Results 101 to 125 of 270
Thread: 737 MAX
-
04-05-2019, 12:01 PM #101
-
04-05-2019, 12:19 PM #102
-
04-05-2019, 12:27 PM #103Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,810
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
-
04-05-2019, 12:42 PM #104
Yes, the 737 Max 8 is the same length as the airplane it's replacing-- the 737-800--to within a couple inches.
Originally Posted by XXX-er
-
04-05-2019, 12:54 PM #105Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,810
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
-
04-05-2019, 01:02 PM #106
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.
-
04-05-2019, 01:23 PM #107
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.
-
04-05-2019, 01:31 PM #108
Yeah, I used to fly it for a living. Now I'm flying an Airbus.
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.
-
04-05-2019, 01:38 PM #109
-
04-05-2019, 01:46 PM #110
-
04-05-2019, 02:01 PM #111Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,262
-
04-05-2019, 02:03 PM #112
-
04-05-2019, 02:41 PM #113
-
04-05-2019, 03:30 PM #114
I don’t 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
-
04-05-2019, 03:34 PM #115
-
04-05-2019, 04:55 PM #116
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.
-
05-06-2019, 09:58 AM #117Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,262
-
05-06-2019, 10:16 AM #118
MAGA!
-
05-06-2019, 10:45 AM #119
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.
-
05-06-2019, 10:57 AM #120Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
Also, the Boeing Board opened themselves up to some serious repercussions I think: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.bc3b58f012da
-
05-06-2019, 11:04 AM #121Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,810
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 ehLee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
05-06-2019, 11:31 AM #122The Trump administration grounded all 737 Max jets worldwide
That article isn't the bombshell they think it is. One stick shaker going off immediately after liftoff while the other one isn't is a pretty good indication of AoA disagreement.
-
05-06-2019, 11:41 AM #123
-
05-06-2019, 11:57 PM #124Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Posts
- 3,580
-
05-07-2019, 06:38 AM #125
There are legitimate arguments for why you don't want more warning lights. Information overload, particularly in an emergency, is a known safety concern. So giving the customer the option to decide that themselves is reasonable (in theory--assuming things work as they're supposed to).
Bookmarks