great if it would be but let's be honest with ourselves, it would be a magnet for gentrification and they'd charge 2k for a one bedroom :roll:


2K for one bedroom? Oh you haven't seen NYC rent prices have you. Try 2.5K for a studio.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:16 am

OMAAT has a report about AA considering to cancel the max orders. Problem is lack of financing, not a surprise I guess!
https://onemileatatime.com/american-air ... AX%20Order

The original report is on WSJ, behind a paywall though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-a ... 1594388443?

American can’t find financing for 737 MAX aircraft
American Airlines has a total of 100 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft on order. The airline took delivery of the first such plane in late 2017, and so far has about two dozen “MAXs” in its fleet. With the 737 MAX nearing certification, American is potentially on the hook for taking delivery of 17 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft this year. The Wall Street Journal reports that American Airlines is allegedly looking for a way to get out of these plane orders, as the airline is struggling to find financing.


If a legacy like AA cancels, I think that will send a shockwave/signal to others to do the same.
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
Noshow
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:29 am

Couldn't this be some AA internal business and financing decision independent from the MAX?
It's not like AA completely moves away from the MAX to (fictional) order 300 A321neos right now or similar? They don't find the money to pay for their ordered aircraft that are unneeded in the current market.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:42 pm

Noshow wrote:
Couldn't this be some AA internal business and financing decision independent from the MAX?
It's not like AA completely moves away from the MAX to (fictional) order 300 A321neos right now or similar? They don't find the money to pay for their ordered aircraft that are unneeded in the current market.


That's pretty much exactly what the article said.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:17 pm

Too many fake news articles around, some say cancel order others say looking for assistance to finance 12 planes others say looking to finance 17, why finance when you want to cancel?
Guess we have to wait and see, and since the MAX is not certified to fly and no one knows when that will happen......
It soon come from last year so......advise to AA and its bean counters, take time go slow....all in due time.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:59 pm

Opus99 posted this article https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 53.article
In the reference thread. In case some of you don’t venture there, you should look at it. It discusses in more detail the training pilots will receive for the updated MAX. It’s a good read.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:10 pm

oschkosch wrote:
OMAAT has a report about AA considering to cancel the max orders. Problem is lack of financing, not a surprise I guess!
https://onemileatatime.com/american-air ... AX%20Order

The original report is on WSJ, behind a paywall though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-a ... 1594388443?

American can’t find financing for 737 MAX aircraft
American Airlines has a total of 100 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft on order. The airline took delivery of the first such plane in late 2017, and so far has about two dozen “MAXs” in its fleet. With the 737 MAX nearing certification, American is potentially on the hook for taking delivery of 17 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft this year. The Wall Street Journal reports that American Airlines is allegedly looking for a way to get out of these plane orders, as the airline is struggling to find financing.


If a legacy like AA cancels, I think that will send a shockwave/signal to others to do the same.

Reuters ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN24B1X9 ) has a less sensational take:

Boeing’s strategy, first reported by Reuters last month, has been to encourage lessors to strike deals with airlines to buy MAX jets and rent them back to airlines.

In return, Boeing is seen ready to allow the same leasing companies to cancel part of their own plans to buy MAX jets directly, easing pressure on their balance sheets.

As a last resort, Boeing stands ready to buy back jets and lease them to airlines itself as a temporary measure through its Boeing Capital financing unit, an aviation market source said.

Singapore’s BOC Aviation last month canceled 30 of the jets shortly after it had struck purchase-and-leaseback deals for MAXs with United Airlines and Southwest in what many in the industry saw as related moves.

Boeing is now trying to facilitate similar deals for leasing companies to step in and finance deliveries for launch customer American Airlines (AAL.O), the sources said.

As does FlightGlobal ( https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/ame ... 52.article ):

An unnamed source familiar with American’s order downplays the threat that the carrier might cancel the Max orders. American, the source says, is seeking Boeing’s help to secure financing at favourable rates, which have become more difficult to obtain amid the coronavirus downturn.

Boeing’s in-house financial arm, Boeing Capital Corporation, helps airlines globally find financing needed to acquire new jets.

The source also says discussions focus on roughly one dozen jets, not 17.

