Notices
Like Tree287Likes

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Old 10-19-2019, 07:51 AM
  #641  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,141
Default

Originally Posted by The Revenge View Post
Don’t think that with over 700, 737’s, SWA didn’t have any influence on Boeing not coming up with a completely new bird.
Im sure they did, but that shouldn’t matter

i think I read where SW pilots union is suing Boeing now, because of this fiasco.
schoolsout1 is offline  
Old 10-19-2019, 07:54 AM
  #642  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,141
Default

Originally Posted by bills106 View Post
I'm pretty sure I never mentioned your, or any other name in this thread, feeling a tad guilty?

Redundant systems? You're obviously not familiar with my boats! Built-in positive buoyancy not cheap spray foam either!), multiple watertight compartments, redundant battery backup systems, multiple bilge pumps, high water alarms, emergency dewatering crash pumps, , EPIRBS, life rafts, yeah, you could say I include a safety item or two. I'm not building little Clorox bottles popped out of a mold!
Not feeling guilty at all...you alluded that I was an Airbus employee (meeting I had anterior motives for my posts).

And, your boats are gorgeous. The whole redundancy comparison is just to make a point. You go above and beyond for safety in a boat and Boeing didn’t with this plane. Hell, they even hid things from those that should know...that’s my point.
SolOps likes this.
schoolsout1 is offline  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:42 AM
  #643  
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: 7,078
Default

Over in Oz...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...box=1572474535

FAA is now playing the "IF" and when game for the Max gets approval to fly again.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...db0IM1u6SqNRP8
Classic25 is offline  
Old 10-31-2019, 08:01 AM
  #644  
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: 7,078
Default

Originally Posted by The Revenge View Post
Don’t think that with over 700, 737’s, SWA didn’t have any influence on Boeing not coming up with a completely new bird.
The original 737-100 that came out in the 1960' had 14,000 lbs. of thrust per engine, cruised at .73 mach, carried about 115 people, and had a max take-off weight of 110,000 lbs. The -200 had 16,000 lbs of thrust per side.

The 737 Max 10: Leap 1C engines generate over 30,000lbs thrust. Cruises at .79 mach. Can carry up to 230 people, and has a maximum take off weight of almost 200,000 lbs.

(que the guys who post the run away trim checklist)

The only thing real or significant thing in common with the original is the diameter of the tube.

Have a look at the differences: Boeing 737 MAX - Differences

The decision by Boeing to abandon their project Yellowstone for the 737 replacement has come home to roost.
SolOps likes this.
Classic25 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 10:19 AM
  #645  
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: 7,078
Default

And the hits keep coming...
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...u5vYUpxHgfSAM8
Rico2 likes this.
Classic25 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:04 AM
  #646  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Middle Sound, NC
Posts: 7,932
Default

That does not surprise me that FAA did that. But it does surprise me that took so long to make such an announcement.
Rico2 likes this.
Corndog38 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:38 AM
  #647  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 938
Default

This is way out of control. MCAS was put in to assist in stall recovery to make it perform in a stall like a traditional 737. The logic in the software is not right. Not to mention the pilots didn't follow the checklist. It should not engage with a single point failure.That is Boeings fault for building it that way in the first place and the FAA's fault for approving it.

It should look at multiple sensors. Why this has taken a year to figure out is beyond me.

Airbus is all computer and fly by wire with a ton of logic built in. They have got it wrong at least once too.

Why they haven't rewritten the software to do this and it wasn't back flying 6 months ago baffles me.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:44 AM
  #648  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 938
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
The original 737-100 that came out in the 1960' had 14,000 lbs. of thrust per engine, cruised at .73 mach, carried about 115 people, and had a max take-off weight of 110,000 lbs. The -200 had 16,000 lbs of thrust per side.

The 737 Max 10: Leap 1C engines generate over 30,000lbs thrust. Cruises at .79 mach. Can carry up to 230 people, and has a maximum take off weight of almost 200,000 lbs.

(que the guys who post the run away trim checklist)

The only thing real or significant thing in common with the original is the diameter of the tube.

