Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
User avatar
By Josh
#1680899
Whether or not this accident is linked to MCAS, the 737 MAX has some basic conceptual problems. There are an artificial set of issues created mainly by Boing and SWA’s penny pinching. SWA have been determined for years that all 737s should be on a common type rating, leading Boeing to keep legacy architecture and system logic (if not the actual boxes under the hood) that would not meet modern certification requirements to save SWA training costs. The basic 737 airframe has been able to tolerate a lot of abuse, but a number of aerodynamic kludges have been introduced that violate the basic Boeing philosophy of pilot transparency and control.

Coupled with airlines thinking transition training is ok if it’s an hour watching a PowerPoint or two and only have 737-800 sims it’s easy to see where the problems come. For the record, my employer was no better with the A320 NEO - just an iBook and a short video!!!
By KeithM
#1680900
nallen wrote:
KeithM wrote:There will be some extremely worried people at Boeing right now, I imagine, especially after an apparently similar incident with a Ryan Air 737 not so long ago.


I missed that one -- what happened? (Vested interest as I fly Ryanair quite often…)


Original post since edited to read “Lion” not “Ryan”! :oops:
kanga liked this
User avatar
By PaulB
#1680936
I see that a number of countries have grounded their 737 Max fleets pending inspections. Think I've seen Indonesia, Ethiopia & China cited.
Iceman liked this
User avatar
By Iceman
#1680994
Three Comets were lost in the early 50s within a year of the introduction of that first passenger jet. The losses finished off the type as competitors took advantage of the knowledge gained from the flaws in this trail-blazing design. It would be a tad ironic if, this many years later, one of those competitors has come full circle and is now having a similar fundamental design problem of its own. Only time will tell.

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By nallen
#1681007
In my quest to find out what MACS was (per Josh's post; and thanks for that), I came across this:

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

I wonder if what is said in the last paragraph will come back to bite Boeing.
Iceman liked this
By KeithM
#1681040
nallen wrote:In my quest to find out what MACS was (per Josh's post; and thanks for that), I came across this:

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

I wonder if what is said in the last paragraph will come back to bite Boeing.


Indeed, and it says much about how some, perhaps, might view the required balance between human involvement and automation.

Unlike their military “fly by wire” counterparts, commercial flight crews, of course, do not have an “eject” option!
#1681041
JoeC wrote:I bet the Ryanair board are getting twitchy, unarchiving the board notes on who proposed going single type to reduce costs....


AIUI the 737 MAX is different to the legacy version of which ISTR the 737-100/300 are one type rating and the 737-400/900 another.
User avatar
By Josh
#1681045
My licence says 737 300-900. It would also say MAX if I’d recalibrated the type rating. Instead it says “expired”

It’s the 100/200 that are on a separate rating.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By PaulB
#1681069
This article from The Atlantic is a reasonable read (for a non-aviation audience), and it cites other interesting articles, notably this from the NYT which talks about the ramifications that arise from the different positioning of the engines on the MAX (This article was written before the Ethiopia accident).

There's also this about MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) from Aviation Safety.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1681082
KeithM wrote:
PaulB wrote:There's also this about MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) from Aviation Safety.


Already posted, I think. :)

Ah, the problem with threads.... :)


Ooops.... but 2 out of three ain't bad (and The Atlantic a paper has other links new to this thread :-) )
KeithM liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
#1681086
Given Boeing were all about preserving the illusion of physical control I'm surprised by the description of the design - I recall all the mud slinging about Airbus side sticks.
By KeithM
#1681090
Former FAA man just on BBC News expressing criticism of the FAA and recommending that these aircraft be grounded until the software issue has been resolved.

He argues that, as the regulator, they should be taking a lead and not be swayed by commercial interests.

Indeed.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19