Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
oschkosch
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:15 pm

MOL, so take it with a grain of salt!

Ryanair expects Boeing 737 Max jet clearance soon

Ryanair has said it expects the controversial Boeing 737 Max plane to be allowed to fly again in the US in the next month or so.

The airline's boss, Eddie Wilson, said it hoped to start taking delivery of the planes early next year. No Max planes have flown since March 2019 after issues with its software were linked to crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people. Before the flight ban, Ryanair had 135 of them on order. "The first of those we would hope to arrive in very early 2021," Mr Wilson told Ireland's Newstalk radio station.

.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54477605
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
Opus99
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:31 pm

oschkosch wrote:
MOL, so take it with a grain of salt!

Ryanair expects Boeing 737 Max jet clearance soon

Ryanair has said it expects the controversial Boeing 737 Max plane to be allowed to fly again in the US in the next month or so.

The airline's boss, Eddie Wilson, said it hoped to start taking delivery of the planes early next year. No Max planes have flown since March 2019 after issues with its software were linked to crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people. Before the flight ban, Ryanair had 135 of them on order. "The first of those we would hope to arrive in very early 2021," Mr Wilson told Ireland's Newstalk radio station.

.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54477605

This wasn't MOL btw. read again...
 
kalvado
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:39 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
In hindsight Boeing should just have changed the MAX cockpit crew to three people. As the Lionair flight showed (the day before the crash), with three people in the cockpit the MAX is perfectly safe even when stuff breaks.

So instead of this long saga, just make the MAX a three man cockpit and thats it. Not really economical but at least very safe. No EICAS etc. needed if you have a flight engineer on board.


Well if you had two people that were actually half competent or not incapacitated you wouldn't need a third. On the Lionair crash - the report seems to indicate that the pilot had the flu or something similar and probably should not have been flying and the FO didn't know how to operate the Electric Trim properly - something the Pilot managed to do 22x without thinking of turning the offending system off or adhering to proper crew procedures and inform the FO what was going on before handing it off to him.

It does not excuse Boeing for its colossal screw up but if was the FO from the Crash flight that was the third Pilot on the preceding flight I doubt it would have ended successfully either.


I am talking about the flight the day before where it was clear that with three people in the cockpit the aircraft was clearly manageable.

On the other hand we have two other incidents with two people in the cockpit and they crashed. Simple conclusion: Three is better than two. Same seems to be for AoA sensors.

Boeing has to assume (and this is valid for every manufacturer) that at one point you will get the worst pilot that merely passed the tests to fly their machines. The aircraft has to be designed to be flown by this pilots and be safe with said pilots on board. Boeing failed hard at this.

And no matter how high you set the standards, 50% of the pilots are always below average (you just raise the average pilot skill). So you need to design for the lowers skilled group.

Unfortunately there is another problem: If only the best are allowed to fly we would have 1500, maybe 2000 commercial airliners in the sky at the same time. Then almost none could afford to take a flight. There always has to be a trade off between expected skills and actually demanded skills. The rest has to be compensated by the machine (so by engineering skills). If you fail to design such a machine you end with catastrophes.

Yes, but MAX was apparently has WWII technology at the core, when humans were the most reliable components. Again, this demonstrably changed around the time of Apollo program when most of moon landing had to be flown automatically as even best of best pilots couldn't reliably handle descent in the sim.
Surprising majority of people - even on this very board - still lives in the world of Hollywood illusion, with superheros and happy end coming for granted, and expect a superhero in cockpit save the day. I thought covid saga would help to dial down on these expectations, but apparently not yet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:49 pm

Even "modern" Airbus and Boeing cockpits with FBW and envelope protections are not fail-safe against a crew whom are either not paying proper attention or not properly trained/skilled doing a CFIT with the airframe. So while modernizing the 737 MAX cockpit would be a benefit, it will not be a panacea.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:14 pm

kalvado wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Well if you had two people that were actually half competent or not incapacitated you wouldn't need a third. On the Lionair crash - the report seems to indicate that the pilot had the flu or something similar and probably should not have been flying and the FO didn't know how to operate the Electric Trim properly - something the Pilot managed to do 22x without thinking of turning the offending system off or adhering to proper crew procedures and inform the FO what was going on before handing it off to him.

It does not excuse Boeing for its colossal screw up but if was the FO from the Crash flight that was the third Pilot on the preceding flight I doubt it would have ended successfully either.


I am talking about the flight the day before where it was clear that with three people in the cockpit the aircraft was clearly manageable.

On the other hand we have two other incidents with two people in the cockpit and they crashed. Simple conclusion: Three is better than two. Same seems to be for AoA sensors.

Boeing has to assume (and this is valid for every manufacturer) that at one point you will get the worst pilot that merely passed the tests to fly their machines. The aircraft has to be designed to be flown by this pilots and be safe with said pilots on board. Boeing failed hard at this.

And no matter how high you set the standards, 50% of the pilots are always below average (you just raise the average pilot skill). So you need to design for the lowers skilled group.

Unfortunately there is another problem: If only the best are allowed to fly we would have 1500, maybe 2000 commercial airliners in the sky at the same time. Then almost none could afford to take a flight. There always has to be a trade off between expected skills and actually demanded skills. The rest has to be compensated by the machine (so by engineering skills). If you fail to design such a machine you end with catastrophes.

Yes, but MAX was apparently has WWII technology at the core, when humans were the most reliable components. Again, this demonstrably changed around the time of Apollo program when most of moon landing had to be flown automatically as even best of best pilots couldn't reliably handle descent in the sim.
Surprising majority of people - even on this very board - still lives in the world of Hollywood illusion, with superheros and happy end coming for granted, and expect a superhero in cockpit save the day. I thought covid saga would help to dial down on these expectations, but apparently not yet.


I thought it had already been established that the MAX was Post- Apollo/Pre A320.

What you are not getting is that these are not superhuman skills that require the best of the best. This is minimum competence. Anyone should be able to pass them.

Go try a discovery flight and figure out how simple they are.

The scary thing is some Pilots are being let into the cockpit of Modern Airliners without even this minimum level of knowledge. There is a large training issue that is still not being addressed if they can't teach thee basic skills.

If training does not improve hopefully automation improves at a rapid enough pace that pilots don't even need to know how to get out of a stall or avoid one on the first place or even land a plane so we don't have too many more accidents.

I'm not asking for them to master an Immelman or loop to loop - just basic skills which you seem to want to excuse them from knowing.
 
wingman
Posts: 4019
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:19 pm

It seems clear there has to be a balance in automation and core skill maintenance. Every single Airbus fatality in its history has been officially blamed on incompetent piloting, nearly of them happening despite the benefits of the greatest cockpit technology ever devised. Then you have Asisana at SFO with 5!! pilots staring at the screens as they fly a 777 into the runway wall. Automation is great but ignoring core skills results seems to turn what may have been once competent pilots into useless robots that crash perfectly flyable planes from 35,000 feet.

Boeing needs to make a new narrow body, no question. But everyone in this industry needs to get behind better and more frequent training of the basics.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:38 pm

wingman wrote:
It seems clear there has to be a balance in automation and core skill maintenance. Every single Airbus fatality in its history has been officially blamed on incompetent piloting, nearly of them happening despite the benefits of the greatest cockpit technology ever devised. Then you have Asisana at SFO with 5!! pilots staring at the screens as they fly a 777 into the runway wall. Automation is great but ignoring core skills results seems to turn what may have been once competent pilots into useless robots that crash perfectly flyable planes from 35,000 feet.

Boeing needs to make a new narrow body, no question. But everyone in this industry needs to get behind better and more frequent training of the basics.

That is a great question, where core skill become desirable skills, nice-to-haves, and then one-of-a-kind. Especially given that training higher level skills often improves lower level ones. Such as grade 2 arithmetic is rarely a problem for high school graduates. But last level of skills still often incomplete - as evidenced by average math grade is high schools diploma in my example.
So training for challenging situations is a good idea for overall development, but relying on those skills is not a great idea.
my understanding is that training nice-to-haves may put basics into a broader context. Relying on that as a factor in safety assessment, though... Maybe factor of 5...
 
morrisond
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:00 pm

kalvado wrote:
wingman wrote:
It seems clear there has to be a balance in automation and core skill maintenance. Every single Airbus fatality in its history has been officially blamed on incompetent piloting, nearly of them happening despite the benefits of the greatest cockpit technology ever devised. Then you have Asisana at SFO with 5!! pilots staring at the screens as they fly a 777 into the runway wall. Automation is great but ignoring core skills results seems to turn what may have been once competent pilots into useless robots that crash perfectly flyable planes from 35,000 feet.

Boeing needs to make a new narrow body, no question. But everyone in this industry needs to get behind better and more frequent training of the basics.

That is a great question, where core skill become desirable skills, nice-to-haves, and then one-of-a-kind. Especially given that training higher level skills often improves lower level ones. Such as grade 2 arithmetic is rarely a problem for high school graduates. But last level of skills still often incomplete - as evidenced by average math grade is high schools diploma in my example.
So training for challenging situations is a good idea for overall development, but relying on those skills is not a great idea.
my understanding is that training nice-to-haves may put basics into a broader context. Relying on that as a factor in safety assessment, though... Maybe factor of 5...


OK - to put it in context - Avoiding or getting out of a stall for a pilot is Pre-Kindergarten. The equivalent of being able to use utensils for human's. If landing on a bumpy day in a crosswind is an 8 or 9 out 10 on the complexity scale - stalls is a 1 out of 10. Coordinated turns are harder to master.

If pilot's don't understand that too much angle of attack + insufficient airspeed = Plane fall out of sky is a bad thing and how to easily get out of that - we have a real problem.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
wingman wrote:
It seems clear there has to be a balance in automation and core skill maintenance. Every single Airbus fatality in its history has been officially blamed on incompetent piloting, nearly of them happening despite the benefits of the greatest cockpit technology ever devised. Then you have Asisana at SFO with 5!! pilots staring at the screens as they fly a 777 into the runway wall. Automation is great but ignoring core skills results seems to turn what may have been once competent pilots into useless robots that crash perfectly flyable planes from 35,000 feet.

Boeing needs to make a new narrow body, no question. But everyone in this industry needs to get behind better and more frequent training of the basics.

That is a great question, where core skill become desirable skills, nice-to-haves, and then one-of-a-kind. Especially given that training higher level skills often improves lower level ones. Such as grade 2 arithmetic is rarely a problem for high school graduates. But last level of skills still often incomplete - as evidenced by average math grade is high schools diploma in my example.
So training for challenging situations is a good idea for overall development, but relying on those skills is not a great idea.
my understanding is that training nice-to-haves may put basics into a broader context. Relying on that as a factor in safety assessment, though... Maybe factor of 5...


OK - to put it in context - Avoiding or getting out of a stall for a pilot is Pre-Kindergarten. The equivalent of being able to use utensils for human's. If landing on a bumpy day in a crosswind is an 8 or 9 out 10 on the complexity scale - stalls is a 1 out of 10. Coordinated turns are harder to master.

If pilot's don't understand that too much angle of attack + insufficient airspeed = Plane fall out of sky is a bad thing and how to easily get out of that - we have a real problem.


I know and you are right but imagine you put them inepts into an aircraft that is so badly designed it actually helps you crashing it. There are two sides of a coin and when you grind down both you are just left with scrap metal. An engineering company should at least have the pride to keep their side up to a certain standard and Boeing clearly failed that task. The 737Max is clearly a 1 out of 10 design. On the same level as the comet and back then you could at leadt give the benefit of the doubt. Boeing new the design was crap but still went ahead with it. Or they did not know because they lacked the skill to see their fault what would even be worse.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:22 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Boeing has to assume (and this is valid for every manufacturer) that at one point you will get the worst pilot that merely passed the tests to fly their machines. The aircraft has to be designed to be flown by this pilots and be safe with said pilots on board. Boeing failed hard at this.

And no matter how high you set the standards, 50% of the pilots are always below average (you just raise the average pilot skill). So you need to design for the lowers skilled group.

I think this is settled. About the only thing Boeing was willing to admit is they put too much workload on the pilots.

The interesting thing to me is that EASA's chief has said that EASA has fully re-certified MAX's flight controls and instruments and is on track to allow MAX RTS in the near future.

This says that EASA finds the MAX passes muster as-is (outside of the 3rd sensor issue), Apollo-era technology and all.

To me this means EASA is not pushing to lower the bar on pilot skill levels, nor FAA either.

For instance, they both are OK with the expectation that pilots are expected to remember memory items without a computer prompting them, dealing with multiple alerts without an EICAS to sort them out for them, flying the plane when auto trim and auto throttle are not available, etc.

To me this suggests they are expecting the operators to up their game to make sure their worst pilot on their worst day doesn't do the wrong things when the worst possible failure mode is thrown at them, or accept the consequences if they don't.

I'm not sure I'd want to be in the aviation insurance business over the next few decades.
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
 
Vicenza
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:27 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
That is a great question, where core skill become desirable skills, nice-to-haves, and then one-of-a-kind. Especially given that training higher level skills often improves lower level ones. Such as grade 2 arithmetic is rarely a problem for high school graduates. But last level of skills still often incomplete - as evidenced by average math grade is high schools diploma in my example.
So training for challenging situations is a good idea for overall development, but relying on those skills is not a great idea.
my understanding is that training nice-to-haves may put basics into a broader context. Relying on that as a factor in safety assessment, though... Maybe factor of 5...


OK - to put it in context - Avoiding or getting out of a stall for a pilot is Pre-Kindergarten. The equivalent of being able to use utensils for human's. If landing on a bumpy day in a crosswind is an 8 or 9 out 10 on the complexity scale - stalls is a 1 out of 10. Coordinated turns are harder to master.

If pilot's don't understand that too much angle of attack + insufficient airspeed = Plane fall out of sky is a bad thing and how to easily get out of that - we have a real problem.


I know and you are right but imagine you put them inepts into an aircraft that is so badly designed it actually helps you crashing it. There are two sides of a coin and when you grind down both you are just left with scrap metal. An engineering company should at least have the pride to keep their side up to a certain standard and Boeing clearly failed that task. The 737Max is clearly a 1 out of 10 design. On the same level as the comet and back then you could at leadt give the benefit of the doubt. Boeing new the design was crap but still went ahead with it. Or they did not know because they lacked the skill to see their fault what would even be worse.


I would compare it to the Comet at all. Back then the design flaw of Comet's windows was an unknown aspect in aviation. There was nothing unknown about the design of the 737.......Boeing just chose to deliberately ignore the risk.
 
PWA732
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:43 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:48 pm

Vicenza wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

OK - to put it in context - Avoiding or getting out of a stall for a pilot is Pre-Kindergarten. The equivalent of being able to use utensils for human's. If landing on a bumpy day in a crosswind is an 8 or 9 out 10 on the complexity scale - stalls is a 1 out of 10. Coordinated turns are harder to master.

If pilot's don't understand that too much angle of attack + insufficient airspeed = Plane fall out of sky is a bad thing and how to easily get out of that - we have a real problem.


I know and you are right but imagine you put them inepts into an aircraft that is so badly designed it actually helps you crashing it. There are two sides of a coin and when you grind down both you are just left with scrap metal. An engineering company should at least have the pride to keep their side up to a certain standard and Boeing clearly failed that task. The 737Max is clearly a 1 out of 10 design. On the same level as the comet and back then you could at leadt give the benefit of the doubt. Boeing new the design was crap but still went ahead with it. Or they did not know because they lacked the skill to see their fault what would even be worse.


I would compare it to the Comet at all. Back then the design flaw of Comet's windows was an unknown aspect in aviation. There was nothing unknown about the design of the 737.......Boeing just chose to deliberately ignore the risk.


We could re-hash the argument that Boeing assumed that pilots would quickly and correctly complete the "runaway stab trim" drill memory item. They assumed that pilots were "sharp" and up to speed on their required drills. There aren't many memory items in the Boeing manual, so memorizing this one shouldn't have been a problem, especially after Boeing "re-emphasized it" after the first incident. Boeing was still wrong, but pilots operating the Max had few excuses not to run that 5 item memory drill properly.

