Being 737 max8....an explanation and asking should it ever been flying?

rollin

"Just playin golf pally"
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,619
Reaction score
1,113
Location
planet earth, milky way galaxy
Handicap
15.7
Ok so we all know of the two aircraft crashes. While the latest determination is not 100% it is believed that the causes were likely due to sensor malfunctions (incorrect readings) which triggered the MCAS system to force the noise of the planes down.

For those not too familiar with the information about the plane or the system let me touch on just what its about. (as I understand it)

And so the 737 had some redesign a few years back which is why it was called the max8 as that in itself is the redesign model of the 737. The redesign included an engine upgrade. The larger more efficient engines under the wings would have been too close to the ground if simply placed where the old engines were. So Boeing moved them forward just enough in front of the wings in order to raise them up and maintain ground clearance. Because of this new engine placement it is said the aircraft in "certain situations" may have tendency to want to pitch the "nose-up". And if the plane noses up too much it can possibly risk stall. That part would be true of most any commercial jetliner not just the max8 but the others wouldn't have possible tendency to nose-up and there in lies a difference due to the new engine placement. One those situations where this could happen would be when in climb after take off.

Stall (to clarify) doesn't mean engine failure but means (aerodynamic stall) inability to maintain lift via the wings. Its an air stall, not an engine stall. Basically....no lift, no fly.

Ok so, in light of this possibility to nose up , Boeing installed and MCAS system to prevent this. The system utilized "angle of attack" sensors on the nose of the aircraft and if they indicated too much pitch coming too close to stall angle the MCAS system would automatically engage to turn the aircraft nose down. Of course not down towards the ground but simply down enough from its higher pitch so that stall would not occur and lift would be maintained.

It is believed the MCAS system actually did the jobs it was suppose to do. But it is believed it did so based on false and/or crossed up sensor readings. basically the sensors failed, not technically the MCAS. And so with false input from the sensors the MCAS consistently tries to nose down thinking its too high when it actually wasn't. This created a battle between pilots and computer and causing nosing up and down of the aircrafts (perhaps roller coasting for lack of a better term). And unfortunately the computer won the battle but of course lost the war as disaster was the end result.

All it would have taken was a simple button to push to disengage the system and the pilots would have taken over. We can talk probably forever about pilot training. And whether the airline companies hold some blame for that lack of training about the system and what to do in an emergency or whether it was more Boeing who could have insisted on the training. From what ive gathered there was also a couple other optional indirectly related installed things that would have likely prevented this which some airlines purchased with the aircraft and others didn't. Those debates can go on for ever.

before I get into what has me bothered let me say that airliners nowadays are far more computerized than most people even come close to thinking. The modern liners today basically fly themselves. Airbus actually utilizes more computer controlled flight from take off through arrival than Boeing does. Boeing believes a bit more in pilot input while Airbus uses a bit more automation. But planes can and do even land themselves in blind visibility. Like it or not, things are just simply that automated today. There is certainly an uneasy feeling about that imo. But its also known that human error (in the past) was the majority cause of disasters. So which way is best? or has it now gone too far the other way? I don't really know and is a whole other worthy discussion in itself.

But as for what got me questioning whether this aircraft should even been flying is this. I keep getting stuck on this.
If a plane (due to a redesign) now had a tendency to pitch up in certain circumstances (like after take off) and might do so enough so that an air stall might become an issue, and enough that it required a system (MCAS) to combat it, then how the heck is that considered air worthy? That part really bothers me. This is not a scenario where lets say an engine was lost and now a computer helps right the plane considering one side now has drag and dead weight while the other side has thrust. Or any other failed scenario where a special (or emergency type) circumstance appeared. This imo is instead a flaw in flight design in itself. I mean if in a climb with nose up and the plane itself (by its own physical flying characteristics) has potential to nose itself up too much where risk of stall becomes a concern, then how in the world is that considered air worthy for use by commercial flight? Remember this isn't military but this is commercial. Two different purposes there.

