|
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 |
Time to take a step back and wait for the facts.
|
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.
|
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. |
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. 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 |
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30870657)
That’s quite a use of data there.
|
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. |
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 |
Rumors are the CAAC has ordered its 737-MAX registered fleet grounded.
|
"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. |
Just saw this
Cayman Airways suspends Max 8 operations https://www.caymanairways.com/CALsuspendsMax8Operations |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:21 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.