الكل
← Back to Squawk list
Software Won’t Fix Boeing’s ‘Faulty’ Airframe
In essence, these critics say, Boeing’s response to the challenge posed by Airbus was bumping passenger safety to a middle seat in economy class while financial considerations were upgraded to First Class. Boeing denies this (www.eetimes.com) المزيد...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I have been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to find out if pilots flying the Max 8 in the United States, Continental, Delta, American, Southwest, etc. have experienced the same damn crazy MCAS induced pitch down as Lion Air and Ethiopian and if so what actions they took to save crew, passengers and plane, and what prompted them to take those actions.
Dont forget the only thing "new" on the 737 Max is the engines and software, some cockpit instruments (part of the issue I guess), everything else is the same old plane. They did not do a build from scratch because Southwest did not want to wait another 5 yrs for them to do it and needed to order hundreds of them...So, some spit and tape and new engines and you "almost" have a new airplane...
If you had been following the 737 MAX development, you would know it is hardly old except for the engines. Hesitating to rely on memory, it was June, 2015 when assembly started on the new wing design, designed for the increased engine weight and also to incorporate the blended winglet. New design upper and lower skins, stringer and spars - isn't that really a new wing? Tail may look the same but Boeing states redesigned tail and tail cone. History also shows the fuselage has changed considerably from the -200, partly due to lessons learned from the Aloha incident. As a person reads the details there seems to be very little carry over except for the basic design parameters. Marketing hypes the stubby landing gear limited engineering to install an engine with a fan that has less wind resistance than the larger fan A320 so one needs to separate the marketing hype from oh darn, we're screwed on that. From project initiation in 2011 to first flight at the end of 2015 doesn't sound rush rush when one compares to neo project starting 8 months earlier and neo first flight 15 months earlier. In other words the neo, by the numbers, was the more rushed program especially considering the neo needed to work in 2 different engines, one of those being much heavier requiring significantly more wing structure.
I agree as well... I think they need some hardware design changes.. 1 in particular, A guarded push off switch for starter on the Glare Shield in easy reach of both crew members!
I agree with your opinion as it reflects what I was concluding also.
A faulty pitot probe was the mechanical factor in the crash of Air France flight 447. Resulting in a fleet wide replacement of the part
Interestingly enough one of the post investigation sugestions of AF447 was to add AOA indicators to the instrument panel but ultimately this was not mandated.