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 11-29-2019, 01:58 AM
  #641  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,562
Received 346 Likes on 271 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dime View Post
EASA has been struggling to become as relevant as the FAA for quite a few years now. This is the moment they've been waiting for and, in typical European style, it's showered in bureaucratic nothingness.

It's purely political at this point. The airplane is fine and should've been back in the air months ago, at the very least, in the US.
I've flown on the 737 Max from Dublin, Ireland to Boston and it was a very nice airplane. Certain models were designed specifically to have the range where they could go from Western Europe to the Northeast Corridor of the United State efficiently. That's so budget European airlines could keep the cost per mile of operating the planes down. So the European Union will have a big say so about this airplane in their excessive regulations.

The success of Boeings' airplane programs is very important to us travelers that often fly to Europe on vacation. And we need all the budget airlines possible to keep airfares lower than the big legacy air carriers want to charge.
Old 11-29-2019, 04:59 AM
  #642  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,337
Likes: 0
Received 493 Likes on 249 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bamaman View Post
I've flown on the 737 Max from Dublin, Ireland to Boston and it was a very nice airplane. Certain models were designed specifically to have the range where they could go from Western Europe to the Northeast Corridor of the United State efficiently. That's so budget European airlines could keep the cost per mile of operating the planes down. So the European Union will have a big say so about this airplane in their excessive regulations.

The success of Boeings' airplane programs is very important to us travelers that often fly to Europe on vacation. And we need all the budget airlines possible to keep airfares lower than the big legacy air carriers want to charge.
There’s a new kid on the block coming out for just that. Airbus 321XLR.




Old 11-29-2019, 08:36 AM
  #643  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,677
Received 2,730 Likes on 1,700 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
Went right over your head. FAA type certificate says B-737 on it.
There's very few 737-200A's left in the wild. There's still a bunch of 300-500's operating in developing nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._737_operators
I'll say fewer than a hundred pilots transitioned from -200's to the MAX. Maybe a few hundred went from the 300/400/500 to the MAX.
The one size fits all sale point from Boeing is why there's about what, a thousand of them parked right now around the planet?
More training or a supplemental type rating would be my guess as to what the future holds. I'm going to guess a mid-late 2020 re-entry in to service time line too.
Nope, didn't go over my head. The FACT is that Boeing was able to build a plane to allow you to do that and really should be commended for doing so. Don't push it to the extreme of the envelope, or cut corners in maintenance and you'll never know MCAS is even on the plane, and the rest of the plane's control is largely the same.

However, allowing a pilot to go DIRECTLY from a -200 to a MAX shouldn't be a decision by Boeing or one they have any say over. That should be up to the leadership in the airline company or to regulators who oversee those airlines, not the manufacturer.
Old 11-29-2019, 09:04 AM
  #644  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Greenville/MHC, NC
Posts: 2,835
Received 4,809 Likes on 1,448 Posts
Default

I have been following this thread from the beginning and have come to one conclusion.

I would fly a 737 MAX from an American carrier before I would fly anything Airbus makes.
Old 11-29-2019, 09:19 AM
  #645  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: FL
Posts: 893
Received 125 Likes on 83 Posts
Default

Not really, these planes will be the safest Airplane out of any built ever, MCAS wasn't a problem in the US/Europe because the pilots are trained to higher standards and knew how to turn it off (Even though some didn't know about the function itself) the planes crashed in areas where pilots need literally no experience hence they didn't know what to do and panic and crashed. Once these planes go into service you should always want to fly them, the FAA is testing EVERY SINGLE ONE INDIVIDUALLY (which doesn't happen, they will only test the first one to make sure the 'model' itself is safe) once they are allowed to fly, and then each airline also does a test every single individual plane with their own test.
Old 11-29-2019, 10:27 AM
  #646  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Delaware
Posts: 506
Received 185 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bamaman View Post
I've flown on the 737 Max from Dublin, Ireland to Boston and it was a very nice airplane. Certain models were designed specifically to have the range where they could go from Western Europe to the Northeast Corridor of the United State efficiently. That's so budget European airlines could keep the cost per mile of operating the planes down. So the European Union will have a big say so about this airplane in their excessive regulations.

The success of Boeings' airplane programs is very important to us travelers that often fly to Europe on vacation. And we need all the budget airlines possible to keep airfares lower than the big legacy air carriers want to charge.
The performance of the aircraft is irrelevant to what's going on with the power play by EASA. EASA is using the MAX issue as a way to promote Airbus style flight logic which is substantially different than Boeing. EASA is Airbus.

Fact is, EASA is publicly and blatantly ignoring the fact that in the case of both accidents, neither would have most likely happened with better trained and more experienced crews. I'm not saying at all that Boeing has clean hands in this, but the FAA despite its shortcomings in certifying the Max and all that, should still be acting like it's the world's foremost aviation authority. After the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo, we made signifigant changes to the way we hire and train pilots. EASA won't and there's a long list of historical failures in their implimentation of pilot training and practices that have lead to passenger deaths. You can start with Air France 447.


