Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157

[Armybrat 40,710]

Yes, in a heartbeat. 
Like shox, I flew on one before they were grounded.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,781]

If you were really brave you would have flown on one after they were grounded

[Ghost of LL 15,469]

If it's certified by the FAA and the EASA, then I'll fly it.

[Telegraph_it 3,353]

I’m going to wait for @Captainant to give his approval before I step onboard. 
 

Just like I am waiting for greenspoint to give the all clear to leave my house. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Telegraph_it

[Armybrat 40,710]

5 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

If you were really brave you would have flown on one after they were grounded

[George]True, but I went ahead and just got in the plane.[/Carlin]

[HenryJames 65,884]

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,781]

If a plane is ungrounded, but nobody is flying will anyone notice?

[Captainant 27,403]

Guys guys guys, boeing checked boeing's work just like last time and FOR REALSIES they prowwwwmise that they didn't cut any corners to increase profits this time. I bet they're even including ALL the safety features as standard now instead of DLC add-ons! Isn't progress great?

[Telegraph_it 3,353]

 

 

 

[McCroskey 1,493]

It will be interesting to see what fares are offered on MAX flights compared to others.  I'd venture a guess the airlines will have no problems attracting passengers if the prices are right, and then they can increase them over time as people get more comfortable.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,781]

1 minute ago, McCroskey said:

It will be interesting to see what fares are offered on MAX flights compared to others.  I'd venture a guess the airlines will have no problems attracting passengers if the prices are right, and then they can increase them over time as people get more comfortable until another one crashes.

 

[McCroskey 1,493]

2 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

 

That too.

[DaysOff 7,843]

We've got three max sims up and running. Already scheduled for January training. Climb in pussies we're going for an airplane ride.

[Captainant 27,403]

7 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

We've got three max sims up and running. Already scheduled for January training. Climb in pussies we're going for an airplane ride.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

10 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

We've got three max sims up and running. Already scheduled for January training. Climb in pussies we're going for an airplane ride.

You first labia boy....

[Paper_jam 828]

You don't need MCAS, you just need pilots with balls of steel like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2CsO-Vu7oc

 

[DaysOff 7,843]

I like how the jumpseater gets up at the end to change his underwear.

[Your Mom 4,791]

They’re telling us second quarter of 2021. New manuals still being written, then run 9000+ of us through 9 sims. 

[Shaddie 1,637]

So being a frequent flyer I have a small amount of information. 
 

Anyway before COVID and after Max groundings I was on a flight and guy next to me was AA pilot. I asked what issue was. He basically said software was not fully vetted by Boeing and FAA. 1 sensor could determine bad/good and that is never acceptable in electronic cockpits. 
 

As usual in most things,  $ won out. I will still fly those planes cause I do trust fully trained pilots in US. 
Not in US. Not so much.  

 

 

[Hagbard Celine 10,749]

the eu, canada and brasil all say they will have additional procedures.  regardless, a software fix remains the salve for an aerodynamic problem that they have chosen not to rectify.   this isn't like the Comet or the L-188 where the mechanics of flight are sound.  the max was always an abortion to stick trents on a planform that hasn't changed since 1967.  the plane sits too low to the ground and there isn't enough space in the fuselage to get creative with telescoping landing gear.  so you get a plane with fucked-up CG and and "un-natural" moment-arm.

i will fly on it, but boeing's reputation remains on trial.

[RPM 26,208]

Just now, Hagbard Celine said:

the max was always an abortion to stick trents on a planform that hasn't changed since 1967. 

I don't understand the problem.

[XYZ 2,154]

4 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

the eu, canada and brasil all say they will have additional procedures.  regardless, a software fix remains the salve for an aerodynamic problem that they have chosen not to rectify.   this isn't like the Comet or the L-188 where the mechanics of flight are sound.  the max was always an abortion to stick trents on a planform that hasn't changed since 1967.  the plane sits too low to the ground and there isn't enough space in the fuselage to get creative with telescoping landing gear.  so you get a plane with fucked-up CG and and "un-natural" moment-arm.

i will fly on it, but boeing's reputation remains on trial.

You are full of shit.

[Shaddie 1,637]

2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

the eu, canada and brasil all say they will have additional procedures.  regardless, a software fix remains the salve for an aerodynamic problem that they have chosen not to rectify.   this isn't like the Comet or the L-188 where the mechanics of flight are sound.  the max was always an abortion to stick trents on a planform that hasn't changed since 1967.  the plane sits too low to the ground and there isn't enough space in the fuselage to get creative with telescoping landing gear.  so you get a plane with fucked-up CG and and "un-natural" moment-arm.

i will fly on it, but boeing's reputation remains on trial.

I “agree” with some of your stuff I just can’t give it a full yes. 
 

Almost every commercial airplane now days does not pass the “designed” to fly. 
SW keeps us idiots in the air way too much. 
Will there be issues? Of course. 
Just as traffic laws had to evolve for cars.

 

[Shaddie 1,637]

10 minutes ago, XYZ said:

You are full of shit.

So how’s the job search going?

 

 

 

[Updawg 2,261]

Here we go again

[DaysOff 7,843]

the eu, canada and brasil all say they will have additional procedures.  regardless, a software fix remains the salve for an aerodynamic problem that they have chosen not to rectify.   this isn't like the Comet or the L-188 where the mechanics of flight are sound.  the max was always an abortion to stick trents on a planform that hasn't changed since 1967.  the plane sits too low to the ground and there isn't enough space in the fuselage to get creative with telescoping landing gear.  so you get a plane with fucked-up CG and and "un-natural" moment-arm.
i will fly on it, but boeing's reputation remains on trial.

MAX 8 and 9 don't have telescope landing gear. 10 allegedly will.

[Hagbard Celine 10,749]

11 hours ago, XYZ said:

You are full of shit.

please, do tell.

[Hagbard Celine 10,749]

 

9 hours ago, Updawg said:

Here we go again

if what i wrote is untrue, and i pose this to the gallery, why is MCAS necessary?  do any airbii have a pitch correction "product"?

[Your Mom 4,791]

37 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

 

if what i wrote is untrue, and i pose this to the gallery, why is MCAS necessary?  do any airbii have a pitch correction "product"?

It corrects the pitch to satisfy the need to make it feel more or less identical to the earlier models. Had there been no earlier models and the Max was the first 737 ever built it would not have needed the MCAS.  The low sling engines do make it less stable but that’s a far cry from being “unstable”.  In the same way that one of your cars is probably more stable than the other but that doesn’t render the other car unstable. 
 

[Captainant 27,403]

6 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

It corrects the pitch to satisfy the need to make it feel more or less identical to the earlier models. Had there been no earlier models and the Max was the first 737 ever built it would not have needed the MCAS.  The low sling engines do make it less stable but that’s a far cry from being “unstable”.  In the same way that one of your cars is probably more stable than the other but that doesn’t render the other car unstable. 
 

No, but if you're given a new car that handles completely differently and told that it's the exact same with no need for any sort of learning or ramp-up, you should kind of expect some accidents to occur.

Boeing shot themselves in the foot because they didn't want to certify a new type and go through the rigors of scrutiny against their shortcuts. They cared about their profits more than keeping people safe.

They lied to their customers and passengers, and killed over 300 people due to their malfeasance. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No, but if you're given a new car that handles completely differently and told that it's the exact same with no need for any sort of learning or ramp-up, you should kind of expect some accidents to occur.

Boeing shot themselves in the foot because they didn't want to certify a new type and go through the rigors of scrutiny against their shortcuts. They cared about their profits more than keeping people safe.

They lied to their customers and passengers, and killed over 300 people due to their malfeasance. 

 ^^^^^^^^^^^This all day everyday. 

[Your Mom 4,791]

44 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No, but if you're given a new car that handles completely differently and told that it's the exact same with no need for any sort of learning or ramp-up, you should kind of expect some accidents to occur.

Boeing shot themselves in the foot because they didn't want to certify a new type and go through the rigors of scrutiny against their shortcuts. They cared about their profits more than keeping people safe.

They lied to their customers and passengers, and killed over 300 people due to their malfeasance. 

No argument there.  Except for the words “completely different”. It handles different to the degree that the computers were able to notice more force needed in the stall recovery but most of the test pilots were not able to discern the difference.  It was enough of a difference to affect the certification but it’s a far stretch to say it handles completely different.  All the rest of your post sounds about right to me.

[Hagbard Celine 10,749]

53 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

It corrects the pitch to satisfy the need to make it feel more or less identical to the earlier models. Had there been no earlier models and the Max was the first 737 ever built it would not have needed the MCAS.  The low sling engines do make it less stable but that’s a far cry from being “unstable”.

everyone here knows what MCAS does.  my question is to the 'why' it has to do what it does.  what is the root cause?

i'll let the actual pilots confirm your statement that mcas "satisfies the need to make it feel more or less identical to earlier models".     my take is mcas autocorrects pitch in certain conditions that are caused by engines that are too large to sit in a gravity-neutral location and are thus mounted too far forward which causes an unnatural aerodynamic behavior that requires the MCAS to correct.  my take is, the max needs software to make it airworthy, and it never should have gotten off the CAD system, much less made it to the wind tunnel.

it's bad engineering.  it's the macgyver equivalent of duct tape.

in my opinion.

[Your Mom 4,791]

Your understanding of the forward slung engines is not wrong. But you’re missing the point. All those characteristics you pointed out make it less stable in a stall than the earlier models.  Not unstable, just less stable. That’s only a problem because you can’t call it a 737 if it flies much different than the earlier models.  The instability isn’t enough to make it an unstable airplane, but it is enough to require the software augmentation in order to make it feel like the other 737s.  If they had branded it a different model they would not have needed to stick the MCAS on there because all those characteristics from the forward slung engines are still well within the margin of acceptability.  They’re just not the same characteristics as the earlier models. There’s hundreds of different types and models within types and all of them have different stability characteristics from all the others. Some are more stable some are less stable but still well within the envelope of airworthiness and the max without the MCAS is well within that envelope. But there’s a tighter envelope you have to be in to be considered the same type as another

But Boeing didn’t want to rebrand it as a whole new type because the airlines would buy less of them if they did.  I don’t blame me if you take issue with that.  There will come a day when you’ve changed the airplane so much that you just shouldn’t call it a 737 anymore and it’s a valid argument that maybe we reached that day.  But the fact doesn’t mean that forward slung engines on a whole new airplane are inherently dangerous.  

[Captainant 27,403]

37 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

it's bad engineering.  it's the macgyver equivalent of duct tape.

IMO, the use of MCAS in itself isn't bad engineering nor does it inherently make an aircraft less safe. The bad engineering is when they hid their design decisions and material changes to flight characteristics from the end user who would ultimately die due to those changes.

...

And ya know, lied to regulators and customers, etc, etc. 

This whole debacle is going to be the next Challenger/Morton-Thiokol engineering ethics case study in which business and non-technical factors determined technical outcomes, without fully considering the repercussions of their decision. I have no doubt that Boeing could have developed, built, and sold the 737MAX safely, just the same as the Challenger didn't HAVE to blow up that day.

But in both cases, suits overruled the engineers and their documented objections. Only problem is the engineers answer to cold hard facts, while the suits answer to their share holders and careers

[Hagbard Celine 10,749]

Challenger is a damn fine corollary.  Wish i'd thought of it.

More questions to the actual pilots.

In the event of the loss of an engine after v2, is MCAS still running?

Is there a kill switch for MCAS and are you going to be trained to fly without it?

Both crashes happened during ascent/climb after takeoff.   Why not just burn more gas and take longer to climb at a lower angle of attack?  I know LUV guys won't like that, given their Navy flight profile culture.

[Your Mom 4,791]

20 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

In the event of the loss of an engine after v2, is MCAS still running?

Is there a kill switch for MCAS and are you going to be trained to fly without it?

MCAS shouldn’t be activating in an engine loss situation. Not that it can’t, just that engine loss isn’t a huge factor. 
 

3 things have to happen for MCAS to activate:

Autopilot is off. 
Flaps are up. 
Angle of attack is high than some specific threshold (not sure what angle that is exactly)

Those things could occur during an engine failure but they could also occur without one. 
 

There is and has always been a kill switch. It’s the trim cutout switches. MCAS doesn’t really fly the airplane it just activates the trim. The trim runs on the same electric motors whether it’s activated but the pilot or the MCAS or one of a couple other behind-the-scenes systems that can activate it. The stab trim cutout switches cut power to the trim motors altogether regardless of what activated them. 

