• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

737 Max

The bottom line is this. The future is low wing loading, highly aft CG aircraft with limited flight control surfaces. The only way to control these beasts is with fly by wire. We can complain all we want, but the guys who write the checks want highly fuel efficient airplanes. Continuing to "patch" hydro mechanical and mechanical controls is not going to work. It did not work for the Russians with the Mig-29, MD with the MD-11 and the US military had the good sense to move early into FBW to synthesize stability. Boeing's failure with the Max is trying to patch up a dated design with half way measures.

I might also add that Boeing has made a strategic mistake in not developing a modular FBW system. The beauty of Airbus is the same system in the A320 works in the A380. Only the software load is different. Even Gulfstream knows this and took it to heart. Boeing latest version of FBW is not even modular
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’ll stick with the old school. I flew a lot of 30-40 year old aircraft and those old Boeing and Douglas aircraft dispatch reliability was top notch. In fact the old dc9 in its last years at our airline always had the best dispatch reliability in the fleet. They sold all the early Airbus because they were so bad (A300). I fear for these guys when these aircraft get old. When the first 737-300 (our first magic jet)started getting old they sold those right away the gremlins were to hard to fight. You guys know the “why is it doin that?” thing. I can only imagine what an old A320 is like. But hey to each his own. I got a lot of comfort knowing I needed nothing but jetA to keep those old birds in the air. BTW, you couldn’t hack the software on those aircraft because they had none.
 
Last edited:
Flew the 757/767 common type rating. The 757 with the rolls was a hot rod. The stance reminded me of a long legged woman with big hooters!
Absolutely agree. The P&W 757 was my favorite and a fantastic performer as well. I know that I could get it in and out of my airport with ease, if the runway (1860 feet) could have supported the weight.
 
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’ll stick with the old school. I flew a lot of 30-40 year old aircraft and those old Boeing and Douglas aircraft dispatch reliability was top notch. In fact the old dc9 in its last years at our airline always had the best dispatch reliability in the fleet. They sold all the early Airbus because they were so bad (A300). I fear for these guys when these aircraft get old. When the first 737-300 (our first magic jet)started getting old they sold those right away the gremlins were to hard to fight. You guys know the “why is it doin that?” thing. I can only imagine what an old A320 is like. But hey to each his own. I got a lot of comfort knowing I needed nothing but jetA to keep those old birds in the air. BTW, you couldn’t hack the software on those aircraft because they had none.


It is not a matter of me or you agreeing. It is a matter of what the airline is going to park on the ramp because they write the checks. You gonna say, "Nope, not going to fly it because it has FBW or I don't like the way it handles? Do you really think you are going to be able to handle airplanes that cruise with a CG at 39% MAC without FBW Really? As long as it has a Transport Airworthiness certificate as a professional you are going to develop methods and procedures to make it happen safely. That is what we do, why we have ATPs and why we get paid good money.
 
Last edited:
...... “Look,” he said, “we know as a fact that half of airline pilots graduated in the bottom half of their class.”...

IMHO this is a pretty stupid comment.
The immediate response should be "yes, and the other half finished in the top half!"
 
IMHO this is a pretty stupid comment.
The immediate response should be "yes, and the other half finished in the top half!"

Of course. But maybe the commenter has his reasons based on observations in Canada and with Airbus...don't know. Regardless of initial class standing hopefully all will go on to better their initial training through experience. It takes time to learn.

Gary
 
Perhaps this was a play on the old "what do you call the person who graduated last in medical school?"
 
I like Farmer Ted taking comfort in only needing kerosene to stat aloft. But that's flight control, how about engines? When I traded up in the Rotax world, I wanted nothing to do with LaneA/LaneB headaches. Not even full tanks would keep you up then. Waaay too involved for a small aircraft. I was comfortable with dual processors in the telephone exchanges I built and maintained, but I don't want that s--t near my tepee.
 
Virtually all engines hung on transports since 1987 are FADEC. How many total FADEC failures have been reported? I don't know of any. I've seen a channel or two go down but the engine runs and is controllable. Since 1999 Ford Powerstroke diesels have FADEC. You see sensor failures, most often the cam sensor, but the FADEC itself, works like a champ. I much rather have a FADEC running my engine than a carb. Ask Harrison Ford.
 
