How much longer to fix the 737 Max

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by brien23, Apr 13, 2019.

  1. SCCutler

    SCCutler Administrator Management Council Member PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    16,574
    Location:
    Dallas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Spike Cutler
    All I'm saying.

    Boeing's inept implementation of this one system (and really, guys - no annunciation, no cross-check, on a device that is applying a substantial trim change?) is unfortunate; worse, the inadequate training and familiarization (although I know a couple of guys who fly it, claim the computer-only indoc they received was more than adequate; opinions vary).

    I hate how the Swiss cheese holes have lined-up on this one; had the pilots and MX on the earlier LionAir flight done anything remotely close to their jobs, the first LionAir crash never happens; even then, they had it in-hand until (again, inexplicably) the pilot-flying apparently transitions control to the other guy without saying, "hey, you gotta keep trimming up, 'K?"

    It's not as if there is a perfect airplane out there, and automation, working perfectly, can still kill you just as dead. AF447, in a 777 or 787, even with the unfortunate combination of confused pilots, probably ends clean, because Mr. Non-Flying Pilot sees the yoke in his belly and says, "Mon dieu!"

    And I don't think any of us believe, with a straight face, that QF32 ends well with a cockpit of new-age systems operators; that situation required pilots.
     
    Bell206 likes this.
  2. dtuuri

    dtuuri En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,325
    Location:
    Madison, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dtuuri
    ...and lots of them and maybe more than a little Divine Intervention:

    "The pilot in command of the aircraft, Captain Richard Champion de Crespigny, has been credited in the media as "having guided a heavily damaged double-decker jet to the safety of Singapore Changi Airport and averting what could have been a catastrophe".[25] At the time of the accident he had 35 years of flying experience[26] and was the first Qantas "line" pilot to fly the Airbus A380 as the captain.[not in citation given] He was commended for debriefing the passengers in the passenger terminal after the flight, disclosing details of the flight and offering care for his passengers.[27] In 2016, Champion de Crespigny was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the aviation industry both nationally and internationally, particularly to flight safety, and to the community.[28]

    In 2010, Richard Woodward, a vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, reported that there were five pilots in the cockpit of this flight. In addition to the normal crew of captain, first and second officer, there were two additional check captains: the captain who was being trained as a check captain (CC) and the supervising check captain, who was training the CC.[15] Captain de Crespigny concentrated on flying and managing the aircraft and monitoring the (100 ECAM) checklists being sifted through by the first officer. The supernumerary pilots monitored all actions and assisted where necessary."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
     
    SCCutler likes this.
  3. PPC1052

    PPC1052 En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    4,246
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PPC
    If you are going to write an Onion piece, you have to try to make it funny.
     
    X3 Skier, murphey and Kenny Phillips like this.
  4. Kenny Phillips

    Kenny Phillips Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2018
    Messages:
    1,872
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kenny Phillips
    And that's the problem with public schools ...
     
  5. NJP_MAN

    NJP_MAN Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    1 crash of and airframe is terrible news. 2 crashes in less than 6 months is a design failure. You cant tell anybody otherwise
     
  6. Silvaire

    Silvaire En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,700
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Silvaire
    And what knowledge do you have? Two virtually brand new aircraft fly straight into the ground and the answer seems to be it was a bug in the software? I'm pretty sure this has never happened before. We are in new territory here.
     
  7. PPC1052

    PPC1052 En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    4,246
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PPC
    There is no valid logic in that statement. Now, we do know more than those two data points. And if you want to argue based on those facts, have at it. But the mere fact that two crashes in the same type occurred within six months gives rise to nothing more than a hypothesis.
     
    Palmpilot likes this.
  8. kgruber

    kgruber En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795
    Location:
    M94 Airport Manager
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skywag
    I understand there are people who are unable to recognize irony or satire. Generally they are unobservant, oblivious, unaware, incognizant, self-absorbed, literal-minded or tunnel-visioned.

    Possibly best described as an irony deficiency.
     
    murphey and Piperonca like this.
  9. NJP_MAN

    NJP_MAN Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Well Boeing admitted fault so theres that. How many 737s fly every single day ? How many NGs have crashed in the last 6 months? How many classics have crashed in the last 6 months? Statistics and an admission seem to be pretty strong evidence to formulate a nice foundation for hypothesis.
     
  10. drotto

    drotto Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,144
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    drotto
    So from what I gave read the major issue at this point with the 737 is the short landing gear, and low clearance of the airframe. The new high efficiency engines need more clearance. Boeing decided that changing the landing gear length and the associated changes to the airframe and well as the take off and landing characteristics were two extensive and could push the plane to need a new type rating.

    So the moved the pylons which changed the aerodynamics necessitated the MCAS.

    Ok, with that out of the way. I am not sure why Boeing would continue to bandaid the clearance issue and not finally bite the bullet and lengthen the gear ( short of making a new plane). I know this would necessitate more training for pilots, but it would be an obvious and easily understood change, unlike flight chatacteristic changes which seem harder for some people to comprehend. It may also have been the more expensive fix. But fixing the obvious "problem" with the airframe at this point, seems like the best long term answer short of a clean sheet design.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     
    LongRoadBob likes this.
  11. SCCutler

    SCCutler Administrator Management Council Member PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    16,574
    Location:
    Dallas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Spike Cutler
    It happens!

    I get it, and I'm always vigilant. Just not always successfully so.

    Gotta remember that one!
     
  12. Larry in TN

    Larry in TN Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Larry in TN
    The 737-10 MAX will have telescoping main gear.

     
    dmspilot likes this.
  13. dmspilot

    dmspilot En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,319
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    Interesting video, but looks like this landing gear is only meant to prevent tail strikes and does not do anything to improve engine clearance.
     
