I agree, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Boeing survived the Dreamliner.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Another Boeing 737 Max crash
- Thread starter stylinexpat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Boeing survived the Dreamliner.
In short a stall-prevention sub system. Not the first time such a device was installed in an aircraft.
Such a device can be turned off, because even a safety device can become un-safe.
Latest indication points to someone becoming erratic with operation.
Let me add this: pilots are becoming less pilots and more like IT guys, monitoring the system for function. Basic piloting skills seem to be lacking.
[doublepost=1552570802][/doublepost]
No fatal crash in the 787.
The battery that caused the problems was the first time a Li-ION battery was ever used, and the FAA was lax in its testing criteria.
Last edited:
Boeing also survived the rudder hardover issues the 737NG had.
People are saying MCAS only has 2 sensors, where as the Airbus has three, meaning if one sensor goes bad it's a 50/50 of what the computer will do, where the AB will be more safe.
The question is also how each plane handles without assistance and if you have been properly trained to fly it like that.
There have been complaints by union spokespersons made on behalf of the pilots and flight attendants who are not eager to fly the thing while it remains open to question that a prior software fix and instructions to pilots are sufficient to deter any similar control issues... and apparently a couple of pilots had anonymously filed five reports on erratic control issues with the Boeing plane in question before even the Lion Air crash last year.
Also, a Times piece today has both the pilots and flight attendants unions making public their concerns about whether the F.A.A. is too cozy with companies it regulates:
“The F.A.A. has got to stop treating the airlines and manufacturers as their clients, and get back to doing their job with oversight for the American people,” said Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants.
Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilot union and a 737 pilot, said his members had long been concerned about the minimal training required for pilots to become qualified to fly the Max models.
“The F.A.A. certified the aircraft to be flown and sold without a simulator,” said Mr. Tajer. The certification process, he said, has prompted him to ask the F.A.A.: “What is your relationship to Boeing?”
Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilot union and a 737 pilot, said his members had long been concerned about the minimal training required for pilots to become qualified to fly the Max models.
“The F.A.A. certified the aircraft to be flown and sold without a simulator,” said Mr. Tajer. The certification process, he said, has prompted him to ask the F.A.A.: “What is your relationship to Boeing?”
There are some members of MacRumors who are or have been commercial pilots. I wonder what they think of routinely flying a plane for which no specific simulator was purchased and made available for use after whatever initial training was provided.
Also, there have been remarks about the insufficiency of the manual for the plane, which manual one pilot apparently characterized as "inadequate and almost criminally insufficient".
Yes.
I am hearing more bits and pieces and it is beginning to look like Boeing was not being diligent.
Not looking good for Boeing
http://theconversation.com/automate...ed-ethiopia-crash-flight-data-suggests-113688
http://theconversation.com/automate...ed-ethiopia-crash-flight-data-suggests-113688
Yah. They may have tried to extend the life of the design too far for today's demands, and the workarounds to get there are proving too costly.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html
[doublepost=1552836170][/doublepost]
True but some of the workarounds in the upgrades to 737 design have been to save money in not having to certify a whole new plane from scratch. Might have tried to run that play too long.
At least with the Concorde, they pulled the plug on it instead of trying to tweak it year over year to make it seem more acceptable whilst introducing changes that may have summed up to making a machine certifiable as airworthy but at the expense of reliability. Now apparently they mean to have the problematic software rely on more than one sensor before snatching away the pilot's ability to take charge. Sounds nice but just adds more complexity, which appears to have been at issue to begin with.
What was wrong with Concorde? I mean it had a 27 year life span. It was a great airplane. Expensive to fuel and fly in, yes, but I thought it was an awesome aircraft otherwise.
Maybe the design was not so good when it came to fuel tank puncture risk.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1250-new-improved-concorde-cleared-for-take-off/
I don't think the improvements were widely advertised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2934257.stm
Last edited: