Would you fly in a 737 Max 8 right now?


VIBC
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

There's a good video on youtube of a guy in a 737 max simulator. He created the condition of the system doing this then he just off the autopilot and corrected it. He commented that if a pilot is in a fight with the automation just shut it off and fly manually.

I believe there's a confusion of terminology here. According to what I've read, the anti-stall system is separate from, and independent of, the autopilot. It 'decides for itself' when to activate, regardless whether the plane is being controlled manually or by the autopilot. Doubtless confusion on this point is fueled by journalistic assumption/sloppiness.

As far as I can tell from what I've read, the stall-avoidance system can only be disabled by killing its power source via a pair of switches the pilot would never otherwise have reason to touch - or maybe, in some cases, even be aware of.
 
Curious Cdn
#122
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

I believe there's a confusion of terminology here. According to what I've read, the anti-stall system is separate from, and independent of, the autopilot. It 'decides for itself' when to activate, regardless whether the plane is being controlled manually or by the autopilot. Doubtless confusion on this point is fueled by journalistic assumption/sloppiness.
As far as I can tell from what I've read, the stall-avoidance system can only be disabled by killing its power source via a pair of switches the pilot would never otherwise have reason to touch - or maybe, in some cases, even be aware of.

Always buy the better trim packages.
 
VIBC
+1
#123
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Should someone with a Class 5 drivers license who has only driven a Smart Car be allowed to jump behind the wheel of 5t U-Haul without sitting through simulations?

It depends. Most people with a class 5 driver's license are perfectly capable to drive a small truck. Some others shouldn't even be allowed out of the house. The vehicles are easy to control, but the driver's attitude may be something no simulator could reveal.
 
VIBC
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Always buy the better trim packages.

In his case the problem 'trim package' comes standard. It's an attempted workaround for a built-in design flaw. The 'optional extra' attitude indicator is something that should always be there, something a pilot would instinctively understand & use BUT the non-optional anti-stall software would override his control.
Last edited by VIBC; Mar 22nd, 2019 at 06:41 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
#125
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

In his case the problem 'trim package' comes standard. It's an attempted workaround for a built-in design flaw.

Well, it this new de-regulated world, Boeing approves their own aircraft. They got rid of those creeping Commienizm FAA inspection Commissars that were threatening freedom.
 
VIBC
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Well, it this new de-regulated world, Boeing approves their own aircraft. They got rid of those creeping Commienizm FAA inspection Commissars that were threatening freedom.

Somebody once remarked that self-tested certification only works with parachute manufacturers.
 
Curious Cdn
#127
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

Somebody once remarked that self-tested certification only works with parachute manufacturers.

... only if they jump first ...
 
NZDoug
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

I had occasion once to take a flight from Toronto airport to Sarnia in a DC3...
Good safe airplane that could land in any field......but noisy on take off.....you couldn't talk to the passenger besides you until it leveled off
Only had time for one drink on that flight.....

I learned to fly the Wong way at Central Airways Toronto Island Airport many moons ago.
Hot news.
Garuda cancels their order for 50 737 MAX.
Garuda looks to scrap Boeing 737 Max 8 order after crashes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47662967
 
Curious Cdn
#129
Quote: Originally Posted by NZDoug View Post

I learned to fly the Wong way at Central Airways Toronto Island Airport many moons ago.
Hot news.
Garuda cancels their order for 50 737 MAX.
Garuda looks to scrap Boeing 737 Max 8 order after crashes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47662967

My Dad was a wartime RCAF pilot, flying in the Indian Ocean for four years. He ended the war in command of one of these, RAF 205 Squadron Koggala, Ceylon.

http://youtu.be/ySczmKPLGOo
 
VIBC
#130
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Well, it this new de-regulated world, Boeing approves their own aircraft. They got rid of those creeping Commienizm FAA inspection Commissars that were threatening freedom.

They all fell in lifelong love with "Ayn Rand" (actually Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum,) although even superlover Alan Greenspan eventually saw the light and admitted the folly of the 'philosophy' he'd swallowed.
 
