astuteman
Posts: 7075
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:55 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62):
And you can put that up against at least two A320 accidents where FBW was clearly a major cause (the first one, the demo flight that crashed after a low pass and another where the pilot set the wrong descent rate, and I am sure there were a couple of incidents as well.)

There must be a reason that you've seen fit to have a poke at FBW and then back it up with two examples of pilot error.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 72):
The demo flight that crashed at Habsheim was pilot error, and had exactly nothing to do with FBW

correct.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
And as others have pointed out, the FBW envelope protection did prevent them from entering a climb attitude

correct. And rightly so.
The pilot put the plane in a position where to do so would have induced an equally catastrophic stall.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 93):
If a stall was prevented I don't know why actually having a stall would have been the better option. It never is

correct again.
I can't believe I'm seeing it put forward as a serious "issue" with respect to FBW frankly..

Quoting Aquila3 (Thread starter):
Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

how can it possibly be less safe than the 737NG that it's going to replace, which itself is one of the safest airframes out there (FBW or no FBW)

Strange question IMO

Rgds
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Topic Author
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:05 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 100):
how can it possibly be less safe than the 737NG that it's going to replace, which itself is one of the safest airframes out there (FBW or no FBW)

Thank you for your constructive and balanced answer . About your question, I have to say it again and again, I mean compared to its competitors during its forecasted service time, so in a general sense the OTHERS commercial Narrowbodies.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:58 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 101):
About your question, I have to say it again and again, I mean compared to its competitors during its forecasted service time, so in a general sense the OTHERS commercial Narrowbodies.

Ok, so since it is older and does not have FBW and we cannot wait for the all new a/c which will incorporate FBW then yes, it will be less safe.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 100):
how can it possibly be less safe than the 737NG that it's going to replace, which itself is one of the safest airframes out there (FBW or no FBW)

Strange question IMO

If I follow the logic, the A350 will have a new construction method in addition to more composite materials, now since these have been touted by Airbus to improve efficiency, enhance maintenance etc. etc etc. does it mean that the NEO's in all variants will be less efficient and more costly since they will not have all of these new items?

Strange question indeed, and I think it has run its course as we are now getting into other unrelated items.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:01 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 96):
You're assuming that the only structure with a "3G" limit is the wing/body join. Plenty of stuff is stressed for whatever the design load is, and is *not* impacted by the aircraft's actual mass. Consider the engine pylons, for example (although those are pretty strong for other reasons), no matter how light (or heavy) the aircraft is, 3G will always put three times the engine’s (fixed) weight on the pylon.

Don't forget that a 50% safety factor is applied to all loads for structural design. The engine pylon structure is designed for 3.75g's. It will handle a 3g load.

Limiting the airplane to 2.5g's for all cases negates capability that is inherent to the design/certification process.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:54 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 101):
I have to say it again and again, I mean compared to its competitors during its forecasted service time, so in a general sense the OTHERS commercial Narrowbodies.

Within a year of entering service, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 suffered it's first fatal hull loss so based on the 737NG's safety record, I'd feel confident that the 737MAX will have a better safety record one year after EIS than the SSJ 100.

And maybe it's just jingoism on my part, but I do not expect the C919 to have a safety record equal to the MAX because I do not believe COMAC is on the same level as Boeing (or Airbus).

And speaking of the SSJ, said hull loss occurred when the pilots flew it into the side of Jakarta's Mount Salak. The SSJ is fitted with an automatic collision avoidance system and said system was working at the time, but the pilots ignored it. So here we have a case of an aircraft with a safety system specifically designed to prevent such an accident from happening not preventing said accident because the pilots ignored it. Much like the Überlingen mid-air collision where the Russian PiC ignored the TCAS instructions to climb and instead dived into the other plane, which was descending per TCAS.

In both cases, the latest safety technology did not prevent an accident because it's instructions/warnings were not followed by the crew.



I do agree that the 737 would benefit from having a fully FBW control system with envelope protection. But I do not agree that the lack of said systems inherently makes the 737 a less safe design than those that do have it and the statistics so far are supporting that view.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Within a year of entering service, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 suffered it's first fatal hull loss so based on the 737NG's safety record, I'd feel confident that the 737MAX will have a better safety record one year after EIS than the SSJ 100.

And maybe it's just jingoism on my part, but I do not expect the C919 to have a safety record equal to the MAX because I do not believe COMAC is on the same level as Boeing (or Airbus).

And speaking of the SSJ, said hull loss occurred when the pilots flew it into the side of Jakarta's Mount Salak. The SSJ is fitted with an automatic collision avoidance system and said system was working at the time, but the pilots ignored it. So here we have a case of an aircraft with a safety system specifically designed to prevent such an accident from happening not preventing said accident because the pilots ignored it. Much like the Überlingen mid-air collision where the Russian PiC ignored the TCAS instructions to climb and instead dived into the other plane, which was descending per TCAS.