Originally Posted by tommy099431 View Post
Not really, these planes will be the safest Airplane out of any built ever, MCAS wasn't a problem in the US/Europe because the pilots are trained to higher standards and knew how to turn it off (Even though some didn't know about the function itself) the planes crashed in areas where pilots need literally no experience hence they didn't know what to do and panic and crashed. Once these planes go into service you should always want to fly them, the FAA is testing EVERY SINGLE ONE INDIVIDUALLY (which doesn't happen, they will only test the first one to make sure the 'model' itself is safe) once they are allowed to fly, and then each airline also does a test every single individual plane with their own test.
Exactly.
Old 11-29-2019, 10:54 AM
  #647  
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: 7,791
Received 829 Likes on 461 Posts
Default Canada says MCAS must go

https://www.fliegerfaust.com/boeing-...4i6tIsILztg9fU

Now Canada chimes in.
Old 11-29-2019, 11:18 AM
  #648  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Paradise, FL
Posts: 1,463
Received 360 Likes on 165 Posts
Default

Better training is not an acceptable design work-around for software that overrides the pilot, period, let alone relying on information from a single instrument. I can see the training now: "yea one more thing - occasionally the flight software will hijack the plane and cause you to crash if you don't know how to turn it off". Forget about not being failsafe - how the hell does such a design make it through the FMEA?
Old 11-29-2019, 11:48 AM
  #649  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Delaware
Posts: 506
Received 185 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WaterDamage View Post
Better training is not an acceptable design work-around for software that overrides the pilot, period, let alone relying on information from a single instrument. I can see the training now: "yea one more thing - occasionally the flight software will hijack the plane and cause you to crash if you don't know how to turn it off". Forget about not being failsafe - how the hell does such a design make it through the FMEA?
Overrides the pilot? Explain.

And everyone typed in the 737 knows how to hit the two switches to turn the trims off. It turned off the MCAS too. Also, not pulling the throttles back once during a flight control issue isn't exactly smart flying. As I said, Boeing isn't innocent either by not originally divulging the MCAS as they should've (but we were all briefed on it prior to the Ethiopian Accident) and in this day and age, the single point of failure was so far beyone stupid its inexplicable.

That said, the US doesn't allow low time and inexperienced pilots the chance to fly airliners anymore and both accidents had that in common. EASA would rather shout louder on other things.

Old 11-29-2019, 01:13 PM
  #650  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 844
Received 899 Likes on 432 Posts
Default

I flew the Max before it was grounded. I was not aware of the MCAS system, but I can find the trim cutout switches with my eyes closed. There is nothing in the 737 flight control system that the pilot can't override and revert to manual operation if needed. Try that on an Airbus.
Old 11-29-2019, 01:18 PM
  #651  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 113 Likes on 50 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WaterDamage View Post
software that overrides the pilot,

you mean kinda like this?


Old 11-29-2019, 02:06 PM
  #652  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Delaware
Posts: 506
Received 185 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SWA737 View Post
Exactly like that
Old 11-29-2019, 02:20 PM
  #653  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,677
Received 2,730 Likes on 1,700 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
Do you even read the links you post? That is not "Canada chiming in", it's some mid-manager spouting off his opinion:

"an email sent by an official at Transport Canada urging Boeing (BA.N) to remove an anti-stall system involved in two 737 MAX crashes reflects "working-level discussions" and were not reviewed by the Canadian regulator, the agency said on Friday"
Old 11-29-2019, 03:18 PM
  #654  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 113 Likes on 50 Posts
Default

My airline had (has) more MAX8’s than any other airline in the world, and I flew them quite a bit before the groundings. I haven’t done a scientific survey, but I’d venture to say I have more MAX time than most airline pilots out there. And yes, I’ve only been flying 737’s for 15 years or so, and only 9 years flying other airline airplanes before that. (All of which had Stab Trim Runaway QRH procedures) so I know I’m not nearly as qualified as the average internet/THT Keyboard Kaptain, but here’s my take on all this.



1) Boeing made some bad decisions with the MAX program. Clearly, they should have disclosed the MCAS system before the airplanes were ever delivered to customers. And they should have made dual AOA inputs standard instead of optional. There should have been specific training on MCAS and how an erroneous MCAS activation event would manifest itself.

2) When the airplane eventually returns to service, the MCAS system will have been so microscopically analyzed that it will be a complete non issue. The likelihood of erroneous MCAS activation events ever happening again will be extremely low, and whatever new training on the system is mandated by regulators will ensure any competent pilot, and maybe even 400 hour Addis Ababa Astronaut Academy pilots, will be able to handle it. Which brings up one of the fundamental issues; pilot proficiency.

3) The political narrative on the internet and subsequently in the real world, is that greedy Boeing executives are murdering innocent Ethiopian and Indonesian Muslims for fun and profit. Because everyone knows that 400 hour FO’s from the 3rd world are every bit as good as a SWA/AA/UAL pilot with 18,000 hours, a bunch of night traps and 5 type ratings. So clearly, Ahmed and Habib performed magnificently and valiantly and were only killed because of evil Boeing bean counters…. The strongest argument against the false narrative is the LionAir crew that flew the exact same airplane that crashed, the day before the crash, and had the exact same issue. They ran the (DECADES OLD) Stab Trim Runaway QRH procedure, and guess what? Safely landed the airplane. Their maintenance people pencil whipped the write up and gave the airplane to the next crew, who had the exact same issue but failed to run the QRH procedure and were so convinced they were out of control, they went ahead and crashed just to prove it. As far as the Ethiopians, even a THT Keyboard Kaptain can’t defend their astonishing level of incompetence. The QRH has said FOR DECADES that at high IAS’s you may need to slow down in order to reduce aerodynamic loads to the point you can use the manual stab trim wheel after selecting the Stab Trim Cutout switches to CUTOUT. Except they left the N1’s at over 90% and sat there wondering why they couldn’t trim manually. Instead, they tried THREE TIMES to reengage the autopilot. Which shows how little confidence they had in their own abilities to fly the airplane. WTF?? This isn’t even private pilot level stuff, this is pre solo student pilot stuff. Pitch + Power = Performance. It’s a fundamental, first day of ground school level issue. They completely and totally failed to fly the airplane at the most basic level. I know the Keyboard Kaptains read on their social media feed that the MAX “FORCED” the nose into the dirt in a nuclear fusion, Dark Side of the Force, unrecoverable dance of death, Islamophobic frenzy and everything, but really? All they had to do was flip the Stab Trim Cutout switches to CUTOUT and slow the fu*k down, and they would have been in a completely controllable situation. And as proof of that, we have the first LionAir crew. Yes, Boeing should have made dual AOA inputs standard, and if they had, neither of those airplanes would likely have had an erroneous MCAS directed Stab Trim Runaway. But the reality is, airplanes have mechanical malfunctions every day. That’s why you have well trained, experienced crews. Both those crews had an abnormal (not emergency) situation, for which a QRH procedure existed. Two out of the three crews that had the situation failed to respond correctly. They both crashed what was initially a perfectly controllable airplane. The first LionAir crew responded correctly, and safely landed the airplane. Do you remember United 232? Al Haynes and Denny Fitch had nothing but differential thrust on engines 1 and 3 to control the airplane after number 2 blew and took most of the hydraulics with it. How about SWA 1380 just last year? Catastrophic engine failure, uncontained fan blade blows a hole in the fuselage and depressurizes the airplane (all at the same time). Do you think the Ethiopian crew would have handled that situation the same way TammyJo and Darren did? Airplanes break every day. Proficient crews deal with it. Stab Trim Runaway’s should not be a fatal malfunction. Period.

4) Because of the intensity of the media and internet scrutiny, the politics and the FAA (Everything takes at least a year with them) it will be at least a few more months until you see MAX’s back flying. When they finally do return to service I have no doubt whatsoever they’re going to be one of the safest airplanes in service. I won’t hesitate to fly one and I won’t hesitate to put my family on one, assuming it’s flown by a SWA/AA/UAL crew. I know, I know…. Non PC of me.

5) Now here’s the underlying question; Should Boeing even have built the MAX in the first place? As others have pointed out, and I agree, probably not. Market and economic forces lead to that decision, and despite what Boeing marketing people will tell you, you shouldn’t try to turn a Dachsund into a Greyhound and you shouldn’t try to turn a 737 into a 757. The legs are too short. If you look at the original -100/200 series 737, it had skinny little JT8D engines on it, just like the 727 and DC9. With skinny little engines, you can have stubby little main gear legs. So a guy standing in the bed of a pickup truck in Tegucigalpa can load bags into the cargo bays without needing expensive ramp equipment. And that worked great. Boeing sold lots of 737’s to airlines that were literally flying War surplus DC3’s. As new engine technology advanced and higher bypass ratio turbofans came to market, the Classic and eventually NG series were introduced to take advantage of the better performance and efficiency. And they are among the safest, most reliable airplanes ever built. Then the Leap1 engine came out. They fit great under an A320, not so much under a 737. But because Boeing insisted on making a better Dachsund, the engineers were forced to do things that probably wouldn’t have been their first choice. IMHO, the title of this thread should be something more like “Brilliant engineering keeps aging platform relevant at the insistence of marketing executives.” I think of it kind of like the Porsche 911. Rear engine layouts are inherently at a disadvantage compared to the mid engine competition, but brilliant engineering has kept the 911 in production for decades, just like the 737. I don’t think it’s stupidly designed, I think it was just the best the engineers could do with the platform and the LEAP1’s. I also think it’s going to be perfectly safe to fly for decades to come, and I also think the MAX will be the final 737 series. I would have much rather seen a clean sheet design a la 797 or whatever they were going to call the new narrow body airframe. I think they also should have MAX’d the 757 instead of the 737 and just left the 737 at the NG. But they didn’t ask me.

