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

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Notices
Like Tree139Likes

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Old 03-15-2019, 07:13 PM
  #61  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,132
Default

Originally Posted by forgot View Post
Question for pilots or those that may know.
The pilot requested a vector to return to airport. Would he have vectored manually [fly the plane manually] or plugged the vector into the auto pilot?
Or is it something one just really can't answer.
Vectors are pilotspeak for directions. Asking for vectors is asking for compass headings or turn direction and amount. As in "Lionair 45 requesting vectors to return to land." ATC: "Roger, turn right 40 degrees to heading 235, maintain altitude". Etc.... Could be flown manually or input into the aircraft autopilot system.

Instrumented rated commercial pilot here.
colecaz is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 07:54 PM
  #62  
BSL
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCSUboater A relative is an engineer for Boeing. I'll let them know there are some fantastic aerospace engineers right here on ThT that have already figured out the issue.
I mean, did you really expect anything different. We have already cured cancer and created world peace 100 times over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorne Greene I am intrigued by this comment. Why would you be more concerned if it was American and United rather than Ethiopian?
Because they are American companies and their pilots are trained here and to our standards. Ethiopian are not, and apparently their level of training and experience needed doesn't nearly match our

Actually the Ethiopian Pilots were probably trained right here in the US by Boeing or maybe AA or another entity in the US, of which there are many for Type training.
On another not, as there are so few of the 737 Max(s) out there, there aren't many pilots with a lot of time in them. Think about that for a second.
Also, although Boeing has stated that there is a software problem, which they say the fix is 6 weeks out, the main issue is training. Primary flight training, a system is not doing what it is supposed to do, FLY THE AIRPLANE AND TURN THE OFFENDING SYSTEM OFF!
BTW, I am a pilot, ATP, with Resip FE, Turboprop FE, Jet FE, and I have an Aerospace Engineering Degree. I am Medically retired from flying, and just retired from Lockheed Martin. But I may be OVERQUALIFIED to make some thoughts on this venue.
HeidiMarie likes this.
BSL is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:02 PM
  #63  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta / Islamorada
Posts: 1,183
Default

Does the pilot fly the airplane or does the airplane fly the pilot. Not a trick question but think about your answer.
ChannelTwo is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:06 PM
  #64  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 259
Default

This is the problem:

Modern aircraft are built with backups and redundancies for virtually every crucial component. So when something breaks — as things often do — it won’t threaten the safety of a flight. Boeing’s software fix indicates that the plane maker shipped the 737 Max with a single point of failure, a potentially dangerous anomaly in aviation, and the Federal Aviation Administration approved it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/b...ction=Business

THT TLDR: Boeing cheaped out, government doesn't protect us, but protects big business.
V8BoatBuilder is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:48 PM
  #65  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,563
Default

Originally Posted by V8BoatBuilder View Post
This is the problem:

Boeing’s software fix indicates that the plane maker shipped the 737 Max with a single point of failure, a potentially dangerous anomaly in aviation, and the Federal Aviation Administration approved it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/b...ction=Business

Hence, Boeing 737 MAX was stupidly designed.
V8BoatBuilder likes this.
Kendall is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:54 PM
  #66  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Beaufort, NC
Posts: 58
Default

Originally Posted by forgot View Post
Question for pilots or those that may know.
The pilot requested a vector to return to airport. Would he have vectored manually [fly the plane manually] or plugged the vector into the auto pilot?
Or is it something one just really can't answer.
There is a really good video somewhere out there called 'Children of the Magenta'. May be on youtube still, I haven't watched it in quite some time. It discusses the over reliance on automation and knowing when to disconnect or dumb down various 'layers' of automation.

TYPICALLY, if we're doing arrivals into high density airports, the plane is programmed for an arrival and an approach procedure. Normally we will leave the automation on until anywhere from the final approach fix, to 200', or even lower depending on the weather or the category of the approach that may dictate even an 'auto land'. It all depends on the circumstances. I personally like to disconnect around 1000' and hand fly the remainder...helps keep your instrument scan sharp AND keeps you in practice should the automation booger up (and it does from time to time). When the automation starts doing something you don't intend, we prioritize and disconnect and FLY THE AIRPLANE.

To answer your question regarding plugging in the vectors: I can't tell you how often I'm noticing newer, low time guys, heads down and pecking like a hen with their fingers into the FMC/S (Flight Management Computer or System), and turning what would normally be something as benign as looking out the window to perform a visual approach or again, not dumbing down certain layers of automation, to accomplish some of the simplest of tasks.

