Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Foo
Reload this Page >

Boeing 737 Max 8 Killed another 157 People. WTH?

Foo Off-Topic chit chat with no general subject.

Boeing 737 Max 8 Killed another 157 People. WTH?

Old 03-18-19, 04:36 PM
  #76  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 968

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 65 Times in 45 Posts
Originally Posted by Will G View Post
Boring and unfulfilling? I've been doing the commercial thing and flown fighters in the military. I'll admit flying upside down and blowing stuff up is both exciting and demanding but I definitely would not call commercial flying boring and/or unfulfilling. If I can take people halfway around the world over some of the most harsh terrain on the planet and the passengers major complaint is the long flight, I've made the difficult look easy.
Different strokes for different folks. Different people have a different aptitudes. There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it's what makes the world go-round.

I knew as soon as I posted based on my experience in flight school and as intimated by my instructors & other commercial pilots I've met, some one would chime in. I never meant to demean a profession. I should've added "for me" in parenthesis. If you found the job more exciting than I, then you have found your niche. Stay there, we need good pilots. I found mine as a turbine mechanic, then later as an aviation mechanic.
base2 is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 04:59 PM
  #77  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 3,849
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1614 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by mtb_addict View Post
I am not sure why they need such highly trained pilot nowadays. When you have autonomous drones flying everywhere, without human interaction!

They ought to be able to design planes that can handle any situation automously nowadays. Human make mistakes, get tired, get confused or panicky, cheat on flight test (Asiana)! Computers don't!

What's your thought process behind this?
This is a thread regarding an aviation disaster caused by a malfunctioning computer due to a single sensor failure yet you seem to be turning this around and claiming that we should do away with human pilots. Is this correct?
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 05:07 PM
  #78  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 22,424
Mentioned: 166 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8522 Post(s)
Liked 79 Times in 71 Posts
I bumped into this a few days ago.

https://www.latimes.com/local/califo...315-story.html

It suggests that the 737 is basically a 1968 design that has been added to and modified a number of times, but apparently the low overall design to deal with 1968 constraints is now obsolete and causing problems with modernizing the plane.

Time to scrap some of the old designs and start new?
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 05:16 PM
  #79  
AnthonyG
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 3,849
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1614 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I still think the elephant in the room is the single sensor failure that led to a major loss of aircraft and all passengers.
Seriously. How can this get off the drawing board and passed as safe by the FAA?

In no small way this is why the black boxes got sent to France.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 06:14 PM
  #80  
Steve B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 3,237

Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Soma Smoothie, Miyata City Liner, Specialized FSR Comp, Fuji Professional

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1084 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 17 Posts
I work in the theatrical lighting business, which is heavily automated and computerized. Way back in the 70's (1970's) when computer lighting systems were introduced on Broadway (where it's all big bucks) a producer was asking "Why am I paying a guy $70,000 to press GO", go being the big button that activated the cue. One response at the time was "You're not paying him $70,000 to press GO, you're paying him $70,000 to know what to do when the GO button doesn't work".

In spades with pilots when there are 200 people in the back.

Boeing has backed themselves into a corner with the MCAS and should have both done extensive flight testing of the MAX as well as FAA certification as essentially a new airplane. They chose the cheap route, right down to really poor communication with the pilots about the very existence of MCAS. You first need to know that it exists in order to know you might need to turn it off.

I suspect that this might be the last of the upgrades to the 737, seems it's a design that has control issues that a pilot cannot deal with when the computers can't figure out how to fly the plane.

Which makes me wonder why they didn't keep upgrading the 757 ?.
Steve B. is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 06:20 PM
  #81  
Revoltingest
Widely Despised
 
Revoltingest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Revoltistan (in SE MI)
Posts: 175

Bikes: Dahon Helios, Dahon P8, Bike Friday tandem, Ingo, Trek, Columbia, Helix

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by GamblerGORD53 View Post
Maybe they should let the pilots fly the plane below 10,000 feet.
Same BS happened when the first A320 plane landed in the forest at the Paris airshow. Computer said he was too low and had to land.
The pilot actually was too low. He was performing a dangerous
maneuver, & hadn't properly prepared for his flight plan.
Ref....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
Ideally, pilots should avoid doing things outside of safe flight.
Then they wouldn't discover shortcomings in the software the hard way.

