Boeing 737 MAX Discussion

[Cryten]

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

The additional hardware was a light bulb. Which in this case was totally useless. There is a 8" metal wheel on each side of the center control console. It moves all the time. If your resting your knee on it and it moves it wakes you up pretty quick. Its also really noisey if it starts spinning and you wont be able to ignore it. Pilots practice runaway trim scenarios all the time in the Simulator. So you dont need a light bulb to tell you the trim is moving.

There clearly aren't many pilots on this thread, making our discussion largely useless. No one seems to get how hard it is to ignore the trim wheels when they get going, especially when the shin smasher is folded out like it is in your photo.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I will believe corporations are people when the state of Texas executes one.

Enron and worldcom.

[Jim Smyth]

Originally Posted by Cryten

There clearly aren't many pilots on this thread, making our discussion largely useless. No one seems to get how hard it is to ignore the trim wheels when they get going, especially when the shin smasher is folded out like it is in your photo.

Ya I never left the handle in the extended position if it wasnt directly being used. Would really ruin your day getting hit with it.

77T Thanks for the Airbus history. I have no experience with them but my buds that transferred over to them really liked them. They said it made it easy to do your Jep revisions back in the day without a control column in the way. Dinner was easier too.

[yhzdude]

Originally Posted by Jim Smyth

Ya I never left the handle in the extended position if it wasnt directly being used. Would really ruin your day getting hit with it.

77T Thanks for the Airbus history. I have no experience with them but my buds that transferred over to them really liked them. They said it made it easy to do your Jep revisions back in the day without a control column in the way. Dinner was easier too.

Jepps update...the good old days.

[yhzdude]

here you go , if you are bored...some reading for you.
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...h-delayed.html

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by Marlboro.

Training of pilots is done by the airlines not Airbus or Boeing.

Who said otherwise? Troll.

FYI there are also private schools who are not affiliated with any airline.

[Jojoshop]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Where is that guy who wrote that pilots were no longer required because modern airplanes fly themselves?

The technical side of this discussion is best left to aviation forums, where the design and testing braintrust hang out.

It doesn’t matter really if this is confirmed to be a design flow. Yes, agree you need a pilot to overwrite and fly manually. But that should be a rare case of malfunction not an expected behavior of brand new plane

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by bayerische

Who said otherwise? Troll.

FYI there are also private schools who are not affiliated with any airline.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll, sigh.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by Marlboro.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll, sigh.

5 posts and 3 of them in this thread. Yeah.

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by bayerische

5 posts and 3 of them in this thread. Yeah.

A much more trollish behavior would be one who believes he know much more about accident analysis than the aviation authorities.

[bayerische]

A pilot on the preliminary report.

[bayerische]

So are we admitting there's a serious problem already?

60minutes on Youtube.

[Blansky]

This same sort of thing happened in the medical device industry. In order to bypass the extensive oversight and years of testing, companies manipulate/redesign on an existing proven platform which gives them a lot less time to market, saving billions.

Unfortunately with in the 737 Max the larger engines, changed positioning etc they thought a computer could take up the slack and they seemed to end up with a big problem.

Granted I don't know didley about airplanes but I've been reading about former Boeing employees and former pilots saying this plane was not ready for prime time.

https://www.axios.com/boeing-737-max...50d5695cf.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ed/3615169002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ty/3650026002/

[timedate]

i remember the dc-10 in the late seventies.

[John45]

I'm retired now, but have US airline captain experience on both the B737 and A320 series. As a previous comment mentioned, there's a lot of conflicting information floating around out there, some of which might be confusing me. That being said, I do have a couple of ideas and questions if anyone can help.

1. The new MCAS anti-stall system apparently was designed to activate when only one of the three AOA sensors sensed an impending stall. Why?

2. If Boeing actually chose not to inform the airlines or pilots about the new MCAS system, that's going to get expensive. And

3. If Boeing was aware that the onboard failure warning for the MCAS was not always functioning, that's going to get really expensive.