  14. drotto

    drotto Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,144
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    drotto
    Also begs the question, if they can do telescoping gear, could they give themselves another 12 or even 18 inches of clearance negating the need to relocate the pylons. The lengthened gear would seem to solve the issues which necessitated the pylon move, resulting in the negative change to flight characteristics.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     
  15. Bell206

    Bell206 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,405
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    FYI: As I understand it, the MCAS worked as designed based on the data it received in both events. Why the data was corrupt has been determined in the Lion accident, but nothing has been determined in this accident. Why the Lion captain was able to maintain control and the co-pilot could not will hopefully come out in the final report. And time will tell if the 302 crew will be vindicated in their actions with that final report.

    But this is hardly new territory. There have been numerous "bugs" in aircraft systems for years. For example, back in the late 80s an Airbus 320 failed to clear trees during its first demo flight with pax because the flight control FBW computer engaged a "protection mode" which limited pilot commanded elevator movement. In 2014, an Airbus 321 had this same flight computer "protection mode" activate during a climb through FL310 causing a 4000FPM dive because 2 AoA indicators jammed. Being FBW the crew could not correct the dive even with full stick inputs. Instead they had to manually disconnect the ADUs and recover the aircraft. There have been multiple failures/accidents with the 320/321 flight control system over the years...not months, yet the fleet was never grounded.

    The irony, this Airbus "protection mode" was designed to prevent the aircraft from entering a stall. Sound familiar? At least with the MCAS there was a way to directly disable it and fly the aircraft.
     
  16. cowman

    cowman En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,851
    Location:
    Danger Zone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cowman
    Why can't they just disable MCAS and if need be put all crews through an extra stall recovery training session until they get the fix in? It doesn't seem like it ought to be such a big deal now that it's known.
     
  17. Bell206

    Bell206 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,405
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    Because it was the result of a certification requirement for flight control forces and not stall prevention. If Boeing can figure another way to increase/maintain the controls forces based on AoA per Part 25 without moving the stabilizer then MCAS would not be needed.
     
  18. drotto

    drotto Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,144
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    drotto
    And the control forces are a result of moving the pylons. Is it time to ditch the 737, which I know Boeing does not want to do because of time and cost, or abandon the Max 8 and look to a solution that increases ground clearance? For instance, trying to get taller landing gear on the plane.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  19. Larry in TN

    Larry in TN Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Larry in TN
    MCAS is not a stall protection system.
     
    TCABM likes this.
  20. Bell206

    Bell206 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,405
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    I don't know. The emerging overseas markets are whats driving this size aircraft. Airbus came out with the 320/321 NEO which is what the MAX was upgrade to compete with. I think if they try and add taller gear to the 37 it will require a clean sheet. I also think the MAX 10 is a stop gap until the Boeing NMA/797 is certified which is a clean sheet design but I think it's designed toward the larger market the 57/67 services. But maybe they'll come out with a 797 short version instead and replace the 737. More people are flying and there isn't enough aircraft to handle the future market.
     
  21. drotto

    drotto Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,144
    Location:
    NJ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    drotto
    Making a short version of the 797 seems like it may be the smartest move at this point. Any clue how far off that plane is?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     
  22. murphey

    murphey Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    8,344
    Location:
    Colorado
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    murphey
    There were more than 25,000 car crashes in the US in 2017. Obviously almost every auto on the roads is a design failure, right?

    Go take an intro course in Logic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  23. NJP_MAN

    NJP_MAN Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Shawn
    Nice try. Boeing said they botched the deal. You cant defend them when they aren't defending themselves. Too late.
     
  24. Silvaire

    Silvaire En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,700
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Silvaire
    Well somebody oughta tell MCAS that because it sure seems to think it is.
     
  25. Greg Bockelman

    Greg Bockelman Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    9,676
    Location:
    Yona (Say Joan ya), Guam
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Bockelman
    No it doesn’t.
     
    TCABM likes this.
  26. Silvaire

    Silvaire En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,700
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Silvaire
    It was a joke, obviously MCAS doesn’t “think” anything :rolleyes:
     
  27. Bell206

    Bell206 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,405
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bell206
    The last I heard/read was 2025. But while a short version may work, it's a twin -aisle so I doubt Boeing will go that route to replace the 37. But who knows where this will end up. If they can figure a way to maintain Part 25 control forces without the MCAS/stabilizer trim may be a better route.
     
    TCABM likes this.
  28. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    15,624
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    There are enough people taking extreme positions in various threads to make it difficult to tell who's joking and who isn't.

    A ;) would have helped.
     
    TCABM likes this.
  29. Piperonca

    Piperonca Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    163
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Piperonca
    :yeahthat:
     
  30. PeterNSteinmetz

    PeterNSteinmetz Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PeterNSteinmetz
  31. Rex Kramer

    Rex Kramer Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    508
    Location:
    PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rex Kramer


    I can't speak for the dive of the A321 out of FL310, but the 320 into the trees had nothing to do with a fault in the design, but the failure of the pilots do fly the plane as designed.

    They flew that approach over the grass runway to demonstrate the plane's alpha floor function, which occurs when the speed gets too low (well when the AoA gets too high). Plane goes to full power and the pilot can hold full aft stick and she'll climb out at Max AoA. Only thing is, alpha floor is disabled below a certain RA (100'? 80'? I have to look it up). It's disabled below that RA because it would be hard to land the a/c otherwise. So these pilots do a flyby, power at idle, waiting for the alpha floor to activate. Well because they are too low, lower than planned and briefed, AF doesn't engage and they just cruise on down the runway at idle power bleeding off airspeed until they realize it's not going to work. Shove the thrust levers forward and they get full power, but by then it's too late. Into the trees they go.
     
    Larry in TN likes this.