Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 83

Thread: 737 Max

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lake Lanier, GA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GeeBee View Post
    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. Itís a 1964 John Deere 4020 and even if the battery is dead we can pull start it. The hour meter quit in the 80ís so hard telling how many it has. Weíve 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 8Ē hole in the right wing, but not for the discharge of stay electrons. Iíve 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 canít 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 didnít 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 donít 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 donít exactly have a sterling reputation.
    Likes super stol liked this post

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lake Lanier, GA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 by GeeBee; 09-23-2019 at 05:23 PM.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  5. #45
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love automation!! In the Airline Industry it masked my lack of basic skills!!
    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 D
    Likes BC12D-4-85, Farmer Ted liked this post

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Taledrger View Post
    I love automation!! In the Airline Industry it masked my lack of basic skills!!
    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.
    Likes Taledrger liked this post

  8. #48
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmer Ted View Post
    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 by Taledrger; 09-25-2019 at 09:42 PM.
    Bob D
    Thanks Farmer Ted thanked for this post
    Likes Farmer Ted liked this post

  9. #49
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
    Likes Colorguns, jrussl liked this post

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes Farmer Ted liked this post

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    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.
    Back In Alaska
    Likes Farmer Ted liked this post

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    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.
    Likes Taledrger, n40ff liked this post

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lake Lanier, GA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes bob turner, Taledrger, Cubus Maximus liked this post

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 by Farmer Ted; 09-27-2019 at 06:30 PM.

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    East Boston
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  16. #56
    Cub junkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    My Moms basement
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    The best computers still fall between the ears.
    Likes super stol liked this post

  17. #57
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 by Taledrger; 09-28-2019 at 04:49 PM.
    Bob D
    Likes Bill Rusk liked this post

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    When the automatic stuff doesn’t do exactly what you want, turn it off!

  19. #59
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,798
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmer Ted View Post
    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 by PerryB; 09-28-2019 at 12:43 AM.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !

  20. #60
    TVATIVAK71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Likes Cappt, pfm liked this post

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    And there in lies the dilemma. Both hand flying skills and automation skills need to be used regularly to remain proficient. When I started flying HUD I didn’t particularly like it. Fast forward several years and had to fly a night time leg with an MEL’d HUD. Wow, were my panel scanning skills rusty to say the least. Same with autothrottles, etc.. Finally came up with a policy that encouraged crews to hand fly when conditions permitted, i.e. not at the end of a 10 hour leg to a night approach in a foreign country on the backside of the clock. Let the automation be your friend under those conditions.
    Mark
    Likes Cappt liked this post

  22. #62

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lake Lanier, GA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    The dead money tree just fell on Boeing

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/s...211858168.html
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  23. #63
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GeeBee View Post
    The dead money tree just fell on Boeing

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/s...211858168.html
    "...Boeing "abandoned sound design and engineering practices, withheld safety critical information from regulators and deliberately misled its customers, pilots and the public about the true scope of design changes to the 737 MAX."
    true

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does no one remember all the Airbus's that shed their rudders. Airbus got away with claiming pilot error for a long time and way too many deaths until one Canadian pilot who lost the rudder at altitude in clear smooth air over the Atlantic brought the plane back down without crashing and with no rudder.
    Airbus could no longer hide behind their Lawyers and lies.
    Lets not forget flight 447 going down over the Atlantic. Yes the co-pilot made a major mistake but the software was what caused the problem. If an airplane can not fly with blocked pitot tubes we have a major design problem.
    To me Airbus has been far more negligent for decades than Boeing is now. Airbus's software and flight control systems have killed way to many people unnecessarily. Remember Airbuses reply to the FAA when they refused to disclose their new software to fix the rudder related flight control problem?
    It was for passenger comfort. Up passengers do get uncomfortable when their plane is braking apart in flight for no reason.
    I remain in the camp, If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going.

  25. #65
    n40ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I recall Boeing 737's had a rudder issue too?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

    Not a airline pilot and haven't even flown airline since 911, I've always considered myself in the Boeing camp...... Now I don't care. Airlines, even Asian/third world airlines, are the safest way to get from point A to point B whatever the airplane. When it's your time, make sure your insurance premium is paid-up.....
    Last edited by n40ff; 10-08-2019 at 07:16 AM.
    Thanks Coulee Clipper thanked for this post

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doncha love the Toyota commercial where everyone is yukkin' it up, lovin' life when something happens and the car saves the distracted drivers' bacon? Not just about the car, its a lesson for youth. This is how the world is going. No attention span required. Sad to say, Airbus is the future.
    What's a go-around?
    Likes super stol liked this post

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywalker View Post
    Doncha love the Toyota commercial where everyone is yukkin' it up, lovin' life when something happens and the car saves the distracted drivers' bacon? Not just about the car, its a lesson for youth. This is how the world is going. No attention span required. Sad to say, Airbus is the future.
    Then we might as well all ride in drones and hope the Chinese get the electronics right. I reject that reality! The reason the max has this problem to begin with is their emulation of Airbus with the MCAS system. I feel Boeing should be Boeing and let Airbus be Airbus. Boeing’s shortcut with the max (new engines on stretched old airframe with little pilot input and no training to new operators) caused this! They wanted to save money and roll out a new aircraft to fill a role the 757 should fly. I love me some Boeing, but the bean counters have taken over and people died because of it. I still feel if mcas wasn’t on the aircraft to begin with pilots would get used to different feel of the aircraft, and if you need pitch down help when stick shaker comes on god help you! You shouldn’t be flying to begin with. Unfortunately I see these aft cg small control surface aircraft more frequently it seems (ie dc10 becomes md11). When you rely on computers alone for safety you will be let down and people will die. Let’s also remember one of these crashes the aircraft went thru this oscillation with a different crew and made it back because the system was overridden. Mcas was supposed to save the idiot crew not kill them.
    Thanks CharlieN thanked for this post

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    876
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Chinese might be able to do it right but it is clear the students and Indians couldn't.