WSJ offers a lot of sizzle but not much bacon.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
smartplane
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:01 am

Revelation wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
OMAAT has a report about AA considering to cancel the max orders. Problem is lack of financing, not a surprise I guess!
https://onemileatatime.com/american-air ... AX%20Order

The original report is on WSJ, behind a paywall though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-a ... 1594388443?

American can’t find financing for 737 MAX aircraft
American Airlines has a total of 100 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft on order. The airline took delivery of the first such plane in late 2017, and so far has about two dozen “MAXs” in its fleet. With the 737 MAX nearing certification, American is potentially on the hook for taking delivery of 17 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft this year. The Wall Street Journal reports that American Airlines is allegedly looking for a way to get out of these plane orders, as the airline is struggling to find financing.


If a legacy like AA cancels, I think that will send a shockwave/signal to others to do the same.

Reuters ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN24B1X9 ) has a less sensational take:

Boeing’s strategy, first reported by Reuters last month, has been to encourage lessors to strike deals with airlines to buy MAX jets and rent them back to airlines.

In return, Boeing is seen ready to allow the same leasing companies to cancel part of their own plans to buy MAX jets directly, easing pressure on their balance sheets.

As a last resort, Boeing stands ready to buy back jets and lease them to airlines itself as a temporary measure through its Boeing Capital financing unit, an aviation market source said.

Singapore’s BOC Aviation last month canceled 30 of the jets shortly after it had struck purchase-and-leaseback deals for MAXs with United Airlines and Southwest in what many in the industry saw as related moves.

Boeing is now trying to facilitate similar deals for leasing companies to step in and finance deliveries for launch customer American Airlines (AAL.O), the sources said.

As does FlightGlobal ( https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/ame ... 52.article ):

An unnamed source familiar with American’s order downplays the threat that the carrier might cancel the Max orders. American, the source says, is seeking Boeing’s help to secure financing at favourable rates, which have become more difficult to obtain amid the coronavirus downturn.

Boeing’s in-house financial arm, Boeing Capital Corporation, helps airlines globally find financing needed to acquire new jets.

The source also says discussions focus on roughly one dozen jets, not 17.

WSJ offers a lot of sizzle but not much bacon.

No news here.

All customers (irrespective of make or model) are seeking re-pricing, increased retrospective credits, deferred milestone payments, and OEM low / no interest finance.

New orders / re-confirm orders for all three models, and you will likely get all 4. Ditto for customers willing to do the trifecta at Airbus. EK/FZ step this way.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:45 am

Cdydatzigs wrote:
Not if the very things that make the MAX different than the NG are why MCAS was needed and therefore indirectly led to two MAX's crashing the way they did. As much as Boeing didn't want their customers to realize it, the MAX and NG are different aircraft and the pilots should have been trained as such. But their alleged "sameness" was the MAX's main selling point, and that's why we're here today.


Again, MCAS in and of itself was not the problem. It was, as you noted, the lack of knowledge about it being there and how it operated that was the problem. I recall reading that on a previous flight of either the Lion Air or the Ethiopian frame MCAS activated but the PIC knew about it and successfully recovered the frame.
 
2175301
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:45 am

Stitch wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
Not if the very things that make the MAX different than the NG are why MCAS was needed and therefore indirectly led to two MAX's crashing the way they did. As much as Boeing didn't want their customers to realize it, the MAX and NG are different aircraft and the pilots should have been trained as such. But their alleged "sameness" was the MAX's main selling point, and that's why we're here today.


Again, MCAS in and of itself was not the problem. It was, as you noted, the lack of knowledge about it being there and how it operated that was the problem. I recall reading that on a previous flight of either the Lion Air or the Ethiopian frame MCAS activated but the PIC knew about it and successfully recovered the frame.


Actually, on the previoius Lion Air Flight, my memory of the reports is that the PIC used manual trim multiple times to correct and maintain control. There was a 3rd pilot flying either as a passenger or in the jump-seat who knew enough about the system that had MCAS, or recognized it as runaway stablizer, to suggest turning it off... stopping the problem.

The key though is that the PIC used manual trim multiple times to maintain control of the flight. Note that in the next Lion Air flight that the PIC also used manual trim multiple times and was maintaining control; until he turned over control to the CoPilot - who did not use manual trim as often and quickly lost control.

