737 max... what now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Maybe I should use a larger, bolded font to help you to understand this, but I find that childish, so I won't.
Anyone who has flown anything is aware of the importance of and use of pitch trim.
It's about as important as breathing and also requires about as much thought.
Why the accident crews couldn't grasp this is a mystery to me, although Boeing enabled the party with what turned out to be a badly thought out system that wasn't at all well documented anywhere.
There is a deeper problem here and it lies in the system by which people are put in the front seats of airliners with very little experience in actually flying even a simple aircraft.
I'll take a thousand hour C172 instructor over the product of an ab initio training academy any time, since the Cessna guy will have seen all sorts of conditions including students trying to kill him and will have felt real fear while in conditions that were far worse than planned while safely on the ground.
This guy has seen awful flights and worked through the problem and returned safely to ground. In short, he learned to handle an aircraft without panic when the cards dealt him turned out to be a really bad hand.

One thing your posts always have is that it is obvious that if there is ever medal for best couch general, it will be given to you.
 
We were told that the forward and up engine pylon was used to prevent the cost of re-designing the landing gear for longer struts, and the associated airframe changes. In hindsight, they would have been better off to do that, compared to what they have lost. Then to bungle The MCAS system which is there to compensate for the thrust angle change due to the engine pylon changes is insane. Note the MAX -10 landing gear has a toggle link to make it longer to compensate for the longer fuse to prevent tail strikes.

This debacle not only affects Boeing and the airlines, but also their supply base, which they have already beat down with PFS (partnering for success). PFS is a program to force suppliers to lower their prices, or be locked out of future work. So you can guess what that means. Some may be hanging on by a thread.

Then this spring, Boeing announces they want to re-classify or lay-off a large portion of their Quality organization. This after the USAF interrupts KC-46A deliveries twice due to FOD and sloppy workmanship (i.e. poor quality). Also customers are complaining about the poor build quality of 787's coming out of the South Carolina plant. Doesn't seem the right thing to do.

Then their was the 787 farm out ordeal, now 777X first flight has been pushed.

I'm a little worried about Boeing, and their ability to get their act together.
 
Originally Posted by JetStar
We were told that the forward and up engine pylon was used to prevent the cost of re-designing the landing gear for longer struts, and the associated airframe changes. In hindsight, they would have been better off to do that, compared to what they have lost. Then to bungle The MCAS system which is there to compensate for the thrust angle change due to the engine pylon changes is insane. Note the MAX -10 landing gear has a toggle link to make it longer to compensate for the longer fuse to prevent tail strikes.

This debacle not only affects Boeing and the airlines, but also their supply base, which they have already beat down with PFS (partnering for success). PFS is a program to force suppliers to lower their prices, or be locked out of future work. So you can guess what that means. Some may be hanging on by a thread.

Then this spring, Boeing announces they want to re-classify or lay-off a large portion of their Quality organization. This after the USAF interrupts KC-46A deliveries twice due to FOD and sloppy workmanship (i.e. poor quality). Also customers are complaining about the poor build quality of 787's coming out of the South Carolina plant. Doesn't seem the right thing to do.

Then their was the 787 farm out ordeal, now 777X first flight has been pushed.

I'm a little worried about Boeing, and their ability to get their act together.

Do not worry, in this socialist country, there is always option of buying more C-17's. I think in 2009 fleet of C17's was 47% over necessary capacity, but I have no doubt we can figure out way's to make more.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Maybe I should use a larger, bolded font to help you to understand this, but I find that childish, so I won't.
Anyone who has flown anything is aware of the importance of and use of pitch trim.
It's about as important as breathing and also requires about as much thought.
Why the accident crews couldn't grasp this is a mystery to me, although Boeing enabled the party with what turned out to be a badly thought out system that wasn't at all well documented anywhere.
There is a deeper problem here and it lies in the system by which people are put in the front seats of airliners with very little experience in actually flying even a simple aircraft.
I'll take a thousand hour C172 instructor over the product of an ab initio training academy any time, since the Cessna guy will have seen all sorts of conditions including students trying to kill him and will have felt real fear while in conditions that were far worse than planned while safely on the ground.
This guy has seen awful flights and worked through the problem and returned safely to ground. In short, he learned to handle an aircraft without panic when the cards dealt him turned out to be a really bad hand.

