User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/1/2020 11:12:07 PM EDT
[#1]
There are some MAX's on the move today. Not sure if back into service though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2020 11:28:52 PM EDT
[#2]
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. Well, if they shouldn't have a runaway trim, then I guess there is no reason to put it in the checklist. We can also do away with training our pilots more than your average automobile driver. Competent and well trained pilots would almost certainly have saved those aircraft - that's what they pay us for. Anything that moves on an aircraft is likely to fail sooner or later, and the more stuff added to make it "safer," the more stuff there is to fail. The trick is to ensure that there are procedures for when something fails. There were procedures for if/when the system failed in flight, and they were not followed by those two crews. In one of those two aircraft, the system failed on the previous flight - the appropriate procedure WAS used in that case and the aircraft safely returned to base, where the airline failed to fix or even document it for the next crew (manufacturer and airline protocols both required that the aircraft not be flown again until the failure was corrected). Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 12:24:01 AM EDT
[#3]
We got our first new Max acceptance check tonight.
Nose gear is 8" taller btw. Suppose to be getting a new Max every 4 days for next few weeks that I know of. Some of the other lines are also getting them from what I heard.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 12:33:25 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We got our first new Max acceptance check tonight. Nose gear is 8" taller btw. Suppose to be getting a new Max every 4 days for next few weeks that I know of. Some of the other lines are also getting them from what I heard. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/155838/DD4A0E78-4E7B-4788-A16F-5805B4509509_jpe-1725280.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/155838/A3D0A37F-28F6-45DA-BEF0-CF4365E16F08_jpe-1725281.JPG That fan is a work of art, I've never been close to another equivalent but it's amazing. According to what I've been told by mechanics the entire fan disk has to be replaced/ removed if one blade gets damaged, that is going to be expensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 1:09:49 AM EDT
[#5]
I'm scheduled for my MAX training in January, after I come back from my leave of absence. Sounds like a repeat of things we have done in NG sim before, with some "this is how the new MCAS software works" thrown in for fun. Guess I'll need to charge my iPad, and do the 1:40 distance learning at some point.
I can't say I'm real happy about having memory items to deal with again, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 7:29:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That fan is a work of art, I've never been close to another equivalent but it's amazing. According to what I've been told by mechanics the entire fan disk has to be replaced/ removed if one blade gets damaged, that is going to be expensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 8:55:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We got our first new Max acceptance check tonight. Nose gear is 8" taller btw. Suppose to be getting a new Max every 4 days for next few weeks that I know of. Some of the other lines are also getting them from what I heard. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/155838/DD4A0E78-4E7B-4788-A16F-5805B4509509_jpe-1725280.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/155838/A3D0A37F-28F6-45DA-BEF0-CF4365E16F08_jpe-1725281.JPG New ones from Boeing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 9:10:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Yep, they are leaving Boeing again. There is a backlog.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2020 2:52:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, they are leaving Boeing again. There is a backlog. There are over 90 new airplanes "on the shelf" that are not yet sold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2020 2:35:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are over 90 new airplanes "on the shelf" that are not yet sold. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yep, they are leaving Boeing again. There is a backlog. There are over 90 new airplanes "on the shelf" that are not yet sold. I hope Delta buys a bunch after getting rid of our MD88, 90 and 717. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2020 8:24:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Don't forget the orange ocean... my last count of MAX fuselages sitting on the ground at McConnell was over 100, though it has been a few months since I last counted while flying over. Lots of airplanes ready to be built!
