General Aviation Thread

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Boeing users will be more reluctant to switch but may have no choice as a Boeing NMA isn’t happening anytime soon and a 4500-5000 mile range 737(?) won’t be much sooner to market if at all.
Yeah, I put it as I don't see any other options for Boeing on this decade to catch up in the middle of the market with Airbus, asside making 737-10 with 4000+ miles range. It will be still less that A321 XLR, but 500-600 miles short perhaps can still be acceptable for Boeing narrow body users, rather than build new support and training if they have to move to Airbus.

Whatever the new design they can come out, it'll be available in the market at the end of Decade at soonest. Unless they tinkering with MAX range, they have to let go this decade narrow body market lead to Airbus.

Speaking of new concept:

Airbus put three concept of zero emissions Airliners. Two are conventional design of narrow body jet and turboprop. While the third one blended wing design.
For me, the challenge is not in the design, but how to attract Industry to move for Hydrogen. It will be a very expensive effort to change global fuel infrastructure to Hydrogen.

At the meantime making an eco-friendly Jet Fuel will be more attractive to come as middle ground between costs and eco-friendly political statement.
 
Last edited:
Ironic considering that two 737 loads of crew and passengers died because the Max-8 software was too controlling.

oldsig
those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them. By not requiring simulator training these crashes were a foregone conclusion. We train for emergencies, when things break. Didn’t happen to US trained pilots. Airbus has its own flaws. Example: the Brazilian crash. Had it had yokes installed, would never have occurred.

Art
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them. By not requiring simulator training these crashes were a foregone conclusion. We train for emergencies, when things break. Didn’t happen to US trained pilots. Airbus has its own flaws. Example: the Brazilian crash. Had it had yokes installed, would never have occurred.

Art
Probably poor training but even worse design and QA.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them. By not requiring simulator training these crashes were a foregone conclusion. We train for emergencies, when things break. Didn’t happen to US trained pilots. Airbus has its own flaws. Example: the Brazilian crash. Had it had yokes installed, would never have occurred.

Art
The evidence suggests that the root cause of the problem was Boeing's decision NOT to notify the FAA and the airlines about the change in the behaviour of the aircraft when the new software encountered this particular problem. So how can that be the airlines fault if they are unaware of it in the first place. Secondly the FAA had contracted out significant portions of its regulatory functions to the manufacturer. Jeez that's like leaving the diehard alcoholic in charge of the brewery. That's pretty slack indeed. I am no fan of Airbus but at present feel far safer in an Airbus product than a Boeing product. BTW just because a pilot has been trained in the US doesn't mean that they're gods gift to aviation. The US puts out its fair share of aviation idiots like everyone else. You ain't special in that department.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yeah, I put it as I don't see any other options for Boeing on this decade to catch up in the middle of the market with Airbus, asside making 737-10 with 4000+ miles range. It will be still less that A321 XLR, but 500-600 miles short perhaps can still be acceptable for Boeing narrow body users, rather than build new support and training if they have to move to Airbus.

Whatever the new design they can come out, it'll be available in the market at the end of Decade at soonest. Unless they tinkering with MAX range, they have to let go this decade narrow body market lead to Airbus.

Speaking of new concept:

Airbus put three concept of zero emissions Airliners. Two are conventional design of narrow body jet and turboprop. While the third one blended wing design.
For me, the challenge is not in the design, but how to attract Industry to move for Hydrogen. It will be a very expensive effort to change global fuel infrastructure to Hydrogen.

At the meantime making an eco-friendly Jet Fuel will be more attractive to come as middle ground between costs and eco-friendly political statement.
@vonnoobie posted a good link on the Australian industry thread concerning Australia’s national hydrogen roadmap. After reading it, it removed a lot of my skepticism about the hydrogen future.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Probably poor training but even worse design and QA.
How do you know? From what I remember reading the pilots training was good. If the airline didn't know of the changes because they weren't told how could they train their pilots for it?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
How do you know? From what I remember reading the pilots training was good. If the airline didn't know of the changes because they weren't told how could they train their pilots for it?
“Possibly” would have been a better word choice than “probably”. We likely will never know.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them.

It's Boeing that persuade Lion Air Group to not give more Simulators Training regime for Pilot transition from 737-800 to MAX 8. Lion Air do have large simulators facilities for 737. After all they're one of the Largest operator of 737-800/900 and MAX 8/9. Those 737 distribute to the Group 2 Airlines in Indonesia and 1 in Malaysia and another in Thailand.

They ask for update software for their Simulators for transitioning their Pilots from 800 to MAX8. Boeing then persuade them to not add more Simulators hours. They're convincing the Airlines that what they're already spend on 737 NG simulation is suitable enough for MAX.
Thus it's not the matter of lack of training, it's Boeing cover up on MAX difference on handling toward Airlines that operating 737 NG.

That's already shown on Congressional Findings.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

It's Boeing that persuade Lion Air Group to not give more Simulators Training regime for Pilot transition from 737-800 to MAX 8. Lion Air do have large simulators facilities for 737. After all they're one of the Largest operator of 737-800/900 and MAX 8/9. Those 737 distribute to the Group 2 Airlines in Indonesia and 1 in Malaysia and another in Thailand.

They ask for update software for their Simulators for transitioning their Pilots from 800 to MAX8. Boeing then persuade them to not add more Simulators hours. They're convincing the Airlines that what they're already spend on 737 NG simulation is suitable enough for MAX.
Thus it's not the matter of lack of training, it's Boeing cover up on MAX difference on handling toward Airlines that operating 737 NG.

That's already shown on Congressional Findings.
Articles like the above confirm my belief that Boeing efforts to morph the 737-10 (or whatever name they decide on) into a A321XLR alternative simply won’t fly with many airlines.
 
The evidence suggests that the root cause of the problem was Boeing's decision NOT to notify the FAA and the airlines about the change in the behaviour of the aircraft when the new software encountered this particular problem. So how can that be the airlines fault if they are unaware of it in the first place. Secondly the FAA had contracted out significant portions of its regulatory functions to the manufacturer. Jeez that's like leaving the diehard alcoholic in charge of the brewery. That's pretty slack indeed. I am no fan of Airbus but at present feel far safer in an Airbus product than a Boeing product. BTW just because a pilot has been trained in the US doesn't mean that they're gods gift to aviation. The US puts out its fair share of aviation idiots like everyone else. You ain't special in that department.
You’re right, there are US trained pilots who aren’t good. But,if you look at the fatality rate for US flagged airlines, you’ll notice it is the lowest, world wide. That comes from required recurrence training, 99% done in simulators. They trained for this very thing in simulators. Where (The simulator) you can do things that you wouldn’t dare in a real situation. When the shit hits the fan in certain instances, you have to react immediately, not pull the AFM out to see what to do. That was my point.

Art
 
Top