Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-13-2019, 06:54 PM   #41
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
Not sure about that. Some posters are adamant the cause is pilot error/lack of pilot training/pilot stupidity and the planes have had the system since 737 inception. I expect they take strong issue with the POTUS decision to ground the aircraft, which he says has airline agreement.Canada fell in line with grounding.
I`m reading the system giving trouble is a "fix" to correct a handling peculiarity of the aircraft which may now be corrected by a further "fix". But if the crashes are due to pilot incompetence, grounding and talk of further "fix" is unnecessary,and Govts.and aviation authorities around the world have got this completely wrong.
Fortunately our forthcoming flights are B787 and A350. Though on the A350 personal items placed on the windowsill can be lost into a gap.
Calling the MCAS system a "fix to correct a handling peculiarity" is a bit like saying deicing boots are just such a "fix".

Lion Air has one of the worst safety records on the planet, and when I think of the kind of infra structure needed for technological competence the first word that does not spring to mind is Ethiopia, even though the safety record for Ethiopian Air is very good.

The planes are grounded because people are freaked out because two planes piloted by third world pilots crashed, because of uninformed nonsense on the Internet, and in part likely because of poor training in a new aircraft that is marketed as nearly identical to the older 737, which it kind of is, and kind of not. Better training will likely cure the problem, but it would be a good idea to wait on the crash reports that I suspect will come very quickly now that the fleet is on the ground.

Want to know who agrees with this opinion? The stock market. Boeing stock was up today.
__________________
Advertisement

Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2019, 07:59 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Flybull's Avatar
 
City: USA
Country: United States
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
A lot of aircraft have uncommanded inputs or unusual emergencies during their growth.


The second type USCG helo I flew would sometimes reduce lift to zero while descending under 100 feet while making a approaches to the water at night. Talk about eye openers....but we didn't crash any.


Pilots that fly new aircraft or modded should understand more than the minimum training requirements.

Could you expound on this a little bit?
__________________

Flybull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2019, 11:57 PM   #43
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodland Hills View Post
I cannot believe that the FAA allowed Boeing to certify this aircraft as a modified 737 and not as a new aircraft. The wing was moved several feet to accommodate the new engines changing the flight characteristics and yet they were permitted to avoid the costly full certification flight test program: WHY?

...
How do you tell that the "wing was moved several feet"? In relation to what, the nose, the tail, landing gear? There are many aircraft that have different physical dimensions but are still essentially the same airplane with the same type rating. These include ATRs, 737 Classics, 737NGs, 777s, 757s, 767s, A320s, A340s, A330s, MD80s, 727s, the list goes on. The 747-200 and the 747SP differed in overall length by around 50 feet, but were pretty much the same aircraft.

That said, there is still a valid point in that the FAA does not have the staff or expertise to effectively and extensively evaluate each and every design that aircraft manufacturers come up with. The FAA relies heavily on the manufacturers to explain and justify their designs. If the argument is convincing enough, the FAA accepts what the manufacturer tells them. But the FAA also relies on a lot of non-FAA personnel to carry out the regulatory functions that the FAA is responsible for (e.g. Designated Examiners).
ssobol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 12:57 AM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Civilitas's Avatar
 
City: PNW/Seattle-ish
Country: Boy
Vessel Name: M/V Peter Iredale ;)
Vessel Model: rusting hulk
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssobol View Post
How do you tell that the "wing was moved several feet"? In relation to what, the nose, the tail, landing gear?
I don't know about any wing relocation; the kludge that has a lot of engineers vexed is the engine movement in relation to the wing. To accommodate the high-bypass engines necessary to get the fuel efficiency competitive, the engines had to be slung forward and up to fit them to the airframe. This creates the inherent handling defects that the MCAS is designed to correct.

