Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
After having flown to many countries for the last 50 plus years. It never occurred to me to inquire on the type of aircraft I was booked on.
But... The 737 max...Not sure I would feel safe...
A friend of mine, a retired captain from Lufthansa told me that when he first saw the 373 max He immediately thought
that the aircraft design was flawed. The wings and engines position didn't make sense to him. And Boeing, after two crashes decided to fix the error using a band aid software
Now pilots have to be trained to control a poorly engineered plane in case the software fails.
All this for $$$$!
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
Tony From Syracuse wrote:
new aircraft design game changer. never be afraid to fly again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z13Ae9ygiCU I love modern technology! But not when the CEO's try to cut corners for profits....
Maybe you were not born yet when the US car manufactures create the Pintos, the Gremlins and a couple of other models
to compete with the Japanese cars....Didn't do very well...
Photographer
Eric212Grapher
Posts: 3782
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
The 737 MAX has been throughly scrubbed and rescrubbed.
As a retired aeronautical engineer, any pilot who thinks he can determine the aerodynamics, stability and control, by a gander of the planform is full of crap. We spent hundreds of hours in wind tunnels and thousands of hours simulating flight before the aircraft ever takes flight.
By all rights the B2 should not be directional stable... but it is. The X-29 was built all wrong, but flew wonderfully. The F-15 STOL Demo had tails in the front (canards), and was incredible.
What you call a software bandaid is what fighter pilots have used for decades. Fly-by-wire is a proven technology.
Software should NEVER take the pilot out of the loop. That's an Airbus thing to failure. Why Boeing went that route is beyond my comprehension. The "software bandaid" now believes the pilot knows what is happening to make the final decision. Training is critical to understand how to react in certain situations.
After the infamous Airbus A300 crash in NY, Airbus had to revise their training for single engine failures to teach pilots to NEVER use the rudder in those situation - which is completely counterintuitive. Pilots have to make the call and perform the correct procedure. You cannot build wings and tails that will magically fly itself straight through failures.
When the 737 MAX is re-certified and the pilots trained, the aircraft will be safe. Whether you want to fly on it or not, that's your call. But do your homework, and while rejecting the 737 MAX changes, consider the crash reports of any model type. Walk across the country, swim the oceans. but please do not spread your phobia to others.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
Eric212Grapher wrote:
The 737 MAX has been throughly scrubbed and rescrubbed.
[...]
When the 737 MAX is re-certified and the pilots trained, the aircraft will be safe. Whether you want to fly on it or not, that's your call. But do your homework, and while rejecting the 737 MAX changes, consider the crash reports of any model type. Walk across the country, swim the oceans. but please do not spread your phobia to others. I am sure you are right. Personally I would fly in a Max without any additional concerns.
Every aircraft that has ever flown is/was a bundle of engineering compromises. That is NOT a bad thing by any sense.
When Wilbur and Orville were putting their toy together- as complex as it was- they could "manage" the compromises, they could be informed enough to have full system knowledge.
The right hand knew what the left hand was doing.
Fast forward a hundred years. It is VERY hard, VERY time consuming, VERY expensive to keep full system knowledge in the hands of the key people who need it. Seemingly minor, un-related changes can have unforeseen consequences.
We exposed a weakness in our aircraft approval system. A certain amount of manufacturer self certification makes good sense. Over reliance on self certification turned out to be a bad idea.
I suspect like most govt oversight functions, funding for qualified people became more and more difficult over time, and industry stepped in to keep the process going... a natural, easy progression.
Photographer
Omaroo
Posts: 1121
Madison, Wisconsin, US
IMAGINERIES wrote:
After having flown to many countries for the last 50 plus years. It never occurred to me to inquire on the type of aircraft I was booked on.
But... The 737 max...Not sure I would feel safe...
A friend of mine, a retired captain from Lufthansa told me that when he first saw the 373 max He immediately thought
that the aircraft design was flawed. The wings and engines position didn't make sense to him. And Boeing, after two crashes decided to fix the error using a band aid software
Now pilots have to be trained to control a poorly engineered plane in case the software fails.
All this for $$$$! I'm just curious.....is this pandemic getting to you? Are you locked up? You have a lot of posts going on. Not a criticism (don't jump on me y'all), just an observation and a question of curiosity.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
Omaroo wrote:
I'm just curious.....is this pandemic getting to you? Are you locked up? You have a lot of posts going on. Not a criticism (don't jump on me y'all), just an observation and a question of curiosity. You are so right!! From now on, I'll I will control my MM activities.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2775
Los Angeles, California, US
I believe the problem was not about engine or wing design, but a faulty automatic attitude recovery system.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
Eric212Grapher wrote:
The 737 MAX has been throughly scrubbed and rescrubbed.
As a retired aeronautical engineer, any pilot who thinks he can determine the aerodynamics, stability and control, by a gander of the planform is full of crap. We spent hundreds of hours in wind tunnels and thousands of hours simulating flight before the aircraft ever takes flight.
By all rights the B2 should not be directional stable... but it is. The X-29 was built all wrong, but flew wonderfully. The F-15 STOL Demo had tails in the front (canards), and was incredible.
What you call a software bandaid is what fighter pilots have used for decades. Fly-by-wire is a proven technology.
Software should NEVER take the pilot out of the loop. That's an Airbus thing to failure. Why Boeing went that route is beyond my comprehension. The "software bandaid" now believes the pilot knows what is happening to make the final decision. Training is critical to understand how to react in certain situations.
I surely would not debate or argue with an aeronautical engineer, I just mention the words of a friend who has flown a slew of commercial aircrafts since he was in his twenties....
Just out of curiosity, would the famous "landing" on the Hudson be feasible with the MAX?
After the infamous Airbus A300 crash in NY, Airbus had to revise their training for single engine failures to teach pilots to NEVER use the rudder in those situation - which is completely counterintuitive. Pilots have to make the call and perform the correct procedure. You cannot build wings and tails that will magically fly itself straight through failures.
When the 737 MAX is re-certified and the pilots trained, the aircraft will be safe. Whether you want to fly on it or not, that's your call. But do your homework, and while rejecting the 737 MAX changes, consider the crash reports of any model type. Walk across the country, swim the oceans. but please do not spread your phobia to others.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11732
Olney, Maryland, US
IMAGINERIES wrote:
I love modern technology! But not when the CEO's try to cut corners for profits....
Maybe you were not born yet when the US car manufactures create the Pintos, the Gremlins and a couple of other models
to compete with the Japanese cars....Didn't do very well... What was wrong with the Gremlin? In what way was it unsafe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Greml … e_System_1
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11732
Olney, Maryland, US
Omaroo wrote:
I'm just curious.....is this pandemic getting to you? Are you locked up? You have a lot of posts going on. Not a criticism (don't jump on me y'all), just an observation and a question of curiosity. IMAGINERIES wrote:
You are so right!! From now on, I'll I will control my MM activities. Hey JP, You are just as entitled to post here as anyone else is.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
Mark Salo wrote:
What was wrong with the Gremlin? In what way was it unsafe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Greml … e_System_1 LOL---- you man besides being hideous? 
One of my good friends had one, and loved it. But she said she did get tired of being laughed at when she got out of it... they did look a bit like a glass bowl that had wheels...
at least they were not fire bombs like the Pinto.
|
