Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
Jing Jing
udonmap.com
Posts: 564
Joined: January 12, 2008, 8:44 pm

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by Jing Jing » March 21, 2019, 2:03 pm

Now it appears Lion Air maybe in the hot seat over their failure to react to a MCAS incident the day prior to the fatal crash.

An off-duty pilot hitching a ride in the cockpit jumpseat of a doomed 737 Max 8 last October reportedly saved the plane just one day before it crashed off the coast of Indonesia while being operated by a different crew, killing 189 onboard.



https://youtu.be/9Ts_AjU89Qk



pipoz4444
udonmap.com
Posts: 608
Joined: April 8, 2011, 1:33 am
Location: All Over the Place

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by pipoz4444 » March 21, 2019, 10:44 pm

Jing Jing wrote:
March 21, 2019, 2:03 pm
Now it appears Lion Air maybe in the hot seat over their failure to react to a MCAS incident the day prior to the fatal crash.

https://youtu.be/9Ts_AjU89Qk
Does MCAS mean = Might Crash Any Second :lol: :lol:

pal52
udonmap.com
Posts: 713
Joined: September 18, 2013, 10:54 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by pal52 » March 22, 2019, 7:05 am

It appears a safety feature which might have stopped the crashes was an optional extra.
Being will now fit it as a Standard Feature to get the planes back in the air.
Money takes precedence over safety as far as Boeing is concerned.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/ ... recent_box

User avatar
sometimewoodworker
udonmap.com
Posts: 1335
Joined: October 7, 2008, 11:19 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by sometimewoodworker » March 22, 2019, 7:16 am

pal52 wrote:
March 22, 2019, 7:05 am
It appears a safety feature which might have stopped the crashes was an optional extra.
Being will now fit it as a Standard Feature to get the planes back in the air.
Money takes precedence over safety as far as Boeing is concerned.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/ ... recent_box
There is sloppy research in that article.
It wrongly states that MCAS uses both angle of attack sensors. That may become true but was not true for both planes

They also say "after erratic takeoffs"

They are the only source suggesting that.

While they could be correct in the rest of the article they are so clearly wrong on the MCAS that they have no credibility for anything they claim.
Jerome and Nui's new househttp://bit.ly/NJnewHouse

pal52
udonmap.com
Posts: 713
Joined: September 18, 2013, 10:54 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by pal52 » March 22, 2019, 9:09 am

sometimewoodworker wrote:
March 22, 2019, 7:16 am
pal52 wrote:
March 22, 2019, 7:05 am
It appears a safety feature which might have stopped the crashes was an optional extra.
Being will now fit it as a Standard Feature to get the planes back in the air.
Money takes precedence over safety as far as Boeing is concerned.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/ ... recent_box
There is sloppy research in that article.
It wrongly states that MCAS uses both angle of attack sensors. That may become true but was not true for both planes

They also say "after erratic takeoffs"

They are the only source suggesting that.

While they could be correct in the rest of the article they are so clearly wrong on the MCAS that they have no credibility for anything they claim.
If you look at the source of the article it is from the New York Times.

User avatar
mak
udonmap.com
Posts: 1156
Joined: July 13, 2008, 11:50 am
Location: Udon Thani

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by mak » March 22, 2019, 10:15 am


the-monk
udonmap.com
Posts: 599
Joined: August 20, 2012, 4:56 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by the-monk » March 22, 2019, 10:58 am

If true, very sad, a clear indication of the USA decline..
Let Boeing investigate itself.. just like the drug companies....with false research...
Let the tobacco industry regulate the the cigarette market..
Let the beef industry tell us that hormone beef is good for you..
Let Coca Cola brainwash your kids will sugar-filled drinks.
Let the coal barons pollute in the name of the $$$.
What s next ?
Not too long ago a USA-made product meant quality .... Today it s scandal after scandals.

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 3598
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: down two... then left

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by tamada » March 22, 2019, 6:33 pm

Jing Jing wrote:
March 21, 2019, 2:03 pm
Now it appears Lion Air maybe in the hot seat over their failure to react to a MCAS incident the day prior to the fatal crash.