Contrary to what it is that is bothering me I would actually trust the software and if any hardware fix they come up with to prevent this from happening again. And the sensors and the MCAS system would also help if pilot error raised the planes nose too high an angle too. But Im still stuck on the fact that (to me) we shouldn't really commercially be flying in planes that have tendency (via its very own physical flying design) to do anything that puts air stall at risk or anything at risk. Imo the plane aerodynamics in itself shouldnt have tendency to do anything outside of pilot input that would require corrective fixes. Not unless there was loss of engine or damage to aircraft, etc... Those are things that need to be corrected when they should ever happen. But to implant a system to address an aerodynamic flying flaw in itself just seems wrong to me even if its a trustworthy fix.

That just doesn't make sense. Boeing in all its great and glorious air history I feel made a bad choice here. They needed (at the time) to compete in that one specific type and size mid range airliner class with a plane that Airbus put out and Boeing was behind and pressed. The only way to a solution was to modify the 737 (hence the max 8). There is only so much you can do when modifying because once too many things are done it is now considered a new airplane. Its tweaking instead of reinventing. And once reinvented its longer the same aircraft and requires new or redesigned facility to build the new design and also needs new complete certification. That is a lot of money and years to take place. So the answer was to modify and its not like this hasn't been done in the past. That's why there are several versions of many planes with the same model numbers. I cant even say how many versions of the 747 there were/are but its a whole lot. The 737 is no exception. There were/are numerous versions. But this one time.....the modification seems to me (because of this flight flaw) which required something to specifically combat the flaw issue perhaps shouldn't have been allowed.
 
Being 737 max8....an explanation and asking should it ever been flying?

Or the pilots, based on poor handling under extreme pressure, didn’t do the right thing. This feels like the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” type argument. If this is such a huge problem, why weren’t Southwest, American or United max 8/9 planes falling out of the sky? Or any of the other thousands of flights conducted by these planes without incident since they were produced.

The reaction to all of this feels like economic warfare to me. First the Chinese and then all of Europe start complaining and crying this plane isn’t safe. Then they ban the planes. Boeing’s stock starts dropping and people don’t want to fly these planes. Who benefits? Airbus? China who’s trying to develop a competitor?

Didn’t the Air France Airbus plane that crashed in the Atlantic have similar flight control laws (albeit not the Boeing MCAS system). Every single airbus a319,a320,a330 and a340 I believe uses those flight control laws to do the same type of thing. Where was the outrage and outright banning of those planes “until a fix was made”

Somewhere people became outright stupid and don’t understand statistics anymore. Maybe those two planes had faulty sensors, and those planes had inexperienced pilots. It’s never one thing that causes a crash it’s many all together that add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Or the pilots, based on poor handling under extreme pressure, didn’t do the right thing. This feels like the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” type argument. If this is such a huge problem, why weren’t Southwest, American or United max 8/9 planes falling out of the sky? Or any of the other thousands of flights conducted by these planes without incident since they were produced.

The reaction to all of this feels like economic warfare to me. First the Chinese and then all of Europe start complaining and crying this plane isn’t safe. Then they ban the planes. Boeing’s stock starts dropping and people don’t want to fly these planes. Who benefits? Airbus? China who’s trying to develop a competitor?

Didn’t the Air France Airbus plane that crashed in the Atlantic have similar flight control laws (albeit not the Boeing MCAS system). Every single airbus a319,a320,a330 and a340 I believe uses those flight control laws to do the same type of thing. Where was the outrage and outright banning of those planes “until a fix was made”

Somewhere people became outright stupid and don’t understand statistics anymore. Maybe those two planes had faulty sensors, and those planes had inexperienced pilots. It’s never one thing that causes a crash it’s many all together that add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your post is 100 percent spot on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can't comment with any real sense of authority. But the fact thay I haven't seen any pilots say it is unsafe speaks volumes to me.
 
Also just out of curiosity, Rollin do work in aerodynamics or work as a pilot? Or is this just a case of you doing a lot of google research?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can't comment with any real sense of authority. But the fact thay I haven't seen any pilots say it is unsafe speaks volumes to me.

yeah I can't comment on it really either. I've flown in Max 8's, heck went to and from Ireland in one back in October, and several SW flights around the country. I defer to those who are either pilots on here or those who work on planes.
 