Have a great day,
 
Noshow
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:20 am

Have any of those FAA "airline pilot demo flights" happened or are they already scheduled?
 
pugman211
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:52 am

Stitch wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
Not if the very things that make the MAX different than the NG are why MCAS was needed and therefore indirectly led to two MAX's crashing the way they did. As much as Boeing didn't want their customers to realize it, the MAX and NG are different aircraft and the pilots should have been trained as such. But their alleged "sameness" was the MAX's main selling point, and that's why we're here today.


Again, MCAS in and of itself was not the problem. It was, as you noted, the lack of knowledge about it being there and how it operated that was the problem. I recall reading that on a previous flight of either the Lion Air or the Ethiopian frame MCAS activated but the PIC knew about it and successfully recovered the frame.



Actually MCAS was the problem for the simple fact it did not have stabiliser authority limit. It just kept trimming down and down and down for each cycle.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:29 am

This.
Pilots did not know about the system. While they could manually correct the MCAS trim and manually retrim each time it would restart unknown to them over and over again in the background. Only permanent manual retrim after each MCAS interference would keep the aircraft flyable.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:22 am

2175301 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Again, MCAS in and of itself was not the problem. It was, as you noted, the lack of knowledge about it being there and how it operated that was the problem. I recall reading that on a previous flight of either the Lion Air or the Ethiopian frame MCAS activated but the PIC knew about it and successfully recovered the frame.


Actually, on the previoius Lion Air Flight, my memory of the reports is that the PIC used manual trim multiple times to correct and maintain control. There was a 3rd pilot flying either as a passenger or in the jump-seat who knew enough about the system that had MCAS, or recognized it as runaway stablizer, to suggest turning it off... stopping the problem.

The key though is that the PIC used manual trim multiple times to maintain control of the flight. Note that in the next Lion Air flight that the PIC also used manual trim multiple times and was maintaining control; until he turned over control to the CoPilot - who did not use manual trim as often and quickly lost control.

Have a great day,


I believe the previous flight before the Lion Air crash they were having their issues with the system/aircraft, but a third pilot in the jump seat offered the advice to switch off the auto trim. He didn't know about the system or how it operated, just offered a new solution when they were struggling with the unknown problem. Had he not been there, we can only speculate, but I suspect the chance is high the accident would have been one day earlier before the world would find out about the system.

As far as I know nobody who knew about the system had to recover from a situation where they needed to switch off auto trim before Lion Air or after until the Ethiopian Airlines flight.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:44 pm

smartplane wrote:
Revelation wrote:
WSJ offers a lot of sizzle but not much bacon.

No news here.

All customers (irrespective of make or model) are seeking re-pricing, increased retrospective credits, deferred milestone payments, and OEM low / no interest finance.

New orders / re-confirm orders for all three models, and you will likely get all 4. Ditto for customers willing to do the trifecta at Airbus. EK/FZ step this way.

Oh well, at least WSJ got to write a sexy headline that drew lots of clicks.

Stitch wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
Not if the very things that make the MAX different than the NG are why MCAS was needed and therefore indirectly led to two MAX's crashing the way they did. As much as Boeing didn't want their customers to realize it, the MAX and NG are different aircraft and the pilots should have been trained as such. But their alleged "sameness" was the MAX's main selling point, and that's why we're here today.


Again, MCAS in and of itself was not the problem. It was, as you noted, the lack of knowledge about it being there and how it operated that was the problem. I recall reading that on a previous flight of either the Lion Air or the Ethiopian frame MCAS activated but the PIC knew about it and successfully recovered the frame.

I'd write this as "MCAS in and of itself was not the entire problem". Clearly no one at Boeing thought through the implications of a bad AoA sensor triggering repeated MCAS activations. To me that is the major part of the problem. Without that, you'd have a "what the bleep was that" moment and eventually someone would complain loudly enough to Boeing to get it fixed instead of two planes crashed, hundreds dead and billions of dollars lost.

We know FAA rubber stamped Boeing's AD after the first crash that did tell everyone about MCAS being present and how it operated in a cursory way and we still had the second crash. I don't blame you for not bringing this up, the FAA's own Inspectors General report also did not bring it up.

pugman211 wrote:
Actually MCAS was the problem for the simple fact it did not have stabiliser authority limit. It just kept trimming down and down and down for each cycle.

:checkmark:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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