Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Not draconian at all. Just like consumers are told what is inside the package what they are eating, they need to be told in what plane they are flying in. This happens anyway as plane type is shown when booking online, but not necessarily the model. I don't care if the crew is Muslim or Jewish or if anyone is HIV+. I would care if someone has tuberculosis or Ebola however. Are we not told that the customer is always right? Well, if someone doesn't want to fly in a MAX, their wish must be respected. Personally, I think MAX's days are numbered, to be written off completely if the passengers do not want to fly in them, upgraded MCAS or not.

[Paphitis]

Not draconian at all. Just like consumers are told what is inside the package what they are eating, they need to be told din what plane they are flying in. This happens anyway as plane type is shown when booking online, but not necessarily the model. I don't care if the crew is Muslim or Jewish or if anyone is HIV+. I would care if someone has tuberculosis or Ebola however. Are we not told that the customer is always right? Well, if someone doesn't want to fly in a MAX, their wish must be respected. Personally, I think MAX's days are numbered, to be written off completely if the passengers do not want to fly in them, upgraded MCAS or not.

Boeing have already submitted the upgraded software for approval by the FAA about a month ago. The certification process takes about 90 days. Once its cleared by the FAA, then its all systems go. The issue as I said was actually sorted out a while ago. it's just they need to go through certification from scratch. It's just a liability arse covering exercise. No one is going to sign any documentation unless they are 110% certain and the people who will be approving the the certification paperwork are not people working for the FAA (US Government) but aviation consultants and test pilots sourced from Boeing and even NASA engineers in Aeronautics. These people are worth too much money to be public servants as the make more than the President of the USA.

Some people may think this is a conflict of interest but it isn't actually. The certification is probably going to be the most thorough arse covering exercise in the history of aviation aircraft certification because the liability costs are too high and no one wants to be exposed - least of all Boeing and FAA.

Boeing and the FAA are going to record every minute detail of the entire process that has been undertaken and you can also presume that Boeing and FAA will also be consulting and getting advice from a massive team of gun Liability Lawyers to protect their interests, in case another MAXI goes down for any reason. They know that when this happens, the media will again speculate so they are going to get their ducks in a row.

So approval is due in July. This is when the MAXI will be cleared and commence flying again. It's then up to the airlines to train their pilots and re-introduce the aircraft to the flight line.

Boeing also has to upgrade the Pilot Training modules and these need to be rolled out to every operator.

The airlines are NOT going to provide a warning like you suggest. They won't because this implies that something is wrong and by simply releasing the aircraft to the line, the airline is saying the aircraft is fine. But on your ticket it may say the aircraft type. Don't expect the airlines to make a song and dance about it and issue warnings like on the packet of of cigarettes. that isn't going to happen.

Take for instance an Airline that is Boeing only. QANTAS is a Boeing only medium haul fleet. If you book a flight with them, then its safe to presume that you are going to get a B737NG/700/800 or MAXI. If you don't want it, then your option is Virgin which have ordered 50 B737 MAXIs as well.

Your other alternative is to drive or catch the bus. That is how it will play out.

[Kikapu]

Not draconian at all. Just like consumers are told what is inside the package what they are eating, they need to be told din what plane they are flying in. This happens anyway as plane type is shown when booking online, but not necessarily the model. I don't care if the crew is Muslim or Jewish or if anyone is HIV+. I would care if someone has tuberculosis or Ebola however. Are we not told that the customer is always right? Well, if someone doesn't want to fly in a MAX, their wish must be respected. Personally, I think MAX's days are numbered, to be written off completely if the passengers do not want to fly in them, upgraded MCAS or not.

Boeing have already submitted the upgraded software for approval by the FAA about a month ago. The certification process takes about 90 days. Once its cleared by the FAA, then its all systems go. The issue as I said was actually sorted out a while ago. it's just they need to go through certification from scratch. It's just a liability arse covering exercise. No one is going to sign any documentation unless they are 110% certain and the people who will be approving the the certification paperwork are not people working for the FAA (US Government) but aviation consultants and test pilots sourced from Boeing and even NASA engineers in Aeronautics. These people are worth too much money to be public servants as the make more than the President of the USA.

