Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
This is an archive thread, the archive thread is https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1960195-b737max-cleared-faa-resume-passenger-flights-when-will-ua-max-flights-resume.html
Thread Topic
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
United does not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it does operate the 737 MAX 9.
How to tell if your flight is scheduled to be operated by the MAX 9:
View your reservation or flight status page, either on the web or on the app. United lists the entire aircraft type. Every flight that is scheduled to be on the 737 MAX will say "Boeing 737 MAX 9." If you see anything else -- for example, "Boeing 737-900," it is not scheduled to be a MAX at this time.
The same is true in search results and anywhere else on the United site.
For advanced users: UA uses the three letter IATA identifier 7M9 for the 737 MAX 9.
All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) are currently grounded.
Thread Topic
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
READ BEFORE POSTING
Once again many posters in this thread have forgotten the FT rules and resorted to "Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming " and other non-collegial, non-civil discourse. This is not allowed.
Posters appear to be talking at others, talking about others, not discussing the core issues. Repeating the same statements, saying the same thing LOUDER is not civil discourse. These problems are not with one poster, they are not just one point of view, ...
As useful as some discussion here has been, continuing rules violations will lead to suspensions and thread closure. Please think about that before posting.
The purpose of FT is to be an informative forum that, in this case, enables the UA flyer to enhance their travel experience. There are other forums for different types of discussions. This thread was had wide latitude but that latitude is being abused.
Bottom line, if you can not stay within the FT rules and the forum's topic areas, please do not post.
And before posting, ask if you are bringing new contributing information to the discussion -- not just repeating previous points, then please do not post.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
Once again many posters in this thread have forgotten the FT rules and resorted to "Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming " and other non-collegial, non-civil discourse. This is not allowed.
Posters appear to be talking at others, talking about others, not discussing the core issues. Repeating the same statements, saying the same thing LOUDER is not civil discourse. These problems are not with one poster, they are not just one point of view, ...
As useful as some discussion here has been, continuing rules violations will lead to suspensions and thread closure. Please think about that before posting.
The purpose of FT is to be an informative forum that, in this case, enables the UA flyer to enhance their travel experience. There are other forums for different types of discussions. This thread was had wide latitude but that latitude is being abused.
Bottom line, if you can not stay within the FT rules and the forum's topic areas, please do not post.
And before posting, ask if you are bringing new contributing information to the discussion -- not just repeating previous points, then please do not post.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
This thread has engendered some strongly felt opinions and a great tendency to wander into many peripherally related topics. By all normal FT moderation standards, this thread would have been permanently closed long ago ( and numerous members receiving disciplinary actions).
However, given the importance of the subject, the UA Moderators have tried to host this discussion but odd here as UA is not the top 1 or 2 or 3 for MAX among North America carriers. However, some have allowed their passion and non-UA related opinions to repeatedly disrupt this discussion.
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
Discussion of Boeing's culture or the impact on Boeing's future is not in scope. Nor is comments on restructuring the regulatory process. Neither is the impacts on COVID on the general air industry -- those are not UA specific and are better discussed elsewhere. And for discussion of UA's future, there is a separate thread.
Additionally repeated postings of essentially the same content should not happen nor unnecessarily inflammatory posts. And of course, the rest of FT posting rules apply including discuss the issue and not the posters.
The Moderator team feels there is a reason / need for this thread but it has been exhausting to have to repeated re-focus the discussion -- don't be the reason this thread is permanently closed ( and get yourself in disciplinary problems).
Stick to the relevant topic which is (repeating myself)
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
However, given the importance of the subject, the UA Moderators have tried to host this discussion but odd here as UA is not the top 1 or 2 or 3 for MAX among North America carriers. However, some have allowed their passion and non-UA related opinions to repeatedly disrupt this discussion.
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
Discussion of Boeing's culture or the impact on Boeing's future is not in scope. Nor is comments on restructuring the regulatory process. Neither is the impacts on COVID on the general air industry -- those are not UA specific and are better discussed elsewhere. And for discussion of UA's future, there is a separate thread.
Additionally repeated postings of essentially the same content should not happen nor unnecessarily inflammatory posts. And of course, the rest of FT posting rules apply including discuss the issue and not the posters.
The Moderator team feels there is a reason / need for this thread but it has been exhausting to have to repeated re-focus the discussion -- don't be the reason this thread is permanently closed ( and get yourself in disciplinary problems).
Stick to the relevant topic which is (repeating myself)
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
United does not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it does operate the 737 MAX 9.
