Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 32
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1682997
So, how many hours of flights carrying no more than two 'chute equipped test pilots and a couple of hundred crash test dummies would the forum think was reasonable? As I understand it, this fault didn't manifest in the first couple of hours.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1683002
They could come up with BAPS.
Boeing Aircraft Parachute System

The parachute can be sandwiched into the roof (Hawaiian Airlines already demonstrated that the fuselage is made for this) , and Space X can supply the rocket deployment system.
It could save everyone’s bacon.

“Boeing Aircraft would like to thank Pete L for volunteering to fly aboard the Boeing 737 Max for its latest test program”. :twisted:
skydriller, Pete L liked this
By romille
#1683016
MichaelP wrote:“Boeing Aircraft would like to thank Pete L for volunteering to fly aboard the Boeing 737 Max for its latest test program”. :twisted:


Are you suggesting Pete L is a crash test dummy? :lol:
Pete L liked this
By Dominie
#1683101
Josh wrote:Yes - the MCAS risk assessment had as a control measure for unwanted activation that the flight crew would recognise it as a runaway stabiliser and apply that set of memory items.

In which case then surely you must train the pilots to cope in that situation? They can't have it both ways!
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1683179
It’s the Comet disaster without the [innocent] error of design, which was resolved by extensive testing while the 707 was able to take the lead.
The Comet IV was a very safe aeroplane afterwards.

Has anyone a comparison between the efficiency of the 707 with podded engines vs the Comet/Nimrod with buried engines?

Seems the commercial concerns competing with Airbus have exceeded those for safety.
Boeing promise their fix by the end of the month, but probably the fix will take a lot longer to make, and confidence in the aeroplane will take even longer.

Maybe 737 Max (non)operators should be looking to lease A320/321 aircraft to fill the gap?
I think the gap is going to be a lot longer than Boeing’s estimates, how many airlines can bear having brand new aeroplanes sitting on the ground for as long as it will take for Boeing to fix their problem?

I wonder how many pilots support an aerodynamic resolution, and how many pilots are comfortable with a software solution?

Ultimately, I think Boeing should learn from de Havilland’s experience and get back to the drawing board. Rather than the new midsize jet, perhaps Boeing should redesign the 737, accept that this will be a new, different type, different type rating, but have the capability to develop into a modern jet to compete with Airbus.
User avatar
By kanga
#1683188
MichaelP wrote:It’s the Comet disaster without the [innocent] error of design, which was resolved by extensive testing while the 707 was able to take the lead.
The Comet IV was a very safe aeroplane afterwards.

...


AFAIK, all Marks of Comet except the earliest unmodified Mk Is were at least as safe as contemporary airliner types. RCAF Mk IAs operated what was a virtually scheduled transatlantic jet service, the first in the world, from 1953 onwards and into '60. RAF used Mk 2s (on which I have flown) from 1956 into '70s. Both also regularly flew into US military bases. However, FAA would not allow civilian Comets into US on scheduled services until the Mk 4, not allowed until B707 and DC8 were Certified. Funny that. :roll:
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1683199
I worked at Brooklands where the VC10 was built.

We had the RB211-524 pylons to make for the Boeing 747.
The threat was that Boeing would supply South American HS146 customers with Fokker 100s if the pylons were not delivered on time.

In the early days of the VC10 India was going to order this aircraft, but the US government gave them the 707. When Americans complain about ‘subsidies’, they should be reminded of the dirty business associated with the US government and Boeing... Now this pair of dirty organisations have caught a bad cod.
The media will have a field day with this one!

Aviation in the USA has produced fine aircraft, but the politics have been dirty.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 32