So from my perspective, here we sit waiting for bureaucrats, the ladies on The View, and baristas with SnapChat enabled espresso machines to tell us the MAX has been cured of its bloodthirsty, maniacal Death Dive. I’m thinking June or July if we’re lucky. I just hope they don’t bilge the Funny Pic thread before then.

Last edited by SWA737; 11-29-2019 at 05:41 PM.
Old 11-29-2019, 03:45 PM
  #655  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,482
Received 3,729 Likes on 1,954 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SWA737 View Post
My airline had (has) more MAX8’s than any other airline in the world, and I flew them quite a bit before the groundings. I haven’t done a scientific survey, but I’d venture to say I have more MAX time than most airline pilots out there. And yes, I’ve only been flying 737’s for 15 years or so, and only 9 years flying other airline airplanes before that. (All of which had Stab Trim Runaway QRH procedures) so I know I’m not nearly as qualified as the average internet/THT Keyboard Kaptain, but here’s my take on all this.



1) Boeing made some bad decisions with the MAX program. Clearly, they should have disclosed the MCAS system before the airplanes were ever delivered to customers. And they should have made dual AOA inputs standard instead of optional. There should have been specific training on MCAS and how an erroneous MCAS activation event would manifest itself.

2) When the airplane eventually returns to service, the MCAS system will have been so microscopically analyzed that it will be a complete non issue. The likelihood of erroneous MCAS activation events ever happening again will be extremely low, and whatever new training on the system is mandated by regulators will ensure any competent pilot, and maybe even 400 hour Addis Ababa Astronaut Academy pilots, will be able to handle it. Which brings up one of the fundamental issues; pilot proficiency.

3) The political narrative on the internet and subsequently in the real world, is that greedy Boeing executives are murdering innocent Ethiopian and Indonesian Muslims for fun and profit. Because everyone knows that 400 hour FO’s from the 3rd world are every bit as good as a SWA/AA/UAL pilot with 18,000 hours, a bunch of night traps and 5 type ratings. So clearly, Ahmed and Habib performed magnificently and valiantly and were only killed because of evil Boeing bean counters…. The strongest argument against the false narrative is the LionAir crew that flew the exact same airplane that crashed, the day before the crash, and had the exact same issue. They ran the (DECADES OLD) Stab Trim Runaway QRH procedure, and guess what? Safely landed the airplane. Their maintenance people pencil whipped the write up and gave the airplane to the next crew, who had the exact same issue but failed to run the QRH procedure and were so convinced they were out of control, they went ahead and crashed just to prove it. As far as the Ethiopians, even a THT Keyboard Kaptain can’t defend their astonishing level of incompetence. The QRH has said FOR DECADES that at high IAS’s you may need to slow down in order to reduce aerodynamic loads to the point you can use the manual stab trim wheel after selecting the Stab Trim Cutout switches to CUTOUT. Except they left the N1’s at over 90% and sat there wondering why they couldn’t trim manually. Instead, they tried THREE TIMES to reengage the autopilot. Which shows how little confidence they had in their own abilities to fly the airplane. WTF?? This isn’t even private pilot level stuff, this is pre solo student pilot stuff. Pitch + Power = Performance. It’s a fundamental, first day of ground school level issue. They completely and totally failed to fly the airplane at the most basic level. I know the Keyboard Kaptains read on their social media feed that the MAX “FORCED” the nose into the dirt in a nuclear fusion, Dark Side of the Force, unrecoverable dance of death, Islamophobic frenzy and everything, but really? All they had to do was flip the Stab Trim Cutout switches to CUTOUT and slow the fu*k down, and they would have been in a completely controllable situation. And as proof of that, we have the first LionAir crew. Yes, Boeing should have made dual AOA inputs standard, and if they had, neither of those airplanes would likely have had an erroneous MCAS directed Stab Trim Runaway. But the reality is, airplanes have mechanical malfunctions every day. That’s why you have well trained, experienced crews. Both those crews had an abnormal (not emergency) situation, for which a QRH procedure existed. Two out of the three crews that had the situation failed to respond correctly. They both crashed what was initially a perfectly controllable airplane. The first LionAir crew responded correctly, and safely landed the airplane. Do you remember United 232? Al Haynes and Denny Fitch had nothing but differential thrust on engines 1 and 3 to control the airplane after number 2 blew and took most of the hydraulics with it. How about SWA 1380 just last year? Catastrophic engine failure, uncontained fan blade blows a hold in the fuselage and depressurizes the airplane (all at the same time). Do you think the Ethiopian crew would have handled that situation the same way TammyJo and Darren did? Airplanes break every day. Proficient crews deal with it. Stab Trim Runaway’s should not be a fatal malfunction. Period.

