1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Another Boeing 737 Max-8 crash

Discussion in 'General' started by SPL170db, Mar 10, 2019.

  1. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    Contents from both black boxes have been successfully downloaded. Early reports of similarities with Lion Air crash.
     
  2. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Hmmmm, somewhere in Chicago there are peeps locked inside a room updating and adding supplemental training procedures to the 737 manuals. LOL.
     
  3. TWF2

    TWF2 2 heads are better than 1

    I think they needed to redesign landing gear to get ground clearance instead moving engines up/forward. To change landing gear it needs to be certified which cost a lot, cheaper to move engines. Except they run in to problem and tried to fix it with electronics.
     
  4. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    They might have been able to change the gear without doing a new type certificate. But that may have been more of a problem since the gear for a 737 needs to be very durable. Since the 737 cant dump fuel...if they have to land heavy i believe there are inspections that have to be done. Making the gear longer could make a heavy landing cause more damage.

    And if they had to do a new TC...well even with the downtime damages and cost of lawsuits doing what they did will be cheaper.

    Too bad they didnt throw enough resources at this issue after Lion...maybe they would have had this fix done and the ET plane wouldnt have gone down.
     
  5. Banditracer

    Banditracer Dogs - because people suck

    How come a 737 can't dump fuel ?
     
  6. Resident Plarp

    Resident Plarp drittsekkmanufacturing.com

    It’s not plumbed for it, adds weight, additional maintenance/inspections costs, and in almost every landing, it’s not needed.
     
    Banditracer likes this.
  7. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    What Plarp said.
    Also they didn’t need it since the FAA changed the weight rules back in the 60s or so. Originally there was a percentage number for max takeoff and max landing weight. If you were over that you had to be able to dump fuel.
    As jets got bigger they scrapped that, but said something like if you don’t dump fuel then you have to be able to safely land at takeoff weight. Even if it means the plane has to be inspected or fixed.

    Another fun fact about the 737 from back in the 60s when they designed it. The gear doesn’t have covers. Did it to save money. Even now they don’t cover the wheels since it’s a big change to certify.

    Look up pics of a 737 in flight from below
     
    speedluvn and Banditracer like this.
  8. Gino230

    Gino230 Well-Known Member

    You have a point here. Regarding the flaps, the training was aircraft specific, so what they were teaching down at little flight schools like ATP or Flight Safety, when guys were getting Air Transport Pilot ratings in Piper Seminoles was different from what they were trained on in turboprop simulators. BUT the (and it's a big BUT), the FAA's Practical Test Standards at the time called for zero altitude loss during a stall recovery, and in turboprops (or any prop for that matter) you can break the stall by adding full power and easing off on the pitch, and fly out of it. As the pilots here know, prop driven airplanes have an advantage due to straight wings and prop wash that goes over the wing giving instant lift at full power.

    This is one of the reasons that the training for ATP ratings has changed, it now has to be part of an approved program.

    When I was trained on turboprops (E-120 Brasillia) we NEVER retracted the flaps in a stall. I believe the stall profiles were departure stall (clean, low airspeed in a turn), Landing stall (full flaps and gear down), and one other I can't seem to remember. The landing stall you were full flaps, and the procedure was max power, Flaps 15. Positive rate, gear up. So you did retract to approach flaps. But to go to zero flap when you are stalling at flap extended speeds is suicide! In Jets its a whole different story.
     
  9. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    So it turns out that the DOT (the American one, not China's :) ) was already investigating the FAA's certification of the aircraft prior to the second accident. Lawyers must be licking their chops everywhere.
     
  10. SPL170db

    SPL170db Trackday winner

    There's all sorts of buzz now coming from pilots and other outlets saying that there's been mumblings about the 737 MAX's issues behind closed doors for a while now (even though outwardly to the public they say the plane is just fine).

    Things could be getting ugly for Boeing real soon.
     
  11. Gino230

    Gino230 Well-Known Member

    It's because of the FAA. Every part has to be approved, so any technological advance has to be cleared by 5,000 bureaucrats first.

    We just went through a 6 month process of securing our aircraft logbooks because some FAA guy decided it was too dangerous to have them sitting in a holder on the aft of the pedestal. They are afraid in an unusual attitude the logbook could go flying and injure someone in the cockpit. So we had to come up with some type of bungee cord system. That had to be FAA approved. Boeing didn't approve it though, so now we've made an unauthorized modification. This is the stuff that makes me laugh in people's faces when they ask if I'm worried that I'll be out of a job because of pilotless airliners. Mountains of paperwork and engineering documents because some bureaucrat wants to see our notebook strapped down. MMMkay.
     
