GT says fatal 737 MAX crashes caused by 'incompetent crew.'
Great question George, can’t wait to see Sunfish’s answer. He comes across as sooo knowledgeable about everything Aviation. He’d have to have 20,000+ hours as PIC on widebody heavies...wouldn’t he??? Might get GT to do a story!
I note your attempt at an Ad Hominem attack. I comment within my competence and at present, the FAA and Regulators around the world reckon that the Max is unfit to fly. If the regulators and knowledgeable pilots say MCAS is a crock, that’s good enough for me. I don’t need to be a 20,000 hr check pilot to understand that this is a major crock and no amount of spin by Thomas, P51d or George can reverse that fact.
MCAS is a kludge that should never have been designed and installed the way it was, which is probably why the FBI has launched an investigation. The argument that MCAS is a minor glitch just doesn’t wash. That happens to be why 737 production is not just temporarily halted but actually stopped, but I don’t expect you would understand the huge difference in what that means in manufacturing terms.
Furthermore the “dumb third world crew” argument doesn’t fit these accidents and besmirches anyone who tries to use it for reasons of simple logic.
I stand by my comments on Boeing in the old days - it was a great company to work with and had wonderful employees as I have posted before. Now, obviously, as evidenced by published internal company communications, a great company to work for? not so much.
As for Airbus, how dare anyone slander them by saying that they are in the same crap as Boeing?
MCAS is a kludge that should never have been designed and installed the way it was, which is probably why the FBI has launched an investigation. The argument that MCAS is a minor glitch just doesn’t wash. That happens to be why 737 production is not just temporarily halted but actually stopped, but I don’t expect you would understand the huge difference in what that means in manufacturing terms.
Furthermore the “dumb third world crew” argument doesn’t fit these accidents and besmirches anyone who tries to use it for reasons of simple logic.
I stand by my comments on Boeing in the old days - it was a great company to work with and had wonderful employees as I have posted before. Now, obviously, as evidenced by published internal company communications, a great company to work for? not so much.
As for Airbus, how dare anyone slander them by saying that they are in the same crap as Boeing?
Last edited by Sunfish; 28th Jan 2020 at 14:26.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has never ever been a Boeing jet that puts Stabilizer trim commands in remotely. This is the crux of the deal, in a Boeing you fly it and don’t expect any computer inputs. Airbus fine that’s a given, but not in a Boeing. This is a big deal and especially as it uses one sensor a disaster in the making.
787?
737-800 STS?
767-300 autoland?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uuuuuuuum , you didn’t answer the question Sunfish. Why do you feel the need to comment on subjects you know nothing about? I know its fun to pile on but its not the same as informed comment is it ?
If the regulators and knowledgeable pilots say MCAS is a crock, that’s good enough for me.
So you accept knowledgeable pilots who say "MCAS is a crock" but ignore those who disagree with that statement?
Based on what knowledge and experience on your part?
According to NTSB submittal to KKNT (page 246 of final PK-LPQ report), Speed Trim System and Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System are, despite the nomenclature, not the systems but merely software. They are flight control laws through which Flight Control Computers act on the horizontal stabilizer during manual flight. What NTSB has written about STS being installed on NGs is true but it's not the whole truth: STS has been introduced on 737-300. Baby Boeings have track record of FCC meddling with pitch trim while autopilot is off since 1984. but as STS has far lesser authority than MCAS (especially as installed, compared to as certified) it is at worst just a mild nuisance.
Last edited by Clandestino; 29th Jan 2020 at 04:37.
Icarus:
False logic. The regulators - FAA and EASA, etc. say it is a crock and grounded the fleet. Knowledgeable pilots have explained in great detail exactly why it is a crock. Internal Boeing communications explain the motivation for the crock and the engineering solution to the problem of the Max not meeting the FAR’s in relation to yoke forces at high angles of attack. Furthermore Boeing internal communications show that Boeing actively discouraged customer simulator training on the Max for marketing reasons.
Furthermore aircraft production is not just temporarily halted but actually stopped.
But wait! There’s more.... the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into the matter of how the Max was certified at all!
But wait! There’s even more - 300 lives lost in two accidents involving malfunctioning MCAS!
Disagreement with the statement that “MCAS is a crock” simply demonstrates that the person making such a statement is obviously not knowledgeable at all and should not be flying passenger aircraft.
To put that another way, do you also believe the world is flat?
So you accept knowledgeable pilots who say "MCAS is a crock" but ignore those who disagree with that statement?
False logic. The regulators - FAA and EASA, etc. say it is a crock and grounded the fleet. Knowledgeable pilots have explained in great detail exactly why it is a crock. Internal Boeing communications explain the motivation for the crock and the engineering solution to the problem of the Max not meeting the FAR’s in relation to yoke forces at high angles of attack. Furthermore Boeing internal communications show that Boeing actively discouraged customer simulator training on the Max for marketing reasons.
Furthermore aircraft production is not just temporarily halted but actually stopped.
But wait! There’s more.... the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into the matter of how the Max was certified at all!
But wait! There’s even more - 300 lives lost in two accidents involving malfunctioning MCAS!
Disagreement with the statement that “MCAS is a crock” simply demonstrates that the person making such a statement is obviously not knowledgeable at all and should not be flying passenger aircraft.
To put that another way, do you also believe the world is flat?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which regulator has said "MCAS is a croc"?
In the emails, Jim Marko, the manager in aircraft integration and safety assessment at Transport Canada Civil Aviation, wrote that the “only way I see moving forward at this point, is that MCAS has to go,” the Times reported.
