737 max... what now?

[George Bynum]

Originally Posted by Astro14
In the meantime:

We have "factories" churning out "pilots" who can't fly effectively when there is a problem with airplane.

They've never been over 30 degrees of bank.

They don't understand flying, much less crew resource management, effective thinking, or handling emergencies.

Regulatory authorities and airlines need to fundamentally change how pilots are trained.

Teach them to actually fly. To think.

Require 25 hours in a glider ... inexpensive and educational. I'll note that Sullenberger has his CFIG. Doesn't the Air Force do initial training in gliders?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by George Bynum
Originally Posted by Astro14
In the meantime:

We have "factories" churning out "pilots" who can't fly effectively when there is a problem with airplane.

They've never been over 30 degrees of bank.

They don't understand flying, much less crew resource management, effective thinking, or handling emergencies.

Regulatory authorities and airlines need to fundamentally change how pilots are trained.

Teach them to actually fly. To think.

Require 25 hours in a glider ... inexpensive and educational. I'll note that Sullenberger has his CFIG. Doesn't the Air Force do initial training in gliders?


I would say, all air forces do. Many have air force high schools from which you have to graduate on glider if one goes pilots route.
In former Yugoslavia, Air Force Academy was only for those who graduate air force high school. Gliders, parachute etc. were done in high school.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by sloinker
As an aside, I saw a documentary a couple years ago that showed some stark differences in the assembly of planes in South Carolina and Washington state. The machinists etc in Washington stating they wouldn't fly on a Carolina built Boeing. Don't remember the airframe(s) being discussed and the gripes were mostly about mechanical assembly by less than competent employees and approvals by unqualified inspectors. The 737 maxx will be back sooner or later and the hubbub will be mostly forgotten soon afterwards.


This statement, although posted in good faith is laughable.
First, its not even part of the thread here and assembly was not at fault here.

Second, typical internet hysteria, the "documentary" that you saw a couple years ago was a propaganda "documentary" by the Washington State Boeing union vs the NON Union South Carolina workers.
You do not think for a second that the union will give up trying to "discredit" the Boeing non union plant in SC do you?
They will be under constant attack, much like what is going on in Washington DC. Bad against Good, misinformation, lies and propaganda.

There is a new word for this in the last couple years = "Fake News"

Boeing has problems in both plants. KC46 is still CAT1. 8 months after they promised they will address issues, they still did not.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Will Airbus pay off European regulators to find more problems and postpone the 737Max return ?

FAA will eventually clear it to fly in the USA, but in Europe might be a very difference story....


That is what happens when one undermines institutional capacity bcs. "business knows better."
After this EASA has every right to question it, but be ready for Chinese. This is opening for them and building their institutional "relevance."

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

After reading this article online this afternoon, another article popped up stating Dennis Muilenburg loses his Boeing chairman role, but stays on as CEO.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...ng-faa-over-737-max-design-and-approval/

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by fdcg27


There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.


But was it just that (hiring via the military) practice the reason why Korean Air and China Airlines had bad safety record from the 1980s-early 2000s?

Not saying that military pilots are bad, but how a civil vs. military air crew(more so on a fighter) communicates and operate in the office dramatically different?

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27


There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.


But was it just that (hiring via the military) practice the reason why Korean Air and China Airlines had bad safety record from the 1980s-early 2000s?

Not saying that military pilots are bad, but how a civil vs. military air crew(more so on a fighter) communicates and operate in the office dramatically different?

Is it possible that their military culture is or was different and not conducive to safe travel while hauling passengers?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27


There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.


But was it just that (hiring via the military) practice the reason why Korean Air and China Airlines had bad safety record from the 1980s-early 2000s?

Not saying that military pilots are bad, but how a civil vs. military air crew(more so on a fighter) communicates and operate in the office dramatically different?

Lufthansa had for some years moratorium on hiring military pilots due to cultural differences. Once pilot shortages hit them too, they had to change practice.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27


There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.


But was it just that (hiring via the military) practice the reason why Korean Air and China Airlines had bad safety record from the 1980s-early 2000s?

Not saying that military pilots are bad, but how a civil vs. military air crew(more so on a fighter) communicates and operate in the office dramatically different?


You're way off base in your understanding of this. Military pilots, fighter pilots in particular, excel at communication. They have to. They have seconds to convey life/death information, where every other pilot has minutes to convey important information.

The crashes at Korean Air and China Airlines had nothing to do with military pilots or their training, and everything to do with hierarchical society and a cockpit culture that reinforced the hierarchy, to the utter detriment of the crew's ability to point out an error.

That cockpit culture and hierarchy continues to exist within some carriers.

Asiana 214, a perfectly operating 777, hit the sea wall in SFO because no one wanted to tell the captain that he was making an error.

That's hierarchy for you.

NOTHING to do with military training or experience.

Military pilots get hired easily at major airlines, and the application/interview process weeds out the autocrats, the training and a modern, CRM approach re-train the rest into effective crew members.

