I'll steer clear of the MAX but that's not really much of a story. Every time they do these fleet wide inspections there's some bolts loose or some screws missing. That's why there is so much redundancy built in to aircraft. It's only newsworthy because of the aircraft type.
Boeing in trouble again
- Thread starter Foxbatt
- Start date
Well and the insignificant detail that a part just literally fell off mid flight...
Thinking tether is a conspiracy theory. Explains much!No thanks I'm not spending any time burying myself under false conspiracy theories
From a 2 month old aircraft!
I guess you didn't follow the story, because these loose stops were found precisely in the emergency doors, one of which departed the Alaska Airlines flight.
Again, it often happens when these fleetwide inspections are done. There is an issue that leads to an airworthiness directive and they then find more aircraft have the same problem. Thats the point of them. Not unusual or a cause for uproar, there are dozens of these in force at any given time.
Not a cause of uproar? How about a terrible QA practices pertaining to critical components by BA and their contractors, which lead to one serious incident and potentially might have lead others? Also questions are rightfully asked what else has not been properly inspected.
I can sort of see that software might contained bugs or flight incompatibilities. but something as basic as missing or lose bolts in a plane with a list price of almost 150 million USD is pathetic. And not matter how many times, I can't understand anyone explaining this in a normal tone or "is what it is"
I can understand it for avionics which have multiple backups , but something as fundamental as hull integrity issues , really is unacceptable. We are not talking about missing rivets that are one of 1000 or so on the same part either.
MCAS was originally designed to kick in based on a single Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor near the nose of the plane. These can get frozen up from time to time and so historically in other systems AOA data would be taken from multiple AOA sensors and presented to pilots, so they could judge if this was a sensor error or a real problem. The AOA sensors are there to stop a plane from gradually falling into a dive or climbing into a stall condition, particularly when Pilots are unsighted in bad weather and can't see a natural horizon.
The danger of the MCAS system was it was forcing the nose of the plane down if a single sensor was frozen - and not making this clear to the pilots.
Also the fact that Boeing basically hid the parameter changes in the MCAS system and advertised that existing 737 pilots could fly the new 737 Max with "No flight Simultator" training required, just watch a video! was even more dangerous and disingenuous. Pilot Simulator training and re-certification always encompasses highly detailed operating procedures on how to deal with system failures affecting control surfaces and key instrumentation. The MCAS system more than qualified under this and should have involved a degree of simulator training for potential failure under a number of different circumstances.
The Ethiopian Air pilots were aware of the potential for MCAS to be the cause of the problem and tried to switch it off by turning off the electronic horizontal stabilizer control system, as directed to do so following a checklist sent by Boeing - but this didn't allow them to manually adjust the stabilizer (because of strong aerodynamic forces at the speed they were going) to compensate for the error produced by MCAs and so they switched it back on - causing MCAS to kick in again and make things worse. This lack of clarity around what to do in the event of an instrument failure is the thing that Pilots spend hours training in simulators to avoid. The image of two pilots desperately fighting with the plane controls to stop it flying into the ground is just horrific.
MCAS is now more higher profile given it caused 2 crashes and the grounding of the plane worldwide - and it's parameters have apparently been changed to not make automatic adjustments based on one sensor response - something that was a massive design flaw in the first place, breaking the usual approach of triple redundancy.
Last edited:
There are still only two AoA sensors, the change is that the FCC now requires inputs from both and if they are obviously wrong will switch the whole system off, and any inputs it does make are limited so a pilot can physically overpower them.
The changes limit it's ability to kill you but also limit its ability to keep you safe as intended. It's a fundamentally flawed aircraft now that was apparently a pig in testing and there's not alot they can do about it.
I do find it strange that they've made the engines continually bigger.
Usually progress results in making the same performance but in a smaller package no?
Usually progress results in making the same performance but in a smaller package no?
It feels like you’ve got more space, even though you might not have.
We flew to Majorca in a wide bodied Airbus (A330?) with Jet 2 recently and it felt a lot less cramped than the usual 737 or Airbus equivalent.
Not when it comes to commercial engine development.
There's been a push by regulators and airlines for engines to be quieter and more fuel efficient. That's satisfied by a bigger fan. It turns slower so it makes less noise, and a bigger fan produces more thrust with less fuel.
The core can remain the same or get smaller, but what you see is the big fan and the case. The actual engine is smaller.
Successful company (Boeing) “encouraged” by government to rescue failing competitor (McDonnell Douglas). Failing company’s rotten culture infects and permanently ruins acquirer.
Exactly the same happened to the British motor industry in 1968 when the successful and prosperous Leyland Motor Company was forced by the Government to rescue the dysfunctional and broke BMC.
Thank you for the explanation mate, makes sense now.
Cattle class is cattle class whichever airline you use, A330's are primarily for longer routes so it might have had a 30 or 31 inch pitch as opposed to a 29 inch one on a short haul airplane because there's a huge difference between tolerating little space for 3 hours as opposed to 9 or 10 - https://www.seatguru.com/ is your friend
Just to give you an idea of size, the 777 engine cowling is the same diameter as a 737 fuselage and the newer engines are even bigger
Thanks a lot for the experts on the topic. I learnt a lot of interesting information
Not true in the case of McDonnell Douglas and that was more than 30 years ago and not really relevant today, Boeing got complacent, it never replaced the 757 and has essentially given that market to Airbus with the A321
Boeing's most important customers are the big US domestic carriers and American, Delta and JetBlue have several hundred A321's in service or on order, the first 2 were big 757 users as well
Yeah I was amazed to find we were on one for such a short flight.
Jet 2 have two of them. Their longest flights are Cyprus and the Canaries. Presumably they use them on the busiest routes at peak times?