One thing your posts always have is that it is obvious that if there is ever medal for best couch general, it will be given to you.


While I appreciate the medal, you've more than earned it during your time here.
Get to the point where you can solo a light single and then report back on how easy and natural using pitch trim really is.
Nothing hard about it when you learn to fly a plane by feel and not by rote mechanical procedure.
Even in my field of number crunching, the distinction between those who really understand the accounting and those who can merely follow rote procedure is striking and obvious.
The rote learners can't do what should be intuitively obvious journal entries to save their lives without step by step instructions.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27


Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.


Are you talking about the AF 447 crash over the South Atlantic? If so, IIRC the hypothesis is that super cooled rainwater instantly froze on the the outboard instruments which rendered them useless. I watched a video demonstration of how ice almost instantly forms in this situation.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/05/...-more-questions-than-answers-pilot/15808
 
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases

I'd like to know where all those max 8's are stored? Special flights to the Arizona desert?


Mostly, yes. Southwest has all their 737M8s in the Mojave Desert and a crew that spins up the engines, exercises the flight controls and inspect the planes. Boeing is running out of space at their Renton plant, I dunno if they are flying any to Paine Field next to their Everett/Mukilteo plant.

I was just between YVR and SFO - I didn't see planes stored there for obvious reasons, despite the fact SFO is home to a major UA maintenance base.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by fdcg27


Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.


Are you talking about the AF 447 crash over the South Atlantic? If so, IIRC the hypothesis is that super cooled rainwater instantly froze on the the outboard instruments which rendered them useless. I watched a video demonstration of how ice almost instantly forms in this situation.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/05/...-more-questions-than-answers-pilot/15808


You're right, but the crew should have been able to stop and think that, as someone else put it somewhere else, the plane had been fine on the pitch and power settings it was flying on. Doing nothing would have been the appropriate crew response.
This plane was lost due to nothing more than an inadequately trained PF who reacted to erroneous information in a state of blind panic.
Not what any of us want to see in those sitting in the front of any airliner we find ourselves on and it is hard to believe that any trained airman would hold full back stick for a 36,000 foot fully stalled ride into the Atlantic yet that's exactly what happened.
Incidentally, the French have filed criminal charges against Air France in this case for negligence in their training of their crews. There's also the aspect of this aircraft still having the original Thales pitot tubes that were known to be prone to becoming unreliable due to icing and had not had the recommended replacement with Goodrich units. This replacement was merely recommended and not subject to whatever the equivalent of an AD note is in EASA land.
Yet another factor is that the senior pilot aboard planned a route through known storms and then left it to his juniors to deal with it while he napped.
 
I've heard that Moses Lake WA is a storage area, mainly for planes built but not delivered to airlines. Boeing Field has several.

Paine Field just opened for commercial flights so space may be at a premium. Brand new terminal etc.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by fdcg27


Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.


Are you talking about the AF 447 crash over the South Atlantic? If so, IIRC the hypothesis is that super cooled rainwater instantly froze on the the outboard instruments which rendered them useless. I watched a video demonstration of how ice almost instantly forms in this situation.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/05/...-more-questions-than-answers-pilot/15808


You're right, but the crew should have been able to stop and think that, as someone else put it somewhere else, the plane had been fine on the pitch and power settings it was flying on. Doing nothing would have been the appropriate crew response.
This plane was lost due to nothing more than an inadequately trained PF who reacted to erroneous information in a state of blind panic.
Not what any of us want to see in those sitting in the front of any airliner we find ourselves on and it is hard to believe that any trained airman would hold full back stick for a 36,000 foot fully stalled ride into the Atlantic yet that's exactly what happened.
Incidentally, the French have filed criminal charges against Air France in this case for negligence in their training of their crews. There's also the aspect of this aircraft still having the original Thales pitot tubes that were known to be prone to becoming unreliable due to icing and had not had the recommended replacement with Goodrich units. This replacement was merely recommended and not subject to whatever the equivalent of an AD note is in EASA land.
Yet another factor is that the senior pilot aboard planned a route through known storms and then left it to his juniors to deal with it while he napped.



Do you think they should've been able to stay aloft based upon the faulty instrument readings and a lack of visibility?
 
