Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Notices

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Old 06-21-2019, 08:06 AM
  #361  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 56 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

I didn't read any of this thread, (so I don't know if this has been posted) but maybe having tht open when I was searching youtube resulted in the video below being suggested. I like this guy's videos, but CAUTION - he uses vulgar language and has a certain sense of humor:

Old 06-21-2019, 08:26 AM
  #362  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 110 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
The first officer on the Ethiopian flight had less than 200 hours total time as a pilot.
Are you guys 737 pilots? Is that enough experience to be fit for the job?
Our hiring minimums are 2500 hours total time, 1500 turbine and preferred 1000 Pilot in Command of a turbine powered airplane. Those are the minimums to get the HR computer to accept your application. To actually be competitive to be selected for an interview, double that for military pilots, triple it for civilians. Our average newhire is 36 years old, 8000 hours, most of it jet PIC. 70% have been military Standards/Eval pilots or civilian Checkairmen.

Back in the day, I was an RJ Captain at a large regional airline. Before the Buffalo Colgan crash resulted in RJ FO’s requiring ATP certificates, we used to hire most of our FO’s from the collegiate or academy flight programs with 250 to 300 hours of total time. I don’t know where the Ethiopian FO got his training, but the kids I flew with were coming from the best civilian training programs around. Embry Riddle, Perdue, North Dakota, etc. They were well trained, motivated, and had good systems and general knowledge, but their situational awareness was extremely low. Most of their flying was all about the FMC and Mode Control Panel. IOW, they were dependent on the automation. When you take a guy from a 4000 pound, 160 knot airplane with a 70 knot approach speed, and put him in a 175,000 pound airplane that climbs at 310 and has a 150 knot approach speed, it’s going to take a while for his brain to catch up. We call it being ahead of the airplane.

Are low time pilots in transport category airplanes inherently dangerous? No. The problem is, they have a much smaller margin before they become task saturated than a more experienced pilot. So the work load is shifted more towards the Captain. In the case of the Ethiopian crash, that didn’t work out so well.
Old 06-26-2019, 08:21 PM
  #363  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,687
Received 518 Likes on 224 Posts
Default

Boeing 737 MAX could bankrupt Boeing Airlines if it never flies.
Is this possible?
OPINIONFlawed: Why the Boeing 737 Max Should Be Permanently Grounded

https://observer.com/2019/05/boeing-...nently-ground/

and now June 26, 2019 announcement by FAA finds new 'potential risk' in Boeing 737 Max, a setback that could delay plane's return to the skies

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/1577597001/

At any rate, it is stupidly designed and Boeing powers that be made some terrible decisions that tragically killed people.

If it flies again, would you fly it?

Last edited by Kendall; 06-27-2019 at 06:47 AM.
Old 06-27-2019, 02:32 PM
  #364  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
Boeing 737 MAX could bankrupt Boeing Airlines if it never flies.
Is this possible?
OPINIONFlawed: Why the Boeing 737 Max Should Be Permanently Grounded

https://observer.com/2019/05/boeing-...nently-ground/

and now June 26, 2019 announcement by FAA finds new 'potential risk' in Boeing 737 Max, a setback that could delay plane's return to the skies

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/1577597001/

At any rate, it is stupidly designed and Boeing powers that be made some terrible decisions that tragically killed people.

If it flies again, would you fly it?
This plane can't fly without electronic inputs from computers...your premise (and mine, from all I've read) that started this thread is correct.

All those blaming pilots and whatnot seem to be missing. This plane may (and should) ruin Boeing...this fiasco is the reason I sold my few shares I bought when it originally dipped due to the crashes. I started reading and digging and decided to sell. Heads should roll and this design should be scrapped...It's junk.
Old 06-27-2019, 03:19 PM
  #365  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,321
Received 2,579 Likes on 1,615 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by schoolsout1 View Post
This plane can't fly without electronic inputs from computers...your premise (and mine, from all I've read) that started this thread is correct.

All those blaming pilots and whatnot seem to be missing. This plane may (and should) ruin Boeing...this fiasco is the reason I sold my few shares I bought when it originally dipped due to the crashes. I started reading and digging and decided to sell. Heads should roll and this design should be scrapped...It's junk.
Well, two things. One, there are many planes out there that can not fly without their computers. Should we ground all of those??? (Airbus, anyone?) Second, the 737Max DOES NOT need the computers to fly, especially the computers that are involved in this issue (MCAS and FCC). Those are available to take tasks off of the pilots so they can concentrate on other things, but you could shut both down and still fly the plane safely. The plane will get much more scrutiny than any other aircraft that's flying when it gets re certified for flight, making it the safest plane in the sky. If there are more delays, or god-forbid an actual cancellation, it will be purely on political terms and not on economics or engineering.