Take a look at these comparative pics of the original low-bypass JT8s the plane was designed for, and the CFM-LEAP that are fitted now. This is what, as I understand it, is the root of the alleged problem.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	737 cfm.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	83.7 KB
ID:	86405  
Attached Images
 
Civilitas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 05:15 AM   #45
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 18,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Calling the MCAS system a "fix to correct a handling peculiarity" is a bit like saying deicing boots are just such a "fix".

Lion Air has one of the worst safety records on the planet, and when I think of the kind of infra structure needed for technological competence the first word that does not spring to mind is Ethiopia, even though the safety record for Ethiopian Air is very good.

The planes are grounded because people are freaked out because two planes piloted by third world pilots crashed, because of uninformed nonsense on the Internet, and in part likely because of poor training in a new aircraft that is marketed as nearly identical to the older 737, which it kind of is, and kind of not. Better training will likely cure the problem, but it would be a good idea to wait on the crash reports that I suspect will come very quickly now that the fleet is on the ground.

Want to know who agrees with this opinion? The stock market. Boeing stock was up today.
I agree.....
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 05:23 AM   #46
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 18,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flybull View Post
Could you expound on this a little bit?
In the early days, the RADAR altimeters would lose tracking and cycle.


When flyinge hands off approaches to a hover, the autopilot system would see the RADALT cycle to max altitude, think the helo was too high and bottom the collective.(reduce lift to zero).



In daytime at 75 or so feet, it was scary, at night it almost made you want to give up flying. It took almost a ear or so till the worked it out.



No grounding there...
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 06:01 AM   #47
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18,756
"I am curious about the report of "new evidence" discovered at the Ethiopia site"

The claim is the sat track of both crashed aircraft is similar.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 09:49 AM   #48
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,970
Seems like there's two major things that standout with this plane.

1. The philosophy that the airplane is smarter than the pilots so let's design a system that will protect the pilot if he screws up.

2. The proper training for emergency situations that require the correct action and that it be accomplished timely.

After 25000 hour in the air, I'm beginning to figure this out.

And to add one more thing......
It's hard to understand why the Lion plane wasn't fixed after the FIRST time is had failed.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 09:50 AM   #49
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
In the early days, the RADAR altimeters would lose tracking and cycle.


When flyinge hands off approaches to a hover, the autopilot system would see the RADALT cycle to max altitude, think the helo was too high and bottom the collective.(reduce lift to zero).



In daytime at 75 or so feet, it was scary, at night it almost made you want to give up flying. It took almost a ear or so till the worked it out.



No grounding there...
Yea, wouldn't take a few times of that happening that I'd give up flying and take up boating.....
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 09:53 AM   #50
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"I am curious about the report of "new evidence" discovered at the Ethiopia site"

The claim is the sat track of both crashed aircraft is similar.
That wouldn't surprise me. If the reactions of the crews to whatever confused them was the same, the planes are going to react the same.

Pilots do make bad decisions sometimes. Distracted by my flight instructor's need to hop into the back seat to express milk for her new baby while I was pulling the aircraft ouy of the hangar, I neglected to detach the tow bar from the nose wheel. Took off, retracted gear, and flew all the way to Aurora Oregon trying to figure out why my airspeed was a few knots belore what it should have been. Greased the landing in Aurora and on taxi, got a call from another pilot -"Uh, 42 Tango Golf, you aware you have a tow bar attached to the nose gear?"

Based on the internet's reaction to the Boeing crash some would say Socata should be held accountable if I had the tow bar flip up during flight into the prop and cause a crash because "Remove the tow bar before taking off" wasn't in the flight manual. I would say that inattentive pilots should pay attention.
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 09:58 AM   #51
Guru
 
