Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Boeing 737 - Max

Recommended Posts

Airbus must be happy.

But why did federal Liberals (Garneau) take so much time to ground Boeing?

Hint: Air Canada has many Boeing 737s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Airbus must be happy.

But why did federal Liberals (Garneau) take so much time to ground Boeing?

Hint: Air Canada has many Boeing 737s.

 

Perhaps part of the problem lies in how the Boeing 737 Max 8/9 were certified as air-worthy by Transport Canada and the FAA (U.S.) to begin with.   If the federal regulators failed to do their jobs adequately to begin with, a quick grounding out of an "abundance of caution" would invite severe criticism absent a smoking gun.

I'm no pilot or aero engineer, but Boeing has been pushing the now ancient 737 design to new extremes for capacity, range, and automation for decades rather than spend the money to design and certify a new passenger aircraft (so called clean sheet - very expensive) to compete with newer Airbus planes for high demand/longer route carrier business.    The 737 Max changed the center of gravity and required autopilot software actions to fight more likely stalls....this in turn finds pilots fighting with MCAS (maneuvering characteristics system) and causing "porpoising" in the sky to stall and hull loss (crash). 

Lastly, Boeing and regulators did not require simulator training and certification on the 737 Max as a cost and schedule saving measure, something the regulators should have been more wary of with a new 737 variant that has engines so much further forward. 

I remember when the original Boeing 737 was a small, short /medium range carrier with smaller (and noisier) turbojet engines...and a great safety record.   Now that same air frame is on steroids and falling out of the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Perhaps part of the problem lies in how the Boeing 737 Max 8/9 were certified as air-worthy by Transport Canada and the FAA (U.S.) to begin with.

....

Maybe.

But then there's the DC-10. A well-designed, arguably better plane with an engine in the back.

Yet, accidents happen.

 

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Maybe.

But then there's the DC-10. A well-designed plane with an engine in the back. Accidents happen

 

 

The flying public has been spoiled by many recent years of excellent airliner safety.  

I drove past the American Airlines Flight 191 debris field (@ Chicago O'hare) soon after the crash in 1979....an amazing amount of very small pieces embedded into the ground.

Complacency can lead to a harsh reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.    Soon after high profile fatal crashes, some passengers applaud the flight deck upon safe landing.....then they go back into complacency mode until it happens again.   Human nature.....

There is a very good Canadian documentary television production aired in several international markets ("Mayday" in the U.S.) that most U.S. networks won't touch because of the fear and panic it causes for people and advertisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, August1991 said:

Airbus must be happy.

But why did federal Liberals (Garneau) take so much time to ground Boeing?

Hint: Air Canada has many Boeing 737s.

That's not a hint, it's the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The flying public has been spoiled by many recent years of excellent airliner safety.   

Wow.  What an odd take on it.

"These milennials don't know how good they have it.  Back in my day, you had a 10% chance of not surviving a short-hop flight to Winnipeg and you were glad of it !" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wow.  What an odd take on it.

"These milennials don't know how good they have it.  Back in my day, you had a 10% chance of not surviving a short-hop flight to Winnipeg and you were glad of it !" :D

 

Not odd at all....years ago, there were kiosk/vending machines in many U.S. airports that sold life insurance by the flight.   Whenever somebody from our engineering team had to fly to a customer site, we would give him money to buy us an insurance policy on his life...just like a lottery ticket.    But only better...life insurance is tax free !

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not odd at all....years ago, there were kiosk/vending machines in many U.S. airports that sold life insurance by the flight.   Whenever somebody from our engineering team had to fly to a customer site, we would give him money to buy us an insurance policy on his life...just like a lottery ticket.    But only better...life insurance is tax free !

I flew in that era.  What must have killed it was plummeting fear of flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I flew in that era.  What must have killed it was plummeting fear of flying.

 

Perhaps we have exchanged the fear/respect for the risk of flying and better inflight comfort/perks then for a miserable but safer bus ride in the sky for discounted fare prices now.

They even let people smoke on the plane back then...amazing !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. Perhaps we have exchanged the fear/respect for the risk of flying and better inflight comfort/perks then for a miserable but safer bus ride in the sky for discounted fare prices now.

2. They even let people smoke on the plane back then...amazing !

1. You have captured the change in attitudes regarding flying in the 1960s/70s to today.   The mystique is gone, replaced with low-rent low-glamour practical travel.  And that probably applies to a whole realm of social/technical changes.  I worked in IT with a lady who had been on  team 1 - the first mainframe team at a Canadian bank.   They were treated like astronauts.  Nowadays, not so much.

2. I smoked on a plane the last time I flew from England - 1996.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You have captured the change in attitudes regarding flying in the 1960s/70s to today.   The mystique is gone, replaced with low-rent low-glamour practical travel.  And that probably applies to a whole realm of social/technical changes.  I worked in IT with a lady who had been on  team 1 - the first mainframe team at a Canadian bank.   They were treated like astronauts.  Nowadays, not so much.