[RPM 26,208]

Boeing wanted to save a brand name (737) but not want to spend the extra money on an all new design and brand name. Fuck the public, go for the cash, where's my bonus. FUPM

Edited November 19, 2020 by RPM

[Your Mom 4,791]

49 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Is there a kill switch for MCAS and are you going to be trained to fly without it?

Forgot to add that there’s also the manual trim wheel. It’s a plastic wheels that spins every time the trim operates.  You can grab the wheel with your hand and manually stop the trim.  And yes pilots have always been taught to fly with manual trim and also without trim altogether. 

[crash_davis 23,081]

On 11/18/2020 at 9:06 AM, Telegraph_it said:

 

 

 

Makes sense. Test it on the non-white, white people Cubans first. They have to earn the right to be included in the white category.

[Wally Fairway 5,517]

39 minutes ago, RPM said:

Boeing wanted to save a brand name (737) but not want to spend the extra money on an all new design and brand name. Fuck the public, go for the cash, where's my bonus. FUPM

It is pretty close to a all new plane - electrically and engines, but by keeping it a version of the 737 they could go through a much more streamlined certification process; and in hindsight that seemed to workout perfectly well

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, Your Mom said:

Forgot to add that there’s also the manual trim wheel. It’s a plastic wheels that spins every time the trim operates.  You can grab the wheel with your hand and manually stop the trim.  And yes pilots have always been taught to fly with manual trim and also without trim altogether. 

I could use some trim.

[bschoolprof 6,232]

And, we're back.

Quote

American Airlines Group Inc. AAL 0.06% is putting passengers back on Boeing Co. BA 1.36% ’s 737 MAX on Tuesday for the first time since the aircraft was grounded nearly two years ago following two deadly crashes.

American Flight 718 was scheduled to depart Miami International Airport at 10:32 a.m. and land at LaGuardia Airport at 1:30 p.m. American said the flight was scheduled to be mostly full and that airline President Robert Isom would be among the passengers.

The daily round-trip flights between Miami and New York are the start of American’s plans to gradually add the MAX back into service. An American spokeswoman said the airline has begun announcing aircraft types during boarding to make sure passengers are aware they will be flying on a MAX. American will also alert passengers if they’re suddenly scheduled to fly on a MAX due to a schedule change, she said.

WSJ

[Telegraph_it 3,353]

I finally flew on the Max from SEA to IAH. I could just feel the MCAS trying to come on as we were climbing over the Cascades. 
 

Overall nice ride. I like those high bypass engines. Feels like it’s pulling and not pushing. 

[Homercles 10,205]

1 hour ago, Telegraph_it said:

I finally flew on the Max from SEA to IAH. I could just feel the MCAS trying to come on as we were climbing over the Cascades. 
 

Overall nice ride. I like those high bypass engines. Feels like it’s pulling and not pushing. 

Feel it how?  It only comes in very specific situations, unless your AoA sensors were both jacked up to the exact same degree. 

[Telegraph_it 3,353]

8 hours ago, Homercles said:

Feel it how?  It only comes in very specific situations, unless your AoA sensors were both jacked up to the exact same degree. 

I was being facetious. The only “mcas” sensation I had was the engines throttling down and the resulting downward pitch.
 

It was a great ride and it was nice sitting in an interior that wasn’t used and abused. 

High bypass engines are badass. The amount of space between core and cowling allows for some impressive photography. 

 

[RPM 26,208]

SWA just ordered 100 of them this week.

[RPM 26,208]

Back on the ground.

New Boeing 737 Max Electrical Issue Grounds Planes With Both American, Southwest Airlines

It’s a little like déjà vu, on Friday Boeing recommended that more than one-dozen of its customers take some of their planes out of service because of a potential electrical issue.

In all, U.S. airlines temporarily suspended the use of more than 65 Boeing 737 MAX jets, with 16 carriers.

Boeing said Friday that the recommendation was made “to allow for verification that a sufficient ground path exists for a component of the electrical power system.” It did not specify how many aircraft could be involved.

[DaysOff 7,843]

I flew a MAX9 last night and fly another this afternoon. Someone may or may not have dabbed some paint on an electrical ground point during manufacturing on some of the jets. A big nothing burger but Boeing needs to pull their head out of their ass.

[RPM 26,208]

7 hours ago, DaysOff said:

Boeing needs to pull their head out of their ass.

They shouldn't have to be told that.