More 737 troubles

[Mega]

[santafe2]

Re: More 737 troubles

The MAX is a hot rod. This is a 50 year old plane with a big modern engine that has no business on a 737. Like any other hot rod, the big, heavy, engine tends to break other components of the the 50 year-old elegant design. So how do you fix your mistake? Software, and a sensor that tells the ill designed aircraft not to climb too fast. Then, when your software and sensor fails and the badly designed hot rod 737 nose dives into the ground, call it a software problem, not a design problem. Never admit that your hot rod is just a back yard, grease monkey jalopy.

In the future, if you and your family get on a 737 MAX just know that better software, more sensors and more aware pilots are the only thing keeping you from landing nose first. This is a horrible airplane but apparently until a plane-load of Americans bite the dirt, it's a software problem.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: More 737 troubles

The MAX is a hot rod. This is a 50 year old plane with a big modern engine that has no business on a 737. Like any other hot rod, the big, heavy, engine tends to break other components of the the 50 year-old elegant design. So how do you fix your mistake? Software, and a sensor that tells the ill designed aircraft not to climb too fast. Then, when your software and sensor fails and the badly designed hot rod 737 nose dives into the ground, call it a software problem, not a design problem. Never admit that your hot rod is just a back yard, grease monkey jalopy.

In the future, if you and your family get on a 737 MAX just know that better software, more sensors and more aware pilots are the only thing keeping you from landing nose first. This is a horrible airplane but apparently until a plane-load of Americans bite the dirt, it's a software problem.

I’d be interesting in hearing from our iTulip member, KeyBiscayne IIRC?

He is/was a pilot who offered some great insight on Boeing & Airbus.

To me, it seems like Boeing & Airbus are not battling to see who wins, but who fails catastrophically the least.

Boeing isn’t just dealing with 737MAX, but also with Rolls Royce Trent motored 787’s that have had big problems.

Hopefully 777X isn’t seriously impacted.

Airbus has had the epic $30 billion in lost sunk costs “make work project” called A380.

Airbus has the absolute debacles called NH90 & Tiger and the money pit called A400M

All I know is, barring global disaster Air Nz 787/9 Auckland - Newark direct 3x weekly kicks off in October.....can’t wait.

Back to 737.....I spoke to a multi turbine pilot not long ago.

In terms of hot rod, he mentioned that the older models with older engineers, while having less thrust, were much more responsive to throttle corrections, with high bypass turbines more laggy in power delivery in exchange for much better fuel economy.

[jk]

Re: More 737 troubles

anyone think there's a chance the max is NEVER certified? or that passengers refuse to book flights on them if they are finally certified? how about boeing spinning off its defense business so that the commercial business can go into chapter 11?

[Mega]

Re: More 737 troubles

The BIG selling point was the Max was a 737, any pilot whom could fly every model back to the 1967 could fly the Max with a quick cell phone update. Now the Max needs to be CERT as a new plane. Thus Boeing has "dropped" its vow that it would not require pilot training is gone, so you could go "Airbus".

Mike

[Mega]

Re: More 737 troubles

[santafe2]

Re: More 737 troubles

Back to 737.....I spoke to a multi turbine pilot not long ago.

In terms of hot rod, he mentioned that the older models with older engineers, while having less thrust, were much more responsive to throttle corrections, with high bypass turbines more laggy in power delivery in exchange for much better fuel economy.

Yes, thanks for expanding on my point. These modern engines are great when it comes to fuel economy but they're less agile. In an old school 737 where the pilot gets very certain, tactile feedback from their actions via a cable and pulley system, they also need old school, responsive engines. Modern planes with these engines use fly-by-wire, (fly by computer), systems. They're very safe and reliable. The MAX is a hot rod. Shove a bigger engine, into a more forward position, onto an older plane, but don't give the pilot fly-by-wire. Make them actually fly this bad design. It's less safe, requires more training. (they got none), and pilots hate this thing.

anyone think there's a chance the max is NEVER certified? or that passengers refuse to book flights on them if they are finally certified?

Yes, there's a chance people won't fly. I fly Southwest 4-5 times a month and after the Lion Air crash I emailed them to tell SWA that I, and my family, will never board a MAX or continue flying with them unless I understood how I could avoid this plane in the future. When the response was less than thrilling I decided to talk with my fellow frequent flyers and encouraged them to do the same. On SWA it's easy to lobby because we're all standing in line together in the A16-30 group. By early 2019 I was getting a much more supportive message. Most airlines are not SWA but should these planes ever be certified again, I think a concerted effort by their frequent flyers could keep them out of the air.

