User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/18/2020 12:58:07 PM EDT
 https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/faa-boeing-737-max/2020/11/18/id/997582/ After nearly two years and a pair of deadly crashes, the Federal Aviation Administration has cleared Boeing’s 737 Max for flight. The nation’s air safety agency announced the move early Wednesday, saying it was done after a comprehensive and methodical 20-month review process. Regulators around the world grounded the Max in March 2019, after the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet. That happened less than five months after another Max flown by Indonesia’s Lion Air plunged into the Java Sea. A total of 346 passengers and crew members on both planes were killed. The planes won’t return to the skies for a while. The FAA says it must approve pilot training changes for each U.S. airline and airlines must perform required maintenance on the planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2020 7:51:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Not saying it was the best design, but all of this because poorly trained foreign pilots didn't know to flip two switches when shit got weird
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 6:52:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not saying it was the best design, but all of this because poorly trained foreign pilots didn't know to flip two switches when shit got weird I think it was worse than that. The software apparently was designed to overcome "incorrect" inputs by the crew. Break one angle of attack vane and crash an a/c. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 8:03:27 AM EDT
[#3]
Not at all. The system had shit redundancy and cross checking, so it was prone to failure, yes. And those failures caused obvious un-commanded and undesirable pitch trim changes, yes. But those pitch changes did not and do not immediately cause an out of control condition. And they are easily and immediately rectified by disabling the pitch trim system by flipping two switches that are right next to each other. And this was the exact procedure required for any anomalous pitch behavior in the QRH.
Because of the shitty design, US pilots enjoyed ample opportunities to experience and demonstrate all of the above without crashing, following the established emergency procedure in the QRH, prior to the two idiot foreign crews crashing their aircraft for no good reason because they don't know their emergency procedures. Did it need to be fixed or improved, yes. But it was not the sort of disastrous design flaw it was purported to be. Boeing, and the airlines, got hosed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 5:45:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not at all. The system had shit redundancy and cross checking, so it was prone to failure, yes. And those failures caused obvious un-commanded and undesirable pitch trim changes, yes. But those pitch changes did not and do not immediately cause an out of control condition. And they are easily and immediately rectified by disabling the pitch trim system by flipping two switches that are right next to each other. And this was the exact procedure required for any anomalous pitch behavior in the QRH. Because of the shitty design, US pilots enjoyed ample opportunities to experience and demonstrate all of the above without crashing, following the established emergency procedure in the QRH, prior to the two idiot foreign crews crashing their aircraft for no good reason because they don't know their emergency procedures. Did it need to be fixed or improved, yes. But it was not the sort of disastrous design flaw it was purported to be. Boeing, and the airlines, got hosed. Yep, I believe those two switches have been on all 737s and essentially worked the same. There were a handful of other things the pilots did horribly wrong that added to the mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 8:34:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Super.
Now all the airlines need is some passengers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 8:47:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was worse than that. The software apparently was designed to overcome "incorrect" inputs by the crew. Break one angle of attack vane and crash an a/c. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not saying it was the best design, but all of this because poorly trained foreign pilots didn't know to flip two switches when shit got weird I think it was worse than that. The software apparently was designed to overcome "incorrect" inputs by the crew. Break one angle of attack vane and crash an a/c. Think Boeing is going to need a new name, as 737 Max is Toxic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 9:23:47 PM EDT
[#7]
The first thing the foreign pilots need to do is learn how to actually fly the airplane...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 9:50:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Exactly. Asians without automation or CRM, Pakistanis with "ATPs", Ethiopians with...I don't know what. The list goes on...
Third world accidents almost shouldn't count. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 10:28:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Those accidents would not have happened if it wasn't a compromised design.
