Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The NTSB has weighed in with its thoughts re the FAA's certification process vs. systems like MCAS, pilot performance, etc.: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/ASR1901.pdf
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • Originally posted by elaw View Post
      The NTSB has weighed in with its thoughts re the FAA's certification process vs. systems like MCAS, pilot performance, etc.: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/ASR1901.pdf
      This is almost insulting. At least as insulting as when Boeing distributed memos to pilots 'reminding' them of the runaway trim procedure. The NTSB shouldn't have to 'remind' Boeing and the FAA about human factors. Yet nowhere in Boeing's 'assumptions' used to certify the MCAS system is the assumption that pilots will become confused by an unfamiliar emergency situation in which cockpit warnings are not consistent with the aircraft state and therefore a recognition of the problem will be degraded or errononeous. That would have been an easy assumption to make, but an inconvenient one.

      Essentially, Boeing presented assumptions that would support certification while ignoring those that would impair it. Basically the FAA did as well.

      Let's call this: Certification Bias

      Comment


      • Originally posted by elaw View Post
        The NTSB has weighed in with its thoughts re the FAA's certification process vs. systems like MCAS, pilot performance, etc.:
        [...]
        I don't read documents when Evan calls them insulting. I mean, this is ET #302 part 1099, and with it that's also type 737 max-8/737 max-9/737 max-10 problem #1099. I know what I said last time when I was here in this topic. United owns 14 jets type B737 max-9, and not one of these was in the air since more than half a year!

        I have to avoid the thought what could happen if it were my favorite airline, who gave Boeing an order for another 47 jets (!) type B737 max-9,
        and another order for one-hundred (100) jets type B737 max-10, and not a single jet has been delivered since more than half a year!

        Sorry, but we in Germany are/my favorite airline is connected with United by the Star Alliance. I'd have to puke with such inactive orders in my mind.

        PS: ..and United tries to replace a whole a/c type by the 737 max-9. Not everything in Europe is fine and brilliant, but I know an airline who pays people to be e.g. 'Lufthansa Boeing 747 Flottenkapitän' .

        That's quite difficult for me to translate, but is there somebody like a 'United Boeing 757 Flottenkapitän'? Most probably 'Lufthansa B747 Fleet Captain' and 'United B757 Fleet Captain'. I only have a rough guess what you need to be appointed Fleet Captain: B747 active Flight Captain status or B757 active Flight Captain status, with the most flight hours in the 747 fleet of that airline. I somehow feel reminded of a Moustache (773) ..

        And what does such a 757 fleet captain say concerning this topic here, or concerning that his fleet will soon be discontiued?
        757 discontinued, after only 23 years in production. No 45 years or more.

        I just don't know why I mention more than 45 years in the 747 club ... Must've happened unconsciously.
        Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-10-18, 06:19. Reason: 757 discontinued, after only 23 years.
        LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
        LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
        Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

        Comment


        • Should the 757 production have ended after only 23 years? That's a question which I've never discussed. That was 2004. I was not yet here in this forum back then.

          But this question probably is crucial and as new as this Friday: Is the 737 max-9 able to replace the whole type 757?

          I mean, here on my home airport, I have never in my life seen a 737 who crossed the Atlantic Ocean nonstop!
          The 757-200 has a range of not more than 3,900 nautical miles with MTOW. That is not quite enough for JFK, in case of a German B752, but for Boston Logan.
          The 737 max-9 has a range of not more than 3,500 nautical miles with MTOW. That is neither enough for JFK nor for Logan, if that were a German 737 max-9.

          I don't feel good with the replacement 737 versus 757. Does that mean, United reduces the longhaul flights?
          In Germany, the longhaul theoretically starts at 2,000 nautical miles. But all jet pilots on TV say, longhaul is nothing without having crossed the pond. Boston Logan, at least.
          3,800 nautical miles. In a 737 max-9? Impossibile!

          PS: Guess one good a/c type for Boston Logan... 747-800 passage, right.
          LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
          LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
          Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

          Comment


          • There tickets have such a good price, comparing with other companies. But after this crash it makes you think what is more important - pay a bit more or fly with Ethiopian Airlines and worry about that your plane can also crush.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
              Should the 757 production have ended after only 23 years? That's a question which I've never discussed. That was 2004. I was not yet here in this forum back then.

              But this question probably is crucial and as new as this Friday: Is the 737 max-9 able to replace the whole type 757?

