Originally Posted by
SMT Member
Simulators are indeed few and far between, but on the other hand there are +400 frames standing idle on the ground, why not bring them to use? Sure, it costs a hell of a lot more than using a sim, but, using them will reduce the time needed to get all crews trained.
So, how about we have Boeing trainers train the airline TRI/TREs in the real aircraft, and then have the TRI/TREs train the TCs in their grounded fleet, who in turn may train the line pilots, either in real aircraft or in simulators as available.
What a great idea! On top of everything, to assure the maximum chance of this unorthodox scheme's success, first batch of the program's pilots should be volunteers with unwavering faith in Boeing. I suggest using PPRuNe posts professing belief that there's nothing much wrong with the MAX, just with the pilots, as an initial method of fishing out such distinguished airmen.
Originally Posted by
EDML
Hmm, after the outcome of two out of three MCAS failures it might not be a wise thing to train that very problem in the real aircraft.
Depending on who you send up first.
Originally Posted by
RetiredBA/BY
You would have been flying empty aircraft !
Not necessarily, there are plenty of non-pilot types around PPRuNe threads dealing with B-MAX, professing their belief in Boeing's finest narrowbody. We could send 'em up as safety observers.
Originally Posted by
BluSdUp
Lets hope the we do not have to fish a Max out of the Mediterranean the next few years.
I do not think that MAX will have to be fished out of anything in the next few years but I would really like to know if there's any significant difference between fishing the aeroplane out of the Mediterranean and the Java Sea?
Originally Posted by
RetiredBA/BY
Many years ago I was posted to an RAF squadron as a replacement pilot for one killed in the Valiant crash believed to have been caused by a runaway stab. The aircraft were not modified BUT we all went into the sim to practice the recovery procedure as it was found that full elevator could just overcome the stab. Deflection. Boeing please note.
I guess that you're familiar with 737 preMAX FCTM claim that it can be flown and landed with stabilizer in any position.
Well, "flown" part probably requires further qualification. Excessive Vee squared might get in a way at the extremes of the stabilizer deflection.
Interweb posting boards are full of superpilots who faced with simultaneous
continual trim, stickshaker and airspeed discrepancy would have cut the trim switches and reduced speed. Thank FSM for the proliferation of good quality training and flying folks who are not inhibited by modesty to admit they 'ave received one.
Originally Posted by
laxman
Reading through these posts has been painful for this MAX qualified pilot but since this is a public board, and many non-fliers are making comments and contributions that defy reason and logic, that are coming from an emotional basis, and one not based upon any experience or knowledge, I should not be surprised.
Dude, as a MAX qualified pilot (hey, up to grounding, as an 738 capt, I was lawfully required just to have a look at a couple of PPTs in order to act as a fully qualified commander on revenue MAX flight, no previous sim or line instruction needed) I deeply sympathize with your plight. However, as someone acquainted with the works of McRaney, Milgram, Fromm, Reich, Arendt et. al. I'm not in the very least surprised by the brand loyalty displayed on the MAX topics. Since it's only anonymous bulletin board affecting almost nothing, I don't find it disturbing, just mildly amusing.
Originally Posted by
John Marsh
How do today's airline pilots compare with those of 1980?
Severe statistical improvement of civil transport aviation safety in last couple of decades is not only due to improvement of today's airline pilots performance but it would definitively have been impossible without one.
Originally Posted by
John Marsh
If there has been a downward trend in competence in non-normal situations, has Boeing tailored its design philosophy to suit?
Such a trend has not been widely observed outside fear-mongering (mostly anonymous) rants.
Originally Posted by
John Marsh
How reasonable is it to expect Boeing to be able to make such an adjustment?
I'd estimate reasonableness of such an expectation to be poor to nil.
Originally Posted by
Kerosene Kraut
If authorities require heavier stick feel close to the stall for certification why not modify the feel system instead of violently interfering with the steering and using the trim to brute force the nose down?
My totally unqualified guess would be because it was cheaper this way.
Originally Posted by
yanrair
I have been surprised by the lack of comment from those who actually fly the Max but presumed they were keeping their heads down.
I find the lack of recent flying experience on MAXes extremely unsurprising.
Adding a stick pusher would have been a notable change to the design, and stick pushers have the same capability of giving an out of trim condition unless deactivated.
No!
They do not have anything to do with the trim! They act on elevators!
David Petit Davies' deathless tract is still very much relevant 52 years after the first publication and 48 years after the last revision... and still quite misunderstood. Pages 130 onward apply. It is pretty clear that any stick pusher has to be designed so it can be manually overridden if it is activated unduly. Colgan 3407 is a case in point; pusher activation was really needed, yet the panicked pilot kept pulling ,overriding pusher, and stalled the aeroplane. Data from the catastrophes of PK-LPQ and ET-AVJ are still sketchy, but what little has leaked strongly suggests inability to stop pitch down with control column alone.