Senators Call for the Grounding of the 737 MAX

#227
#227
SpaceCoastVol said:
two words:
Southwest Airlines
Click to expand...

What is it exactly they were trying to do with the Max? Obviously efficiency is paramount these days, but in what regard? Number of passengers, more efficient airfoil, more efficient motors? Sounds like Max was a good name...max the hell out of the original solid design.

That kickstand comment...uggggh. Sorry folks the kickstand did not deploy, so please exit safely from the top of the cabin.
 
#228
#228
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re really trying too hard on this one Ras.

Boeing is largely still ran by idiots so instead of trying to Gen outrage just wait till the morons serve it up on a platter.
Click to expand...
It is sort of a reach... but if what you all are claiming is true that the engine problems likely originated from them being idle, then I'm simply asking a question of what caused them to be idle for so long?

You say it is a reach, and I'll grant you that point. But there is a connection because this issue was of a direct result of their original problems. And I'm sure there will be other issues that pop up that are a direct (or if you wish to call it indirect/reaching) result of the Boeing's failures.
 
#229
#229
Orangeburst said:
What is it exactly they were trying to do with the Max? Obviously efficiency is paramount these days, but in what regard? Number of passengers, more efficient airfoil, more efficient motors? Sounds like Max was a good name...max the hell out of the original solid design.

That kickstand comment...uggggh. Sorry folks the kickstand did not deploy, so please exit safely from the top of the cabin.
Click to expand...
They were trying to get better fuel efficiency by changing engines, but using the same old 60 year old frame... rather than building and designing a brand new plane like Airbus did. Boeing figured they could solve their issues a lot cheaper and quickly with software rather than creating a new plane design/hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol Main
#230
#230
Rasputin_Vol said:
They were trying to get better fuel efficiency by changing engines, but using the same old 60 year old frame... rather than building and designing a brand new plane like Airbus did. Boeing figured they could solve their issues a lot cheaper and quickly with software rather than creating a new plane design/hardware.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they mismatched motors with aircraft design and changed the center of gravity due to delta weight and drag differences, resulting in insufficently validated flight trim control modifications. And here we are.
 
#231
#231
Orangeburst said:
Sounds like they mismatched motors with aircraft design and changed the center of gravity due to delta weight and drag differences, resulting in insufficently validated flight trim control modifications. And here we are.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the software was supposed to compensate for the plane having a natural tendency to either lift or nosedive (can't remember the specifics because I read about it over a year ago).
 
#232
#232
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yeah, the software was supposed to compensate for the plane having a natural tendency to either lift or nosedive (can't remember the specifics because I read about it over a year ago).
Click to expand...
It handled both pitch up or down. From reading how it worked it sounded like an automatic position loop using the pilot trim input to command an angle of attack and used the AOA sensor to servo the error. This when the AOA sensor went kaput the loops feedback was broken and it went open loop.

I think the plane had a tendency to pitch up as power was added and likewise down as power was pulled.
 
#233
#233
NorthDallas40 said:
It handled both pitch up or down. From reading how it worked it sounded like an automatic position loop using the pilot trim input to command an angle of attack and used the AOA sensor to servo the error. This when the AOA sensor went kaput the loops feedback was broken and it went open loop.

I think the plane had a tendency to pitch up as power was added and likewise down as power was pulled.
Click to expand...
I think from what I remember also is that the pilots were supposed to be trained or be aware to turn off the system if that did happen. But seems like it wouldn't be that hard to have some sort of component failure alarm that would automatically disable it. You may not want that to occur with all components I suppose, but at least on certain critical items in the control loop.
 
#234
#234
Rasputin_Vol said:
I think from what I remember also is that the pilots were supposed to be trained or be aware to turn off the system if that did happen. But seems like it wouldn't be that hard to have some sort of component failure alarm that would automatically disable it. You may not want that to occur with all components I suppose, but at least on certain critical items in the control loop.
Click to expand...
It sounded like a horrible design to me. Single feedback sensor with no peer voting or redundancy, autonomous operation, and poor pilot awareness of engagement. It was doomed to failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X
#236
#236
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yeah, the software was supposed to compensate for the plane having a natural tendency to either lift or nosedive (can't remember the specifics because I read about it over a year ago).
Click to expand...

Not that Boeing has had a good track record of software as of late...

Starliner is another example of that.
 
#237
#237
Rasputin_Vol said:
They were trying to get better fuel efficiency by changing engines, but using the same old 60 year old frame... rather than building and designing a brand new plane like Airbus did. Boeing figured they could solve their issues a lot cheaper and quickly with software rather than creating a new plane design/hardware.
Click to expand...
As Space alluded to, it is an attempt to save an outdated airframe in order to keep a certain airline from having to train crews for another type rating which is a considerable expense, generally about 2 months of training costs which equates to about 2 months of removing a crewmember from line operations. So you end up with a Frankenstein airplane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#243
#243
TheDeeble said:
Less training/experience required for pilots and maintenance. Less regulation of aircraft parts used. Less oversight of maintenance.
Click to expand...
You do know this plane was shutdown worldwide... not just from 3rd countries, right? The problem had nothing to do with pilot training or inferior training and maintenance.
 
#244
#244
Rasputin_Vol said:
You do know this plane was shutdown worldwide... not just from 3rd countries, right? The problem had nothing to do with pilot training or inferior training and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Oh but it does. And to answer @allvol123's question... I would venture that the MAX will be one of the safest airplanes in the sky by the time it is released into the wild. I think the rectal probes it has gotten to get back into service were probably pretty extensive and deep. The USA doesn't want Boeing going bankrupt, and another crash due to design flaws would have them sued into oblivion. That being said, I agree with another poster that I wouldn't be getting on a foreign fly by night cheapy fare airline... but that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123 and NorthDallas40
#245
#245
Rasputin_Vol said:
You do know this plane was shutdown worldwide... not just from 3rd countries, right? The problem had nothing to do with pilot training or inferior training and maintenance.
Click to expand...
North American commercial airline pilots have considerably more training and the airlines have stricter requirements. That’s a fact. To even enter North American airspace on a commercial carrier the pilot requirements are stepped up.

Any NA pilot can probably fly the same type rated aircraft anywhere in the world. The converse is absolutely not true.
 
#246
#246
Rasputin_Vol said:
You do know this plane was shutdown worldwide... not just from 3rd countries, right? The problem had nothing to do with pilot training or inferior training and maintenance.
Click to expand...
I mean 3rd world countries in general. Not just specific to the MAX. Unairworthy parts, shoddy maintenance procedures, and lack of oversight.

As for nothing to do with pilots or maintenance? Why did Lion Air crash? But no North American/European airlines did when the fault was present? I believe there were several North America pilots that experienced this fault, yet were able to navigate it and make a log book write up upon landing. I don't think that's a coincidence despite there being numerous MAX flights daily inside the US. Not "because 'Merica!", but because the training, experience, and procedures required for pilots/maintenance in some countries is probably insufficient.

But the report also cites a series of other shortcomings on the part of flight and maintenance crews of the Lion Air 737.

It points to a crucial sensor that measures the plane's angle of attack, or AOA, and feeds data to MCAS. There are two on each plane. The day before the crash, a faulty, second-hand AOA sensor, repaired by Xtra Aerospace in Miramar, Fla., was installed on the plane by ground crew.

The report indicates that the sensor — which proved to be 21 degrees out of calibration — was probably not tested prior to flight, but investigators "could not determine with any certainty that the AOA sensor installation (was) successful," because 31 pages of the plane's October 2018 maintenance log are missing.

Indonesian investigators found that just after the sensor was installed the day before the crash, a different crew had experienced the same problems with MCAS as on the later, fatal flight. Unaware of the MCAS system — and with the help of a third pilot sitting in the jump seat — they managed to cut off power to the tail and resume control.