Found an old pic I had, probably from last Winter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2020 11:07:07 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm scheduled for my MAX training in January, after I come back from my leave of absence. Sounds like a repeat of things we have done in NG sim before, with some "this is how the new MCAS software works" thrown in for fun. Guess I'll need to charge my iPad, and do the 1:40 distance learning at some point. I can't say I'm real happy about having memory items to deal with again, however. The good news is they are easy to remember despite the hearing loss and back pain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2020 12:13:18 AM EDT
[#13]
Boeing hires pilots to assist customers with Max and other models: report
This is a little different take than the story I read earlier today, there was no hint that a foreign company was contracting the service. I'm not surprised, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2021 4:58:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2021 4:59:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't. Seat of the pants flying went away with the launch of the Northrop Alpha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2021 6:44:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't. I believe it is 250 hours for commercial and 1500 for ATP, not counting simulator time. It is true most pilots today have had training in the sim, but you still have to fly. Most training is done in the sim for type ratings, but by the time your getting types and other ratings your time training in an airplane is greater than your time training in a simulator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 11:25:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is 250 hours for commercial and 1500 for ATP, not counting simulator time. It is true most pilots today have had training in the sim, but you still have to fly. Most training is done in the sim for type ratings, but by the time your getting types and other ratings your time training in an airplane is greater than your time training in a simulator. Depending on your training source. For a R-ATP, 750 hours TT/200 X-C for a military aviator, approved university aviation program is 1000 TT/200 X-C, and other college programs 1250 TT/200 X-C. Us Part 61 ghetto dwellers still require 1500...the traditional ICAO standard ATPL mins. There are relative few "professional" turbine jobs for the people with 250 to 750/1000/1250/1500 hours, and likely for the next few years, even fewer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 7:45:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't. And your basing those statements based on what experience? As side note: Sully is a self righteous prick that had all his "electric gadgets" working sans two running engines and got lucky, had he balled that jet up in the Hudson and drowned/ killed everyone he wouldn't be so revered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 7:52:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And your basing those statements based on what experience? As side note: Sully is a self righteous prick that had all his "electric gadgets" working sans two running engines and got lucky, had be balled that jet up in the Hudson and drowned/ killed everyone he wouldn't be so revered. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't. And your basing those statements based on what experience? As side note: Sully is a self righteous prick that had all his "electric gadgets" working sans two running engines and got lucky, had be balled that jet up in the Hudson and drowned/ killed everyone he wouldn't be so revered. Obvious statement is obvious. Had the USA hockey team not beat the Soviets in 1980 they wouldn't be so revered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 9:10:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As side note: Sully is a self righteous prick that had all his "electric gadgets" working sans two running engines and got lucky, had he balled that jet up in the Hudson and drowned/ killed everyone he wouldn't be so revered. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2021 12:07:11 PM EDT
[#21]
And I believe he didn't hit the one button designed for the scenario, ditching button.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2021 4:17:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't. I spent my "ghetto dwelling" time in tail wheel airplanes and in my transition to jets, felt as if I didn't belong in the same class as some of my other colleagues. Their experience sounded much better in the verbal intoduction to the rest of the new hire class. I quickly found out while observing the sim session of the guys I looked up to, the seat of the pants comment was exactly the case. Although I don't disagree with the statement, Sullenberger is a douche canoe and I myself don't care to be compared to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 6:25:34 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 12:16:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nowadays, most commerical pilots have been trained mostly on simulators. Many, if not most, couldn't fly by the seat of their pants if all those electronic gadgets quite working. This is especially true with foreign third world pilots. A Sullenberger they ain't. I believe this is a false stereotype. I’ve got 1,700 hrs fixed wing (350 Turbine PIC) and another maybe 60-70 in simulators. The same story for most of the guys I work with. We fly all steam gauge and about half of our fleet doesn’t have autopilot. Maybe it’s different but from my experience flying turboprops we just use the simulator to get the major bugs worked out, do a type ride, and then off to OE. We do vastly more training in AC compared to sims, but our operating costs are also much lower than ATP type flights. We are also zero percent reliant on fancy electronic gadgets as we don’t have any in the first place. And I know my former flight instructor friends who made it to the airlines before COVID can fly without their fancy gadgets they have. Keeping Chinese students from killing you for 1,500 hrs in aircraft ranging to G1000 Seminoles to steam gauge clapped out 152s will give you flying skills, so I disagree with the overall point that many/most new commercial pilots are unable to fly by the seat of their pants. I would say the ones who can’t, and I know they’re out there, likely pencil whipped their logbooks or wasted a lot of time as a safety pilot, etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2021 11:50:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Asked a pilot today how he liked the MAXX, he said it's like the NG but burns 4000lb/hr less fuel.
True? No Wonder they want to get this thing back into service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 12:09:32 AM EDT
[#26]
So, when should I buy Boeing stock???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 1:32:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asked a pilot today how he liked the MAXX, he said it's like the NG but burns 4000lb/hr less fuel. True? No Wonder they want to get this thing back into service. They are more fuel efficient. The cockpit is much nicer, there is an ability to see maintenance data, flaps 40 has better lateral/directional characteristics, better wingtip clearance (depending on the tips installed on the NG), cabin is nicer (lighting is improved, UA luggage bins hold about twice as much now, though some late model NGs have the same bins), there some other flight control improvements, and probably more I am forgetting; best of all it is a new airplane, not a work out one. Forgot one I realized today that is considered a large improvement by some. At high altitude the pressurization schedule is different, at 380 it was showing about 6.5 in the cabin, NG will be closer to 8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2021 9:14:50 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asked a pilot today how he liked the MAXX, he said it's like the NG but burns 4000lb/hr less fuel. True? No Wonder they want to get this thing back into service. They are more fuel efficient, but That’s an exaggeration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 9:28:49 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And I believe he didn't hit the one button designed for the scenario, ditching button. Wasn't really Sullys job at that point. His job was to fly the plane. Pushing that button was a task at the bottom of a rather long QRH procedure being performed by the FO in a time critical situation. As it turns out, pushing the button wouldn't have improved their situation anyways. Nonetheless, that QRH procedure was rewritten to put that particular task closer to the top. Now something else in the procedure won't be accomplished the next time someone decides to put one in the drink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:32:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wasn't really Sullys job at that point. His job was to fly the plane. Pushing that button was a task at the bottom of a rather long QRH procedure being performed by the FO in a time critical situation. As it turns out, pushing the button wouldn't have improved their situation anyways. Nonetheless, that QRH procedure was rewritten to put that particular task closer to the top. Now something else in the procedure won't be accomplished the next time someone decides to put one in the drink. I know, but it is one of those buttons you see all the time that you think well if ever I ditch they made a button just for that. It wasn't me being critical of his performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:42:23 AM EDT
[#31]
I for one am relieved the FAA has signed off on the improvements.
The same FAA that signed off on the original design. The same FAA whose employees incur zero liability. Yeah, that's some real strong regulatory work there Lou. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:33:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I for one am relieved the FAA has signed off on the improvements. The same FAA that signed off on the original design. The same FAA whose employees incur zero liability. Yeah, that's some real strong regulatory work there Lou. In theory the FAA incurs zero liability because there has to be a regulatory and liability backstop somewhere, or its turtles all the way down. So, if an operator or manufacturer is compliant with the FAA minimums, they are not negligent, because if the minimum isn't good enough, why is it the minimum? This whole construct only works if the FAA is being an even moderately active player in the regulatory process, and not having the manufacturer or operator do the homework and check it too, which has frankly been the case at Southwest, Boeing, Atlas and Colgan...all examples of egregiously poor oversight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 9:42:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I for one am relieved the FAA has signed off on the improvements. The same FAA that signed off on the original design. The same FAA whose employees incur zero liability. Yeah, that's some real strong regulatory work there Lou. Yawn. If the aircraft had never been sold to third world operators none of this would have ever happened. It was good enough for competent pilots. Not perfect. Good enough. We should not dumb down, i.e. make regulations so strict that it becomes cost prohibitive to certify a design just because the rest of the world can't train their pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2021 10:47:53 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yawn. If the aircraft had never been sold to third world operators none of this would have ever happened. It was good enough for competent pilots. Not perfect. Good enough. We should not dumb down, i.e. make regulations so strict that it becomes cost prohibitive to certify a design just because the rest of the world can't train their pilots. Having two AOA sensors isn't "dumbing down." Going through the correct regulatory process isn't "dumbing down." Ensuring that simulators reflect the aircraft and don't hide significant changes to ensure sales isn't "dumbing down." Had there just been Lion Air, Boeing likely would have walked on the whole thing, esp. if they had been smart enough to AD a second AoA sensor along with software upgrades. But, it wasn't just LionAir. If Boeing thinks the rest of the world is going to let Boeing walk on their Due Diligence, especially when it gets those countries off the regulatory hook and accesses Boeing's deep pockets, well, they are wrong. Stupidly wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2021 12:19:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Having two AOA sensors isn't "dumbing down." Going through the correct regulatory process isn't "dumbing down." Ensuring that simulators reflect the aircraft and don't hide significant changes to ensure sales isn't "dumbing down." Had there just been Lion Air, Boeing likely would have walked on the whole thing, esp. if they had been smart enough to AD a second AoA sensor along with software upgrades. But, it wasn't just LionAir. If Boeing thinks the rest of the world is going to let Boeing walk on their Due Diligence, especially when it gets those countries off the regulatory hook and accesses Boeing's deep pockets, well, they are wrong. Stupidly wrong. Every 737 ever built has two AOA sensors. In the past, each one provided data to it's onside FCC, and they didn't cross talk, or compare. The big head shaker with the MAX, is why they let one FCC have that much stab trim authority with data from only one sensor. No argument that Boeing owns the design and certification issues, but I still maintain that both crews should have been to save the airplanes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2021 12:39:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every 737 ever built has two AOA sensors. In the past, each one provided data to it's onside FCC, and they didn't cross talk, or compare. The big head shaker with the MAX, is why they let one FCC have that much stab trim authority with data from only one sensor. No argument that Boeing owns the design and certification issues, but I still maintain that both crews should have been to save the airplanes. I guess my issue is this is the second time the 737 started killing people for no good reason... Luckily, it wasn't Americans that were killed or the NTSB would have run interference for Boeing, again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2021 12:57:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess my issue is this is the second time the 737 started killing people for no good reason... Luckily, it wasn't Americans that were killed or the NTSB would have run interference for Boeing, again. I don't think thats strictly an American thing. The DGAC has run interference for Airbus once or twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2021 4:45:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every 737 ever built has two AOA sensors. In the past, each one provided data to it's onside FCC, and they didn't cross talk, or compare. The big head shaker with the MAX, is why they let one FCC have that much stab trim authority with data from only one sensor. No argument that Boeing owns the design and certification issues, but I still maintain that both crews should have been to save the airplanes. Yep they all have had two AoA probes, just didn't do an and comparison like they should have. They lost an f18 (and pilot) for the same reason. In the case of the 737 they should have been able to fly the airplane (as on the first one numerous other aircrew did for the repeat gripe). The f18 was on a cat shot, no chance. Perhaps the faa can recommend anytime multiple AoAs are on a plane and comparisons are done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2021 6:23:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think thats strictly an American thing. The DGAC has run interference for Airbus once or twice. Oh, I don't doubt it. That said, one, I think we should be better than that...and two, when the NTSB does it, it inherently picks winners and losers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2021 3:16:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asked a pilot today how he liked the MAXX, he said it's like the NG but burns 4000lb/hr less fuel. True? No Wonder they want to get this thing back into service. Max 9, 120,000 lb, 370, 0.78, ff was about 2000 pph per side, maybe slightly less. The NG 900 er hows 2400 pph per side in the same condition. So about 800 pph difference total; significant difference. Trying to figure out the A320 perf tables to see how it compares, it has NAM? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2021 3:29:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Max 9, 120,000 lb, 370, 0.78, ff was about 2000 pph per side, maybe slightly less. The NG 900 er hows 2400 pph per side in the same condition. So about 800 pph difference total; significant difference. Trying to figure out the A320 perf tables to see how it compares, it has NAM? That's pretty comparable to a 320NEO in cruise...about 4000 lbs/hour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2021 5:29:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's pretty comparable to a 320NEO in cruise...about 4000 lbs/hour. We were super light, no pax no cargo |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2021 5:35:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We were super light, no pax no cargo That’s at cruise 360-390 with a paying load. |
|
|
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.
