787 problems

[Just a civilian pilot]

I know that demands patience - but, wait for the investigation …

My investigation on how the media covers airlines, and accidents/incidents has been completed.

Yes, for the other stuff, wait until the investigation ( preliminary report ) is completed.

 

[4WD]

My investigation on how the media covers airlines, and accidents/incidents has been completed.

Yes, for the other stuff, wait until the investigation ( preliminary report ) is completed.

Comment was not directed at you - Would have done RE …
If you look at my other posts - saying the same thing as you …

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

I read an article last night that the pilot said his instruments also went completely blank for several seconds. Maybe I misinterpreted.

Ah, it was a New York Post article. So probably not accurate lol.

 

[wpod]

Tell him to wear his seatbelt, just like the Flight crew told him half a dozen times between when he boarded and when this happened.

People who are belted, get surprised by clear air turbulence.

People who are too stupid to wear their seatbelts, often get injured by clear air turbulence.

Flight attendants have been killed by clear air turbulence as they hit the ceiling, then fall back down, breaking their neck. As graphic as that may sound, people seem to forget that you’re doing nearly 600 miles an hour in a metal tube, and the atmosphere itself is not smooth.

From additional reporting on this incident, it’s simply a turbulence incident, with an unusually high number of stupid people on board who were not wearing their seatbelt.

Not a 787 problem, more of a passenger stupidity problem.

The best part of going fast,,, is the going fast. when going 600 mph things happen at the 600 mph rate. If you fall off a walking Horse the results are different than falling off of a running Horse. Do not ask how I know.

 

[wpod]

I read an article last night that the pilot said his instruments also went completely blank for several seconds. Maybe I misinterpreted.

Ah, it was a New York Post article. So probably not accurate lol.

Probably the g forces.

 

[c502cid]

A side story on turbulence and great training.

I have no memory of where I was but I was on an American Airlines flight when we hit unexpected moderate-severe turbulence. The FA was doing a coffee service at the time. She dumped that pot of coffee into the aisle carpet so fast to make sure it didn't burn anyone, I was amazed at her instincts and training kicking in.

 

[slo town]

So we have a story about a 787 hitting clear air turbulence but half the story is about the 737 Max. The media is a disgrace. Coming soon; a 737 Max gets hijacked, the flight crew killed in mid-flight and the plane craters into the ground. Today's media would regurgitate the MCAS story and wonder whether or not it was the real cause of the plane crashing.

Scott

 

[hemioiler]

Boeing execs must've hired the same 'cleaning service' that Putin uses...

Has to be a different one as he didn't fall from a window.

 

[Cujet]

While no aviation expert - seems to me as though 'Boeing quality' has more, or less gone down the toilet...

I've been around aviation long enough to know just how good modern aircraft really are. The idea that Boeing quality has slipped, is utter nonsense. People simply don't know or remember just how many faults older aircraft designs really had. Please, don't believe the news, or popular culture, they are no more accurate with aviation stories then they are with all the other gibberish they spew.

I don't want to excuse the 737 max crashes, but we must recognize American crews experienced the same problem multiple times, handled it correctly, landed safely and had maintenance address the issue. Looking back it is too bad the FAA didn't generate an emergency AD at the first event. The idea that the entire aircraft is flawed due to a single subsystem design problem is incorrect.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I might have missed it, but I am unaware of any u.s airlines B737 max that had problems due to MCAS that were confirmed.

I know for sure , no pilots at my airline had complained about controllability problems due to MCAS.

 

[Astro14]

I might have missed it, but I am unaware of any u.s airlines B737 max that had problems due to MCAS that were confirmed.

I know for sure , no pilots with my airline had complained about controllability problems due to MCAS.

Nothing that warranted a report to the FAA or the NTSB because it was simply identified as a maintenance malfunction. The crew disconnected the trim, then flew the airplane - buddies at Southwest say that it (what they thought was runaway trim) happened a couple times.

 

[y_p_w]

I might have missed it, but I am unaware of any u.s airlines B737 max that had problems due to MCAS that were confirmed.