Being 737 max8....an explanation and asking should it ever been flying?

I love how the media pours gasoline onto the fire. Take the southwest flight out of Orlando a couple weeks ago. It was a max 8 being flown to Vacaville, California to basically sit in the desert until everyone comes to their senses. Pilot and copilot only on board. It had an engine problem and the news shot right to the top of every news website like it was some huge emergency. Plane landed totally fine, appeared in no danger but it fit the bill. The MO right now is this plane is unsafe. No proof whatsoever. Hey, if we look close enough I bet a couple tires here and there may be getting worn down. Probably should report that too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Case in point. Anybody heard anything else about that Atlas Air 767 that fell out of the sky in Texas flying for Amazon?? Are 767s unsafe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Also just out of curiosity, Rollin do work in aerodynamics or work as a pilot? Or is this just a case of you doing a lot of google research?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, Im not any pilot. My dad was a private pilot of small single engine private prop aircraft just for fun. But due to that I have a lot of interest, infatuation, and generally really always like and appreciate all there is about flying. Basically i think its awesome. As for my info offered in this thread its just due to research. Im no engineer nor any professional in the aviation fled. Only that I have interest in it is all.
 
I also think it's pretty telling that the more recent plane experienced the exact same issues the day before, MD the pilots on board was unable to correct it, fortunately a pilot from another airline jump seating was able to diagnose and correct it.

2 points of interest
1) another pilot, who was likely better trained, knew what to do.
2) that plane wasn't removed for maintenance, telling you how seriously that airline took maintenance and safety.
 
Or the pilots, based on poor handling under extreme pressure, didn’t do the right thing. This feels like the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” type argument. If this is such a huge problem, why weren’t Southwest, American or United max 8/9 planes falling out of the sky? Or any of the other thousands of flights conducted by these planes without incident since they were produced.

The reaction to all of this feels like economic warfare to me. First the Chinese and then all of Europe start complaining and crying this plane isn’t safe. Then they ban the planes. Boeing’s stock starts dropping and people don’t want to fly these planes. Who benefits? Airbus? China who’s trying to develop a competitor?

Didn’t the Air France Airbus plane that crashed in the Atlantic have similar flight control laws (albeit not the Boeing MCAS system). Every single airbus a319,a320,a330 and a340 I believe uses those flight control laws to do the same type of thing. Where was the outrage and outright banning of those planes “until a fix was made”

Somewhere people became outright stupid and don’t understand statistics anymore. Maybe those two planes had faulty sensors, and those planes had inexperienced pilots. It’s never one thing that causes a crash it’s many all together that add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Airbus Air France accident in 2009 (I assume is what your speaking of). Did indeed have malfunction of the readings from the pitot tubes (exterior mounted devices) which determine air speed. They are actually (fwiw to those who may not know) mechanical devices which work on physical air pressure differentials , not computer sensors and have been around for just about ever. They believe ice crystals caused them to register incorrectly. The plane then (via computer system) based on those readings disengaged the auto pilot and from that point the pilots made incorrect decisions which ultimately ended in failure. So this is imo very different in the sense that in these latest events the computer didn't give the plane back to the pilots but instead engaged another automated system which on its own kept bringing the nose down. And so the one incident (Air france) the computer sensed air speed trouble (which was faklse and not there) and gave the plane back to the pilots. The two max8 situations , the computer sensed pitch trouble (which was also false and not there) but took over its own corrective action by engaging the MCAS. So those are two very different scenarios. But the other fact that makes this very different is that this MCAS system was installed on the aircraft because with its latest modification has a known potential physical flying design flaw incorporated into the aircraft. basically hen pitched nose up the more forward engines thrust would tend to make it pitch nose up even more than desired and even possibly to the point of stall. Again,...this is what has me somewhat stuck on whether or not that should have been ok to allow in the first place.

So yea,while in this thread we can certainly discuss pilots and politics and economics and there is a lot to say about all of it. But I get stuck on whether or not the modified version of the plane with its flaw should have been Ok'd for use. (or not).
 