The BIG selling point was the Max was a 737, any pilot whom could fly every model back to the 1967 could fly the Max with a quick cell phone update. Now the Max needs to be CERT as a new plane. Thus Boeing has "dropped" its vow that it would not require pilot training is gone, so you could go "Airbus".

This is a very key point. No new cert, no training. Hey, everyone can fly this plane. Unfortunately, not so much. The shitty MCAS computer system was a band-aid to mask the real issues. Saying it caused the crash is like blaming a driver who rear-ended a Ford Pinto for bar-b-quing it's occupants. BTW, any reference to MCAS was left out of the manual. So you've got an old school fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants 737 with a cobbled on computer system that tries to nosedive your plane every time you're climbing too fast...what could possibly go wrong.

[jk]

Re: More 737 troubles

This is a very key point. No new cert, no training. Hey, everyone can fly this plane. Unfortunately, not so much. The shitty MCAS computer system was a band-aid to mask the real issues. Saying it caused the crash is like blaming a driver who rear-ended a Ford Pinto for bar-b-quing it's occupants. BTW, any reference to MCAS was left out of the manual. So you've got an old school fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants 737 with a cobbled on computer system that tries to nosedive your plane every time you're climbing too fast...what could possibly go wrong.

and no redundancy on the sensor, AND the warning light was an extra cost OPTION! [it was there, allowing pilots to think it was operational, but not connected except if the purchaser paid extra] boeing acquired mcdonnell douglas, but it was mcdonnell douglas bean counters instead of boeing engineers who wound up running the company. or should i say ruining the company.

the design was all about the benjamins, not about making a good passenger plane.

edit: what industry, what company, is not exactly like this now?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: More 737 troubles

All corporations have the exact same mission statement:

“Make more money tomorrow than we did today “

[santafe2]

Re: More 737 troubles

edit: what industry, what company, is not exactly like this now?

Like medical doctors, engineers and scientists are painstakingly honest and forthright people. Boeing management is not undermining any of these people. The industry structures and silly management under which they work are quite broken, but not yet broken enough to change. It won't last forever. The structure will be punished but these people will continue to do great things under new structures.

On a personal note: I've given up trying to understand how unbelievably dumb people will act before life smacks them in the face enough times to give them a new point of view. See global warming discussions here a decade ago or the 2016 election which caused me to eventually stop posting because I couldn't tolerate the absolute dumb-fuckery of opinions on this site. Apparently, I've learned to accept things I can't control and work hard to direct things I can control. I can't stop Boeing from becoming one of the worst companies in the US but possibly I can help stop Southwest from putting the MAX back in the air, and if not, that's on SWA. That's a reasonable solution for me. Doctor, I think I'm cured.

[FrankL]

Re: More 737 troubles

Like medical doctors, engineers and scientists are painstakingly honest and forthright people. Boeing management is not undermining any of these people. The industry structures and silly management under which they work are quite broken, but not yet broken enough to change. It won't last forever. The structure will be punished but these people will continue to do great things under new structures.

On a personal note: I've given up trying to understand how unbelievably dumb people will act before life smacks them in the face enough times to give them a new point of view. See global warming discussions here a decade ago or the 2016 election which caused me to eventually stop posting because I couldn't tolerate the absolute dumb-fuckery of opinions on this site. Apparently, I've learned to accept things I can't control and work hard to direct things I can control. I can't stop Boeing from becoming one of the worst companies in the US but possibly I can help stop Southwest from putting the MAX back in the air, and if not, that's on SWA. That's a reasonable solution for me. Doctor, I think I'm cured.

With 310 total 737max orders, you might as well look for another carrier if you want to avoid this particular plane.

PS are the forward-mounted large engines really as much of an issue as you make it sound to be? I can see the issue of a badly designed MCAS that a lot of pilots were not aware of, but the engine design doesn't look too outrageous to me.

[Mega]

Re: More 737 troubles

Totally INSANE to use just one sensor & no pilot training !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Latest:-
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/an...-stock-tumbles

Best case:- The Plane needs to be "Cert" as a new plane-another 12-18 months
Worst Case:-It can't be "CERT", Boeing is TOAST

They should be HUNG!!!!!
Mike

[FrankL]

Re: More 737 troubles

Totally INSANE to use just one sensor & no pilot training !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Latest:-
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/an...-stock-tumbles

Best case:- The Plane needs to be "Cert" as a new plane-another 12-18 months
Worst Case:-It can't be "CERT", Boeing is TOAST

They should be HUNG!!!!!
Mike

I was going to make a sarcastic comment about Boeing management not having paid any attention in their risk analysis course, that it probably wasn't part of their MBA, and that all this short-term cost-cutting is like piking up the proverbial pennies in front of a steam-roller (i.e. disproportionally small opportunity for profit compared to the very real downside risk they are experiencing).

However, it seems Mr. Muilenburg didn't do an MBA but graduated in Aerospace Engineering and Aeronautics and Astronautics.

There were some anecdotes that Boeing commercial division started to tank after the management in charge of the Boeing defense division took over. If true, perhaps they miscalculated the size of the safety margin on commercial planes compared to the military grade stuff...

[santafe2]

Re: More 737 troubles

With 310 total 737max orders, you might as well look for another carrier if you want to avoid this particular plane.

PS are the forward-mounted large engines really as much of an issue as you make it sound to be? I can see the issue of a badly designed MCAS that a lot of pilots were not aware of, but the engine design doesn't look too outrageous to me.

Hi Frank. They only have 34 currently and there are no concerns until at least April. If they put them in the air after that and don't allow me to work around them, I'll fly Delta. That's a fine airline...as airlines go. As for the forward mounting, I'm not an aeronautical engineer so I can't offer an opinion. That said, the combination of a less responsive engine in a less than ideal location and delivering the plane without fly-by-wire to avoid certification cycles, is at best troubling, at worst...well, we know the results from a worst case scenario.

I am possibly overly cautious for two reasons. The first is that my chances of being in a plane that experiences an event are 20-30 times greater than the casual flyer. I'm just in a lot of airplanes. It's simple probability. The 2nd which I may have mentioned here previously, is that I was on a Continental flight in the late 90s that should have crashed. We were landing at Houston IAH and at about 1,000 feet the starboard engine self destructed. The plane immediately began losing altitude and slicing off course toward the forest to the east of the airport. The trees were coming toward us so quickly I wasn't even hoping we'd survive but at about 500 feet the pilot got control of the plane and leveled it out. Why did we survive? Excellent old school Boeing plane, superb pilot and a CEO that took his job so seriously he would take the captain's seat with each new plane from Boeing in Seattle to Houston.

No pilot can control a MAX like that. It requires fly-by-wire to react quick enough to have a chance and we all know it's a jalopy so no one knows how this plane reacts in a critical failure condition. I'll let people I don't know take those chances.

[GRG55]

Re: More 737 troubles

The MAX is a hot rod. This is a 50 year old plane with a big modern engine that has no business on a 737. Like any other hot rod, the big, heavy, engine tends to break other components of the the 50 year-old elegant design. So how do you fix your mistake? Software, and a sensor that tells the ill designed aircraft not to climb too fast. Then, when your software and sensor fails and the badly designed hot rod 737 nose dives into the ground, call it a software problem, not a design problem. Never admit that your hot rod is just a back yard, grease monkey jalopy.

In the future, if you and your family get on a 737 MAX just know that better software, more sensors and more aware pilots are the only thing keeping you from landing nose first. This is a horrible airplane but apparently until a plane-load of Americans bite the dirt, it's a software problem.

The 737 was always a hot rod. In the 1970s the 100 & 200 series 737s were the fastest cruising airplanes in the Boeing fleet.

I have no desire to get into an argument about this, but your case that technology "band aids" make the plane less safe isn't going to stop the already well advanced integration of technology into the airframes and the cockpits of every type of new model of aircraft from single GA piston to commercial airliners. Automated AOA limitation and other augmentation systems (call it MCAS or whatever else, that's what it is) are widespread throughout the commercial and high performance GA fleet now. The Airbus approach is to use the systems to protect the airplane from the pilots, fergawdsake. After AA 587 (which demonstrated conclusively you don't need to be flying a '37 Max for poorly trained pilots to kill all the passengers) maybe not such a bad idea?

Boeing is anything but lily white on this one.

But:
With increased technology comes increased dependence on that technology.
With increased dependence comes increased vulnerability when that technology fails.
And fail it will.

Anyone reading the full report of the Air France 447 Airbus accident into the Atlantic Ocean will understand your condemnation of Boeing over the use of, or dependence on technology is only partially valid.

Once the 737 Max re-enters service it will arguably be the most scrutinized and safest airplane in the sky. I won't have any hesitation to board one. And I will continue to prefer it over Airbus. Any Airbus.

As I have posted before, the best thing that could happen to Boeing Commercial Airplanes is to split it off from the defense businesses. They have different market drivers, different customers with different levels of available corruption, different economics and required corporate strategies. It's a lousy mix.
Airbus also proves its a lousy mix with its repeating fiasco military efforts such as the POS A400M.