Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
no conspiracy theorist please
https://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showth...Boeing-737-MAX
apart of the over done sensationalist articles this is correct.
Boeing absolutely screwed over the engineering of the MCAS system.
the other part of the story is FAA trusted Boeing way to much and failed to provide oversight.
from the first half i watched, its about roughly right.
the important bits from the video is "fit larger engines ......but require minimal additional training" just as airbus had done.
and "supposed to behave exactly like the old one"
it shows, that under high throttle the nose comes up. what it doesn't say is thats normal for all aircraft of that wing configuration.... including airbus. the more throttle you give it the more the nose wants to come up. the pilots simply compensate for that, its not a big deal at all and has been done for many many decades of flying.
the difference here is that it does it a bit more than the previous version did. thats the key. Boeing needs it to fly within a certain % of the old model to qualify, so that pilots would not have do complete training and recertification at great cost.
so they made the mcas system to trim the aircraft in those conditions so it flys like the old model. ie it lifts it nose under power like the old one.
now airbus has that issue as well but it already has flight computers that do that already. so its really easy for them. (pilots don't fly the airbus, they tell the flight computer what they want to do and the computer flys the plane).
overall there is nothing wrong with the actual 737max plane, nothing has changed with the plane with the fix. theres no need to, it flys perfectly fine. FAA simply does not allow unstable planes to fly.
its simply that Boeing screwed up the MCAS system by ridding roughshod over the engineering team and put a crap system in place.
the fix is pretty simple, revamped the MCAS system to what it should have been in the first place and put the additional training in place.
it has now been all approved and is being rolled out.
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Have you read "Destination Disaster" yet?
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Don’t know why the other thread was locked but anyway.... :confused:
Let us not forget the opposition, Airbus, and the troubles they had. HERE
I remember an acquaintance at the time, who was a pilot for QANTAS, saying that “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”. He went on to say he could fly a Boeing 777 upside down if he wanted, but an Airbus would just refuse, with the computer advising “Disallowed, you are operating outside of parameters”. Later I had to have a dig at him about Chesley Sullenberger landing an Airbus in the Hudson River with both engines out. Surely that was outside parameters, to which he replied, “That was probably the best bit of flying ever, but I bet he couldn’t do it again!”
QANTAS went the Airbus way and never owned a 777, as I understand it, and this chap left QANTAS.
I also recall asking him if he ever worried about flying as a job to which he replied “I’m more worried about getting to the Airport alive than flying anywhere”.
When I think about it, he has a point. :D
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.M.
Don’t know why the other thread was locked but anyway.... :confused:
Let us not forget the opposition, Airbus, and the troubles they had.
HERE
I remember an acquaintance at the time, who was a pilot for QANTAS, saying that “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”. He went on to say he could fly a Boeing 777 upside down if he wanted, but an Airbus would just refuse, with the computer advising “Disallowed, you are operating outside of parameters”. Later I had to have a dig at him about Chesley Sullenberger landing an Airbus in the Hudson River with both engines out. Surely that was outside parameters, to which he replied, “That was probably the best bit of flying ever, but I bet he couldn’t do it again!”
QANTAS went the Airbus way and never owned a 777, as I understand it, and this chap left QANTAS.
I also recall asking him if he ever worried about flying as a job to which he replied “I’m more worried about getting to the Airport alive than flying anywhere”.
When I think about it, he has a point. :D
someone was getting way to conspiracy theorist, which is a shame. its always good to have these conversations.
airbus ideals are that to reduce risk you reduce what the pilot does. automate everything so the computer flies the plane. that way you remove "pilot error".
boeing is the opposite where automation is to help the pilot rather than doing it for him. "if all else fails turn the crap off and fly the plane".
for the millions of people that are in the air, deaths in aviation are very rare. far more dangerous driving than flying. the industry learnt that lesson the hard way very early on. people don't fly when planes crash, which means loss of big dollars. the industry can't just stop, its need to keep flying to be able to exist. which is why with covid there is huge handouts from govts to keep the airlines up and running.
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zippity
Have you read "Destination Disaster" yet?
looks to be an interesting story. it sounds similar to whats happened with many low cost airlines.
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
The proof is in the pudding, let's see what happens over the next 5 years as they roll the modified, 737 Max 8 out.
One thing for sure I won't be flying on one under any circumstances.
None of the above links are working although the originals on the previous thread are still ok.
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Reading this thread brought to mind vague recollection of a plane that was hijacked, and the hijackers insisted they be flown to Australia I think?
The pilot couldn’t convince them that he didn’t have enough fuel for the trip but they knew better.
Anyway, they ran out of fuel and ditched in the sea off an island somewhere.
I think someone on the island got photos of the landing, and I’m not sure if anyone survived, but I remember there was a debate among the experts as to whether the engines on planes should be mounted on top of the wing to facilitate emergency landings in water.
The whole debate about the placement of the engines died of natural causes I think.
Probably because of the Air Bridge operators Union not wanting to encourage ocean landings. ;)
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.M.
Reading this thread brought to mind vague recollection of a plane that was hijacked, and the hijackers insisted they be flown to Australia I think?
The pilot couldn’t convince them that he didn’t have enough fuel for the trip but they knew better.
Anyway, they ran out of fuel and ditched in the sea off an island somewhere.
I think someone on the island got photos of the landing, and I’m not sure if anyone survived, but I remember there was a debate among the experts as to whether the engines on planes should be mounted on top of the wing to facilitate emergency landings in water.
The whole debate about the placement of the engines died of natural causes I think.
Probably because of the Air Bridge operators Union not wanting to encourage ocean landings. ;)
trying to land on the sea is pretty much a death sentence regardless of engine placement any way. odds of getting a perfectly calm sea is pretty slim. even then you need a perfect landing.
putting engines on top creates other issues. even the most basic problem of how do you remove it for service and reinstall it.
the bigger question is mounting the wing low, typical for passenger jets, or mount it high like on heavy transport aircraft which puts the engine on the centre line which avoids the whole lift the nose under power thing.
no idea why, suspect noise is part of it. would not want to be on a 12 hr flight with a noisy engine right outside the window.
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
How are your Boeing Shares? :eek:
HERE
Re: Info On The Boeing 737 MAX #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.M.
How are your Boeing Shares? :eek:
HERE
yeah, tho there are certain boeing employees that should go to jail over it.