But that process is lacking outside of Europe and North America.

 

[slo town]

Those on this thread should find this 2009 story about Air France #447 interesting. It's absolutely riveting.

Scott

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by SLO_Town
Those on this thread should find this 2009 story about Air France #447 interesting. It's absolutely riveting.

Scott

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

It is posted several times. That piece is really good. His recent NYT article is Boeing hit job.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27


There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.


But was it just that (hiring via the military) practice the reason why Korean Air and China Airlines had bad safety record from the 1980s-early 2000s?

Not saying that military pilots are bad, but how a civil vs. military air crew(more so on a fighter) communicates and operate in the office dramatically different?


You're way off base in your understanding of this. Military pilots, fighter pilots in particular, excel at communication. They have to. They have seconds to convey life/death information, where every other pilot has minutes to convey important information.

The crashes at Korean Air and China Airlines had nothing to do with military pilots or their training, and everything to do with hierarchical society and a cockpit culture that reinforced the hierarchy, to the utter detriment of the crew's ability to point out an error.

That cockpit culture and hierarchy continues to exist within some carriers.

Asiana 214, a perfectly operating 777, hit the sea wall in SFO because no one wanted to tell the captain that he was making an error.

That's hierarchy for you.

NOTHING to do with military training or experience.

Military pilots get hired easily at major airlines, and the application/interview process weeds out the autocrats, the training and a modern, CRM approach re-train the rest into effective crew members.

But that process is lacking outside of Europe and North America.

Two of my friends died bcs. of lack of communication. One in UTVA 75 when four "full birds" were going to HQ and no one wanted to tell pilot that he is doing turn wrong, thinking he knows. They slammed into mountain above Zadar in Croatia.
Another friend, died in MIG-21 in Romania. He was their most promising officer. Flew F16, EF2000, anything Romania wanted to potentially buy, he would tried it. He was at AWC with me. Went back, needed to get back into routine, got into plane with LTC (he was colonel) and LTC did not feel compel to tell him what he was doing wrong. Both died.
There are issues across the board, it is human nature.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Of course they will fly again and no, there's no albatross around their neck. Boeing just received an order for 200 of the MAX aircraft at the Paris Air Show.

Right on N89. To fly Boeing is to fly the very best. I'm thinking Airbus, Acne, Boeing and Keister.

 

[The motor guy]

I haven't read all of the posts, but what was wrong with the original boeing 737's? Trying to reinvent the wheel here?

 

[E365]

Originally Posted by motor_oil_madman
I haven't read all of the posts, but what was wrong with the original boeing 737's? Trying to reinvent the wheel here?


Fuel efficiency needed to keep up with competitors.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by motor_oil_madman
I haven't read all of the posts, but what was wrong with the original boeing 737's? Trying to reinvent the wheel here?




Advancements over time plus a bigger passenger capacity and range have kept the 737 relevant. If Boeing stands still and does nothing to improve their aircraft then they will be left behind.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by motor_oil_madman
I haven't read all of the posts, but what was wrong with the original boeing 737's? Trying to reinvent the wheel here?

New engines have much larger diameter. B737 is low to the ground, so makes it very hard to put on larger engines. Even 737-300 had that issue, hence that flat part at the bottom of the engines.
Problem with MAX is that engines had to be pushed forward to fit them, which messed up lift. Boeing did not want to invest money in new plane and we are where we are.
This would be oversimplification, but in nutshell that is it.

 

[FowVay]

The fan diameter on a 3rd generation 737 is 61" (CFM56-7B). The fan diameter on a 4th generation 737 is 69" (CFM LEAP-1B). An eight inch total diameter increase is not drastic.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by FowVay
The fan diameter on a 3rd generation 737 is 61" (CFM56-7B). The fan diameter on a 4th generation 737 is 69" (CFM LEAP-1B). An eight inch total diameter increase is not drastic.


It isn't, but when you've already maxed out overall engine within nacelle diameter, it's enough to require some changes in engine location which might and did lead to unanticipated and undesired knock-on effects.
Moving the engines forward and higher resulted in unanticipated and undesired lift at higher AOA resulting in reduced stick force needed as AOA passed some value. Boeing had to do something to meet the certification standard that it get harder to pull back as stalling AOA was approached.
The solution was MCAS, flawed as it proved to be.
Maybe Boeing should have simply asked the FAA to approve the design based upon a here be dragons limitation in the aircraft's operating certificate since these conditions would rarely or never be reached in commercial use?
They didn't and the outcome was awful for those who died as well as for Boeing, its employees and the firm's many suppliers.
This is not your father's Boeing, although any surviving company will be far closer to the engineering driven Boeing of past decades.

 

[super20dan]

boeing got greedy and pushed the 1967 desighn beyond its limits. cancelling. the 757 was folly. trying to stretch the 737 into a 757 capacity and range .