I'm assuming that the cockpit trim wheels spin when the MCAS activates. Why on earth would a pilot not turn off the Stab Trim switches when the wheels spin for any length of time. Note for non-Boeing pilots: The trim wheels are located right next to each pilot's inside knee and are black with a prominent white stripe. They're also quite noisy when turning so it would be impossible to miss when they spin. My recollection is that the wheels are directly linked by cable to the trim motors. Has this possibly changed???

[Cryten]

Originally Posted by John45

I'm assuming that the cockpit trim wheels spin when the MCAS activates. Why on earth would a pilot not turn off the Stab Trim switches when the wheels spin for any length of time.

The preliminary report shows they did turn the trim off, and then later turned it back on again. We need the full report to find out why they chose to do that. The CVR transcript should enlighten us on that odd decision.

[Hawksfan]

Lots of issues here. The bottom line is that a software fix will ensure this particular type of accident won't happen again. The larger issue for Boeing is all of the things that went on behind the scenes in the way they are handling the certification and design of their airplanes.

Years ago Boeing was a great company run by engineers...modern Boeing is run by businessmen and the engineering comes in a distant second.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Hawksfan

Lots of issues here. The bottom line is that a software fix will ensure this particular type of accident won't happen again. The larger issue for Boeing is all of the things that went on behind the scenes in the way they are handling the certification and design of their airplanes.

Years ago Boeing was a great company run by engineers...modern Boeing is run by businessmen and the engineering comes in a distant second.

I read the problems started when Boeing bought out/merged with McDonnell Douglas who is/was in bed with the military and it changed the culture of Boeing.

It began outsourcing, it put plants in various States to get political favors from politicians which eroded its close inhouse oversite etc.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Boeing...onnell-Douglas

[Runnin' Rebel]

Looks like the Over/Under is mid September. I’m thinking closer to end of the year.

[M45]

I’m guessing maybe two or three more airplanes will go down and a few hundred more people will lose their lives before Boeing finally gets this thing sorted out and stiffs the American taxpayers with the bill because they convince a handful of congressmen with lucrative pork spending in their districts that they are too big to fail.

[77T]

That really assumes they can tackle the newly uncovered software issues the FAA’s test pilots just found...

That may not be fixed by the tome MCAS is fully sorted.

May sound far-fetched but could we be on the brink of a Comet-1 sort of case?

In other words. The Max May be permanently parked. Even if Boeing recovers the airworthiness cheers, who’s gonna board it?

Sure the Comet was a structural fatal flaw - but it showed what happened when one thing leads to another.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...tale-63573615/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TheVTCGuy]

Well, I’m a Pilot, but can’t offer too much since I never flew an airliner. But I DID fly a Hornet, which is fly-by-wire. I had a triple redundant computer that took inputs from my movements on the stick and rudders and translated that in to electrical signals to the ailerons and rudder. If I tried to put the aircraft in a dangerous situation the computers would limit what inputs I could initiate. Being a fighter I rarely attempted to exceed anything the bird could do, but it was a bit unsettling to know the computer(s) are really in control. If they all failed, all I had to rely on was Martin-Baker (the ejection seat).

[77T]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Well, I’m a Pilot, but can’t offer too much since I never flew an airliner. But I DID fly a Hornet, which is fly-by-wire. I had a triple redundant computer that took inputs from my movements on the stick and rudders and translated that in to electrical signals to the ailerons and rudder. If I tried to put the aircraft in a dangerous situation the computers would limit what inputs I could initiate. Being a fighter I rarely attempted to exceed anything the bird could do, but it was a bit unsettling to know the computer(s) are really in control. If they all failed, all I had to rely on was Martin-Baker (the ejection seat).

I think the difference with the Max, Paul, is that the hand joystick and pedals are signaling the computers and the software decides if the pilot is an idiot.

The other diff is the seat time you got in all sorts of situations that these crews don’t get except in simulators. The MCAS failure were reminiscent of other airframe crashes where pilot was pushing stick and Co-pilot was pulling stick. So confusing that only a test pilot would have the sense of what’s really happening.

I see Boeing doing a write-off myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by 77T

I think the difference with the Max, Paul, is that the hand joystick and pedals are signaling the computers and the software decides if the pilot is an idiot.