The most uncomfortable flight I’ve ever endured was Birmingham to Newark and back on a 737. I was surprised they had the fuel capacity! It was a choir tour and I was having to help keep a load of young cathedral choristers in check, so there wasn’t much opportunity to feel aggrieved about the plane.
https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis
Edit: I used to work with someone who had previously sold hydraulic control valves to both, so can claim to be on the extreme margins of ITK
Last edited:
It's not strange, when you have a look at how the engine actually looks. When you look at that you see that your assumption also applies to jet engines... sort of at least.
All modern civilian airplanes don't use classic turbines anymore (in the sense that all the air flows through the actual turbine) but instead use turbofans. This means that they have a large fan at the front of the engine which moves much more air around the turbine (that is by now mostly used just to power the fan but not that much to directly add to the total thrust of the engine) than through it. This bypass ratio increased from generation to generation which makes all of this more efficient. But it becomes more efficient by not accelerating the airflow as much as engines with no/smaller bypasses did. The downside is that to get the same thrust, you have to move more air in total - hence the larger diameter.
And this is where your assumption is applicable - in relation to the fan the turbine needed to power it got smaller and smaller over time.
TBH I think that's ballcocks, now it may have been true 30+ years ago but today that smacks of blaming anyone but the real culprits, TBH it's a bit like blaming SAF for the current issues at United!https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis
Edit: I used to work with someone who had previously sold hydraulic control valves to both, so can claim to be on the extreme margins of ITK
The A330's are leased - probably just for extra capacity as and when needed, they are probably cheap in that they'll be older models
A 737 on BHX-to-EWR doesn't sound right, presumably a charter and a light load, which airline weas that?
However 737 MAX's fly across the Atlantic every day, Westjet use them to the UK and Air Canada do as well
Worst flights I've had, take your pick, 757's Continental and United to Newark and Cleveland were bad, a leased 757 on Easyjet to Malta was probably the worst though thankfully short, Buzz BAe 146 from Amsterdam to Stansted was also bad, I couldn't get in the row unless sideways, it was virtually empty though so could have been worse, should have been a Fokker 100 which were delightful to fly in!
Well it’s a fact that they moved the corporate HQ from unsexy Seattle to glamorous Chicago, which was a sign that they’d rather play at being tycoons than run an aircraft business.
Well if that had been McDonnell Douglas's fault they'd have moved to my current balliwick
You know I can’t remember the airline; it was October half term 2009 - over 14 years ago
Feels like yesterday; I remember getting the beers in at 7.30 in the morning and thinking the bar at Birmingham was a lot better than Manchester.It must have been a scheduled flight, and it certainly wasn’t a light load. Sadly, none of the party were plane nerds; the then Director of Music was a massive petrol head and F1 fan, the Assistant was into yacht racing and I’m a huge railway geek.
While those journeys were nasty, that was mainly down to having to spend so long on such a small plane. I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with a 737 (other than the recent ones’ inclination to crash) but the 757 is a horrible plane. They were a major impediment to the enjoyment of holidays in the Med. I haven’t encountered one for a while now; have they totally gone from Europe?
Presumably it was nobody else but Boeing’s fault that they allowed the ex-MDC senior management to take all the top jobs in the “merged” company.
Again, thank you for taking the time for the explanation. Glad we've got some aircraft experts in here to put things right. Planes are never not fascinating to me and things like this are insane when playing with human lives 30000+ feet in the air
That was definitely not a 737 then, if it was a scheduled service then it would have been Continental and probably a 757 because 737's in those days didn't have the range to do a trip like that non-stop,even today it would be borderline from NewarkYou know I can’t remember the airline; it was October half term 2009 - over 14 years ago
It must have been a scheduled flight, and it certainly wasn’t a light load. Sadly, none of the party were plane nerds; the then Director of Music was a massive petrol head and F1 fan, the Assistant was into yacht racing and I’m a huge railway geek.
While those journeys were nasty, that was mainly down to having to spend so long on such a small plane. I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with a 737 (other than the recent ones’ inclination to crash) but the 757 is a horrible plane. They were a major impediment to the enjoyment of holidays in the Med. I haven’t encountered one for a while now; have they totally gone from Europe?
I quite like 757's, just not on long-haul or holiday type flights, there's not many left in regular service now, United and Delta still use them, American retired all theirs during the pandemic, Icelandair still use them but the MAX's are taking over and they'll be gone soon, though you can always box yourself up and fly FedEx or UPS, they have loads of them
Ok I suppose it must have been a 757 then. It seemed too short!That was definitely not a 737 then, if it was a scheduled service then it would have been Continental and probably a 757 because 737's in those days didn't have the range to do a trip like that non-stop,even today it would be borderline from Newark
I quite like 757's, just not on long-haul or holiday type flights, there's not many left in regular service now, United and Delta still use them, American retired all theirs during the pandemic, Icelandair still use them but the MAX's are taking over and they'll be gone soon, though you can always box yourself up and fly FedEx or UPS, they have loads of them
Yes I’ve seen freight liveried ones. They look good in DHL’s yellow and red.
I'm assuming it wasn't a twin aisle 'cos that could have been a 767-200 which do seem short
Quite a few of the DHL ones seen in the UK were BA's originally back in the day, some of those are pretty old because BA were one of the launch cistomers for the 757 in the early 80's
Probably not a coincidence that both implemented cost cutting engineering practices (time quality system or something like that), developed poor aircraft (MD11) on a compromised platform (trijet) and later had a series of avoidable accidents and couldnt sell them to anybody worth selling to. Difference now is there's nobody to buy Boeing.
And we enjoy the resulys of your geeky pleasure as with the others. Everyone is taking the time yo explain it in layman terms... and yeah... Nerd!Airplanes are my hobby
