FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   American Airlines | AAdvantage (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage-733/)
-   -   Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes and effects on AA 737 MAX 8s (NOT reaccommodation) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/1939333-boeing-737-max-8-crashes-effects-aa-737-max-8s-not-reaccommodation.html)

Mr. Vker Mar 10, 19 5:43 pm

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?

​​​​​​

IADCAflyer Mar 10, 19 5:46 pm

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.

Mr. Vker Mar 10, 19 5:48 pm


Originally Posted by IADCAflyer (Post 30870512)
Thats not a MAX, that's a 739. The MAX EIS wasn't until 2017.

Thanks!

JDiver Mar 10, 19 6:13 pm

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 itís 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 ďare not correct.Ē

ďIt is absolutely there. Itís not a Checklist Memory Item but nor are the other causes of a Runaway Stabilizer Trim.Ē

ďWhat is a Checklist Memory Item is how to switch off a Runaway Stabilizer Trim.Ē

ďItís very, very simple.Ē

ďWe donít want our pilots troubleshooting which issue is causing the problem Ė we want them to turn it off.Ē

ďSo, on the 737NG, there are, I think four causes for a Runaway Stabilizer Trim now there are five.Ē

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.

ďThose pilots switched the Stabilizer Trim off.Ē
That fateful time, they didnít. Faulty aircraft allowed to fly. Pilot error. These are what are likely to be listed by the investigative teem from Indonesia, the USA and Boeing.

milypan Mar 10, 19 6:21 pm


Originally Posted by Nuhusky (Post 30870042)
I donít care whatís going on but Iím refusing to set foot on a max until further notice. Iíll take longer trips, lose upgrades, donít care. Something is seriously wrong here and Iím not risking my life on this aircraft

A reasonable response. Since its introduction in 2017, the MAX has now established a fatality rate that is at least 1,000 times higher than the 737NG and A320ceo/neo over the same period. It has two 100% fatal hull losses in less than 300 aircraft-years of operation. For context, the DC-10, which is widely regarded to have suffered serious safety flaws in the initial design, still made it over 1,600 aircraft-years of operation before its second 100% fatal hull loss. Something is wrong with the MAX.

JonNYC Mar 10, 19 6:29 pm

Time to take a step back and wait for the facts.

JDiver Mar 10, 19 6:29 pm


Originally Posted by milypan (Post 30870638)
A reasonable response. Since its introduction in 2017, the MAX has now established a fatality rate that is at least 1,000 times higher than the 737NG and A320ceo/neo over the same period. It has two 100% fatal hull losses in less than 300 aircraft-years of operation. For context, the DC-10, which is widely regarded to have suffered serious safety flaws in the initial design, still made it over 1,600 aircraft-years of operation before its second 100% fatal hull loss. Something is wrong with the MAX.

Thatís quite a use of data there.

DCP2016 Mar 10, 19 6:44 pm

This is really the fault of Boeing running the 737 into the ground. The 737 is a fantastic airplane and probably no plane will ever come close to it's sales & popularity, but the MAX is an example of a Frankenstein experiment gone wrong. The 737 Original Series, 737 Classic Series, and 737 NG's were all pioneers and while all had teething issues, never killed two full plane load of passengers.

The MAX needs to go away and Boeing needs to start innovating instead of making the 737 a poorly thought out uncoordinated disaster.

Nuhusky Mar 10, 19 6:47 pm


Originally Posted by no1cub17 (Post 30870475)
Can't say I disagree. Boeing is rather lucky that the two crashes were an Asian and African airline. If either one was an AA or UA plane, the max would've already been grounded no questions asked.

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.

the fact this happened in Africa and Asia means it’s more likely to occur again than had an eu or us carrier crashed.

People woke up today, saw the news and said that’s sad then kept drinking their coffee. It’s an African problem, or an Asian problem

but the reality is et is a great airline and this was a new aircraft. I’m hoping a us carrier voluntarily grounds their fleet or the faa step in (doubt either will happen to be clear). Otherwise it’s just a matter of time for another airframe failure given the awesome and sobering stats pulled by @milypan

milypan Mar 10, 19 6:49 pm


Originally Posted by JDiver (Post 30870657)
That’s quite a use of data there.

I think that's sarcastic, but I'm not certain. I'll try to put this as simply as possible. Over the past decade, the average rate of ~100% fatal hull losses for the 737NG and A320 is less than 1 per 10,000 aircraft-years of operation (i.e., a rate of 0.0001). That includes everything -- even CFIT, terrorism, and suicide. The MAX has less than 300 aircraft-years of operation. The probability that it would suffer at least two 100% fatal hull losses in that period, if it had the same safety profile as the 737NG and A320, is less than 1 in 1,000. Hence the conclusion that there's almost certainly something wrong with it.

IADCAflyer Mar 10, 19 6:52 pm


Originally Posted by DCP2016 (Post 30870702)
This is really the fault of Boeing running the 737 into the ground. The 737 is a fantastic airplane and probably no plane will ever come close to it's sales & popularity, but the MAX is an example of a Frankenstein experiment gone wrong. The 737 Original Series, 737 Classic Series, and 737 NG's were all pioneers and while all had teething issues, never killed two full plane load of passengers.

The MAX needs to go away and Boeing needs to start innovating instead of making the 737 a poorly thought out uncoordinated disaster.

Not two planes full, but the 73 original/classic did have rudder hardover issues which led to two spectacular crashes in COS and PIT and at least on near crash (Eastwind flight near RIC).

24left Mar 10, 19 7:01 pm

It seems China has decided not to wait for the facts

China has asked its domestic airlines to ground Boeing 737 Max.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...x-caijing-says

IADCAflyer Mar 10, 19 7:02 pm

Rumors are the CAAC has ordered its 737-MAX registered fleet grounded.

GunsOfNavarone Mar 10, 19 7:03 pm

"China has asked its domestic airlines to ground all 737 Max."

I am more than confident if the aircraft was Chinese made- there would be no action by China.

24left Mar 10, 19 8:22 pm

Just saw this

Cayman Airways suspends Max 8 operations

https://www.caymanairways.com/CALsuspendsMax8Operations


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:17 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.