I think something's wrong with the Boeing 737 Max 8

[fratzog lover]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-shuddered-before-deadly-plunge-idUSKBN1QS1LJ

 

[Garys1969RR]

The larger and more powerful engines on the MAX 8, had to be mounted a little more forward and higher on the wing. This resulted in the aircraft getting into a potential stall condition under full power, with steep angles of attack. (As in taking off). To get an airworthiness certificate, Boeing had to build and install the MCAS (anti-stall) system. This automatically trims the horizontal stabilizer, giving the craft a nose down attitude if it detects near stall conditions. It does so in 2.5 degree increments until the plane comes out of the near stall. Apparently those ill fated pilots didn't know, or think to, disengage the auto pilot, manually trim the elevator, or shut off the MCAS, which may have brought the plane back under control. Several American pilots have voiced anger that they had encountered the same dilemma, and shut off the auto pilot which solved the problem in their case.

 

[GetX'd]

Trump did the right thing by overriding the FAA and grounding all MAX 8&9 aircraft. Somethings wrong and I don’t want anyone risking lives with a little more experimenting. It’s a big deal plane and will be back in the air but in the meantime I won’t fly it.

 

[BeatersRus]

is that accurate information Gary??
if so,you are saying they built a plane that had a Design problem,
and then " fixed " it by applying a computer bandage??

 

[Garys1969RR]

is that accurate information Gary??
if so,you are saying they built a plane that had a Design problem,
and then " fixed " it by applying a computer bandage??

Well, if you Google MCAS, it explains what the system does, and when it is supposed to kick in. I'll try to post a screen shot of a CBS news article that came out yesterday, talks about MCAS. The focus of the crash investigation has been on that area.

 

[Garys1969RR]

 

[69a100]

One way to compensate for that would be to extend the nose or front of the aircraft however many moments it take so that the tail isn't so heavy. Think of a teeter totter.

 

[Garys1969RR]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-shuddered-before-deadly-plunge-idUSKBN1QS1LJ

Interesting article, I hadn't seen that one yet. All of this is speculation on my part, although I do feel there is something wrong with having a computer pitch the nose of an airplane down, irregardless of the pilots control inputs. MCAS is a system installed to do just that, and I feel there is definitely a problem with it. Either by design, or a lack of training for the pilots.

 

[Hey-O]

" What he is saying is you don't have any idea of what your talking about. Maybe you should read and listen to him as he has actual knowledge of what he speaks ". Steve, can you point to the one that has all the knowledge so I can get a first hand account of what happened to those planes. I have a friend who is a flight instructor and teaches commercial airline pilots, he'd like to hear it too. It's hard to post when you don't want to get mobbed by people that are throwing out, at best, opinions and beating everyone with them. I'm the new guy, I'll keep my thoughts to myself, because you jump me like that and it's on.........

 

[steve from staten island]

" What he is saying is you don't have any idea of what your talking about. Maybe you should read and listen to him as he has actual knowledge of what he speaks ". Steve, can you point to the one that has all the knowledge so I can get a first hand account of what happened to those planes. I have a friend who is a flight instructor and teaches commercial airline pilots, he'd like to hear it too. It's hard to post when you don't want to get mobbed by people that are throwing out, at best, opinions and beating everyone with them. I'm the new guy, I'll keep my thoughts to myself, because you jump me like that and it's on.........

I know little about the flight industry, although I do have family in that industry. My remarks was in reply to the ridiculous comments blaming unions for everything or problem encountered. Its a easy excuse used by many who have a agenda.
If you re read his opening first sentence he states there is nothing wrong with that aircraft. Id have to assume anyone making a statement like that has verified first hand knowledge of that plane. This would seem to be not the case. Others have posted who seem to have more knowledge and do not point fingers at mechanics/pilots and the such and also have a more honest approach as to what the problem really is.

 

[Slap Stick]

Ridiculous comments?
Unions are well known for things like leaving or placing foreign objects in products, such as beer cans welded into spaces in car bodies. Its been a tactic for decades.
If the unions hands were clean they would have flagged the procedures which allowed the skirting of rules regarding FOD during assembly or repair.
Iow the unions are just as much to blame as the company. Union guys left the stuff there and the company let it go and the union didn't protect their own members from being disciplined by the company for it so they had to be in on it. No agenda here only stating what could be the case.
As for an agenda you sound like you are defending the unionized employees (not union employees-they don't work for the union) without knowing facts.
My nieces husband was an A&P at TWA and he had some horror stories from shoddy and jerry rigged repairs done by mechanics and passed off. I get the same from a coworker who worked at AA.
Its not "on" but I stand by my statement.
EDIT
Who said there was nothing wrong with the 737 max? Not me. I said it was a training problem and lo and behold....turns out it was.

 

[cr8crshr]

One way to compensate for that would be to extend the nose or front of the aircraft however many moments it take so that the tail isn't so heavy. Think of a teeter totter.

