Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 228

Thread: 737 MAX

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,344
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    Fact.. a Russian troll was responsible for the government shutdown.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,272
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiBall View Post
    Probably counting on them for their new HI service. Maybe they are re-thinking those introductory prices.
    With the money that is being lost, they are working on fix 24/7 I would bet. Well, now they are working on it that hard.
    That and i believe the majority of their other planes are on list to be retired. I'm sure it will get fixed, too bad people lost lives. Accidents are accidents still not a fun beta test.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    3,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
    Les Nessman!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,570
    Quote Originally Posted by detrusor View Post
    Les Nessman!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Actually, Arthur Carlson. Les was just reporting from the scene.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,648
    Hitting the ground like wet sacks of cement!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,011
    Quote Originally Posted by detrusor View Post
    Les Nessman!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Mr. Carlson (sp?), yeesh.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Interesting read
    Besides those incidents of the 737 Max pitching nose down the pilots are saying it has completely different instrumentation on which they lack proper training

    " I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold.

    My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely. The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material) "

    It sounds like the airline in this case was assuming that a 737 is just a 737
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    Here's a good governing principal for aircraft software design: at no time should the software try to crash the airplane.
    Autocrash™


    a few US pilot complaints about the MAX --> https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ent/p2/a486265

    It seems like culture of 'deference to the computer' is why we've seen them in Asia & Africa but not in the US. Sure does sound like Autocrash™ tried to work its magic into a few US flights but pilots intervened. 2nd hand info I heard from SW pilot "the thing is, you need to know how to fly the plane."

    Probably a bit of blame on both sides of these recent crashes, with the asterisk that it cannot be accepted going forward to have commercial flights flown on software that includes Autocrash™.

    I read the old story of the Air France pilot error stall this week. Seems like more planes crash due to trying to prevent a stall than actually experiencing one. Iatrogenics ~ "the cure is the disease"

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/busi...ight-447-crash

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by pisteoff View Post
    Just to be clear, trim runaways are not new, nor are they unique to the MAX or even 737s. They are possible on any jet with electric trim assist. On the 737 it's called Runaway Stabilizer, there's a procedure for it in the the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook - for emergency procedures and checklists), and there are stab trim cutout switches. Pilots are trained for this in the sim, and even though it's not technically a memory item, most/all 737 pilots have the procedure memorized.

    But that isn't the suspected cause of these two max crashes. What is being investigated is the pitot-static and angle of attack sensing systems, and how they might have erroneously (or not) triggered the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) into commanding a nose down stabilizer input, and/or is the MCAS itself at fault due to software/design flaw.

    None of that precludes pilot error in both incidents.
    Quote Originally Posted by pisteoff View Post
    Alarming how? There were 5 crashes with fatalities in the first 12 years of operation. All but 1 were pilot error.
    Four of those fatal crashes occurred in the first five years so alarming in the sense that all plane crashes are alarming to the public regardless of eventual investigative determined cause, particularly so with a new airframe or type.


    And, the MCAS system does effect the stabilizer trim even though it doesn't move the primary controls. So if the system malfunctions it behaves sort of like a runaway trim wheel except in increments of 10 seconds if it's interrupted by the pilot. At the same time MCAS is not entirely defeated unless a pilot flips the stab trim controls, etc. To make matters worse Boeing didn't initially explain how the system works, hence all the outrage and confusion even among US/Canadian/Euro pilots.

    Again this is speculative, but if the MCAS is trimming nose down in 10 second increments then that may well explain the 20 second period see-saw vertical flight path profile, a runaway trim scenario of sorts, seen in the LionAir/Ethiopian crashes.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,272
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Four of those fatal crashes occurred in the first five years so alarming in the sense that all plane crashes are alarming to the public regardless of eventual investigative determined cause, particularly so with a new airframe or type.