An off-duty pilot hitching a ride in the cockpit jumpseat of a doomed 737 Max 8 last October reportedly saved the plane just one day before it crashed off the coast of Indonesia while being operated by a different crew, killing 189 onboard.

https://youtu.be/9Ts_AjU89Qk
I think that the deadheading pilot 'saved the plane' is more of a journalistic embellishment. Yes, he assisted the captain and FO on the flight from Bali the previous day when possibly MCAS/sensor related interference occurred during the flight. Hwoever, I think in that instance, the plane was already at significant, safer altitude. The crash of the same plane shortly after takeoff the following morning and the stark similarities with the Ethiopian crash suggests to me that when these systems malfunction during takeoff, there's simply too much other aerodynamic stuff going on for any of the 2 pilots to have time to solve the problem. The higher base altitude and corresponding thinner air at Addis Ababa probably made it virtually impossible.

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 3598
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: down two... then left

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by tamada » March 22, 2019, 6:46 pm

Doomed Boeing planes lacked two optional safety features – report

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... res-report

Regarding Boeing making the backup mission-critical AOA sensor AND the simple indicator that shows if there's a disagreement between the two sensors optional, “They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham, told the newspaper. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

More nickel and diming here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/busi ... harge.html

By the same token, being vital for safety, it should cost the manufacturer nothing to include them for free. Optional extras that you charge customers for are the plush seats at the front of the plane or mood lighting or bigger LCD's in the seat backs. When you buy a car, lights and wipers come as standard.

Comfort is always optional. Safety never is.

User avatar
sometimewoodworker
udonmap.com
Posts: 1335
Joined: October 7, 2008, 11:19 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by sometimewoodworker » March 22, 2019, 7:36 pm

tamada wrote:
March 22, 2019, 6:46 pm
When you buy a car, lights and wipers come as standard.

Comfort is always optional. Safety never is.
That just isn't true.

There are a variety of extra safety features available for cars that if you want them you have to pay. Like cross traffic alert, reversing cameras, swivelling view reversing cameras to name just a few safety features.

In a plane every feature that you add requires pilot training or they are worthless and actually dangerous.

So the Boeing choice to claim no more than an hour familiarisation course was need is probably the ultimate cause of the crashes as otherwise the pilots would possibly have been able to recover the planes. Just adding another two indicators may add to safety or it may be a distraction.
Jerome and Nui's new househttp://bit.ly/NJnewHouse

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 3598
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: down two... then left

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by tamada » March 22, 2019, 11:11 pm

sometimewoodworker wrote:
March 22, 2019, 7:36 pm
tamada wrote:
March 22, 2019, 6:46 pm
When you buy a car, lights and wipers come as standard.

Comfort is always optional. Safety never is.
That just isn't true.

There are a variety of extra safety features available for cars that if you want them you have to pay. Like cross traffic alert, reversing cameras, swivelling view reversing cameras to name just a few safety features.

In a plane every feature that you add requires pilot training or they are worthless and actually dangerous.

So the Boeing choice to claim no more than an hour familiarisation course was need is probably the ultimate cause of the crashes as otherwise the pilots would possibly have been able to recover the planes. Just adding another two indicators may add to safety or it may be a distraction.
The car accessories you list aren't life-savers. They aint BASIC and yes, they cost more. They're OPTIONAL. The MCAS isn't a reversing camera. It's something that's supposed to keep the plane in the air. The system, it's redundancy of AOA sensors (now suddenly two instead of one) and the 'idiot light' shouldn't ever have been an item where its usefulness was decided by the accountants on EITHER side.

Agreed that Boeings' BASIC training was probably lacking but what drove that? Money. It costs money for basic training and more money for more extensive training. It's good to see Boeing suggesting they had all the time in the world to train more extensively but infer that budget airlines, by far the biggest customer of the Max-8, didn't budget for it. Maybe that's because the costs of these extra, neccessary classes were disproportionately high? Since Boeing hasn't been able to provide a comprehensive price-list for any of their add-on safety gadgets, it's safe to assume that the costs of their training (and any requested additional training) may have also depended on who the customer is. Don't forget that not long after the Lion Air crash, Boeing and/or their defenders publicly suggested that they can't cater for different 'grades' of pilots.

In the real world, bar owners, bartenders and license holders get penalised heavily if they knowingly let a drunk customer get behind the wheel of a car. Meanwhile, a plane manufacturer, in collusion with a federal agency, hands over the keys to loads of flying buses knowing their product has flaws, their training on their flawed product is inadequate and the software patches and training manual re-writes will be ready 'next month'.

User avatar
sometimewoodworker
udonmap.com
Posts: 1335
Joined: October 7, 2008, 11:19 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by sometimewoodworker » March 22, 2019, 11:47 pm

tamada wrote:
March 22, 2019, 11:11 pm

The car accessories you list aren't life-savers. They aint BASIC and yes, they cost more. They're OPTIONAL. The MCAS isn't a reversing camera. It's something that's supposed to keep the plane in the air. The system, it's redundancy of AOA sensors (now suddenly two instead of one) and the 'idiot light' shouldn't ever have been an item where its usefulness was decided by the accountants on EITHER side.
I never said that the safety features were life savers, just examples of safety equipment that costs more, for a life saver some cars don't have airbags or have fewer, you have to pay more for them. Is that a suitable example?

There have always been two AOA sensors, one on each side of the plane. The MCAS system as originally delivered used the information from only 1 I haven't seen anything suggesting that any earlier changes started using both.

And no the MCAS wasn't designed to keep the plane in the air, but to make recovery from a near stall possible. I don't have the data but wouldn't be surprised to find that in almost all flights it never activated.

It is possible that the fix may include information from both, that is pure guesswork. The logic of the software having to try to decide on which information is accurate if they disagree is not simple, get it wrong and you will have another plane falling out of the sky.

In all probability the rush to market has a significant bearing on the lack of sufficient testing.
Last edited by sometimewoodworker on March 23, 2019, 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jerome and Nui's new househttp://bit.ly/NJnewHouse

User avatar
Udon Map
Admin
Posts: 1511
Joined: July 31, 2013, 7:57 pm

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by Udon Map » March 23, 2019, 9:00 am

Why is it Boeing's fault for making them options? Why aren't the airlines to blame for choosing not to buy them?

Separately, United apparently doesn't use them. UA released a statement saying that their pilots get this information another way.

User avatar
sometimewoodworker
udonmap.com
Posts: 1335
Joined: October 7, 2008, 11:19 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by sometimewoodworker » March 23, 2019, 11:03 am

Udon Map wrote:
March 23, 2019, 9:00 am
Why is it Boeing's fault for making them options? Why aren't the airlines to blame for choosing not to buy them?

Separately, United apparently doesn't use them. UA released a statement saying that their pilots get this information another way.
That is an excellent point and goes along with many other examples of items both involving extra safety and other things where you can choose to buy the options, or not.

You choose the options that suit you, often, usually, based on information from the maker. In that way it certainly could be that Boeing was at fault in not making clear why the options would be beneficial.

I speculated that if they had made a point that these would be needed then they would have had to make clear that pilot training for the Max would really require simulator training on the MCAS so putting the lie to the idea that the Max was functionally the same as the NG and making the sales pitch significantly less attractive and requiring consideration.

The people making buying choices are often not pilots and so have to go in the information provided.

The fact that the option is inexpensive or free to the maker has no bearing on the price to the final purchaser. There are many examples of this, one is Windows home, it is windows Pro and Education and just requires a key to enable those functions that are disabled in the home edition.
Jerome and Nui's new househttp://bit.ly/NJnewHouse

pipoz4444
udonmap.com
Posts: 608
Joined: April 8, 2011, 1:33 am
Location: All Over the Place

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by pipoz4444 » March 23, 2019, 11:08 am

Boeing's argument appears to be that MACS was introduced/added into the plane as a safety measure software, to prevent the plane from stalling during Take Off? Am I correct or is there more to Boeing's argument?