Last edited by Revoltingest; 03-18-19 at 06:35 PM.
Revoltingest is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 06:31 PM
  #82  
Revoltingest
Widely Despised
 
Revoltingest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Revoltistan (in SE MI)
Posts: 175

Bikes: Dahon Helios, Dahon P8, Bike Friday tandem, Ingo, Trek, Columbia, Helix

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
I bumped into this a few days ago.

https://www.latimes.com/local/califo...315-story.html

It suggests that the 737 is basically a 1968 design that has been added to and modified a number of times, but apparently the low overall design to deal with 1968 constraints is now obsolete and causing problems with modernizing the plane.

Time to scrap some of the old designs and start new?
I can't read your article because I've reached my limit of free ones.
It would be more properly called a new design based upon an earlier airframe.
Note also that the crash appears to be a failure involving modern controls,
avionics, hydraulics & sensors. The older portion of the design appears unrelated.
A totally brand new plane would have the same risks, eg, the Airbus 330 (which is
still in the air despite unsolved problems with diving due to AOA (angle of attack)
errors....with no crashes yet, but several incidents involving severe injuries.
Revoltingest is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 06:45 PM
  #83  
Will G
Senior Member
 
Will G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by AnthonyG View Post
I still think the elephant in the room is the single sensor failure that led to a major loss of aircraft and all passengers.
Seriously. How can this get off the drawing board and passed as safe by the FAA?

In no small way this is why the black boxes got sent to France.
I think you are on to something but disagree about the black boxes. From some of the articles I've read, Boeing did a self certification with FAA approval to get the MCAS system validated in a rush to get the MAX out to compete with the Airbus 320 NEO. Single point failure in an airliner is just not done but if you ignore standard procedure, bad things happen.
Will G is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 06:45 PM
  #84  
Revoltingest
Widely Despised
 
Revoltingest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Revoltistan (in SE MI)
Posts: 175

Bikes: Dahon Helios, Dahon P8, Bike Friday tandem, Ingo, Trek, Columbia, Helix

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by velojym View Post
Yeah, they can roll out (projected) statistics all they want when automating every little thing on an aircraft, but you can't beat a trained human brain when things don't go right.
At least perfect the automation on unmanned aircraft for a few years first.
Actually, a trained human brain is also fallible. Investigations of numerous crashes show the plane warning the pilot that he's in trouble, yet the pilot ignores the warnings, eg, flying into terrain. The real trick in a flight control system is to have both elements (human & computer) interact to maximize safety. It's a difficult dynamic balance to optimize, but they're still better together, as evidenced by a continually improving safety record overall.
Revoltingest is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 07:03 PM
  #85  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 22,424
Mentioned: 166 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8522 Post(s)
Liked 79 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by Revoltingest View Post
I can't read your article because I've reached my limit of free ones.
It would be more properly called a new design based upon an earlier airframe.
Note also that the crash appears to be a failure involving modern controls,
avionics, hydraulics & sensors. The older portion of the design appears unrelated.
A totally brand new plane would have the same risks, eg, the Airbus 330 (which is
still in the air despite unsolved problems with diving due to AOA (angle of attack)
errors....with no crashes yet, but several incidents involving severe injuries.
Sorry, let me quote some of the LA times article, hopefully not taking too much.

How a 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 Max jet

A set of stairs may have never caused so much trouble in an aircraft.