Some people may think this is a conflict of interest but it isn't actually. The certification is probably going to be the most thorough arse covering exercise in the history of aviation aircraft certification because the liability costs are too high and no one wants to be exposed - least of all Boeing and FAA.

Boeing and the FAA are going to record every minute detail of the entire process that has been undertaken and you can also presume that Boeing and FAA will also be consulting and getting advice from a massive team of gun Liability Lawyers to protect their interests, in case another MAXI goes down for any reason. They know that when this happens, the media will again speculate so they are going to get their ducks in a row.

So approval is due in July. This is when the MAXI will be cleared and commence flying again. It's then up to the airlines to train their pilots and re-introduce the aircraft to the flight line.

Boeing also has to upgrade the Pilot Training modules and these need to be rolled out to every operator.

The airlines are NOT going to provide a warning like you suggest. They won't because this implies that something is wrong and by simply releasing the aircraft to the line, the airline is saying the aircraft is fine. But on your ticket it may say the aircraft type. Don't expect the airlines to make a song and dance about it and issue warnings like on the packet of of cigarettes. that isn't going to happen.

Take for instance an Airline that is Boeing only. QANTAS is a Boeing only medium haul fleet. If you book a flight with them, then its safe to presume that you are going to get a B737NG/700/800 or MAXI. If you don't want it, then your option is Virgin which have ordered 50 B737 MAXIs as well.

Your other alternative is to drive or catch the bus. That is how it will play out.

No, I do not expect the airlines to put out a warning notice about the 737 MAX, like “737 MAX can be bad for your health, do not fly in one”. But I do expect perhaps to list the MAX as the type and model to serve that flight when booking a flight. Then let the informed passenger make their choice, otherwise, if another MAX goes down for whatever reason, there’s going to be a very loud public outcry for not being told what type of aircraft booking was made on.

[Paphitis]

OK, but what the airlines decide to use in their network can change.

So they can tell you its an A330, and end up being a B737 MAXI if they did not sell enough seats at that particular time. Or it could start with being a B737 Maxi and end up being an A350 or B787 if demand requires it. Either that or they change or increase/decrease the frequency as required.

They won't do anything that is any different. They will not single out the MAXI and inform you and if they did they will never guarantee the plane you are to travel on.

They are just going to sell tickets. If the airline informs you of the equipment or aircraft at point of sale for other aircraft, then they will do the same for the entire fleet including MAXI. If they do not, then they won't do that for MAXI either.

I believe however that they normally tell you after the point of sale on the ticket. But that is subject to change. Just because they tell you you will be flying on a MAXI or a Dreamliner, doesn't mean you actually will but it is likely you will. The airlines can switch type on you anytime they like and they won't inform the passengers either.

[Kikapu]

OK, but what the airlines decide to use in their network can change.

So they can tell you its an A330, and end up being a B737 MAXI if they did not sell enough seats at that particular time. Or it could start with being a B737 Maxi and end up being an A350 or B787 if demand requires it. Either that or they change or increase/decrease the frequency as required.

They won't do anything that is any different. They will not single out the MAXI and inform you and if they did they will never guarantee the plane you are to travel on.

They are just going to sell tickets. If the airline informs you of the equipment or aircraft at point of sale for other aircraft, then they will do the same for the entire fleet including MAXI. If they do not, then they won't do that for MAXI either.

I believe however that they normally tell you after the point of sale on the ticket. But that is subject to change. Just because they tell you you will be flying on a MAXI or a Dreamliner, doesn't mean you actually will but it is likely you will. The airlines can switch type on you anytime they like and they won't inform the passengers either.

Yes, of course the airlines can and do change equipment as needed, which is why I am saying that if a MAX is added to the flight in the last minute at the gate, the passenger should have the right to refuse to fly on it without penalty.

[Paphitis]

OK, but what the airlines decide to use in their network can change.

So they can tell you its an A330, and end up being a B737 MAXI if they did not sell enough seats at that particular time. Or it could start with being a B737 Maxi and end up being an A350 or B787 if demand requires it. Either that or they change or increase/decrease the frequency as required.

They won't do anything that is any different. They will not single out the MAXI and inform you and if they did they will never guarantee the plane you are to travel on.