The other diff is the seat time you got in all sorts of situations that these crews don’t get except in simulators. The MCAS failure were reminiscent of other airframe crashes where pilot was pushing stick and Co-pilot was pulling stick. So confusing that only a test pilot would have the sense of what’s really happening.

I see Boeing doing a write-off myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Makes sense. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but, as a pilot I would like the opportunity to over-ride anything. Isn’t my brain the best computer? Well, maybe not MINE, But you understand what I’m saying.

[77T]

Oh yeah I do understand. Sometimes throttle and an invert is best way out of a problem.

Altitude, thrust and good ideas trump software anytime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[M45]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Makes sense. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but, as a pilot I would like the opportunity to over-ride anything. Isn’t my brain the best computer? Well, maybe not MINE, But you understand what I’m saying.

They CLAIM that American trained flyboys should be able to deal with the issue in less than 20 seconds... but that doesn't help that it wasn't in the instruction manual and there's a NEW issue with a chip controlling the tail horizontal stabilizer.

[Cryten]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Makes sense. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but, as a pilot I would like the opportunity to over-ride anything. Isn’t my brain the best computer? Well, maybe not MINE, But you understand what I’m saying.

That was always the difference between Boeing and Scarebus. In a Boeing the pilot has (or had) final say. You could overboost the engines and bend the airframe to get out of a bad situation. In an Airbus the pilots are just one class above first. You get a better view, but no champagne. Neither of you can overpower the computer programme as they proved only too well at Mulhouse when the pilots saw the trees getting bigger but the computer wouldn't let them do anything about it.

[moyski]

Originally Posted by Cryten

That was always the difference between Boeing and Scarebus. In a Boeing the pilot has (or had) final say. You could overboost the engines and bend the airframe to get out of a bad situation. In an Airbus the pilots are just one class above first. You get a better view, but no champagne. Neither of you can overpower the computer programme as they proved only too well at Mulhouse when the pilots saw the trees getting bigger but the computer wouldn't let them do anything about it.

I guess you can make these statements because you have experience flying both planes from Boeing and Scarebus as you put it? Not sure why you have to include derrogatory comments in this already useless thread as you also indicated.

You can override the computers in an Airbus plane and fly it like any other plane manufactured. It’s just a matter of knowing what buttons to push. The Mulhouse accident was caused by new airplane technology and pilots not yet fully aware of all characteristics of that technology. Recent events ring any bells? Airliners were not designed to do low, slow passes during airshows. And yes, I am a Scarebus pilot and have been for 11 years!

It’s very unfortunate when plane accidents happen, specially when hundreds of lives are involved. But from these accidents come knowledge, and once applied makes air travel that much safer for everyone. I can only hope whomever is involved will get the issue resolved the soonest.

[Bluside]

Bring back the Boeing 727. Now that was a manually flown airplane. Not much in the way of computers.

[Cryten]

Originally Posted by moyski

I guess you can make these statements because you have experience flying both planes from Boeing and Scarebus as you put it? Not sure why you have to include derrogatory comments in this already useless thread as you also indicated.

You can override the computers in an Airbus plane and fly it like any other plane manufactured. It’s just a matter of knowing what buttons to push. The Mulhouse accident was caused by new airplane technology and pilots not yet fully aware of all characteristics of that technology. Recent events ring any bells? Airliners were not designed to do low, slow passes during airshows. And yes, I am a Scarebus pilot and have been for 11 years!

It’s very unfortunate when plane accidents happen, specially when hundreds of lives are involved. But from these accidents come knowledge, and once applied makes air travel that much safer for everyone. I can only hope whomever is involved will get the issue resolved the soonest.

You are mistaken if you think you ever have control of the Airbus. You get different control laws which give you differing levels of control, but be under no illusion, all inputs still go through the computer.

The 737 however is directly controlled by the pilots, it even has a cable back up system for when everything goes wrong. All control inputs affect the aircraft in a predictable and linear manner. No one had to design the 737 to do beat ups, but because its controlled by the pilots its a simple manoeuvre.

These problems always occur when someone puts a computer between the pilot and the controls. Boeing always gave the pilot the final authority, the question now is, has this changed? They seem to be going down the Airbus route and using a computer to programme out design flaws.