You have no clue what you're talking about. You're also an idiot for selling shares... just like the folks that cashed out their 401-k's in 2009
Old 06-27-2019, 03:24 PM
  #366  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 381 Likes on 244 Posts
Default

Quoted from the article:

Still not clear? Let me simplify it even more: The 737 Max is a flawed design. Instead of building a new plane to meet the needs of a specific market, Boeing’s senior executives, including CEO Dennis Muilenburg, made the decision to upgrade the 737 in an attempt to get the plane to market sooner to prevent its largest competitor, Airbus, from securing orders for its own aircraft. When testing revealed that the heavier engines and the forward placement location of the engines on the 737 Max created new and unsafe flight characteristics,
This guy is an idiot. Here, I will break it down for you.

A: Instead of building a new plane to meet the needs of a specific market, Boeing’s senior executives, including CEO Dennis Muilenburg, made the decision to upgrade the 737 in an attempt to get the plane to market sooner to prevent its largest competitor, Airbus, from securing orders for its own aircraft
-WRONG! Boeing was under tremendous pressure from it's customers to keep the same type certificate of the 737. Why? So the customers South west, united, delta, etc. don't have to spend a huge amount of money type rating pilots again. Helps fleet commonality, and many others. It was not solely to beat airbus to the punch.

B: When testing revealed that the heavier engines and the forward placement location of the engines on the 737 Max created new and unsafe flight characteristics...
There was no unsafe flight characteristics. Again, THERE WAS NO UNSAFE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS . Please read this carefully: MCAS was implemented because the 737 max handled differently than the 737 Next gen. The FAA felt it handled different enough (not unsafe) that they needed to augment the flight at very specific AOA to make it feel like the next gen when flying manually. It was done solely for type rating. Has absolutely nothing to do with inherently unsafe unstable design.

That article show much bias and no actual knowledge of what is actually going on.

The second article is saying they found a part that *may* cause an issue, and that they will fix it. This happens 1,000 times over on every commercial plane every made.
I
Old 06-27-2019, 03:44 PM
  #367  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,321
Received 2,579 Likes on 1,615 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TurboJoe View Post
The second article is saying they found a part that *may* cause an issue, and that they will fix it. This happens 1,000 times over on every commercial plane every made.
I
The other "part" that's being discussed is a microprocessor that was overloaded when they were doing various simulations. I'm sure they will resolve that too, but I wonder how many other planes would pass a similar test if their flight processors were tested to extremes during simulations?

BTW, from what I understand, this is a similar "processor problem" that affected the Apollo 11 Lunar module as it was landing on the moon nearly 50 years ago. Those guys made it there and back safely, although there were probably some significant "butt clenching" moments when those alarms were going off. (however, those guys were probably trained and much more capable at flying their craft than the flight crew of the Ethiopian flight!)
Old 06-27-2019, 04:03 PM
  #368  
Admirals ClubCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: (snowbird in training) Lake Erie Un-salted water and shark free!
Posts: 7,320
Received 708 Likes on 375 Posts
Default

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...inting-205223/
Boeing looked in to replacing the 737 in 2006.

The 737 MAX would probably be just fine as it is...with proper training, (and or) a different type certificate.
The bean counters drove the problems with that airplane to where it is today.

Given the proper training, to qualified, capable pilots, the Max is no threat.

Boeing didn't have a platform to take advantage of the geared turbofan engines new to the market like the LEAP engines, without performance hurdles.

Airbus did.
Old 06-27-2019, 04:40 PM
  #369  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
Well, two things. One, there are many planes out there that can not fly without their computers. Should we ground all of those??? (Airbus, anyone?) Second, the 737Max DOES NOT need the computers to fly, especially the computers that are involved in this issue (MCAS and FCC). Those are available to take tasks off of the pilots so they can concentrate on other things, but you could shut both down and still fly the plane safely. The plane will get much more scrutiny than any other aircraft that's flying when it gets re certified for flight, making it the safest plane in the sky. If there are more delays, or god-forbid an actual cancellation, it will be purely on political terms and not on economics or engineering.

You have no clue what you're talking about. You're also an idiot for selling shares... just like the folks that cashed out their 401-k's in 2009
OK

Everything about this plane is a rush to get something to market to compete with Airbus...an old frame with new engines that throws everything off (ie...cog) and needs computers to help compensate. Hell, they even had to adjust the trim, as I've said before, about 400% from the original plan to compensate for the lack of proper engineering.

Time will tell, but when I hear you tell me I have no clue as to what I'm talking about and an idiot for selling shares, I think the same about you, not that that really matters much since this is the www. I'm not surprised that the shares have held up so well since everyone "buys the dip," but I think we will see some really hard selling when reality sets in. I don't think there is a "fix" when dealing with software on this thing.
Old 06-27-2019, 04:42 PM
  #370  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TurboJoe View Post
Quoted from the article:



This guy is an idiot. Here, I will break it down for you.


