"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
03/15/2019 at 14:52 • Filed to: None
3
9|
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
03/15/2019 at 14:52 • Filed to: None | 3
| 9 |
My dad just shared an email conversation he had with an aviation colleague. My dad also added that surprise “runway trim” situations were almost always included in his simulator training for 6-10-seat turboprops back in the 80s and 90s.
All bolding is mine:
I never flew the 737 but did fly the 727, 757, and 767. I just flew back to Atlanta last night from Phoenix on Southwest. Had a long talk with commuter F/O coming home about the B-737Max8. We were on a Southwest B-737-800, same airplane but smaller engines. Very knowledgeable guy, ASA pilot, and now Southwest.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
The “problem” manifests itself as runaway trim. Easily stopped by turning off electric trim, except runaway trim is no longer a memory item . The F/O said the manual trim wheel spins just like it does with electric trim. I think the F/O said there are only four emergency memory items left . Aviation has been dumbed down too much. We used to get a runaway trim problem just about every simulation training ride.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
The MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), which is, they
think, causing the problem, is a modification Boeing thought necessary because
of the placement and size of the new very fuel efficient engines. By the way,
the same engine is on Delta’s A-321, according to this F/O. The engine is so
big in diameter, Boeing had to extend the landing gear to raise the aircraft
higher and move the placement of the engine on the wing from earlier B-737
versions. Now, when power is adjusted, the airplane pitches enough that
Boeing thought it necessary for automatic trim, faster than normal autopilot
trim. The MCAS is also tied into the stall warning and pushes the nose
down. Stick shaker and verbal warnings are no longer enough for a stall
warning.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Partial solution: b
ring back the memory item for runaway trim and trust an
experienced western trained pilot to recognize the problem
. It was reported
the
F/O on Ethiopian had just 200 hours. The minimum for a F/O in the U.S. is
1500 hours
. Quality of training is also a major factor. And if the
angle-of-attack gives false information, maybe give the crew some options
before trying to take control of the airp
lane. (Wait a minute!- we already have
that with stick shaker, etc.)
I would not hesitate to fly on one of American’s or Southwest’s Max8s. If any
of you hear anything different, let me know.
For Sweden
> Ash78, voting early and often
03/15/2019 at 14:58 |
|
One potential issue; no one made new simulators for the 737 Max.
WilliamsSW
> For Sweden
03/15/2019 at 15:03 |
|
And I presume that’s tied into the fact that it’s “not any different” from flying a 738, correct? And it’s not any different because it has MCAS, which... umm... I’m confused now, I’ll go.
|
WilliamsSW
> For Sweden
03/15/2019 at 15:03 |
|
And I presume that’s tied into the fact that it’s “not any different” from flying a 738, correct? And it’s not any different because it has MCAS, which... umm... I’m confused now, I’ll go.
ttyymmnn
> For Sweden
03/15/2019 at 15:05 |
|
Something else that has come out is that, in order to streamline the certification process, aircraft manufacturers are allowed to select which FAA official they want to certify their aircraft. That means they can cherry pick somebody who will be sympathetic to their goals. Congress is looking to change that.
|
For Sweden
> WilliamsSW
03/15/2019 at 15:07 |
|
Yes
|
ttyymmnn
> Ash78, voting early and often
03/15/2019 at 15:09 |
|
The MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), which is, they think, causing the problem, is a modification Boeing thought necessary because of the placement and size of the new very fuel efficient engines. By the way, the same engine is on Delta’s A-321, according to this F/O. The engine is so big in diameter, Boeing had to extend the landing gear to raise the aircraft higher and move the placement of the engine on the wing from earlier B-737 versions. Now, when power is adjusted, the airplane pitches enough that Boeing thought it necessary for automatic trim, faster than normal autopilot trim. The MCAS is also tied into the stall warning and pushes the nose down. Stick shaker and verbal warnings are no longer enough for a stall warning.
From my reading, Boeing only extended the front gear by (I think) eight inches. The main gear remained the same. The MAX 10 will have telescoping main gear. The MAX 10 will compete with the A321 so, rather than build a new airplane, they are stretching a 50-year-old design to ludicrous lengths.
And according to Opponaut JetStreamer, the FAA required that MCAS be put on the plane to control a lateral instability. It was not a Boeing decision. They couldn’t get it certified under existing 737 certificates without it. All along, Boeing has sought to use grandfathered certificates rather than get a new one for the MAX, which would have cost time and money.
|
WilliamsSW
> For Sweden
03/15/2019 at 15:09 |
|
Colonel Cathcart would be proud.
AlfaCorse
> Ash78, voting early and often
03/15/2019 at 15:18 |
|
Just want to “that guy” and point out Delta chose P&W engines for their A321 NEOs and not CFM LEAP engines like the 737 MAX :)
|
ttyymmnn
> WilliamsSW
03/15/2019 at 15:30 |
|
It’s exactly the same as the Next Gen. Until it isn’t.