Last edited:
I played golf with a commercial pilot last week and he filled me in from a pilots perspective. Basically, the info Rollin found through research is correct. With that said, he told me that an experienced pilot would have recognized the plane is overcorrecting the sensed stall and turned the system off so he could "fly the plane". Essentially correcting its flight path and then re-engaging the auto system.

He went on to say that this happens during climbing after takeoff; the engines are at full throttle gaining altitude and the power of the engines overwhelm the aerodynamics of the plane, causing the nose to rise too fast. The MCAS system then engages as designed and corrects the plane, albeit overcorrecting.
 
Oh man. My kind of post.
I’ve got 9000 hours flying 737’s including the max.
I’m going to be home soon and dive into this post with my laptop.
Standby for further.
 
Here’s a good article on the real problem with the max:

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

The max problem is a deep one. If you read this article you'll see Boeing felt the pressure of getting something in the air to compete with the airbus neo. The problem with the new 737 is that with the bigger engines, the required ground clearance didn't exist on the current NG airframe. So they basically pumped up the nose gear and moved the engines forward to get the required clearance. In doing that they had to design a system (MCAS) that would counteract any potential and unsafe nose high characteristics while the airplane is flown manually with no autopilot. Unfortunately, the MCAS system and authority of it is flawed. Going off a single AOA (Angle of attack) indicator instead of 2 was a mistake. It was an option to have it read off both but in the days of cost conscious airlines, I'm not sure any airline paid for that option. Also the authority of the AND and the stabilizer trim was too much. When the stabilizer is completely out of trim for the current flight conditions, it could take 60kg of force to manually move the trim wheel. That's a 2 pilot effort. Tests conducted recently in the sim with the accident conditions revealed that it couldn't 't be done over 300 kts.
Another issue was the pressure from the big 737 customers to make a new model that would allow it's pilots to simply take a difference course on computer based training rather than get a completely new type rating that involves a full ground school and simulator training sessions. Around a 6 week process for each pilot. There's no way any carrier would have done this. Simply economically and basically impossible.

The max airplane is a mess for Boeing.
 
Last edited:
Capt Dave, seriously what is the confidence level between 9000 hours and 200 in a cockpit? About the same as I felt the day I got my drivers license 24 years ago vs today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All it would have taken was a simple button to push to disengage the system and the pilots would have taken over. We can talk probably forever about pilot training. And whether the airline companies hold some blame for that lack of training about the system and what to do in an emergency or whether it was more Boeing who could have insisted on the training. From what ive gathered there was also a couple other optional indirectly related installed things that would have likely prevented this which some airlines purchased with the aircraft and others didn't. Those debates can go on for ever.

before I get into what has me bothered let me say that airliners nowadays are far more computerized than most people even come close to thinking. The modern liners today basically fly themselves. Airbus actually utilizes more computer controlled flight from take off through arrival than Boeing does. Boeing believes a bit more in pilot input while Airbus uses a bit more automation. But planes can and do even land themselves in blind visibility. Like it or not, things are just simply that automated today. There is certainly an uneasy feeling about that imo. But its also known that human error (in the past) was the majority cause of disasters. So which way is best? or has it now gone too far the other way? I don't really know and is a whole other worthy discussion in itself.

But as for what got me questioning whether this aircraft should even been flying is this. I keep getting stuck on this.
If a plane (due to a redesign) now had a tendency to pitch up in certain circumstances (like after take off) and might do so enough so that an air stall might become an issue, and enough that it required a system (MCAS) to combat it, then how the heck is that considered air worthy? That part really bothers me. This is not a scenario where lets say an engine was lost and now a computer helps right the plane considering one side now has drag and dead weight while the other side has thrust. Or any other failed scenario where a special (or emergency type) circumstance appeared. This imo is instead a flaw in flight design in itself. I mean if in a climb with nose up and the plane itself (by its own physical flying characteristics) has potential to nose itself up too much where risk of stall becomes a concern, then how in the world is that considered air worthy for use by commercial flight? Remember this isn't military but this is commercial. Two different purposes there.

