Should the 737 be banned?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have read many reports and discussions on the accident to AF 4590. I have as yet never found any answer to my question, relevant to this thread I think
On 22nd August 1985 G-BGJL Boeing 737-236 on take off at Manchester Airport suffered an uncontained engine failure which punctured wing fuel tanks, causing a fuel fed fire which destroyed the aircraft and killed some of the occupants.
On 25th July 2000 F-BTSC Concorde on take off at Paris suffered an undercarriage/tyre failure which punctured wing fuel tanks, causing a fuel fed fire which destroyed the aircraft and killed the occupants.
Goodness knows how many millions of £s, $s or Euros were spent putting racing car type kevlar linings in Concorde wing tanks, having grounded the entire fleet almost at once.
What if anything has ever been done to correct the similar (apparant) tank weakness in the Boeing 737 ?
Your comments and observations appreciated.
Be lucky
David
On 22nd August 1985 G-BGJL Boeing 737-236 on take off at Manchester Airport suffered an uncontained engine failure which punctured wing fuel tanks, causing a fuel fed fire which destroyed the aircraft and killed some of the occupants.
On 25th July 2000 F-BTSC Concorde on take off at Paris suffered an undercarriage/tyre failure which punctured wing fuel tanks, causing a fuel fed fire which destroyed the aircraft and killed the occupants.
Goodness knows how many millions of £s, $s or Euros were spent putting racing car type kevlar linings in Concorde wing tanks, having grounded the entire fleet almost at once.
What if anything has ever been done to correct the similar (apparant) tank weakness in the Boeing 737 ?
Your comments and observations appreciated.
Be lucky
David
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I guess that means all over for the DH-82a Tigermoth. I mean the whole thing is made out of wood and fabric. And navigation? Don't get me started.....
Jeez, I love it. Some of you guys really crack me up.
Whoop-whoop...Wind UP. Whoop-Whoop....Wind UP
Jeez, I love it. Some of you guys really crack me up.
Whoop-whoop...Wind UP. Whoop-Whoop....Wind UP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In defence of the 737.
The boeing 737 is one of the safest public transport aircraft.
Aircraft such as the 737 have an outstanding safety record. You should be aware that most accidents are pilot error. How many years has Qantas been flying 737? How many serious accidents? 0.
Flying a 737-800 is very safe occupation. The public should feel very safe when they step onboard a 737.
Sure if you run a 737-200 on next to no maintenance and have overworked undertrained pilots flying them in awful weather, then yes accidents occur.
The level of safety on a 737 is very high. You consider the amount of hours flown, the weather they fly through, takeoffs, landings, temp changes, and speed flown.
The 737-800 is a very safe aircraft. The 737 is over engineered. You fly a 737 within a envelope of safety. Very few 737-800 are pushed to thier operating limits, if every.
Aircraft such as the 737 have an outstanding safety record. You should be aware that most accidents are pilot error. How many years has Qantas been flying 737? How many serious accidents? 0.
Flying a 737-800 is very safe occupation. The public should feel very safe when they step onboard a 737.
Sure if you run a 737-200 on next to no maintenance and have overworked undertrained pilots flying them in awful weather, then yes accidents occur.
The level of safety on a 737 is very high. You consider the amount of hours flown, the weather they fly through, takeoffs, landings, temp changes, and speed flown.
The 737-800 is a very safe aircraft. The 737 is over engineered. You fly a 737 within a envelope of safety. Very few 737-800 are pushed to thier operating limits, if every.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus made the remark -"It is usually pilot error (read incompetent) that causes accidents - not the design of the aircraft". I'd develop that one stage further, and substitute Human Error for Pilot Error, such humans including Pilots, Engineers, Load Controllers etc., all of whom have significantly contributed to the accident record for the B737. Human error also goes back to the people at Seattle, but how many of them have contributed to the B737 accident record? - very very few indeed.
My only response to 738Capt is ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto.
