Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30868465)
With the 2nd crash, if Boeing doesn't ground the aircraft, I certainly hope that AA takes it out of service and delays future deliveries. I will not be booking any 7M8 flights on AA.
|
Originally Posted by Tilto007
(Post 30868546)
Anyone who has flown this plane on the densified AA version knows how horrible this plane is.Now that it is proving to be unsafe also makes avoiding this plane an easy decision.Unfortunately MIA has so many of this type that it will not be easy.
|
This topic has been addressed elsewhere on FT, so don't want to elaborate here other than to note another one of the brand new ones just went down...
|
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30868728)
How is it proving to be unsafe? There hasn't been a final report on either crash to definitively say what the direct cause was.
|
Originally Posted by Tilto007
(Post 30868785)
2 crashes of brand new planes is enough "proof" for me.Please find any other instance where 2 new planes of a certain type have crashed within months of certification for no apparent explanation.I am sure that they will be safe for you but not for me until they figure out what is going on.
|
AA will probably start thinking about delaying further MD80 retirements for a bit.....
|
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30868807)
The 727 had five crashes within the first two years of EIS. Any more stupid questions?
|
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 30868843)
That was also more than 50 years ago. Crashes were a bit more common back then.
|
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30868807)
The 727 had five crashes within the first two years of EIS. Any more stupid questions?
5 crashes with no apparent explanation??Did I say design flaw??You should really not be drinking this early in the AM.All I said was I would not be flying this aircraft for now. |
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30868728)
How is it proving to be unsafe? There hasn't been a final report on either crash to definitively say what the direct cause was.
|
Both planes crashed right after takeoff. That seems somewhat odd. Boeing needs to get ahead of this. I’ve checked my flights. I’m not booked on a 7M8. I’ll avoid it. |
Originally Posted by JetAway
(Post 30869039)
Public opinion isn't a court of law and many won't base their decision to avoid this aircraft going forward based on "proof."
AJ |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 30868843)
That was also more than 50 years ago. Crashes were a bit more common back then.
Both MAX crashes were of the same variant also. Enough for me not to fly it. Looks like airlines will likely waive change fees if you are currently booked on a MAX. |
The new 737 MAX flight control system has been implicated, and a number of pilots (AA and WN, though the UA pilot union has taken a contrarian position) have expressed concern about Boeing made significant changes in the automated flight control system, which “takes over” in extreme flight conditions - but can also be disconnected by the pilots so they can “hand fly” the aircraft - and those changes had not been disclosed to pilots.
Pilots are understandably a finicky lot who want to know everything about their aircraft and want to always have the option to have full control. “The pilots of American Airlines, and I’m confident at Southwest Airlines too, want to know everything about all the systems on their airplanes in the interests of ensuring our passengers are safe at all times, whether in normal operations or during emergency procedures,” said Tajer in an interview. “This system is clearly not just operating in the background,” he said, citing information sent to American Airlines by Boeing. “Whenever the new system is in effect, it is not hidden; it is quite active and the airplane doesn’t do what it did in the older 737 model. It changes the handling characteristics and the flight controls.” I’ve been flying since the 1940s, and it has been my personal policy to not fly a brand new aircraft type. Examples: De Havilland DH-106 Comet I, the world’s first commercial jet aircraft. The early Comets has a fatal design failure causing unpredicted fuselage fatigue causing them to break up at altitude. After the fix, I flew in quite a few DH-106 Comet IVs. Lockheed L-188 Electra. The early Electra, the first large commercial turboprop transport designed in America (I flew on a number of Vickers Viscounts) had an undetected design defect, wherein at a certain velocity and I ration frequency of engines in loosened mounts caused “whirl mode”, causing the wings to separate mid flight. I’ve flown in many Electras once the fix went in. Boeing 747. The early 747-100s were unreliable and underpowered. A deceased friend of mine actually lost all four engines on a PA 747-121 over the U.K. and was able to bring it in to a safe landing (but passengers had to be bussed from the RAF base they landed at to London). Glamor be canned, I didn’t fly these for some years. Maybe my first was an Iberia 747-200 in the 1970s, and I’ve flown in many 747 models (the 747SP is my all time favorite, and so few passenger airlines fly the 747-8 I doubt I’ll ever fly in one.) McDonnell Douglas DC-10. This revolutionary three engine aircraft had two major design deficiencies. The redundant control systems were adjacent to each other, and the baggage door was rigged in such a way ground crew sometimes failed to fully secure the hatch, which allowed an unsecured hatch to blow out and cause sudden decompression and collapse of the floor and cable ducting. I flew in many DC-10s after the fix was made to the baggage hatch. (I flew in a number of Lockheed L-1011 aircraft, arguably a more advanced and safer aircraft but held back from the market by both initial overweight design errors and its deficient Rolls Royce engines - the DC-10 middle engine pod allowed easier adaptation to other, more advanced engines use as well.) Airbus A380. Another revolutionary design first delivered in 2007 to SQ. I didn’t fly in this one for several years, either. Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The Dreamliner is a radical aircraft with the airframe made primarily with carbon composites. I finally flew in 787-8 and 787-9 last year, nine years after the original Dreamliner flew and seven years after FAA certification. After the carbon composite aircraft proved its worth, the flaws of the lithium ion battery system in the aft fuselage crown and Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines came to light and were addressed. (I’m glad AA bought the GEnx engine variants, but I have flown in remediated BA 787-9.) I’ve avoided the Oasis 737-800 for other reasons, though they’ll be impossible to avoid soon enough. It was the early Oasis birds modified by ATS at KPAE that demonstrated shoddy workmanship allowing improperly fastened and loose Space bins - and particularly the faulty wiring routing. I well remember the total loss of Swissair 111. (IMO, some fines and remediation need to be levied against ATS and some firings need to occur - including supervisors and inspection crew, and possibly managers who reasonably should have known what was going on. Possibly at AA as well. Two aircraft are two too many, and I doubt we will ever know if other faulty Oasis related installations have been or will be uncovered by AA. As a onetime pilot and from an airline-owning family, I’m deeply conservative about flying in brand new aircraft with radical design variations from proven aircraft. I have personally lost friends and family members in aircraft accidents (all were caused by human factors, the commercial flights were LANSA 502 and PSA 182. (I think in the modern era and what I’ve flown, the Comet and Dreamliner are the most “different” and radical departures from what had been standard for years.) Would I fly in the MAX? Would I actually walk away from a flight if AA substituted a MAX 8 for a 737-823? Not on AA, but I might if I was flying United, and though I’ve flown Lion Air once I’d book away from them as an airline for now. The 7Mx is not by any stretch of the imagination a radically new aircraft, I believe Boeing will fully disclose the afcs and it’s workings if it hadn’t already, and that AA pilots are aware of the issue and have it pretty well in hand. (To add: if the AA pilots felt the MAX 8 was inherently unsafe, you can be sure they’d refuse to fly it, because they do care about the passengers in their care and because their lives are on the line. And contrary to the belief of some, pilots are mostly not risk takers.) |
Fantastic post, JDiver.
|
Originally Posted by Tilto007
(Post 30868946)
5 crashes with no apparent explanation??Did I say design flaw??You should really not be drinking this early in the AM.All I said was I would not be flying this aircraft for now.
|
Originally Posted by enviroian
(Post 30869423)
Source?
|
Originally Posted by chix
(Post 30869417)
Looks like IADCAFlyer is more of a risk taker than most. Both MAX crashes were of the same variant also. Enough for me not to fly it. Looks like airlines will likely waive change fees if you are currently booked on a MAX. |
Originally Posted by aj411
(Post 30869270)
worse yet. AA has made this the only aircraft between certain destinations (Like MIA Quito where I'm flying in May). In that case, in future customer will not only avoid the plane but the airline altogether if that is their only choice of aircraft. Now that would be very bad for business
AJ |
Having flown ET more than any other airline outside of AA or BA, this is so very sad. ET has a very good safety record in modern aviation, save an eerily similar 738 crash in 2010 with another pilot who had a lot of hours and experience (like this flight).
But the initial similarities to this crash and the Lion Air MAX 8 crash are very alarming. I do hope AA, and the pilots who fly the AA MAX 8, are able to speak into this. Only the pilots who have experience on this new type can shed light into other, perhaps unpublished, issues with the MCAS system. Pure speculation, yes, but just too much similarity to the crash in October. Glad I don't have any MAX 8 flights upcoming, just for the extra peace of mind. |
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30869631)
If there was an ordered shut down, my guess is that AA would start to shift fleet aircraft around - including halting all future MD-80 retirements, bringing viable MD-80s back from the desert.
|
This plus the Oasis cancellation fiasco going on has me so happy my travels this coming week are in seat 1A on the E175 |
I don’t care what’s going on but I’m refusing to set foot on a max until further notice. I’ll take longer trips, lose upgrades, don’t care. Something is seriously wrong here and I’m not risking my life on this aircraft |
Both of the 7M8s that crashed were heavily loaded with high passenger count. As mentioned earlier here - maybe unbalanced. And I don't always buy the "fix with software" argument.
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30870055)
Both of the 7M8s that crashed were heavily loaded with high passenger count. As mentioned earlier here - maybe unbalanced. And I don't always buy the "fix with software" argument.