First introduced in West Germany as a short-hop commuter jet in the early Cold War, the Boeing 737-100 had folding metal stairs attached to the fuselage that passengers climbed to board before airports had jetways. Ground crews hand-lifted heavy luggage into the cargo holds in those days, long before motorized belt loaders were widely available.

That low-to-the-ground design was a plus in 1968, but it has proved to be a constraint that engineers modernizing the 737 have had to work around ever since. The compromises required to push forward a more fuel-efficient version of the plane — with larger engines and altered aerodynamics — led to the complex flight control software system that is now under investigation in two fatal crashes over the last five months.
....

But the decision to continue modernizing the jet, rather than starting at some point with a clean design, resulted in engineering challenges that created unforeseen risks.
....

Today’s 737 is a substantially different system from the original. Boeing strengthened its wings, developed new assembly technologies and put in modern cockpit electronics. The changes allowed the 737 to outlive both the Boeing 757 and 767, which were developed decades later and then retired.

Over the years, the FAA has implemented new and tougher design requirements, but a derivative gets many of the designs grandfathered in, Moss said.

“It is cheaper and easier to do a derivative than a new aircraft,” said Robert Ditchey, an engineer, aviation safety consultant and founder of America West Airlines, which purchased some of the early 737 models. “It is easier to certificate it.”

But some aspects of the legacy 737 design are vintage headaches, such as the ground clearance designed to allow a staircase that’s now obsolete. “They wanted it close to the ground for boarding,” Ditchey said.
....

To handle a longer fuselage and more passengers, Boeing added larger, more powerful engines, but that required it to reposition them to maintain ground clearance. As a result, the 737 can pitch up under certain circumstances. Software, known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, was added to counteract that tendency.
....

The entire need for the software system is fundamental to the jet’s history.

The bottom of the 737’s engines are a minimum of 17 inches above the runway. By comparison, the Boeing 757 has a minimum clearance of 29 inches, according to Boeing specification books. The newer 787 Dreamliner has 28 inches or 29 inches, depending on the engine.

The 737 originally was equipped with the Pratt & Whitney JT-8 series jets, which had an inner fan diameter of 49.2 inches. “They looked like cigars, long and skinny,” Moss said.

By comparison, the LEAP-1b engines on the Max 8 have a diameter of 69 inches, nearly 20 inches more than the original. There wouldn’t be enough clearance without some kind of modification.

In the 737-300, which came after the original planes sold in West Germany, Boeing came up with an unusual fix: It created a flat bottom on the nacelle (the shroud around the fan), creating what pilots came to call the "hamster pouch.”

“They made it work,” said Ditchey, whose America West was one of the original customers of the 737-300.

But the LEAP engines required an even bigger change. Boeing redesigned the pylons, the structure that holds the engine to the wing, extending them farther forward and higher up. It gave the needed 17 inches of clearance. The company also put in a higher nose landing gear.

The change, however, affected the plane’s aerodynamics. Boeing discovered the new position of the engines increased the lift of the aircraft, creating a tendency for the nose to pitch up.

The solution was MCAS, which ordered the stabilizer to push down the nose if the “angle of attack” — or angle that air flows over the wings — got too high. The MCAS depends on data from two sensors. But on the Lion Air flight, the MCAS relied on a sensor that was erroneously reporting a high angle of attack when the plane was nowhere near a stall.

The pilots tried to counteract the nose-down movements by pulling back on the yoke. But even pulling with all their might they could not counteract the forces, according to data in a preliminary accident investigation report.

Skow criticized Boeing’s MCAS system, saying it acted only on the basis of angle of attack. The Lion Air jet was traveling so fast that when MCAS ordered the stabilizer to pitch the nose down it was a violent reaction. The software should have factored in air speed, he said, which would have better calibrated the pilots’ reaction.
....
So, it sounds like a lot of the current problems revolve around these legacy issues. I'm surprised they don't just redesign the landing gear, and put the engine thrust back to where it was supposed to be.

However, the solution will likely be more software changes, and more distancing the pilot from flying.

Overrides, so the plane automatically responds to the pilot's actions without having to switch faulty flight software on or off?
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 07:17 PM
  #86  
Revoltingest
Widely Despised
 
Revoltingest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Revoltistan (in SE MI)
Posts: 175

Bikes: Dahon Helios, Dahon P8, Bike Friday tandem, Ingo, Trek, Columbia, Helix

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
Sorry, let me quote some of the LA times article, hopefully not taking too much.

So, it sounds like a lot of the current problems revolve around these legacy issues. I'm surprised they don't just redesign the landing gear, and put the engine thrust back to where it was supposed to be.

However, the solution will likely be more software changes, and more distancing the pilot from flying.

Overrides, so the plane automatically responds to the pilot's actions without having to switch faulty flight software on or off?
Thanx for the quoted text.
The workarounds mentioned don't appear to be directly related to the crashes of the 737 Max though.
I'm only speculating based upon (unreliable) info in the news, but it appears to be control issue involving AOA (angle of attack). Whether this is a sensor or data handling issue isn't known yet. (On the A330 accidents it was a computer data handling problem rather than a sensor problem.)

It isn't widely known, but every airplane, commercial or military, is a work in progress.
The F-18 I once worked on at Northrop (in flight controls) back in the 70s is a very
different animal today. No design is ever perfect, nor will it ever be.

Disclaimer:
I'm no expert. I never knew much.
And I've forgotten even most of that.
Revoltingest is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 07:27 PM
  #87  
Shimagnolo
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 8,756
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1573 Post(s)
Liked 65 Times in 45 Posts
This is the best article yet on the topic: https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/

The safety analysis:

- Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.

- Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.

- Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed.
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 08:27 PM
  #88  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 22,424
Mentioned: 166 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8522 Post(s)
Liked 79 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by Shimagnolo View Post
This is the best article yet on the topic: https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/

The safety analysis:

- Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.

- Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.

- Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed.
According to a detailed FAA briefing to legislators, Boeing will change the MCAS software to give the system input from both angle-of-attack sensors.

It will also limit how much MCAS can move the horizontal tail in response to an erroneous signal. And when activated, the system will kick in only for one cycle, rather than multiple times.
So, there are two sensors, but the system reacted to only one, or perhaps only the worst one of the two.

And, as the pilots responded, the plane repeatedly hit them with the same erroneous response.

Originally Posted by Will G View Post
The Lion Air jet crashed after 4 or 5 write-ups for a mechanical discrepancy in the trim system and their mechanics failed to properly analyze and fix the problem. The flight prior to the mishap, the crew turned off the stab system and flew the jet manually. The AOA system was not repaired and the jet flew the next morning. The mishap crew did not turn off the stab system.
Many new cars pop up with an very annoying "Service Engine Soon", or "Antilock Brake Failure" warning, and it stays up until manually reset by a technician.

The plane likely could have detected that something was amiss as the crew had turned off the control system. And, the system should have continued to collect and analyze flight data.

One would think a plane would pop up with critical errors, and perhaps a log of errors & repairs to be reviewed as part of pre-flight.



Ok, so I understand that the angle of attack sensor determines the jet's flight angle with respect to the actual air, which I presume doesn't always follow an absolute angle with respect to the Earth, especially around hills, mountains, and varying terrain. It would also naturally take into account the speed of the aircraft, so a light crosswind vector might be become relatively insignificant as the plane is flying a couple hundred MPH.

Nonetheless, I presume there are GPS, airspeed, altitude, and absolute inclination sensors that should be queried to confirm the plane's status, both in normal flight, and error conditions.

Heck, GPS should be able to have 4 quadrants on the plane + speed over land.

Perhaps even weather conditions from external sources. Satellites?

I presume the planes could be flown with one, or a couple of sensors in error. And, the pilots should be able to dynamically adjust the weight given to each sensor.