The 737 Max isn't any more likely to enter a stall than any other 737 model. The MCAS was only installed to make it feel like an NG while in the stall. It is not more dangerous. All Comets with the thin-wall square window fuselage would have eventually crashed once fatigued. All. To make a direct comparison to the Max is taking it a bit far.

Pete.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:10 pm

PWA732 wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I know and you are right but imagine you put them inepts into an aircraft that is so badly designed it actually helps you crashing it. There are two sides of a coin and when you grind down both you are just left with scrap metal. An engineering company should at least have the pride to keep their side up to a certain standard and Boeing clearly failed that task. The 737Max is clearly a 1 out of 10 design. On the same level as the comet and back then you could at leadt give the benefit of the doubt. Boeing new the design was crap but still went ahead with it. Or they did not know because they lacked the skill to see their fault what would even be worse.


I would compare it to the Comet at all. Back then the design flaw of Comet's windows was an unknown aspect in aviation. There was nothing unknown about the design of the 737.......Boeing just chose to deliberately ignore the risk.


We could re-hash the argument that Boeing assumed that pilots would quickly and correctly complete the "runaway stab trim" drill memory item. They assumed that pilots were "sharp" and up to speed on their required drills. There aren't many memory items in the Boeing manual, so memorizing this one shouldn't have been a problem, especially after Boeing "re-emphasized it" after the first incident. Boeing was still wrong, but pilots operating the Max had few excuses not to run that 5 item memory drill properly.

The 737 Max isn't any more likely to enter a stall than any other 737 model. The MCAS was only installed to make it feel like an NG while in the stall. It is not more dangerous. All Comets with the thin-wall square window fuselage would have eventually crashed once fatigued. All. To make a direct comparison to the Max is taking it a bit far.

Pete.

Honestly speaking, we still have to see how many MAXes will stall within next decade. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few rapid unscheduled disassemblies on that list
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:23 pm

Meanwhile, Boeing targets AS and FR to take a bunch of those post-RTS Apollo-era MAXes:

https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing- ... SKBN26U08A
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
 
kalvado
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile, Boeing targets AS and FR to take a bunch of those post-RTS Apollo-era MAXes:

https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing- ... SKBN26U08A

Somewhere way upstream I predicted that no more MAXes will be produced and existing fleet will be concentrated in a few major operators, like WN and FR...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:34 pm

kalvado wrote:
Somewhere way upstream I predicted that no more MAXes will be produced and existing fleet will be concentrated in a few major operators, like WN and FR...


Why would any operator continue to accept a MAX under such conditions? Such a small operational fleet would have no resale value and financing and insurance rates would be significant. Suppliers would also be disinclined to build any more parts, which would impact spares availability and making maintenance troublesome and expensive.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:00 pm

Stitch wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Somewhere way upstream I predicted that no more MAXes will be produced and existing fleet will be concentrated in a few major operators, like WN and FR...


Why would any operator continue to accept a MAX under such conditions? Such a small operational fleet would have no resale value and financing and insurance rates would be significant. Suppliers would also be disinclined to build any more parts, which would impact spares availability and making maintenance troublesome and expensive.

WN or FR are large fleets of their own. With a huge number of whitetails on hand, Boeing - or rather their creditors - would need to become creative to find a new home for them. ANd building new frames in this situation is less than smart.
Depends on recovery process; but I wouldn't bet on a good case scenario.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:15 pm

kalvado wrote:
WN or FR are large fleets of their own. With a huge number of whitetails on hand, Boeing - or rather their creditors - would need to become creative to find a new home for them. ANd building new frames in this situation is less than smart. Depends on recovery process; but I wouldn't bet on a good case scenario.


WN and FR do have large fleets, but they leverage the massive worldwide fleet to reduce operating costs (finance, insurance, upkeep, etc). They bought based on a planned worldwide fleet of 5000 frames - not 500. Doubly so when they make up 250 each of that 500.
 
durangomac
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:18 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile, Boeing targets AS and FR to take a bunch of those post-RTS Apollo-era MAXes:

https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing- ... SKBN26U08A


It's no secant that AS put out an RFP to both Airbus and Boeing to replace some aging 737's and most (if not all) of the leased Airbus fleet and to expand the fleet.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/10/09/alaska-airlines-may-keep-leased-airbus-fleet/

The US carrier approached leasing companies in the summer with a large request for proposals (RFP) to replace its entire leased current-generation A320-family fleet with Boeing 737-800, -900ER, Max 8 and Max 9 models over the next few years.


The question is how will it shake out and will there be a mixed fleet after.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:04 pm

durangomac wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile, Boeing targets AS and FR to take a bunch of those post-RTS Apollo-era MAXes:

https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing- ... SKBN26U08A


It's no secant that AS put out an RFP to both Airbus and Boeing to replace some aging 737's and most (if not all) of the leased Airbus fleet and to expand the fleet.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/10/09/alaska-airlines-may-keep-leased-airbus-fleet/

The US carrier approached leasing companies in the summer with a large request for proposals (RFP) to replace its entire leased current-generation A320-family fleet with Boeing 737-800, -900ER, Max 8 and Max 9 models over the next few years.


The question is how will it shake out and will there be a mixed fleet after.

Interesting, I did not know that.

It seems to be more evidence that the market is shifting to the larger gauges . It suggests that MAX-10 should be a hit once it is certified and we are in the post-covid era (whenever that is).
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:53 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
That is a great question, where core skill become desirable skills, nice-to-haves, and then one-of-a-kind. Especially given that training higher level skills often improves lower level ones. Such as grade 2 arithmetic is rarely a problem for high school graduates. But last level of skills still often incomplete - as evidenced by average math grade is high schools diploma in my example.
So training for challenging situations is a good idea for overall development, but relying on those skills is not a great idea.
my understanding is that training nice-to-haves may put basics into a broader context. Relying on that as a factor in safety assessment, though... Maybe factor of 5...