In both cases, the latest safety technology did not prevent an accident because it's instructions/warnings were not followed by the crew.



I do agree that the 737 would benefit from having a fully FBW control system with envelope protection. But I do not agree that the lack of said systems inherently makes the 737 a less safe design than those that do have it and the statistics so far are supporting that view.

Reasoned Argument, meet Deaf Ears.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:48 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 99):
And yet, 737s are not falling out of the skies in any more significant a number that A320s are.

Sure, I think the 737 is very safe. I responded to a post, where somebody thought that the Airbus would be inferior.

B.t.w. I don't think that FBW is a large contributor to safety. The 737 certainly has a very good safety record without it.

I only wonder, why the certification requirements would not allow the 737 to be certified as a new design, if the resulting safety is the same.

But again, grandfathering has nothing to do with FBW.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
trent900
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:06 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:04 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 98):
This line of reasoning does not apply if certification of many things is granted by grandfathering IMHO.

I do not understand this comment. Surely if the MAX can get grandfather rights then why not the NEO? If they both have then they will need the same amount of certification.

D.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 98):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 87):
As I stated in a previous reply, I find the thread title somewhat offensive, ignorant and insulting. This is 2014. No-one designs a "less safe" aircraft. No one would certify it and no-one would buy it.

It's childish and insulting to imply that a future model

Thank you for the nice words, they add a lot of insight of how Boenig people are or I hope not.

I had every right to state that. What, you hope Boeing people wouldn't be offended by a thread saying one of their planes is less safe? I don't get your point.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:25 pm

the 737 already has a FBW system, it is called autopilot (less some of the back driven functions), which is used 99 percent of the time.

Regarding envelope protection, Boeing and Airbus aeroplanes with FBW systems are quite different, no ??

Cheers
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:47 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 109):
the 737 already has a FBW system, it is called autopilot (less some of the back driven functions), which is used 99 percent of the time.

I think you are misunderstanding what an FBW system is. FBW is not the same as an autopilot. FBW refers basically to the lack of control cables to control the flight surfaces. Everything is done electronically. (The 777 does have two spoilers that are cable driven for roll control and the backup Stabilizer trim system has cables; the 787 has no cables) The 737 does not have an FBW system.

Boeing autopilot and autothrottles backdrive the controls.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:59 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 110):
think you are misunderstanding what an FBW system is. FBW is not the same as an autopilot. FBW refers basically to the lack of control cables to control the flight surfaces. Everything is done electronically. (The 777 does have two spoilers that are cable driven for roll control and the backup Stabilizer trim system has cables; the 787 has no cables) The 737 does not have an FBW system.

Boeing autopilot and autothrottles backdrive the controls.

I'm not really misunderstanding, just saying that 99 percent of the time the airplane is flown by a computer (plus a yaw damp system) that electrically controls actuators at the elevators and ailerons.

cheers
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:17 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 103):
Limiting the airplane to 2.5g's for all cases negates capability that is inherent to the design/certification process.

That (excess) capability is available at all times, and is not dependent on the load if the aircraft. You said "What about an avoidance maneuver that requires 3g's to be successful but the FBW implementation limits you to 2.5g's? The higher g loading is possible structurally when operating at less than MTOW/MZFW." My point was that many of the things on an aircraft are designed for a 3G (or whatever) load, and the load on them does not depend on the mass of the aircraft.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9699
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:02 pm

This thread is amazing.

The simple fact is that no FBW by itself does not make an aircraft more or less safe. FBW is simply another method to translate the pilots commands to the various control surfaces. How the system is implemented and the systems controlling it will affect the safety but a FBW system alone will not make an aircraft "more safe" (nor will it make it less safe).

You could fit a FBW system into a Cessna 172 and the plane will still do the same things a normal C172 provided all other factors remain the same (weight, CofG, etc.). It will still be flown by the same pilots with the same systems that another C172 would have.

An aircraft is a comprehensive systems device, made up of the airframe, pilots, nav and other systems etc. all interacting with one another. It is how these are all integrated and the level of skill and experience behind each element that will affect the safety of any flight. Yes, I am being overly simplistic and you can nit pick but I am hoping that you understand what I mean.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:21 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 49):
With all due respect, this is really a foolish thread. In fact, I kind of find it offensive and insulting to a lot of talented dedicated and hard working people. What, do you think anyone is going to design a less safe aircraft or it's going to be certified in this day and age? Of course not.


Eh.. I don't know, BoeingGuy. This post might be viewed as factually wrong by some.......

I'm still trying to figure out why someone would believe the 737MAX would be less safe than the 737NG. Or is that a question that can't be asked? I'm simply trying to understand why anyone would believe the MAX will be any less safe than its predecessor or any of its contemporaries. Is it because there are views that FBW is more safe than traditional control systems? I'm just curious because I don't think any one (unless I've missed it) has posted data to show that FBW aircraft are inherently more safe than non-FBW aircraft as far as accident/incident rate.
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:31 pm

This isn't in regards to Boeing, but grandfathering rights in general. I've never really understood it.

What's the rationale behind continuing letting a plane fly/be certified today with features that if the plane were to be originally certified today(the time where it's flying), it'll be virtually uncertifiable due to newer, stricter regulations? A bit strange to me, as in plain terms, you're letting a plane that's unsafe by today's standards take to the air. Or am I just getting the concept of grandfathering wrong?

[Edited 2014-11-14 12:41:49]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:35 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 110):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 113):

Thank you.. I was beginning to think the FBW definition had changed to include all the computing systems..

So going back to the starting point .. adding FBW to the 737MAX would be a costly design and certification effort with no improvement to the aircraft systems or safety, akin to putting white side wall tires on or Mach 2 aerodynamics.

As for the flight management systems, Boeing is always upgrading and adding new safety features when appropriate.. and there is no reason to believe they will not be compatible to those being offered in competitors newer airframes.. It also means there will be no whistles and bells installed (or programed) that have little or no application.

Personally I think the title and initiator's comments border on inflammatory and trolling as they are without foundation.

As I stated earlier in the thread, aircraft safety is a result of manufacturing excellence, maintenance excellence, and crew training excellence.. that said, most incidents occur when one or more of those factors is bypassed. Having spent years performing manufacturing process and procedure audits and assisting on FAA reviews, manufacturing discrepancies are the very least of causes. And yes, in the field of stress and chemical corrosion, engineers are continually researching and updating.. and we will ultimately see CFRP fuselages and wings as standard. Since the MAX is aluminum one could say over it's lifetime it will require more maintenance to ensure fuselage/wing integrity than a new CFRP competitor, but it is in no way less safe.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:49 pm

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 115):
What's the rationale behind continuing letting a plane fly/be certified today with features that if the plane were to be originally certified today(the time where it's flying), it'll be virtually uncertifiable due to newer, stricter regulations? A bit strange to me, or am I just getting the concept of grandfathering wrong?

Think of it this way.. when a plane is designed and certified to one set of regulations, and then those regulations are changed do the airlines have to take all delivered aircraft out of service and remanufacture to the new regulations..

Well the answer is yes and no.. Service Bulletins coupled with Airworthiness Directives address those issues deemed "safety" at the same time the improvements are put into production. However the Service Bulletin fix may be different than the production fix. And the immediate production fix may be different from a long term solution.. but in general the whole process is continually upgrading the product.. and the continued certification incorporates these improvements..

Some things (such as the doors/frames) would require a full blown recertification testing not to mention massive retooling.. so the FAA allows grandfathering provided all interim measures are in compliance.

I am not aware of a single system that had grandfathered approval being the cause of an incident or passenger death/injury.. (but I could be under informed)
 
airtechy
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:35 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:25 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):
I am not aware of a single system that had grandfathered approval being the cause of an incident or passenger death/injury.. (but I could be under informed)

How about the passenger floor vents in the DC-10 that were sized based on those required in DC-8 and 707 size aircraft. They should have been much larger to prevent the floor from collapsing upon a cargo door blowing. Actually, that is probably a carried over FAA requirement though.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1855
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:42 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):
Some things (such as the doors/frames) would require a full blown recertification testing not to mention massive retooling.. so the FAA allows grandfathering provided all interim measures are in compliance.

I am not aware of a single system that had grandfathered approval being the cause of an incident or passenger death/injury.. (but I could be under informed)

It's an interesting point. If the older standards are OK, why do we have newer rules and standards if in practice the increased level of safety is minimal? I think the escape slides from the wings do make sense.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...er_2013/boeing_737_804__g_gdfj.cfm

Passengers exiting over the wing were confused by the procedure and the height of the drop, slowing down the evacuation.

As a mature product, the 737 also has the benefit of being very well known and understood.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:05 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Within a year of entering service, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 suffered it's first fatal hull loss so based on the 737NG's safety record, I'd feel confident that the 737MAX will have a better safety record one year after EIS than the SSJ 100.

Exactly ! the SSJ FWB wire and programing goes rings around anything flying today, and someone managed to crash it into a mountain and ignore safety.

So Its more important the human factor than anything to do with FBW or not.
I´d wish Boeing would have gone nuts and made a super new, beautiful and advanced 737 successor YOU BET! , but hey they are making gazillions and meeting timelines going a PROVEN route, why complicate it?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
I do agree that the 737 would benefit from having a fully FBW control system with envelope protection. But I do not agree that the lack of said systems inherently makes the 737 a less safe design than those that do have it and the statistics so far are supporting that view.