Virtually all engines hung on transports since 1987 are FADEC. How many total FADEC failures have been reported? I don't know of any. I've seen a channel or two go down but the engine runs and is controllable. Since 1999 Ford Powerstroke diesels have FADEC. You see sensor failures, most often the cam sensor, but the FADEC itself, works like a champ. I much rather have a FADEC running my engine than a carb. Ask Harrison Ford.
Regularly I drive a tractor here on the farm my father bought new when I was younger. It’s a 1964 John Deere 4020 and even if the battery is dead we can pull start it. The hour meter quit in the 80’s so hard telling how many it has. We’ve got two new John Deere that cost more than my house apiece and both went down during planting due to sensor failures. I am afraid your right about were the industry is going, but my response is should we? Was I ever afraid of hackers when I flew, no. Was I ever afraid of lightning strikes, well maybe a little after I saw a 727 with a 8” hole in the right wing, but not for the discharge of stay electrons. I’ve been hit serval times with little or no effect to flying quality (I know aircraft are tested for lightning, but in lab conditions with all static wicks in place, that 72 I mentioned earlier was missing a few). Ultra maneuverability afforded by fly by wire has a place in fighter/stealth aircraft but should it in transport aircraft? If all you wanted to do was save fuel why not Canard transport aircraft, main wing can’t stall if designed right and increased load carried per wing area. (We know why because like the commercial failures of the 380 and 340 they didn’t fit most airports they were supposed to fit into and required jetway redesign in the gates they used). GeeBee I am afraid you are right as to where we are going, but we all don’t have to like it. Lastly hanging your hat on the ford diesels made after the 7.3 may not be your best move, the 6.0 and 6.4 don’t exactly have a sterling reputation.
 
I've been hit 3 times in an Airbus. Airplane flew no problem. One time below the L2 window. Screens never even blinked.

Why not a canard? Seen any really worthwhile mach .85 canard designs? Me neither. Something about induced drag.....Also have to integrate a THS jack screw and sliding cover in front of a P-dome. That would be tough

The A340 failed because there is no reason to buy it over the A330 after ETOPS went to 207 minutes. A380 failed because there is not enough engine tech to support its size.

Should there be FBW in transport. Gulfstream thinks so and cannot build them fast enough. Lots of good things happen with FBW that cannot be accomplished in a mechanical regime. The 737MAX is exhibit one of the need for FBW. If it had FBW you would not have trim running against pilots, with pilots wondering if they have runaway trim or MCAS regime. The entire flight envelope could be programmed into a unified control regime.
 
Last edited:
Boy, you had me stumped for a minute. Just what we need, more obscure abbreviations. I can handle simple ones - FADEC, FAA - but FBW - wasn't in my Airbus manual.

I did love the 320.
 
I love automation!! In the Airline Industry it masked my lack of basic skills!! 8)
True or not, this is what has become of almost everything... aviation included!! When it works, as it usually does, things are great!! And I mean great!! Having the ability to shoot an approach to nothing and have the airplane land itself (if properly programmed) is an overall enhancement to safety.. add to that, engine control, flight planning, etc, etc....
In the bad old days we got hired on skill. That skill was initially "proven" in a Simulator using basic flying skills, i.e., manipulating the "flight controls" of an airplane through a series of tasks. Those "controls" were just like our Cubs, Ailerons, Elevator, Rudder and Flaps along Throttle, and the "test" was hand flown... NO Autopilot!!
Now you need to fly a fully automated airplane and use all of it's "flight controls" which are primarily operated by the manipulation of a "box"...
In the beginning, "the BOX" smoked a lot of very good aviators.. Today "flying" smokes a lot of good "programmers"..
We're talking about the MAX here... it's an ill conceived airplane which lacked in oversight. It "can" fail BOTH types of "Control Manipulators"
 
Man. We had to hand fly an ILS on one engine in Direct Law. I thought that was pretty challenging. Far easier to do a no autopilot single engine ILS in the 737 sim.
 