Contrary to what it is that is bothering me I would actually trust the software and if any hardware fix they come up with to prevent this from happening again. And the sensors and the MCAS system would also help if pilot error raised the planes nose too high an angle too. But Im still stuck on the fact that (to me) we shouldn't really commercially be flying in planes that have tendency (via its very own physical flying design) to do anything that puts air stall at risk or anything at risk. Imo the plane aerodynamics in itself shouldnt have tendency to do anything outside of pilot input that would require corrective fixes. Not unless there was loss of engine or damage to aircraft, etc... Those are things that need to be corrected when they should ever happen. But to implant a system to address an aerodynamic flying flaw in itself just seems wrong to me even if its a trustworthy fix.

That just doesn't make sense. Boeing in all its great and glorious air history I feel made a bad choice here. They needed (at the time) to compete in that one specific type and size mid range airliner class with a plane that Airbus put out and Boeing was behind and pressed. The only way to a solution was to modify the 737 (hence the max 8). There is only so much you can do when modifying because once too many things are done it is now considered a new airplane. Its tweaking instead of reinventing. And once reinvented its longer the same aircraft and requires new or redesigned facility to build the new design and also needs new complete certification. That is a lot of money and years to take place. So the answer was to modify and its not like this hasn't been done in the past. That's why there are several versions of many planes with the same model numbers. I cant even say how many versions of the 747 there were/are but its a whole lot. The 737 is no exception. There were/are numerous versions. But this one time.....the modification seems to me (because of this flight flaw) which required something to specifically combat the flaw issue perhaps shouldn't have been allowed.

Yes airplanes are very computerized however as professional pilots, we continuously strive to maintain the "hands and feet aspect" of flying. As a commercial pilot that has flown the early 200 generation of 737, to the most recent NG's and max's, I guarantee these advances in technology and computers significantly improves safety and flying.

As for your tweaking comment, I agree but I've put most of my thoughts for that in my previous post.

Or the pilots, based on poor handling under extreme pressure, didn’t do the right thing. This feels like the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” type argument. If this is such a huge problem, why weren’t Southwest, American or United max 8/9 planes falling out of the sky? Or any of the other thousands of flights conducted by these planes without incident since they were produced.

Didn’t the Air France Airbus plane that crashed in the Atlantic have similar flight control laws (albeit not the Boeing MCAS system). Every single airbus a319,a320,a330 and a340 I believe uses those flight control laws to do the same type of thing. Where was the outrage and outright banning of those planes “until a fix was made”

Somewhere people became outright stupid and don’t understand statistics anymore. Maybe those two planes had faulty sensors, and those planes had inexperienced pilots. It’s never one thing that causes a crash it’s many all together that add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Apparently there were several events of the MCAS fault with the max but they were all handled properly. The MCAS system is flawed and needs to be fixed however training and experience of North American crews is top notch and all carriers around here are on top of it. We had several memos and checklist changes to address the MCAS fault. The problem with these accidents is that you had inexperienced crews. On the Ethiopian crash the pilots did flick the switches off however it was too far into the nose down events (3) and by that time the stabilizer was so far out of trim that the FO couldn't move the trim wheel manually. Again 60kg of force would require 2 pilots. Now also, theres a lot of alarms and warnings going off in the flight deck during this event so it's not a matter of putting down your coffee and flicking the switches off. It's about not being distracted by these warnings and problem solving. That's where experience and training comes in. I've seen a lot over my 17 years of flying Boeings. The key is to recognize the main fault and control the airplane.

I can't comment with any real sense of authority. But the fact thay I haven't seen any pilots say it is unsafe speaks volumes to me.

It's not an unsafe airplane but the MCAS system is faulty. Simply limiting it's authority and fixing the software to compare both AofA's is really all that's required. Trust me, any 737 pilot will now be completely aware of the MCAS and recovery technique.

I played golf with a commercial pilot last week and he filled me in from a pilots perspective. Basically, the info Rollin found through research is correct. With that said, he told me that an experienced pilot would have recognized the plane is overcorrecting the sensed stall and turned the system off so he could "fly the plane". Essentially correcting its flight path and then re-engaging the auto system.

He went on to say that this happens during climbing after takeoff; the engines are at full throttle gaining altitude and the power of the engines overwhelm the aerodynamics of the plane, causing the nose to rise too fast. The MCAS system then engages as designed and corrects the plane, albeit overcorrecting.

