Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Military jets/planes/helicopters crash far more often than civilian use types, therefore, it is like comparing oranges and apples!

They are ALL aeroplanes designed by the same people and built by the same corporations as civilian aircraft. Military/civil are all fly by wire, without the electronics both fall out of the sky! A fighter jet is much more unstable than a commercial airliner and could not be flown by man alone. That is why they crash more often ..... but the pilot most often survives as he has the option to eject. A civil airliner can be flown manually, to a point!

Will this result in the grounding of all F-35's until they locate the problem? Personally, I doubt it ..... they can afford to take the risk! Military aircraft you can bail out of and fast jets have a crew of only 1-2 people. Providing ejector seats fro 250+ passengers and crew in civil aircraft has its problems?

In this case the 'oranges' and the 'apples' have more features in common than the fruits you describe. More like comparing 'oranges' and 'lemons' ?

Military aircrafts of all types push the “envelope” to the max, which may result in crashes due to failures of the aircraft or it’s pilot(s).

[Kikapu]

We keep hearing from Boeing that the faulty software on the 737 MAX has been greatly improved and it is almost ready to upgrade all the grounded 737 MAX's, however, some airlines are keeping their 737 MAXs off the service roster at least until August the earliest. Are they being cautious on a "wait and see" attitude to see if anymore 737 MAXs fall out of the sky before they commit themselves, or have they simply trying to find excuse to keep them grounded indefinitely as the public sentiments are very negative towards this aircraft type?

Personally, I think the 737 MAX brand has been damaged beyond repair at this point, and should another 737 MAX crash anytime after it is no longer grounded, and regardless of the reasons as to why it crashed, then it will not just be "coffin corner" concerns in the air, but complete funeral on the ground for the 737 MAX and perhaps for Boeing too.

So, the question I have is, why not remove the MCAS feature from the computer completely so that the aircraft will not do nose down maneuver whether the plane is stalled or not? Let the pilots be in control to get the aircraft to where it should be by simply pushing the nose down manually. Or is this just too simplistic because the 737 MAX has major design problems due to it's oversize engines which requires the MCAS to correct the high nose attitude caused by the engines?

We'll know sooner or later whether or not the 737 MAX is damaged goods forever or that it's still has life left in it to fly for the next 30 years.

I am leaning more and more to the former sorry to say.

[MR-from-NG]

We keep hearing from Boeing that the faulty software on the 737 MAX has been greatly improved and it is almost ready to upgrade all the grounded 737 MAX's, however, some airlines are keeping their 737 MAXs off the service roster at least until August the earliest. Are they being cautious on a "wait and see" attitude to see if anymore 737 MAXs fall out of the sky before they commit themselves, or have they simply trying to find excuse to keep them grounded indefinitely as the public sentiments are very negative towards this aircraft type?

Personally, I think the 737 MAX brand has been damaged beyond repair at this point, and should another 737 MAX crash anytime after it is no longer grounded, and regardless of the reasons as to why it crashed, then it will not just be "coffin corner" concerns in the air, but complete funeral on the ground for the 737 MAX and perhaps for Boeing too.

So, the question I have is, why not remove the MCAS feature from the computer completely so that the aircraft will not do nose down maneuver whether the plane is stalled or not? Let the pilots be in control to get the aircraft to where it should be by simply pushing the nose down manually. Or is this just too simplistic because the 737 MAX has major design problems due to it's oversize engines which requires the MCAS to correct the high nose attitude caused by the engines?

We'll know sooner or later whether or not the 737 MAX is damaged goods forever or that it's still has life left in it to fly for the next 30 years.

I am leaning more and more to the former sorry to say.

I personally would NOT be comfortable flying in this plane. Kicks, any idea if this thing can glide? I know all planes are capable of this but how would the 737Max glide with those heavy engines. How would it behave with no engines/thrust?

[Lordo]

now here is an interesting bit of comment.

A twin engine plane can fly perfectly well on one engine. ... A few years ago a 4 engined Virgin Atlantic 747 (a jumbo jet) had an engine failure over the United States. The aircraft continued all the way over the Atlantic ocean back the to the UK without a problem.

with a plane like 747 why would anybody design a newer plane that is not as safe?

[Kikapu]

We keep hearing from Boeing that the faulty software on the 737 MAX has been greatly improved and it is almost ready to upgrade all the grounded 737 MAX's, however, some airlines are keeping their 737 MAXs off the service roster at least until August the earliest. Are they being cautious on a "wait and see" attitude to see if anymore 737 MAXs fall out of the sky before they commit themselves, or have they simply trying to find excuse to keep them grounded indefinitely as the public sentiments are very negative towards this aircraft type?

Personally, I think the 737 MAX brand has been damaged beyond repair at this point, and should another 737 MAX crash anytime after it is no longer grounded, and regardless of the reasons as to why it crashed, then it will not just be "coffin corner" concerns in the air, but complete funeral on the ground for the 737 MAX and perhaps for Boeing too.

So, the question I have is, why not remove the MCAS feature from the computer completely so that the aircraft will not do nose down maneuver whether the plane is stalled or not? Let the pilots be in control to get the aircraft to where it should be by simply pushing the nose down manually. Or is this just too simplistic because the 737 MAX has major design problems due to it's oversize engines which requires the MCAS to correct the high nose attitude caused by the engines?