4) Because of the intensity of the media and internet scrutiny, the politics and the FAA (Everything takes at least a year with them) it will be at least a few more months until you see MAX’s back flying. When they finally do return to service I have no doubt whatsoever they’re going to be one of the safest airplanes in service. I won’t hesitate to fly one and I won’t hesitate to put my family on one, assuming it’s flown by a SWA/AA/UAL crew. I know, I know…. Non PC of me.

5) Now here’s the underlying question; Should Boeing even have built the MAX in the first place? As others have pointed out, and I agree, probably not. Market and economic forces lead to that decision, and despite what Boeing marketing people will tell you, you shouldn’t try to turn a Dachsund into a Greyhound and you shouldn’t try to turn a 737 into a 757. The legs are too short. If you look at the original -100/200 series 737, it had skinny little JT8D engines on it, just like the 727 and DC9. With skinny little engines, you can have stubby little main gear legs. So a guy standing in the bed of a pickup truck in Tegucigalpa can load bags into the cargo bays without needing expensive ramp equipment. And that worked great. Boeing sold lots of 737’s to airlines that were literally flying War surplus DC3’s. As new engine technology advanced and higher bypass ratio turbofans came to market, the Classic and eventually NG series were introduced to take advantage of the better performance and efficiency. And they are among the safest, most reliable airplanes ever built. Then the Leap1 engine came out. They fit great under an A320, not so much under a 737. But because Boeing insisted on making a better Dachsund, the engineers were forced to do things that probably wouldn’t have been their first choice. IMHO, the title of this thread should be something more like “Brilliant engineering keeps aging platform relevant at the insistence of marketing executives.” I think of it kind of like the Porsche 911. Rear engine layouts are inherently at a disadvantage compared to the mid engine competition, but brilliant engineering has kept the 911 in production for decades, just like the 737. I don’t think it’s stupidly designed, I think it was just the best the engineers could do with the platform and the LEAP1’s. I also think it’s going to be perfectly safe to fly for decades to come, and I also think the MAX will be the final 737 series. I would have much rather seen a clean sheet design a la 797 or whatever they were going to call the new narrow body airframe. I think they also should have MAX’d the 757 instead of the 737 and just left the 737 at the NG. But they didn’t ask me.

So from my perspective, here we sit waiting for bureaucrats, the ladies on The View, and baristas with SnapChat enabled espresso machines to tell us the MAX has been cured of its bloodthirsty, maniacal Death Dive. I’m thinking June or July if we’re lucky. I just hope they don’t bilge the Funny Pic thread before then.
Most intelligent post on this thread.

He understands that you can run a Freeman into the bushes without proper training to avoid such.

I have to wonder why highly trained pilots didn't refuse to fly this aircraft to start with. Not sure, but I have not heard of any refusing to fly one nor of reports of those trained that your gonna crash getting into this aircraft.

Always seems to me that operator era is the cause of accidents of most anything mechanical whether it fly's, floats or F's.

I am capable of crashing all of the above so I am some what of an expert.
Old 11-29-2019, 05:15 PM
  #656  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,677
Received 2,730 Likes on 1,700 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SWA737 View Post
My airline had (has) more MAX8’s than any other airline in the world, and I flew them quite a bit before the groundings. I haven’t done a scientific survey, but I’d venture to say I have more MAX time than most airline pilots out there. And yes, I’ve only been flying 737’s for 15 years or so, and only 9 years flying other airline airplanes before that. (All of which had Stab Trim Runaway QRH procedures) so I know I’m not nearly as qualified as the average internet/THT Keyboard Kaptain, but here’s my take on all this.



1) Boeing made some bad decisions with the MAX program. Clearly, they should have disclosed the MCAS system before the airplanes were ever delivered to customers. And they should have made dual AOA inputs standard instead of optional. There should have been specific training on MCAS and how an erroneous MCAS activation event would manifest itself.

2) When the airplane eventually returns to service, the MCAS system will have been so microscopically analyzed that it will be a complete non issue. The likelihood of erroneous MCAS activation events ever happening again will be extremely low, and whatever new training on the system is mandated by regulators will ensure any competent pilot, and maybe even 400 hour Addis Ababa Astronaut Academy pilots, will be able to handle it. Which brings up one of the fundamental issues; pilot proficiency.