Have a look at the differences: Boeing 737 MAX - Differences

The decision by Boeing to abandon their project Yellowstone for the 737 replacement has come home to roost.
What's your point.

Ever seen an Airbus 318? It's 103' long. What about an Airbus 321? It's 146' long. Do you think Airbus's flight control code is the same? Boeing screwed up theirs. Should be fixed by now.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:50 AM
  #649  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hanahan, SC
Posts: 8,141
Default

Originally Posted by ProppedUp View Post
Why this has taken a year to figure out is beyond me.

.

I'm willing to bet it's a little more complicated than you think it is...it's a bad design and MCAS was created to try and overcome the bad design. Again, the original MCAS had to be increased 4x to attempt to compensate for said bad design...couple that with lack of redundancy and you have major $$$ issues to try and piece the current iteration back together to try and get approved.
Rico2 likes this.
schoolsout1 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:27 PM
  #650  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,192
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
Oh, yes, like any of us are going to be better off depending on a government agency for these inspections.

I assure you, none of the folks at that agency will be liable nor their jobs in jeopardy if there are any future issues with the planes they inspect or approve.

You would think, if there was an issue with shared responsibilities that they've been operating under and that it was the cause of any issues, that SOMEONE - perhaps the head of the FAA - would be held responsible for that "mistake". So, either it's not a "mistake" or there wasn't really any significant issue with the way things were operating. Maybe the change was just a "process improvement" step. That would make sense if no one has to pay the price.
seajbee likes this.
km1125 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:36 PM
  #651  
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: 7,078
Default

Originally Posted by ProppedUp View Post
What's your point.

Ever seen an Airbus 318? It's 103' long. What about an Airbus 321? It's 146' long. Do you think Airbus's flight control code is the same? Boeing screwed up theirs. Should be fixed by now.
The point is that the back of the plastic card you carry around has the aircraft type rating listed on it. The B-737 type allows the pilot to fly any model of it. MCAS was installed to get the MAX to behave enough like the earlier versions of the 737 so that no additional trying, OR TYPE rating would be required. We're watching that failure right now.
The Airbus 318 is similar enough systems to the 321. The Airbus training events are sufficient due to the underlying commonality and flight characteristics of the A318-321 fleets. The B737 doesn't have that commonality. Boeing screwed the pooch on this.
Rico2 likes this.
Classic25 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 04:58 PM
  #652  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 938
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
The point is that the back of the plastic card you carry around has the aircraft type rating listed on it. The B-737 type allows the pilot to fly any model of it. MCAS was installed to get the MAX to behave enough like the earlier versions of the 737 so that no additional trying, OR TYPE rating would be required. We're watching that failure right now.
The Airbus 318 is similar enough systems to the 321. The Airbus training events are sufficient due to the underlying commonality and flight characteristics of the A318-321 fleets. The B737 doesn't have that commonality. Boeing screwed the pooch on this.
I think what I said went right over your head...

None of these planes fly without help. A lot of it.

Anyway this thread is going in the same circles as it was 6 months ago hahaha.

Here is a question for you guys

If the Lion Air Pilots would have followed the Boeing checklist and if the Ethiopian Pilots would have followed the checklist.... Would we be talking about this today?

Last edited by ProppedUp; 11-27-2019 at 05:04 PM.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 06:32 PM
  #653  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,644
Default

What if the Boeing 737 Max is NEVER certified to fly by the FAA in its present form?

Could this cause Boeing as a company to collapse? In my opinion, that would be devastating for the U.S. economy on many levels, as the premier and only dominant American jet manufacturer, as a Dow Jones IA company, as a supplier to many American commercial airlines companies, as a major American export to international commercial airline companies.

I sure hope Boeing management finds an acceptable solution that is good for Boeing and good for the United States of America and one that the FAA certifies.
Kendall is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:39 PM
  #654  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,192
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
What if the Boeing 737 Max is NEVER certified to fly by the FAA in its present form?