Curious Cdn
#131
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

They all fell in lifelong love with "Ayn Rand" (actually Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum,) although even superlover Alan Greenspan eventually saw the light and admitted the folly of the 'philosophy' he'd swallowed.

"Trickle down" turned out the be limited to the urine trickling down Trump's back in a Moscow hotel.
 
VIBC
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

"Trickle down" turned out the be limited to the urine trickling down Trump's back in a Moscow hotel.

Much as I dislike Ayn Rand and thought "Atlas Shrugged" was a piece of simplistic nonsense with childish hatred at its core, it's easy to understand where her 'philosophy' was born. Her family was originally wealthy with the father running a successful business. After the revolution they had all their property confiscated and were reduced to poverty. Being Jewish, they probably came in for extra discrimination by the new regime.

I detest her extremist ideas but it's easy to see where they had their hellish beginnings.
 
Curious Cdn
#133
I thought that the FAA had grounded these death traps.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/...tnn?li=AAggNb9
 
Hoid
#134
It was on its way to a storage facility - no pax
 
NZDoug
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

My Dad was a wartime RCAF pilot, flying in the Indian Ocean for four years. He ended the war in command of one of these, RAF 205 Squadron Koggala, Ceylon.
http://youtu.be/ySczmKPLGOo

"Bless them all", young fellah.
Cool vid.
My mom and one of her 12 sisters worked at DeHavilland Aircraft Co., in Malton, on the Mosquito production line.
Things are getting worse, re:737MAX*800.
"Another scenario addresses the perception that “regulatory capture” has occurred—i.e., Boeing and the FAA are just too close. How could the MCAS be categorized as non-flight-critical dependent on a single angle-of-attack sensor? Already, Transport Canada indicated that the MAX likely will not reenter service until July 1. Holding the key to its timely reentry are the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the CAAC, which will take their time in approving the proposed MCAS changes. EASA’s independence under the circumstances is to be expected, but the CAAC’s aggressiveness in being the first to ground the MAX caught some by surprise. Though government-controlled, the CAAC can be conservative on flight safety matters. And China’s plans for the Comac C919 are well known. In this scenario, which can be deemed “nominal,” the MAX is not fully back in service globally for another 3-6 months. If this occurs, Boeing may be forced to reduce production rates.
Finally, there is a pessimistic scenario. The CAAC and EASA may determine that additional flight-testing is required to allow the MAX back into service, significantly delaying its entry into service in vital markets. Additional training could also be required. Or the issue could become intertwined in U.S.-China geopolitics. The MAX is an alluring bargaining chip for China to oppose a new round of U.S. tariffs. China isn’t pleased with the Trump administration’s backing of F-16 sales to Taiwan—the first such deal since 1992. Its recent order of 300 Airbus jetliners—including 290 A320neos—underscores its dissatisfaction with the situation. A wildcard in the pessimistic scenario is the role of global public opinion in the age of social media. Indonesian public opinion may have contributed to Garuda’s attempt to cancel an order for 49 MAXs valued at $4.9 billion. Regulators, facing unprecedented public scrutiny, are incentivized to err on the side conservatism. This includes the U.S., where the Justice Department subpoenaed Boeing as part of a criminal investigation. Actions like these could delay the MAX global reentry by 9-12 months or more.
More
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-...f09fa1397bda59
 
Curious Cdn
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by NZDoug View Post