According to a different email reviewed by The Times, at least one FAA manager, Linh Le, shares his view.
Le, a system safety manager, reportedly forwarded Marko’s email to colleagues, and writing that Marko was concerned that “MCAS introduces catastrophic hazards that weren’t there before,” and that “it and the fix add too much complexity.” Le reportedly also said that he had similar concerns.
In the email, Marko reportedly expressed concerns that regulators would feel pressured into accepting the updated software and certifying the Max to fly, even if issues with the fix continued to arise.
According to a different email reviewed by The Times, at least one FAA manager, Linh Le, shares his view.
Le, a system safety manager, reportedly forwarded Marko’s email to colleagues, and writing that Marko was concerned that “MCAS introduces catastrophic hazards that weren’t there before,” and that “it and the fix add too much complexity.” Le reportedly also said that he had similar concerns.
In the email, Marko reportedly expressed concerns that regulators would feel pressured into accepting the updated software and certifying the Max to fly, even if issues with the fix continued to arise.
Full Marko email https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...-from-737-max/
I know there is no answer available to us, but I wonder what operating restrictions there would be if MCAS were removed, as we were told early in the piece that it existed only to tune the handling at low weights and aft CoG
How often do you -800 chaps find yourselves with aft CoG and low weight?
How often do you -800 chaps find yourselves with aft CoG and low weight?
I know there is no answer available to us, but I wonder what operating restrictions there would be if MCAS were removed, as we were told early in the piece that it existed only to tune the handling at low weights and aft CoG
How often do you -800 chaps find yourselves with aft CoG and low weight?
How often do you -800 chaps find yourselves with aft CoG and low weight?
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT ain’t wrong. Boeing built a dud, no doubt... pilots had the capacity to apply a solution engineered into the plane to overcome the issue, but didn’t. Why? from memory, nor did they bother to adjust thrust for nose down attitude. All of this, so close after the lion air problems.
apart from Boeing’s complacency costing them big time, I find myself asking what the point is there in having pilots if they are inexperienced and incapable of performing their primary role (fly the plane). Might as well let the computers do the job with a single pilot monitoring, from the ground. (Rhetoric). We haven’t got to that stage yet, fortunately, the world is still filled chockablock of Sully’s and De Crespigny’s
apart from Boeing’s complacency costing them big time, I find myself asking what the point is there in having pilots if they are inexperienced and incapable of performing their primary role (fly the plane). Might as well let the computers do the job with a single pilot monitoring, from the ground. (Rhetoric). We haven’t got to that stage yet, fortunately, the world is still filled chockablock of Sully’s and De Crespigny’s
More of a half truth. The FAA certified the 737NG without STS, however JAA would not certify the aircraft as it did not meet certification standards. To meet the JAA certification standards Boeing were forced to install STS, that was subsequently retrofitted to all 737NGs as standard.
Well, if the STS is there only to cater for aft CG and low weight, than my every flight is so, notwithstanding what loadsheet claims.
Transport Canada expert, Jim Marko, for one, others within the FAA
https://airlinerwatch.com/canadian-o...37-max-to-fly/
Full Marko email https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...-from-737-max/
https://airlinerwatch.com/canadian-o...37-max-to-fly/
Full Marko email https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...-from-737-max/
The Max problem could be fixed aerodynamically, but it comes with a time cost and a likely increase in TODR, which can be mitigated, but takes some curious aero to do. The current low speed issue is associated with the flow around the wing from the nacelle and vane. There is good understanding on the effect of the vane on the wing and that could be adjusted to return to compliant stall behaviour. Doing so would affect CLmax for that section of the wing, but that can be improved, as although the flaps are a nice design, there are other things that can done to make them better, returning the CLmax to levels near or above the current levels, but increasing the Cm of the section in a beneficial manner. That is simple aero to apply. Peter Randolph should go chat with J. C. Lin, and then go chat with Doc Rose. Just dropping the vanes results in a structural problem as much as a performance one, the wing bending moment goes bad so the CLmax has to be massaged without the Cm that exists from the nacelle. FWIW, we happened to fly this particular aero device on a B737 over 5 years ago, for other reasons, but that is what is possible.
Or stay with MCAS.
I know there is no answer available to us, but I wonder what operating restrictions there would be if MCAS were removed, as we were told early in the piece that it existed only to tune the handling at low weights and aft CoG
How often do you -800 chaps find yourselves with aft CoG and low weight?
How often do you -800 chaps find yourselves with aft CoG and low weight?
In the endorsement it’s one of the things hammered into you pretty early.
Low gross weight, aft c.g watch out. Especially in the go around as guys can give it a handful too much thrust and bust level restrictions and have problems handling it early on starting out flying on the 73.
All very manageable however as it’s a known fact of flying a 73
Last edited by anonfly; 30th Jan 2020 at 01:13.
Max, one hull loss per 80,000 cycles.
NG, one hull loss per 5,000,000 cycles.
Same pilot community.
You can argue it’s a small sample, but it looks like the plane, not the pilots.
The FAA agree, EASA agree, the Canadians agree. Boeing are no longer trying to defend the design.
This SLF doesn’t buy ‘foreigners can’t fly’.
NG, one hull loss per 5,000,000 cycles.
Same pilot community.
You can argue it’s a small sample, but it looks like the plane, not the pilots.
The FAA agree, EASA agree, the Canadians agree. Boeing are no longer trying to defend the design.
This SLF doesn’t buy ‘foreigners can’t fly’.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts