Boeing 737 Max - back in service

[rob D2]

You could see them in the Boeing car park as you flew down the approach to Seattle .

 

I wonder how many of those airlines will be left at the end of COVID 

[jcredfer]

12 hours ago, rob D2 said:

You could see them in the Boeing car park as you flew down the approach to Seattle .

 

I wonder how many of those airlines will be left at the end of COVID 

 

Given the lack of modifications to the elevators, it is hoped that they all will remain. grounded.

 

Given that BMW got wrung out to dry for covering up their electronic smoke cover up {rightly} - where is the outcry for Boeing  and their electronic attempt to cover up a "very" basic aerodynamic miscalculation?

 

You can paint the excess {nose-up} rotation Moment any colour you like, but it remains just that - an excess nose-up force, beyond the ability of the airframe to be able to control.  The addition of an electronic system did nothing to restore  the actual, physical aerodynamic stability to the airframe and an additional equipment workload for the pilots to handle during the unusual flight events they experienced.  

 

Woodenhead, rightly identified the electronic controls applied to military aircraft, where the planes are designed to be unstable in flight, so as to enable more rapid manoeuvres, but electronics enable the pilot keep control.  Boeing continue to apply their electronics, rather than admit their basic instability mistake. and modify the airframe.   Fine when it goes wrong, the military pilot bangs out - but as Woodenhead says 

Quote

Lesson: it's ok to design aircraft that shouldn't fly but do only because of computers if you're building a military single seater that has to be an odd shape for stealth, but if you are expecting that computers will always work in a civilian passenger airliner then you've lost the plot.

  

 

Julian

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by jcredfer

[Ozexpatriate]

This thread makes me wonder how many people would be happy to fly the De Havilland Comet once the stress fractures (particularly with the square windows) were resolved by curved window apertures.

 

The square window Comet was a death trap. Once resolved, the Comet was a "safe" aircraft but was never commercially successful again.

[rob D2]

6 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

Given the lack of modifications to the elevators, it is hoped that they all will remain. grounded.

 

Given that BMW got wrung out to dry for covering up their electronic smoke cover up {rightly} - where is the outcry for Boeing  and their electronic attempt to cover up a "very" basic aerodynamic miscalculation?

 

You can paint the excess turning {nose-up} Moment any colour you like, but it remains just that - an excess nose-up force, beyond the ability of the airframe to be able to control.  The addition of an electronic system did nothing to restore  the actual, physical aerodynamic stability to the airframe and an additional equipment workload for the pilots to handle during the unusual flight events they experienced.  

 

Woodenhead, rightly identified the electronic controls applied to military aircraft, where the planes are designed to be unstable in flight, so as to enable more rapid manoeuvres, but electronics enable the pilot keep control.  Boeing continue to apply their electronics, rather than admit their basic instability mistake. and modify the airframe.   Fine when it goes wrong, the military pilot bangs out - but as Woodenhead says 

  

 

Julian

 

Has nothing to do with excess turning - that’s pitching . You pitch up and down .

 

Trust me , there was an outcry in the airlines , and the FAA has been given a kicking over its lack of oversight.

 

It’d be silly to say you hope they don’t fly again - they must , otherwise Boeing will be in big financial trouble. IF they go bust you’d have a massive worldwide problem as you must have a munafacturer to support the product with updates, modifications, changes to procedure . You can kiss good bye to your cheap ticket to Alicante . This is what happened with Concorde and the Vulcan - once the manufacturer withdraws support ( or goes bust ) its game over .

[rob D2]

43 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

This thread makes me wonder how many people would be happy to fly the De Havilland Comet once the stress fractures (particularly with the square windows) were resolved by curved window apertures.

 

The square window Comet was a death trap. Once resolved, the Comet was a "safe" aircraft but was never commercially successful again.

Stigma is stigma.

 

From a young age I’d heard tales  of the DC10 ( and it’s resolved cargo hold door locking mechanism issue ) , but it never makes you feel comfortable about the type again.

[30801]

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Stigma is stigma.

 

From a young age I’d heard tales  of the DC10 ( and it’s resolved cargo hold door locking mechanism issue ) , but it never makes you feel comfortable about the type again.

 

It was a DC10 where one of the engines exploded severing hydraulic lines leading to total loss of fluid and controls. 

It's astonishing that the pilots managed to put it on a runway albeit not in one piece using just the throttles. 

 

That led to check valves being used so no other aircraft would lose all its hydraulic fluid. 

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

This thread makes me wonder how many people would be happy to fly the De Havilland Comet once the stress fractures (particularly with the square windows) were resolved by curved window apertures.

 

The square window Comet was a death trap. Once resolved, the Comet was a "safe" aircraft but was never commercially successful again.

But it was a lovely aircraft to fly in.   Unlike the Comet the Tu 134 had a continuing bad record (of ground loops in particular) and even as a passenger you couldn't help avoid the impression that you were getting a ride on some sort of hot rod.  But even in its later years the Comet wasn't like that and felt both safe and comfortable even in an all one 'class' configuration with additional seats shoved in - and still plenty of room.  The big commercial problem for the Comet was its lack of range and lack of seats which made it less competitive than the 707 and DC8 on the critically important transatlantic routes.

 

Did the reservoir incident put people off flying in a Trident?  I don't know but when I flew in a BA one less than 3 years later I thought it was another great aircraft in which to be a passenger.  Similarly if you were to list all the incidents and crashes, number of passenger fatalities, or whatever which have involved a pre-Max Boeing 737 the law of averages would immediately put off some people from ever going anywhere near one but millions of people have flown in them.

[jcredfer]

4 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Has nothing to do with excess turning - that’s pitching . You pitch up and down .

 

Trust me , there was an outcry in the airlines , and the FAA has been given a kicking over its lack of oversight.

 

It’d be silly to say you hope they don’t fly again - they must , otherwise Boeing will be in big financial trouble. IF they go bust you’d have a massive worldwide problem as you must have a munafacturer to support the product with updates, modifications, changes to procedure . You can kiss good bye to your cheap ticket to Alicante . This is what happened with Concorde and the Vulcan - once the manufacturer withdraws support ( or goes bust ) its game over .

 

Thank you for the first comment, I can see it may have been misleading, I was referring to the excess {nose-up} rotation Moment, hence "{nose up}" and have edited to make it clearer.  Btw, turning is done by canting the a/c and applying nose up into the turn.  

 

Julian

 

[PMP]

53 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

Thank you for the first comment, I can see it may have been misleading, I was referring to the excess {nose-up} rotation Moment, hence "{nose up}" and have edited to make it clearer.  Btw, turning is done by canting the a/c and applying nose up into the turn.  

 

Julian

 

The elevators aren’t being  modified, it’s a software + hardware integration and training issue at the core of it.

https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9_Tuw9q27QIViL7tCh1RlQTgEAAYASAAEgL9APD_BwE

 

@rob D2will be able to assist you I’m sure with reference to ‘turning’.

 

I think the Comet, had there not been the Boeing 707 family under development/test at the time of the comet crash investigations might have done very well. As Hatfield worked through what happened, the first 707 prototypes were flying. Later with the Trident Hatfield were also on the back foot, it was designed too tightly for BEA’s spec. Boeing engineers spent time at Hatfield, and subsequently designed and released the B727, hence the similarity, which was a world beater. The 727 had a far greater range of applications within it specifications, hence the massive amount of sales. 
 

Aircraft fo attract ‘stigma’ of that there’s no doubt. The MD11 later derivatives of the DC10, always keep me on my A game when they’re about, particularly in gusty conditions. The 737 until the Max, has seemed to escape the sting of unexplained accidents, particularly during the period of the rudder hardover with the fatal loss of two aircraft and several close escapes

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by PMP

[rob D2]

1 hour ago, jcredfer said:

 

Thank you for the first comment, I can see it may have been misleading, I was referring to the excess {nose-up} rotation Moment, hence "{nose up}" and have edited to make it clearer.  Btw, turning is done by canting the a/c and applying nose up into the turn.  

 

Julian

 

Btw, I’d suggest you go and study aviation terminology a bit.

 

“ canting “ is not an aviation term. We roll, we pitch, we yaw. We don’t cant.

 

 

[SHMD]

Is this the aviation equivalent of an "Inglenook" shunting puzzle?

 

 

 

Kev.

 

 

[Hroth]

8 minutes ago, SHMD said:

Is this the aviation equivalent of an "Inglenook" shunting puzzle?

 

 

 

Kev.

 

 

 

At present, sir, you can have any one provided that it is Blue, and you can BOGOF too!

 

 

 

 

[jcredfer]

15 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

Btw, I’d suggest you go and study aviation terminology a bit.

 

“ canting “ is not an aviation term. We roll, we pitch, we yaw. We don’t cant.

 

 

Thank you Rob, a bit slack, granted, a little loose from an RAF pilot, true.

 

Julian

 

[rob D2]

18 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

Thank you Rob, a bit slack, granted, a little loose from an RAF pilot, true.

 

Julian

 

An RAF pilot told you he used turning for pitch , and canting for roll ?

Did he miss day one due sickness ?  

[PMP]

In my entire aviation career I have never heard the term ‘cant’ used, even when respectfully and politely simplifying aircraft performance and characteristics to the general public.

[jcredfer]

22 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

An RAF pilot told you he used turning for pitch , and canting for roll ?

Did he miss day one due sickness ?  

Got my Wings many...  many decades ago. 

 

Julian

 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, SHMD said:

Is this the aviation equivalent of an "Inglenook" shunting puzzle?

 

 

 

Kev.

 

 

Whilst that look complicated to solve the solution is relatively simple. Judging by the way some are parked on the black tarmac, the PCN will likely accommodate aircraft being parked on them. You’d pull forward top left and turn it 45 degrees and push back tail overhanging the dirt, same again for next three. That’ll make space for aircraft nose to nose  ^¥^¥ and pretty soon you’d have a path to tow it out. You only need to move ten at first glance, though I have worked with people who could successfully do it moving about sixteen of them...

Edited December 5, 2020 by PMP
Spelling

[PMP]

6 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

Got my Wings many...  many decades ago. 

 

Julian

 

Which types did you fly may I ask?

[jcredfer]

Ones with adequate Elevators and not requiring software to prevent pilots from getting unconrollable pitch up.

 

Julian

 

[PMP]

16 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

Ones with adequate Elevators and not requiring software to prevent pilots from getting unconrollable pitch up.

 

Julian

 

 I think that answers my question.

[kevinlms]

23 hours ago, MichaelE said:

All the crew would have had to do was shut off the stab trim on the lower right side of the throttle quadrant and it would have disabled the MCAS system and revert to manual control of the stabilizer trim.

 

Whether or not these crews were trained for that is in question.

But wasn't that the heart of the problem? The pilots not only weren't trained on how to deal with any problems, but weren't told that the equipment even existed. So when the aircraft started to act strangely, they had no idea on what to do.

[newbryford]

16 hours ago, 30801 said:

Parking across the lines.
 

 

Where's the Range Rover [*] badge?

 

[*] Other car makes are available.

[DIW]

18 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

..and the other side of the field...

 

  

 

        So Southwest airlines used the same livery consultants as Southwest Trains? Just askin'.  

[MichaelE]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But wasn't that the heart of the problem? The pilots not only weren't trained on how to deal with any problems, but weren't told that the equipment even existed. So when the aircraft started to act strangely, they had no idea on what to do.

 

Run-away stab trim resolution is a memory item. It is not only for the MCAS trouble. If they were unaware of MCAS, they certainly should have recognized a run-away stabilizer condition and acted appropriately.

[newbryford]

8 hours ago, PMP said:

In my entire aviation career I have never heard the term ‘cant’ used, even when respectfully and politely simplifying aircraft performance and characteristics to the general public.

 

I thought I heard the term once when describing an awkward passenger, although the member of cabin crew did have a southern English accent.....