And, again, such data should be reviewed by each flight crew, as well as maintenance staff.
'
Logged comments?

I understand the evolution of aircraft. And, certainly the evolution of computer systems after the 1960's.

But, I also get Windows updates almost once a week. Wasn't there continuous evaluation of the modified flight controls following the introduction 4 years ago?

Look for potential issues and shortcomings even after the software was released? Evaluate flight data and pilot comments?
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 09:20 PM
  #89  
Hondo Gravel
Voted For Pedro
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 1,042

Bikes: Motobecane Boris Fatbike, Motobecane Omni Strada Pro,Fantom Pro CX, Fantom X7 MTB, Gravity SS MTB.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times in 67 Posts
They need to totally scrap the 737 Max and redesign a new plane. That might be too expensive to do but there in no way I will get on a 737 Max.
Hondo Gravel is offline  
Old 03-18-19, 11:31 PM
  #90  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 22,424
Mentioned: 166 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8522 Post(s)
Liked 79 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by Hondo Gravel View Post
They need to totally scrap the 737 Max and redesign a new plane. That might be too expensive to do but there in no way I will get on a 737 Max.
Boeing seems to start with a base model, then over the decades steadily modify it to make it bigger.

The 737 is rapidly approaching the size of the early 757 planes (now discontinued).

Fatigue issues with the 757?

But, the 737 may retain popularity due to being about half the cost of the next larger planes.

As Boeing eventually catches up with Dreamliner 787 orders, I'd imagine they'd continue to experiment with composites, perhaps eventually replacing the 737 with a smaller version of the Dreamliner.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 12:21 AM
  #91  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 9,506

Bikes: '76 Paramount, Salsa Timberjack, Burley Samba, Terra Trike

Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1480 Post(s)
Liked 93 Times in 63 Posts
My dad the autopilot engineer liked to joke about the Boeing fuselage machine, they feed in aluminum at one end and out the other end comes 3+3 fuselage and they just slice off as much as they need for each plane
Darth Lefty is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 08:31 AM
  #92  
Will G
Senior Member
 
Will G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
CliffordK, I haven't flown the 737 MAX so I'm not sure of the warnings that might be different from the 737-800NG. The 737 MAX could not be too terribly different than prior 737 models or it would require a new type certificate, i.e., the pilots would have to go through training in order to fly that model specifically and the FAA does not usually allow a commercial carrier to schedule pilots to fly 2 different aircraft types. So, if Boeing added a lot of new systems, the jet would have to go through the ENTIRE certification process and then the pilots would have to train on the new jet and then ONLY fly that new jet. This would be financially prohibitive for most airlines, specially Southwest with only 737s. What drives a new or different type rating? I'm not sure because I've flown the 757 and the 767 under a common type rating. The differences in systems and operations were different but minor, the landing technique was different, and handling was different in that the 757, max weight of 250K-ish, was a lot more nimble than the 767, max weight of 400K-ish.

You offer up some common sense ideas but those were probably thrown under the bus due to rules, regulations, timing, but mostly money.
Will G is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 09:02 AM
  #93  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,563

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 43 Posts
Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
My dad the autopilot engineer liked to joke about the Boeing fuselage machine, they feed in aluminum at one end and out the other end comes 3+3 fuselage and they just slice off as much as they need for each plane
lol like a play-doh 'pasta' extruder
RubeRad is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 10:06 AM
  #94  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,523

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked 52 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Will G View Post
CliffordK, I haven't flown the 737 MAX so I'm not sure of the warnings that might be different from the 737-800NG. The 737 MAX could not be too terribly different than prior 737 models or it would require a new type certificate, i.e., the pilots would have to go through training in order to fly that model specifically and the FAA does not usually allow a commercial carrier to schedule pilots to fly 2 different aircraft types. So, if Boeing added a lot of new systems, the jet would have to go through the ENTIRE certification process and then the pilots would have to train on the new jet and then ONLY fly that new jet. This would be financially prohibitive for most airlines, specially Southwest with only 737s. What drives a new or different type rating? I'm not sure because I've flown the 757 and the 767 under a common type rating. The differences in systems and operations were different but minor, the landing technique was different, and handling was different in that the 757, max weight of 250K-ish, was a lot more nimble than the 767, max weight of 400K-ish.

