Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
User avatar
By Dave W
#1702463
Ah, but none of those are accident causes. Taking the single door example, should we be grounding all Pipers because things changed since they were designed and built, and that characteristic is unmodifiable?

We could, but there goes a hefty percentage of the World-wide training fleet.
User avatar
By kanga
#1702464
Bill McCarthy wrote:As they have been grounded for so long - how many pilots have gone “out of date” on type and need requalification ?


ah, but Boeing promised their customers that anyone with a Type Rating on an older 737 would be able to fly the Max with only a brief on a tablet .. :roll:
#1702469
I've just read the article cited earlier: https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
It really is worth a read from start to end.

A couple of quotes from it:
Like someone with narcissistic personality disorder, MCAS gaslights the pilots. And it turns out badly for everyone.
“Raise the nose, HAL.”
“I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”


Further down:
Pitch changes with power changes are common in aircraft. Even my little Cessna pitches up a bit when power is applied. Pilots train for this problem and are used to it. Nevertheless, there are limits to what safety regulators will allow and to what pilots will put up with.

Pitch changes with increasing angle of attack, however, are quite another thing. An airplane approaching an aerodynamic stall cannot, under any circumstances, have a tendency to go further into the stall. This is called “dynamic instability,” and the only airplanes that exhibit that characteristic—fighter jets—are also fitted with ejection seats.


Finally:
Boeing produced a dynamically unstable airframe, the 737 Max. That is big strike No. 1.
Boeing then tried to mask the 737’s dynamic instability with a software system. Big strike No. 2.
Finally, the software relied on systems known for their propensity to fail (angle-of-attack indicators) and did not appear to include even rudimentary provisions to cross-check the outputs of the angle-of-attack sensor against other sensors, or even the other angle-of-attack sensor. Big strike No. 3.


OC619
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1702598
There are more balanced, accurate and less dramatised/judgemental explanations available than that article IMO. Like Juan Brown on Youtube that I referenced above. The Seattle Times stuff is technically good with good sources but the journalistic imperative adds a plot with drama, pathos and tragedy which is compelling but presumptuous and inaccurate. I also got suckered into a subscription I forgot to cancel...
User avatar
By Gertie
#1779966
kanga wrote:Whether EASA, Transport Canada, .. then accept FAA approval at face value .. :roll:

And whether any passenger will ever fly in one ...

Actually I guess there will be some people too dim to spot that it's a 737 Max given that at least some airlines are rebranding them.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1779981
Gertie wrote:... there will be some people too dim to spot that it's a 737 Max ...

Could you identify the particular e.g. bus or train type on which you might be travelling?

Lack of fairly specialist knowledge isn't the same as being dim.
#1779991
It's not that specialist. I can recognise the B737 and B747. I can't tell a Boeing from an Airbus if I can't see the nose and even then it's not certain. I have absolutely no idea what any of the Airbus types are apart from the A380. As for all those small intercity jets made in Brazil and Canada :scratch: Airliners are as interesting as double decker buses.

Surely it's not just me?
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Rob L
#1779995
eltonioni wrote: (Rob L snip)
Surely it's not just me?


No, I'm the same. The only time I recognise a B777 is because it has three sets of wheels as mains. I'm even worse with bizjets.

The same could be said about cars and so-called microlights...modern ones all look the same now.
Rob

(And don't the policemen look young these days :wink: :cry: )
Charles Hunt, Flyin'Dutch', AndyR and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1780105
I find the safety leaflet in the back of the seat in front is my source. Sounds a bit late in the avoidance process though. I doubt the mass market looking for 2-3 hour flights for £1.99 plus tax would bother too much about the aircraft, if they heard it was a 737 Max they would think it was sponsored by Pepsi.
User avatar
By Gertie
#1780122
eltonioni wrote:I can't tell a Boeing from an Airbus if I can't see the nose and even then it's not certain.

That's a bit late. If you care about not flying in a 737 MAX you check when booking. Substitutions of aircraft type do happen, but not all that often.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22