Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19
User avatar
By Morten
#1681443
IMCR wrote:There is the chance to make a lot of money if it is demonstrated it isnt "the aircraft" and the share price rapidly recovers.

Going long on Boeing at the moment could be a ballsy move.
On a smaller scale, going long on those insurers who are providing grounding cover to Boeing could also be misplaced...
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By PaulB
#1681486
Morten wrote:NAX 4545 scheduled from Stockholm to Tel Aviv just did a 180 over Moldova to return to Stockholm...


TK1969 Istanbul to Birmingham was turned back over Germany this evening.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1681489
KeithM wrote:It shouldn’t affect the Americans too much, because, as I understand it, relatively few of them have passports, anyway. :)


Is it true only 10% of Americans have passports?
BBC wrote:It is often said that only 10% of Americans have passports. But that has not been true for more than 20 years.
...
While that was true in 1994, the figure now is more than 40% - and it grows every year.
...
Before 2007 - when new laws began kicking in - Americans could usually travel to and from Canada, Mexico, and other nearby countries, without a passport.


Back on topic: I would like to think that the groundings have been dispassionately based on non-public information, and not on the potential coincidence of tragic accidents to two of the same type.
KeithM liked this
User avatar
By townleyc
#1681492
I think enough has been reported to suggest it is in the public domain.

I was appalled at the FAA announcement yesterday, and thoroughly approved of the CAA, followed by EASA moves.

It is not that the aircraft is inherently wrong, just that the pilots get no brief. They probably should be on a separate type rating, so pilots can be trained rather than the 50 minute iPad video shown to some, but not all, as I understand.


Where is the harrumph smiley?


KE
User avatar
By Dave W
#1681504
townleyc wrote:I think enough has been reported to suggest it is in the public domain.

Lots about the Lion Air incident; I've seen nothing factual reported on the latest accident that suggests a link - maybe I have missed something, of course. What do we know?
User avatar
By MichaelP
#1681527
With the dreaded spin we do not know how many pilots did not spin in because they had spin training.
To how many crews might the alleged problem have occurred and they were able to disconnect the system and carry on afterwards?

There was a comment somewhere that American pilots had complained about similar troubles.
What we need to consider is incident reports as well as the two accident reports.

Many operators insist their pilots engage the autopilot soon after takeoff, and this means a system failure has to be detected and responded to without much margin of altitude when the pilots are distracted flying a SID procedure.

Boeing could take out a licence to build Airbus 321s to fulfil their orders...

The 737 was designed with short legs and low bypass ‘turbojet’ engines.
When Boeing fitted the CFM56 there was a lot of trouble with engine failures, BA had a double engine failure in this type with a worrying glide, and then there was BMI and the M1 among other incidents.
IMHO the 737 should have had a new wing with a longer undercarriage to fit more powerful engines, but maybe this would have meant a new type certificate.
Or maybe not.
Cessna 210s went from strut braced to cantilever wings on the same type certificate I believe.
By Boxkite
#1681551
So what happens next:
The US carries on flying them.
Almost no-one else does.
Boeing checks the software and says there's nothing wrong.
Authorities have no choice but to lift the bans.
Everyone else - reluctantly - starts flying them again.....until....

Or: Boeing checks the software and announces (in damage-limitation mode) they have made 'minor' changes to counter the 'very rare combination' of the unlikelihood of this occurring again together with pilots being unfamiliar with the system.....
FAA narrowly escapes getting egg on their face.
Everyone - reluctantly - starts flying them again.....until....
KeithM liked this
User avatar
By PaulB
#1681558
Dave W wrote:What happens next is an accident investigation including CDR/FDR analysis.


Surely a comparison between the FDR recording of the 2 events will be being made as we speak and should be quite quick.

I'm assuming that NTSB will be leading on the technical aspects of this comparison (or will it be Boeing?)
User avatar
By Iceman
#1681570
The very fact that two new aircraft have been lost so soon after the introduction of the type is sufficient reason to issue a precautionary grounding of the aircraft in my view until the analysis of the second accident confirms either that it has an identical cause to the first or is unrelated. Both of these accidents have happened on departure and both seem to be associated with control difficulties (the Ethiopia aircraft reported that he was returning to the airport with such a problem as I understand). Boeing have a fault in the aircraft for which they are working towards a fix (from the Lion Air accident). With a problem having been found, and a second aircraft lost in apparently similar circumstances, I find it totally unbelievable that the FAA are not grounding as at least a temporary measure. I can only conclude that they are either bowing to commercial pressures or can't admit to a problem as they certified the aircraft as fit for flight.

Iceman 8)
Lockhaven, TouringTuggy, Dominie and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By mikehallam
#1681584
Is simply disabling this particular & automatic anti-stall process even more dangerous ? Otherwise presumably Boeing would have done that weeks ago.

Perhaps to obtain the ultimate performance of this generation of airliners the 'plane is compelled to fly extremely close indeed to the stall on steep climb out etc.?
We are already aware for many years that in cruise at altitude the margins between stall and speed of sound buffet are only a few mph.
Meaning any anti-stall action on climb out too must be carried out instantly and reacted to - faster that a human pilot's appreciation such an event is imminent or even taking place - thus it has become essential that the recovery is only safe with an electronic sensor driven system.

Faults in such a system have already been more than hinted at.

mike hallam.
Last edited by mikehallam on Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19