No yes they might have filled every seat but the argument they overloaded with passengers is non sensical. If the 737 is built with 150 seats the airline should be able to put 150 butts into those seats. The aircraft in both instances took off from the ground without issue and flew for at least 6 mins you really arguing after being in the air for 6 mins too many people in the manufacturer approved seating config brought these craft down? if you believe that I’ve got something to sell you |
Originally Posted by Nuhusky
(Post 30870080)
not sure I understand this comment. Did these airlines have passengers sitting in the aisle or standing in the lavatory without assigned seats? No yes they might have filled every seat but the argument they overloaded with passengers is non sensical. If the 737 is built with 150 seats the airline should be able to put 150 butts into those seats. The aircraft in both instances took off from the ground without issue and flew for at least 6 mins you really arguing after being in the air for 6 mins too many people in the manufacturer approved seating config brought these craft down? if you believe that I’ve got something to sell you |
My 150 number was for an example to make the point that if 150 seats are on the plane then the airline can sell 150 tickets. Just like if 189 seats are on the plane why can’t they sell 189. I’d imagine beoing installed 189 people and if lion air made a modification after delivery then that’s a different story. Doesn’t explain today’s crash |
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30870091)
The Lyon Air flight had 189 people on a 737.
|
Does it also make a difference when the avg person in either Asia or Africa, weigh quite a bit less than an avg person in US, like below 120lb versus above 150lb?
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30870055)
Both of the 7M8s that crashed were heavily loaded with high passenger count. As mentioned earlier here - maybe unbalanced. And I don't always buy the "fix with software" argument.
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30870091)
The Lyon Air flight had 189 people on a 737.
Would I personally choose to fly on a 189 seat 738? No, however that's based on personal preference/comfort, not safety. |
Originally Posted by Happy
(Post 30870126)
Does it also make a difference when the avg person in either Asia or Africa, weigh quite a bit less than an avg person in US, like below 120lb to above 150lb?
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 30870091)
The Lyon Air flight had 189 people on a 737.
|
Originally Posted by Nuhusky
(Post 30870042)
I don’t care what’s going on but I’m refusing to set foot on a max until further notice. I’ll take longer trips, lose upgrades, don’t care. Something is seriously wrong here and I’m not risking my life on this aircraft I feel so bad for ET - they're a fantastic airline and I hope they recover from this. Not to mention the delicious Doro Wot at the cloud nine lounge - maybe my favorite lounge meal ever. |
Originally Posted by no1cub17
(Post 30870475)
I feel so bad for ET - they're a fantastic airline and I hope they recover from this.
|
Post below points out this is not a max...thanks for the info. I have seen this video of a Max tipping at the gate. Is this the balance issue the SW is addressing?
|
Thats not a MAX, that's a 739. The MAX EIS wasn't until 2017.
IIRC owing to balance issues, its required to load the forward baggage hold first during baggage loading and to empty the rear baggage hold first during unloading. There is also a pole for the 739 (a tail stand?) that is used to ensure the plane does not tip backwards. |
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 30870512)
Thats not a MAX, that's a 739. The MAX EIS wasn't until 2017.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Another interesting article on the Lion Air loss was published by AirlineRatings.com, LION AIR AND ITS PILOTS WERE AWARE OF NEW 737 FLIGHT SYSTEM, by Geoffrey Thomas, November 27, 2018 link. The use of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and it’s documetation by Boeing are discussed, as well as the fact that aircraft should not have been flying at all due to a previously reported fault.
In the loss of Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, erroneous data from a faulty Angle of Attack sensor caused the MCAS to think the plane was about to stall, which activated the downward force on the Stabilizer Trim to get the nose down. Instead of switching off the Stabilizer Trim the pilots appear to have battled the system. According to the 737 Check Captain, reports that MCAS is not in the manual “are not correct.” “It is absolutely there. It’s not a Checklist Memory Item but nor are the other causes of a Runaway Stabilizer Trim.” “What is a Checklist Memory Item is how to switch off a Runaway Stabilizer Trim.” “It’s very, very simple.” “We don’t want our pilots troubleshooting which issue is causing the problem – we want them to turn it off.” “So, on the 737NG, there are, I think four causes for a Runaway Stabilizer Trim now there are five.” According to the check captain, all airlines were briefed on the new feature and the detail is in the pilot manuals. Clearly, the Lion Air pilots knew how to deal with such a problem because on the three previous flights of that aircraft the same problem of incorrect Angle of Attack data was causing the system to activate as it thought the plane was about to stall. “Those pilots switched the Stabilizer Trim off.” |
Originally Posted by Nuhusky
(Post 30870042)
I don’t care what’s going on but I’m refusing to set foot on a max until further notice. I’ll take longer trips, lose upgrades, don’t care. Something is seriously wrong here and I’m not risking my life on this aircraft |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:05 am. |
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.