Outside visibility is not a factor for any airline pilot and would never be of any importance except as a helpful reference for takeoffs and landings. Even a PPL has to demonstrate the ability to manage an aircraft without outside reference to earn his ticket, although most of us would fudge this in practice with a properly trimmed airplane if we did blunder into a cloud or fog bank by either pulling back the throttle a smidge or using carb heat, either of which would bring a gentle decent, since the aircraft will seek its trimmed airspeed, which would hopefully allow us to break into clear air before the ground intervenes.
Airline crews are also supposed to be trained to deal with unreliable airspeed indications.
Boeing includes pitch and power settings to be used in this situation in their AFMs and I'm sure that Airbus does as well.
In this case, the aircraft was perfectly fine with the pitch and power already applied. Unless something drastic happened with either, and it didn't, then the crew should have left things alone while figuring out what exactly was going on.
Hundreds of people lost their lives in this crew-induced accident.
Where is the outrage over this?
 
Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases

I'd like to know where all those max 8's are stored? Special flights to the Arizona desert?


Mostly, yes. Southwest has all their 737M8s in the Mojave Desert and a crew that spins up the engines, exercises the flight controls and inspect the planes. Boeing is running out of space at their Renton plant, I dunno if they are flying any to Paine Field next to their Everett/Mukilteo plant.

I was just between YVR and SFO - I didn't see planes stored there for obvious reasons, despite the fact SFO is home to a major UA maintenance base.

American has theirs kind of all over the place- Tulsa, Miami, and Roswell forming the bulk of the storage.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Maybe I should use a larger, bolded font to help you to understand this, but I find that childish, so I won't.
Anyone who has flown anything is aware of the importance of and use of pitch trim.
It's about as important as breathing and also requires about as much thought.
Why the accident crews couldn't grasp this is a mystery to me, although Boeing enabled the party with what turned out to be a badly thought out system that wasn't at all well documented anywhere.
There is a deeper problem here and it lies in the system by which people are put in the front seats of airliners with very little experience in actually flying even a simple aircraft.
I'll take a thousand hour C172 instructor over the product of an ab initio training academy any time, since the Cessna guy will have seen all sorts of conditions including students trying to kill him and will have felt real fear while in conditions that were far worse than planned while safely on the ground.
This guy has seen awful flights and worked through the problem and returned safely to ground. In short, he learned to handle an aircraft without panic when the cards dealt him turned out to be a really bad hand.

One thing your posts always have is that it is obvious that if there is ever medal for best couch general, it will be given to you.


While I appreciate the medal, you've more than earned it during your time here.
Get to the point where you can solo a light single and then report back on how easy and natural using pitch trim really is.
Nothing hard about it when you learn to fly a plane by feel and not by rote mechanical procedure.
Even in my field of number crunching, the distinction between those who really understand the accounting and those who can merely follow rote procedure is striking and obvious.
The rote learners can't do what should be intuitively obvious journal entries to save their lives without step by step instructions.


I heard they are looking for accountants to fix an issue. You should definitely look for some consulting opportunities.
But keep entertaining us.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by fdcg27


Consider the Air France crew who couldn't figure out that they were holding their aircraft in a deep stall.


Are you talking about the AF 447 crash over the South Atlantic? If so, IIRC the hypothesis is that super cooled rainwater instantly froze on the the outboard instruments which rendered them useless. I watched a video demonstration of how ice almost instantly forms in this situation.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/05/...-more-questions-than-answers-pilot/15808


You're right, but the crew should have been able to stop and think that, as someone else put it somewhere else, the plane had been fine on the pitch and power settings it was flying on. Doing nothing would have been the appropriate crew response.
This plane was lost due to nothing more than an inadequately trained PF who reacted to erroneous information in a state of blind panic.
Not what any of us want to see in those sitting in the front of any airliner we find ourselves on and it is hard to believe that any trained airman would hold full back stick for a 36,000 foot fully stalled ride into the Atlantic yet that's exactly what happened.
Incidentally, the French have filed criminal charges against Air France in this case for negligence in their training of their crews. There's also the aspect of this aircraft still having the original Thales pitot tubes that were known to be prone to becoming unreliable due to icing and had not had the recommended replacement with Goodrich units. This replacement was merely recommended and not subject to whatever the equivalent of an AD note is in EASA land.
Yet another factor is that the senior pilot aboard planned a route through known storms and then left it to his juniors to deal with it while he napped.