738Capt refers to QANTAS' zero significant accident accident record with the B737. QANTAS' B737 fleet is small compared to that of Malaysia Airlines, the world's largest operator of the B737, and they (Malaysia Airlines) fly the aircraft in far worse weather and terrain conditions than does QANTAS. And what is their record of significant accidents with the B737 - NIL, NONE, ZERO, KOSONG!
kiwibird, you don't happen to work for Airbus, do you?
Regards,
Old Smokey
My only response to 738Capt is ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto.
738Capt refers to QANTAS' zero significant accident accident record with the B737. QANTAS' B737 fleet is small compared to that of Malaysia Airlines, the world's largest operator of the B737, and they (Malaysia Airlines) fly the aircraft in far worse weather and terrain conditions than does QANTAS. And what is their record of significant accidents with the B737 - NIL, NONE, ZERO, KOSONG!
kiwibird, you don't happen to work for Airbus, do you?
Regards,
Old Smokey
N4790P
Maybe we are our own worst enemies?
I wonder just how many individuals (read the general public) are even aware of all the on going world wide initiatives the are constantly going on to further improve what is already an incredible safe form of transportation.
Whilst it is the national regulators role to ensure the continuing safe operation of in service aircraft, other organisations are actively enhancing safety with varying initiatives.
Just some examples:-
· ICAO's English language Level 4 requirements for aircrew and ATC by 2008 with all the associated background activities that are already taking place
· EU funded courses for developing nations. (I’ve had some involvement here and the enthusiasm and more importantly the results are incredible).
· Multi-Pilot Licence (MPL) and the benefits this should bring.
Ill informed, gutter press readers unfortunately tend to get an incorrect impression, especially in disastrous months such as last August because as an industry, there is no focal point of defence. ‘Expert’ after ‘expert’ comes out of the woodwork more often than not making ridiculous comments that need to be countered there and then.
Maybe IATA could have a role to play here? Professionals who could immediately put some sanity back into the wild speculation that inevitable occurs after even the most insignificant event.
I wonder just how many individuals (read the general public) are even aware of all the on going world wide initiatives the are constantly going on to further improve what is already an incredible safe form of transportation.
Whilst it is the national regulators role to ensure the continuing safe operation of in service aircraft, other organisations are actively enhancing safety with varying initiatives.
Just some examples:-
· ICAO's English language Level 4 requirements for aircrew and ATC by 2008 with all the associated background activities that are already taking place
· EU funded courses for developing nations. (I’ve had some involvement here and the enthusiasm and more importantly the results are incredible).
· Multi-Pilot Licence (MPL) and the benefits this should bring.
Ill informed, gutter press readers unfortunately tend to get an incorrect impression, especially in disastrous months such as last August because as an industry, there is no focal point of defence. ‘Expert’ after ‘expert’ comes out of the woodwork more often than not making ridiculous comments that need to be countered there and then.
Maybe IATA could have a role to play here? Professionals who could immediately put some sanity back into the wild speculation that inevitable occurs after even the most insignificant event.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<
....compared to that of Malaysia Airlines, the world's largest operator of the B737.
>>>
That can't be anywhere near true. Southwest Airlines, for example, must have hundreds of 737s and has only ever written off one in 30-plus years.
....compared to that of Malaysia Airlines, the world's largest operator of the B737.
>>>
That can't be anywhere near true. Southwest Airlines, for example, must have hundreds of 737s and has only ever written off one in 30-plus years.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoops, thank you Golf Charlie Charlie, when considering 738Capt's account of the B737 in QANTAS service, I was thinking of the region (i.e. the same region as QANTAS - Australasia / East Asia / South-East Asia).
I must confess that the world does not end with Australasia, biased as I might be.
For the record, who is the world's largest operator of the world's most numerous airliner, the B737?
Regards,
Old Smokey
I must confess that the world does not end with Australasia, biased as I might be.
For the record, who is the world's largest operator of the world's most numerous airliner, the B737?