-WRONG! Boeing was under tremendous pressure from it's customers to keep the same type certificate of the 737. Why? So the customers South west, united, delta, etc. don't have to spend a huge amount of money type rating pilots again. Helps fleet commonality, and many others. It was not solely to beat airbus to the punch.


There was no unsafe flight characteristics. Again, THERE WAS NO UNSAFE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS . Please read this carefully: MCAS was implemented because the 737 max handled differently than the 737 Next gen. The FAA felt it handled different enough (not unsafe) that they needed to augment the flight at very specific AOA to make it feel like the next gen when flying manually. It was done solely for type rating. Has absolutely nothing to do with inherently unsafe unstable design.

That article show much bias and no actual knowledge of what is actually going on.

The second article is saying they found a part that *may* cause an issue, and that they will fix it. This happens 1,000 times over on every commercial plane every made.
I

You sound awfully confident...

the center of gravity was altered and has, definitely, presented very unsafe flight characteristics...You can't deny this no matter how hard you try.
Old 06-27-2019, 04:45 PM
  #371  
Senior Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Beaufort NC
Posts: 5,539
Received 2,128 Likes on 1,048 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by schoolsout1 View Post
You sound awfully confident...

the center of gravity was altered and has, definitely, presented very unsafe flight characteristics...You can't deny this no matter how hard you try.
Bought a lot of Airbus stock did you?
Old 06-27-2019, 06:11 PM
  #372  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 381 Likes on 244 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by schoolsout1 View Post
You sound awfully confident...

the center of gravity was altered and has, definitely, presented very unsafe flight characteristics...You can't deny this no matter how hard you try.
How can the center of gravity be unsafe? You do realize that the engineers can put the center of gravity anywhere they want right? Big engines up front of the wing,counter acted with a larger fuselage out behind the wing. So yes I can absolutely DENY the COG makes the plane unstable. Unless you're maybe confusing terms?

If the center of gravity is "unsafe" due to the large engines, it would need the opposite of Mcas as it would pull the nose down, not up.

The issue is a pitch up when thrust is applied that feels heavier than the next gen. Thus MCAS to automatically trim down so the control forces handle like a next gen. I suggest you do some research. The youtube channel posted here many times "blancolirio" has a very good factual explanation.
Old 06-27-2019, 06:14 PM
  #373  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 381 Likes on 244 Posts
Default

Oh, and here you go, 3 hours old:

Old 06-27-2019, 06:31 PM
  #374  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Ok
Old 06-27-2019, 06:32 PM
  #375  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bills106 View Post
Bought a lot of Airbus stock did you?
nope

im just a guy that reads a lot.

Why dont you ask ask these guys how much Boeing stock they own...that seems more fitting.
Old 06-27-2019, 06:51 PM
  #376  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Fish'nFool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Anywhere but here...
Posts: 25,166
Received 2,824 Likes on 1,495 Posts
Default

AMD chip to be installed in every Boeing.

You heard it here first.

FAA test pilots are long AMD.

Get in on AMD now!
Old 06-27-2019, 07:24 PM
  #377  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Wouldn't that be something...lol
Old 06-29-2019, 01:53 PM
  #378  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: fl
Posts: 105
Received 322 Likes on 204 Posts
Default

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers



The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.

n offices across from Seattle’s Boeing Field, recent college graduates employed by the Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd.occupied several rows of desks, said Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer who worked in a flight-test group that supported the Max.

The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”

Boeing’s cultivation of Indian companies appeared to pay other dividends. In recent years, it has won several orders for Indian military and commercial aircraft, such as a $22 billion one in January 2017 to supply SpiceJet Ltd. That order included 100 737-Max 8 jets and represented Boeing’s largest order ever from an Indian airline, a coup in a country dominated by Airbus.
Old 06-29-2019, 04:20 PM
  #379  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,687
Received 518 Likes on 224 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by schoolsout1 View Post
OK

Everything about this plane is a rush to get something to market to compete with Airbus...an old frame with new engines that throws everything off (ie...cog) and needs computers to help compensate. Hell, they even had to adjust the trim, as I've said before, about 400% from the original plan to compensate for the lack of proper engineering.

Time will tell, but when I hear you tell me I have no clue as to what I'm talking about and an idiot for selling shares, I think the same about you, not that that really matters much since this is the www. I'm not surprised that the shares have held up so well since everyone "buys the dip," but I think we will see some really hard selling when reality sets in. I don't think there is a "fix" when dealing with software on this thing.

I agree with you!!
Old 08-14-2019, 10:34 AM
  #380  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,169
Received 1,498 Likes on 950 Posts
Default

Any updates other than orders “crashing?”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...eries-crash-38

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.