|
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 30900280)
At the current rate, in 40 years time they will have all crashed.
But even if no more MAX aircraft were to be built, how difficult would it be to take an existing 737-800 (NG) and change it to a MAX 8 by swapping the engines, changing the software, making the lavatories smaller (reconfiguring the interior), etc. The winglets are different, but that's an easy change if different wings aren't needed. Also, the tail is different, so that might be the most substantial change that would be necessary to the frame. I'm not suggesting that anyone would do this or that it would be a sensible way to make a MAX 8, but I'm curious in light of all the discussions about re-using old designs to save time and money. |
Originally Posted by lobo411
(Post 30897824)
Forget about that...it'll never happen. Boeing had to choose between redesigning the 737 using 787 technology or simply re-engining the 737 around 15 years ago. Airbus had the same choice to make, and Airbus went with re-engining the A320, which became the A320neo. That forced Boeing's hand...a new plane was out of the question because Airbus would have picked Boeing clean in the 15 years it would have taken to bring a new design to market.
The 737-MAX is here to stay and you can expect it to be in the skies for the next 25-40 years. Other interesting sources to read and consider: Link to Interesting article: “Can Boeing Trust Pilots? by Mac McClellan, 11 March 2019, AirFacts. The major issue isn’t fly by wire or pilot expectations to intervene when necessary, it’s that Boeing didn’t build triple redundancy into the 737 MAX system, according to the writer. Captain “Sully” Sullenberger’s trenchant comment shown above that (though permissible under ICAO) a 200 hours SIC / copilot is sufficiently experienced to fly in the cockpit of a commercial passenger plane. (What happens if the senior pilot becomes incapacitated during flight? I’ve had this happen - and if the First Officer had not been sufficiently competent to handle a passenger aircraft under all circumstances, we’d probably have been an item in the newspapers reading how ~60 died in a DC-6B crash in the Sierra Madre. |
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
(Post 30900819)
But even if no more MAX aircraft were to be built, how difficult would it be to take an existing 737-800 (NG) and change it to a MAX 8 by swapping the engines, changing the software, making the lavatories smaller (reconfiguring the interior), ... The issue is that changing the engines changes the flight characteristics in such a way that it can be unstable. Thus the MAX engines (and MCAS and landing gear) would need to be certified. That is basically never going to happen if the MAX does not resume production as there is simply not enough revenue involved in this type conversion to cover the huge cost. Now, makiing the bathrooms smaller, yeah. that can be done. |
|
Originally Posted by lobo411
(Post 30899234)
I assume you mean if we lose a 3rd or a 4th one due to the same cause. It's worth mentioning that we don't even know why the first one went down, let alone the second. The FAA requires so much testing (many, many years' worth) before an aircraft design sees its first passenger, so while I'm not an expert, I'd bet dollars to a donuts that no certified design has ever had its licenses permanently revoked. What we have with the MAX, assuming that our *guesses* about the cause are correct, is a glitch that will be easily fixed once the necessary regulatory processes are performed.
It just so happens that the story of Qantas Flight 72 is on Air Disasters right now. This was an Airbus A330 that suffered several violent, uncommanded plunges resulting in more than 100 passenger injuries. The cause? Faulty data from the Angle of Attack sensors caused the flight computer to go haywire. There was no fix...just a set of recovery procedures in the event of another failure, and a second Qantas flight suffered the same failure two months later. There are currently 2,000 A330/A340s in service right now with this design flaw. Sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 |
One of the overlooked issues here is the need for Boeing to release these planes without requiring significant pilot retraining. This issue was at the heart of the Kegworth crash 30 years ago (737-400) and it is depressing to see the same commercial pressures causing problems again. The challenge is that they want a new fuel-efificient version with new software, but they don't want to have to train pilots in how to fly it (because that would make it uneconomic for their customers).
|
Originally Posted by SeattleDavid
(Post 30901416)
One of the overlooked issues here is the need for Boeing to release these planes without requiring significant pilot retraining. This issue was at the heart of the Kegworth crash 30 years ago (737-400) and it is depressing to see the same commercial pressures causing problems again. The challenge is that they want a new fuel-efificient version with new software, but they don't want to have to train pilots in how to fly it (because that would make it uneconomic for their customers).