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birchington, Kent, England
Age: 82
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complex_Type
You asked if there was just one Boeing 737 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS).
Currently there are eleven, ranging from the 737-100 Series to the 737-900 Series.
For anyone interested in the TCDS for the type they are flying, here is a good starting point.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet
There are other sources for TCDS including EASA and CAA(UK) but since the question was about Boeing 737, the above will suffice.
You asked if there was just one Boeing 737 Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS).
Currently there are eleven, ranging from the 737-100 Series to the 737-900 Series.
For anyone interested in the TCDS for the type they are flying, here is a good starting point.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet
There are other sources for TCDS including EASA and CAA(UK) but since the question was about Boeing 737, the above will suffice.
Southwest Airlines has flown only 737s (2/3/4/7 or 8) for many years, on many short legs (flight segments) in all sorts of weather with NO fatal accidents.
And they use very little of the automation-so their pilots tell me. Boeing re-designed a specific number of their new c0ckpits to display round gauges, so that Southwest pilots would have similar instrumentation to rely upon. All of their pilots, Captains and First Officers, are type-rated, and have extensive line experience (no 400-hour 'wonders').
The thought processes behind such creative standardized c0ckpits must be very sound. Maybe the customer is even wiser and more astute (concerning various series flown by the same pilots) than the manufacturer(s?).
The modern assumptions that maximum automation is always best seems to hold no water, does it? And Southwest operated various 737s for well over 20 years. We are all quite aware of how successful and profitable they are (now partly due to fortunate guesses on fuel hedging).
Why be a slave of fashion, when a major system failure or emergency requires a timely and clear interpretation of flight instruments and various lights/EICAS messages? Never mind on a three-mile final with a quick landing decision required, and this is just in good weather. Never mind in the crappy weather.
Fashion is for the glossy ladies magazines.
And they use very little of the automation-so their pilots tell me. Boeing re-designed a specific number of their new c0ckpits to display round gauges, so that Southwest pilots would have similar instrumentation to rely upon. All of their pilots, Captains and First Officers, are type-rated, and have extensive line experience (no 400-hour 'wonders').
The thought processes behind such creative standardized c0ckpits must be very sound. Maybe the customer is even wiser and more astute (concerning various series flown by the same pilots) than the manufacturer(s?).
The modern assumptions that maximum automation is always best seems to hold no water, does it? And Southwest operated various 737s for well over 20 years. We are all quite aware of how successful and profitable they are (now partly due to fortunate guesses on fuel hedging).
Why be a slave of fashion, when a major system failure or emergency requires a timely and clear interpretation of flight instruments and various lights/EICAS messages? Never mind on a three-mile final with a quick landing decision required, and this is just in good weather. Never mind in the crappy weather.
Fashion is for the glossy ladies magazines.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 31st Oct 2005 at 06:22.
For the record, who is the world's largest operator of the world's most numerous airliner, the B737?
I remember reading somewhere, not too long ago that Southwest had some 480 '37s in service. Somewhere near 1/3 of them are said to be NGs with new ones arriving to replace the old at a good pace. I don't know if that makes them the largest, but that IS quite a few.
Best regards,
Westhawk
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override.. 'All of their pilots, Captains and First Oficers, are type-rated..'
I should bloody hope so to.. sorry mate, couldn't resist
Otherwise, I good valid post.
I was reading an article in The Daily Mail (I think??) in which the 737's airworthness came into question. To my suprise it was a well rounded piece not taking to the usual jump on the bandwagon approach The Press sometimes adopt. Indeed, their have been documented accounts of 737 (-100 and -200 models) encountering fatal and non-fatal crashes. As mentioned by others on this post, in Developing and/or Third World countries where the weather was pants, maintenance was dubious and crews overworked and undertrained. Note, many of these operators can't afford A320 family a/c or indeed the 737 NG family a/c.
The 737 is the world's most popular airliner with the -100 coming into service in 1967, I think? It is also one of the world's safest airliners. If indeed it was 'SO' unsafe I do believe it would have suffered the same fate as The Comet, God Bless her
To my knowledge the 737 600-900 NG variants have never been involved in any fatalities.. can the same be said for the A320 family? The Classic has had a reknowned rudder hardover problem which Boeing addressed, and only operators which choose to ignore their advice put themselves at risk. There is no evidence to suggest that the few pressurisation problems the -300 has suffered over the last year are deemed to make the aircraft inherently unsafe.
Indeed, if any a/c is potentially unsafe it must be the A320.. numerous incidents have occurred yet there has been no diagnosis. Oh the a/c systems just did this and overrided the crew.. now that really would worry me. The 737 (Classic and NG) are one of the only a/c of its size with manual reversion capabilities, when systems go down.. there's a back-up
Of course I am not calling for A320s to be banned, that would be inane, but the 737 (and indeed other Boeings) are completely safe and in my opinion more so than the Airbus.
Of course I would say that cos I fly both the Classic and the NG.. long live the 737
Old Smokey, I think I read in Flight under airline directories that South-West are the biggest 737 operator worldwide
747 Downwind, or in light of the current debate..
737 Downwind
I should bloody hope so to.. sorry mate, couldn't resist
Otherwise, I good valid post.
I was reading an article in The Daily Mail (I think??) in which the 737's airworthness came into question. To my suprise it was a well rounded piece not taking to the usual jump on the bandwagon approach The Press sometimes adopt. Indeed, their have been documented accounts of 737 (-100 and -200 models) encountering fatal and non-fatal crashes. As mentioned by others on this post, in Developing and/or Third World countries where the weather was pants, maintenance was dubious and crews overworked and undertrained. Note, many of these operators can't afford A320 family a/c or indeed the 737 NG family a/c.
The 737 is the world's most popular airliner with the -100 coming into service in 1967, I think? It is also one of the world's safest airliners. If indeed it was 'SO' unsafe I do believe it would have suffered the same fate as The Comet, God Bless her
To my knowledge the 737 600-900 NG variants have never been involved in any fatalities.. can the same be said for the A320 family? The Classic has had a reknowned rudder hardover problem which Boeing addressed, and only operators which choose to ignore their advice put themselves at risk. There is no evidence to suggest that the few pressurisation problems the -300 has suffered over the last year are deemed to make the aircraft inherently unsafe.
Indeed, if any a/c is potentially unsafe it must be the A320.. numerous incidents have occurred yet there has been no diagnosis. Oh the a/c systems just did this and overrided the crew.. now that really would worry me. The 737 (Classic and NG) are one of the only a/c of its size with manual reversion capabilities, when systems go down.. there's a back-up
Of course I am not calling for A320s to be banned, that would be inane, but the 737 (and indeed other Boeings) are completely safe and in my opinion more so than the Airbus.
Of course I would say that cos I fly both the Classic and the NG.. long live the 737
Old Smokey, I think I read in Flight under airline directories that South-West are the biggest 737 operator worldwide
747 Downwind, or in light of the current debate..
737 Downwind
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 Downwind :
There's been a *lot* of diagnosis, and a complete overhaul of the human-computer interface involved.
The issue was one of mode confusion (pilots misinterpreting what mode the flight-management computer was in) - and there were a few 'schoolboy' errors in the initial design (push/pull multi-function knobs are considered a big no-no in that kind of environment). These have since been resolved.
Most aircraft with new aspects to their design are prone to teething problems, some serious (The Comet being the most famous example, but the 727 and second-generation Airbus being others), but all evolved to become perfectly safe designs, once the initial concerns were weathered and the bugs ironed out.
Remember though, that Boeing strenuously denied the existence of rudder hardovers in the 73 caused by the PCU until presented with irrefutable evidence.
Indeed, if any a/c is potentially unsafe it must be the A320.. numerous incidents have occurred yet there has been no diagnosis.