How to tell if your flight is scheduled to be operated by the MAX 9:
View your reservation or flight status page, either on the web or on the app. United lists the entire aircraft type. Every flight that is scheduled to be on the 737 MAX will say "Boeing 737 MAX 9." If you see anything else -- for example, "Boeing 737-900," it is not scheduled to be a MAX at this time.
The same is true in search results and anywhere else on the United site.
For advanced users: UA uses the three letter IATA identifier 7M9 for the 737 MAX 9.
All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) are currently grounded.
B737MAX Recertification - Archive
Jul 12, 2019, 7:59 am
#1996
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,659
Which is why the airplane is grounded until changes are made...
There is critical loss of nuance in this discussion. Until there’s are accident reports and an understanding whether any deficiencies in design were the result of Boeing’s negligence, placing blame is hysteria.
Although it is a tragedy that people died, we have to move on.
Jul 12, 2019, 12:57 pm
#1997
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
We now have a lot of information on MCAS which is what allows us to discuss it, the implications of an unscheduled activation, and draw informed conclusions. We have no such details on this unrelated autopilot problem so can't do anything but speculate. Speculation isn't particularly productive.
While Boeing works the fix the airplane, work also must be done to understand why two properly trained crews failed to accomplish the applicable procedure. If you ignore this, choosing to just blame Boeing, you are ignoring what could be a safety deficiency as big as the original flaw in MCAS.
The two issues are completely separate and must be addressed separately. It is inappropriate try to share blame between them. They both must be fixed.
Jul 12, 2019, 1:55 pm
#1998
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UA 1K & 1MM/AA Gold & 1MM/HH Gold/Marriott Titanium
Posts: 2,920
United Airlines extends Boeing 737 Max cancellations to early November
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/12/...-november.html
United Airlines extends Boeing 737 Max cancellations to early November
Emma Newburger @emma_newburgerPublished 2 Hours Ago CNBC.com
United, which has 14 Max jets in its fleet, had previously removed the jets from its schedule through Aug. 3.
"We are continuing to work through the schedule to try and swap and upgauge aircraft to mitigate the disruption caused by the grounding of the MAX," United said in a statement. "We continue to automatically book affected customers on alternate flights. If we are unable to place them on a different flight, we will proactively reach out to try and offer other options."
The 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since mid-March, after its anti-stall software was implicated in two deadly crashes in October and March. Other major airlines including American and Southwest have canceled thousands of flights during the busy summer travel season, and have further removed the Max from schedules through Sept. 3 and Oct. 1, respectively. Those airlines will likely further extend cancellations.
United reports second-quarter results after the market closes on Tuesday. Delta Air Lines, which does not fly the 737 Max, said on Thursday that it's seeing a small benefit as rivals grapple with the grounding.
Boeing deliveries are stopped until aviation regulators approve the jet's return to service. The airplane maker said in June that it would likely take until September or later to introduce a new software fix after the Federal Aviation Administration identified a new software issue a month ago.
United Airlines extends Boeing 737 Max cancellations to early November
Emma Newburger @emma_newburgerPublished 2 Hours Ago CNBC.com
- United Airlines on Friday said it will extend its Boeing 737 Max groundings through Nov. 3, amounting to 2,100 cancellations in September and 2,900 in October.
- United, which has 14 Max jets in its fleet, had previously removed the jets from its schedule through Aug. 3.
- The 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since mid-March, after its anti-stall software was implicated in two deadly crashes in October and March.
United, which has 14 Max jets in its fleet, had previously removed the jets from its schedule through Aug. 3.
"We are continuing to work through the schedule to try and swap and upgauge aircraft to mitigate the disruption caused by the grounding of the MAX," United said in a statement. "We continue to automatically book affected customers on alternate flights. If we are unable to place them on a different flight, we will proactively reach out to try and offer other options."
The 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since mid-March, after its anti-stall software was implicated in two deadly crashes in October and March. Other major airlines including American and Southwest have canceled thousands of flights during the busy summer travel season, and have further removed the Max from schedules through Sept. 3 and Oct. 1, respectively. Those airlines will likely further extend cancellations.
United reports second-quarter results after the market closes on Tuesday. Delta Air Lines, which does not fly the 737 Max, said on Thursday that it's seeing a small benefit as rivals grapple with the grounding.