In aviation history, when did a the older version of the Boeing 737 ever stall, during take off. I can't find a single accident event recorded and its been flying for 40 plus years? Even the Boeing 737-800 Next Generation has been flying since 1997 :-k

Below are the last 7 years of recorded accidents for the Boeing 737-800 Next Generation, which was first released in 1997 (so a modern plan by any standards), before the 737 Max version - None of them come close to a potential accident during Take Off, except that of 04 April 2016 and he hit another plane :-# :confused: :confused:

October 14, 2012: Corendon Airlines Flight 773, a 737-800, TC-TJK, sustained substantial fire damage to the cockpit at Antalya Airport in Turkey. The fire started in the flight deck during push-back from the gate.

April 13, 2013: Lion Air Flight 904, a 737-800 (registration PK-LKS) operating from Bandung to Denpasar in Indonesia, undershot runway 09 and crashed into the sea while landing at Ngurah Rai International Airport

July 22, 2013: Southwest Airlines Flight 345, a 737-700, suffered a nose gear collapse while landing at LaGuardia Airport after touching down nose gear first due to pilot error.

March 19, 2016: Flydubai Flight 981, a 737-800 flying from Dubai, United Arab Emirates to Rostov-on-Don, Russia, crashed on the final approach to Rostov-on-Don Airport, in inclement weather.

April 4, 2016: Batik Air Flight 7703, a 737-800, was in the takeoff roll at Halim Perdanakusuma Airport, Jakarta, Indonesia when its left wing tip struck the vertical tail and left wing of a TransNusa ATR 42 crossing the runway under tow and separated most of the vertical tailplane as well as the left wing from the ATR, with the left wing tank ruptured open.

August 27, 2016: Southwest Airlines Flight 3472, a 737-700, experienced an un-contained engine failure in flight from New Orleans, Louisiana to Orlando, Florida. Debris from the engine damaged the airplane fuselage, creating a hole and resulting in a loss of cabin pressure.

January 13, 2018: Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622, a 737-800, slid off the runway at Trabzon Airport while landing in rain.

April 17, 2018: Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, a 737-700, made an emergency landing at Philadelphia International Airport following an in-flight engine failure of the left engine. Debris from the engine cracked a cabin window which then failed, causing explosive decompression.

April 29, 2018: Lion Air Flight 892 , a 737-800 (registration PK-LOO), made a runway excursion at Jalaluddin Airport after landing under heavy rain conditions, resulting in the main nose gear collapsing.

August 16, 2018: Xiamen Airlines Flight 8667, a 737-800 (registration B-5498), crash-landed at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Philippines during heavy monsoon rains. The 737-800 skidded off the end of the runway, causing left engine and main gear to collapse.

September 1, 2018: Utair Flight 579, a 737-800, on a flight from Vnukovo International Airport with 164 passengers and 6 crew, overran the runway and caught fire while landing at Sochi International Airport.

September 28, 2018: Air Niugini Flight 73, a 737-800, on a flight from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, with an intermediate stop at Chuuk International Airport, undershot the runway at Chuuk and landed in a lagoon.

In fact when was the last recorded accident, of any commercial plane attributed to stalling during take off? :-k

In theory a Plane can stall during take off, but this doesn't appear to be a common occurrence or a high risk type of accident, (considering the amount of take offs in the past 20 years) when compared to other accident events, unless of course there is something inherent in the 737- 8 Max Plane Design that potentially increases the risk of this particular plane stalling during take off? Maybe Boeing should come clean and explain why the 737- 8 Max Design really needs the MACS, or simply take the MACS out of the plane?? :confused: :confused:

If anything more accidents can be attributed to when the plane is coming into land, and I don't see how the MACS would make the landing approach any safer. :-k

As far as I can find out, other Boeing plane types do not have the MACS and so presumably do not need the MACS system. So are these other Pilots uniquely different from those of the 737-8 Max. I doubt it.

So my question is, if the 737-8 Max is properly designed, why can't the 737-8 Max be flown without the MACS system??? also given the fact that most of the Pilots flying them have spent many hours flying the older 737 version. Just doesn't make sense to me, unless I have missed something in Boeing's argument of "Add for Safety during Take Off"

pipoz4444

User avatar
sometimewoodworker
udonmap.com
Posts: 1335
Joined: October 7, 2008, 11:19 am

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by sometimewoodworker » March 23, 2019, 12:31 pm

pipoz4444 wrote:
March 23, 2019, 11:08 am
Boeing's argument appears to be that MACS was introduced/added into the plane as a safety measure software, to prevent the plane from stalling during Take Off? Am I correct or is there more to Boeing's argument
pipoz4444
I don't know anything about Boeing's argument. I also don't know anyone who's suggesting the accidents/incidents happened during takeoff. They happened during the climb out not during takeoff. Takeoff finishes when the wheels leave the ground. Both planes had a completely normal takeoff

However the MCAS was not designed for that purpose. It is designed to make a stall recovery possible when the pilots controls become less able to correct a stall situation. It is turned off during takeoff while the flaps are extended and only becomes operational after the flaps are retracted during the climb out after takeoff.