I love automation!! In the Airline Industry it masked my lack of basic skills!! 8)
True or not, this is what has become of almost everything... aviation included!! When it works, as it usually does, things are great!! And I mean great!! Having the ability to shoot an approach to nothing and have the airplane land itself (if properly programmed) is an overall enhancement to safety.. add to that, engine control, flight planning, etc, etc....
In the bad old days we got hired on skill. That skill was initially "proven" in a Simulator using basic flying skills, i.e., manipulating the "flight controls" of an airplane through a series of tasks. Those "controls" were just like our Cubs, Ailerons, Elevator, Rudder and Flaps along Throttle, and the "test" was hand flown... NO Autopilot!!
Now you need to fly a fully automated airplane and use all of it's "flight controls" which are primarily operated by the manipulation of a "box"...
In the beginning, "the BOX" smoked a lot of very good aviators.. Today "flying" smokes a lot of good "programmers"..
We're talking about the MAX here... it's an ill conceived airplane which lacked in oversight. It "can" fail BOTH types of "Control Manipulators"
Bob, I will say there is rarely a week that goes by that I don’t miss hand flying the Dc9, with all the Boeing (72,73,74) I flew it was always my favorite. How many Cat2 approach’s I hand flew I’ll never know. But the first time I was sipping coffee while the FMS and autopilot flew a perfect entry into a hold I thought wow this is something I could get used to. Your spot on about how many guys I know lost their job on the 737-300 it was called the “Terminator” for years. Tech is great as long as it not a crutch.
 
Bob, I will say there is rarely a week that goes by that I don’t miss hand flying the Dc9, with all the Boeing (72,73,74) I flew it was always my favorite. How many Cat2 approach’s I hand flew I’ll never know. But the first time I was sipping coffee while the FMS and autopilot flew a perfect entry into a hold I thought wow this is something I could get used to. Your spot on about how many guys I know lost their job on the 737-300 it was called the “Terminator” for years. Tech is great as long as it not a crutch.

My first Major Airline upgrade was "The Terminator" (737-300, EFIS, no map). My training partner (first major airline upgrade) came off the DC9/MD80. Hell of a stick, but no computer experience. I had a lot of Regional Carrier experience with both hand flying (6-8 degree microwave approaches in Mountain terrain) and highly advanced computerized equipment, in a different aircraft, that had, GPS, EFIS and a Map.. I was also Lead Instructor and Designated Examiner on that aircraft.... I flew the 737 100/200/300 and the 300 EFIS as a First Officer..
My training partner and I spent many a hour, late at night, in the training center (I had access) teaching him how to become a computer pilot.. He aced his ride and became one of our airlines most respected Captains and in later years, instructors!!
Times have changed in "the airline industry" and "high tech GA" The MAX has shown that possibly, no matter how good you may be, the outcome maybe inevitable.
Thank goodness, all I fly now is a VFR SUERCUB!!!
 
Last edited:
You airline and military old farts lend valuable perspective to those of us old farts who have never flown anything much heavier than a Cub. Thanks.
 
Terminator? Never heard that. I loved the 300. I really liked the old worn out 100s and 200s. But the 300s were great! Back then, no differences training was required - you just climbed in and flew them.
 
You airline and military old farts lend valuable perspective to those of us old farts who have never flown anything much heavier than a Cub. Thanks.

x 2....and taking advantage of circa 50% of the technology in my Garmin 496 is sufficient technology challenge for me.
 
Terminator? Never heard that. I loved the 300. I really liked the old worn out 100s and 200s. But the 300s were great! Back then, no differences training was required - you just climbed in and flew them.
It got some good guys fired back in the late 80s, some of those guys coming of the 727 and Dc9 that had never dealt with fms had quite a hard time making the transition. I remember quite a few sullen faces when bids came out. I can vividly remember hearing that with dread. I too liked the 300 we called them round dials not to be confused with the efis models that came later. It was funny on the same day you could get a 300 round dial a 500 and an 800. Back to the Max though, yes I blame Boeing for not training the companies and pilots on mcas and I think this is where the problems mostly lie. But I still find it hard to see why the system was even necessary to begin with. You hear/feel the stick shaker (you should never get there) you push forward.
 
I flew in everything from the 707 to the A330. I had a 40 year career. Never had trouble going to the FMS, which ironically was a round dial 737-300 (direct to never really showed where you where going, the needle just swung into place). People who had trouble had never instructed navigation where you have to be careful of your terms such as "bearing to" and "bearing from" and knowing that a radial is always a bearing from. Equally so, if you have instructed holding patterns, programming one in the FMS is a piece of cake. Bottom line, is pilots who have trouble doing the FMS were weak in basics of air navigation and IFR procedure.