Could this cause Boeing as a company to collapse? In my opinion, that would be devastating for the U.S. economy on many levels, as the premier and only dominant American jet manufacturer, as a Dow Jones IA company, as a supplier to many American commercial airlines companies, as a major American export to international commercial airline companies.

I sure hope Boeing management finds an acceptable solution that is good for Boeing and good for the United States of America and one that the FAA certifies.
Not a chance. Not one at all.

The VERY WORST POSSIBLE case is that it is relaunched as a different "type" and requires pilot certification for that type. Seriously DOUBT even that would happen. There's nothing wrong with the plane that a SLIGHT design change can't accommodate.
km1125 is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 08:35 PM
  #655  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,644
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
There's nothing wrong with the plane that a SLIGHT design change can't accommodate.
Fake news, that cannot be justified to the hundreds of surviving family members who lost loved ones in the two fatal crashes.
Kendall is offline  
Old 11-27-2019, 09:37 PM
  #656  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,332
Default

Originally Posted by Classic25 View Post
The point is that the back of the plastic card you carry around has the aircraft type rating listed on it. The B-737 type allows the pilot to fly any model of it. .
With over 700 of them SWA wouldn’t have it any other way. Simplifies their pilot training.

I have thousands of hours in the 737-800NG, which in my opinion should have been the final model of 737.
Also have a few thousand in A320s and A321s.
I understand how each of there systems work.
The Revenge is offline  
Old 11-28-2019, 12:14 PM
  #657  
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: 7,078
Default

Originally Posted by ProppedUp View Post
I think what I said went right over your head...

None of these planes fly without help. A lot of it.

Anyway this thread is going in the same circles as it was 6 months ago hahaha.

Here is a question for you guys

If the Lion Air Pilots would have followed the Boeing checklist and if the Ethiopian Pilots would have followed the checklist.... Would we be talking about this today?
No, my comments went right over your head. There's still 737-200's out there in the wild. Round dial gauges, pneumatic pressurization, lethargic -9 engines, etc. Boeing launched a version (MAX) of that same 737 (type rating) aircraft that, in total behaves nothing like the earliest versions.

The airbus earliest versions were software driven from the word go, so the comparison there really isn't a fair one. They all behave the same, or same enough that differences simulator training was never on the table.

Because of todays technology and software, Boeing could probably get the 787 to perform and hand fly like a 737NG. Should they do this and drop specific type ratings all together? You know, maybe just pass a check ride in a Boeing, and be able to fly the 737, 747, 757, 767, 787? One size training event fits all?

Aren't you the guy who didn't know the difference between a VNAV path and an ILS glide slope after the Asiana accident?
Classic25 is offline  
Old 11-28-2019, 12:22 PM
  #658  
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: 7,078
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
Not a chance. Not one at all.

The VERY WORST POSSIBLE case is that it is relaunched as a different "type" and requires pilot certification for that type. Seriously DOUBT even that would happen. There's nothing wrong with the plane that a SLIGHT design change can't accommodate.
Or specific training and/or a supplemental type certificate.

You can slap motors on tubes with wings and make it fly. Training to proficiency in the pointy end is what counts. Boeing launched an airplane "certified" by the FAA no less that has no addition training requirements. A guy who got his type rating in a -200 advanced, with VOR's can strap in to a MAX and launch with 200 people on board without so much as practicing an engine start on the new equipment.

Classic25 is offline  
Old 11-28-2019, 12:23 PM
  #659  
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: 7,078
Default

Originally Posted by The Revenge View Post
With over 700 of them SWA wouldn’t have it any other way. Simplifies their pilot training.

I have thousands of hours in the 737-800NG, which in my opinion should have been the final model of 737.
Also have a few thousand in A320s and A321s.
I understand how each of there systems work.
Yup.
Classic25 is offline  
Old 11-28-2019, 12:51 PM
  #660  
THT SponsorCaptains Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wisconsin And Marathon,Fl
Posts: 8,784
Default

Maybe the release of the max 10 will quiet things down a bit.
mikeloew is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

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