They are just going to sell tickets. If the airline informs you of the equipment or aircraft at point of sale for other aircraft, then they will do the same for the entire fleet including MAXI. If they do not, then they won't do that for MAXI either.

I believe however that they normally tell you after the point of sale on the ticket. But that is subject to change. Just because they tell you you will be flying on a MAXI or a Dreamliner, doesn't mean you actually will but it is likely you will. The airlines can switch type on you anytime they like and they won't inform the passengers either.

Yes, of course the airlines can and do change equipment as needed, which is why I am saying that if a MAX is added to the flight in the last minute at the gate, the passenger should have the right to refuse to fly on it without penalty.

Passengers always have the right to change their mind last minute.

They won't get a refund though.

[Kikapu]

We were discussing this topic here just couple of weeks ago.

Airlines

Boeing’s new ’797′ could be built to fly with just one pilot on board

Boeing’s next commercial jet design could come with a cockpit built for just one pilot, according to industry analysts.

Rumors have swirled for months that the U.S. plane manufacturer will announce a New Midsize Airplane (NMA), dubbed by industry insiders as the 797, at the Paris Air Show next month.
Plans for a big reveal may have been put on hold by Boeing’s ongoing problem with its 737 Max planes, two of which have been involved in recent fatal crashes.

Over the last few weeks, analysts at Jefferies have quizzed plane-buying executives at airlines and leasing companies on what they would want from any new Boeing offering.
The researchers said that given the NMA would start from a completely fresh design, airline executives see scope for just one pilot to be physically sat in the plane.

A second pilot would be ground based and be able to “monitor several aircraft” at the same time.
Reducing the number of pilots from an airline’s payroll could save a company millions of dollars in salaries and training costs.

The Jefferies note, released Sunday, claimed the technology to do this is still 10 years away but Boeing customers would find the capability “valuable.”
Boeing Research and Technology Vice-President Charles Toups said in February that one-pilot jets would likely begin with cargo flights and it would be a “couple of decades” before passengers would be convinced of their safety.

Outside of the cockpit, airline execs want a new Boeing plane to have more flexibility in how seats could be arranged and reshuffled, with some premium carriers calling for more flexibility to install lie-flat beds.

The NMA is predicted to hold between 200 and 250 passengers but fly with the range of a larger plane. A plus-size variant could accommodate as many as 290 passengers and executives told Jefferies that a widebody aircraft (one with two aisles) is a likely preference.

Typically, the NMA is seen serving transatlantic routes, connecting smaller cities in the Unites States with “secondary” European cities such as Brussels or Copenhagen.
Given Boeing’s recent woes, Jefferies believes entry into service for the “797” could now be as far away as 2028.

In February, U.K. firm Rolls-Royce pulled out of the race to provide engines for Boeing’s new offering. The engine maker withdrew its tender stating it was “unable to commit to the proposed timetable.”
Boeing is now expected to choose between engines built by United Technologies unit Pratt & Whitney and CFM International, a General Electric joint venture with France’s Safran.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/boeings ... board.html

[Paphitis]

It won't happen Kikapu. Firstly, they need to address the incapacitation scenario - requiring 2 pilots.

Secondly, you need a Pilot Monitoring. It is the best error capture that we currently have.

Usually technologies like this are first tested by the Military. there seems to be no evidence that the military will be headed down that path. New aircraft are still multi crew in the military.

This has been discussed by Tony Kern in Flight Discipline. There have been many studies completed whether going down that path is viable, and the answer is a NO. Imagine if a B797 crashed with one pilot, what would happen to Boeing for its lack of redundancy if this was a factor, which it likely would be.

It's a dead duck, at least for the foreseeable future.

I would very much like to know who these industry analysts are. It doesn't say.

B797 will have a minimum of 2 pilots. In fact it will have 3 to 4 pilots for long haul. Can't get out of that legal requirement.

You also said you would be apprehensive about getting onto a MAXI. Will you not be apprehensive about getting on a single pilot aircraft? Statistically speaking, a single pilot aircraft is many times more likely to crash than a multi crewed aircraft. I don't know the actually statistic but it is a phenomenal increase which cant be dismissed. You can look it up for yourself.