 

Agreed...even the pilots and flight engineers are being automated away and are paid far less than before.   There was a time when being an airline pilot was held in very high regard.   Flight attendants bear the brunt of discontent caused by cutbacks and an irritated public wanting to fly on the cheap.   Our COBOL programmers are all dead or dying, so the few that remain can demand higher premiums to keep big iron batch processing alive.  The same can't be said for airliner pilots.

I am old and miss the more connected flight experience of hearing, feeling, and smelling an airliner's familiar characteristics that advertise everything is normal.   Hydraulic jack screws for wing flaps make a very reassuring sound...as do landing gear clunks.   There is an expected rhythm and sequence of events that some millennials miss because they are too busy playing with their cell phones (in airliner mode!).

 

Quote

2. I smoked on a plane the last time I flew from England - 1996.

 

Well, the very idea of permitting multiple possible ignition sources in the cabin of a fully fueled, kerosene laden aircraft always was interesting, but I don't miss the brownish-yellow residue.   Some people put their discarded chewing gum in the armrest ashtrays...now it goes god knows where.  One time I found a soiled infant's diaper in an air sickness bag stuffed in the seat pocket.....yuck !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 1:11 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 The 737 Max changed the center of gravity and required autopilot software actions to fight more likely stalls....this in turn finds pilots fighting with MCAS (maneuvering characteristics system) and causing "porpoising" in the sky to stall and hull loss (crash). 

Lastly, Boeing and regulators did not require simulator training and certification on the 737 Max as a cost and schedule saving measure, something the regulators should have been more wary of with a new 737 variant that has engines so much further forward. 

I remember when the original Boeing 737 was a small, short /medium range carrier with smaller (and noisier) turbojet engines...and a great safety record.   Now that same air frame is on steroids and falling out of the sky.

From what I've read Boeing wanted to make the pitch to airlines that they didn't need to give fresh training to their crew, and MCAS was to automate what pilots could have taken care of on their own. The plane would have a small tendency to go more nose up during takeoff than its predecesors. All they had to do was train pilots to take care of that, but instead they put in MCAS so their marketers could pitch this as a plane which didn't need new training. So not only did pilots not know this was there but weren't even sure what it was, let alone how to get rid of it. Boeing should get hammered for this if it's what cost lives in either crash.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 12:09 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I wish I could still LIKE posts.

Depressed? :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada and the US were suspiciously slow to take action here. I’m particularly disappointed in Garneau who should have known better. Now we’re told that a software patch might be ready as early as April which don’t impress me much considering I see Max8 on a ticket I have for that month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Canada and the US were suspiciously slow to take action here. I’m particularly disappointed in Garneau who should have known better. Now we’re told that a software patch might be ready as early as April which don’t impress me much considering I see Max8 on a ticket I have for that month. 

Amazing how a few lines of botched code can make a nice big airplane like that crash into the ground.

Consider it a firmware upgrade to prevent crashes.

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing and government regulatory agencies are now being criminally investigated for the certification of the 737 MAX.

It appears that Boeing was in too great of a rush to get these aircraft to market because of sales pressure from competing Airbus planes.

 

Quote

The FBI has joined the criminal investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, lending its considerable resources to an inquiry already being conducted by U.S. Department of Transportation agents, according to people familiar with the matter.

The federal grand jury investigation, based in Washington, D.C., is looking into the certification process that approved the safety of the new Boeing plane, two of which have crashed since October.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Boeing and government regulatory agencies are now being criminally investigated for the certification of the 737 MAX.

It appears that Boeing was in too great of a rush to get these aircraft to market because of sales pressure from competing Airbus planes.

 

 

 

Yeah...I was asking around here...not a popular aircraft. 

Most prefer the older models...especially on Canada's gravel infested runways up north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the engines...a 200 model....with gravel kit options. Newer models don't have the clearance under the pods.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Yeah...I was asking around here...not a popular aircraft. 

Most prefer the older models...especially on Canada's gravel infested runways up north.

 

They finally released the cockpit voice recordings from the doomed Lion Air  737 Max.   Interesting difference in responses from the flight deck when an unrecoverable condition exists:

 

Quote

The Indian-born captain was silent at the end, all three sources said, while the first officer from Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country, said "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," a common phrase in Arabic that can be used to express excitement, shock, praise or distress.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/recording-lion-air-jet-crash-problems-1.5063969

 

There use to be a web site to listen to CVR tapes from fatal airline crashes.   Usually the more experienced pilot is quiet except for calling for maximum engine power ("Power !   Power!)...then they utter some profanity before the crash.   The younger, less experienced pilots pray to God !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Note the engines...a 200 model....with gravel kit options. Newer models don't have the clearance under the pods.

 

 

Right...I think those are the older JT8D...noisy and less fuel efficient than a modern turbofan engine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...