Standard operating procedures meant that the crew should have returned and landed the plane immediately, but instead they continued to their destination.

Upon landing, the captain did not report the most serious problems the crew had encountered, which would have required the plane to be grounded.

Instead, Flight 610 on Oct. 29 took off at 6:20 a.m. local time. Soon after takeoff, the pilot struggled to counteract repeated nose downs as a result of MCAS and the data the faulty sensor was feeding it.

When the problems surfaced on Flight 610, the pilot asked the first officer to perform an Airspeed Unreliability checklist that should have indicated which of the plane's two AOA sensors was reading incorrectly. The first officer should then have directed the pilot to engage the autopilot, which disables MCAS.

It took the co-pilot four minutes to locate the checklist because he was "not familiar with the memory item," the report concludes. During training at Lion Air, the first officer had shown unfamiliarity with standard procedures and weak aircraft handling skills, according to the report.
Click to expand...

Investigators couldn't determine the plane's airworthiness because 31 pages of logbook were missing. The captain of the previous flight didn't even report he had an in-flight problem that was resolved only with the help of a jumpseating pilot.

Indonesia Report: Pilots, Ground Crew Share Blame With Boeing For Lion Air Crash

“The NTSC stated the pilots, especially the First Officer, had significant training deficiencies and lacked basic flying skills. These same deficiencies occurred during the accident flight. These two pilots had no business being in the cockpit and the airplane should not have been operated because of all the maintenance issues that began at the beginning of October, and were not corrected, making the airplane unairworthy.”

Feith questions the NTSC’s silence regarding “the oversight by the Indonesian DGCA and the accountability of LionAir, especially after the airline had several serious incidents and accidents in the past 6 years.

“The report on the FO is an eye-opener as he is constantly very poor in all phases of operating an aircraft,” the training captain said.

“The report indicates a lot of additional training in standard operating procedures and emergencies and this was repeated on almost every subsequent training session but the problems were never resolved.

“There is a continual mention of a very poor instrument scan which was also never resolved. Even more deeply troubling was that, according to the pilot reports, the first officer didn’t understand and had difficulty handling aerodynamic stalls, a fundamental of flying.”

“That FO could not fly and I wonder why the Lion Air trainers didn’t cull him as his performance at proficiency checks are all fail items.”
Click to expand...

Highly respected aviation experts critical of Lion Air pilots and crash report - Airline Ratings
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#247
#247
TheDeeble said:
I mean 3rd world countries in general. Not just specific to the MAX. Unairworthy parts, shoddy maintenance procedures, and lack of oversight.

As for nothing to do with pilots or maintenance? Why did Lion Air crash? But no North American/European airlines did when the fault was present? I believe there were several North America pilots that experienced this fault, yet were able to navigate it and make a log book write up upon landing. I don't think that's a coincidence despite there being numerous MAX flights daily inside the US. Not "because 'Merica!", but because the training, experience, and procedures required for pilots/maintenance in some countries is probably insufficient.



Investigators couldn't determine the plane's airworthiness because 31 pages of logbook were missing. The captain of the previous flight didn't even report he had an in-flight problem that was resolved only with the help of a jumpseating pilot.

Indonesia Report: Pilots, Ground Crew Share Blame With Boeing For Lion Air Crash



Highly respected aviation experts critical of Lion Air pilots and crash report - Airline Ratings
Click to expand...
Years ago there was a similar gap in the US between major carriers and the regionals. You didn’t want to fly Britt....
 
#249
#249
Rasputin_Vol said:
Boeing In New PR Scandal After Empty Booze Bottles Found On New Air Force One Plane | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

vodka-denzel-washington.gif


Seriously, Boeing has become trash.

I remember when they built the CCP ViP planes with bugs and it has been downhill since, I am sure the CCP remembers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top