Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 149453	2020-12-24 06:08:00	Info On The Boeing 737 MAX	zqwerty (97)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1474009	2020-12-26 01:54:00	Nope you sound as if you work for Boeing/have shares in the company. I have researched this intensively over the last two years and the placement of the engines is absolutely crucial, the aircraft is not fine, it is being stabilized by a software kludge which itself was carried out poorly design-wise and implemented in way which had no redundancy built in using transducers which were known to fail often under poor weather conditions and bird-strikes. Also there should have been 3 transducers and a compulsory warning light to inform the pilots that MCAS was operating not have that as an optional extra. Incompetent engineering all the way guided/overseen by management which is always a recipe for disaster with financing as the elephant in the room. I had to do something similar related to an earthquake simulator machine, it was the same problem in the sense that the software operating correctly was essential to the safe operation of the overall machine when with a bit more work the machine could have been made fail to safe by altering the mechanical bits and pieces and their relationship to each other. Management wouldn't hear of it as they wrongly felt computers were far more reliable than correct positioning of levers. Its like a religion to them, "computer is better". Like having computerized battery chargers, lol. You are maintaining the same sort of stance and are simply wrong.	zqwerty (97)
1474010	2020-12-26 03:32:00	Nope you sound as if you work for Boeing/have shares in the company. I have researched this intensively over the last two years and the placement of the engines is absolutely crucial, the aircraft is not fine, it is being stabilized by a software kludge which itself was carried out poorly design-wise and implemented in way which had no redundancy built in using transducers which were known to fail often under poor weather conditions and bird-strikes. Also there should have been 3 transducers and a compulsory warning light to inform the pilots that MCAS was operating not have that as an optional extra. you seam to have missed the point that the plane flys perfectly fine with MCAS turned off. its not required for stability. in fact pilots have done so. especially as the procure for dealing with MCAS issues was/is to simply turn it off and trim manually. perfectly fine to fly the plane without it. there was cases where the MCAS failed and the pilots simply turned it off and flew perfectly fine without. if you actually bother to look how MCAS works, you will see it doesn't actually do anything a normal pilot would not do. as i have said, the fix has not changed ANY flying characteristics of the aircraft at all as its a perfectly fine stable aircraft. MCAS is not actually required for flight. unfortunately idiot media keep trying to make a story thats simply not true. Incompetent engineering all the way guided/overseen by management which is always a recipe for disaster with financing as the elephant in the room. now that is absolutely correct and there is a big shake up with boeing and FAA.	tweak'e (69)
1474011	2020-12-26 03:43:00	More detail: www.flightglobal.com www.seattletimes.com It's a badly designed modification which should not have happened: www.quora.com "High performance combat jets are mostly unstable by design. That’s part of what gives them seriously amazing performance. Correcting for their instability is achieved by the flight computer which reacts far, far faster than the pilot thus allowing safe flight plus performance. But……commercial aircraft. loaded with passengers, should never….never be designed with points of subtle and sneaky instability for which the pilot may be unaware and possibly not trained for. Pilot training by undeveloped countries is mandated by each country but must never be assumed to be as good and complete as developed countries. Same goes for aircraft maintenance. The MCAS was intended to correct a nasty, slow speed pitch up caused by increased lift forward of the CG. The cause of this was that Boeing moved the larger engines forward a few inches to accommodate their increased size. Engines do not normally contribute much to aircraft lift. But they do add some small lift when the angle of attack is higher at lower speeds (like right after takeoff). By moving the engines forward the moment arm of the engine lift was increased because they were closer to the nose…..thus exacerbating the pitch up force and increasing the angle of attack. Not good! Boeing designed a band aid fix (not under pilot control or awareness) for what was inherently a major design fault. Not good again! A commercial aircraft should be inherently stable without bandaids."	zqwerty (97)
1474012	2020-12-26 04:02:00	More detail: www.flightglobal.com www.seattletimes.com It's a badly designed modification which should not have happened: www.quora.com some fairly outdated info, most of it is media BS trying to make a story out of nothing. eg the Ethiopian crash the pilots didn't follow procedure properly (which is no different to previous model), they forgot to reduce engine power. hence they over sped the aircraft (i think they got over maximum allowable speed, if they had not hit the ground they would have broken up in the air). going to fast means its very very difficult to manual trim. the cut off switches kill the feed to the electric trim motor and you use the manual back up trim wheels. the big issue of course is that the MCAS system was stupidly designed, when it failed it confused the hell out of the pilots. lack of warning light and relying of one sensor was just dumb. however turn it off, you can still fly the plane perfectly fine. the fixes they have done include it using both sensors and have a warning light if there is a difference between them. but again its only the system that needed fixing. the plane itself is still the same. this all goes back to why they needed MCAS in the first place. its simply there to put some trim input at high angle of attack to make it feel like they are flying the older model plane the pilots are certified for. that way they only have to train them for the differences in model, not a complete type rating which is substantially more expensive for airlines to do.	tweak'e (69)
1474013	2020-12-26 04:26:00	Has to be three sensors, with two how does the computer know which one is giving the faulty reading? Don't fly on this aircraft.	zqwerty (97)
1474014	2020-12-26 04:47:00	Has to be three sensors, with two how does the computer know which one is giving the faulty reading? Don't fly on this aircraft. I'd fly on this aircraft. Most likely one of the safest out there these days.	paulw (1826)
1474015	2020-12-26 05:22:00	Has to be three sensors, with two how does the computer know which one is giving the faulty reading? Don't fly on this aircraft. i would have to check if they are leaving it with two sensors. they can work with just two. if there is a big enough difference between them it simply flashes the warning light and disables the system. (edit: the warning light is called "AOA disagree light") as i have said before the system is not required to be able to fly the plane. any problem just turn it off and fly the plane.	tweak'e (69)
1474016	2020-12-26 05:25:00	I'd fly on this aircraft. Most likely one of the safest out there these days. absolutely. its the single most scrutinised plane out there and probably the longest running series still in use today.	tweak'e (69)
1474017	2020-12-26 06:05:00	Yes not all the older 737's are badly faulty just way out of date. The Max, however, and whatever they decide to call it now, (and they are changing the name to disguise that you are actually traveling on a modified updated Max), is inherently faulty with a too large engine shoe-horned into it in a futile attempt to compete with the Airbus 320 which was designed as a modern aircraft with newly capable abilities of range and speed whereas the 737 is decades older and way behind the performance of the Airbus aircraft. This phrase "its the single most scrutinized plane out there" often appears in threads on this topic and is presumed to come from Boeing shills. There has been a campaign from Boeing to legitimize their faux pas ever since the first two inevitable accidents happened and Boeing tried to cover-up, then minimize the problem saying all will be well with a few modifications. Beware, lots of people are suspicious about what is going on with this aircraft.	zqwerty (97)
1474018	2020-12-26 09:34:00	Yes not all the older 737's are badly faulty just way out of date. The Max, however, and whatever they decide to call it now, (and they are changing the name to disguise that you are actually traveling on a modified updated Max), is inherently faulty with a too large engine shoe-horned into it in a futile attempt to compete with the Airbus 320 which was designed as a modern aircraft with newly capable abilities of range and speed whereas the 737 is decades older and way behind the performance of the Airbus aircraft. This phrase "its the single most scrutinized plane out there" often appears in threads on this topic and is presumed to come from Boeing shills. There has been a campaign from Boeing to legitimize their faux pas ever since the first two inevitable accidents happened and Boeing tried to cover-up, then minimize the problem saying all will be well with a few modifications. Beware, lots of people are suspicious about what is going on with this aircraft. what a load of conspiracy dribble.	tweak'e (69)
1 2 3 4