It was required because if the airspeed drops low enough to get near enough to the stall point the natural and trained reaction is to increase power to increase airspeed and in many other planes this is an uneventful procedure. However with the Max due to the position, size and power of the new engines so that they will pull the nose of the plane up when increasing power, if this were not countered this would make the stall worse as the normal control surfaces will not be sufficient to counter the effect. Thus the trim function had to be linked and MCAS adjusts the trim to counter the tendency for the engines to pull the nose up and put a recoverable stall into a catastrophic stall.

The tail trim can, and unfortunately did, override all the other control surfaces.

I would suggest watching the Mentor Pilot's video for an overview of the need for MCAS and the way it works. He exclusively talks about MCAS in flight and nothing about takeoff, that is where my assumptions come from.

Boeing quote on MCAS design and usage
to compensate for some unique aircraft handling characteristics during it’s (sic) Part 25 certification” and help pilots bring the nose down in the event the jet’s angle of attack drifted too high when flying manually, putting the aircraft at risk of stalling,
Further reading
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/worl ... ule=inline

According to Boeing, MCAS does not control the plane during normal flight but "improves the behavior of the airplane" during "non-normal" situations.
These could be steep turns or after takeoff when a plane is climbing with flaps up at speeds that are close to stall speed.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ethiopian ... 1.html#jCp
So when the flaps are down MCAS is disabled.

One pilot's comment on flap retraction in 777s
Below is sample screen of a Boeing 777's Primary Flight Display. See those flaps marks on the speed tape?
IMG_7071.GIF
IMG_7071.GIF (17.32 KiB) Viewed 533 times
Here's the thing: you don't want to retract the flaps from 5 to 1 when you're slower than the stall speed at flaps 1. So in terms of flaps retraction schedule, you'll:

Accelerate to (at least) the minimum speed for flaps 5 in the takeoff roll.
Pitch up really high (e.g. 12.5 degrees)
Upon reaching acceleration altitude (a.k.a. flap retraction altitude), pitch down a bit (e.g. from 12.5 to 10 degrees) and let the aircraft accelerate.
When the speed passes the "1" mark on the speed tape, set flaps 1.
When the speed passes "up" on the speed tape, fully retract the flaps.
Acceleration altitude is usually 1,000 feet or 1,250 feet. So that really steep climb right after takeoff roll lasts only about 30 seconds.
This ties in with the problems happening after the flaps would have been retracted.

Usage of flaps
Usually retracted by 3,000 feet

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... icle05.pdf
Last edited by sometimewoodworker on March 23, 2019, 2:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Jerome and Nui's new househttp://bit.ly/NJnewHouse

pipoz4444
udonmap.com
Posts: 608
Joined: April 8, 2011, 1:33 am
Location: All Over the Place

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by pipoz4444 » March 23, 2019, 1:08 pm

STWW

Buy Take Off, I was actually referring to the time from ground to leveling out, so yes include the term/duration of flight - Climbing

Either way there does no appear to be any previously reported accidents of a Boeing 737 crashing due to problems experienced during the Climbing stage, until recently.