Boeing deliveries are stopped until aviation regulators approve the jet's return to service. The airplane maker said in June that it would likely take until September or later to introduce a new software fix after the Federal Aviation Administration identified a new software issue a month ago.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 12, 2019 at 3:03 pm Reason: formatting
Jul 12, 2019, 2:46 pm
#1999
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
None of the information that has come out about MCAS since the accidents changes the way a pilot should respond to an unscheduled MCAS activation. The correct procedure is exactly the same today as it was the day the first MAX was delivered. A procedure that neither accident crew accomplished correctly; even the one who knew about MCAS.
We now have a lot of information on MCAS which is what allows us to discuss it, the implications of an unscheduled activation, and draw informed conclusions. We have no such details on this unrelated autopilot problem so can't do anything but speculate. Speculation isn't particularly productive.
While Boeing works the fix the airplane, work also must be done to understand why two properly trained crews failed to accomplish the applicable procedure. If you ignore this, choosing to just blame Boeing, you are ignoring what could be a safety deficiency as big as the original flaw in MCAS.
The two issues are completely separate and must be addressed separately. It is inappropriate try to share blame between them. They both must be fixed.
We now have a lot of information on MCAS which is what allows us to discuss it, the implications of an unscheduled activation, and draw informed conclusions. We have no such details on this unrelated autopilot problem so can't do anything but speculate. Speculation isn't particularly productive.
While Boeing works the fix the airplane, work also must be done to understand why two properly trained crews failed to accomplish the applicable procedure. If you ignore this, choosing to just blame Boeing, you are ignoring what could be a safety deficiency as big as the original flaw in MCAS.
The two issues are completely separate and must be addressed separately. It is inappropriate try to share blame between them. They both must be fixed.
The 737MAX is nothing more than a model of the mismanagement, lack of innovation, stagnation, and desperation that runs deep in Boeing Commercial Aircraft today. They’ve just finally taken it too far. It’s really a shame because the 707, 717, original 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and even the 787 (despite its numerous delays and build quality shortcoming) are great airplanes, and I would have no problem flying any of these aircraft today (assuming they’ve been well maintained). What I do have a problem with is when airlines and manufacturers collaborate in the name of being cheap and the FAA fails at their job of industry oversight.
Jul 12, 2019, 3:19 pm
#2000
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
As a customer flying in the 21st century, that’s just not good enough for me. This logic maybe worked in the 1960s when pilots would occasionally drop 727s on the ground due to a lack of experience on the engines’ spool-up time. It does not work in 2019 where it is clear Boeing has designed an aircraft poorly and under pressure from some shoddy US airlines (looking at you AA) in order to certify it quickly without having to spend money to properly train flight crew. This is compounded by Boeing allowing itself to get steamrolled in the narrowbody aircraft market ever since it stopped producing the Boeing 757.
The 737MAX is nothing more than a model of the mismanagement, lack of innovation, stagnation, and desperation that runs deep in Boeing Commercial Aircraft today. They’ve just finally taken it too far. It’s really a shame because the 707, 717, original 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and even the 787 (despite its numerous delays and build quality shortcoming) are great airplanes, and I would have no problem flying any of these aircraft today (assuming they’ve been well maintained). What I do have a problem with is when airlines and manufacturers collaborate in the name of being cheap and the FAA fails at their job of industry oversight.
The 737MAX is nothing more than a model of the mismanagement, lack of innovation, stagnation, and desperation that runs deep in Boeing Commercial Aircraft today. They’ve just finally taken it too far. It’s really a shame because the 707, 717, original 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and even the 787 (despite its numerous delays and build quality shortcoming) are great airplanes, and I would have no problem flying any of these aircraft today (assuming they’ve been well maintained). What I do have a problem with is when airlines and manufacturers collaborate in the name of being cheap and the FAA fails at their job of industry oversight.
There is nothing physically wrong with the design of the plane. The only thing wrong are some software fixes and some training reinforcement.
Jul 12, 2019, 3:27 pm
#2001
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
The aircraft was designed for short haul regional flying in the late 1960s. It was designed low to the ground for airports with no boarding bridges. It was not designed for large high-bypass turbofan engines in 2019. It was not designed to fly 200 people for 5-6 hours, it was designed to fly 100 people 90 minutes or less. It was not designed to have its flight characteristics augmented by a poorly designed and faulty computer system. It was not designed to be stretched a half dozed times by an incompetent company clinging on to something that’s decades old rather than investing the time and money into designing a modern, industry leading narrowbody aircraft. Boeing is falling farther and farther behind in the narrowbody market.