OK - to put it in context - Avoiding or getting out of a stall for a pilot is Pre-Kindergarten. The equivalent of being able to use utensils for human's. If landing on a bumpy day in a crosswind is an 8 or 9 out 10 on the complexity scale - stalls is a 1 out of 10. Coordinated turns are harder to master.

If pilot's don't understand that too much angle of attack + insufficient airspeed = Plane fall out of sky is a bad thing and how to easily get out of that - we have a real problem.


I know and you are right but imagine you put them inepts into an aircraft that is so badly designed it actually helps you crashing it. There are two sides of a coin and when you grind down both you are just left with scrap metal. An engineering company should at least have the pride to keep their side up to a certain standard and Boeing clearly failed that task. The 737Max is clearly a 1 out of 10 design. On the same level as the comet and back then you could at leadt give the benefit of the doubt. Boeing new the design was crap but still went ahead with it. Or they did not know because they lacked the skill to see their fault what would even be worse.


This argument started when a certain someone who obviously has never flown an aircraft and for some reason thinks the MAX has some nefarious stall characteristics sans-MCAS was suggesting that requiring Pilots need to know how to unstall an aircraft was too big of a training burden. They would never be able to accomplish such a miraculous feat.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:55 pm

kalvado wrote:
PWA732 wrote:
Vicenza wrote:

I would compare it to the Comet at all. Back then the design flaw of Comet's windows was an unknown aspect in aviation. There was nothing unknown about the design of the 737.......Boeing just chose to deliberately ignore the risk.


We could re-hash the argument that Boeing assumed that pilots would quickly and correctly complete the "runaway stab trim" drill memory item. They assumed that pilots were "sharp" and up to speed on their required drills. There aren't many memory items in the Boeing manual, so memorizing this one shouldn't have been a problem, especially after Boeing "re-emphasized it" after the first incident. Boeing was still wrong, but pilots operating the Max had few excuses not to run that 5 item memory drill properly.

The 737 Max isn't any more likely to enter a stall than any other 737 model. The MCAS was only installed to make it feel like an NG while in the stall. It is not more dangerous. All Comets with the thin-wall square window fuselage would have eventually crashed once fatigued. All. To make a direct comparison to the Max is taking it a bit far.

Pete.

Honestly speaking, we still have to see how many MAXes will stall within next decade. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few rapid unscheduled disassemblies on that list


Well if we go by your standard that pilots who are not even able to unstall an aircraft or are not able to land without the Autopilot are allowed into the cockpit - yes this will happen.
 
744SPX
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:54 am

Frankly, I can't believe the support the MAX is getting from people on this forum. Its almost like they have something invested in it.
This is obviously about money and nothing else.

Boeing is trying to get away with the crime of the century (the 737 MAX), and a significant number of people on this forum are all too happy to help them out.

I am Boeings biggest fan but the MAX is a bridge too far.
 
art
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:28 am

morrisond wrote:
Knowing how to get out of a stall in whatever kind of aircraft you are flying would be considered an essential skill.


Indeed. Would not be easy to recover if something kept raising the nose, would it?
 
Oykie
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:44 am

744SPX wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe the support the MAX is getting from people on this forum. Its almost like they have something invested in it.
This is obviously about money and nothing else.

Boeing is trying to get away with the crime of the century (the 737 MAX), and a significant number of people on this forum are all too happy to help them out.

I am Boeings biggest fan but the MAX is a bridge too far.


I actually look forward to flying the 737 MAX. It has received a lot of scrutiny, and I am confident that when it is re-certified that it will be safe to fly.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Vicenza
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:29 pm

Oykie wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe the support the MAX is getting from people on this forum. Its almost like they have something invested in it.
This is obviously about money and nothing else.

Boeing is trying to get away with the crime of the century (the 737 MAX), and a significant number of people on this forum are all too happy to help them out.

I am Boeings biggest fan but the MAX is a bridge too far.


I actually look forward to flying the 737 MAX. It has received a lot of scrutiny, and I am confident that when it is re-certified that it will be safe to fly.


And does being re-certified and now 'safe to fly' make the deliberate actions, cover up and crimes committed by Boeing, and the deaths of over 300 innocent people in the name of money and nothing else, all forgotten and okay then?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:31 pm

744SPX wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe the support the MAX is getting from people on this forum. Its almost like they have something invested in it.
This is obviously about money and nothing else.

Boeing is trying to get away with the crime of the century (the 737 MAX), and a significant number of people on this forum are all too happy to help them out.

I am Boeings biggest fan but the MAX is a bridge too far.

I suppose you realize you are coming across as melodramatic, or perhaps not.

I also suppose you realize you've just referred to the head of EASA and the head of FAA as criminals, or perhaps not.

People on this forum are expressing opinions, that and $1.79 will get you a small coffee at Dunkins.

Vicenza wrote:
And does being re-certified and now 'safe to fly' make the deliberate actions, cover up and crimes committed by Boeing, and the deaths of over 300 innocent people in the name of money and nothing else, all forgotten and okay then?

It's not criminal till you can prove it in court.

Till then the cover story of the "four second guy" deciding that pilots would recognize MCAS as a runaway stab trim scenario and act accordingly is still passing muster.
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
 
wingman
Posts: 4019
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:33 pm

art wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Knowing how to get out of a stall in whatever kind of aircraft you are flying would be considered an essential skill.


