Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 228

Thread: 737 MAX

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    So it's the COG of the airframe with NEW engine mounting points that's fucked right?
    No. It's the FAA certification shortcut that's fucked. Read TS's post carefully: in order to certify the new model under the old they had to make it no easier to stall--compared to the existing airplane. That's where most clusterfucks start. Not to suggest throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but that cert method needs attention at the regulatory level.
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    this is an internet forum, it is assumed no one actually knows what they're talking about, and nothing anyone says here makes any difference. If you came here seeking an informed opinion on the subject, I'm sorry you were disappointed. If you came here knowing it would all be BS and you just wanted to spout about it being BS, go crawl back under a rock.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    The C of G varies with how the aircraft is loaded. But that isn't the issue, it's the extra lift from the tops of the new pylons and nacelles.

    The airframe itself didn't really change. Put the old engines on it, and it would fly like the old one.
    Seems like the best plan for a safe and tested resolution to the problem eh??

    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    No. It's the FAA certification shortcut that's fucked. Read TS's post carefully: in order to certify the new model under the old they had to make it no easier to stall--compared to the existing airplane. That's where most clusterfucks start. Not to suggest throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but that cert method needs attention at the regulatory level.
    See above..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    6,296
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    It's the FAA certification shortcut that's fucked.
    For sure. There's a big economic factor too. Boeing doesn't want to design a new narrow body from scratch. Airlines that only have 737s in their fleets don't want to incur the huge cost to retrain every pilot and mechanic, and purchase all of the spare parts required.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,032
    so you are saying you drive 737's ?

    between the anti stall software, some of the cockpit controls its actualy a different fucking airplane

    but to cut corners its a 737 so initialy at least nobody needed any extra training ?
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    18,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    The airframe itself didn't really change. Put the old engines on it, and it would fly like the old one.
    Yes, the 737 Max 8 is the same length as the airplane it's replacing-- the 737-800--to within a couple inches.

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er
    but to cut corners its a 737 so initialy at least nobody needed any extra training ?
    It's not really about cutting corners. It's about designing an airplane that will effectively compete with the Airbus A320 Neo, which is itself just a variant of the basic A320 airframe that's been flying since the '80s. Making variants of existing aircraft is the bread and butter of commercial aviation.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,032
    if you change enough shit but call it a 737 just to get around more training at what point is it a really new airplane?

    there were accounts of pilots who were assigned to fly their first MAX who admitted to not knowing what every thing in the new cockpit did ... sounds like a shortcut to me ?
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    18,047
    I don't disagree that the airlines and/or Boeing undersold the need for pilot (re)training for the Max, but it's definitely still a 737.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Turin, Hugging The Horse
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    Jeez

    I thought that I read somewhere that there are two sensors - for the Ethiopian crash one registered 15 deg and the other (erroneously) 70 deg. So the MCAS system just used the one when two were on board?
    Afaik, this is why airbus uses 3 AOA sensors in most (all?) planes because of their fbw design, so if one fails and start to feed erroneous data, it is isolated.
    I would be my 0.2$ that Boeing is forced to go that route as well... Atm failure of one sensor causes total system failure as there is no way for the computers to know which one has failed.

    The floggings will continue until morale improves.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    6,296
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    so you are saying you drive 737's ?
    Yeah, I used to fly it for a living. Now I'm flying an Airbus.

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    between the anti stall software, some of the cockpit controls its actualy a different fucking airplane

    but to cut corners its a 737 so initialy at least nobody needed any extra training ?
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    if you change enough shit but call it a 737 just to get around more training at what point is it a really new airplane?

    there were accounts of pilots who were assigned to fly their first MAX who admitted to not knowing what every thing in the new cockpit did ... sounds like a shortcut to me ?
    If you've flown the NG for long enough (or enough cycles really) to be totally comfortable in it (maybe six months to a year for most pilots) you could jump right in a max and have no problem. Aside from the displays, the cockpit is the same. Procedurally, there are minor differences.

    RE: those pilots in the article, the thing with SRS/SMS reporting is that it only happens when something happens. As in, "awww shit, we fucked that approach up and had to do a go around." "Well... I was late with the flap selection because my scan was a little off because of these newfangled displays." "Yeah! And these new engines just don't spool like the old ones did." "Perfect. That should cover our asses."

    "We flew the new variant today and the trip was uneventful" said no report ever.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,936
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    so you are saying you drive 737's
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    Yeah, I used to fly it for a living. Now I'm flying an Airbus..
    We're not all dentists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    18,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    Yeah, I used to fly it for a living. Now I'm flying an Airbus.
    Except for when Otto takes over. What's your vector, Victor?