    And, the MCAS system does effect the stabilizer trim even though it doesn't move the primary controls. So if the system malfunctions it behaves sort of like a runaway trim wheel except in increments of 10 seconds if it's interrupted by the pilot. At the same time MCAS is not entirely defeated unless a pilot flips the stab trim controls, etc. To make matters worse Boeing didn't initially explain how the system works, hence all the outrage and confusion even among US/Canadian/Euro pilots.

    Again this is speculative, but if the MCAS is trimming nose down in 10 second increments then that may well explain the 20 second period see-saw vertical flight path profile, a runaway trim scenario of sorts, seen in the LionAir/Ethiopian crashes.
    Had just heard that air traffic control did note the plane pitching nose up/down over and over and an "unsafe acceleration" speed.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,220
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiBall View Post
    Probably counting on them for their new HI service. Maybe they are re-thinking those introductory prices.
    With the money that is being lost, they are working on fix 24/7 I would bet. Well, now they are working on it that hard.
    lol SW doesn’t pay anything near sticker.

    neither does boeing. there’s a busy team in chennai right now.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,344
    Quote Originally Posted by shroom View Post

    neither does boeing. there’s a busy team in chennai right now.
    They'll make it up by raising the price of the F35s a little more..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    16,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    Autocrash™


    a few US pilot complaints about the MAX --> https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ent/p2/a486265

    It seems like culture of 'deference to the computer' is why we've seen them in Asia & Africa but not in the US. Sure does sound like Autocrash™ tried to work its magic into a few US flights but pilots intervened. 2nd hand info I heard from SW pilot "the thing is, you need to know how to fly the plane."

    Probably a bit of blame on both sides of these recent crashes, with the asterisk that it cannot be accepted going forward to have commercial flights flown on software that includes Autocrash™.

    I read the old story of the Air France pilot error stall this week. Seems like more planes crash due to trying to prevent a stall than actually experiencing one. Iatrogenics ~ "the cure is the disease"

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/busi...ight-447-crash
    i hope you wrote all this between bbiut laps!

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,648
    Basically what Sully chimed in with. Not enough training and learning to fly properly. The description of the Lion air pilots not be able to pull back on the yoke because of the force being generated by autocrash is pretty chilling though

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,032
    sounds the Max 737 is really a different enough airplane to require some retraining for pilots who have flown 737s cuz they don't know what some of the buttons do
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Turin, Hugging The Horse
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    They'll make it up by raising the price of the F35s a little more..
    Otherwise good, but F-35 is manufactured by LM...

    The floggings will continue until morale improves.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    18,044
    People are really going to freak when they hear the modifications necessary for the 737 MAX 10. Due to the new larger engines and the stretch, the landing gear needed to be lengthened at takeoff. However, they need to retract to normal height to accommodate existing airport gates. So the new design has a telescoping mechanism so that the gear actually get longer after the plane leaves the gate and taxis out to the runway. Then, of course, it needs to shrink again when retracted. I have a feeling this design change is going to get a lot of backlash since there's already a perception that Boeing is trying to stretch the basic 737 design too far.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,078
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    People are really going to freak when they hear the modifications necessary for the 737 MAX 10. Due to the new larger engines and the stretch, the landing gear needed to be lengthened at takeoff. However, they need to retract to normal height to accommodate existing airport gates. So the new design has a telescoping mechanism so that the gear actually get longer after the plane leaves the gate and taxis out to the runway. Then, of course, it needs to shrink again when retracted. I have a feeling this design change is going to get a lot of backlash since there's already a perception that Boeing is trying to stretch the basic 737 design too far.
    They should just flip the fuselage. Wings on top, plenty of room for engines without adjustable landing gear.

    Which is the one with folding wingtips? That also seems like stretching a design

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,648
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    People are really going to freak when they hear the modifications necessary for the 737 MAX 10. Due to the new larger engines and the stretch, the landing gear needed to be lengthened at takeoff. However, they need to retract to normal height to accommodate existing airport gates. So the new design has a telescoping mechanism so that the gear actually get longer after the plane leaves the gate and taxis out to the runway. Then, of course, it needs to shrink again when retracted. I have a feeling this design change is going to get a lot of backlash since there's already a perception that Boeing is trying to stretch the basic 737 design too far.
    Now I'm really confused. I thought the 737 had to be modded previously because of clearance issues of being too low at the gate because it was original designed for tarmac staircase use. Jetways were too high for the design. Now it has the reverse problem?