3) The political narrative on the internet and subsequently in the real world, is that greedy Boeing executives are murdering innocent Ethiopian and Indonesian Muslims for fun and profit. Because everyone knows that 400 hour FO’s from the 3rd world are every bit as good as a SWA/AA/UAL pilot with 18,000 hours, a bunch of night traps and 5 type ratings. So clearly, Ahmed and Habib performed magnificently and valiantly and were only killed because of evil Boeing bean counters…. The strongest argument against the false narrative is the LionAir crew that flew the exact same airplane that crashed, the day before the crash, and had the exact same issue. They ran the (DECADES OLD) Stab Trim Runaway QRH procedure, and guess what? Safely landed the airplane. Their maintenance people pencil whipped the write up and gave the airplane to the next crew, who had the exact same issue but failed to run the QRH procedure and were so convinced they were out of control, they went ahead and crashed just to prove it. As far as the Ethiopians, even a THT Keyboard Kaptain can’t defend their astonishing level of incompetence. The QRH has said FOR DECADES that at high IAS’s you may need to slow down in order to reduce aerodynamic loads to the point you can use the manual stab trim wheel after selecting the Stab Trim Cutout switches to CUTOUT. Except they left the N1’s at over 90% and sat there wondering why they couldn’t trim manually. Instead, they tried THREE TIMES to reengage the autopilot. Which shows how little confidence they had in their own abilities to fly the airplane. WTF?? This isn’t even private pilot level stuff, this is pre solo student pilot stuff. Pitch + Power = Performance. It’s a fundamental, first day of ground school level issue. They completely and totally failed to fly the airplane at the most basic level. I know the Keyboard Kaptains read on their social media feed that the MAX “FORCED” the nose into the dirt in a nuclear fusion, Dark Side of the Force, unrecoverable dance of death, Islamophobic frenzy and everything, but really? All they had to do was flip the Stab Trim Cutout switches to CUTOUT and slow the fu*k down, and they would have been in a completely controllable situation. And as proof of that, we have the first LionAir crew. Yes, Boeing should have made dual AOA inputs standard, and if they had, neither of those airplanes would likely have had an erroneous MCAS directed Stab Trim Runaway. But the reality is, airplanes have mechanical malfunctions every day. That’s why you have well trained, experienced crews. Both those crews had an abnormal (not emergency) situation, for which a QRH procedure existed. Two out of the three crews that had the situation failed to respond correctly. They both crashed what was initially a perfectly controllable airplane. The first LionAir crew responded correctly, and safely landed the airplane. Do you remember United 232? Al Haynes and Denny Fitch had nothing but differential thrust on engines 1 and 3 to control the airplane after number 2 blew and took most of the hydraulics with it. How about SWA 1380 just last year? Catastrophic engine failure, uncontained fan blade blows a hold in the fuselage and depressurizes the airplane (all at the same time). Do you think the Ethiopian crew would have handled that situation the same way TammyJo and Darren did? Airplanes break every day. Proficient crews deal with it. Stab Trim Runaway’s should not be a fatal malfunction. Period.

4) Because of the intensity of the media and internet scrutiny, the politics and the FAA (Everything takes at least a year with them) it will be at least a few more months until you see MAX’s back flying. When they finally do return to service I have no doubt whatsoever they’re going to be one of the safest airplanes in service. I won’t hesitate to fly one and I won’t hesitate to put my family on one, assuming it’s flown by a SWA/AA/UAL crew. I know, I know…. Non PC of me.

5) Now here’s the underlying question; Should Boeing even have built the MAX in the first place? As others have pointed out, and I agree, probably not. Market and economic forces lead to that decision, and despite what Boeing marketing people will tell you, you shouldn’t try to turn a Dachsund into a Greyhound and you shouldn’t try to turn a 737 into a 757. The legs are too short. If you look at the original -100/200 series 737, it had skinny little JT8D engines on it, just like the 727 and DC9. With skinny little engines, you can have stubby little main gear legs. So a guy standing in the bed of a pickup truck in Tegucigalpa can load bags into the cargo bays without needing expensive ramp equipment. And that worked great. Boeing sold lots of 737’s to airlines that were literally flying War surplus DC3’s. As new engine technology advanced and higher bypass ratio turbofans came to market, the Classic and eventually NG series were introduced to take advantage of the better performance and efficiency. And they are among the safest, most reliable airplanes ever built. Then the Leap1 engine came out. They fit great under an A320, not so much under a 737. But because Boeing insisted on making a better Dachsund, the engineers were forced to do things that probably wouldn’t have been their first choice. IMHO, the title of this thread should be something more like “Brilliant engineering keeps aging platform relevant at the insistence of marketing executives.” I think of it kind of like the Porsche 911. Rear engine layouts are inherently at a disadvantage compared to the mid engine competition, but brilliant engineering has kept the 911 in production for decades, just like the 737. I don’t think it’s stupidly designed, I think it was just the best the engineers could do with the platform and the LEAP1’s. I also think it’s going to be perfectly safe to fly for decades to come, and I also think the MAX will be the final 737 series. I would have much rather seen a clean sheet design a la 797 or whatever they were going to call the new narrow body airframe. I think they also should have MAX’d the 757 instead of the 737 and just left the 737 at the NG. But they didn’t ask me.