The issue was one of mode confusion (pilots misinterpreting what mode the flight-management computer was in) - and there were a few 'schoolboy' errors in the initial design (push/pull multi-function knobs are considered a big no-no in that kind of environment). These have since been resolved.
Most aircraft with new aspects to their design are prone to teething problems, some serious (The Comet being the most famous example, but the 727 and second-generation Airbus being others), but all evolved to become perfectly safe designs, once the initial concerns were weathered and the bugs ironed out.
Remember though, that Boeing strenuously denied the existence of rudder hardovers in the 73 caused by the PCU until presented with irrefutable evidence.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DozyWannabe:
If u read on you will notice that I state a ban on the A320 is both inane and ludacrous. Indeed, Airbus have altered some of the interface problems they had with their new family design.. problems occured with the MCP as well as the FMC I believe, which both incorporate a large segment of the FMS.
My point was that for a relatively new a/c it has had more teathing problems and disasters than the 737, I still fly quite happily on the A320 as a pax, but would just rather fly the 737 as a pilot.. fortunately for me my wish is granted.
To my knowledge the A320 family still has a stagnant A/T, and the joysticks are pressure input (arithmetic, not direct feedback such as the Boeing.. o.k so why the CAPT and the F/O would be pulling and pushing their respective joysticks at the same time is a good point, but least this anomaly would be noticed on the 737)
The A320 still has hard limits.. bank and g load limiters, again irrespective of the mistrust this system has with pilots.. what happens if there's terrain or an a/c to avoid.. stuffed! TCAS II requires the other a/c to be Mode S equipped, and GPWS just like TCAS II is not infallable, GPWS in particular works on IRS or GPS position although the RA gives solid readouts.
Maybe I am nit-picking.. the A320 is a soild, reliable and efficient airliner, but I personally feel the Boeing 737 ideology is more effective.. in particular the human-computer interface that you previously referred to.
Yes, Boeing did deny the rudder incident.. no suprise there, it is their PR team who will protect the manufacturer under any circumstances. Airbus have a history for similar behaviour, in particular blaming the pilots (the Azores engines out approach on the A330 is a classic.. albeit a maintenance issue that caued the incident and nothing to do with the A330's systems). I am affraid that is the nature of life.. not just jet airliner manufacturers.
74 Downind
If u read on you will notice that I state a ban on the A320 is both inane and ludacrous. Indeed, Airbus have altered some of the interface problems they had with their new family design.. problems occured with the MCP as well as the FMC I believe, which both incorporate a large segment of the FMS.
My point was that for a relatively new a/c it has had more teathing problems and disasters than the 737, I still fly quite happily on the A320 as a pax, but would just rather fly the 737 as a pilot.. fortunately for me my wish is granted.
To my knowledge the A320 family still has a stagnant A/T, and the joysticks are pressure input (arithmetic, not direct feedback such as the Boeing.. o.k so why the CAPT and the F/O would be pulling and pushing their respective joysticks at the same time is a good point, but least this anomaly would be noticed on the 737)
The A320 still has hard limits.. bank and g load limiters, again irrespective of the mistrust this system has with pilots.. what happens if there's terrain or an a/c to avoid.. stuffed! TCAS II requires the other a/c to be Mode S equipped, and GPWS just like TCAS II is not infallable, GPWS in particular works on IRS or GPS position although the RA gives solid readouts.
Maybe I am nit-picking.. the A320 is a soild, reliable and efficient airliner, but I personally feel the Boeing 737 ideology is more effective.. in particular the human-computer interface that you previously referred to.
Yes, Boeing did deny the rudder incident.. no suprise there, it is their PR team who will protect the manufacturer under any circumstances. Airbus have a history for similar behaviour, in particular blaming the pilots (the Azores engines out approach on the A330 is a classic.. albeit a maintenance issue that caued the incident and nothing to do with the A330's systems). I am affraid that is the nature of life.. not just jet airliner manufacturers.
74 Downind
