CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

@terminal Are the alleged flying characteristics of the max going into territory that might be considered " interesting" ? I.e. can it be safely flown using basic flight instrumentation by the average pilot qualified on earlier versions ? If the answer is "no, it's different and you have to deal with certain conditions differently" then the American Airline pilots are only being wise when asking for simulator time.
 
@terminal Are the alleged flying characteristics of the max going into territory that might be considered " interesting" ? I.e. can it be safely flown using basic flight instrumentation by the average pilot qualified on earlier versions ? If the answer is "no, it's different and you have to deal with certain conditions differently" then the American Airline pilots are only being wise when asking for simulator time.
The more significant factor may be that a number of other countries are talking about requiring simulator training for Boeing 737 Max pilots. If the US is the odd man out on this, then the credibility of the US FAA will suffer further.
 
Clearly not related in cause, but those who know naught about flying will attach it to the current woes nonetheless.

Boeing 737 skids into Florida river
Apparently landing in a thunderstorm.

If so, a sudden tailwind / Windshear / microburst can increase ground speed on an aircraft designed with an artificially high approach speed already to offset the risk of tailstrike occasioned by the lengthened fuselage. In other words, an aerodynamic fudge to offset a design change from the original airframe which has similarities to the MAX scenario. But then I know **** all.

Water depths of >3mm on the runway are entirely possible with heavy rain such as that often experienced in Florida, and such depths officially constitute a contaminated runway with correspondingly severely degraded stopping performance. Add that to an unexpectedly high ground speed on touch down and voila.

It’s been done many times.
 
@terminal Are the alleged flying characteristics of the max going into territory that might be considered " interesting" ? I.e. can it be safely flown using basic flight instrumentation by the average pilot qualified on earlier versions ? If the answer is "no, it's different and you have to deal with certain conditions differently" then the American Airline pilots are only being wise when asking for simulator time.
Yes it can. The AA pilots (and those of other operators) are asking for sim time to familiarise themselves with the vagaries of the new bit, MCAS.

When you change type, the length of the course depends on previous experience and the Abridged courses generally concentrate on differences and emergencies as the basic flying bits are a given. Apart from my very first Type Rating I did (where I was required to fly 5 take offs and landings in an empty aircraft with a very senior, and massively testicled instructor), the subsequent type changes saw me flying the aircraft for the first time on revenue flights, albeit with an instructor in the other seat.

Generally you get about 8 days of groundschool, a written exam on systems and procedures, 4 x 4 hour sim sessions (shared with another sim buddy on the same course) a 3 hour sim Skills Test each, 6 flights under supervision and 2 more as a Line Check or Competency Check, then off you go unsupervised although 2 guys new-to-type can’t be rostered to fly together until each has done 40 flights with more experienced guys.

Certain aircraft types / variants are lumped together for licensing purposes so for that you generally just do a differences course which used to be a days groundschool, a sim session, 4 flights under supervision and 2 under check. The argument re inadequate training on the MAX is that Boeing managed to convince the authorities to approve a computer based self study package to replace all that which of course the airlines loved because it doesn’t cost downtime for pilots, sim, instructors etc. This is the bit pilots are now (rightly) demanding.

I have the 777 on my licence. The nearest I’ve got to the flight deck was having a natter with the Cabin Crew in the forward galley positioning somewhere or other with another airline.
 
As for public confidence, if it’s 99p cheaper, they’ll pile on. Just look at how many people are quite happy to buy a cheap fortnight in Torremelinos at £250 all in and then get on a sub chartered, 5th hand flying shed flown by a guy with a Venezuelan Dog Licence. Next time you go to a UK airport in summer, have fun spotting all the weird liveries or better still, the all white aircraft. That’s them. Airlines charter them in to cover peak demand without the bother of having to keep aircraft and crew on the books in quieter months. Jet2 are big culprits, they had a Maylasian A330 wafting about last year from some shady outfit.

And the CAA lets them. To be fair, my lot have stopped doing this but only because there was massive opposition from our crews and massive delays when these crocks of shit went tech or loads of complaints about shit interiors, broken galleys and toilets and gash crew from the punters. Buy cheap, buy twice.
 
Apparently landing in a thunderstorm.

If so, a sudden tailwind / Windshear / microburst can increase ground speed on an aircraft designed with an artificially high approach speed already to offset the risk of tailstrike occasioned by the lengthened fuselage. In other words, an aerodynamic fudge to offset a design change from the original airframe which has similarities to the MAX scenario. But then I know **** all.