Re. "to compensate for some unique aircraft handling characteristics during it’s (sic) Part 25 certification” and help pilots bring the nose down in the event the jet’s angle of attack drifted too high when flying manually, putting the aircraft at risk of stalling". - Sounds like a way of saying we F..ked up the design of the plane and now need to retro fit a design correction? I don't see how it helps the Pilot bring the nose down, since it actually does that for them [-X

The question still remains, if the 737-8 Max is/was properly designed, why can't the 737-8 Max be flown without the MACS system during Take Off & Climbing??? given the fact that most of the Pilots flying them have spent many hours flying the older 737 version. Just doesn't make sense to me, as Pilots have been Taking Off and Climbing for years without issue, unless I have missed something in Boeing's argument of "Add for Safety during Take Off/Climbing" :-k

pipoz4444
Last edited by pipoz4444 on March 23, 2019, 9:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.

pipoz4444
udonmap.com
Posts: 608
Joined: April 8, 2011, 1:33 am
Location: All Over the Place

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by pipoz4444 » March 23, 2019, 1:11 pm

Opps

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 3598
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: down two... then left

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by tamada » March 23, 2019, 1:26 pm

sometimewoodworker wrote:
March 22, 2019, 11:47 pm
tamada wrote:
March 22, 2019, 11:11 pm

The car accessories you list aren't life-savers. They aint BASIC and yes, they cost more. They're OPTIONAL. The MCAS isn't a reversing camera. It's something that's supposed to keep the plane in the air. The system, it's redundancy of AOA sensors (now suddenly two instead of one) and the 'idiot light' shouldn't ever have been an item where its usefulness was decided by the accountants on EITHER side.
I never said that the safety features were life savers, just examples of safety equipment that costs more, for a life saver some cars don't have airbags or have fewer, you have to pay more for them. Is that a suitable example?

There have always been two AOA sensors, one on each side of the plane. The MCAS system as originally delivered used the information from only 1 I haven't seen anything suggesting that any earlier changes started using both.

And no the MCAS wasn't designed to keep the plane in the air, but to make recovery from a near stall possible. I don't have the data but wouldn't be surprised to find that in almost all flights it never activated.

It is possible that the fix may include information from both, that is pure guesswork. The logic of the software having to try to decide on which information is accurate if they disagree is not simple, get it wrong and you will have another plane falling out of the sky.

In all probability the rush to market has a significant bearing on the lack of sufficient testing.
Lack of an air bag in a certain automobile market where they aren't mandatory is a good analogy. But there's similar fudging in jurisdictions where they are mandatory that allows manufacturers to fit what they determine is the bare minimum air bag requirement.

I stand corrected on the AOA sensors in that there has always been two. However, the fact that the default configuration of MCAS is to use the data from only one of these sensors makes it harder to fathom why the 'difference' indicator, the visible warning of significant difference between the data from each separate AOA sensor, should be optional. It gets back to the immediate post- Lion Air 'defence' from Boeing that maybe they didn't want to overload the more novice pilot with data. Right, lets NOT tell him anything but just let MCAS automatically and anonymously wind the jackscrew on the tailplane anyway... he'll be able work it out but failing that, he can always hit the circuit breakers, no?

The larger engines and shorter engine pylons have altered the centre of gravity of the Max 8, something that is probably more critical during take-off. I understand that MCAS was developed to address this. Looking at the FAA's own wording on what the MCAS functionality is, they said a fault condition with the AOA sensor (data input to MCAS), "if not addressed, could cause the flight crew to have difficulty controlling the airplane, and lead to excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude loss, and possible impact with terrain." If you want to split hairs and suggest that this does not suggest any functionality with regard to "keeping the plane in the air", knock yourself out. The plane stalls, the plane crashes, end of.

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 3598
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: down two... then left

Re: Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

Post by tamada » March 23, 2019, 1:39 pm

Udon Map wrote:
March 23, 2019, 9:00 am
Why is it Boeing's fault for making them options? Why aren't the airlines to blame for choosing not to buy them?

Separately, United apparently doesn't use them. UA released a statement saying that their pilots get this information another way.
Spoken like Boeing's legal counsel?

The other guys manage OK so why can't you guys?

Back to my contention that if something is available that makes this 737 derivative behave more in line to previous models with regard to safe take-off, then it shouldn't be left to the beancounters at any airline or LCC to decide if it's non-essential. It's elimination and subsequent cost saving should not be used as a sweetener by the salesman.

BTW, the UA statement is so incredibly light on detail, it's hard to see the relevance. I mean without looking at their chronometers, how do UA pilots know it's getting late in the day ? When it starts getting dark maybe?

Post Reply

Return to “World News”