To add and piggy back this Bro...for ya'll out there a little bit of information an the uses of weight and balance. There is an area know as the Aerodynamic Chord. It basically is a measured area comprising the forward and aft areas of the lifting part of the wing and aircraft. You have the forward limit and then the aft most limit measured in inches and then formulated in either a percent of or moments. The exact middle is know as the Mean Aerodynamic Chord. You then have a percentage forward or aft that is the safest settings for safe flight. It is a teeter tauter principle. The more aft the percentage, the more aft heavy the aircraft is thus creating a higher percentage from the Mean Aerodynamic Chord. Conversely the forward percentage dictates the Leading Edge of the Mean Aerodynamic Chord. MAC and LEMAC are a part of the formulas for balancing the aircraft. Then be moving the engines closer to the fuselage and the 737 being a swept wing low lift aircraft, it moves that window further forward resulting in a more aft distribution of weight to bring it into the acceptable numbers for balancing the aircraft. By adding a computerized system to handle the sudden nose down attitude you have just taken the Pilot out of the equation because of the human reaction to sudden changes in attitude being ignored in favor of the computer. All this is good in theory but in the end relies upon complete mechanization and computer control instead of the Pilot being in control. Personally I am not a big fan of all this new AI and computerization. A lot of it is by far very good and necessary for a controlled and safe flight. But dammit!!! When an IFE occurs, then the pilot must react physically and fly the aircraft via stick and rudder. All the Simulator training and practice of landings and take-offs dos help. But it is after all a flying machine and was built by human ingenuity and determination to where air travel is still one of the safest means of travel. As a Weight and Balance Clearance Authority, I had the responsibility to get that aircraft ready for a safe flight. It is a somewhat complex part of flying but when you understand how the basics of Aerodynamics , lift and thrust play in the whole event of flight, then when these types of crashes occur it is usually because of the whole aircraft being either nose heavy or aft heavy. As the saying goes...If you put a large enough engine and a computer on a brick, it will fly...cr8crshr/Bill

 

[cr8crshr]

Well Steve I have to admit a very valid point. But I also do know that the Airline Mechanics Union has been known for a long time to pencil whip "grips" and write ups in the aircraft maintenance logs and in the production side as well. Not all do this. But the majority of these types of things happening is that the Leads and Supers or not performing the required checks that the initial checks for FOD, etc. were accomplished. When I worked for United Maintenance, I would often get back job control sheets/cards for that particular job or task that showed that a Tool and FOD check use accomplished. When in fact it was signed off and the Tool Crib had not received back the checked out tools for that job. To me it falls right back on the Leads and Supers for not following prescribed practices. Then when an issue arises out of non accomplishment, and the Union worker is up before an investigative board, the Union will always take the side of the individual and not the prescribed Company procedures being enforced. But for the most part, the majority were upright and forth coming in their due diligence to perform that job and that the aircraft is now safe to fly. If you try and stick and bubble gum repairs, it only mushrooms into a much bigger bag of S**T!!!! All that being said, I am still not a fan nor a believer in Unions. Just my personal feelings is all...cr8crshr/Tuck

 

[69a100]

Let's add a little humor, shall we?
http://footflyer.com/Articles/JustForFun/AviationHumor/pilots_mechanics.htm

 

[steve from staten island]

Ive known three licensed airline mechanics who left there job and came to work as machinist mechanics at my former job. All were serious guys when it came to performing repairs. In conversations I was told any work was done on aircraft was done correctly and documented. No shortcuts and no fooling around.
Id like to think it goes beyond if you belong to a union or not and more to your conscious telling you that you do the right job every time.
Yes I agree the union will take the side of the member employee. Legally it has too. However in the case of direct negligence, vandalism or when safety of fellow workers, passengers is compromised and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, what I say might take place could be a less then vigorous defense by the union. At least in my experience.

 

[gtxracer]

Yep. The pilots aren't turning off the anti-stall when there is a problem. Most pilots don't know of the system.

I worked there for almost 30 years, am still in contact with many former co-workers. From what I gather and read, a new system has been added to assist pilots maintain smoother flight, however the workings of the new system were not made readily made available to pilots. I believe they have a serious software issue. Just my thoughts...

 

[Speedbird]

Anytime something like this happens there are a lot of oars in the water pulling in different directions.
I'm an old guy that knows what has gone on over a long time in the industry.
More than just this.
I'm posting this for those that may not know.
If you do know already, never mind.
That's all.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Mark_Lund_and_the_FAA

 

[gtxracer]

Well Steve I have to admit a very valid point. But I also do know that the Airline Mechanics Union has been known for a long time to pencil whip "grips" and write ups in the aircraft maintenance logs and in the production side as well. Not all do this. But the majority of these types of things happening is that the Leads and Supers or not performing the required checks that the initial checks for FOD, etc. were accomplished. When I worked for United Maintenance, I would often get back job control sheets/cards for that particular job or task that showed that a Tool and FOD check use accomplished. When in fact it was signed off and the Tool Crib had not received back the checked out tools for that job. To me it falls right back on the Leads and Supers for not following prescribed practices. Then when an issue arises out of non accomplishment, and the Union worker is up before an investigative board, the Union will always take the side of the individual and not the prescribed Company procedures being enforced. But for the most part, the majority were upright and forth coming in their due diligence to perform that job and that the aircraft is now safe to fly. If you try and stick and bubble gum repairs, it only mushrooms into a much bigger bag of S**T!!!! All that being said, I am still not a fan nor a believer in Unions. Just my personal feelings is all...cr8crshr/Tuck

I wanted to chime in on your comments as you mention the FOD issues and "pencil whips. The Big B is slowly working toward the elimination of "Shake" as well as QA with the thinking that what you speak of, doesn't happen. The process of "Shake" requires shop to go thru the airplane with a fine tooth comb and find any and everything that doesn't belong prior to a line move. The receiving shop has the option to reject and require, via a cleanliness pickup, the prior shop do additional cleaning. They are trying to stop this process.
Bob

 

[Dennis H]

Southwest take.

 

[Auggie56]

Can we have a little civility people? It makes us on the outside not wanting to read your posts.

BTW: Limbaugh who is an aviation enthusiast as well owns a large corporate jet. On today's show he took the liberty to explain that nose up design change.