We'll know sooner or later whether or not the 737 MAX is damaged goods forever or that it's still has life left in it to fly for the next 30 years.

I am leaning more and more to the former sorry to say.

I personally would NOT be comfortable flying in this plane. Kicks, any idea if this thing can glide? I know all planes are capable of this but how would the 737Max glide with those heavy engines. How would it behave with no engines/thrust?

I'm sure there isn't any problem for the 737MAX to maintain a glide scope if all engines fail just like any other fixed wing aircraft, MR. The problem with the 737MAX is when the engines are working and not when they are not. It appears that the large engines has been placed a little forward on the wings than where they should have been in order for the engines not to struck the ground on landing, which may have altered the centre of gravity, hence may be causing the plane to nose up more than it should, creating the environment to stall the wings if ascending too quickly for the wings to maintain lift. Both the 737MAX crashes has occurred few minutes after take off. Look, Boeing has not specified if the above suspicions are actually factual, but some airlines are not putting the 737MAXs in service anytime soon, even after Boeing says they have "fixed" the MCAS software.

[Kikapu]

I just came across these links on YouTube on the 737 MAX. It explains about the new engines/MCAS and it's problems on the MAX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVOwxV9dVmg

[repulsewarrior]

...thanks, kiks, interesting.

[Kikapu]

It appears that confidence building comments from different sources has started on the grounded 737 MAX, regardless how premature it may be. This is of course done on behalf of Boeing to start slowly to bring the MAX back into the air, as well as increase production and increase sales.

The fundamental problem of the MAX still exists with it’s flawed design and by upgrading the MCAS to correct the design flaw is like putting a chewing gum on a leaking car tyre.

Since planes fly most of the time on auto-pilot and the design flaw wants to push the nose up continually, MCAS needs to continually kick in to correct the flaw, assuming it is getting the correct information from the aircrafts command center, the computer.

Would anyone be able to fly on the MAX 100% concern free, to be able to relax in their seats, or will the passengers get scared shitless whenever the plane would encounter all the normal occurrences in a normal flight with turbulence thinking that MCAS has fucked up again?

I think most people are going to take a “rain check” on the 737MAX for a long time to come. Then again, the airlines are going to make the flights on the MAX dirt cheap for a while and the people will forget about the MCAS and go for the bargain.

[repulsewarrior]

...and,

At a Boeing Dreamliner factory in South Carolina, workers say shoddy production at times risked safety.

...so says the New York Times.

[Paphitis]

I won't be taking any rain-checks.

I will be very happy to fly on a MAX 8 as soon as they are back in service. With all the SAS systems on board, the aircraft should never even get close to a stall and even if it does the MCAS kicks in to avoid the pendulous moment trying to cause another pitch up nose attitude.

In my opinion, the B737 is the best airliner ever made. It is a real joy to fly. Boeing have always made good stick and rudder planes for pilots. The profession at Airbus has changed to that of an Office manager, and not many pilots like that. Do a survey of pilots to ask them what they would prefer to fly. Whilst Airbus pilots will say Airbus, if you ask pilots who have flown both, they will virtually all gravitate to the B737 rather than the A320. I had lunch again with my very good mate who is an A380 pilot for Emirates and before that A320 for Aegean (A320neo and A380 are similar). They are pilots from ground to 1000FT and from 1000FT to Ground. The Boeing gives you more autonomy.

There is so much scrutiny on the MAX 8 that it will be the safest aircraft in the sky.

I am very comfortable with the position of the engines and the ability to disengage the Stab trim. All they need to do is to properly train all pilots, and issue a Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) procedure (there was none up till now) which will include a rogue MCAS or TRIM RUNAWAY procedure with Memory Items and Non Memory Items.

I can only think of a few MEMORY ITEMS and these are easy to remember as they are just common sense to a pilot anyway:
1) STAB TRIM DISENGAGE
2) ARREST TRIM
3) NOSE DOWN to increase speed to ...
4) SET MAX POWER ...% (varies for ambient conditions temperature and Density Altitude)

It isn't anymore complicated than the above. In fact, it can be simplified. The KISS principle in aviation is important. Keep it Simple Stupid!

then QRH NON MEMORY items

Sorry but the B737 is a pilot's plane. Airbus 320 might be for the rest of you.

Boeing is on the right track and has a good product here. They had a rogue sensor (perhaps), and it appears that adequate training and education was not provided, but the engines and the aerodynamics are fine and I'm comfortable with MCAS too.

I will leave you all to it again, as I am not interested to debate anything on this subject with anyone here. I just wanted to say that I would be very happy to fly on a MAX 8. Out of ALL the aircraft I would choose to fly, the B737NG and MAX 8 would be my first choice. Reason: Short to Medium Haul and you actually fly it. If I wanted to be an Office manager I will apply to be a Hotelier.

But if any of you are not comfortable, well that's your choice. You are free to make that choice but the MAXI will be just fine. I know QANTAS still has 50 on the way.

Right now, you can walk into jobs with Emirates, QATAR, Etihad, and their subsidiaries. If you want a B777, B787, A380 or A330.

American Airlines actually pay $50,000US for you to sign on a bottom line. And you start on a MAX 8 or B737NG and end up with an E3B VISA along with your wife. Eventually, maybe even US Citizenship (there is an avenue but not guaranteed) whereas in the UAE, once you stop working, you got 30 days to leave the Kingdom.