Correct on your first paragraph. As for your second paragraph, the engines don't overwhelm the aerodynamics of the airplane. We simply trim the airplane to keep it at a certain pitch angle and or airspeed. The MCAS system only works when the autopilot is off and the flaps are up. If it engages and is counter to what we need it to be doing, we disconnect the electric and autopilot trim switches. Again though there would be several other indications and failures that truly don't exist such as an impending stall. When the AofA indicator malfunctions, the associated side (Captain or FO) would give us erroneous readings and the MCAS would feed off that. With the software fix, that will no longer be a problem. Again here, it's about troubleshooting and recognition. We still have the opposite side that works and a standby indicator that also we reference to diagnose.

The Airbus Air France accident in 2009 (I assume is what your speaking of). Did indeed have malfunction of the readings from the pitot tubes (exterior mounted devices) which determine air speed. They are actually (fwiw to those who may not know) mechanical devices which work on physical air pressure differentials , not computer sensors and have been around for just about ever. They believe ice crystals caused them to register incorrectly. The plane then (via computer system) based on those readings disengaged the auto pilot and from that point the pilots made incorrect decisions which ultimately ended in failure. So this is imo very different in the sense that in these latest events the computer didn't give the plane back to the pilots but instead engaged another automated system which on its own kept bringing the nose down. And so the one incident (Air france) the computer sensed air speed trouble (which was faklse and not there) and gave the plane back to the pilots. The two max8 situations , the computer sensed pitch trouble (which was also false and not there) but took over its own corrective action by engaging the MCAS. So those are two very different scenarios. But the other fact that makes this very different is that this MCAS system was installed on the aircraft because with its latest modification has a known potential physical flying design flaw incorporated into the aircraft. basically hen pitched nose up the more forward engines thrust would tend to make it pitch nose up even more than desired and even possibly to the point of stall. Again,...this is what has me somewhat stuck on whether or not that should have been ok to allow in the first place.

So yea,while in this thread we can certainly discuss pilots and politics and economics and there is a lot to say about all of it. But I get stuck on whether or not the modified version of the plane with its flaw should have been Ok'd for use. (or not).

After the Airbus accident off Brazil in 09 the pitot systems were redesigned and pilots given better training on high altitude stall recognition and recovery. Something we'd already been doing in North America for years. The problem with the relief pilots in that crash was inexperience (they didn't operate the weather radar properly), their dispatch failed them by routing them through the thunderstorms and the training at AF didn't deal with high speed stall characteristics with the alternate law system of the airbus.
 
It's huge.
When I had 200 hours I was still scaring myself in a 4 seat Cessna. I can't imagine being thrown into a high performance jet.
It takes a long time to get comfortable with a new airplane and technology. A good 6 months to feel good about the software and handling characteristics of the aircraft.
With over 14000 hours and 9000 on 737's, I've seen a lot and experienced a lot of abnormal and emergency situations. Experience counts. I'm confident I can handle this airplane in any situation presented to me but that took years to develop those skills and confidence.
 
Is it true this system is manually activated (by that I mean pilot is actually flying) the airplane as opposed to autopilot? In essence, hit flight level change and turn the A/P on and it stops? If true that would’ve at least given them time to figure out what was going on.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Captain Dave, I love reading your posts. You can explain this stuff where even a dumb hillbilly like me can understand it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And so Dave, glad you jpined the talk here.
it seems all my research was pretty on for what you describe and you've added some good extra insight to the workings of the business model which unfortunately means as usual economics is what sometimes unfortunately rules.


But let me ask you about the point that I am stuck on. Should a commercial aircraft that would posses (what id call) a physical flying design flaw that required a system to correct for it been allowed to commercially fly in the first place? When in a nose pitched up climb and the aircraft itself (by physical design) has tendency to pitch itself up too much Id call that a flying design flaw and a problem. Just because we can come up with software to compensate doesn't imo make it ok. And as we can all see , it didn't make it ok. It along with training may make it safe again and I believe it would. But that still doesn't imo make it ok. Just dosnt sit well with me. Imo there shouldn't be such a thing where as the planes aerodynamics in itself while climbing nose up would push its own self into a further nose up and stall position. That to me means it probably shouldn't have been allowed to fly commercially. Military, special needs, science, etc...ok. But commercially? I just find that one is perhaps the wrong thing to do. However are there other commercial planes that have tendencies to cause stalls or other emergency situations just via thier own physical aerodynamic makeup? I mean if such characteristic is common on many different aircraft and things have often been that way then perhaps I am over thinking it.
 
