Air Current story that MCAS was not needed on the 737 Max

Very interesting, and seems to cut through the media and propaganda bullsh!t.
 
I'd say the airlines are just as culpable in demanding a common type rating for the 737-100 through 737 Max series of aircraft. They are trying to save a dime on training. Boeing is just responding to customer request.

Note that despite all of these difficulties, most of the airlines have not dumped their Max orders. They know they created this.
 
WDD said:
I don’t think the care about that. They want the MAX because it will make them money.
Click to expand...

What I mean is they didn't change their mind, dump Boeing and the 737 Max, or even blink.
 
The plane makes the airlines money, and the pilots that fly them (including me) think it’s safe. And with Boeing’s changes and the huge amount of scrutiny an argument can be made that it’s now the safest airliner flying. I don’t begrudge my airline for sticking with it.
 
I'm curious how passengers will react? With as much news / attention around the 737 max. I can see it now. The airline stewardess starts to read the safety instructions and says Boeing 737 max and 20 people try to get off the plane LOL. I bet it happens...
 
AlphaMike said:
I'm curious how passengers will react? With as much news / attention around the 737 max. I can see it now. The airline stewardess starts to read the safety instructions and says Boeing 737 max and 20 people try to get off the plane LOL. I bet it happens...
Click to expand...

I'd think the 'MAX' designation will start to disappear from any passenger-facing content.
 
GaryM said:
I'd think the 'MAX' designation will start to disappear from any passenger-facing content.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably right. People would start to board and think "wow this looks like a new plane" then sit down and see the safety card and read 737 max, "Ohhh Helllll nooo!" and get back off. :)
 
kayoh190 said:
The plane makes the airlines money, and the pilots that fly them (including me) think it’s safe. And with Boeing’s changes and the huge amount of scrutiny an argument can be made that it’s now the safest airliner flying. I don’t begrudge my airline for sticking with it.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly.
 
Will this be the last variant of the 737? Will they finally go to a clean sheet design?
 
Dave Theisen said:
Will this be the last variant of the 737? Will they finally go to a clean sheet design?
Click to expand...
What makes the most economic sense? New <stuff> for new <stuff>'s sake works for consumer <stuff> but rarely for commercial airplanes.

Nauga,
and his ECP
 
AlphaMike said:
I'm curious how passengers will react? With as much news / attention around the 737 max. I can see it now. The airline stewardess starts to read the safety instructions and says Boeing 737 max and 20 people try to get off the plane LOL. I bet it happens...
Click to expand...

How many times do the FAs really mention the sub-type of the model during announcements? I've heard ". . . go over the safety features of this Boeing 737 aircraft . . ." mentioned many times, bit I haven't heard them say "737 dash 700" or "737 NG" being specifically called out.
 
How about the Boeing 808. Or maybe go back to the 708, 718, etc. The 728 would need to be a tri-jet though, just for old times sakes.
 
NoHeat said:
Nothing to stop them from adding a digit.

Seven double-oh seven.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how well a plane "licensed to kill" (double-oh-seven) would go over with the public.
 
Boeing knew that they were selling the Max to third-world airlines that maintained the plane with hammers and at a minimum they should have had two AOA sensors, with both working to drive the MCAS.
 
flyboyrv6 said:
Boeing knew that they were selling the Max to third-world airlines that maintained the plane with hammers and at a minimum they should have had two AOA sensors, with both working to drive the MCAS.
Click to expand...
FYI: it had two AoA sensors. There was a customer option to purchase a third AoA that most didn't buy.;)
 
SoonerAviator said:
How many times do the FAs really mention the sub-type of the model during announcements? I've heard ". . . go over the safety features of this Boeing 737 aircraft . . ." mentioned many times, bit I haven't heard them say "737 dash 700" or "737 NG" being specifically called out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I honestly couldn’t say. I’m usually finishing my first drink about that time.
 
AlphaMike said:
Yeah I honestly couldn’t say. I’m usually finishing my first drink about that time.
Click to expand...
As long as the flight attendant isn’t wearing a parachute I won’t give it a second thought
 
WDD said:
They only have one clean sheet name left - the 797
Click to expand...
Not quite. The 797 was supposedly already taken by the NMA concept aircraft that was temporarily shelved in Jan 2020 after the MAX issue.
 