    Any way, the approval of the current iteration reeks of the a plane that should have gone through the entire approval process, not just the easier path of an update to an existing model.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    18,044
    Quote Originally Posted by abraham View Post
    They should just flip the fuselage. Wings on top, plenty of room for engines without adjustable landing gear.

    Which is the one with folding wingtips? That also seems like stretching a design
    That's the 777X. Folding wingtips were actually designed for the original 777 back in the early '90s. I think either United or American requested them to fit into the gates they were using for 767s. Boeing went through the entire design and then the airline decided they didn't need them after all. The folding wingtips for the 777X are a brand new design, though.

    The first 777X variant, the 777-9 was just rolled out for employees last week. Here's a shot I took showing the wingtips in the folded configuration. Those wingtips don't seem that big compared to the overall scale of the plane, but they're about ten feet long. This is a big airplane.

    Boeing 777-9
    by Kirk & Barb Nelson, on Flickr

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Turin, Hugging The Horse
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by mcski View Post
    Now I'm really confused. I thought the 737 had to be modded previously because of clearance issues of being too low at the gate because it was original designed for tarmac staircase use.
    AD was talking about -10. Afaik, the problems with the current -8 is that the new engines are forward from the COG & wing creating issues when on max thrust, causing pitch up. Thus MCAS to alleviate the potential stall problems that might cause.

    Lipstick on a pig, as a friend stated (flying pilot).

    But, what the fuck do I know as I am not even a dentist.

    The floggings will continue until morale improves.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Meathelmet View Post
    Otherwise good, but F-35 is manufactured by LM...
    Thank god Boeing lost that competition. Or we would have been stuck with the ugliest fighters ever.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Turin, Hugging The Horse
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by billyk View Post
    Thank god Boeing lost that competition. Or we would have been stuck with the ugliest fighters ever.


    You don't say?

    The floggings will continue until morale improves.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,658
    Preliminary Report for the Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX crash:

    The Aircraft possessed a valid certificate of airworthiness;

    The crew obtained the license and qualifications to conduct the flight;

    The takeoff roll appeared normal, including normal values of left and right angle-of-attack (AOA).

    Shortly after liftoff, the value of the left angle of attack sensor deviated from the right one and reached 74.5 degrees while the right angle of attack sensor value was 15.3 degrees;then after;the stick shaker activated and remained active until near the end of the flight.

    After autopilot engagement, there were small amplitude roll oscillations accompanied by lateral acceleration, rudder oscillations and slight heading changes; these oscillations also continued after the autopilot disengaged.

    After the autopilot disengaged, the DFDR recorded an automatic aircraft nose down (AND) trim command four times without pilot’s input. As a result, three motions of the stabilizer trim were recorded.The FDR data also indicated that the crew utilized the electric manual trim to counter the automatic AND input.

    The crew performed runaway stabilizer checklist and put the stab trim cutout switch to cutout position and confirmed that the manual trim operation was not working.


    It's a nightmare. The report says that the pilots found manual trim impossible after STAB TRIM CUTOUT. And they didn't have enough time to correct the stabilizer. At 05:43:20, the aircraft began pitching nose down. Additional simultaneous aft column force was applied, but the nose down pitch continues, eventually reaching 40° nose down.

    http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/204...8-d7af1ee17f3e

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    17,723
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but electric manual trim is disabled by the stab trim cutout because it disables the motor that both auto and manual electric trim use. They have to turn the wheel by hand. So they didn't quite follow the procedure which would be keep turning the stab trim wheel by hand. Or am I misunderstanding?
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

Posting Permissions

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