"Bless them all", young fellah.
Cool vid.
My mom and one of her 12 sisters worked at DeHavilland Aircraft Co., in Malton, on the Mosquito production line.
Things are getting worse, re:737MAX*800.
"Another scenario addresses the perception that “regulatory capture” has occurred—i.e., Boeing and the FAA are just too close. How could the MCAS be categorized as non-flight-critical dependent on a single angle-of-attack sensor? Already, Transport Canada indicated that the MAX likely will not reenter service until July 1. Holding the key to its timely reentry are the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the CAAC, which will take their time in approving the proposed MCAS changes. EASA’s independence under the circumstances is to be expected, but the CAAC’s aggressiveness in being the first to ground the MAX caught some by surprise. Though government-controlled, the CAAC can be conservative on flight safety matters. And China’s plans for the Comac C919 are well known. In this scenario, which can be deemed “nominal,” the MAX is not fully back in service globally for another 3-6 months. If this occurs, Boeing may be forced to reduce production rates.
Finally, there is a pessimistic scenario. The CAAC and EASA may determine that additional flight-testing is required to allow the MAX back into service, significantly delaying its entry into service in vital markets. Additional training could also be required. Or the issue could become intertwined in U.S.-China geopolitics. The MAX is an alluring bargaining chip for China to oppose a new round of U.S. tariffs. China isn’t pleased with the Trump administration’s backing of F-16 sales to Taiwan—the first such deal since 1992. Its recent order of 300 Airbus jetliners—including 290 A320neos—underscores its dissatisfaction with the situation. A wildcard in the pessimistic scenario is the role of global public opinion in the age of social media. Indonesian public opinion may have contributed to Garuda’s attempt to cancel an order for 49 MAXs valued at $4.9 billion. Regulators, facing unprecedented public scrutiny, are incentivized to err on the side conservatism. This includes the U.S., where the Justice Department subpoenaed Boeing as part of a criminal investigation. Actions like these could delay the MAX global reentry by 9-12 months or more.
More
https://aviationweek.com/commercial-...f09fa1397bda59

My Wife's family worked at De Havilland on one side and at Avro building Lancasters on the other. My own family just flew them with my Dad on flying boats, my Uncle instructing on Harvards, another Uncle navigating and a fourth uncle arming them.
 
Curious Cdn
#137
He rang and rang for a Flight Attendant, anyway.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/...PT3?li=AAggFp5
 
NZDoug
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

My Wife's family worked at De Havilland on one side and at Avro building Lancasters on the other. My own family just flew them with my Dad on flying boats, my Uncle instructing on Harvards, another Uncle navigating and a fourth uncle arming them.

AIR CANADA lookin good here.
https://youtu.be/ufDx9g_Sjio
Checked my log, I got time on CF-MTW, when Walter Eichhorn owned it.
Also dual circuts with R.S. Wong.
L.A.C. Cochise
201 Centre “Donut 0” SQN.
R.C.A.C.
Cawthra Sq.
Cabbage Town.
 