Do you think they should've been able to stay aloft based upon the faulty instrument readings and a lack of visibility?

It is a standard test requirement in accounting school.
 
I don't know where to begin helping you to understand what you don't know about flying any aircraft.
Your posts make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue, although that certainly wasn't what you intended.
Yeah, you can fly any aircraft without outside reference, although you appear to be unaware of this.
There are also published operating defaults to be used when reliable airspeed indications are lost.
Surely you don't think that a lack of outside vision and the loss of reliable airspeed indications should result in the loss of an aircraft and that there is no redundancy?
It doesn't matter in any event, since you appear impervious to learning.
You'd be surprised what one learns in accounting school, particular since most bright enough to be any good at it have other interests.
Let me tell you about scuba, something else about which you probably know as much about as you do flying.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
I don't know where to begin helping you to understand what you don't know about flying any aircraft.
Your posts make it abundantly clear that you haven't a clue, although that certainly wasn't what you intended.
Yeah, you can fly any aircraft without outside reference, although you appear to be unaware of this.
There are also published operating defaults to be used when reliable airspeed indications are lost.
Surely you don't think that a lack of outside vision and the loss of reliable airspeed indications should result in the loss of an aircraft and that there is no redundancy?
It doesn't matter in any event, since you appear impervious to learning.
You'd be surprised what one learns in accounting school, particular since most bright enough to be any good at it have other interests.
Let me tell you about scuba, something else about which you probably know as much about as you do flying.

I give you that, IDK what in the world takes to be accountant. I never met anyone who wanted to be one, and I only know one, one that does my taxes.
I also do not know anything about scuba too. But you see, I have lost too many friends in this line of work and saw to many narcissistic, egoistic wanna be pilots who "would"do things right. In this community never [censored] on dead, and especially never [censored] on dead without knowing facts, which you do not know, nor I do at this point.
But I am open to hear more about accounting, might put me to sleep faster.
 
Last edited:
The Air France crash is very hard for many to absorb, (myself included). Simply based on how a skilled, ATR rated pilot could keep an aircraft in a stalled condition, (stick back), for a 35,000+ foot descent, with warning horns blaring, right up until they pancaked the thing into the ocean, killing everyone on board. Especially when you consider stalls, (along with how and why they occur, and basic recovery techniques), is flight school 101 stuff.

You would think at some point, after descending 5 MILES or so, a light bulb would have went off in one of the crew's heads that said, "You know what, this isn't working, how about we try something else?"

Pilots, like most professions, are of mixed skill levels. And Air France was / is not a, "cut rate airline". We're not talking Ryan Air or Easy Jet here. It's a bit scary that there are pilots like this flying for major trans oceanic carriers, that are mixed in with people with the skill level of Al Haynes or Sully...... Or Astro.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
The Air France crash is very hard for many to absorb, (myself included). Simply based on how a skilled, ATR rated pilot could keep an aircraft in a stalled condition, (stick back), for a 35,000+ foot descent, with warning horns blaring, right up until they pancaked the thing into the ocean, killing everyone on board. Especially when you consider stalls, (along with how and why they occur, and basic recovery techniques), is flight school 101 stuff.

You would think at some point, after descending 5 MILES or so, a light bulb would have went off in one of the crew's heads that said, "You know what, this isn't working, how about we try something else?"

Pilots, like most professions, are of mixed skill levels. And Air France was / is not a, "cut rate airline". We're not talking Ryan Air or Easy Jet here. It's a bit scary that there are pilots like this flying for major trans oceanic carriers, that are mixed in with people with the skill level of Al Haynes or Sully...... Or Astro.

AF 447
 
Your trolling the same line based upon your own ignorance becomes tiresome to everyone here.
Your posts in this thread make me wonder whether anything you post is informed by any actual subject matter knowledge.
Nothing at all risky about either flying light aircraft or scuba, since one has complete control over the risks involved.
A flight over the countryside in a C172 on a beautiful summer day or a dive to some reasonable depth in clearish water are both about as safe as sitting at a keyboard typing trash-talk.
The individual determines the risk level with either private flying or scuba, so either activity is all about appropriate risk management.
You really need to get out more and explore all of the interesting things there are to do while you're still young enough and fit enough to experience them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top