cardude01's Avatar
 
City: Victoria TX
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bijou
Vessel Model: 2008 Island Packet steadysailer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,895
I wish Baker would comment on this thread, but he may not be able to talk about it. I bet he has flown the 737 Max.
cardude01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 10:18 AM   #52
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,636
[/I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardude01 View Post
I wish Baker would comment on this thread, but he may not be able to talk about it. I bet he has flown the 737 Max.
Lots of 737 Max pilots are talking about this, in the right surroundings. Hardly prudent to do it on TF. As suggested, best to see what the boxes contain.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 10:25 AM   #53
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardude01 View Post
I wish Baker would comment on this thread, but he may not be able to talk about it. I bet he has flown the 737 Max.
That would be great if he could. I've got quite a bit of time in the earlier models of the 737 and as it evolved the difference became significant and more automation. The Max seems like an entirely different plane.
__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 10:30 AM   #54
Guru
 
cardude01's Avatar
 
City: Victoria TX
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bijou
Vessel Model: 2008 Island Packet steadysailer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,895
cardude01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 10:33 AM   #55
Guru
 
Woodland Hills's Avatar
 
City: Jacksonville
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alzero
Vessel Model: Hatteras 63' CPMY
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
That would be great if he could. I've got quite a bit of time in the earlier models of the 737 and as it evolved the difference became significant and more automation. The Max seems like an entirely different plane.
According to the FAA it is the same plane as in 1968 when it first was certificated.

Would the FAA would issue a type certificate for a clean sheet design that has such undesirable flight characteristics as to need an MCAS to make it airworthy.? If not, why is this acceptable on yet another reworking of a 60 year old design?

The FAA has abrogated is responsibility to ensure safety by allowing Boeing to modify the 737 far beyond its type certification instead of forcing Boeing to pony up the scores of billions of dollars to recertify the newest modification as a new aircraft. Instead they have put the onus upon the flight crew and then decided to not even train them on their band-aid fix. They have also successfully shifted the discussion of responsibility from Boeing to to the pilots: this is so wrong on so many levels.
Woodland Hills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 11:14 AM   #56
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Civilitas View Post
I don't know about any wing relocation; the kludge that has a lot of engineers vexed is the engine movement in relation to the wing. To accommodate the high-bypass engines necessary to get the fuel efficiency competitive, the engines had to be slung forward and up to fit them to the airframe. This creates the inherent handling defects that the MCAS is designed to correct.

Take a look at these comparative pics of the original low-bypass JT8s the plane was designed for, and the CFM-LEAP that are fitted now. This is what, as I understand it, is the root of the alleged problem.
Actually the engines are moved forward and up because Boeing did not want to change the 737 landing gear and associated structure to provide more ground clearance to hang the larger engines in the original position. Same reason that a lot of 737s have the flattened engine cowl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee
... 1. The philosophy that the airplane is smarter than the pilots so let's design a system that will protect the pilot if he screws up
This is one of the main reasons for driverless cars.
ssobol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 11:33 AM   #57
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18,756
A look at a past problem,


https://imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 11:43 AM   #58
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 18,646
A lot of "forgiveness* to pilots who "didn't have enough time to correct".


What's enough time?... and were they trained for paridigm shifts?
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 11:52 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Boat's Avatar
 
City: SchoolHouse Branch
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardude01 View Post
I wish Baker would comment on this thread, but he may not be able to talk about it. I bet he has flown the 737 Max.
Too busy, bet all the Max pilots are in "training".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
, because of uninformed nonsense on the Internet,
Mob rule and mass hysteria, some call it civilization. Welcome to the future. Grounding the planes is probably of little value, feel good, kumbaya moment.


I bet Boeing didn't want to appear concerned and asked "The Scapegoat in Chief" to call the shot.
Boat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 05:59 PM   #60
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9,394
Maybe Boeing`s insurers had a hand in Boeing supporting the grounding. Past Comet and DC10 issues come to mind. I`m sure, given time, Boeing will remedy the situation.
Perhaps it`s a combination of design and pilots, but it would be a courtesy not to tip a bucket of excrement over the pilots pending clarification of the issue.I`m not inclined to accept,without more information, that a Captain with 8000 hours amassed that service time drinking coffee and on social media, while the planes flew themselves.
__________________

__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012