              I mean, here on my home airport, I have never in my life seen a 737 who crossed the Atlantic Ocean nonstop!
              The 757-200 has a range of not more than 3,900 nautical miles with MTOW. That is not quite enough for JFK, in case of a German B752, but for Boston Logan.
              The 737 max-9 has a range of not more than 3,500 nautical miles with MTOW. That is neither enough for JFK nor for Logan, if that were a German 737 max-9.

              I don't feel good with the replacement 737 versus 757. Does that mean, United reduces the longhaul flights?
              In Germany, the longhaul theoretically starts at 2,000 nautical miles. But all jet pilots on TV say, longhaul is nothing without having crossed the pond. Boston Logan, at least.
              3,800 nautical miles. In a 737 max-9? Impossibile!

              PS: Guess one good a/c type for Boston Logan... 747-800 passage, right.
              There were transatlantic 737 flights, with a technical stopover in Halifax or something. The 737NG can fly routes from North America to Europe with ETOPS 180. The 757 can fly some nonstops however.

              I think, if Boeing wasn't in the mood for a new airframe development, the 737 line should have ended instead of the 757, and new, shortened 757 variants, if engineering allowed for it, should have been introduced to replace the -700 and -800 NG's. I was saying this twenty years ago. The main reason then is the main reason now: ground clearance for the ultra fans that we knew were coming in the 1990's. A shortened 757 with new wings, engines and perhaps lowered gear height would not have needed artificial stability augmentation, would not have crashed right out of the box and would not have been grounded indefinitely, and probably would have been delivered to Lufthansa on time. Sure, a new type certification would have been required, but the process would have been minimal, the tooling and supply chains would have mostly existed and the cockpit commonality would allow for minimal changes to existing training resources. The 757, re-engined with some new avionics and a bit of FBW would be a real 21st century aircraft. The Max is a desperately dolled-up piece of antiquity.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                There were transatlantic 737 flights, with a technical stopover in Halifax or something. The 737NG can fly routes from North America to Europe with ETOPS 180. The 757 can fly some nonstops however.

                I think, if Boeing wasn't in the mood for a new airframe development, the 737 line should have ended instead of the 757, and new, shortened 757 variants, if engineering allowed for it, should have been introduced to replace the -700 and -800 NG's. I was saying this twenty years ago. The main reason then is the main reason now: ground clearance for the ultra fans that we knew were coming in the 1990's. A shortened 757 with new wings, engines and perhaps lowered gear height would not have needed artificial stability augmentation, would not have crashed right out of the box and would not have been grounded indefinitely, and probably would have been delivered to Lufthansa on time. Sure, a new type certification would have been required, but the process would have been minimal, the tooling and supply chains would have mostly existed and the cockpit commonality would allow for minimal changes to existing training resources. The 757, re-engined with some new avionics and a bit of FBW would be a real 21st century aircraft. The Max is a desperately dolled-up piece of antiquity.
                And if frogs had wings, well you know how the rest goes.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  And if frogs had wings, well you know how the rest goes.
                  No I don't.

                  If a frog had wings, it should refrain from pulling up relentlessly as it could stall?

                  OR

                  If a frog had wings, there should be clear procedures on how to handle warnings as "keep flying" is too vague and not specific to the species of the frog?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • Are frogs migratory?
                    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                    Eric Law

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      No I don't.
                      If a frog had wings, and it wasn't a stretched version of a frog trying to fill the gap left by a frog that had been cancelled by the creator, who was trying to avoid a costly new frog development by stretching an older, shortlegged frog, thus creating a long frog with low ground clearance, it wouldn't need a tailskid cartridge to detect every time it bumped its ass a-hoppin.

                      It's an old saying.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                        Are frogs migratory?
                        Not at all. But they can be carried.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          If a frog had wings, and it wasn't a stretched version of a frog trying to fill the gap left by a frog that had been cancelled by the creator, who was trying to avoid a costly new frog development by stretching an older, shortlegged frog, thus creating a long frog with low ground clearance, it wouldn't need a tailskid cartridge to detect every time it bumped its ass a-hoppin.

                          It's an old saying.
                          Clever.

                          And no acronyms. ABLS?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                            Are frogs migratory?
                            Depends if it's an African or European frog

                            Comment


                            • It seems Boeing has finally begun taking steps to fix the problem at Boeing. But ousting McAllister and removing Muilenburg as chairman seem like sacrificial goating to me (although with very nice platinum parachutes I'm sure). The real culprits appear to be Stonecipher and McNerney, who are safely out of reach now. Still, it would be nice if we find out they aren't.

                              https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/b...callister.html

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Stonecipher and McNerney
                                Who?

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X