China Ground 737MAX
They didn't ground the A330 after AF477 went down, did they?
https://www.apnews.com/0cd5389261f34b01a7cbdb1a12421e27
Airline pilots on at least two U.S. flights have reported that an automated system seemed to cause their Boeing 737 Max planes to tilt down suddenly.
Airline pilots on at least two U.S. flights have reported that an automated system seemed to cause their Boeing 737 Max planes to tilt down suddenly.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: blue earch
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Banned 737 MAX Family
Singapore's civil aviation authority banned the Boeing 737 MAX family from its airspace.
According to the CAAS, five companies should be impacted by the ban: SilkAir, the regional subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Shandong Airlines and Thai Lion Air. All five operate Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in and out of Singapore.
According to the CAAS, five companies should be impacted by the ban: SilkAir, the regional subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, Shandong Airlines and Thai Lion Air. All five operate Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in and out of Singapore.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Spain
Age: 68
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamble_man. “Correct me if I wrong max speed flap 5 is 180kts”
Sorry Hamble_man but the max speed for flap 5 on the -800NG is 250kias and I believe it is the same on the max
Sorry Hamble_man but the max speed for flap 5 on the -800NG is 250kias and I believe it is the same on the max
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Between security and gate...
Age: 46
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reuters: "JUST IN: Norwegian Air says it expects Boeing to compensate it for lost revenue from the grounding of its fleet of 737 MAX aircraft $BA"
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly because very few MAX7s have been produced, and the vast majority those have been to airlines in the USA and Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_by_customer
Found this on another forum and I don’t know how accurate the info is...
You do realize the MAX8 was to be given a different type rating but MCAS was the solution to allow Boeing and the carriers to get around that so no new type rating was required for their pilots. Only a couple hours training on the new systems.
The MAX8 flew significantly enough different it was going to be a different type until MCAS was added to make it behave the same. This saved a ton of training and certification costs.
The problem is when in a problem situation and MCAS is disabled the pilots are for all intents and purposes now flying a type they have not been trained on.
If you don't believe me just open your eyes... Many many many pilots are reporting these issues. The FAA anonymous reporting system is full of such complaints.
This was a boondoggle from Boeings and the FAA's side.
.......>>> is one example.
Rather important is that it was in fact considered to have substantially different enough behavior to warrant a required type rating for pilots, obviated due to the software abstraction provided by MCAS. However, this abstraction is effectively disabled when setting stabilizer trim to cutoff which is one of the later steps in the normal troubleshooting sequence. OK? So the airplane is in an emergency situation, with a flight characteristic normalizing software routine disabled, thereby making it possible for the airplane to exhibit the very behavior that pilots were never informed of, never trained for, and not required to have a type rating for, that MCAS existed for in the first place.
I think that's quite a lot more relevant than airline safety records. Ethiopian Airlines has a good recent safety record anyway. And the outcry, upon MCAS being publicly revealed, among the U.S. pilot community I also think demonstrates important relative concern.
And, quite a concerning story about U.S. 737 MAX pilots using the anonymous aviation safety reporting system to communicate their concerns, whether instead of or because of the normal channels for doing so.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...019/03/12/boei...
You do realize the MAX8 was to be given a different type rating but MCAS was the solution to allow Boeing and the carriers to get around that so no new type rating was required for their pilots. Only a couple hours training on the new systems.
The MAX8 flew significantly enough different it was going to be a different type until MCAS was added to make it behave the same. This saved a ton of training and certification costs.
The problem is when in a problem situation and MCAS is disabled the pilots are for all intents and purposes now flying a type they have not been trained on.
If you don't believe me just open your eyes... Many many many pilots are reporting these issues. The FAA anonymous reporting system is full of such complaints.
This was a boondoggle from Boeings and the FAA's side.
.......>>> is one example.
Rather important is that it was in fact considered to have substantially different enough behavior to warrant a required type rating for pilots, obviated due to the software abstraction provided by MCAS. However, this abstraction is effectively disabled when setting stabilizer trim to cutoff which is one of the later steps in the normal troubleshooting sequence. OK? So the airplane is in an emergency situation, with a flight characteristic normalizing software routine disabled, thereby making it possible for the airplane to exhibit the very behavior that pilots were never informed of, never trained for, and not required to have a type rating for, that MCAS existed for in the first place.
I think that's quite a lot more relevant than airline safety records. Ethiopian Airlines has a good recent safety record anyway. And the outcry, upon MCAS being publicly revealed, among the U.S. pilot community I also think demonstrates important relative concern.
And, quite a concerning story about U.S. 737 MAX pilots using the anonymous aviation safety reporting system to communicate their concerns, whether instead of or because of the normal channels for doing so.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...019/03/12/boei...
It didn't save on certification costs, because the 737 Max could not have been certificated as a new type.
Grandfathering it on the existing 737 TC was the only option that Boeing had, short of designing a completely new aircraft.
Grandfathering it on the existing 737 TC was the only option that Boeing had, short of designing a completely new aircraft.
Speaking of news related to this thread, the US Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao, decided to "lead by example" (or something like that) and fly on an AA 737 Max.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/us-t...737-max-8.html
I heard of this on the radio about an hour ago. Both American and Southwest are content to keep flying the MAX (for the time being). I will guess that they have provided some form of formal reasoning to the FAA et al ... I'd be interested to see what was in those memos.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/us-t...737-max-8.html
Elaine Chao and her staff flew on a Southwest Airlines 737 Max 8 from Austin, Texas to Washington, D.C. hours after the Transportation Secretary was emphatic in saying her department will ground Max planes if it’s determined they are not safe to fly.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Between security and gate...
Age: 46
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian Minister of Transport's statement:
Minister Garneau statement regarding restricting airspace to Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 9 aircraft
No sign of the Safety Notice itself on the TC website yet.
Minister Garneau statement regarding restricting airspace to Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 9 aircraft
No sign of the Safety Notice itself on the TC website yet.