Boeing 737Max
- Thread starter Milosh
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
In general too well covered in the press.
I note in industry press there are references to two US operators reporting similar problems caused by the autopilot to NASA Feedback. These problems were not the MCAS.
Also much reporting on the CVR and DFDR but no mention of the QAR.
I note in industry press there are references to two US operators reporting similar problems caused by the autopilot to NASA Feedback. These problems were not the MCAS.
Also much reporting on the CVR and DFDR but no mention of the QAR.
mikewint
Captain
It's also a bit early to comment until the "Black Box" evidence is made public. The crashes are tantalizing similar BUT.... IMHO the FAA should ground these aircraft until the cause of crash #2 is in simply in the name of caution.
Computer automation is a wonderful thing until it doesn't work. I can hardly wait until the automated cars become common
Computer automation is a wonderful thing until it doesn't work. I can hardly wait until the automated cars become common
fubar57
General
Canada has grounded its fleet
Pilot reported flight-control problems before Ethiopian Airlines plane went down | CBC News
Pilot reported flight-control problems before Ethiopian Airlines plane went down | CBC News
The aircraft are now grounded in the US as well. 4 pilots in the US complained about problems with it over the last few months.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I see the media is having a field day with it (before the facts are in) and oddly enough, the issues with Airbus have all but been forgotten.
I agree the media is having a field day, but Airbus's problems don't change the fact that the 737 Max has a serious issue at the moment. No need to detract from one or the other. When it comes to the safety of the passengers, not everything has to be about one vs. the other.
Especially since initially the airlines were not even aware the system was put in the aircraft. American airlines made a statement that it was originally not even aware it was installed, and its pilots were not trained on it for that reason.
Last edited:
I was going to bring up the Airbus issues but you beat me to it.
Wasn't going there for tit for tat, just seems newer aircraft have challenges that need to be resolved asap and hopefully with feed back from the pilots and the black boxes, which I hope ends up back in the USA . Stuff like this can hurt the aircraft industry if it turns out Boeing or whom ever skipped a design issue that could have influenced the crashes
Agreed that all new aircraft have problens. The problem is that the pilots and airlines have reported that the RFM is poorly written, and made no mention of the system to begin with. For this reason, none of the airlines (Including American Airlines, who have stated this.) trained their pilots on what to do when the system does not operate properly, as it clearly isn't. An aircraft should no go into an uncommanded dive for 10 seconds that can not be arrested. How can you train for something that you do not know is there.
Boeing issued a software update to fix the problem after the Lion Air crash. Unfortunately it does not seem to have fixed the problem.
So even with American Airlines pilots stating they havd had problems with the aircraft, and the manuals are poorly written, and contain insufficient information, I think a temporary grounding is a good thing. Let's take a step back, figure out the problem, so no more passengers have to die because of it.
- Thread starter
- #12
The 'black boxes' have gone to France.
I know ,apparently there is distrust on what the results in the USA would be, plus rumor has it politics are involved as a slap in the face to Boeing from Euro air industries.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Initially I thought this was a knee-jerk reaction until all the domestic reports came in on issues with this aircraft, especially the poorly written manuals and systems being installed on the aircraft with no reference material to explain their operation, that's pretty scary stuff!
In another life I briefly worked around 737-800s and thought their publications were excellent and well explained, at least for the systems I worked with.
It would not be the first time...
Read up on American Airlines Flight 96, and how the FAA did not issue a Mandatory AD for DC-10 cargo door design flaws, because of a handshake agreement between the FAA and McDonald Douglas.
It took the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, killing almost 350 people, a year and half later to get changes made to cargo door.
Exactly, there is some stuff that needs to get worked out here before another tragedy happens.
People need to set their national pride, and manufacturer bias aside.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,829
- May 13, 2018
There was an interview with a retired FAA official on TV today who stated the C/G needed to be moved forward as when on climb out when the acft reached a certain angle the engine position now moved the C/G aft so the software thought there was a stall. He felt a software patch was in the works.
I was talking to a long time 737 tech yesterday and he mentioned something similar as well.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,829
- May 13, 2018
My cure, I'm not an engineer just a model builder, would be to insert a fuselage section forward of the wing and carry a dozen more passengers. That's how Lockheed made C-141Bs out of A models.