I know you just changed your name to Rusty Dave but Captain Dave has a nice ring to it.
 
Being 737 max8....an explanation and asking should it ever been flying?

Is it true this system is manually activated (by that I mean pilot is actually flying) the airplane as opposed to autopilot? In essence, hit flight level change and turn the A/P on and it stops? If true that would’ve at least given them time to figure out what was going on.

One of the pilots is physically flying the airplane. In the Ethiopian crash, the autopilot was on but disconnected with the system fault. This put the airplane in manual mode and the MCAS did its thing. Trying to reengage the autopilot in this case wouldn’t work for 2 reasons. First, with the AofA indicator fault, it dropped the autopilot off in the first place. This is normal with many system malfunctions. Second, to engage the autopilot there needs to be virtually no force being applied to the control column. In other words , the airplane needs to be nice and trimmed properly for the autopilot to engage. With the nose down force of the MCAS, this would not have been possible.




And so Dave, glad you jpined the talk here.
it seems all my research was pretty on for what you describe and you've added some good extra insight to the workings of the business model which unfortunately means as usual economics is what sometimes unfortunately rules.


But let me ask you about the point that I am stuck on. Should a commercial aircraft that would posses (what id call) a physical flying design flaw that required a system to correct for it been allowed to commercially fly in the first place? When in a nose pitched up climb and the aircraft itself (by physical design) has tendency to pitch itself up too much Id call that a flying design flaw and a problem. Just because we can come up with software to compensate doesn't imo make it ok. And as we can all see , it didn't make it ok. It along with training may make it safe again and I believe it would. But that still doesn't imo make it ok. Just dosnt sit well with me. Imo there shouldn't be such a thing where as the planes aerodynamics in itself while climbing nose up would push its own self into a further nose up and stall position. That to me means it probably shouldn't have been allowed to fly commercially. Military, special needs, science, etc...ok. But commercially? I just find that one is perhaps the wrong thing to do. However are there other commercial planes that have tendencies to cause stalls or other emergency situations just via thier own physical aerodynamic makeup? I mean if such characteristic is common on many different aircraft and things have often been that way then perhaps I am over thinking it.

This is tough. I honestly don’t think there is a physical design flaw here. Yes the airplane is slightly more nose up but it’s still aerodynamically sound. And it’s still a barely noticeable difference. The system at fault is the MCAS system. Was it designed because Boeing had to use the same fuselage and landing from previous types. Yes. Does that make the max unsafe? No. MCAS was simply a way to ensure a safer airplane if the nose attitude reached an unsafe level. Airbus has these safety precautions built into many systems in there airplanes. All modern jetliners do. The problem is that the max was rushed through. Now that the problem has been identified and will be rectified, MCAS will be a great system when a REAL nose up imminent stall is approaching. By limiting its authority and the requirement to compare both AofA sensors will pretty much fix this. Unfortunately, 2 hull losses and a few hundred lives were taken because of the faulty system but as with all airline crashes, the industry as a whole will learn from these terrible events and make the max and all airliners that much safer.
 
Oh man. My kind of post.
I’ve got 9000 hours flying 737’s including the max.
I’m going to be home soon and dive into this post with my laptop.
Standby for further.

SO you are a commercial pilot, who specifically has flown the 737 being discussed. That would make you a knowledgeable, and educated commentator. To that I say, "we have no need for your type here on the Internet. Trolls and half guessers only. Go away."
 
SO you are a commercial pilot, who specifically has flown the 737 being discussed. That would make you a knowledgeable, and educated commentator. To that I say, "we have no need for your type here on the Internet. Trolls and half guessers only. Go away."

Ummm not sure how to take that.
 
Back
Top