spaminator
#139
Boeing didn't tell airlines that safety alert in 737 Max wasn't on
Associated Press
Published:
May 5, 2019
Updated:
May 5, 2019 9:16 PM EDT
In this April 10, 2019 file photo, a Boeing 737 Max 8 airplane being built for India-based Jet Airways, takes off on a test flight at Boeing Field in Seattle.Ted S. Warren / AP Photo
Boeing said Sunday that it discovered after airlines had been flying its 737 Max plane for several months that a safety alert in the cockpit was not working as intended, yet it didn’t disclose that fact to airlines or federal regulators until after one of the planes crashed.
The feature was designed to warn pilots when a key sensor might be providing incorrect information about the pitch of the plane’s nose.
But within months of the plane’s debut in 2017, Boeing said, its engineers realized that the sensor warning light only worked when airlines also bought a separate, optional feature.
The sensors malfunctioned during an October flight in Indonesia and another in March in Ethiopia, causing software on the plane to push the nose down. Pilots were unable to regain control of either plane, and both crashed, killing 346 people.
It is not clear whether having the warning light would have prevented either the Lion Air crash or the March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines Max near Addis Ababa. Boeing’s disclosure on Sunday, however, raised fresh questions about the company’s candour with regulators and airline customers.
Story continues below
Boeing said again that the plane was safe to fly without the sensor alert, called an angle-of-attack disagree light. Other gauges tell pilots enough about the plane’s speed, altitude, engine performance and other factors to fly safely, the company said.
A spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration said the agency was notified of the non-working warning light in November, after a Lion Air 737 Max crashed on Oct. 29 in Indonesia. He said FAA experts determined that the non-working cockpit indicator presented a low risk.
“However, Boeing’s timely or earlier communication with (airlines) would have helped to reduce or eliminate possible confusion,” the spokesman said in an emailed statement. He declined to give more details.
In manuals that Boeing gave to Southwest Airlines, the biggest operator of both the Max and 737s in general, the warning light was depicted as a standard feature just as it is on older 737s, according to Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King.
After the Lion Air crash, King said, Boeing notified Southwest that it had discovered the lights didn’t work without the optional angle-of-attack indicators, so Southwest began adding the optional feature too. That allowed the airline to activate the sensor-disagree warning lights on its 34 Max jets earlier this year, she said.
King described both features as “supplemental” and “advisory” to other information provided to pilots during flights.
The indicator was supposed to tell pilots when sensors that measure the pitch of the plane’s nose appear to conflict, a sign that the sensor information is unreliable. Boeing told airlines that the warning light was standard equipment on all Max jets.
Boeing engineers quickly learned, however, that the warning light only worked if airlines also bought an optional gauge that told pilots how the plane’s nose was aimed in relation to the onrushing air. Boeing said the problem stemmed from software delivered to the company. A Boeing spokesman declined to name the software vendor.
Boeing said Sunday that because in-house experts decided that the non-working light didn’t affect safety, the company decided to fix the problem by disconnecting the alert from the optional indicators at the next planned update of cockpit display software.
Boeing didn’t tell airlines or the FAA about this decision.
Boeing hopes to win approval from the FAA and foreign regulators to get the Max flying again before summer is over. When it does, the company said, the sensor warning light will be standard.
Nearly 400 Max jets were grounded at airlines worldwide in mid-March after the Ethiopia crash. Boeing is working to fix the software that pitched the planes’ noses down based on faulty sensor readings, and to provide pilots with more information about the plane’s automation.
The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into whether Boeing misled regulators about features on the plane including flight-control software at the heart of the crash investigations. The company is also under scrutiny by congressional committees and the Transportation Department’s inspector general, and it faces a growing number of lawsuits by families of the dead passengers.
’A MIRACLE’: Plane skids off Florida runway into Jacksonville river, but no deaths
Families of Canadians killed in Ethiopian Airlines crash file lawsuit
Boeing cutting production rate of troubled 737 Max jet
http://torontosun.com/news/world/boe...7-max-wasnt-on
 
spaminator
#140
Some Boeing 737 Max planes may have faulty parts: FAA
Reuters
Published:
June 2, 2019
Updated:
June 2, 2019 7:57 PM EDT
A 737 Max aircraft is pictured at the Boeing factory in Renton, Washington, March 27, 2019. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson/File Photo
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Sunday disclosed a new problem involving Boeing Co’s grounded 737 MAX, saying that more than 300 of that troubled plane and the prior generation 737 may contain improperly manufactured parts and that the agency will require these parts to be quickly replaced.
The FAA said up to 148 of the part known as a leading-edge slat track that were manufactured by a Boeing supplier are affected, covering 179 MAX and 133 NG aircraft worldwide. Slats are movable panels that extend along the wing’s front during takeoffs and landings to provide additional lift. The tracks guide the slats and are built into the wing.
The 737 MAX, Chicago-based Boeing’s best-selling jet, was grounded globally in March following a fatal Ethiopian Airlines crash after a similar Lion Air disaster in Indonesia in October. The two crashes together killed 346 people. Boeing has yet to submit a software upgrade to the FAA as it works to get approval to end the grounding of the 737 MAX.
In a statement issued after the FAA announcement, Boeing said it has not been informed of any in-service issues related to this batch of slat tracks. Boeing, the world’s largest plane maker, said it has identified 20 737 MAX airplanes most likely to have the faulty parts and that airlines will check an additional 159 MAXs for these parts.
Boeing said it has identified 21 737 NGs most likely to have the suspect parts and is advising airlines to check an additional 112 NGs. The NG is the third-generation 737 that the company began building in 1997.
The affected parts “may be susceptible to premature failure or cracks resulting from the improper manufacturing process,” the FAA said.
The FAA said a complete failure of a leading edge slat track would not result in the loss of the aircraft, but a failed part could cause aircraft damage in flight.
The FAA said it will issue an Airworthiness Directive to require Boeing’s service actions to identify and remove the parts from service, and operators will be required to perform this action within 10 days, but can continue to fly the planes during the 10-day period before the parts are removed.
Boeing said one batch of slat tracks with specific lot numbers produced by a supplier was found to have a “potential nonconformance” and said airlines “are to replace them with new ones before returning the airplane to service.”
The company said it is “now staging replacement parts at customer bases to help minimize aircraft downtime while the work is completed.” Boeing said once new parts are in hand, replacement work should take one to two days.
Boeing didn’t tell airlines that safety alert in 737 Max wasn’t on
Boeing cutting production rate of troubled 737 Max jet
Financial pressure mounts to fix Boeing’s troubled 737 Max
The FAA said it will issue an Airworthiness Directive to require Boeing’s service actions to identify and remove the parts from service. It said operators will be required to perform this action within 10 days, but can continue to fly the planes during the 10-day period before the parts are removed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON BOEING
Boeing in April said the two fatal crashes had cost it at least $1 billion as it abandoned its 2019 financial outlook, halted share buybacks and lowered production. The company’s shares have fallen by nearly 20% since the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March.
Some international carriers are skeptical the plane will resume flying by August as some U.S. airlines have suggested.
Tim Clark, president of Emirates, told reporters in Seoul that it could take six months to restore operations as other regulators re-examine the U.S. delegation practices. “If it is in the air by Christmas (Dec. 25) I’ll be surprised – my own view,” he said.
Boeing said one batch of slat tracks with specific lot numbers produced by a supplier was found to have a “potential nonconformance” and said airlines “are to replace them with new ones before returning the airplane to service.”
The company said it is “now staging replacement parts at customer bases to help minimize aircraft downtime while the work is completed.” Boeing said once new parts are in hand, replacement work should take one to two days.
A separate service bulletin will go to 737 MAX operators to do inspections before the MAX fleet returns to service.
The FAA said Boeing has identified groups of both 737 NG and 737 MAX airplane serial numbers on which these suspect parts may have been installed, including 32 NG and 33 MAX in the United States.
The issue was discovered following an investigation conducted by Boeing and the FAA Certificate Management Office, the FAA said. An FAA spokesman said the issue should not delay Boeing’s planned submission of a software update and training revisions, but it remains unclear when that will be submitted.
The FAA has said it has no timetable for ending the grounding of the airplane. Boeing said last month it completed its software upgrade but was still working to address information requests from the FAA before it can schedule a certification test flight and submit final certification documentation.
Reuters reported last month that the FAA has indicated privately to other regulators that it aims to certify new software by the end of June, after which it would take several weeks at a minimum to get planes flying.
Acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell told reporters on May 23 in Texas after a meeting with more than 30 international air regulators that the agency had not decided yet on training requirements.
http://torontosun.com/news/world/som...ulty-parts-faa
 
Curious Cdn
#141
A family friend of ours is a veteran flight attendant.They really don't like the "Max" for a lot of reasons. It's jam-crammed inside and is a hard plane to work on. The lavatories are so tiny that one has to back into them as there is no room to turn around inside. The galley, serving facilities were not designed for the possibility that real human beings might have to work in them. The passengers are so tightly packed in the cabin that the seat-back TV screens are a foot from your face ... not for the claustrophobic!

So, the "Max" part of the 737 Max is maximizing profits, maximizing the amount of human flesh that can be crammed into an aluminum tube. (See the layout of an 18th century Slaver full of manacled Africans) It is not designed very ergonomically and by the sounds of the defect list coming to light, nor designed very well generally. That flight attendant will be quite happy if they never fly, again.
 