ATP rated; former part 121 US airline, currently check airman for large corporate flight department located overseas.
BSL and V8BoatBuilder like this.
HeidiMarie is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 12:18 AM
  #67  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alberta
Posts: 415
Default

Just getting some bugs out, nothing to see here folks
meritmat is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:33 AM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm City, FL
Posts: 2,113
Default

Originally Posted by SilverGraphite View Post
I'm curious - do you think that because you've spent some time in the back end of some aircraft that your opinion is somehow more relevant/important/valid than those who design and fly them, even though you yourself have no actual experience in designing and flying any aircraft, much less this one specific type?
SMDH. Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Of course, I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.
V8BoatBuilder and km1125 like this.
Ahoy Vay is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 05:59 AM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 150
Default

Originally Posted by RogerMurdock View Post
that was as far as I needed to read...

Gary M is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:18 AM
  #70  
BSL
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 857
Default

And to tag onto what HeidiMarie said, in this case of an inflight emergency, first fly the airplane, then talk to ATC. If vectors are given, Pilot not flying plugs them in, does communication, and runs emergency checklist, pilot flying keeps flying, using the instruments and eyes up. This sounds simple, but in practice can be difficult. There is more to it than just this, but this is the basics. My last aircraft I was Pilot Typed in was B727, and was an FE in most other aircraft that had the FE seat. FE and MEI instructor.
BSL is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:42 AM
  #71  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 12,261
Default

Originally Posted by Fractured but whole View Post
99.9% of the population is in no way qualified to comment on the physics of flight. That includes almost every poster in this thread including myself.

The engineers, scientists, and experienced pilots will figure it out.
Thanks for the lecture Sparky. I know this much about flight physics. If the computer system in a plane points the nose of the plane at the ground for long enough, there will be a crash.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:09 AM
  #72  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 150
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
Sorry my responses are embedded in your quote.
Got it........ thanks for your input.

Keep in mind that between United, AA and SWA, they have flown many dozens of thousands of flights and probably 3-4 times more that numbers in hours of flights, with zero MCAS problems. Consider just where and by whom, the other crashes happened. Second World nations?

The Media keeps confusing things by reporting 'problems' when they quote stuff like "a pilot wrote in the Logbook...... 'When the A/P was engaged, the nose pitched down". As if to say "SEE, I told you there have been problems!!" But the MCAS only is active with the A/P in the Off position.

The LionAir 737 was reported to have had problems a day or two before the crash that may have not been addressed. Their problems could be more than MCAS or it may have caused the failure of MCAS.

In the Ethiopian crash, strong witness evidence reported that parts were flying off the airplane and that 'sounds of heavy vibration' were heard. This could be totally UN related to MCAS.

Modifying an older airplane? I flew MD-80 series jets. Brand new ones from the factory to us in 1990. It's a looooong DC-9. When Douglas stretched that airplane, they found that with an engine failure, the plane needed more directional control as well as better airflow over the wing root. The 'solution' was to add long, thin 'strakes' which you can see below the cockpit and one was added on each engine cowling. Fuel savings were found by replacing the cone shaped tip of the tail with what we called the 'screwdriver' tail. Therefore this 'DC-9' had been changed and modified to make the longer version safer. But it's ID plate still says "DC-9", not MD-80.

This one in an MD-87 model. Only TWA flew them besides Midway. It's slightly shorter than our -82/83/88 models and it was a real hot rod!



I was initially trained on older DC-9s and we even used Eastern's DC-9-30 Sims for training in Miami to get signed off as 'DC-9 Qualified'. Then we did 12 days of MD-80 Differences and ended up doing two Training Sims out in Long Beach (got to tour the Queen Mary and saw the Spruce Goose! Very cool!!) at the Douglas factory. There, we learned that since this jet had been lengthened so much, that it had to be carefully flown with regards to the flaps as the jet was 'pitch sensitive'. We quickly learned, "Flaps down Nose down" and "Flaps up Nose up" and we had to be quick with the Stabilizer Trim. Putting slats/flaps out made the nose rise, etc..... so we had to add some nose down trim to compensate. We called the jet a 'pitch whore'! 'Trim' means that it's stable and that you could let go of the wheel and the plane would not rise, roll, etc. If your car needs a front end alignment. it's out of 'trim'......

With the 737Max, it uses newer, slightly bigger engines and in order to have proper/safer ground clearance, they found that they could move the engines slightly forward and that they needed to be raised up a bit. A slightly taller nose gear also was needed to get the engine higher off the ground. You can bet that many, many thousands of hours went into wind tunnel testing as they tried many combinations of 'solutions' before what we see now, was Certified. The older 737-700s, etc all have those flattened engine cowlings on the bottom. That was a 'change' when they went to the much bigger engines in the 1980s.

The same basic airplanes have always 'evolved'. Calling for an ALL NEW airplane sounds great! But it would take 10 years and Billions and guess what? Boeing would put out an all new airliner that is single aisle, that can be had in various lengths and would hold 150-220 passengers have two fuel efficient engines and two pilots. Oh wait! That sound just like a 737!