You offer up some common sense ideas but those were probably thrown under the bus due to rules, regulations, timing, but mostly money.
The reason the plane has the nose up tendencies is because the much larger though far more efficient engines sit higher up on shorter nacelles (you can't take off with stuff dragging like those fake bull danglers on the hitch of your truck).

If the engines had been longer instead of fatter this may not have been the problem. And when was the last time an L-1011 did something like that? You seem to have reached some limitations for this 1967 plane.

And yes, Boeing decided against designing a new plane.

Now I've heard that the main failure of the MCAS is that it cycles up to four times in rapid succession and should at the least be left off during takeoff and initial ascent. While I had an inkling of this, I have no experience as a pilot so I needed to know this to confirm at least parts of my suspicions. It sounded like the new software eliminates so much hard re-cycling to let the pilot control the plane better and also without proper training these two crews had no clue while US and Canadian crews knew a little bit more and knew to turn MCAS off at least temporarily if a problem occurred.

Cool Hand Luke Syndrome: A failure to communicate.
__________________

Marcia Brady rode a ROLLFAST!

Last edited by Rollfast; 03-19-19 at 10:14 AM.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 10:51 AM
  #95  
no motor?
Senior Member
 
no motor?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 6,076

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock

Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked 59 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Will G View Post
Boring and unfulfilling? I've been doing the commercial thing and flown fighters in the military. I'll admit flying upside down and blowing stuff up is both exciting and demanding but I definitely would not call commercial flying boring and/or unfulfilling. If I can take people halfway around the world over some of the most harsh terrain on the planet and the passengers major complaint is the long flight, I've made the difficult look easy.
There's a quote about flying being long moments of boredom punctuated by the occasional sheer terror that comes to mind here, and I'm sure they phrased it a little different. .
no motor? is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 11:03 AM
  #96  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,563

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 43 Posts
That quote sounds like the job of driving a train. Or manning a nuclear missile silo.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 03:32 PM
  #97  
Will G
Senior Member
 
Will G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by no motor? View Post
There's a quote about flying being long moments of boredom punctuated by the occasional sheer terror that comes to mind here, and I'm sure they phrased it a little different. .
Sounds about right. Or maybe long moments of boredom punctuated by occasional bad airplane food. Commercial aviation is quite sedate in the grand scheme of things. Military flying, however, had more than it's fair share of WTF moments.
Will G is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 04:26 PM
  #98  
mtb_addict 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,706
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3015 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 28 Posts
On similar news...Top Gun 2 is in production.
mtb_addict is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 06:19 PM
  #99  
Shimagnolo
Senior Member
 
Shimagnolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 8,756
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1573 Post(s)
Liked 65 Times in 45 Posts
Bloomberg: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed
Shimagnolo is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 08:14 PM
  #100  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6,896

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1639 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 60 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Shimagnolo View Post
Bloomberg: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed
As the newscaster on that link says, "creepy". Yes. That the only reason that same plane didn't crash the day before of the exact same failure was because an off-duty pilot in the cockpit jump seat recognized what wa happening, turned off the autopilot and instructed the pilot to reduce the engine throttle. Wow! So this was known and Boeing didn't make it a point to bring it to the attention of all airlines and flight crews?

I have respected Boeing (and always felt creeped out flying DC-10s knowing what caused the Iowa City crash with my best friend's wife and two kids aboard), but sorry, Boeing, you just lost me. This doesn't even qualify as an accident, just and event waiting to happen.

Ben

Last edited by 79pmooney; 03-19-19 at 11:22 PM.
79pmooney is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.