It was a compromised design because Lasy B was motivated by expedience and profit instead of by engineering excellence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 7:56:47 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those accidents would not have happened if it wasn't a compromised design. Again, not saying it was the best design. But it was safely flyable, and safely flown for a long time by properly trained pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 10:31:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Total BS. Every aircraft ever built has design compromises. That's one reason there are type ratings. You either know how to fly the aircraft you have or you don't. Those Ethiopians and Indonesians would have killed everyone if they had a trim runaway in, say, a -700 or -800. Again, not saying it was the best design. But it was safely flyable, and safely flown for a long time by properly trained pilots. The trim runaway was due to a pour design, and the likelihood of it occurring could have been significantly reduced with a better design. However, the pilots were along for the ride. Again, the trim switches should have been flipped, the trim wheel should have been used(it has a handle built into it for this very thing, and something I check it that the handles are 90 degrees apart for leverage), the throttles should have been reduced (rather than leaving them at takeoff power), put the flaps back in (this would have been a bit of a varsity move), even continuing to use the trim switches would have helped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 10:38:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:The trim runaway was due to a pour design, and the likelihood of it occurring could have been significantly reduced with a better design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 11:06:16 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I haven't made it abundantly clear already, I 100% agree. But it was not so bad that any aircraft should have crashed. you did |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 11:37:28 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. Asians without automation or CRM, Pakistanis with "ATPs", Ethiopians with...I don't know what. The list goes on... Third world accidents almost shouldn't count. Well, you aren't wrong, but my company crashed a perfectly good 767 because of the same "ATP" issue... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 7:55:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Total BS. Every aircraft ever built has design compromises. That's one reason there are type ratings. You either know how to fly the aircraft you have or you don't. Those Ethiopians and Indonesians would have killed everyone if they had a trim runaway in, say, a -700 or -800. Again, not saying it was the best design. But it was safely flyable, and safely flown for a long time by properly trained pilots. "Good morning Captian aa. This is your preflight maintence briefing. Your aircraft clean. No open write ups. No defered items. Please do remember, this model has a one in fill in the blank. ________chance of activily trying to kill you for no apparent reason on this flight. Please enjoy your flight." At what ratio would you accept the flight? One in 10,000? One in 50,000? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 8:05:48 PM EDT
[#16]
In the mean time, how many airlines canceled the contracts for these planes? Does boeings now have a shitpot of these sitting on a runway with no customers in site? I suppose they could always convert them to cargo and sell them to the amazombies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 8:29:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The first thing the foreign pilots need to do is learn how to actually fly the airplane... That will happen when Boeing can design and certify a clean sheet airplane without regulatory capture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 9:52:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Good morning Captian aa. This is your preflight maintence briefing. Your aircraft clean. No open write ups. No defered items. Please do remember, this model has a one in fill in the blank. ________chance of activily trying to kill you for no apparent reason on this flight. Please enjoy your flight." At what ratio would you accept the flight? One in 10,000? One in 50,000? 0% chance of flown by competent pilots. Flown on the Max many times, would fly again instantly without any of the new changes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 9:57:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 0% chance of flown by competent pilots. Flown on the Max many times, would fly again instantly without any of the new changes. What did those pilots do that started the accident chain? It doesn't matter how simple the solution to the runaway trim is. It shouldn't be happening in the first place. Your argument seems to be that a competent and well trained pilot will "save" the aircraft. That's probably true. My argument is that the pilots shouldn't be put in that position where saving the day is nesessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 10:42:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What did those pilots do that started the accident chain? It doesn't matter how simple the solution to the runaway trim is. It shouldn't be happening in the first place. Your argument seems to be that a competent and well trained pilot will "save" the aircraft. That's probably true. My argument is that the pilots shouldn't be put in that position where saving the day is nesessary. That's also true, but it's not a currently achievable goal. There isn't a flying machine built today that will have 100% systems reliability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 10:50:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's also true, but it's not a currently achievable goal. There isn't a flying machine built today that will have 100% systems reliability. Certainly true. But, that one crossed the line of acceptable risk for me. And given that Boeings motivation to release that product were driven my market factors, profit and beating the Airbus Neo to market, unacceptable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2020 10:01:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What did those pilots do that started the accident chain? It doesn't matter how simple the solution to the runaway trim is. It shouldn't be happening in the first place. Your argument seems to be that a competent and well trained pilot will "save" the aircraft. That's probably true. My argument is that the pilots shouldn't be put in that position where saving the day is nesessary. Uh..not accomplishing the procedures for runaway trim. Leaving the throttles in the corner while they were accelerating at a rapid uncontrol able rate. On one of the two taking a jet with a known gripe that has not be taken care of; I suspect most US pilots would have refused the one that kept trying to do automatic nose dives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 12:58:32 AM EDT
[#23]
Why didn't they just make the landing gear taller?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 8:02:45 AM EDT
[#24]
Not enough room. When they added the new engines they made a new landing gear linkage to fold up and make it fit when retracted. If you watch the videos of it being tested and demonstrated off a real plane there's quite a lot going on during retraction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 12:41:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not enough room. When they added the new engines they made a new landing gear linkage to fold up and make it fit when retracted. If you watch the videos of it being tested and demonstrated off a real plane there's quite a lot going on during retraction. You’re thinking of the Max 10 which is still a few years out. The Max 7/8/9 have the same main gear as the NG’s, only the nose gear is taller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 4:44:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You’re thinking of the Max 10... Boeing is not going to stop until they’ve nipped, tucked, stretched, and beaten it into a 757-200, are they? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 6:33:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why didn't they just make the landing gear taller? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 7:10:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boeing is not going to stop until they’ve nipped, tucked, stretched, and beaten it into a 757-200, are they? Pretty much, along with a Vref goal of 175 kias at flaps 30 and a tail wheel instead of a tail skid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2020 3:14:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That would involve a significant redesign of the wings, possibly involving move the engines farther out. It was way easier to just change the engine pylon design and slap a software fix on for good measure. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why didn't they just make the landing gear taller? So how did Airbus do it. Just a more ready design? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2020 5:34:13 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So how did Airbus do it. Just a more ready design? B737 first flight in 1967. Designed with low bypass JT8D engines. Being low to the ground for easy loading was desirable at the time. A320, first flight in 1987 and designed from the beginning with larger diameter turbo fan engines. Also designed with stretched versions in mind. It's easy to make a better product when you can learn from 20 years of your competitors experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2020 6:38:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: B737 first flight in 1967. Designed with low bypass JT8D engines. Being low to the ground for easy loading was desirable at the time. A320, first flight in 1987 and designed from the beginning with larger diameter turbo fan engines. Also designed with stretched versions in mind. It's easy to make a better product when you can learn from 20 years of your competitors experience. What was their to "learn" from Boeing? How to use your market power to avoid innovating in the NB market? Then using government capture to snuff out domestic competition? The whole story of the 737 is that of an basic aircraft, that really didn't do great in the market, first saved by the USAF, then by Deregulation. So, the 737 is the story of Regulatory capture, nearly from the when the line was going to be sold to the Japanese, to the present day. Boeing had all sorts of opportunity to make a better NB aircraft, but was either mistimed the market, or was too tied to United and Southwest to look at better options. Boeing spent lots of time self-congratulating on the 737, and never really saying to itself "why is this aircraft selling, and how long will that last? How long can we trick fuck this design of a 1950s Regional Jet until we are out of engineering reserve?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 12:40:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 0% chance of flown by competent pilots. Flown on the Max many times, would fly again instantly without any of the new changes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "Good morning Captian aa. This is your preflight maintence briefing. Your aircraft clean. No open write ups. No defered items. Please do remember, this model has a one in fill in the blank. ________chance of activily trying to kill you for no apparent reason on this flight. Please enjoy your flight." At what ratio would you accept the flight? One in 10,000? One in 50,000? 0% chance of flown by competent pilots. Flown on the Max many times, would fly again instantly without any of the new changes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 7:58:41 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ohhhh I think you may want to look into all the changes Boeing is having to make. I have. In detail. Both the technical and training changes. For both the FAA and EASA. And I read it some time before I posted above. Let me state it again: I'd fly on the original design in a heartbeat as long as it's US citizens as pilots flying for a US airline. With the new changes in a half a heartbeat. Surely there have been other problems with transport category aircraft that were as bad if not far, far worse than this that did not wind up pillorying an aircraft manufacturer like this one did. Welcome to 21st Century mass and social media. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 9:22:53 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have. In detail. Both the technical and training changes. For both the FAA and EASA. And I read it some time before I posted above. Let me state it again: I'd fly on the original design in a heartbeat as long as it's US citizens as pilots flying for a US airline. With the new changes in a half a heartbeat. Surely there have been other problems with transport category aircraft that were as bad if not far, far worse than this that did not wind up pillorying an aircraft manufacturer like this one did. Welcome to 21st Century mass and social media. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ohhhh I think you may want to look into all the changes Boeing is having to make. I have. In detail. Both the technical and training changes. For both the FAA and EASA. And I read it some time before I posted above. Let me state it again: I'd fly on the original design in a heartbeat as long as it's US citizens as pilots flying for a US airline. With the new changes in a half a heartbeat. Surely there have been other problems with transport category aircraft that were as bad if not far, far worse than this that did not wind up pillorying an aircraft manufacturer like this one did. Welcome to 21st Century mass and social media. I mean sure, the DC10 had some teething problems too, but it received its COA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 11:05:26 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So your cool with the whole minimum redundant wire separation thing? I mean sure, the DC10 had some teething problems too, but it received its COA. "Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues." Didn't seem to bad enough for the FAA and EASA to ground all the NGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 11:23:48 AM EDT
[#36]
I just seen a 737max take off out of Goodyear on Wednesday, it just did a big circle and landed Again. They have a bunch of them stored here, its cool to see large planes take off and land here, it’s a pretty rare occurrence, and they seem to never fly again once here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 11:41:17 AM EDT
[#37]
United has stored several airplanes at GYR, along with other operators; hopefully they start flying them away soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 1:21:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So your cool with the whole minimum redundant wire separation thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 2:52:41 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues." Didn't seem to bad enough for the FAA and EASA to ground all the NGs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So your cool with the whole minimum redundant wire separation thing? I mean sure, the DC10 had some teething problems too, but it received its COA. "Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues." Didn't seem to bad enough for the FAA and EASA to ground all the NGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 6:46:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a strange way to justify it Not a justification, more of a statement that the max had gone through more scrutiny. The previous model, NG, has the same wiring bundle and they did not ground them (and are still allowing them to fly with this issue). I should have expanded a bit, due to the extreme attention and scrutiny by the faa, other regulatory agencies, just about every news agency, and many others the max got some special attention. Absolutely agree they should have done an and comparison or something; you'd think they would have learned from the hornet. But the reality was, any pilot who would have followed procedures would have safely flown the airplane. You didn't even need to be a good pilot, just able to follow procedures. This didn't require system knowledge. The potential for the problem existed on the original 73, the classic, the NG, and the max. Yes the potential was greater prior to the fix; big but there has been a procedure and ability to solve the issue since the beginning of the 73. The 73 is not the end all be all in transport category aircraft, there are better and there are worse. I like all of us will welcome a clean sheet aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 8:50:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Word
 QRH. Two switches. Problem solved. Unless you are a third world pilot with third world training and third world oversight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 8:55:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not a justification, more of a statement that the max had gone through more scrutiny. The previous model, NG, has the same wiring bundle and they did not ground them (and are still allowing them to fly with this issue). I should have expanded a bit, due to the extreme attention and scrutiny by the faa, other regulatory agencies, just about every news agency, and many others the max got some special attention. Absolutely agree they should have done an and comparison or something; you'd think they would have learned from the hornet. But the reality was, any pilot who would have followed procedures would have safely flown the airplane. You didn't even need to be a good pilot, just able to follow procedures. This didn't require system knowledge. The potential for the problem existed on the original 73, the classic, the NG, and the max. Yes the potential was greater prior to the fix; big but there has been a procedure and ability to solve the issue since the beginning of the 73. The 73 is not the end all be all in transport category aircraft, there are better and there are worse. I like all of us will welcome a clean sheet aircraft. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's a strange way to justify it Not a justification, more of a statement that the max had gone through more scrutiny. The previous model, NG, has the same wiring bundle and they did not ground them (and are still allowing them to fly with this issue). I should have expanded a bit, due to the extreme attention and scrutiny by the faa, other regulatory agencies, just about every news agency, and many others the max got some special attention. Absolutely agree they should have done an and comparison or something; you'd think they would have learned from the hornet. But the reality was, any pilot who would have followed procedures would have safely flown the airplane. You didn't even need to be a good pilot, just able to follow procedures. This didn't require system knowledge. The potential for the problem existed on the original 73, the classic, the NG, and the max. Yes the potential was greater prior to the fix; big but there has been a procedure and ability to solve the issue since the beginning of the 73. The 73 is not the end all be all in transport category aircraft, there are better and there are worse. I like all of us will welcome a clean sheet aircraft. I'm talking about all of the other deficiencies that have come up. The "we've always done it this way" is a classic engineering trap. OSPSEC and PERSEC come in to play to really discuss the issues |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2020 9:10:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You guys are talking about the causes of the crash, and I agree with you. I'm talking about all of the other deficiencies that have come up. The "we've always done it this way" is a classic engineering trap. OSPSEC and PERSEC come in to play to really discuss the issues I thought this was all about the cause of the crash....design that could have been better but ultimately pilots didn't follow procedures. There hasn't been that much that has come of the scrutiny. The airplane is almost the same, like 99% or better. They did find a couple more things. I think most of us agree that yes they should have done things differently (when it comes to engineering practices, acting on behalf of the faa, and a few other things); but at the end of the day there isn't some vast conspiracy at Boeing. They probably aren't far off any other publicly traded aviation company in the US if you account for size and scope. I do think this has pushed them to a clean sheet design; hopefully there isn't a max plus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2020 10:56:02 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have. In detail. Both the technical and training changes. For both the FAA and EASA. And I read it some time before I posted above. Let me state it again: I'd fly on the original design in a heartbeat as long as it's US citizens as pilots flying for a US airline. With the new changes in a half a heartbeat. Surely there have been other problems with transport category aircraft that were as bad if not far, far worse than this that did not wind up pillorying an aircraft manufacturer like this one did. Welcome to 21st Century mass and social media. Is this a bad time to bring up the Rudder Hard Overs? Because, in your vaunted original design, all of the King's Horses and All the King's Men couldn't have fixed that issue in the air under the conditions. And that was two hull losses as well. Luckily then, there was no accountability for Boeing, the NTSB and the USAir MEC as they slow rolled through the investigation (while floating crew related conspiracy theories.) Because, this seems like a bad time to bring up rudder hard overs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2020 10:57:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought this was all about the cause of the crash....design that could have been better but ultimately pilots didn't follow procedures. There hasn't been that much that has come of the scrutiny. The airplane is almost the same, like 99% or better. They did find a couple more things. I think most of us agree that yes they should have done things differently (when it comes to engineering practices, acting on behalf of the faa, and a few other things); but at the end of the day there isn't some vast conspiracy at Boeing. They probably aren't far off any other publicly traded aviation company in the US if you account for size and scope. I do think this has pushed them to a clean sheet design; hopefully there isn't a max plus. "Not a vast conspiracy?" Because the emails of Boeing's own employees paints that picture of regulatory capture run amok while the bureaucrats were asleep at the switch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2020 1:27:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Not a vast conspiracy?" Because the emails of Boeing's own employees paints that picture of regulatory capture run amok while the bureaucrats were asleep at the switch. Yes, not a conspiracy. Boeing didn't scheme, plot, and hide what they were doing - they were carrying out their procedures "in broad daylight." Broken procedures and crap-tastic oversight don't make a conspiracy. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2020 2:11:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, not a conspiracy. Boeing didn't scheme, plot, and hide what they were doing - they were carrying out their procedures "in broad daylight." Broken procedures and crap-tastic oversight don't make a conspiracy. Mike Yours is quite the narrow definition of “conspiracy.” In broad daylight, except when those emails talk about misleading hapless regulators. Well, we will agree to disagree then. I guess our common ground is Boeing is a shit company full of shitty employees with significant competency gaps and integrity issues from stem to stern. This, after the billions of public dollars thrown at them. Billions. Welfare cheats got nothing on Boeing corporate executives and management. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2020 2:47:50 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Think Boeing is going to need a new name, as 737 Max is Toxic. Remember the "jack screw" problem on DC9's back in the early 2000's? I wonder how the airlines tackled that one. ETA: Boeing still lists 737 Max on their website. ETA2: Within the details of the plane's site on Boeing.com, Boeing does, in fact, call it the 737-8 and 737-9. https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2020 3:35:08 PM EDT
[#49]
The MD-80 Jack screw incident was specific to Alaska Airlines maintenance procedures.
At the time TWA had one of every variation of MD-80 as ordered from Long Beach. Every MD-80 was ripped apart to look at the Jack screw. About 5 were found to have corrosion or other issues. Guess their former owner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2020 10:49:29 PM EDT
[#50]
That will be the 737-8 and 737-9.
Transparency is important. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