Jul 12, 2019, 3:37 pm
#2002
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
The aircraft was designed for short haul regional flying in the late 1960s. It was designed low to the ground for airports with no boarding bridges. It was not designed for large high-bypass turbofan engines in 2019. It was not designed to fly 200 people for 5-6 hours, it was designed to fly 100 people 90 minutes or less. It was not designed to have its flight characteristics augmented by a poorly designed and faulty computer system. It was not designed to be stretched a half dozed times by an incompetent company clinging on to something that’s decades old rather than investing the time and money into designing a modern, industry leading narrowbody aircraft. Boeing is falling farther and farther behind in the narrowbody market.
You could just say that you don't like the plane for arbitrary reasons .
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 12, 2019 at 4:49 pm Reason: See Moderator note
Jul 12, 2019, 4:38 pm
#2003
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
No, I never liked the third generation of the aircraft to begin with. That has nothing to do with the obvious safety shortcomings of the latest iteration of it. Now that the newest version has proven itself to be critically unsafe and a deathtrap, I think it’s a crime that it was ever designed the way it was by Boeing, and ever allowed to fly with minimal certification from an inept FAA which was 10 steps behind the rest of the world in grounding what was clearly a rush-job.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 12, 2019 at 4:48 pm Reason: see Moderator note
Jul 12, 2019, 4:56 pm
#2004
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Here is an interesting blog post that I haven't seen here yet:
AviationSafetyPOV
It's from the beginning of April. The general gist is that he thinks that the manual trim system is poorly engineered and too difficult for pilots to use (too much force is required)
I don't want to copy too much (for copyright reasons) but here is a quote:
From a human engineering and safety standpoint, the design of the horizontal tail surfaces and the pilot’s mechanical trim system on the 737 MAX seems poorly thought out and poorly implemented. The speed at which the trim wheel runs in the simulator video seems to indicate a poor choice of mechanical advantage and mechanical ratios in the manual trim system, producing large forces that the pilots must overcome manually in an emergency and also require too many revolutions of the trim wheel to accomplish the needed trim control adjustments.
AviationSafetyPOV
It's from the beginning of April. The general gist is that he thinks that the manual trim system is poorly engineered and too difficult for pilots to use (too much force is required)
I don't want to copy too much (for copyright reasons) but here is a quote:
From a human engineering and safety standpoint, the design of the horizontal tail surfaces and the pilot’s mechanical trim system on the 737 MAX seems poorly thought out and poorly implemented. The speed at which the trim wheel runs in the simulator video seems to indicate a poor choice of mechanical advantage and mechanical ratios in the manual trim system, producing large forces that the pilots must overcome manually in an emergency and also require too many revolutions of the trim wheel to accomplish the needed trim control adjustments.
Jul 12, 2019, 5:17 pm
#2005
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,731
Moderator Note
This thread has been very informative to many but it has also been plagued with at times overheated discussion that has been problematic. One issue that has bothered many readers is the manner in which those that perished in JT610 and ET302 has been used as debating tooling. Many find this very disrespectful and not appropriate.
It is an undeniable fact the all perished on those two MAX 8 flights. The reasons for this are under investigation and the MAX has been grounded due to concerns over its safety. There are multiple investigations by multiple bodies worldwide.
Many posters have strong opinions of about the history and future of the MAX series. This thread has been a good place to consolidate information, learn more about how all the pieces interact and speculation about how we got here and going forward.
No one is denying this a terrible set of incidents and these deaths are tragic, but there is little need to repeatedly re-state this as everyone is quite aware of this. So going forward let's please be respectful of those unfortunate individuals and not use their deaths to attempt to paint others as uncaring or as overdramatizing the incident. Neither is helpful to the discourse or respectful to those no longer able to engage in the discussion.
Thanks
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
It is an undeniable fact the all perished on those two MAX 8 flights. The reasons for this are under investigation and the MAX has been grounded due to concerns over its safety. There are multiple investigations by multiple bodies worldwide.
Many posters have strong opinions of about the history and future of the MAX series. This thread has been a good place to consolidate information, learn more about how all the pieces interact and speculation about how we got here and going forward.
No one is denying this a terrible set of incidents and these deaths are tragic, but there is little need to repeatedly re-state this as everyone is quite aware of this. So going forward let's please be respectful of those unfortunate individuals and not use their deaths to attempt to paint others as uncaring or as overdramatizing the incident. Neither is helpful to the discourse or respectful to those no longer able to engage in the discussion.
Thanks
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
Jul 12, 2019, 6:41 pm
#2006
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
No, I never liked the third generation of the aircraft to begin with. That has nothing to do with the obvious safety shortcomings of the latest iteration of it. Now that the newest version has proven itself to be critically unsafe and a deathtrap, I think it’s a crime that it was ever designed the way it was by Boeing, and ever allowed to fly with minimal certification from an inept FAA which was 10 steps behind the rest of the world in grounding what was clearly a rush-job.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 12, 2019 at 7:19 pm Reason: Discuss the issues; not the poster(s)
Jul 12, 2019, 7:07 pm
#2007
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
The aircraft was never originally designed to be fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines. It is too low to the ground to accommodate these appropriately. The A320 (while also a pretty ancient design) does not suffer from this issue as it is two decades more modern (but by no means a modern airplane) and was built higher off the ground with expandability in mind. Boeing was able to fudge things and make it work for the 737 Classic and the NG. This process has failed with the engines required for the MAX and has resulted in catastrophic failure.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 12, 2019 at 7:21 pm Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit; Discuss the issue, not the poster(s)
Jul 12, 2019, 7:16 pm
#2008
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,363
None of the information that has come out about MCAS since the accidents changes the way a pilot should respond to an unscheduled MCAS activation. The correct procedure is exactly the same today as it was the day the first MAX was delivered. A procedure that neither accident crew accomplished correctly; even the one who knew about MCAS.
We now have a lot of information on MCAS which is what allows us to discuss it, the implications of an unscheduled activation, and draw informed conclusions. We have no such details on this unrelated autopilot problem so can't do anything but speculate. Speculation isn't particularly productive.
While Boeing works the fix the airplane, work also must be done to understand why two properly trained crews failed to accomplish the applicable procedure. If you ignore this, choosing to just blame Boeing, you are ignoring what could be a safety deficiency as big as the original flaw in MCAS.
The two issues are completely separate and must be addressed separately. It is inappropriate try to share blame between them. They both must be fixed.
We now have a lot of information on MCAS which is what allows us to discuss it, the implications of an unscheduled activation, and draw informed conclusions. We have no such details on this unrelated autopilot problem so can't do anything but speculate. Speculation isn't particularly productive.
While Boeing works the fix the airplane, work also must be done to understand why two properly trained crews failed to accomplish the applicable procedure. If you ignore this, choosing to just blame Boeing, you are ignoring what could be a safety deficiency as big as the original flaw in MCAS.
The two issues are completely separate and must be addressed separately. It is inappropriate try to share blame between them. They both must be fixed.
Is the ability to execute it the same on the MAX? After all, you are directly wrenching up the stabalizer against the forces that might be very different on the MAX.
Jul 12, 2019, 7:33 pm
#2009
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
Question Larry. How often have pilots had to use the full mechanical procedure (vs just shutting off the auto-pilot and using direct control of the electric system via the tab switches).?
Is the ability to execute it the same on the MAX? After all, you are directly wrenching up the stabalizer against the forces that might be very different on the MAX.
Is the ability to execute it the same on the MAX? After all, you are directly wrenching up the stabalizer against the forces that might be very different on the MAX.
I have no idea how often 737 pilots have had to use manual trim. The manual trim system is the same as what was used on the B707, B720, KC-135, B727, and all B737 aircraft. It's not commonly needed but that's a very long history so I'm sure there have been many instances where manual trim was used.
The problem that both accident crews had was that they didn't disable the electric trim until the stabilizer was at, or very near, the full nose-down position. That's a worst-case scenario and does not represent the forces that would be required for 'normal' manual trim operation. In one case, they were also over 150 knots faster than they should have been which compounded the problem by greatly increasing the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer and the nose-down pitching moment that the stabilizer produced.
The trim wheels have a lot of mechanical advantage. Many turns of the trim wheel for very small movements of the stabilizer. Kinda like a 10-speed bicycle pedalling in first gear. In other posts I have described the methods for manually turning the wheel from low to high required turning force.
Did that answer your question?
Jul 12, 2019, 7:47 pm
#2010
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
The aircraft was never originally designed to be fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines. It is too low to the ground to accommodate these appropriately. The A320 (while also a pretty ancient design) does not suffer from this issue as it is two decades more modern (but by no means a modern airplane) and was built higher off the ground with expandability in mind. Boeing was able to fudge things and make it work for the 737 Classic and the NG. This process has failed with the engines required for the MAX and has resulted in catastrophic failure.
Again, there is nothing wrong with the physical design of the MAX, lower clearance or not. The MAX can accommodate larger engines and these larger engines have not been implicated as the cause for the accidents.