Indeed. Would not be easy to recover if something kept raising the nose, would it?


You mean MCAS or Pierre Bonin? The point is the same in either case - with perfectly sound equipment or faulty equipment, a pilot that doesn't know how to fly an airplane will likely end up killing people. In the case of the MAX they didn't stand much chance. In the case of AF447, and ever single other Airbus crash in its history, pilots flew perfectly designed airplanes into the earth or ocean. Someone's not training properly or not training enough.
 
Chemist
Posts: 770
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:42 pm

Manual use of trim is also supposed to be an essential skill.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:49 pm

Vicenza wrote:
Oykie wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe the support the MAX is getting from people on this forum. Its almost like they have something invested in it.
This is obviously about money and nothing else.

Boeing is trying to get away with the crime of the century (the 737 MAX), and a significant number of people on this forum are all too happy to help them out.

I am Boeings biggest fan but the MAX is a bridge too far.


I actually look forward to flying the 737 MAX. It has received a lot of scrutiny, and I am confident that when it is re-certified that it will be safe to fly.


And does being re-certified and now 'safe to fly' make the deliberate actions, cover up and crimes committed by Boeing, and the deaths of over 300 innocent people in the name of money and nothing else, all forgotten and okay then?


I trust the legal system that have looked into this and could not find any criminal activities so far. Building airplanes is a complex process and while this was far from a perfect implementation I still believe it will be a safe plane to fly once it’s allowed back in.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Vicenza
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:16 pm

Oykie wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
Oykie wrote:

I actually look forward to flying the 737 MAX. It has received a lot of scrutiny, and I am confident that when it is re-certified that it will be safe to fly.


And does being re-certified and now 'safe to fly' make the deliberate actions, cover up and crimes committed by Boeing, and the deaths of over 300 innocent people in the name of money and nothing else, all forgotten and okay then?


I trust the legal system that have looked into this and could not find any criminal activities so far. Building airplanes is a complex process and while this was far from a perfect implementation I still believe it will be a safe plane to fly once it’s allowed back in.


What the world knows what Boeing covered up, and continues to do so......and you can see no wrong, or criminal activity? But noted that you refer to others to make this 'judgement' You trust a legal system which can be bought, and frequently is. Fair enough and so be it. Glad to cleared that up for me. This has nothing to do with the complex process of building aeroplane's and of course I would expect it to be safe.....now that they were caught. A pity it took 346 innocent people to die before they decided to make it safe.
 
uta999
Posts: 935
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:11 pm

The fact that the MAX even needed MCAS in the first place should have set alarms ringing. It means the design was not thought through even before it flew.

Wind tunnel and computer simulations should have picked up the problem long before the metal was even cut. Even a radio controlled model aircraft would have exposed the issue. While turning it would pitch up and stall.

Now with COVID, air travel on its knees and most airlines facing some form of bankruptcy, this 50 year design is still facing the perfect storm. Even if it gets a date for RTS, who will be in a position to pay for delivery.

It is going back into service not because it is safe, but because the alternative does not bear thinking about. Scrapping 850 aircraft and a seven year delay in building something else.
Your computer just got better
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:21 pm

uta999 wrote:
The fact that the MAX even needed MCAS in the first place should have set alarms ringing. It means the design was not thought through even before it flew.


MAX doesn't "need" MCAS, considering the system can be disabled in-flight now. As such, the MAX will fly without it and the pilots would have needed to be more vigilant when operating in elevated angles of attack in certain unusual flight conditions.


uta999 wrote:
Wind tunnel and computer simulations should have picked up the problem long before the metal was even cut.


They did show that the MAX would tend to pitch-up due to the larger and heavier nacelles, which is why Boeing looked at MCAS (which was already on the KC-46A) as a way to compensate for this in a way that would make the MAX feel like a 737 Next Generation for 737NG pilots in the belief that those pilots would not need additional training on how to fly in elevated angles of attack in certain unusual flight conditions.
Last edited by Stitch on Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10862
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:21 pm

uta999 wrote:
The fact that the MAX even needed MCAS in the first place should have set alarms ringing. It means the design was not thought through even before it flew.

I believe MCAS was in the design early on, they just had to increase the strength during flight testing.


The existence of a system like MCAS (when properly implemented) does not point to a flaw that should have alarm bella ringing. Plenty of modern aircraft have automated systems in place to help get planes out of dangerous situations, that is the entire philosophy of Airbus’s flight envelope protection. We have no concerns about flight envelope protection because it is properly implemented so it doesn’t try and kill you when or activates to get out of a stall for example. The issue with MCAS has always been how piss poor it was designed, and how much it was hidden (from regulators and from pilots) to minimize required training for NG->Max.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:06 am

Vicenza wrote:
Oykie wrote:
Vicenza wrote:

And does being re-certified and now 'safe to fly' make the deliberate actions, cover up and crimes committed by Boeing, and the deaths of over 300 innocent people in the name of money and nothing else, all forgotten and okay then?


I trust the legal system that have looked into this and could not find any criminal activities so far. Building airplanes is a complex process and while this was far from a perfect implementation I still believe it will be a safe plane to fly once it’s allowed back in.


What the world knows what Boeing covered up, and continues to do so......and you can see no wrong, or criminal activity? But noted that you refer to others to make this 'judgement' You trust a legal system which can be bought, and frequently is. Fair enough and so be it. Glad to cleared that up for me. This has nothing to do with the complex process of building aeroplane's and of course I would expect it to be safe.....now that they were caught. A pity it took 346 innocent people to die before they decided to make it safe.