  12. SteveThompson

    SteveThompson Banned by amafan

    That is the same reaction I have when my friends want to talk about Amazon drone deliveries and Uber flying cars. They all think I'm stupid. :D
     
    beechkingd and Gino230 like this.
  13. Gino230

    Gino230 Well-Known Member

    Sorry, just got back from Daytona and I'm catching up a bit.

    Of course, this is the BBS so we're getting way of track here. But I'm telling you guys right now, this grounding is political bullshit stoked by the facetoob twitterverse we now live in. And the Fake News media. Half the commentators are "aviation consultants and licensed pilots" AKA Lawyers with a private pilots license that are in the business of suing people with the deepest pockets. They are making comments like "this system renders the aircraft uncontrollable" which is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

    A great example: "reports showed pilots complained about the MAX" was the headline. What they don't tell you is that every safety report that was submitted that occurred on a MAX was included- even the ones that a flight attendant might have been injured in turbulence and happened to be on a MAX. Only one of them was about an uncommanded pitch down when engaging the autopilot- and of course we're taking the pilot's word that's what happened, these are voluntary reports that are submitted after the fact. Our airline has over 80,000 hours flying the MAX already with zero safety concerns. And we have automatic data reporting that downloads daily. That doesn't prove there are no problems, but it's a strong indicator that the airplane is pretty safe.

    I would put my family on it tomorrow, in the hands of a US based carrier.

    As far as training goes, Boeing does provide a syllabus for training. Most US carriers go above and beyond that. But it's the instruction manual that comes with your AR-15. If you don't follow it and you decide to blow your head off, is that Colt's fault? Should Colt come with you to the shooting range?

    If you go back and read my initial post about the Lion Air crash, I went over the MCAS and why it was included, and how it fits in to the operation of the airplane. But I have to stress that, if you are flying and the trim is running and you can't stop it, there is, and ALWAYS has been, the Trim Runaway checklist. To not run a checklist for the condition you have is breaking the first rule of aviation- first you must FLY THE AIRCRAFT.

    The Lion Air airplane was flyable. Period. Not saying it was an ideal situation, but it was flyable.

    We have no idea what happened in Ethiopia. A bomb could have taken out the control cables for all we know. There is zero data right now. Of course they don't want our investigators poking around. They don't want their shitty training and lack of experience exposed. Remember this- many of these airlines are based in countries where the majority of people are barefoot and riding donkey carts. In a very short period, they have amassed large fleets of advanced jet aircraft and that requires a huge shift in mentality, training, education, etc. There are not enough experienced people to go around. Putting a 200 hour pilot into a jet airliner is CRIMINAL. Period.

    I don't trust the French, but it would be a big conspiracy to hide the data, and the data will tell us the truth. My guess is that these MAX aircraft will be back in the air in a week or two. It's a bullshit grounding, so they'll come up with a bullshit fix to a nonexistent problem.

    I will say this- a single AOA sensor failure should not cause the MCAS to activate, and if it does, it should limit it's authority. My guess is that's the "software fix" that is coming.
     
    MGM, baconologist, G 97 and 5 others like this.
  14. SteveThompson

    SteveThompson Banned by amafan

    I think you are on the right track.

    If I had to make a guess today... they will tie the MCAS to both AOA's, limit the stabilizer travel a little and launch those suckers back into the air. I suppose there will be some stuff added to the training syllabus too.

    Who knows what will really happen but it seems like this is where things are headed.
     
    Gino230 likes this.
  15. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    Yeah, ever since Gino's explanations on Lion Air, my money was on rewriting operating manuals rather than any kind of real redesign.
     
  16. speedluvn

    speedluvn Man card Issuer

    My question now becomes how will the industry “uncover” that there is a serious global training issue concerning pilots? Will BAE be able to convey that information to the world?
     
  17. Resident Plarp

    Resident Plarp drittsekkmanufacturing.com

    With regard to flying cars, you are stupid. I mean, people are excellent drivers in this country ... and especially, France.

    :D :D :D
     
    Gino230 likes this.
  18. OGs750

    OGs750 Well-Known Member

  19. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    Not enough info. Could be absolutely true, could be bullshit anonymous sources.
     
  20. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Certainly can’t hold Boeing accountable for carriers employing inexperienced pilots even if their manuals are deemed somewhat limited/lacking etc.
     

Share This Page