Ethiopian ET302 Crash.

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by E365
Would be nice to see an all-new, composite 737 replacement using all the technology they're developing for the 797. Just blow the A320 series away on efficiency. ðŸ‘ðŸ»


That's the airplane that Boeing walked away from several years ago.

When Airbus decided to re-engine the 320 family (NEO), Boeing decided to re-engine their competing product (737), since a re-engine and update to an existing airplane is far cheaper, and lower risk, than developing a new airplane.

But Airbus started with a 1980s design in the 320 family. Whereas Boeing started with a 1960s design in the 737.

The NMA (new mid size airplane), or 757 replacement has been considered, approved, reconsidered, and dithered about for the last 10 years.

After the 737 Max debacle, United Airline's CEO and Delta's CEO have publicly asked Boeing to speed up the approval and development of the NMA.

 

[4WD]

Caught a 4-1/2 hour ride on a brand new A321NEO
Looking at it from the gate it did not appear those fans would fit under a 73

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by E365
Would be nice to see an all-new, composite 737 replacement using all the technology they're developing for the 797. Just blow the A320 series away on efficiency. ðŸ‘ðŸ»


That's the airplane that Boeing walked away from several years ago.

When Airbus decided to re-engine the 320 family (NEO), Boeing decided to re-engine their competing product (737), since a re-engine and update to an existing airplane is far cheaper, and lower risk, than developing a new airplane.

But Airbus started with a 1980s design in the 320 family. Whereas Boeing started with a 1960s design in the 737.

The NMA (new mid size airplane), or 757 replacement has been considered, approved, reconsidered, and dithered about for the last 10 years.
After the 737 Max debacle, United Airline's CEO and Delta's CEO have publicly asked Boeing to speed up the approval and development of the NMA.


The problems that Boeing has is what the NMA should be.
A twin aisle or just one?
A 757 replacement or one to replace the 737?
Boeing has proven itself able to build a no excuses single aisle. The problem is that it's too much airplane for most of the uses to which it's been put, hence the stretch versions of the 737.
That the 757 saw only a bit more than a thousand deliveries in twenty years also serves to demonstrate that this is not a segment in which Boeing needs a replacement new design.
Boeing did originally plan a clean sheet single aisle to replace the venerable 737. Boeing concluded that it couldn't gain enough efficiency in doing so to justify the invested costs it would have to recover, so settled upon yet another iteration of the old girl. One of Airbus's know it all loudmouths predicted that this would be Boeing's response to the NEO and he turned out to be right.
The MAX will prove to be a reliable and safe workhorse when flown by competent crews when all is said and done.
Meanwhile, Boeing suffers incalculable damage to its reputation and credibility.

 

[E365]

Not that the airlines care about pilot comfort much, but now that the modern 737s are doing 7+hr block flights, that old 737 cockpit is a pretty miserable place to be for that long. It's tiny, and the ergonomics are bad compared to an A320 series plane.

Shame they never updated the overhead panel too or gave it a proper, modern EICAS system for cautions/warnings/advisories/etc. Rumor was Southwest stopped that upgrade, so they could maintain a common fleet. Even a basic CRJ700/900 cockpit is far better designed. And a DC-9 series is roomier and quieter. But I suppose it makes money, so the airlines don't care, but it's certainly not a pilot favorite.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

How quickly does the flying public forget the accolades when a 737 was hailed as the next Goonie Bird after Taca 110 dead sticked on a levee... off runway 737 landing was a first...

Sequence of events:

Hail kills both engines...
Hot restart destroys internals... no thrust...
Dead Stick levee...
Cool one eyed pilot is celebrated as a hero... (I say modern day Wiley Post)

 

[PimTac]

Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.

 

[4WD]

+1

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.


The nightmare scenario was that one of these aircraft might experience a battery fire somewhere far from any possible alternate with no way of extinguishing the fire.
Of course, this could also happen with any of the many devices that people bring aboard airliners every day.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.


The nightmare scenario was that one of these aircraft might experience a battery fire somewhere far from any possible alternate with no way of extinguishing the fire.
Of course, this could also happen with any of the many devices that people bring aboard airliners every day.



I would fit in that scenario as my usual route was Seattle to Tokyo which took me up over the Aleutians and the Bering Sea. That would be about as desolate as you can get.

I do agree, the entire battery problem is a concern whether it's in laptops or whatever. Hopefully better battery construction and different materials will make this a moot issue.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.


The nightmare scenario was that one of these aircraft might experience a battery fire somewhere far from any possible alternate with no way of extinguishing the fire.
Of course, this could also happen with any of the many devices that people bring aboard airliners every day.


Ugh. Reminds me of SwissAir 111. They weren't even that far from civilization and still didn't make it.

Is there any way for a plane to vent itself to evacuate smoke? I say this having no real idea how air is managed in a plane of that type. Assuming mostly recirculation.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.


The nightmare scenario was that one of these aircraft might experience a battery fire somewhere far from any possible alternate with no way of extinguishing the fire.
Of course, this could also happen with any of the many devices that people bring aboard airliners every day.


Ugh. Reminds me of SwissAir 111. They weren't even that far from civilization and still didn't make it.

Is there any way for a plane to vent itself to evacuate smoke? I say this having no real idea how air is managed in a plane of that type. Assuming mostly recirculation.