The MCAS 1.0 was a bad design, but I do not believe it was designed with criminal intent. I still believe in and trust in the court system, it is a much better place to find out the truth about criminal activities than the feelings or beliefs of population. What has made aviation so safe is that people could speak openly about what went wrong without having to fear jail. This has led to aviation improving to be the safest mode of transportation in the world. You are much more likely to die in a car crash than you would in a plane. Look, VW was found guilty in trying to cheat some diesel emission test by the EPA. It was proven by court to be with intent. The executives where put in jail. I trust that if it is found out criminal activities surrounded the design of the 737MAX the same would have happened to executives in Boeing. But for now, no investigation have concluded that crime was committed. I choose to believe that rather than peoples opinion.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:31 am

Oykie wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
Oykie wrote:

I trust the legal system that have looked into this and could not find any criminal activities so far. Building airplanes is a complex process and while this was far from a perfect implementation I still believe it will be a safe plane to fly once it’s allowed back in.


What the world knows what Boeing covered up, and continues to do so......and you can see no wrong, or criminal activity? But noted that you refer to others to make this 'judgement' You trust a legal system which can be bought, and frequently is. Fair enough and so be it. Glad to cleared that up for me. This has nothing to do with the complex process of building aeroplane's and of course I would expect it to be safe.....now that they were caught. A pity it took 346 innocent people to die before they decided to make it safe.


The MCAS 1.0 was a bad design, but I do not believe it was designed with criminal intent. I still believe in and trust in the court system, it is a much better place to find out the truth about criminal activities than the feelings or beliefs of population. What has made aviation so safe is that people could speak openly about what went wrong without having to fear jail. This has led to aviation improving to be the safest mode of transportation in the world. You are much more likely to die in a car crash than you would in a plane. Look, VW was found guilty in trying to cheat some diesel emission test by the EPA. It was proven by court to be with intent. The executives where put in jail. I trust that if it is found out criminal activities surrounded the design of the 737MAX the same would have happened to executives in Boeing. But for now, no investigation have concluded that crime was committed. I choose to believe that rather than peoples opinion.



What worries me the most, is that the authorities (FAA) that is judging modifications and holding OE responsible for meeting the requirements proved not independent at all, that where weakened and pushed around. Congress who should check and correct FAA wasn't doing that, they where pushing FAA to delegate, exempt, forgive, move on, driven by financial and competitive goals. That's disturbing. Who holding congress responsible for their pro-active role in this over the last 10 years. Nobody. So foreign authorities withdrew their delegation to FAA.

Right until the MAX crashes 2018, everybody (Boeing, industry, congress, senators, stock holders) were pushing and cheering FAA Streamlining, delegation, making demands on FAA re-authorizations. Stock value, orderbook, contributions were great, so..

The same people in the house are now pointing at Boeing, FAA, anybody or keeping a low profile. => No accountability at all.

2017: https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/ ... ion-reform
2017: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683649.pdf

Google is unforgiving, look for "FAA, streamlining, certification, industry, Boeing < 2018: : https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GC ... CA0&uact=5
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
744SPX
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:19 pm

They did show that the MAX would tend to pitch-up due to the larger and heavier nacelles, which is why Boeing looked at MCAS (which was already on the KC-46A) as a way to compensate for this in a way that would make the MAX feel like a 737 Next Generation for 737NG pilots in the belief that those pilots would not need additional training on how to fly in elevated angles of attack in certain unusual flight conditions.[/quote]

This is why the MAX will never really be "fixed". The problem is inherent to the design, and if it takes what is in effect a stability augmentation system that makes this a dangerous aircraft and there is nothing that can be done about it except for reducing the size and weight of the engines. And that is obviously not going to happen.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:30 pm

Oykie wrote:
The MCAS 1.0 was a bad design, but I do not believe it was designed with criminal intent. I still believe in and trust in the court system, it is a much better place to find out the truth about criminal activities than the feelings or beliefs of population. What has made aviation so safe is that people could speak openly about what went wrong without having to fear jail. This has led to aviation improving to be the safest mode of transportation in the world. You are much more likely to die in a car crash than you would in a plane. Look, VW was found guilty in trying to cheat some diesel emission test by the EPA. It was proven by court to be with intent. The executives where put in jail. I trust that if it is found out criminal activities surrounded the design of the 737MAX the same would have happened to executives in Boeing. But for now, no investigation have concluded that crime was committed. I choose to believe that rather than peoples opinion.

I'm still trying to figure out where the criminality is.

In the case of VW, that's easy, they did cheat. They installed software to detect if the car was in a test rig (rear wheels moving while front were not was a big clue), and if so, retune the emissions control system to be more aggressive. The executive who went to jail signed papers saying no such cheat device was installed, but it was easy to prove one was. It was an opened and shut case.

In the case of Boeing, we know they had aggressive financial goals, but guess what, that is not illegal or criminal. Clearly we had Boeing engineers approve an unsafe airplane, but that has happened a lot over the course of time. So far as far as I can tell there is no proof this is anything other than human error. Of course I have doubts, but I also have doubts over the Kennedy Assassination. So far all we can say is the "four second guy" made a bad call, thus it's a case of human error.

744SPX wrote:
This is why the MAX will never really be "fixed". The problem is inherent to the design, and if it takes what is in effect a stability augmentation system that makes this a dangerous aircraft and there is nothing that can be done about it except for reducing the size and weight of the engines. And that is obviously not going to happen.

