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
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member

I watch this video yesterday..and I say to my self..daaammeed..that engine is huge...:eek:

When I see that engine compare to the other 747 engine that being used as test plane..well the test plane is 747-300 if I'm not mistaken, and the engine is self already big. This GE9X really make those engine like mini turbofan engine it self.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
She's certainly a huge engine. That's a heck of a lot of thrust. Suck the doors off the hangar.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member

Seems EASA already give positive assessment for MAX. They seems quite satisfied with the changes that Boeing make. With two leading Aviation Agencies (FAA and EASA) already shown positive assessment, this can mean 737-8/9/10 can potentially facing recertification in several months ahead.
Perhaps this will coincide with the return of commercial Airliners to close full capacity in Q2 next year, when projected Vaccines of COVID already reach enough public population.


EASA still got what they want with the third sensors that will provide more safety layers. This sensors being predicted to be installed first on 737-10, and will be installed later on with existing MAX fleet.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

Seems EASA already give positive assessment for MAX. They seems quite satisfied with the changes that Boeing make. With two leading Aviation Agencies (FAA and EASA) already shown positive assessment, this can mean 737-8/9/10 can potentially facing recertification in several months ahead.
Perhaps this will coincide with the return of commercial Airliners to close full capacity in Q2 next year, when projected Vaccines of COVID already reach enough public population.


EASA still got what they want with the third sensors that will provide more safety layers. This sensors being predicted to be installed first on 737-10, and will be installed later on with existing MAX fleet.
The Synthetic Air Data System (SADS) is actually not a new additional sensor, like the Angle of Attack (AoA) sensors or TAT-probe. The SADS does not directly measure the data. The system uses a number of sources of information, including GPS, altitude, and wind information in order to measure airspeed or the AoA. The SADS is also present on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Some time ago Garuda Indonesia planned to convert the 737 MAX-8 orders into MAX-10 orders, because "the MAX-10 doesnt have the MCAS on board". If thats true (i can not find it on internet on which MAX-series the MCAS is actually installed), then its remarkable that the first MAX which get the SADS is the 10.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Some time ago Garuda Indonesia planned to convert the 737 MAX-8 orders into MAX-10 orders, because "the MAX-10 doesnt have the MCAS on board". If thats true (i can not find it on internet on which MAX-series the MCAS is actually installed),
From what I heard through my colleague that handle Garuda account, their plan to convert 49 orders of Max 8 to combination of 787 and 737-10 more to their business plan for International City to City model. However it's also true that Boeing told them, that 10 since it's their newest of MAX already build from beginning with all the modification that they're shown to FAA, EASA and other Aviation Agencies.

Thus it's understandable that 10 will be the first from Max family that having SADS installed in the production line. I believe Boeing homework is still huge as they have to reinstall all the modification to existing 8 and 9 already in the market or now parked in their facilities. SADS is not additional sensors for Boeing just like you say, Boeing don't put it in MAX before I suspect more to costs basis and in line with their marketing drive to the Airlines on how MAX and NG share common flight rating.

All this modifications will put MAX on different flight rating than NG, which means the Airlines has to put different flight Training modules in their Simulators for their Pilots transitioning to MAX from NG.
Something that Boeing should told the Airlines from beginning, as MAX turn out having different flight characteristics than NG.
 
Last edited:
Top