Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According CNN:
...last month new CEO David Calhoun announced that the company is going back to the drawing board on the plane's design.
This refers to the middle range project. Most refreshing, if true.
...last month new CEO David Calhoun announced that the company is going back to the drawing board on the plane's design.
This refers to the middle range project. Most refreshing, if true.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you are wrong there. Unlike all other aircraft, the 737 had a single rudder PCU. (A bit like MCAS only using one AoA sensor - you would have thought Boeing would have learned by now that two is the minimum).
The 737 rudder PCU was made into a dual system because of several incidents and two crashes, not because of Cat III operations. Seem to remember that one of those incidents was on a BA 747, which captured the error on data recorders (the 747 used the same PCU for the elevators).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
Silver
The 737 rudder PCU was made into a dual system because of several incidents and two crashes, not because of Cat III operations. Seem to remember that one of those incidents was on a BA 747, which captured the error on data recorders (the 747 used the same PCU for the elevators).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
Silver
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed you are correct and I did remember about the US air and other possible PCU problems I just plain forgot to add this before my brain fart, but thanks anyway
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.
And now all the pickle-forks should be replaced.
The NG was not as well engineered as the Classic, and the Max even less so.
As an aside, I thought that video was quite accurate, and less sensationalist than the title.
Silver
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember then the "investigation" as such was so fatefully flawed and the whole justice action so corrupted, nobody ever tried to opportion blame to the real people - who are all probably living a nice retirement in the sun.
As far as I remember the victims got sweet FA after a decade of court action, & Air Inter / Air Frantic got completely exonerated.
Class!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you might claim ergonomic deficiencies were involved, and I would probably agree, the aircraft did exactly as it was told.
Silver
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's decision was this the pilots too??
(bean counters, said it wasn't needed)
And
How come a terrain warning was unable to prevent the plane literally being within 10m altitude height of clearing the top of the mountain (I have been there and visited the site).
In the urge to continue the Airbus v Boeing wars, better to be sure of your facts n'est pas?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report also recommended that pilot training for the A320 should be enhanced and that ground proximity warning systems should be installed on them. Air Inter equipped its aircraft with ground proximity warning systems before the investigation was completed.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like in most accidents if not all, the causes of Air Inter Mt St Odile are many , The fact that the ELT did not activate and that the aircraft was not equipped with GPWS did not help but those were not among the causes of the accident. GPWS was not mandatory at the time and it was not as reliable as it is today with lots of false alarms for those who remember . The ergonomic of the button between rate and angle is mentioned as probably one of the causes, the military ATC in place in Strasbourg at the time was another. But read the report in the BEA archives. There is also an interesting book about the rescue operation.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In both cases the choice between life and death were decided by faceless committees in offices far away from the tragedies, and those responsible have a happy retirement... oh and btw it was Airbus was also responsible for Concorde, and deliberately vandalised the future of the (also perfectly airworthy) British version of it.
In their efforts to save face, all sorts of strange manouevres go on behind the scenes, and it doesn't look better than Boeing.
If in doubt, blame the pilot,is the official way around it.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you can reasonably say is that obstruction of the pitot probes by ice crystals was the first stage in a chain of events, all of which in combination resulted in the eventual outcome. Much like the previous poster said ...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ther is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....
rh..
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Originally Posted by roulishollandais View Post
>in the Volkswagen investigation there was only fraud!
>in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge. That lack of knowledge is existing by Airbus too,
>and in the whole aeronautical world including the certification process in use by ICAO
>
>Peter H Can you elaborate on that.
>I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").
>roulishollandais Sorry Peter H,
>there is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....
I requested an elaboration of your original cryptic post, I think there should be space in the thread for that.
My one-liner was simply to emphasise that the software implementation team seem to be totally in the clear.
They correctly implemented software conforming to the specification they were give. A specification that had
passed all Boeing QC checks, including a full safety assessment (which specifically considered AoA failure).
So can you elaborate, not about specifications, by why "in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge."
Who failed to understand what about computers, and with what consequences?
... I'm just trying to understand what you meant.
>in the Volkswagen investigation there was only fraud!
>in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge. That lack of knowledge is existing by Airbus too,
>and in the whole aeronautical world including the certification process in use by ICAO
>
>Peter H Can you elaborate on that.
>I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").
>roulishollandais Sorry Peter H,
>there is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....
I requested an elaboration of your original cryptic post, I think there should be space in the thread for that.
My one-liner was simply to emphasise that the software implementation team seem to be totally in the clear.
They correctly implemented software conforming to the specification they were give. A specification that had
passed all Boeing QC checks, including a full safety assessment (which specifically considered AoA failure).
So can you elaborate, not about specifications, by why "in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge."
Who failed to understand what about computers, and with what consequences?
... I'm just trying to understand what you meant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts