Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

I sat in a 737 simulator yesterday....first thing I asked was how to turn MCAS off...to be told this was an 800 so not fitted.Just hope Boeing get the real thing right. It appears possible to me the design boundaries have been pushed too far and maybe they need a complete new design to better use these new engines and get the cg and other aspects correct from the ground up, rendering a system like MCAS less than necessary.

[Paphitis]

A lot of people actually blaming Boeing when there is not a lot to blame.

The design parameters are set by the industry and the market - in other words Boeing consults with the market and industry to provide what they want. That is, their main customers like QANTAS, AA, BA, Virgin, ANA, and so on. What is important in the industry is to save costs and efficiency. That’s why we have tried and true designs like the A320neo and B737 Max 8. Airlines don’t want another type in their network because costs go up. It’s not the first time Boeing and Airbus have tried this.

Both planes and all aircraft from now on are fly by wire. Everything is becoming automated and you have Stall Avoidance Systems already and the MCAS is just an extended version of this. The A320 actually forbids an abrupt control input. You can violently heave back and forward on the control column or try and Bank the aircraft beyond 25 degrees and the fight control system won’t allow it. Boeing still do allow that, for now.

It’s the market that wants the A320 and B737. And the way the market regulates it is through the number of orders of both types.

And of course, after the industry heavyweights, it’s actually the public that dictate a lot of it on a micro scale with their requirement for competitiveness and cheap fares and the advent of Low Cost Carriers.

[Kikapu]

Paphitis,

Which came first, the MCAS or the 737 MAX?

Many believe, that had the 737 MAX not had a design problem there wouldn’t be a need for the MCAS, and if that is the case, the MCAS was an afterthought where it wasn’t perhaps designed for all eventualities, which nothing is by the way. Boeing will perfect the MCAS as much as possible and may even make it a standard equipment in future designs of all new planes yet to come. As I have said a while back, that the concept of the MCAS is not the debate as it can add another level of safety which the AF447 could have used to save all the lives on that flight due to pilot(s) screw-up. The bigger debate is whether or not Boeing should have cut corners with the MAX which needed the MCAS to correct the problem which then intensifies the problem by keeping the nose down when the pilots were well prepared to take over the plane physically to resume normal flight, had they were allowed to by the MCAS.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis,

Which came first, the MCAS or the 737 MAX?

Many believe, that had the 737 MAX not had a design problem there wouldn’t be a need for the MCAS, and if that is the case, the MCAS was an afterthought where it wasn’t perhaps designed for all eventualities, which nothing is by the way. Boeing will perfect the MCAS as much as possible and may even make it a standard equipment in future designs of all new planes yet to come. As I have said a while back, that the concept of the MCAS is not the debate as it can add another level of safety which the AF447 could have used to save all the lives on that flight due to pilot(s) screw-up. The bigger debate is whether or not Boeing should have cut corners with the MAX which needed the MCAS to correct the problem which then intensifies the problem by keeping the nose down when the pilots were well prepared to take over the plane physically to resume normal flight, had they were allowed to by the MCAS.

I think that is a false premise.

Boeing would have done wind tunnel tests and actually measured the moment arms between the Center of Gravity and The Center of Pressure from which lift is produced. As a result, they would know the pitching moments and developed MCAS.

They would also work out the arm between Thrust and Drag because they need to know the pitching moment between these 2 forces which are about a tenth of the Lift (CoP) and Weight (CoG) arm, otherwise known as the Lift/Drag ratio. It's very important to understand the arms and the pitching moments they provide which is a natural nose down anyway because the B737 is longitudinally stable.

Not only this, but these arms are important for the Trim Sheets. You would know that as a Weight and Balance.

Anyway, I don't want to get involved in this anymore other than to say, I would quite happy fly on the B737 Max 8.

[Kikapu]

I have no doubt you and other professional pilots would fly the MAX because you understand what makes it fly. The worry is, many passengers do not, as they now believe the MAX has a problem with two crashes and almost 350 fatalities.

[Paphitis]

I have no doubt you and other professional pilots would fly the MAX because you understand what makes it fly. The worry is, many passengers do not, as they now believe the MAX has a problem with two crashes and almost 350 fatalities.

People need to look at the professionals. we don't want to die either.

Fact is, this plane is going to go through the ringer before it flies again. It's going to be very safe.

Boeing has put Billions of R&D into this aircraft. They couldn't have predicted what was to occur. It was a freak accident. The swiss cheese holes lined up twice. It happens. Lessons will be learned and the plane will grace the skies again.