Water depths of >3mm on the runway are entirely possible with heavy rain such as that often experienced in Florida, and such depths officially constitute a contaminated runway with correspondingly severely degraded stopping performance. Add that to an unexpectedly high ground speed on touch down and voila.

It’s been done many times.
Fair enough. Didn't look like an MCAS related incident, but the inherent aerodynamic characteristics is still the driving cause?
 
Fair enough. Didn't look like an MCAS related incident, but the inherent aerodynamic characteristics is still the driving cause?
Aircraft aquaplaning has (almost) nothing to do with aerodynamic characteristics of any aircraft. It’s a function of fluid contamination of the runway, usually standing rain water, and the tyre pressure(s) of the landing gear. A rough formula to give the speed at which aquaplaning will always be a risk on a paddling pool runway is:

V (speed in knots) = 9 (rootsquare (tyre pressure / Specific Gravity)

The specific gravity of water is so close to 1 that it’s good enough for government work.

Aquaplaning is a risk inherent to landing on a (properly) flooded runway and one reason that runway drainage and porosity is so good. Usually. If it gets to the stage where the runway just can’t cope and is flooded, my first option was always to hold off until fuel was a factor, then divert somewhere more suitable. If landing was necessary at a flooded base, there’s a technique for every type to minimise the risk of departing the runway or its overrun.
 
Aircraft aquaplaning has (almost) nothing to do with aerodynamic characteristics of any aircraft. It’s a function of fluid contamination of the runway, usually standing rain water, and the tyre pressure(s) of the landing gear. A rough formula to give the speed at which aquaplaning will always be a risk on a paddling pool runway is:

V (speed in knots) = 9 (rootsquare (tyre pressure / Specific Gravity)

The specific gravity of water is so close to 1 that it’s good enough for government work.

Aquaplaning is a risk inherent to landing on a (properly) flooded runway and one reason that runway drainage and porosity is so good. Usually. If it gets to the stage where the runway just can’t cope and is flooded, my first option was always to hold off until fuel was a factor, then divert somewhere more suitable. If landing was necessary at a flooded base, there’s a technique for every type to minimise the risk of departing the runway or its overrun.
Insightful. Thanks.


Happily, not everybody, nobody in fact , is quite as stupid as you.
Would you care to explain how the root cause of this incident is linked to the MCAS fault on the 737 Max model?

The Arrse Air Accident Investigation Board needs to know

This 737-800 doesn't have the Max engine, it would seem
 
Would you care to explain how the root cause of this incident is linked to the MCAS fault on the 737 Max model?

The Arrse Air Accident Investigation Board needs to know

This 737-800 doesn't have the Max engine, it would seem
No. Why would I need or want to explain anything. I never suggested any between this incident and 737 Max.

You on the other hand made yet another of your stupidly dribbling and meaningless statements:
Clearly not related in cause, but those who know naught about flying will attach it to the current woes nonetheless.

Boeing 737 skids into Florida river
I note your hasty back-pedalling though when those with real knowledge corrected your dribbling:
Fair enough. Didn't look like an MCAS related incident, but the inherent aerodynamic characteristics is still the driving cause?
Insightful. Thanks.

Unlike you I confine myself to things I know about rather than make stupid, meaningless, derogatory and/or unfounded statements about things I don't know about. Leave the thread to those who know what they are talking about. That way, it will remain interesting.​
 
Last edited:
...If landing was necessary at a flooded base, there’s a technique for every type to minimise the risk of departing the runway or its overrun.
Among other things, positively planting the ship. Something the meat down the back doesn't realise when they applaud a greaser.
 
Among other things, positively planting the ship. Something the meat down the back doesn't realise when they applaud a greaser.
I recall being "firmly planted" at ATL in an MD80 when there was an issue with the flaps refusing to fully deploy, so we came in at an "enthusiastic" rate of knots.
So firmly planted that the flight attendant (an ATL native) turned distinctly pale & the front left overhead luggage locker partially broke free of its mount.
The wailing from cattle class was entertaining, as was explaining to the aforementioned flight attendant why I appeared unconcerned & kept reading my book. (What's the point in spending what might be the last few moments of one's life in a state of abject fear when there's f*ckall one can do about the situation).
 