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieN View Post
    The Chinese might be able to do it right but it is clear the students and Indians couldn't.
    Charlie, you have to remember at the time even the USA based crews (I have a friend at American that was furious. When your check airman don’t know that’s bad) didn’t even know the system was on the aircraft running in the background nor were they trained on how to disable it.

  30. #70
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmer Ted View Post
    .... nor were they trained on how to disable it.
    Are you saying that those two guarded switches just above the #2 fire handle will not disable the MCAS trim system? I thought that those were the two switches which were disabled by the jump seat rider on that first airplane on the day before it crashed?

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dcxygjwvwaayndl-jpg-large.jpeg 
Views:	32 
Size:	150.0 KB 
ID:	44891  
    N1PA

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    In all the 737 I flew if you pulled/pushed against runaway trim this engaged the stab brake. You then reached over and then placed the cutout switch to cutout and trimmed manually and problem over. I was told in mcas aircraft this pulling against runaway trim doesn’t work. Pulling the stab trim cutout should work, but does it kill the warnings? I don’t know. What I do know is grasping the trim wheel works and then trim manually. But these guys and others didn’t have a clue mcas was on the aircraft or where trained how to deal with it. I once had an uncontained engine failure/fire on takeoff. The start valve opened at 50’ 13stage bleed air blew a hole in side of engine ruptured fuel line and made a blow torch 150’ long. It burned thru fire warning system so fast the light flickered and we got a beep then quiet not the Brrrrrrrrrrrring! We were used to in training. Only after testing the fire warning did we know it was burnt thru and shut it down. The training in the system is what got me thru. The temps were normal and engine ran fine but it was burning itself off the pylon. They had none of this on mcas.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	261.0 KB 
ID:	44905
    Last edited by Farmer Ted; 10-08-2019 at 10:16 AM.
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  32. #72
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmer Ted View Post
    You can’t idiot proof the world no matter how hard you try.
    Just like those three idiots, one of whom was a check airman, who undershot their VFR landing at SFO in the B-777.
    N1PA
    Likes Farmer Ted, Brandsman liked this post

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lake Lanier, GA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guys, my intent was not to re-litigate what has already been argued here. We can all point and counter point to Airbus and Boeing. Believe me, I've flown them both, been LCA on them and both manufacturer's have their problems. However, Boeing this time has managed to put pilots out of work. That creates two bad scenarios, one that follows the other. One the pilots are going to sue you and in the process of suing you they are going to have to say bad things about the airplane which will result in loss of confidence in the traveling public. You can pay off aggrieved crash victims and their families rather quickly. That kind of litigation is ordinary and expected. For Boeing, the worse possible outcome for the MAX is pilots suing it over its design work causing them lost wages because then you have the professional pointing an accusatory finger and the rhetoric will give the public pause. Boeing would do well to pay off SWAPA which at the moment it appears it will not.

    Personally I don't see how the MAX survives as a product or much of the Boeing Board of Directors. This will get worse before it gets better if it remains on its present trajectory.
    Thanks Taledrger thanked for this post

  34. #74
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,584
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 10-08-2019 at 02:25 PM.

  35. #75
    n40ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    For this little airplane pilot what Farmer Ted says in #67 makes all too perfect sense.

  36. #76

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lake Lanier, GA
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would have to disagree. Boeing was not trying to emulate Airbus. They were trying to be a "little bit pregnant". If they had went full FBW, there would be no MCAS, no trimming down against the pilot etc. The control laws simply would not let you put the airplane in that position. The reason why the MAX has the problems it does is because they tried to stay with mechanical controls and Tango Foxtrot the system with electronics and poorly designed electronics at that. I'm not saying they should have gone FBW, but if you are going to design in that kind of instability in the airframe configuration, you either go FBW or you go to another configuration that is more stable.

  37. #77
    n40ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with GeeBee, Boeing should pay the pilots NOW. But they may still be in deep s... ??

    Maybe, make that, I must be missing something. It seems to me after all I have read that the Max could have been safely flown by well/correctly trained pilots w/o the MCAS at all?

    As Ted said, "Mcas was supposed to save the idiot crew not kill them."

    Seems rather harsh but maybe true?

    I must be missing something?
    Last edited by n40ff; 10-09-2019 at 08:38 AM.

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmer Ted View Post
    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.
    can’t resist thread drift...
    But hands down - The 4020 was a far better tractor than the 4010.. Like calling shotgun, the slowest kid had to drive the 4010..

    7000+ hours with fadecs, they broke once in a while, but fail safes kept things working. Now I’m flying an aircraft wo, and I miss them.

    Random thought.

    Having taken off in an aircraft with a malfunctioning AOA, stick shaker activated at weight off wheels into 200 and 1/2, a quick scan, and being familiar with airplane, made for an uneventful return while riding a stick shaker. Inexperience might have made for a different outcome.

  39. #79

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    228
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, stick shakers save idiot crews, not the intention with MCAS. MCAS tried to cancel a slight nose up, but was given lawn dart authority. All to save the airlines a few bucks. And so easily avoidable with just one person with, shall we say, "engineering situational awareness". No one left at Boeing but compartmentalized typists.
    Last edited by Skywalker; 10-09-2019 at 03:16 PM.
    What's a go-around?
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  40. #80

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •