Getting away from the tedium of Brexit ..or UKEXIT to give it the correct name.
Boeing has come up with a software patch to solve the problem, were they already working on that BEFORE the Ethiopian 302 crashed.
Seems the MAX series is really in totally different plane .... altogether !!!
but they fudged it through the FAA certification, which I've read they basically got Boeing to do themselves and just nod it through.
The 737 MAX series is what the airline industry refers to as an UNSTABLE design, ie it cannot be flown without constant computer input (like most military jets). From what I understand it is "illegal" to fly unstable aircraft for commercial purposes.
The question is, when it eventually resumes flying, would YOU fly on it or use another airline with non-Boeings out of principal ?
Is this just your typical Yank "profits before people's lives" policy ?
Boeing 737 Max8
posted on 28/3/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 2 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by wearethefamousTHFC (U19211)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
i wont and have never even flown on a 737 worst plane in history for crashing and this new plane is a disaster
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably because its by far the most common aircraft in existence?
Does stop you having to use Ryaniar though, so I'm with you there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Ryanair ! Haven't got that bad a safety record I think. I see another airline, Wow, went under today too.
Picked a bad year to start an airline business
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not Ryanair has never crashed.
posted on 28/3/19
comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 2 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by wearethefamousTHFC (U19211)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
i wont and have never even flown on a 737 worst plane in history for crashing and this new plane is a disaster
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably because its by far the most common aircraft in existence?
Does stop you having to use Ryaniar though, so I'm with you there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah Ryanair ! Haven't got that bad a safety record I think. I see another airline, Wow, went under today too.
Picked a bad year to start an airline business
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not Ryanair has never crashed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but they don't have any 737 Max 8's yet, (were due to be delivered in May this year).
All the airlines were clamouring to buy them (until the Ethiopia crash), as on average they save €1M in fuel costs per year apparently?
Not much use when the feckers aren't fit to fly though.
posted on 28/3/19
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/3/19
Puffin ...... a few small corrections:
1. The 737max 8 is NOT a new airplane.
It is an old - and very safe tried and true - airplane that was messed with in order to compete with the Airbus 320 X which had much better technology.
What Boeing did was lengthen the plane, add bigger engines, and some new fly-by-wire technology.
The bigger engines changed the flight dynamics of the plane so that it had a tendency to "nose-up" and possibly lose speed and stall. A stall in a plane like this is very difficult to recover, especially at low altitude almost certainly a crash. So MCAS was added to the autopilot to "nose -down" the plane when a "nose-up" situation was detected and air speed was within certain parameters. MCAS depended upon a single sensor. When that sensor fed incorrect "nose-up" information then bad things happened.
The plane had 2 directional sensors so why they used only one is beyond belief.
Pilots were not informed of MCAS and when they got into incorrect nose-down problems because that single sensor was wrong, they didn't know how to turn MCAS off. In fact, they didn't know about MCAS at all.
2. Boeing and the US FAA have a 'revolving door". When inspectors working for the FAA leave government service, where do they go? YUP, their next job is often a nice cushy one with Boeing.
I, for one frequent air traveler, will have a hard time getting on a 737 max 8 or max 9 if and when it gets approval to fly again - which I am sure it will.
Note that the 787 is a terrific airplane and I love it. It had all those battery fire problems that Boeing eventually fixed. But I don't think it ever killed a passenger.
The 737 is a different story.
posted on 29/3/19
This is your typical American story of profit over people. Yes Boeing have provided great planes but this mindset is big business all over (worse in America due to how much influence business has over policy). Short term profit is more important than people, the environment and even long term profit.
posted on 29/3/19
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/3/19
Interestingly, nobody seems to be concerned that the plane that crashed in October was involved in a similar incident just one day previously.
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/03/jump-seat-pilot-and-boeing-737-max/585301/
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
posted on 29/3/19
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 12 hours, 42 minutes ago
Puffin ...... a few small corrections:
1. The 737max 8 is NOT a new airplane.
It is an old - and very safe tried and true - airplane that was messed with in order to compete with the Airbus 320 X which had much better technology.
What Boeing did was lengthen the plane, add bigger engines, and some new fly-by-wire technology.
The bigger engines changed the flight dynamics of the plane so that it had a tendency to "nose-up" and possibly lose speed and stall. A stall in a plane like this is very difficult to recover, especially at low altitude almost certainly a crash. So MCAS was added to the autopilot to "nose -down" the plane when a "nose-up" situation was detected and air speed was within certain parameters. MCAS depended upon a single sensor. When that sensor fed incorrect "nose-up" information then bad things happened.
The plane had 2 directional sensors so why they used only one is beyond belief.
Pilots were not informed of MCAS and when they got into incorrect nose-down problems because that single sensor was wrong, they didn't know how to turn MCAS off. In fact, they didn't know about MCAS at all.
2. Boeing and the US FAA have a 'revolving door". When inspectors working for the FAA leave government service, where do they go? YUP, their next job is often a nice cushy one with Boeing.
I, for one frequent air traveler, will have a hard time getting on a 737 max 8 or max 9 if and when it gets approval to fly again - which I am sure it will.
Note that the 787 is a terrific airplane and I love it. It had all those battery fire problems that Boeing eventually fixed. But I don't think it ever killed a passenger.
The 737 is a different story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
YES, MY POINT EXACTLY An old, reliable and trusted plane changed out of all recognition that Boeing kept the name to avoid FAA certification of a new plane.
posted on 29/3/19
Just been stated that the MCAS system automatically activated before the crash in Ethiopia:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47745191
How ironic that a system designed to prevent a crash actually fecking caused just that!
Someone needs to be locked-up for this balls-up.
posted on 29/3/19
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just been stated that the MCAS system automatically activated before the crash in Ethiopia:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47745191
How ironic that a system designed to prevent a crash actually fecking caused just that!
Someone needs to be locked-up for this balls-up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly Boeing will wriggle out of the lawsuits etc and simply blame the airlines and the pilots.