So from my perspective, here we sit waiting for bureaucrats, the ladies on The View, and baristas with SnapChat enabled espresso machines to tell us the MAX has been cured of its bloodthirsty, maniacal Death Dive. I’m thinking June or July if we’re lucky. I just hope they don’t bilge the Funny Pic thread before then.
I 'liked' that post but I had to quote it too because it is one of the most complete, accurate, and eloquent posts on this site.
Old 11-29-2019, 07:07 PM
  #657  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Delaware
Posts: 506
Received 185 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by swa737 View Post
my airline had (has) more max8’s than any other airline in the world, and i flew them quite a bit before the groundings. I haven’t done a scientific survey, but i’d venture to say i have more max time than most airline pilots out there. And yes, i’ve only been flying 737’s for 15 years or so, and only 9 years flying other airline airplanes before that. (all of which had stab trim runaway qrh procedures) so i know i’m not nearly as qualified as the average internet/tht keyboard kaptain, but here’s my take on all this.



1) boeing made some bad decisions with the max program. Clearly, they should have disclosed the mcas system before the airplanes were ever delivered to customers. And they should have made dual aoa inputs standard instead of optional. There should have been specific training on mcas and how an erroneous mcas activation event would manifest itself.

2) when the airplane eventually returns to service, the mcas system will have been so microscopically analyzed that it will be a complete non issue. The likelihood of erroneous mcas activation events ever happening again will be extremely low, and whatever new training on the system is mandated by regulators will ensure any competent pilot, and maybe even 400 hour addis ababa astronaut academy pilots, will be able to handle it. Which brings up one of the fundamental issues; pilot proficiency.

3) the political narrative on the internet and subsequently in the real world, is that greedy boeing executives are murdering innocent ethiopian and indonesian muslims for fun and profit. Because everyone knows that 400 hour fo’s from the 3rd world are every bit as good as a swa/aa/ual pilot with 18,000 hours, a bunch of night traps and 5 type ratings. So clearly, ahmed and habib performed magnificently and valiantly and were only killed because of evil boeing bean counters…. The strongest argument against the false narrative is the lionair crew that flew the exact same airplane that crashed, the day before the crash, and had the exact same issue. They ran the (decades old) stab trim runaway qrh procedure, and guess what? Safely landed the airplane. Their maintenance people pencil whipped the write up and gave the airplane to the next crew, who had the exact same issue but failed to run the qrh procedure and were so convinced they were out of control, they went ahead and crashed just to prove it. As far as the ethiopians, even a tht keyboard kaptain can’t defend their astonishing level of incompetence. The qrh has said for decades that at high ias’s you may need to slow down in order to reduce aerodynamic loads to the point you can use the manual stab trim wheel after selecting the stab trim cutout switches to cutout. Except they left the n1’s at over 90% and sat there wondering why they couldn’t trim manually. Instead, they tried three times to reengage the autopilot. Which shows how little confidence they had in their own abilities to fly the airplane. Wtf?? This isn’t even private pilot level stuff, this is pre solo student pilot stuff. Pitch + power = performance. It’s a fundamental, first day of ground school level issue. They completely and totally failed to fly the airplane at the most basic level. I know the keyboard kaptains read on their social media feed that the max “forced” the nose into the dirt in a nuclear fusion, dark side of the force, unrecoverable dance of death, islamophobic frenzy and everything, but really? All they had to do was flip the stab trim cutout switches to cutout and slow the fu*k down, and they would have been in a completely controllable situation. And as proof of that, we have the first lionair crew. Yes, boeing should have made dual aoa inputs standard, and if they had, neither of those airplanes would likely have had an erroneous mcas directed stab trim runaway. But the reality is, airplanes have mechanical malfunctions every day. That’s why you have well trained, experienced crews. Both those crews had an abnormal (not emergency) situation, for which a qrh procedure existed. Two out of the three crews that had the situation failed to respond correctly. They both crashed what was initially a perfectly controllable airplane. The first lionair crew responded correctly, and safely landed the airplane. Do you remember united 232? Al haynes and denny fitch had nothing but differential thrust on engines 1 and 3 to control the airplane after number 2 blew and took most of the hydraulics with it. How about swa 1380 just last year? Catastrophic engine failure, uncontained fan blade blows a hole in the fuselage and depressurizes the airplane (all at the same time). Do you think the ethiopian crew would have handled that situation the same way tammyjo and darren did? Airplanes break every day. Proficient crews deal with it. Stab trim runaway’s should not be a fatal malfunction. Period.

