Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

And McDonnell had ready ruined the engineering-run Douglas. Every aircraft built by that formerly proud company after 1967 was pared to the penny. So many opportunities were lost due to the reticence of the accountants and they ended their days 30 years later still stretching and tweaking their mid-60s designs

Donald Douglas knew it would happen, but needed McDonnell's Pentagon dollars. Boeing had no excuses for not foreseeing the same fate.

Mr Mac, as well as being a (in)famously parsimonious. This was a man who crash landed a plane rather that use his chute to save money.
but he’d been buying up Douglas on the quiet from the start. Although he didn’t get military production contracts in WWII, he did get big parts contracts from Douglas, and started using his money up buy up Douglas stock over the coming years. By the 60’s, he owned more of Douglas than Douglas did.
the other strange this Don Douglas did that finished his company was drive out Ed Heinemann in 1960.... silly, there went the design genius.
 

TamH70

MIA
Oh well, no Boeing 737 of any type for me. Because why would I?
 
Oh well, no Boeing 737 of any type for me. Because why would I?
Whatever they rename The Max would be the safest one to fly from whenever its reintroduced. It's been fully scrutinised on many levels. Pilots should get additional training. Pilots will be very very aware that it could kill them, so will be at the top of their game in learning all the detail about how it works and how to switch off the systems that are trying to kill them.
 

TamH70

MIA
Whatever they rename The Max would be the safest one to fly from whenever its reintroduced. It's been fully scrutinised on many levels. Pilots should get additional training. Pilots will be very very aware that it could kill them, so will be at the top of their game in learning all the detail about how it works and how to switch off the systems that are trying to kill them.

I think it would be far more clever of me NOT to fly in a kite that has those kinds of systems fitted in them in the first place, no?
 
I think it would be far more clever of me NOT to fly in a kite that has those kinds of systems fitted in them in the first place, no?
Apart from Lancasters and spitfires which aircraft do you think isn't fitted with all kinds of electronic gizmos?
 

TamH70

MIA
Apart from Lancasters and spitfires which aircraft do you think isn't fitted with all kinds of electronic gizmos?

I'd have a cabby in one of Montgolfier's balloons before I'd go up in a 737.
 
I'd have a cabby in one of Montgolfier's balloons before I'd go up in a 737.
Ah balloons! Every landing is a crash landing.
 

TamH70

MIA
Boeing were always cheap; a friend collected a new 737-200 back in the day and it had the absolute legal minimum for IFR, so you had one ADF instrument. The UK CAA were specifying two, much to the annoyance of US manufacturers, so the second one was "extra". My friend said that the cockpit was set upin such a way that it could theoretically be flown single-pilot,a concept familiar to American pilots of corporate jets and night cargo aircraft but not tolerated by the UK CAA, for obvious reasons.
A HF radio for crossing the Atlantic was "extra" and was actually hired for the crossing and flown back for the next aircraft. All of the galleys had one of everything, to qualify as a galley. One boiler,one tap, one sink,etc,etc. All of the cabin emergency kit was in the same vein. They learned to ship over their own emergency sets from home. When he did the acceptance flight, Boeing insisted that they fly out over the sea, outside US waters, sign for the aircraft outside the US and then land to drop off the Boeing staff. Even when they were starting the aircraft up, the line guy said that the first start on ground power was for free and the rest, if needed, were to be paid for.
 
The British Airline Pilots' Association say the proposed fixes for the Boeing 737 Max don't actually fix the problem encountered in the Ethiopian crash.


The issue seems to be that one of the proposed "fixes" is to tell the pilot to turn off the automatic system if there are problems, and then the pilot and co-pilot are to both haul on the manual trim wheel to regain control of the aircraft.

There are two problems with this. One is that under this sort of situation the pilot is supposed to be trying to regain control of the aircraft while the co-pilot is supposed to be flipping through the manual trying to read off the checklist to see what they are supposed to be doing next. If the co-pilot is helping on the manual trim wheel, he can't do his intended job.

The other problem is that in the Ethiopian crash, the MCAS system had pushed the plane nose down and caused it to pick up speed, which meant that aerodynamic forces on the plane were so great as to make it beyond human ability to correct it using the manual trim wheel. It also doesn't help that the trim wheel was made smaller in order to cram in the new larger display screens.

Also noted in the story is that Boeing has rebranded the 737 Max as the 737-7, 737-8, and 737-9. I'm sure that will fix things.
Oh well, no Boeing 737 of any type for me. Because why would I?

From the link . . .

Bootnote


The 737 Max will be known as the 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9. In Ryanair's case it will be known as the 737-8200, a reference to the base -8 Max model having been fettled to fit 200 seats rather than the stock -8's 180ish.

International Air Transport Association aeroplane type codes will be B37M, B38M and B39M should you want to avoid booking a flight on one.
 
Last edited:
Fixed. There is no guarantee it will be safe just because Boeing have promised it's all good now.
Yeah but bear in mind that external safety agencies have been all over the thing like a rash, it's not just Boeing saying come on in, the waters fine.
 
So we're told. We were also told it had been approved and was safe before by the same agencies.
I think that (FAA in particular) they've been rather hoist by their own petards and shown to be weak and complicit with the big boys. Now they need to not only be squeaky clean but to be shown to be squeaky clean.
 
I think it would be far more clever of me NOT to fly in a kite that has those kinds of systems fitted in them in the first place, no?
Hear, hear.
The aircraft has a serious design flaw (or a flaw resulting from an extemporised design). That flaw is an inherent part of the aircraft. The only thing that appears to have changed is that pilots know there is an inherent flaw, and know what to do to, hopefully, avert a crash. It is not very confidence inspiring.
 
I think that (FAA in particular) they've been rather hoist by their own petards and shown to be weak and complicit with the big boys. Now they need to not only be squeaky clean but to be shown to be squeaky clean.
Again.
 
I think that (FAA in particular) they've been rather hoist by their own petards and shown to be weak and complicit with the big boys. Now they need to not only be squeaky clean but to be shown to be squeaky clean.
The dilution of the FAA's power has been going on for years and Boeing have been complicit in it. The FAA has always been kept weak of funds and the strong manufacturers have efficient lobbyists. Same as the defence lobbyists.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top