Sources tell KING 5 that the Federal Aviation Administration will lift the 20-month grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX in the United States on Wednesday. (www-king5-com.cdn.ampproject.org) 更多...
Just like the B58 Hustler scared the pilots crashed twice in paris airshows, the MAX scared the public world wide perception is ruined. Bad gamble by Boeing that will cost them Billions. Sad the FAA global reputation and trust was also ruined.
I’ve never understood why Boeing didn’t design a 757-Max. Performance wise the 757 is a much better aircraft and they wouldn’t have had the ground clearance problems the 737 has.
Consider this: 2 US air crews had this malfunction. No loss of life. Both planes flew safely. 2 foreign carrier air crews had this event, and crashed.
Do you see a link here? It comes down to inadequate training by foreign carriers.
But Boeing has big pockets, and takes the blame. And the plane gets a black eye.
Could the design have been better? Sure.
But the fact remains that all the air crews had to do is open the circuit breakers on the right lower section of the throttle pedestal, and everybody lives.
I'd fly a Boeing product any day of the week. If you fly an Airbus plane, listen as the plane lands. It sounds like it's falling apart. You don't get that from any Boeing plane.
I think there's more to it than poorly trained pilots. The two planes that crashed were sold with a minimum of upgrades. For whatever reason, Boeing let those planes out of the factory with minimal redundant systems that fed data to the MCAS. Couple a bad AOA sensor with undertrained pilots who never knew there was an MCAS system and we see the results.
American carriers purchased fully upgraded equipment with several redundant systems feeding data to the MCAS leading to far fewer MCAS problems. American carriers pilots with many more hours of training and experience were also able to overcome MCAS deficiencies when problems arose. Still, Boeing not telling pilots about the MCAS is, at best, questionable. At worst, criminal.
I think there's more to it than poorly trained pilots... Like Lion Air's problems with procedures, documentation, and maintenance, you mean?
The two planes that crashed were sold with a minimum of upgrades... They were also bought that way.
For whatever reason, Boeing let those planes out of the factory with minimal redundant systems that fed data to the MCAS.... They reason is they were designed that way.
Couple a bad AOA sensor with undertrained pilots who never knew there was an MCAS system and we see the results... How in the world did the pilots in the second crash not know about MCAS? By then everybody knew what MCAS was.
American carriers purchased fully upgraded equipment... Some did, some didn't. Some like Southwest did, but didn't have due to a software glitch.
with several redundant systems feeding data to the MCAS leading to far fewer MCAS problems... Wrong, they all had the same level of redundancy.
American carriers pilots with many more hours of training and experience were also able to overcome MCAS deficiencies when problems arose... what problems? As in airline and flight number, please.
Still, Boeing not telling pilots about the MCAS is, at best, questionable. At worst, criminal... What if, say, Boeing did tell pilots about MCAS but you say they didn't? What's that at best and worst? System differences manual page 748 if I remember right.f
ah, so, the FAA grounded an airplane for quite 2 years (20 months) because of inadequate training of foreign carriers??? Interesting your argument. Give a break and come up with more reasonable thinking and conclusions. Your writing shows little respect for the 386 deaths and for countries that are not able to be "Big America" and have not the means. I will not comment your stupid last sentence, which lacks any logic
The poor training arguably also falls on Boeing. The Max is attractive because it required minimal training for existing 737 pilots. So either they nix the minimal training "feature" of the plane, or they re-engineer/re-design aspects of the plane so that pilots can still receive minimal training and safely operate the plane, or a little of both.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Emergency Order of Prohibition issued March 13, 2019, applicable to Boeing Company Model 737-8 and Boeing Company Model 737-9 airplanes, is rescinded with effect as described below. This rescission enables operation of Boeing Company Model 737-8 and Boeing Company Model 737-9 airplanes only upon satisfaction of applicable requirements for return to service. The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 (737 MAX) airplanes.
Please see the following FAA documents for a comprehensive discussion of the foregoing;
Imagine Ford, GM or any automotive manufacturer kept their 1967 car line up and just added better brakes, better engine, seats, but left the original body style and they tried to sell it to the public. I know the cost between creating a new car and plane is huge but see my point?
Sad that Boeing’s good name has been tarnished so badly and the CEO who committed the deed has been rewarded with a nice financial package into retirement. The FAA, too, has lost the stellar reputation they once enjoyed. The Max is now a safe airplane to fly but I intend to never be in it
Seems everyone firgets about all the problems and deaths regarding the DC-10. Was it grounded worldwide? Nope. Even though far more people died. Every aircraft is a compromise. There is no guarantee that issues won't show up with a new or modified design. You want a guarantee? Buy a toaster, and even then you're not guaranteed perfect safety.
The DC-10 was grounded in the USA and in most other countries, I think around 1979. It didn’t help much because it had several major accidents after it was returned to service.
Going down to the basic: does this design carries inherent stabilty? If you need a computer to keep it in the air, the answer is NO. Let's not try to make a cat bark like a dog...
Yes, it does "carries inherent stabilty". No you don't need a computer to keep it in the air so the answer is YES. Let's not try to piss on everyone's boots and say it's raining.
Stupid ass it shows how dumb you are have you ever, one flown in an airliner, two know much about airplanes? Or are all of them piper cubs in your eyes? Airbus and others have had computer problems some have crashed killing people too. Airbus had computer problems with there A330 years back, problem never really found they just kind of quit having problems and moved on with new computer gear. Also those two crashes were both caused by pilots and not fully checking an AC out before launching them with pax.
Compare the original 737 with the 737 Max. No comparison but differences training is a lot cheaper than having to acquire a whole new type rating. It's all about the $$$.
The Boeing 737-8 and 737-9 are the two airplanes that have the GE LEAP engine and are considered to be the MAX versions of the 737 line. The term "MAX" is a marketing term used by Boeing and not an *official* FAA designation. The -7 and -10 "MAX" airplanes were on the drawing board but have not yet been approved by the FAA.
As an aside all the pilots who get type rated on the 737 get the type rating on their certificate that says B737.