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,648
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    Except for when Otto takes over. What's your vector, Victor?
    He doesn't work hard enough on defense either

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    6,296
    Quote Originally Posted by mcski View Post
    He doesn't work hard enough on defense either
    ...except during the playoffs.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,133
    Ted's a bus driver

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    We're not all dentists.


    Not yet anyway
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    8,635
    I donít understand all this sensor software BS. I understand aircraft development in engines and airframes equals fuel efficiency but why replace cables and pulleys with wires and software?

    Profit?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Cono Este View Post
    airframes equals fuel efficiency but why replace cables and pulleys with wires and software?
    fly by wire is part of that airframe and fuel efficiency circle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    if you change enough shit but call it a 737 just to get around more training at what point is it a really new airplane?

    there were accounts of pilots who were assigned to fly their first MAX who admitted to not knowing what every thing in the new cockpit did ... sounds like a shortcut to me ?
    Shortcuts are safer than redesigns because existing designs have less unknowns. They're cheaper because they have less (mainly) regulatory costs. The safest thing of all would probably be to just keep selling the old 737's, which happens to be the biggest shortcut possible. The costs they're trying to avoid end with training, but start with design, verification, validation, qualification, manufacturing (tooling, programming, training, inspection...), inventory, spares, and even maintenance procedures before they get to retraining. And in the long run new pilots have to be trained anyway, but new parts cost money from beginning to end, so the less new stuff can be designed for a "new" plane the better, both for cost and safety.

    But since a lot of those costs are regulatory (proving a new design is airworthy is a lot more expensive for both the FAA and the airframer) there is a huge monetary incentive to simplify that. Right and wrong, arguing similarity with existing designs is where logic goes to be tortured.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,648

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    36,434
    MAGA!

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,983
    Shit is downright criminal.
    The system points the nose of the plane down, but it's a dealer option to be able to turn it off? And no warning about conflicting sensor readings? Is that a normal occurrence? How often to sensors give conflicting information and why?
    People need to be in jail for this.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,011
    Also, the Boeing Board opened themselves up to some serious repercussions I think: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.bc3b58f012da

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Shit is downright criminal.
    The system points the nose of the plane down, but it's a dealer option to be able to turn it off? And no warning about conflicting sensor readings? Is that a normal occurrence? How often to sensors give conflicting information and why?
    People need to be in jail for this.
    No, it's a dealer option to be informed the AOA sensors are malfunctioning if/when AutoCrash™ is activated. So if the option isn't purchased, pilots won't be specifically alerted that AOA sensors are in disagreement. All they know is primary reading(s) indicates AOA issue and the (tail flaps?) push the plane into descent.

    Even for airlines that bought the safety option that enables the AOA disagreement warning, they were informed this warning would activate before the plane took off (presumably logging prior flight info and preventing a subsequent flight without maintenance?). But that turned out to be bullshit as well and Boeing confirmed just recently that the AOA disagreement warning light only activates >400 off the deck, so real-time.

    And for those that purchased the option and got the erroneous guidance on the warning light activating on the ground, they didn't receive much in the way of a warning of the existence of AutoCrash™. It was assumed within Boeing that pilots would know what to do should AutoCrash™ activate.

    Final kicker is that AutoCrash™ was strengthened late in the development cycle.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,032
    whats the number, you know whats the lawsuit worth, how many billions, how is it tliable to play out ?

    either way this is gona keep some lawyers in Perrier & water for yars to come eh
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    whats the number, you know whats the lawsuit worth, how many billions, how is it tliable to play out ?

    either way this is gona keep some lawyers in Perrier & water for yars to come eh
    I'm not a rocket surgerist but it seems the following legal paths are either active or will soon be pursued:
    - Insurers for Lion Air and Ethopian to seek recourse from Boeing for introducing AutoCrash™ into the marketplace
    - Lion Air and Ethopian to sue for lost revenue from network disruption, loss of employees, loss to reputation, etc.
    - Domestic and foreign regulators to puni$h Boeing for introducing AutoCrash™ into the marketplace
    - Families of victims to sue for defective equipment leading to loss of life
    - New order book for 737 Max becomes uncertain as both new and existing orders have potential loopholes related to 'undisclosed critical product defects affecting safety' that could void orders or free up carriers to reduce/cancel
    - Carriers impacted by the grounding to sue for operational disruption due to non-disclosure of a critical safety defect

Posting Permissions

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