NZDoug
#142
Doomed, I say.
“An airline dropped a US$6 billion (NZ$9 billion) order for Boeing's embattled 737 Max planes, turning to European rival Airbus instead to grow its fleet as the crisis with the aircraft continues.

Saudi Arabian airline Flyadeal reversed its plans to buy 50 of the 737 Max jets, announcing that it will order up to 50 planes from Airbus' A320neo family – the Max's rival.

It said its parent company, Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation, made the deal at the Paris Air Show in June, and that the allocation of the planes to Flyadeal will mean that the airline has an all-Airbus fleet.”
More
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/wor...-737-max-order
 
Curious Cdn
#143
Looks good on them after they tried to screw Canada with their 250% tariff on Bombardier as part of Trump's unsuccessful attack on NAFTA.
 
Hoid
#144
Boeing has turned what should have been a problem into a disaster.

And the tariff comment is apt. It illustrates that that this company has been skating by on government largesse.
 
Jinentonix
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Boeing has turned what should have been a problem into a disaster.
And the tariff comment is apt. It illustrates that that this company has been skating by on government largesse.

Boeing, Bombardier or both?
 
NZDoug
#146
OH, NO !!!
737MAX problems continue.
"Boeing shares continued their slide Monday after explosive messages last week revealed a top pilot had concerns about a system on the 737 Max that was later implicated in two fatal crashes.
Several Wall Street analysts downgraded Boeing, fretting about the fallout from the crisis that has barred the manufacturer from delivering its best-selling planes that make up around 40% of its profit.
Boeing’s stock fell 3.8% Monday to a two-month low of $331.06, shaving 88 points off the Dow Jones Industrial Average, but had pared losses from earlier in the session.
The messages made public Friday included an exchange from a top Boeing pilot to a colleague in 2016 that expressed his worries about an aggressive flight control system on the Max, whose performance he called “egregious.” The pilot, who now works for Southwest, said in the exchange that he “unknowingly” lied to regulators. That same pilot months later told the FAA to remove the system, known as MCAS, from pilot procedures and training materials.
The FAA said Boeing knew about the messages for months and scolded Boeing in a letter for not releasing the documents earlier. Boeing defended its training materials for the 737 Max, which regulators deemed safe in 2017, and said it told regulators on “multiple occasions” about the broadened capabilities of the now-questioned system.
UBS on Monday downgraded Boeing to a neutral rating from buy.
“Our working thesis has been that the failures on the 737 Max development by the company centered on fault intolerant design compounded by poor assumptions of pilot response,” it wrote in its downgrade. “We now have to append that assessment further based on source material provided to Congress and the FAA on Friday that reinforces the perception of and heightens the potential of incomplete disclosure, which inherently puts more money/trust & time at stake.”
Boeing’s board is holding a regularly scheduled meeting in San Antonio that concludes Monday, a spokesman said. The board stripped CEO Dennis Muilenburg of his chairmanship on Oct. 11 to focus on getting the Max back into service."
more
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/21/boei...s-with-it.html
China has an order for 100.
Lets see if they make Trump dance.
 
MHz
#147
Will they even make it to 'target'??
 
Curious Cdn
#148
No.

They jam-cram you in those death traps like you're a smoked mussel canned in oil.
 
AnnaEmber
#149
No 737s, thanks. I'll stick with Cessna 182B, Piper J-3, DeHavilland DHC-2, or a Cirrus Vision for private planes and a Boeing 717 or a Bombardier CRJ commercially.
 
Curious Cdn
#150
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaEmber View Post

No 737s, thanks. I'll stick with Cessna 182B, Piper J-3, DeHavilland DHC-2, or a Cirrus Vision for private planes and a Boeing 717 or a Bombardier CRJ commercially.

Ever fly in a Hercules Transport?

It's a tank with wings that can carry a small tank.