Though the pitch system in the MAX is somewhat new, the pilot actions after a failure are exactly the same as would be for a runaway trim in any 737 built since the 1960s. As pilots we really don’t need to know why the trim is running away, but we must know, and practice, how to disable it. -Link to Interesting article: “Can Boeing Trust Pilots? by Mac McClellan, 11 March 2019, AirFacts. Other potential problems include the FAA outsource critical parts of the testing and certification decision making to the very manufacturers they’re supposed to be evaluating critically, under a policy implemented ten years ago. “FAA employees warned as early as seven years ago that Boeing Co. had too much sway over safety approvals of new aircraft, prompting an investigation by Department of Transportation auditors who confirmed the agency hadn’t done enough to “hold Boeing accountable.” Link to Bloomberg article “Boeing Had Too Much Sway in Vetting Own Jets, FAA Was Told”, By Peter Robison and Alan Levin, March 17, 2019, 7:31 PM PDT, Updated on March 18, 2019, 2:22 AM PDT A Grand Jury and US Department of Justice are also investigating. Link to Wall Street Journal article. Link to Wall Street Journal article “Prosecutors, Transportation Department Scrutinize Development of Boeing’s 737 MAX; A grand jury’s subpoena seeks broad documents related to the jetliner”, by By Andrew Tangel, Andy Pasztor and Robert Wall, Updated March 18, 2019 11:38 a.m. ET |
My concern is that we were headed in the direction of self flying planes (like cars), but it appears the MAX shouldn't be using automated flight controls and needs to be flown by highly skilled pilots that can take evasive actions, when the automated systems fail.
So what would the software fix be - eliminate MCAS and only fly the aircraft manually (for the next 45 years)? I can only assume that a software fix would be to soften the MCAS control and the extreme changes it can make - but does that really fix the problem? Is MCAS the problem (which can be removed) or the flight characteristics which cause the problem in the first place. |
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30902850)
My concern is that we were headed in the direction of self flying planes (like cars), but it appears the MAX shouldn't be using automated flight controls and needs to be flown by highly skilled pilots that can take evasive actions, when the automated systems fail.
So what would the software fix be - eliminate MCAS and only fly the aircraft manually (for the next 45 years)? I can only assume that a software fix would be to soften the MCAS control and the extreme changes it can make - but does that really fix the problem? Is MCAS the problem (which can be removed) or the flight characteristics which cause the problem in the first place. |
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30902850)
My concern is that we were headed in the direction of self flying planes (like cars), but it appears the MAX shouldn't be using automated flight controls and needs to be flown by highly skilled pilots that can take evasive actions, when the automated systems fail.
So what would the software fix be - eliminate MCAS and only fly the aircraft manually (for the next 45 years)? I can only assume that a software fix would be to soften the MCAS control and the extreme changes it can make - but does that really fix the problem? Is MCAS the problem (which can be removed) or the flight characteristics which cause the problem in the first place. |
I would hope that professional pilots working for major carriers would refuse to fly aircraft types on which they had received insufficient information and especially training. Before the Lion Air crash, there apparently hadn't been an acknowledgment from Boeing that some systems in the MAX 8 were very different, but afterward I would have expected more questions than have been reported, when they could reasonably have first suspected that some specialized training was needed. OTOH, I understand that refusal to fly an aircraft, even if there are serious maintenance issues, can be detrimental to one's flying career at some airlines like Lion Air. BTW can a pilot refuse to fly with a particular copilot whom the pilot believes to be insufficiently experienced, insufficiently trained, or simply lacking good judgment? |
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
(Post 30903063)
I would hope that professional pilots working for major carriers would refuse to fly aircraft types on which they had received insufficient information and especially training. Before the Lion Air crash, there apparently hadn't been an acknowledgment from Boeing that some systems in the MAX 8 were very different, but afterward I would have expected more questions than have been reported, when they could reasonably have first suspected that some specialized training was needed. OTOH, I understand that refusal to fly an aircraft, even if there are serious maintenance issues, can be detrimental to one's flying career at some airlines like Lion Air. BTW can a pilot refuse to fly with a particular copilot whom the pilot believes to be insufficiently experienced, insufficiently trained, or simply lacking good judgment? "It can't happen here" is precisely what leads to massive failures of safety culture... |
Originally Posted by superweak
(Post 30903849)
...but is there any evidence that an AA pilot who refused to fly the MAX despite the company, chief pilot, and Boeing assuring them that everything was fine and just like the -800 wouldn't find that detrimental to their flying career?
|
I am glad that the crash investigation went to France instead of the US, otherwise it would have possibly been a Boeing cover up, or Trump would have been the head of the investigation, lol...
|
Originally Posted by superweak
(Post 30903849)
I understand that "blame the Ethiopian pilots" is the go-to meme at the moment, but is there any evidence that an AA pilot who refused to fly the MAX despite the company, chief pilot, and Boeing assuring them that everything was fine and just like the -800 wouldn't find that detrimental to their flying career?
