Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.
User avatar
Captain
Expatriate
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:03 pm
Reputation: 26
Afghanistan

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by Captain » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:34 am

Boeing had it right with the 707/C135. Maybe that's why. They are essentially military jets.
User avatar
Kuroneko
Expatriate
Posts: 3341
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 11:18 am
Reputation: 541

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by Kuroneko » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:54 pm

How Did the F.A.A. Allow the Boeing 737 Max to Fly?

The plane involved in the Lion Air tragedy was also a Boeing 737 Max 8, and investigators suspect that the cause of that crash was a malfunctioning automated-flight-control feature, which caused the aircraft’s nose to dip repeatedly during its initial ascent out of the airport in Jakarta. The automated-flight-control feature on the 737 Max, which is called a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), was designed to prevent a high-speed stall. It works by tilting part of the horizontal stabilizer in the tail of the plane, and investigators at the Ethiopian crash site have found physical evidence that this part of the plane was, indeed, configured to dive.

Boeing has promised a software fix to address some of the potential problems created by the MCAS. That’s too little, too late, of course, and it doesn’t address the even larger issue of how the 737 Max was allowed to fly in the first place. On Sunday, the Seattle Times, the home-town newspaper of Boeing’s commercial division, published the results of a lengthy investigation into the federal certification of the 737 Max. It found that the F.A.A. outsourced key elements of the certification process to Boeing itself, and that Boeing’s safety analysis of the new plane contained some serious flaws, including several relating to the MCAS.

The Boeing analysis “understated the power of the new flight control system,” the Seattle Times article said. “When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.” The Boeing analysis also “failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.”


It turns out that the F.A.A., with congressional approval, has “over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes,” the Seattle Times said. In the case of the 737 Max, which is a longer and more fuel-efficient version of previous 737s, Boeing was particularly eager to get the plane into service quickly, so it could compete with Airbus’s new A320neo. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... max-to-fly
kaputt
Expatriate
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 pm
Reputation: 59
Afghanistan

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by kaputt » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:52 pm

The History of the Boeing 737

This is the scary background of a plane that was designed back in the 1960s and has been stretched to the limits, or death literally.

In order to match the largest of the new Airbus jets, the A321neo (new engine option) Boeing with the MAX-10 “stretched” the 737’s cabin to twice the length of the 1960s original, that carried only around 100 passengers.

The first 737 had seats for 124 passengers; the second 136; the third 149 and the latest an astonishing 230 passengers – nearly twice as many as in the original.

That's what happens if you let accountants interfere with the development or design of a new/old plane .
User avatar
Freightdog
Expatriate
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
Reputation: 113
Ireland

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by Freightdog » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:35 pm

Kaput
You’re making it sound as if the newer aircraft are just stretched versions of the original. Which is in itself stretching the truth.
The design outwardly looks similar, and yes, it is rather limited by the original design. But the engines, wing design, internal systems, avionics, etc are all very much different. Under the skin, it’s a far cry from the 1960s original.

However. A number of us do wonder why the B757 expired so quickly, when the B737 soldiered on. Granted, that’s not a simple question to answer, either.
kaputt
Expatriate
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 pm
Reputation: 59
Afghanistan

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by kaputt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:08 am

Don't trust a plane over which the pilot has no control

As i said before, i never agree with Donald Trump's assessment of the world and his policies BUT on this one issue, as i said before i agree:

https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/ar ... icated-use
kaputt
Expatriate
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 pm
Reputation: 59
Afghanistan

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by kaputt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:11 am

forgot to add:

High Tech planes have prooven to be not soooo safe before:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/histor ... thawk.html

The impossible suddenly happened. The serbs shot down an invisible nighthawk bomber !
Citizen 1010
Tourist
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:38 pm
Reputation: 3
Australia

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by Citizen 1010 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:30 am

Lets get it right from the start. It's not a software problem. It's problem of aerodynamics. The aircraft is aerodynamically unstable, unsafe, and not airworthy without software patches to keep it in the air. The 737 Max should undergo a full airworthy evaluation ( https://aecnewstoday.com/2019/why-the-b ... hy-review/) as if it was a new model because it contains no similarity to the original 737-classic which is what the airworthy certificate it uses to fly is based on.

A Congressional inquiry should be held into the systemically corrupt practices of Boeing, the FAA and the DOJ. Despite what some people claim, the 737 series has killed more people than any other aircraft (3,576 (not including the latest two crashes) V 2,961 for the DC-9 MD80/90). Some will argue that more than 737s have been built than any other model. But arguing statistics when it comes to your chances of falling out of the sky is BS. It's the same as saying: the odds of this drug killing you, according to the manufacturer, are pretty low. We don't know for sure, but we'll give it to you anyway.

If you can't remember them falling from the skies in the 70s and 80s then you aren't old enough. Boeing was given a free-pass over the dodgy parts fitted to the 737-NG (See: and is still be protected by endemic US corporate corruption.

I haven't flown on a Boeing for more than 10 years and see no reason for that practice to change. I'm very much in the camp of 'if it's not an Airbus, I'm catching a bus'.

Boeing, its board and CEO are filthy corrupt. The FAA allows the airline to self-certify adding a whole new meaning to oversight -- self oversight -- and no-doubt the cost of these losses has been well calculated in past and current profit margins and executive bonuses. So many things wrong with this aircraft and the processes it has gone through that they should remain grounded pending a full airworthy review, not a dinky software patch and the connection of the second sensor (yes, the MCAS only uses one sensor, but the aircraft is fitted with two. An surely someone at Boeing should have had enough intelligence to have the two calibrate and cross check against each other while on the ground).

As someone who flies every couple of weeks I say "fuck you Boeing, and fuck you too Dennis Muilenburg".
kaputt
Expatriate
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 pm
Reputation: 59
Afghanistan

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by kaputt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:39 pm

How the 60's 727 crashes mirror the current 737 max attitude of Boeing.

A few crashes and the plane will be good for sale for a long time. Hundreds of people died but the world forgets quick. The manufacturer and FAA thinks the collateral is part of the Business. It's always the other that die until it hits yourself. Even after the second crash people were more concerned about the stock value and compensation looming (just chicken shit they could pay from their pettybox) than with the security of Boeing's plane and the FAA.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/19/busi ... index.html
User avatar
Freightdog
Expatriate
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
Reputation: 113
Ireland

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by Freightdog » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:54 pm

Citizen 1010 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:30 am
Lets get it right from the start. It's not a software problem. It's problem of aerodynamics. The aircraft is aerodynamically unstable, unsafe, and not airworthy without software patches to keep it in the air. The 737 Max should undergo a full airworthy evaluation ( https://aecnewstoday.com/2019/why-the-b ... hy-review/) as if it was a new model because it contains no similarity to the original 737-classic which is what the airworthy certificate it uses to fly is based on.
This is your professional opinion based on...?
A Congressional inquiry should be held into the systemically corrupt practices of Boeing, the FAA and the DOJ.
No argument there. But in EASA land, the ‘regulators’ have been devolved so much further that many of us comment that they are no longer doing their job, only serving the airlines and politicians needs. Don’t think that it’s only FAA that get it wrong. A great many pilots comment on the inadequacies of CASA.
Despite what some people claim, the 737 series has killed more people than any other aircraft (3,576 (not including the latest two crashes) V 2,961 for the DC-9 MD80/90). Some will argue that more than 737s have been built than any other model. But arguing statistics when it comes to your chances of falling out of the sky is BS.
And immediately your arguments start to fail by stating statistics prove your argument, and then denouncing any counter claim.
Provide the numbers.
It's the same as saying: the odds of this drug killing you, according to the manufacturer, are pretty low. We don't know for sure, but we'll give it to you anyway.
Comments bordering on rhetoric
If you can't remember them falling from the skies in the 70s and 80s then you aren't old enough. Boeing was given a free-pass over the dodgy parts fitted to the 737-NG (See: and is still be protected by endemic US corporate corruption.
Because YouTube is universally regarded as the source of unbiased reported. Good job.
I haven't flown on a Boeing for more than 10 years and see no reason for that practice to change. I'm very much in the camp of 'if it's not an Airbus, I'm catching a bus'.
If it ain’t Boeing, it ain’t going.

Airbus jockey- what’s it doing now?

I’m sure a pissing contest against the nearest wall will prove which is best, and engineers and common sense be damned.
Boeing, its board and CEO are filthy corrupt. The FAA allows the airline to self-certify adding a whole new meaning to oversight -- self oversight -- and no-doubt the cost of these losses has been well calculated in past and current profit margins and executive bonuses. So many things wrong with this aircraft and the processes it has gone through that they should remain grounded pending a full airworthy review, not a dinky software patch and the connection of the second sensor (yes, the MCAS only uses one sensor, but the aircraft is fitted with two. An surely someone at Boeing should have had enough intelligence to have the two calibrate and cross check against each other while on the ground).
It would appear that there has been a massive error in judgement bordering on negligent. However, Boeing is first and foremost a manufacturer, not an airline.
Do you by any chance remember Air France dropping an A330 in the ocean due to bad sensors and a somewhat in each other’s pockets approach to fixing problems? It might be worth reviewing these in case you are still under the impression that airbus doesn’t get it wrong. Hindsight being such a wonderful part of the decision process.
As someone who flies every couple of weeks I say "fuck you Boeing, and fuck you too Dennis Muilenburg".
Don’t hold back. Say what you mean.

I’m hoping that the investigations are going to be transparent, and that a fix is thoroughly thought through and tested. That any collusion is addressed. Harshly where needed.
Bear in mind, though, that much of aviation is safer now than it was when ‘they’ were falling out of the skies :facepalm: because of lessons learned the hard way.
Likewise with many things that put humans in unnatural environments.
kaputt
Expatriate
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:59 pm
Reputation: 59
Afghanistan

Re: Boeing 737 max - 2.plane down

Post by kaputt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:59 pm

@freightdog
quote
Do you by any chance remember Air France dropping an A330 in the ocean due to bad sensors.
unquote

Yes, the sensors were manufactured by the same company that delivered the sensors for the downed 737 max planes !
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: angkorjohn2, rogerrabbit and 106 guests