4) because of the intensity of the media and internet scrutiny, the politics and the faa (everything takes at least a year with them) it will be at least a few more months until you see max’s back flying. When they finally do return to service i have no doubt whatsoever they’re going to be one of the safest airplanes in service. I won’t hesitate to fly one and i won’t hesitate to put my family on one, assuming it’s flown by a swa/aa/ual crew. I know, i know…. Non pc of me.

5) now here’s the underlying question; should boeing even have built the max in the first place? As others have pointed out, and i agree, probably not. Market and economic forces lead to that decision, and despite what boeing marketing people will tell you, you shouldn’t try to turn a dachsund into a greyhound and you shouldn’t try to turn a 737 into a 757. The legs are too short. If you look at the original -100/200 series 737, it had skinny little jt8d engines on it, just like the 727 and dc9. With skinny little engines, you can have stubby little main gear legs. So a guy standing in the bed of a pickup truck in tegucigalpa can load bags into the cargo bays without needing expensive ramp equipment. And that worked great. Boeing sold lots of 737’s to airlines that were literally flying war surplus dc3’s. As new engine technology advanced and higher bypass ratio turbofans came to market, the classic and eventually ng series were introduced to take advantage of the better performance and efficiency. And they are among the safest, most reliable airplanes ever built. Then the leap1 engine came out. They fit great under an a320, not so much under a 737. But because boeing insisted on making a better dachsund, the engineers were forced to do things that probably wouldn’t have been their first choice. Imho, the title of this thread should be something more like “brilliant engineering keeps aging platform relevant at the insistence of marketing executives.” i think of it kind of like the porsche 911. Rear engine layouts are inherently at a disadvantage compared to the mid engine competition, but brilliant engineering has kept the 911 in production for decades, just like the 737. I don’t think it’s stupidly designed, i think it was just the best the engineers could do with the platform and the leap1’s. I also think it’s going to be perfectly safe to fly for decades to come, and i also think the max will be the final 737 series. I would have much rather seen a clean sheet design a la 797 or whatever they were going to call the new narrow body airframe. I think they also should have max’d the 757 instead of the 737 and just left the 737 at the ng. But they didn’t ask me.

So from my perspective, here we sit waiting for bureaucrats, the ladies on the view, and baristas with snapchat enabled espresso machines to tell us the max has been cured of its bloodthirsty, maniacal death dive. I’m thinking june or july if we’re lucky. I just hope they don’t bilge the funny pic thread before then.
preach
Old 11-30-2019, 08:43 AM
  #658  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Kent, VA
Posts: 2,503
Received 305 Likes on 165 Posts
Default

I'm glad I have not been following this thread all this time, open it up and read this last post by swa737 and get the real story in just a couple minutes.
Old 11-30-2019, 04:35 PM
  #659  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Paradise, FL
Posts: 1,463
Received 360 Likes on 165 Posts
Default

SWA737: As an aerospace engineer who worked on a team studying the potential to install a novel engine with a large-diameter fan on the 737 back in the late 90's, I can tell you this - we failed to convince the design team that the airframe could work with the new concept, and they had a number of valid reasons for cancelling the project. And I say this as a guy with my name on the patent of the new concept, so if anyone wanted it to work out it would be me. Fast forward to today and we not only have the large diameter on the airframe, but it is also woefully insufficient in the safety and redundancy department. So yes, the standard (including safety) did change and while I respect your pilot perspective, the engineering perspective is not one where I'd call the engineering 'brilliant'. I'd call it criminal, in fact. There is good reason these birds are sitting on the ground right now.

Last edited by WaterDamage; 11-30-2019 at 04:48 PM.
Old 11-30-2019, 05:50 PM
  #660  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,677
Received 2,730 Likes on 1,700 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WaterDamage View Post
SWA737: As an aerospace engineer who worked on a team studying the potential to install a novel engine with a large-diameter fan on the 737 back in the late 90's, I can tell you this - we failed to convince the design team that the airframe could work with the new concept, and they had a number of valid reasons for cancelling the project. And I say this as a guy with my name on the patent of the new concept, so if anyone wanted it to work out it would be me. Fast forward to today and we not only have the large diameter on the airframe, but it is also woefully insufficient in the safety and redundancy department. So yes, the standard (including safety) did change and while I respect your pilot perspective, the engineering perspective is not one where I'd call the engineering 'brilliant'. I'd call it criminal, in fact. There is good reason these birds are sitting on the ground right now.
or "We couldn't do it 20 years ago, so they shouldn't be able to do it now"

Do we have any data on how the current engines are similar or different than the ones proposed back then, other than just a "big fan"?? Do we have any data on how many other airframe changes were made that might have made it possible now, that weren't being considered back then??

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.