AlphaMike said:
I'm curious how passengers will react? With as much news / attention around the 737 max. I can see it now. The airline stewardess starts to read the safety instructions and says Boeing 737 max and 20 people try to get off the plane LOL. I bet it happens...
Click to expand...
They won’t care at all. Its all about cost.
 
flyboyrv6 said:
Boeing knew that they were selling the Max to third-world airlines that maintained the plane with hammers and at a minimum they should have had two AOA sensors, with both working to drive the MCAS.
Click to expand...
Every transport jet I've flown has had at least two AoA sensors. All 737s have two AoA sensors.

There are many systems which are redundant but most of them operate with one being active for a flight then alternating the active system for subsequent flights. This is how the Flight Control Computers (FCC) and Air-Data Reference Units (ADIRU) work on all 737s prior to the MAX. They worked this way on the MAX, too, but were changed in the redesign. Two sets of independent data with one being the master at any one time. The master is selected to match whichever pilot is the Pilot-Flying for the leg so that his side's instrument data is what is used for the flight. Lots of other systems work this way, too. This is not unique to the 737 or to Boeing.

Bell206 said:
FYI: it had two AoA sensors. There was a customer option to purchase a third AoA that most didn't buy.;)
Click to expand...

The customer option was not for an additional AoA sensor. It was for the AoA to be displayed on the primary flight display (PFD).

There are no procedures or checklists that are based on the AoA reading and very few transport jets have an AoA display. I've never flown one that did.

With the 737, there are two ways to operate to lower-than-standard ILS landing minimums (CAT II & CAT III Approaches); 1. Autoland, and 2. Head-Up-Display (HUD).

The original method for CAT II/III operations on the 737 was via Autoland. With autoland, the two autopilots (each operating off its respective FCC and ADIRU, are both engaged for the approach. This produces a fail-passive autoland system which can land the airplane down to RVR 500 and a 50' Decision Height.

A HUD was later added as an option to the 737s and hand-flown CAT II/III approaches with the HUD can use lower landing minimums than the fail-passive Autoland option.

The HUD has an AoA display so customers who choose the HUD option would frequently also choose the AoA PFD display option as well. As far as I know, the AoA display is not required for any operation.

What was discovered after the accidents was that the "AOA DISAGREE" message would not display on aircraft that did not have the AoA PFD display option. This was due to a previously undetected software bug. It's unlikely that this message would have helped either of the accident crews, though, as it would have directed them to yet another checklist other than the only one that would have helped them maintain control of the airplane--the Stabilizer Runaway checklist.
 
Larry in TN said:
The customer option was not for an additional AoA sensor. It was for the AoA to be displayed on the primary flight display (PFD).
Click to expand...
So the "option" added to the Southwest MAX fleet was the PFD AoA display? Some how I read it as a 3rd sensor. Do you know if SW went with the HUDs as well?
 
Bell206 said:
So the "option" added to the Southwest MAX fleet was the PFD AoA display? Some how I read it as a 3rd sensor. Do you know if SW went with the HUDs as well?
Click to expand...
Generally, airlines that were already operating 737s with Autoland, when the HUD became an option, continued to order airplanes without the HUD for fleet commonality. Airlines that weren't already operating 737s generally took the HUD option because it offered slightly lower landing minimums and lower ongoing maintenance costs due to not having to maintain the autoflight system to CAT III specifications.

SWA was different. They went with the HUD very early and went back and retrofitted their older aircraft with HUDs for fleet commonality. I don't think they ever did autoland operations.

There are no 737s with three AoA sensors.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Didn’t read it all, but it appears to be old news...the airplane didn’t need it to be safe, but it was there to make it “the same” as the other 737s in regard to a specific change in control forces with the bigger engines.
Click to expand...
From the article it doesn’t even sound like it was needed to make it the same.
 
But the reply from the FAA is if that they have the opinion that MCAS was needed - stall characteristics were unacceptable without it
 
Bell206 said:
So the "option" added to the Southwest MAX fleet was the PFD AoA display? Some how I read it as a 3rd sensor. Do you know if SW went with the HUDs as well?
Click to expand...

Probably how the media presented the information, as I think I had read the same.
 
midwestpa24 said:
What I mean is they didn't change their mind, dump Boeing and the 737 Max, or even blink.
Click to expand...

I believe they all receive some serious credits and reimbursements from Boeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Who was the airline that drove the max. Wanting another 737, instead of a much better updated 757. But the devil is in cheaper seats. Always cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. No value in air transportation, so it needs to be cheaper. That's where it all started, and it all went down hill from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top