Here ya go! Is this a 707?..... Is it a 727?..... Is it a 737?



Guess what? Boeing used the same fuselage for all three airliners!! They realized that they did not NEED to make it a different size inside because 3 x 3 seating works well. In fact, the 757 also shares the same basic fuselage! The 707/727/737 cockpits all look similar. The number of engines, the wing and tails were of course different.

And what is Airbus doing? Their basic A-320 design from the 80s has been modified many times and now it has evolved into the A-320 NEO ........ sort of like the B-737 MAX.
Gary M is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:12 AM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 150
Default

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
Thanks for the lecture Sparky. I know this much about flight physics. If the computer system in a plane points the nose of the plane at the ground for long enough, there will be a crash.
Uh.......... you forgot one pesky little factiod.........

You know, those two guys that sit in the very front..... they ain't 'observers'!
Gary M is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:16 AM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 150
Default

Originally Posted by BSL View Post
.... in this case of an inflight emergency, first fly the airplane, then talk to ATC. If vectors are given, Pilot not flying plugs them in, does communication, and runs emergency checklist, pilot flying keeps flying, using the instruments and eyes up.
Yep!!

And as we used to say........ in an Emergency:

Aviate

Navigate

Communicate

In that exact order.......
Gary M is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:17 AM
  #75  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 931
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed in my opinion. Although I am not a Pilot or an Aerospace Engineer, I am a frequent flyer who has spent more time flying in commercial aircraft than driving in an automobile.
You should have read your first two sentences and stopped. You know nothing for which you are speaking. The only thing that makes you think you know something is you ride in them and you watched some fake news..

Which makes you less qualified than the flight attendants, baggage handlers, plane washers and the guys that stand at the fence and take pictures

Well I bet in all your travels you have stayed in a Holiday in Express last night.

You like most everyone else on the news has made everyone dumber for reading/listening to it.

If you want to know what you may not be being told just ask. Don't come on here in rant.

Google AF447 or Airbus flying into trees. There is a real design flaw and another one where the boys up front had no chance. If that glitch on a Max scares you an Airbus will give you nightmares.
If you are scared of a computer glitch on a 737 that is totally controllable you do NOT want to know how an Airbus or some of the bigger Boeings work my friend
RyanL11 likes this.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:23 AM
  #76  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,100
Default

'Airbus flying into trees '

That Airbus actually was doing a fly by at an air show 'with a load of passengers'. Hard to believe they would allow that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
forgot is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:19 AM
  #77  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 171
Default

Originally Posted by Lorne Greene View Post
I am intrigued by this comment. Why would you be more concerned if it was American and United rather than Ethiopian?
Shortly after our President was elected he described countries like Ethiopia and Indonesia in an uncomplimentary way, I really don't agree with that characterization but I do know that those countries have thousands of years of corruption and nepotism imbedded in their culture. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that some of that spills over into Pilot training and selection. Do you really think that if some senior official wanted a child or relative to be a pilot their version of the FAA would refuse?

Jake
JG400 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:43 AM
  #78  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,655
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
Captain C.B. Sully Sullenger, a seasoned, decorated veteran commercial airline pilot plainly stated today, "there are many similarities between this flight (Ethiopian Air) and Lion Air 610, in which the design of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 is a factor. It has been obvious since the Lion Air crash that a redesign of the 737 MAX 8 has been urgently needed, yet has still not been done, and the announced proposed fixes do not go far enough. "

Again the design of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 is a factor... AND a redesign of the 737 MAX 8 has been urgently needed according to Sully.

Hence, the Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed.
Sully designs planes now?

You really have no clue what you are talking about...you're just regurgitating nonsense you don't understand.

RyanL11 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:48 AM
  #79  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Beaufort, NC
Posts: 58
Default

Originally Posted by RyanL11 View Post
Sully designs planes now?

You really have no clue what you are talking about...you're just regurgitating nonsense you don't understand.
Correct. He came up with this during the manager's hospitality hour at the the Holiday Inn Express. Yep...he's THAT guy in the back. Thanks for the chuckles up in the front.
Cheers!
HeidiMarie is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:55 AM
  #80  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,748
Default

MCAS is basically a band-aid over a design compromise. The airframe does not meet certification standards for handling characteristics in a certain flight envelope. So they ‘fixed’ it with a computer stability augmentation system. The stability augmentation operates in the background, so the pilots don’t even know it’s there. The airplane handles just like they expect it would.

In this case it sounds like the design compromises were made in the name of efficiency and avoiding the expense of a clean sheet design.

I’d prefer transport aircraft handle honestly and do not need artificial help from a computer. Save the stability augmentation for fighters and designs that really require it.
Kendall likes this.

Last edited by dell30rb; 03-16-2019 at 09:09 AM.
dell30rb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread