boeingboy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:33 am
Wow.....talk about an over-reaction from almost everybody. It's the herd mentality at it's worst.
It's now all about optics. If everyone else is doing it - you cant hold out forever. Of course - now you have joe blow public all in a tizzy and not wanting to fly on the Max. There has to be a worldwide grounding now.
The people have lost confidence in the 737 max 8, a temporary ban is the easiest thing at the moment until the facts come out. Joe blow public pays the damn bills.
Of course it's all about optics, I wouldn't want to be caught in a bad situation with a new plane that seems to be killing people for no good reason.
This is Senate testimony from almost 4 years ago, still true as ever.
Some lobbyists would like you to significantly roll back the 1,500-hour minimum. Short of that, they want the FAA to allow simulator and academic training hours to count toward meeting the 1,500-hour minimum. They see this as an easier, more convenient, less expensive path to getting young pilots into regional airline cockpits.
But there are no shortcuts to experience. There is no shortcut to safety. The standards are the standards because they are necessary.
Throughout the entire 112-year history of powered flight, one thing has been true. The most important safety device in any airliner is a well-trained, experienced pilot. That is even more true today, especially as we transition from my generation of pilots to the next. We must make sure that each generation of pilots has the same well learned, deeply internalized fundamental flying skills, the in-depth knowledge, experience, and judgment. And that is why pilot preparation, qualifications, screening, training—and experience—are so important.
CHESLEY B. “SULLY” SULLENBERGER III
-I don't know what Trump is tweeting about? Although I don't believe it's at all appropriate for him to be doing so. I'm sure he thinks aircraft systems are too complex because they are too complex for him to understand.
-I have nothing good to say about anything Gareau has accomplished as the MOT but believe our regulator has acted properly with respect to this issue. We don't know what happened yet. Remember when the AA A300 crashed in New York in late 2001? Did anyone believe it was anything other than terrorism?
-I've talked to a number of experienced 737 Pilots, NG and MAx, over the past 2 days all of them felt confident they could identify and handle this abnormality. If the MCAS system is found to be a contributing factor, the MAX will be grounded, it will be interesting to see if the system is changed or if pilot training will fix the issue? In the short term this is going to cost operators.
-Looking back to 2012 many thought Boeing would launch an all new aircraft to compete with the NEO as the NG had reached the engineering limits of its design. I think time will show that they simply took the cheapest path and nearly pulled off one of the greatest cash cows in aviation history. How was Bombardiers' C series ever supposed to complete with Boeing's ability to manufacture 60+ aircraft a month? Much like VW's cheat device, Boeing took a path less costly and now they're going to pay the price.
TheStig wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:49 am
-I've talked to a number of experienced 737 Pilots, NG and MAx, over the past 2 days all of them felt confident they could identify and handle this abnormality.
boeingboy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:33 am
Wow.....talk about an over-reaction from almost everybody. It's the herd mentality at it's worst.
It's now all about optics. If everyone else is doing it - you cant hold out forever. Of course - now you have joe blow public all in a tizzy and not wanting to fly on the Max. There has to be a worldwide grounding now.
It seems that perhaps the tail of the MAX is too small to deal with the power on pitch up at low speeds; so, instead of using the elevator (stick pusher) they used the Trim System which is many times as powerful.
If the tail is too small, making it bigger would be a solution; one that Boeing clearly wanted to avoid. Software is cheaper; not necessarily better.
boeingboy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:33 am
Wow.....talk about an over-reaction from almost everybody. It's the herd mentality at it's worst.
It's now all about optics. If everyone else is doing it - you cant hold out forever. Of course - now you have joe blow public all in a tizzy and not wanting to fly on the Max. There has to be a worldwide grounding now.
Certainly makes the case for an airline to have multiple fleets. Going all in on one type can kill a company.
Maybe this will convince AC to increase their A220 order or order A320A331 NEOs to offset some of the risk.
co-joe wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:55 am
Is there a case where MCAS has caused an undesirable trim that the crew recovered from successfully that anyone is aware of?
How many flights leading up to Lion Air crash did the pilots successfully deal with it? 3 or 4?
And if you read the facts so far the accident crew actually had things stabilized before they reconfigured and then started fighting it again. They kept it up for 9 min I believe.
Regarding the “herd mentality”, I sure wouldn’t want to be the politician who didn’t ground the airplane if another goes down in their own backyard.
Safe than sorry, that being said I would still board my flight if I saw it was a max.
No doubt Marc Garneau would probably change his tune a bit if he was personally flying on one of them, 18 Canadians ought to be enough for a precautionary grounding, if not but for at least the time it will take to get the confidence after the CVR and FDR are analysed which should be measured in days at most.
Having said this, I do however wonder how much AIRBUS lobbyists influenced the EU decision.......I imagine they are having a heyday with this.
Speaking as a fare paying customer(because that’s all I can speak from), I would have no difficulty as a passenger in ‘37Max with AC or WJ or any Canadian/US operator who utilizes that type. I have faith/confidence in North America carriers and their training/safety systems.
18 Canadians died in the max. If a Q400 crashes tomorrow and 72 die, should we ground all Dash 8s? That's 4x as many citizens.
I say lets wait until black box data us uncovered before any rash decisions are made on grounding the fleets. Base decisions on hard evidence, not emotions
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:46 pm
18 Canadians died in the max. If a Q400 crashes tomorrow and 72 die, should we ground all Dash 8s? That's 4x as many citizens.
I say lets wait until black box data us uncovered before any rash decisions are made on grounding the fleets. Base decisions on hard evidence, not emotions
Only if it happened to two new Q400 under the same circumstances, then yes the entire fleet should be grounded.
here is probably the most concise explanation for what the hell the MCAS is for:
There is a cert requirement that as AOA increases, the nose up pilot command required must not decrease. This is demonstrated at fixed thrust levels so there is no change in thrust pitching moment. The 737MAX issue here that gives rise to the need for MCAS is that as AOA increases the lift provided by the engine cowling that is so large and mounted so far forward of the wing causes a nose up pitching moment that results is a decrease in the column pull needed to maintain a steady positive AOA rate. That characteristic is not compliant with the requirements. MCAS comes active during this maneuver putting in nose down stabilizer that must be countered by the column. The net effect of engine cowling lift and MCAS nose down stabilizer as AOA increases is that the column pull needed to complete the maneuver does not decrease part way through the range of AOA for which characteristics must be demonstrated. 737MAX without MCAS fails the cert demo. 737MAX with MCAS passes the cert demo.
Always been a big fan of the Boeing product but I do believe they were extremely lazy and greedy in the case of the Max. It’s completely ridiculous from an engineering point of view to have this system running off the data of 1 AoA sensor. Absolute nonsense and there will be major penalties if it comes out that this crash was also linked to the MCAS misbehaving.
That being said, I’d have no problem flying with most Canadian or American carriers on the Max as I 100% trust that our pilots could recognize the issues and deal with it in a safe manner.
---------- ADS -----------
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"
I wonder how everyone calling for this to be grounded - and costing companies billions of dollars - would say if the investigation in Africa shows it was say - a bomb? 1 lost due to crew and maintenance error, and one lost to terrorism. Sounds stupid to run around calling for it to be grounded doesn't it?
(disclaimer - I'm not saying the Ethiopia jet was bombed just playing devils advocate based on eyewitness accounts.....and that there is no evidence yet saying it wasn't either)
I do know that a major part of Boeings software fix is that if the aircraft finds it has an airspeed disagree - it will disable the MCAS and not let it operate in any situation. I agree this should have been done in the first place - but again - it's not an unrecoverable situation.