People get caught up in a lot of hype, and Boeing is going to have to combat some negative sentiment. But let's put it into context. The MAXI 8 is a different plane based on the older B737 design. The safety record of the B737 is probably second to none overall. One of the safest planes in the safest mode of transport and in the safest industry. The MAXI too, will go on to be an excellent aircraft. It will eventually carry hundreds of millions of people for only a few hundred deaths. The Airbus went through similar issues as you know.

In the end, as the aircraft starts flying again, passengers will learn to tolerate and then eventually accept the aircraft. Personally, I think the chances of getting killed on an aircraft will be more on anything other than a B737 MAXI. Boeing isn't going to risk jack with this plane because the aircraft is too valuable.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

A lot of people actually blaming Boeing when there is not a lot to blame.
The design parameters are set by the industry and the market - in other words Boeing consults with the market and industry to provide what they want. That is, their main customers like QANTAS, AA, BA, Virgin, ANA, and so on. What is important in the industry is to save costs and efficiency. That’s why we have tried and true designs like the A320neo and B737 Max 8. Airlines don’t want another type in their network because costs go up. It’s not the first time Boeing and Airbus have tried this.

But you are a pilot by profession ..... not one of the hundreds of different expert engineers that are required to create the aircraft and make it fly safely. Even then you are only required between the far end of the runway ...... the rest of the flight is automated ....... and the runway at the other end of the flight and even landings now can be fully automated. So the electronics is rapidly reducing the requirement for the pilot, they are there mainly to keep the passengers content.

It is the aircrafts engineers and designers that convert the customers wish list into a reality! With the 737, its first flight was in 1967 that is 52 years ago, (before you were born?) and since then it has been reborn so many times as a new version, but the basics of the original design are still there.

With the Max 8 my belief is they made more mod’s (new engines) which caused a problem with the aircrafts basic dynamics/balance and they resolved it by using software. The ‘what-if’ analysis was questionable as a safety system should never rely on a single input to make an automated decision, it is usually two or even three inputs/systems.

The sensor failed or was iced up and the software responded as designed to correct what it regarded as a potential hazardous situation. With only one, or even with two sensors, how would the system know the difference between a failure and the actual event? Computers have the habit of doing what they are told to do, when they are told to do it. They are more stupid than people and can’t think for themselves until ‘we’ tell them what to do.

Both planes and all aircraft from now on are fly by wire. Everything is becoming automated and you have Stall Avoidance Systems already and the MCAS is just an extended version of this. The A320 actually forbids an abrupt control input. You can violently heave back and forward on the control column or try and Bank the aircraft beyond 25 degrees and the fight control system won’t allow it. Boeing still do allow that, for now.

But aeroplanes were original flown by skilled and experienced hands-on pilots who had a hard connection to the control surfaces. Not now they don’t ......... in basic terms, no matter how skilled the pilot, if the ‘main fuses’ blow or the signals between the pilot and the computers or between the computers and the control surfaces are severed, or the hydraulics fail ...... they are f****d!

It’s the market that wants the A320 and B737. And the way the market regulates it is through the number of orders of both types.

The ‘market’ wants an aeroplane that suits its requirements and those requirements will vary from customer to customer, so every aircraft is to a degree a compromise.

Do you not remember the 747 operated by a Japanese airline that crashed some years ago (a rear bulkhead failed?) ..... later defined as due to metal fatigue? It had done very low hours but it was then realised that the number of takes offs/landings was many times the norm for the total air frame flying hours because the customer was using it as a high volume passenger carrier on short haul. Or the 747 engine pylons that failed causing the engine to fall off through metal fatigue because the mechanics used a fork lift to remove them from the pylon during servicing and replacement, instead of a cradle and jacks?

Unfortunately, the more complex the system ..... the more likely there will be problems.

[Kikapu]

The pylons problem was on the American Airlines DC10 where the No. 1 engine came off soon after take off ripping off all the hydraulic lines that caused the plane to crash killing everyone aboard.

[Robin Hood]

The pylons problem was on the American Airlines DC10 where the No. 1 engine came off soon after take off ripping off all the hydraulic lines that caused the plane to crash killing everyone aboard.

You are probably right, I just remembered the incident rather than the detail.

[Kikapu]

The pylons problem was on the American Airlines DC10 where the No. 1 engine came off soon after take off ripping off all the hydraulic lines that caused the plane to crash killing everyone aboard.

You are probably right, I just remembered the incident rather than the detail.

No problem. I wasn’t trying to correct you, but I do remember the incident very well. I believe the flight was out of Chicago.