Both EASA and FAA are about to allow the aircraft to be returned to service, so legally speaking it will be fixed. Every jet aircraft with swept wings you've ever flown on has had a stability augmentation system on it, in the form of the yaw damper ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot ... on_systems ). It's there to fix a problem inherent in their design, dutch roll. Clearly a correctly implemented stability augmentation system is not dangerous, we've had them since the days of the 707.
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
 
Noshow
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:07 pm

A yaw damper is a comfort feature. MCAS is some stall protection.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10862
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:34 pm

Noshow wrote:
A yaw damper is a comfort feature. MCAS is some stall protection.

Yaw dampers are not just for comfort. A Dutch roll is a form of instability that can down an aircraft if improper actions are taken during it. There is a reason many (most?) aircraft face operation restrictions when they are inop.
Last edited by Polot on Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Spetsnaz55
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:38 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:34 pm

Noshow wrote:
A yaw damper is a comfort feature. MCAS is some stall protection.



Mcas is to make the max feel like NG


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -now-safe/


"Boeing put MCAS on the plane not to make it stable in maneuvers approaching a stall but to make it handle and feel exactly the same as the earlier model 737NG.


A former senior Boeing engineer familiar with the MAX design, who asked not to be identified, said this was a key design goal because major 737 customers such as Southwest, Alaska and Ryanair will be flying both NGs and MAXs and want to use the same pilot pool for both.

If the pilots had to think about different procedures on different 737s, it could lead to dangerous confusion.

“You don’t want pilots questioning, ‘What airplane am I on?'” said the former senior engineer. “There’s an inherent safety aspect to having them feel and operate the same way.
To prove the plane’s stability, both Boeing and the FAA test pilots have now conducted extreme flight test maneuvers close to a stall, both with MCAS on and with the system turned off.

“If MCAS is deactivated, you can still fly the aircraft and it is not unstable,” said Fehrm. “The MAX without MCAS is a perfectly flyable aircraft.”
 
pune
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:43 pm

Celebrated pilot Capt. Sully urges further updates to Boeing’s 737 MAX

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... lder-737s/
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:49 pm

744SPX wrote:
This is why the MAX will never really be "fixed". The problem is inherent to the design, and if it takes what is in effect a stability augmentation system that makes this a dangerous aircraft and there is nothing that can be done about it except for reducing the size and weight of the engines. And that is obviously not going to happen.


Except it is not a "stability augmentation system". It was a system to make a MAX handle like an NG in specific (and uncommon) elevated angle-of-attack situations so NG pilots would not need additional training on how to handle the MAX in those situations.

People seem to forget (willfully or otherwise) that there were a significant number of successful MAX flights where MCAS never engaged because those flights never entered a condition where it needed to.
 
StTim
Posts: 3752
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:19 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:


Mcas is to make the max feel like NG


Incorrect - it is to pass a FAR requirement that as you increase the angle of attack the amount of force on the yoke must not decrease.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:51 pm

StTim wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Mcas is to make the max feel like NG

Incorrect - it is to pass a FAR requirement that as you increase the angle of attack the amount of force on the yoke must not decrease.

Maybe we should agree both answers are correct.

If I had to pick one I would go with yours, since even one automatic push down of the nose breaks similarity with MAX.
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
 
visual8L
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:20 pm

Novice question- why would a heavier nacelle introduce a nose up tendency? I can understand a larger and further forward aerodynamic surface affecting that. But how does heavier and forward translate to pitch up?
‘Agree to disagree’ is generally suggested by the person who insists on remaining the asshole.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:38 pm

visual8L wrote:
Novice question- why would a heavier nacelle introduce a nose up tendency? I can understand a larger and further forward aerodynamic surface affecting that. But how does heavier and forward translate to pitch up?

Nacelle's contribution is due to it generating more meaningful lift at the AoAs close to entry to stall by being bigger and presenting more unmasked surface to the relative wind. I agree weight would not be the factor causing the problems.
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
 
vahancrazy
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:44 pm

If Boeing had fixed in April 2019 by new training for Max pilots (and different from NG):
1) they would have avoided all this ban, right?
2) I do not expect airlines would have cancelled in mass because it was still MAX or nothing given the queue for A320 family. Therefore, the subsequent cost would be smaller or greater than the cost Boeing is facing now (test + any future fix to existing aircrafts)?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24780
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:13 pm

vahancrazy wrote:
If Boeing had fixed in April 2019 by new training for Max pilots (and different from NG):
1) they would have avoided all this ban, right?
2) I do not expect airlines would have cancelled in mass because it was still MAX or nothing given the queue for A320 family. Therefore, the subsequent cost would be smaller or greater than the cost Boeing is facing now (test + any future fix to existing aircrafts)?

I think cancellations are more about COVID rather than MCAS.

I think the "what if Boeing got the fix out in time" question is similar but opposite to the "what if Boeing and FAA looked hard at the data from the first crash and grounded the fleet till the fix was out" question.

What is similar is won't ever know the answer to either.
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: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q4 2020

Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:21 pm

vahancrazy wrote:
If Boeing had fixed in April 2019 by new training for Max pilots (and different from NG):
1) they would have avoided all this ban, right?


If the pilots had been alerted to the presence of MCAS and how it operated, it is possible that either or both airframe losses would not have happened. And even if both crashes had still happened, it is possible that causes other than MCAS would have been the culprit and therefore regulatory agencies might have felt it was not necessary to ground the MAX.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

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