Unfortunately I have to agree with baglock on this When it comes to aviation uninformed people will make connections as Baglock suggested - thanks to ill informed media speculation and self professed experts
Agree with whoever you like old fruit. It matters not a jot if a few baglockesque morons make ill informed connections between totally unconnected incidents. A bit like seeing a crashed Ford Ka and thinking that all Ford Mondeo cars are going to crash simply because they carry a Ford badge.

Happily, those baglockesque people neither operate airlines nor specify/purchase/lease aircraft.

Those same few baglockesque people would fly on a soggy paper dart operated by Kamikaze Airlines if it knocked a few quid of the price of their week in Benidorm.
 
Agree with whoever you like old fruit. It matters not a jot if a few baglockesque morons make ill informed connections between totally unconnected incidents. .
Yay and Nay

If a Singapore A320 crashes because a discovery drives onto a runway - people will cancel flights with Singapore, will cancel flights that use A320s and some will just cancel flights.

So thanks to the ill informed commentary* and the ability to comprehend facts fuckwits do disproportionately affect airlines thus the knock on can affect the industry. The 737 ( model doesn't matter 737 is the bit that will stick) story is gaining traction public perception may well have disproportionate affect.

So whilst I agree with you that its bollocks and twattery to even remotely connect the incidents - theres no disagreement there - The Media however will do so however tenuously and ill informed public will simply see another 737 accident. And so I agree with Baglock incidents that they will be conflated in the publics mind -
At this point its worth remembering at this point that
A )60% of people today read no further than the headline - hence the prevalence of misleading soundbites and the cult of St Jeremy of Corbyn.
And B) 50% of people are dumber than average

*Such as CNN and its MH370 will struggle to maintain altitude if it runs out of fuel and Air France xxx** may have broken up as it approached the speed of light being 2 of my favourites

**xxx The one that disappeared in the South Atlantic with blocked P+S system
 
US pilots are demanding better training on the Boeing 737 Max than what Boeing is proposing before putting it back into service.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-pilots-demand-training-american-airlines-737-max-1.5114538?cmp=rss


An FAA proposal is recommending only additional computer based training, but no simulator time.


The Boeing proposal and the FAA proposal are two different documents, but from the context appear to be similar.

Training on the Boeing 737 Max apparently consists of an hour long course on an iPad. An American pilots union is asking for the addition of videos showing how the MCAS work, and demonstrations of of other associated problems.


They also want regular re-training on simulators that include dealing with problems like what occurred with the MCAS.


Canada, Europe, and South Korea are all considering requiring simulator training.


However, requiring simulator training could cause delays in returning the Boeing 737 Max return to service and it will cost airlines money.


The head of American Airlines has said that as soon as the FAA approves the Boeing 737 Max to fly again, his airline will start flying it even if other countries don't.
In a previous life I was a training captain with a major North Sea helicopter operator. The company was about to purchase a new model of Super Puma - the AS332L2 - and I was tasked with training up the pilots for the new aircraft assisted by another training captain.

At the time the rules we were operating under the Joint Aviation Requirements and when we looked up the training required for transition between our current helicopter - the AS332L - and the new one - the L2 - we found that all we needed to do was “familiarisation training” which could have been as little as sitting the guys down with the Fight Manual and flicking through the pages and a quick tour of the cockpit. This of course was a huge bonus for the company as the cost would be negligible.

However myself and my colleague were not comfortable with this and we put the case for a proper “differences training” course. Luckily we had the support of the Chief Pilot and Chief training captain so our request was granted, at great expense.

Integrity wins every time.
 
I recall being "firmly planted" at ATL in an MD80 when there was an issue with the flaps refusing to fully deploy, so we came in at an "enthusiastic" rate of knots.
So firmly planted that the flight attendant (an ATL native) turned distinctly pale & the front left overhead luggage locker partially broke free of its mount.
The wailing from cattle class was entertaining, as was explaining to the aforementioned flight attendant why I appeared unconcerned & kept reading my book. (What's the point in spending what might be the last few moments of one's life in a state of abject fear when there's f*ckall one can do about the situation).
Meh. More likely to plant at higher flap settings. Just come in a bit faster without flap or at lower settings, leading to a sportier landing and harder braking.

The old Tu154s in Iran are pretty knacked and the crews somewhat *ahem* dodgy. SOP landing with them is overheads spilling their guts and panels coming off the roof and walls. Cabin crew can be seen pushing them back into place and reattaching the duct tape as one disembarks.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top