Boeing 737 Max

[Honda]

Most know this relatively new aircraft has been involved in two deadly crashes in 6 months with the most recent one in Ethiopia. Many countries have grounded the planes including the UK. The US carriers are standing by the plane and continue to operate it daily, including Southwest who recently began flying daily from the west coast to Hawaii. They have noted no problems with the aircraft. I do find it interesting that both of the crashes were in lesser developed countries who have pulled out of being third world countries. Could it be that their training on the new plane is deficient? I do not know but I have to have faith that the FAA would ground them here in a second if they thought the planes were at fault for the crashes. Any thoughts? Would you fly on one? Could it be that Europe is grounding them to give Boeing a direct competitor of AirBus a black eye? I would fly in the plane but not in Ethiopia or Jakarta.

[UTAH]

I trust U.S. aviation officials. They have a solid reputation for doing the right thing.

Hunter

[Truckman]

I trust U.S. aviation officials. They have a solid reputation for doing the right thing.

Hunter

I do too...Tom asked whether the training might be deficient in the third or second or whatever world those people were from...I would look at that as well as maintenance and fuel/lubricants quality, with particular emphasis on record keeping...It's just as easy to pencil whip records today as it was fifty years ago......Ben

[Billy_Rightwing]

Some years ago we lost one in the sea and I read the whole report after the investigation. Was ice in the depot tube and got into a stall, I made the remark at the time why not take manual control and use the GPS to tell them the air speed. There making the controls so auto they don't know how to fly manual when a problem crops up.

[TriGuy]

Some years ago we lost one in the sea and I read the whole report after the investigation. Was ice in the depot tube and got into a stall, I made the remark at the time why not take manual control and use the GPS to tell them the air speed. There making the controls so auto they don't know how to fly manual when a problem crops up.

That right there is why Asiana hit the ground before the runway at SFO. Auto approach system was down and they couldn't fly it properly on manual approach. My Niece was one of the controllers in the tower when it hit.

[Honda]

There's no doubt that the operation of a modern airliner has become quite complex and is Guided by multiple computers and a number of electronic interfaces. I was told by One Pilot that once it was two feet off the ground they never touched the controls again until they were on Final Approach. So with that kind of flying Talent relying totally on computerized programs I can see why raw flying skills could diminish. I don't know that I hope they figure it out

[wacojoe]

This last has reports from witnesses on the ground in the immediate proximity relating that flames and smoke were coming from the aircraft as it descended, while making loud, strange grinding type noises. That does not sound like a problem with the electronic controls.

[Phillbo]

Could it be that their training on the new plane is deficient?

Yes. My BIL is a Flight instructor for Delta. He told me in most foreign countries the training on how to fly the aircraft without the computer flight controls is severely lacking. If the computer fails they simply push more button instead of taking control. That was proven with the crash in San Francisco a few years back. They let the computer fly it into the ground instead of disengaging it and fly the plane.

[Phillbo]

This last has reports from witnesses on the ground in the immediate proximity relating that flames and smoke were coming from the aircraft as it descended, while making loud, strange grinding type noises. That does not sound like a problem with the electronic controls.

Agree...

[Honda]

And the plot thickens................

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/pi...max/index.html

[Honda]

The plane has been officially grounded by the FAA. NOT good for Boeing.

[Phillbo]

Found this right up on a skydiving forum:

"Looks like the 737 MAX is going to see some trouble. So far there have been two fatal crashes, with at least one caused by a hack Boeing did to get their plane to be a little more stable.

 Background - one of the big changes was that the MAX had new engines (CFM LEAP variants) which were more efficient due to their larger fans, but those larger fans also necessitated a lot of airframe changes - longer landing gear, changed engine placement, new engine mounts. These changes caused a pronounced pitch-up moment during some maneuvers, which led test pilots to get very close to stall very quickly. This was deemed unsafe by regulators. So Boeing added an automatic nose-down-trim algorithm to the flight augmentation computer if it sensed a high angle of attack. Per Boeing, this was added "to compensate for some unique aircraft handling characteristics [discovered] during its Part 25 certification." The nose-down trim addition was enough of a fix to satisfy regulators.

Since it works by trimming the nose down, it works by effectively tilting the entire horizontal stabilizer down. Thus if it runs away there's no way for the pilot to counteract the nose-down tendency with yoke input alone. And it looks like that's what happened with the first crash. The MCAS (erroneously) sensed a high angle of attack, and started trimming the pitch more and more nose down until it overpowered the pilot.

In the second crash, it looks so far like the pilot tried to turn off the trim motors but lost control anyway, perhaps due to the lack of that stabilization.

Needless to say, there are ways to shut down the system. Using manual trim (switch on the yoke) will temporarily override the system, as will using the hand trim wheel in the center console. But to get it to shut down for good you have to turn off power to the trim system, which 1) there is no training for right now and 2) then you lose the stability augmentation, which puts you back into the situation that the aircraft failed certification for.

So it doesn't look good right now. The right fix is probably an airframe change to move engines/wings/tail around to prevent the pitch-up moment, but that's likely a rebuild-the-plane change. In the meantime Boeing is trying for a software fix, one that will be less likely to erroneously sense a high AOA. But regulators may not be so amenable this time around to a software fix for a fundamental instability."

[Honda]

Wow thanks for the information. I can't believe this plane ever made it to market. Does not fit how Boeing builds planes.

[Phillbo]

Adding flaps will disengage the systems as well but that has it's own concerns at high speeds....

[Phillbo]

There are two brand new airliners that made craters. This is unheard of. It's only due to the enormous power and influence that Boeing wields that it took so long for the FAA to react. This machine with it's new engine placement is inherently unstable it turns out. Boeing used it's influence to get the kludge approved, then hid it from the customers and the pilots. This is going to turn into a major scandal and both Boeing and the FAA are going to be dragged through the mud. The 737 Max program is finished. The FAA may not pull it's certification, but the public and the airlines will not accept this aircraft. Boeing is going to lose billions over this. They will have to redesign the airframe to use the engines and the name 737 will be retired.

Not too late to dump your stock.....