If I were you, I would prefer to travel on a MAXI than any single pilot RPT aircraft. The only single pilot machine I would get on is a general Aviation Cessna not an advance 100 million dollar passenger jet.

Boeing and the industry won't play Russian Roulette with their businesses. There are also regulatory requirements. Regular Public Transport certified aircraft require 2 Pilots by law. The FFA will not repeal or issue exceptions to aircraft type. They just won't risk it because the most advance best practices in Crew Resource Management prevent them.

As for the technology. It is already at a very high level, with very high amounts of automation. I doubt the B797 will be a massive huge breakthrough over the B787 and A350 anyway. It might be a slight improvement (speculation). This has also created a large amount of decline in Automation Discipline where pilots place too much trust in the equipment on the one hand, or lose complete Situational Awareness on the other hand. This has caused accidents in its own right and killed hundreds of people globally. So the issues with automation along with their many advantages are also noted. Automation reduces pilot workload, and that is important during the high workload high stress points.

In addition, the B797 is still just a concept. Boeing are deciding this year whether to proceed with the project and then launch it by 2025. My guess is that they will launch it but it won't be a single pilot aircraft.

[Londonrake]

Ryanair on profit loses and it's procurement of 135/75 Max 200s:

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/05/20/ryan ... wars-bite/

.

[Kikapu]

It won't happen Kikapu. Firstly, they need to address the incapacitation scenario - requiring 2 pilots.

Secondly, you need a Pilot Monitoring. It is the best error capture that we currently have.

Usually technologies like this are first tested by the Military. there seems to be no evidence that the military will be headed down that path. New aircraft are still multi crew in the military.

This has been discussed by Tony Kern in Flight Discipline. There have been many studies completed whether going down that path is viable, and the answer is a NO. Imagine if a B797 crashed with one pilot, what would happen to Boeing for its lack of redundancy if this was a factor, which it likely would be.

It's a dead duck, at least for the foreseeable future.

I would very much like to know who these industry analysts are. It doesn't say.

B797 will have a minimum of 2 pilots. In fact it will have 3 to 4 pilots for long haul. Can't get out of that legal requirement.

You also said you would be apprehensive about getting onto a MAXI. Will you not be apprehensive about getting on a single pilot aircraft? Statistically speaking, a single pilot aircraft is many times more likely to crash than a multi crewed aircraft. I don't know the actually statistic but it is a phenomenal increase which cant be dismissed. You can look it up for yourself.

If I were you, I would prefer to travel on a MAXI than any single pilot RPT aircraft. The only single pilot machine I would get on is a general Aviation Cessna not an advance 100 million dollar passenger jet.

Boeing and the industry won't play Russian Roulette with their businesses. There are also regulatory requirements. Regular Public Transport certified aircraft require 2 Pilots by law. The FFA will not repeal or issue exceptions to aircraft type. They just won't risk it because the most advance best practices in Crew Resource Management prevent them.

As for the technology. It is already at a very high level, with very high amounts of automation. I doubt the B797 will be a massive huge breakthrough over the B787 and A350 anyway. It might be a slight improvement (speculation). This has also created a large amount of decline in Automation Discipline where pilots place too much trust in the equipment on the one hand, or lose complete Situational Awareness on the other hand. This has caused accidents in its own right and killed hundreds of people globally. So the issues with automation along with their many advantages are also noted. Automation reduces pilot workload, and that is important during the high workload high stress points.

In addition, the B797 is still just a concept. Boeing are deciding this year whether to proceed with the project and then launch it by 2025. My guess is that they will launch it but it won't be a single pilot aircraft.

All your points are valid, Paphitis, however, there is no getting away from more automation to full automation on the horizon. As the article stated, they will start with one pilot operation (plus ground pilot support) with cargo flights, and once that has proven itself, move to the passenger liners.

It is getting more and more difficult for the pilots to keep up with more automation to fly the planes safely. It is going to take automation to manage automation to understand the situation and to solve it efficiently and effectively, lets say something like "HAL" (2001 Space Odyssey).

I think many people are going to be very apprehensive to get on the MAX if and when they take to the skies again, only because it has a bad reputation right now. It is only human nature.