Amen to that ! !

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:55 am

Quoting airtechy (Reply 118):
How about the passenger floor vents in the DC-10 that were sized based on those required in DC-8 and 707 size aircraft. T

you can not grandfather across models.. the situation you describe was an engineer trying to use an existing design without realizing the limitations.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:44 am

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 98):
Well, this I did not expect from a professional of the industry (not a profane like me).
It is comfortable to think that the organization that set the standards, and improve the safety of flight with continous review of all the accidents, the training, the maintenance, and whatever you have said before, now are willingly and criminally not saying the truth, just becayse this suits your needs of the moment.

To be specific, I am a machine design engineer, not an aeronautical engineer. My only dealings with airliners is that I designed the machines that grind the bores on most Boeing landing gear struts. But I did not say that anyone investigating that accident did not willingly tell the truth; I have no doubt that the primary cause of the accident was pilot error. I just suspect that had the pilot been able to put the aircraft in a climb attitude and increase power, he might have been able to save it because of ground effect. But the FBW prevented him from doing that.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:55 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 122):
But the FBW prevented him from doing that.

For all of some peoples vaunted expectations of computerized flight systems, it would seem the infallible computers should never have allowed the plane into the situation in the first place..      
 
astuteman
Posts: 7075
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:19 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 122):
I have no doubt that the primary cause of the accident was pilot error. I just suspect that had the pilot been able to put the aircraft in a climb attitude and increase power, he might have been able to save it because of ground effect. But the FBW prevented him from doing that.

No. No. No. No. And No. Again.

The pre-requisite of the climb you suggest is the increase in power you suggest.

It couldn't possibly have happened the other way round.
He couldn't possibly have climbed the plane in that low-energy state without increasing power first - FBW or no FBW.
FBW did NOT prevent him from commanding the increase in power that was the pre-requisite of the climb you say he should have done.

If he had tried to climb without that power, he WOULD have stalled. That's what the FBW prevented. And it almost certainly would have been even worse.   

Habsheim wasn't a FBW accident.

Personally I think you'd be far better of pointing out that Habsheim, like all accidents, re-enforces the FACT that airliner safety, like all safety is a function of the entire system of which FBW either is, or isn't, a part.

Sorry. But that's how see it

Rgds
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:02 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):

I understand that it obviously wouldn't make sense to rework aircraft already in service as that would be cost prohibitive, but I was thinking of major upgrades like the NG to the MAX. However, I can kind of see the reasoning behind it now, though I can't say I fully agree that it should be that way.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10036
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:22 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 92):
The TK 737 in AMS would not have happened in a A320 due to the envelope protection.

Maybe, maybe not, it is hard to say. The biggest issue with the TK 737 is that they stalled so low- the crew tried to prevent a stall when they were warned about it by the stick shaker, but didn't have the speed or altitude to prevent it. I am not certain that an Airbus would have been anymore successful. Flight envelope protection doesn't defy physics, and if you don't have the room to recover than you are screwed whether the aircraft recognizes the aircraft is about to stall or not.

The problem with the TK flight is that the crew was not paying attention and put themselves in a situation that they couldn't get out of. Flight envelope protection easily allows the crew to put the aircraft in a situation where it is about to stall just like the 737, only it takes over and automatically (attempts) to recover/prevent the crew from further actions that would cause a stall when it believes a stall is eminent instead of just warning the pilots as the 737 does.

[Edited 2014-11-15 12:27:58]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:29 pm

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 125):

consider it this way, if a revision increases safety by 25% or more it will be implemented in production and the point is moot, however if the change is in the area of a 1-10% improvement and there has never been an accident, injury or fatality associated with the existing situation, grandfathering is likely.. some changes are driven by "what if" scenarios that have never occurred.. Many items grandfathered are not safety items but proven design elements. Remember also that some new regulations are politically driven or driven from occurrences on other manufacturer's aircraft.

the 737 cockpit is known to be noisy, however the noise is not a safety issue so why spend millions on a new cockpit design? the structure is then grandfathered in until clean sheet replacement is designed.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Will The MAX Be A Less Safe Aircraft?

Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:07 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 126):
The biggest issue with the TK 737 is that they stalled so low- the crew tried to prevent a stall when they were warned about it by the stick shaker, but didn't have the speed or altitude to prevent it. I am not certain that an Airbus would have been anymore successful.

They stalled, the PIC applied manual full power, had to counter the nose-ip-moment using both hands and - while doing that - the autothrottle reduced thrust again to zero. And their fate was sealed. But a proper envelope protection would never reduce thrust to zero in a low energy situation. Especially not after TOGA was commanded...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

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