Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems

Imari
I wonder a bit about this one. With modern control systems, is this still a valid requirement? Are modern planes so complex that routinely flying more than one type is infeasibly complex for an experienced pilot?

Do we have any pilots here who would care to weigh in on the matter?
Click to expand...

You're quite correct to bring me up on this as a bit of research shows that I've been slightly misinformed.

A pilot can be rated on as many aircraft as they like, however for safety reasons most airlines will only allow a pilot to fly a maximum of two types at any one time. However the pilots will still need to undergo 6 monthly or yearly checks on each type to allow them to continue to fly them.

as @Swagger897 pointed out:

Swagger897
There are also common type ratings, such as when the FAA approved the 757/767 CTR, as both aircraft were extremely close to each other in terms of operation.
Click to expand...

This is what Boeing were trying to do with the 737 MAX with the MCAS. However without the MCAS the 737 MAX would have enough different handling attributes to require it's own type rating, therefore the conversion training costs would be significantly higher without MCAS.
 
Slapped
However the pilots will still need to undergo 6 monthly or yearly checks on each type to allow them to continue to fly them.
Click to expand...

I think that's the crux of the rating issue, pilots have to stay current. Some airlines won't find it too difficult to alternate crew between 800 and MAX, for others it won't be so easy, particularly those that don't operate from a single hub.
 
Slapped
his is what Boeing were trying to do with the 737 MAX with the MCAS. However without the MCAS the 737 MAX would have enough different handling attributes to require it's own type rating, therefore the conversion training costs would be significantly higher without MCAS.
Click to expand...
The entire 737 family is considered to be under one rating however. For a pilot to go from the current 7/8/9 NG series to the MAX's, there is only required differences training. Hell, they can even fly the 1/2/3/4 models if they want to with just the minimum RDT and a few exams.

TenEightyOne
I think that's the crux of the rating issue, pilots have to stay current. Some airlines won't find it too difficult to alternate crew between 800 and MAX, for others it won't be so easy, particularly those that don't operate from a single hub.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I bought my bike from a guy who's dad is a pilot for Southwest, and he is/was rated for the MAX series, but was put on paid vacation to study for training to switch back to the 800's.

I'd say if we were 5-10 years further down the road and all this started happening once the MAX's were in nearly everyone's fleet, we'd be in a real ****fest due to the incredibly high amount of new pilots that have been brought in to replace those who have been age capped.
 
Swagger897
he is/was rated for the MAX series, but was put on paid vacation to study for training to switch back to the 800's
Click to expand...

I thought the whole point was that 800 rating is automatically a MAX rating and vice-versa, or is this a development of the last couple of months?
 
More Boeing dirty laundry is showing up in the press.
- 787 Dreamliner now drawn into the current investigation due to allegations of shoddy workmanship in North Carolina plant.
- 737 MAX (MCAS?) software outsourced to $9/hr Indian firm with language/skill issues.
 
Dotini
- 737 MAX (MCAS?) software outsourced to $9/hr Indian firm with language/skill issues.
Click to expand...

I doubt there's a language barrier, it's more likely a cultural barrier. I worked for a US engineering company and spent a lot of time talking to colleagues on projects in Mumbai... you have to be able to interpret the various meanings of "yes". Being British helps with that of course :D

Given that Boeing's oversight seems to have been a little stretched it's easy to imagine that many issues have led up to this cluster-****.
 
Dotini
More Boeing dirty laundry is showing up in the press.
- 787 Dreamliner now drawn into the current investigation due to allegations of shoddy workmanship in North Carolina plant.
- 737 MAX (MCAS?) software outsourced to $9/hr Indian firm with language/skill issues.
Click to expand...
I wonder what's their excuse with the 787 investigation this time.
 
GTV0819
I wonder what's their excuse with the 787 investigation this time.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know that too - but as far as I'm aware there's no suggestion that any 787s aren't airworthy, so "shoddy" has to apply to something very particular which isn't flight-critical.

The whole $9-per-hour thing is meaningless, that's just how out-sourcing works for countries with strong currency.
 
GTV0819
I wonder what's their excuse with the 787 investigation this time.
Click to expand...

TenEightyOne
I'd be interested to know that too - but as far as I'm aware there's no suggestion that any 787s aren't airworthy
Click to expand...

Unless you hark back to January 2013 when the FAA grounded the entire fleet and other authorities followed suit.

It could be something to do with that initial omnishambles with the 787's batteries and in-flight fires and in any case, shows that the Boeing's, uh... blind eye oversights with the 737 MAX aren't exactly the first time in recent memory.
 
Liquid
Unless you hark back to January 2013 when the FAA grounded the entire fleet and other authorities followed suit.

It could be something to do with that initial omnishambles with the 787's batteries and in-flight fires and in any case, shows that the Boeing's, uh... blind eye oversights with the 737 MAX aren't exactly the first time in recent memory.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what happened, this will have another negative impact on their slipping reputation.
 
IIRC the 787 was the first to use Li batteries... Considering that almost everything else uses Ni-Cad it really didn't surprise me they ran into trouble.
 
GTV0819
I wonder what's their excuse with the 787 investigation this time.
Click to expand...
IMO, it's all about money and getting rid of skilled, highly paid union machinists and techs. Let me stress this as hard truth: Boeing no longer is a company run by and for engineers devoted to making truly great airplanes; it's a company run by and for businessmen for the purpose of making as much money as possible for themselves and shareholders. They have and need no excuses. This is the way this world works, unvarnished reality.
 
Dotini
Boeing no longer is a company run by and for engineers devoted to making truly great airplanes; it's a company run by and for businessmen for the purpose of making as much money as possible for themselves and shareholders. They have and need no excuses. This is the way this world works, unvarnished reality.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I think we're seeing the edge of that particular envelope. I imagine there will be lots of stories to tell once the various investigation reports are official.
 
Dotini
IMO, it's all about money and getting rid of skilled, highly paid union machinists and techs. Let me stress this as hard truth: Boeing no longer is a company run by and for engineers devoted to making truly great airplanes; it's a company run by and for businessmen for the purpose of making as much money as possible for themselves and shareholders. They have and need no excuses. This is the way this world works, unvarnished reality.
Click to expand...
No wonder they're creating more controversies nowadays.
 
TenEightyOne
You were right, how does "737-8200" sound?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. I fly almost exclusively with Ryanair due to route availability (Bratislava-Manchester) and I would seriously consider looking at flying with an alternate airline on an alternate route from an alternate airport to avoid this; easyJet (Vienna-Liverpool) use Airbuses.

My confidence in flying with a 737 MAX has not yet been restored.
 
Liquid
Jesus Christ. I fly almost exclusively with Ryanair due to route availability (Bratislava-Manchester) and I would seriously consider looking at flying with an alternate airline on an alternate route from an alternate airport to avoid this; easyJet (Vienna-Liverpool) use Airbuses.

My confidence in flying with a 737 MAX has not yet been restored.
Click to expand...
Some greens want to curtail commercial aviation altogether and instead add capacity to trains and rail. The time could be right for a New Steam Age! Can the Neo-Luddites be far behind? No!! It's too late, there's no going back. We live by technology; we die by technology. Unfortunately, the 737 MAX will likely be back in service this fall.
 
Dotini
Unfortunately, the 737 MAX will likely be back in service this fall.
Click to expand...

It will and I'm only offering mild analysis on the classic customer feedback trope; if they don't use it, it won't sell.

The Comet was never as profitable even after it was recertified and verifiably safe, economic and fast. It probably won't happen to the 737 MAX but it will probably be on some people's minds when they're choosing how to fly.
 
They've also lost ~$35Bn valuation since march. Looking at their stock's trend...doesn't it seem a little inflated to begin with? What happened, other than a Republican occupant in the oval office, in 2016 that would lead to Boeing to be valued at triple it's 2015 self? Does it seem like the current price is a little overhyped to be sustainable? Or is that just me? This is a trend that looks more like a volatile, disrupter startup like Tesla or something, not a blue-chip legacy manufacturer.

HmIKL59.jpg
 
It's more than just their civilian jetliners that go into that profile no?

There's the KC46, the new F15X, and a host of other space related contracts that they've been gaining.
 
IMHO, Ralph Nader (an admittedly irritating man with a long history of being a safety zealot on cars starting with the Corvair, a great story in itself) is unfortunately right on this issue. The 737 MAX needs new engines (plus struts and maybe even wings) to be stable. Or it needs to be taken behind the barn and shot.

disclaimer: I have voted for Nader in the past
 
GTV0819
Seems legit.

Ralph Nader says Boeing 737 Max should never fly again
Click to expand...

Dotini
IMHO, Ralph Nader (an admittedly irritating man with a long history of being a safety zealot on cars starting with the Corvair, a great story in itself) is unfortunately right on this issue. The 737 MAX needs new engines (plus struts and maybe even wings) to be stable. Or it needs to be taken behind the barn and shot.

disclaimer: I have voted for Nader in the past
Click to expand...

I think this brings us back around to a point that we were at much earlier in the thread. The question is "to what extent should flight computers augment good old-fashioned cable and stick control ability?". Many safe, successful aircraft (pax and otherwise) wouldn't be possible without flight augmentation or, at the very least, would be less safe without it.

The problem here is that the MAX augmentation relied on too few inputs for its decisions and was allowed (by whom, ultimately?) to make too dramatic an override. It seems possible that the override would continue to activate in some erroneous circumstances. Planes fly close to the edge of the speed/attack/configuration envelope more often than people may think, particularly when climbing out of takeoff... yet even with many large jets using some form of augmentation (and autopilot trim control is one of those) it remains a statistically-safe portion of flight. To my mind it shows that the ideas behind MAX aren't necessarily flawed, but the implementation and "what if?" thinking certainly was.
 
Regardless of what you're trying to point out there, it doesn't take out the fact that the aircraft is flawed and has been grounded for several months now.

Just imagine what would have happened if the aviation industry didn't decide to act on it by not grounding them at all in time, then probably there could be dozens of fatalities already.

An article suggests that the FAA had overlooked the aircraft's critical flight system when they approved the plane two years ago.

However, I'm suspicious on how the FAA handled matters about this stuff prior to the MAX's approval, which leads to some theory about Boeing.

Boeing probably gave them some reasonable medium of exchange which perhaps they accepted and at that point, the FAA had already compromised the passengers' safety by not thoroughly inspecting the aircraft at all and come a year, the inevitable happened.

If only they had done their job so well, then there would be no reason they would just overlook this flaw.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back