I know for sure , no pilots at my airline had complained about controllability problems due to MCAS.

I remember at the time there were reports of several times when it was turned off manually.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Nothing that warranted a report to the FAA or the NTSB because it was simply identified as a maintenance malfunction. The crew disconnected the trim, then flew the airplane - buddies at Southwest say that it (what they thought was runaway trim) happened a couple times.

If I was reviewing an aircraft logbook that had a remark ( log book defect ) about controllability issues due to the nose going down, and the crew having to deactivate the trim to maintain control but maintenance could not find anything wrong, I would refuse to take the aircraft ( that’s what happened with the one that crashed in Indonesia ….history in the logbook ) until they found out why the nose was pitching down, on its own. If it’s not the trim, what would cause it to happen?

One of the things that really stood out during the post crash 737 MAX crash in Indonesia was the fact the aircraft had a previous history in the logbook and yet maintenance returned it to service, and pilots agreed to take it despite the cause still being unknown.

I guarantee folks, I would not accept an aircraft with a mysterious history like that.

 

[4WD]

So we have a story about a 787 hitting clear air turbulence but half the story is about the 737 Max. The media is a disgrace. Coming soon; a 737 Max gets hijacked, the flight crew killed in mid-flight and the plane craters into the ground. Today's media would regurgitate the MCAS story and wonder whether or not it was the real cause of the plane crashing.

Scott

Not long ago it was skydiver forgets parachute and dies from Covid

 

[slo town]

Not long ago it was skydiver forgets parachute and dies from Covid

Exactly.

 

[4WD]

I've been around aviation long enough to know just how good modern aircraft really are. The idea that Boeing quality has slipped, is utter nonsense. People simply don't know or remember just how many faults older aircraft designs really had. Please, don't believe the news, or popular culture, they are no more accurate with aviation stories then they are with all the other gibberish they spew.

I don't want to excuse the 737 max crashes, but we must recognize American crews experienced the same problem multiple times, handled it correctly, landed safely and had maintenance address the issue. Looking back it is too bad the FAA didn't generate an emergency AD at the first event. The idea that the entire aircraft is flawed due to a single subsystem design problem is incorrect.

We too have corporate planes and an aviation team who reports upward direct to corporate … they access many airlines and aircraft … And, they put out a blacklist - so I can’t fly some of these airlines involved in the crashes … Never could …

 

[Cujet]

I guarantee folks, I would not accept an aircraft with a mysterious history like that.

Very smart. I also like the idea of a well defined level of fault tolerance. Of course we have an MEL and CDL in corporate aviation (allows flight with known faults or missing items). However, there are times when 2 or more items can be deferred, and it is a good idea to address them prior to flight.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Very smart. I also like the idea of a well defined level of fault tolerance. Of course we have an MEL and CDL in corporate aviation (allows flight with known faults or missing items). However, there are times when 2 or more items can be deferred, and it is a good idea to address them prior to flight.

We are allowed multiple, unrelated deferrals , but it’s up to the Captain if they are o.k with it.

I have never refused to take an aircraft because of a maintence deferral but I would never accept any aircraft that had a previous crew report a serious flight control problem and maintenance could not find the problem.

 

[Astro14]

I’m genuinely surprised by this bit of reporting this morning, from the WSJ. That a flight attendant hit a cockpit seat switch by accident, forcing the pilot into the controls.

So, still not an airplane problem, but certainly not the turbulence I had argued.

Still, regardless of cause, wear that seatbelt!

 

[wpod]

I’m genuinely surprised by this bit of reporting this morning, from the WSJ. That a flight attendant hit a cockpit seat switch by accident, forcing the pilot into the controls.

So, still not an airplane problem, but certainly not the turbulence I had argued.

Still, regardless of cause, wear that seatbelt!

With my experience steering a Cessna 152 ,,,, would an airliner respond that fast to an input as far as this reported incident? [ a dive or a violent drop in altitude ?]