"It can't happen here" is precisely what leads to massive failures of safety culture... That's why I'm asking. Apparently AA FAs were allowed to reject trips that included flying on a MAX 8. |
Originally Posted by nk15
(Post 30903917)
I am glad that the crash investigation went to France instead of here, otherwise it would have possibly been a Boeing cover up, or Trump would have been the head of the investigation, lol...
|
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30905035)
You do realize that investigations here are conducted by the NTSB - the members and staff of which are universally viewed as being the utmost of professionals and experts. They have no reservations about telling Boeing or Airbus that they have a faulty product - and they've done so repeatedly (737-300/400 rudder hard overs, etc.).
|
Originally Posted by flyingeph12
(Post 30905143)
Regardless, I think the events that transpired following the crash is indicative of how not only Ethiopia but also many other countries now view the United States in terms of it being a global leader. If I were Ethiopia and saw how the FAA continued to vouch for the plane’s safety days after the accident, how one of the major US airlines released a statement basically implying that the accident was a result of pilot error, and how involved Trump was in everything, I too would be looking to send the boxes to anywhere but the US. |
Originally Posted by flyingeph12
(Post 30905143)
Regardless, I think the events that transpired following the crash is indicative of how not only Ethiopia but also many other countries now view the United States in terms of it being a global leader. If I were Ethiopia and saw how the FAA continued to vouch for the plane’s safety days after the accident, how one of the major US airlines released a statement basically implying that the accident was a result of pilot error, and how involved Trump was in everything, I too would be looking to send the boxes to anywhere but the US. |
Originally Posted by bchandler02
(Post 30905277)
Agreed. Boeing CEO and Trump speaking prior to grounding is concerning. This should not be a political event.
|
I mean you can already see the two competing contentious narratives, "It was Boeing's equipment and training manual's fault" vs. "it was the lack of air carriers' training and experience standards", and everything in between...Which I guess is the age old question of manufacturer vs pilot error. Which is likely to be a combo of both, likely multifactorial.
Ironically France also has some potential conflict of interest here, as manufacturer of Airbus, but still probably best choice with I assume several safeguards added. |
Originally Posted by flyingeph12
(Post 30905143)
Regardless, I think the events that transpired following the crash is indicative of how not only Ethiopia but also many other countries now view the United States in terms of it being a global leader. If I were Ethiopia and saw how the FAA continued to vouch for the plane’s safety days after the accident, how one of the major US airlines released a statement basically implying that the accident was a result of pilot error, and how involved Trump was in everything, I too would be looking to send the boxes to anywhere but the US. The recorders belong to the investigatory body at this time. *Ethiopian Airlines’ list shows 35 nationalities among the dead. In all, 157 people were on board. The list of nations who lost passengers and numbers of passengers lost are below. If there’s no number, the nation listed lost one citizen - resident. Austria (3) Belgium Djibouti Ethiopia (32) Germany (5) Indonesia Ireland Israel (2) Kenya (17) Morocco (2) Mozambique Nepal Nigeria Norway Poland (2) Russia (3) Rwanda Spain (2) Saudi Arabia Serbia Somalia Sudan Sweden (3) Togo Uganda Yemen |
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30906050)
I think there’s some faulty assumptions here. The ET investigation is led in all instances by the local Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority and the Ethiopian Transport Authority, with other stakeholders. US NTSB because the aircraft is American, Boeing as manufacturer, other nations invited or experiencing losses*, such as Canadian TSB because Canadian passengers died, and French BEA involved with the “black boxes” decoding. This is established in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 5.27. Link to ICAO Annex 13.
The recorders belong to the investigatory body at this time. *Ethiopian Airlines’ list shows 35 nationalities among the dead. In all, 157 people were on board. The list of nations who lost passengers and numbers of passengers lost are below. If there’s no number, the nation listed lost one citizen - resident. Austria (3) Belgium Djibouti Ethiopia (32) Germany (5) Indonesia Ireland Israel (2) Kenya (17) Morocco (2) Mozambique Nepal Nigeria Norway Poland (2) Russia (3) Rwanda Spain (2) Saudi Arabia Serbia Somalia Sudan Sweden (3) Togo Uganda Yemen |
Originally Posted by nk15
(Post 30905631)
I mean you can already see the two competing contentious narratives, "It was Boeing's equipment and training manual's fault" vs. "it was the lack of air carriers' training and experience standards", and everything in between...Which I guess is the age old question of manufacturer vs pilot error. Which is likely to be a combo of both, likely multifactorial.
Ironically France also has some potential conflict of interest here, as manufacturer of Airbus, but still probably best choice with I assume several safeguards added. |
Originally Posted by bchandler02
(Post 30906102)
There's also reports coming out that Boeing had been given too much power to self-certify as well. That doesn't look good for them or the US of A gov.
|
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30906050)
I think there’s some faulty assumptions here. The ET investigation is led in all instances by the local Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority and the Ethiopian Transport Authority, with other stakeholders. US NTSB because the aircraft is American, Boeing as manufacturer, other nations invited or experiencing losses*, such as Canadian TSB because Canadian passengers died, and French BEA involved with the “black boxes” decoding. This is established in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 5.27. Link to ICAO Annex 13.