I had to check out a 727 guy on the 737-800. He was really struggling and I wanted him to succeed because he had only 6 months to retirement. We sat down one night and we went back to the basics of radio nav, bearings to, from and how to properly interpret a holding clearance. He said it was like someone pulled back the drapes in a dark room on a sunny morning. The next day, he was proficiently operating the FMS and cleared his ride solidly.

I just changed personal airplanes and the new one has a Garmin G1000. It is just like the FMS transition. If you have strong air navigation fundamentals, the G1000 is a piece of cake. Getting the XM radio to work however is another thing.
 
I saw a great special on Quantas 72 an Airbus A330 on the Smithsonian channel. Check it out if you get a chance. Kevin Sullivan, the capt of that flight and former fighter pilot said “As automation improves we still can’t guarantee that automation will be infallible. I feel that the hierarchy still needs to be pilot number one computer number two” three a330 had computer corruption for Quantis one with a violent pitch down. The others only subverted this because crew took computer off line even though manual didn’t say to do this. Sound similar? What do you Airbus guys know about this incident I’m curious.
 
Last edited:
My ego prefers pilot first but for the greater good they need to build airliners knowing they will be flown by the lowest common denominator. In some countries that is really, really low. Ill conceived automation systems will kill less people than pilot first planes with crap pilots. Crap pilots(in parts of the world) are a reality that isn't going away.
 
We can analyze this to death but...
1) Nothing we "think" means a hill of beans..
2) The MAX will likely fly again, because ... well what ever you think ..see #1
3) Until your tested, real life tested, you don't know if your a hero or a Z...
4) Never being tested is either luck or preparation... (preparation being the preferred) So... prepare!!
5) I hope you will all strive NOT TO BE the subject of an aviation forum...
 
Last edited:
I saw a great special on Quantas 72 an Airbus A330 on the Smithsonian channel. Check it out if you get a chance. Kevin Sullivan, the capt of that flight and former fighter pilot said “As automation improves we still can’t guarantee that automation will be infallible. I feel that the hierarchy still needs to be pilot number one computer number two” three a330 had computer corruption for Quantis one with a violent pitch down. The others only subverted this because crew took computer off line even though manual didn’t say to do this. Sound similar? What do you Airbus guys know about this incident I’m curious.
I just watched that one this afternoon. It was intriguing insofar as they never did figure out how/why the system was transposing AOA data with altitude data. It happened to three A330's all in the same basic geographic location. I can't help but think it was SOME form of EMI/RF type interference. The episode wasn't specific on the procedural work-around, but it was a "patch". Apparently the underlying cause was never identified.
 
Last edited:
It’s fun to watch new FO’s learn the jet and figure out what works for them. It’s also interesting to see how common though their former backgrounds come into play when using the autopilot. Especially on RNAV or FMS arrivals. Like last week.

FO #1 (Ex Regional) Had issues slowing and making altitude restrictions spinning and turning a flurry of knobs and wheels and finally asked for my advice. We told ATC unable and were instructed to just slow to 210kts. The way he was slowing with the autopilot wasn’t fast enough. So I recommended to disconnect the autopilot/autothrottles and pull to idle, pitch to 210 and glide. Now it was an issue to just hand fly and his priority was to reconnect the automation ASAP. Before he was backed into the corner though he definitely was a pro at using the A/P and FMS. After the flight though he confided that he was a bit weak on hand flying skills. But he is new and that happens. My advice was to hand fly every chance you get.

FO #2 (Ex ACE AIR CARGO) Also brand new to jet. Got dorked up big time using the automation and before I could give any advice had that autopilot off so fast it made my head spin. Could see the relief in her eyes. Stated that she hated that autopilot and it was easier to just do it herself. Despite her being shi# hot handflying the plane to a T. Now I’m telling this FO to learn how to get comfortable using the automation to make your life easier.

I like how everyone finds their own way through trial and error or advice. I always hated it when captains would “ghost ride you” or tell you every 30 secs how they would do it. Sorry for thread drift. I’ll probably be flying the MAX soon.
 
Back
Top