The recorders belong to the investigatory body at this time. *Ethiopian Airlines’ list shows 35 nationalities among the dead. In all, 157 people were on board. The list of nations who lost passengers and numbers of passengers lost are below. If there’s no number, the nation listed lost one citizen - resident. Austria (3) Belgium Djibouti Ethiopia (32) Germany (5) Indonesia Ireland Israel (2) Kenya (17) Morocco (2) Mozambique Nepal Nigeria Norway Poland (2) Russia (3) Rwanda Spain (2) Saudi Arabia Serbia Somalia Sudan Sweden (3) Togo Uganda Yemen This list is only 26 countries, not 35. The total number on the list is also far under 157. For example, USA is missing (8 or 9 IIRC), also Canada (several?). |
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
(Post 30906892)
This list is only 26 countries, not 35. The total number on the list is also far under 157. For example, USA is missing (8 or 9 IIRC), also Canada (several?). |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-later-crashed Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash. As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit. Seems to be a lot of developments around this whole issue coming thick and fast at the moment. |
The other issue we don't know about for sure is if Donald will co-sign the final crash investigation report, and if he has veto authority over it, does anybody know? :D
|
Originally Posted by thedeeg
(Post 30907283)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-later-crashed Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash. As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit. Seems to be a lot of developments around this whole issue coming thick and fast at the moment. |
Reaccommodation issues etc. due to MAX groundung posts may be found at https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/amer...d-fly-one.html, as indicated in the Wikipost.
Moderator |
Originally Posted by bchandler02
(Post 30908904)
Anyone find it odd that this just happened to come out now? Seems like this would have been basic info available fairly quick after the Lion Air crash.
I have seen times I wanted to be in the right seat. After 200 hours these pilots were not qualified, to shut the auto pilot off, sure glad the ride along knew where the switch was,, |
Originally Posted by satman40
(Post 30909948)
So are you saying the pilot hitching a ride was better trained. I have seen times I wanted to be in the right seat. After 200 hours these pilots were not qualified, to shut the auto pilot off, sure glad the ride along knew where the switch was,, |
Originally Posted by bchandler02
(Post 30910037)
Right. But what I am saying is that it feels like this came out today (vs. much earlier in the process) just so Boeing can say "look, we told you to use this process and if used properly, the plane still flies!"
|
Originally Posted by nk15
(Post 30910418)
And the response is that the plane is survivable only with three pilots in the cockpit, one of whom has to be at the level of captain Sully...
They had 200 hours, and that will not cut it, not enough change in the weather, Winter, and Summer flying is 2 different birds, and 200 hours is not enough hours, you need to have automatic reflexes. Every commercial pilot should be on auto pilot, and be able to fly a burning plane and concentrate on flying the plane.. I have been in IFR weather, and never felt the trublance, Success is planed, failing comes naturally. |
Originally Posted by satman40
(Post 30910525)
No the pilots need more training, I know how to shut down the autopilot, and roll the trim tab backward on take off. They had 200 hours, and that will not cut it, not enough change in the weather, Winter, and Summer flying is 2 different birds, and 200 hours is not enough hours, you need to have automatic reflexes. Every commercial pilot should be on auto pilot, and be able to fly a burning plane and concentrate on flying the plane.. I have been in IFR weather, and never felt the trublance, Success is planed, failing comes naturally. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 30910538)
The captain had 8,231 hours.
|
Originally Posted by bscooter26
(Post 30910542)
The FO had 200 hours
|
The MCAS is merely designed to compensate for too many modifications of what was originally a small plane and now has become bigger. There are some rather serious COG issues with the MAX (which MCAS is, in part and in theory, designed to alleviate), but that doesn't change the physical features of the aircraft.
I'd stay away for a while. This is what happens when you let a manufacturer QC their own product infront of regulators. Who's genius idea was that? |
The First Officer apparently had 350 hours, according to updates from ET.
But the problems are said to include training and experience in both instances. Though ET has a MAX (and a 737-700) simulator, they haven’t had it very long - and the Bulletin Boeing put out on November 6 2018 about MCAS and the effects of a faulty AOA / angle of attack vane / sensor mean a number of ET pilots hadn’t had any practice on this issue because they’re only required to undergo simulator training every six months. It sounds like the Lion Air aircraft could have been lost on 28 Oct instead of the 29th, had not a PNF (pilot not flying) riding in the cockpit been able to instruct the PIC and SIC how to overcome the MCAS and faulty AOA on the Lion Air aircraft that crashed the next day. And That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia’s investigation. The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard. - link to Bloomberg article |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:59 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.