I'm not sure about any venting. If the battery fire is in the passenger cabin the flight attendants have been trained to deal with these scenarios. It might vary but I've read a couple of reports where a phone or small device was dunked into a container of water and kept there.

Of course, any fire will have the plane landing at the nearest airport ASAP.

 

[DoubleWasp]

I imagine so. I had a similar marine event with a diving light. About 15 min after coming up, the flashlight was bulging and smoking. Pains me to say it, but I immediately chucked the whole light as far as I could throw it. I don't like polluting the ocean with trash, but I'm assuming the flaming remains of my boat would have been a greater ecological disaster.

 

[E365]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.


The nightmare scenario was that one of these aircraft might experience a battery fire somewhere far from any possible alternate with no way of extinguishing the fire.
Of course, this could also happen with any of the many devices that people bring aboard airliners every day.


Ugh. Reminds me of SwissAir 111. They weren't even that far from civilization and still didn't make it.

Is there any way for a plane to vent itself to evacuate smoke? I say this having no real idea how air is managed in a plane of that type. Assuming mostly recirculation.




I'm not sure about any venting. If the battery fire is in the passenger cabin the flight attendants have been trained to deal with these scenarios. It might vary but I've read a couple of reports where a phone or small device was dunked into a container of water and kept there.

Of course, any fire will have the plane landing at the nearest airport ASAP.


Some airlines have fire-resistant/proof bags that the flight attendants stick an overheating device in. I think some you even pour water in the bag . They're also have heat/fire resistant gloves in both the cabin and cockpit to pick them up with.

https://brimstonefireprotection.com...MnIat4QIVXf_jBx1EeQ8GEAkYASABEgI-bPD_BwE

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
Minds are short both ways but the reality is that air travel is still the safest way. I was on several Dreamliner flights across the Pacific during the battery issues period. Never a problem. In fact I really enjoy being on a Dreamliner. It's much quieter and faster as well.


The nightmare scenario was that one of these aircraft might experience a battery fire somewhere far from any possible alternate with no way of extinguishing the fire.
Of course, this could also happen with any of the many devices that people bring aboard airliners every day.


Ugh. Reminds me of SwissAir 111. They weren't even that far from civilization and still didn't make it.

Is there any way for a plane to vent itself to evacuate smoke? I say this having no real idea how air is managed in a plane of that type. Assuming mostly recirculation.


The MD-11 type seems to have been born under a dark cloud.
FWIU, most of the landing accidents involving this stretched DC-10 with less horizontal stab and elevator area were the result of crews attempting to land when they should have gone around. Trying to salvage an unstablized approach in this aircraft could easily prove fatal and the mounting of the gear to the wing spars could result in one side breaking and one not, guaranteed to put the airplane on its back.
There were airlines like KLM that operated the type for years with no problems, but good training and rigid adherence to operating standards along with vast institutional knowledge will do that for you.
In the case of the Swissair loss, the aircraft type had nothing to do with it while a faulty IFE install appears to have been the cause.
Had the crew immediately declared an emergency and hauled the thing around toward the nearest suitable piece of pavement without worrying about landing overweight and taking a little time to dump fuel, the outcome might have been different.
OTOH, it might not have been since from the first report of trouble to the aircraft hitting the water only about twenty minutes had passed.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Another trimming stabilizer accident, this time nose-up, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_140 in 1994, Airbus A300. An "Air Disasters" episode (Deadly Go Round) reminds us again.

 

[Quattro Pete]

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

 

[fdcg27]

This is a pretty trivial analysis in many ways.
Even had Boeing merely continued with the NG they would have done well since neither Airbus nor Boeing can deliver enough aircraft in this space to meet the replacement and growth needs of the world's airlines. The NEO might have been preferred, but Boeing would still have sold and delivered many aircraft and even the NG would have improved with the incremental PIPs that come for the engines and aircraft of any given type.
Boeing originally proposed a clean-sheet design but found that such an undertaking couldn't deliver enough improvement in efficiency to make the cost recoverable.
Hence the MAX.
It is telling that first world airlines have put thousands of hours and cycles on these aircraft without incident while two third world carriers managed to crash them.
In the case of the Ethiopian flight, the PIC had very little time in type while the FO barely had enough hours TT to qualify to take a check ride for his PPL in a C172.
Most of his hours had been in sims, not aircraft.
This accident was as much a result of unqualified crew hoping that everything went well as it was anything Boeing designed.
The Lion Air accident reveals the same in that a previous crew flown the aircraft through some difficulties and completed their flight and landed it without incident.
Nothing wrong with the MAX that any airman who understands stab trim versus elevator couldn't deal with.
Some lacked this understanding, but they may not be qualified to be in either seat of passenger aircraft.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Most of us would have never heard of Lion Air had somebody said "this plane has a problem. maybe let's fix it correctly."

 

[Astro14]

That's overly simple, however. It's not just an airplane problem.

Most of us who fly, particularly Boeing, said, "these guys were overwhelmed by a simple problem. Who trained these clowns?"

My first post in this thread is still germane:

Originally Posted by Astro14
I think we talked a bit about the 737 MAX flight control system in the Lion Air thread.

Too early to tell anything, but I will say this: if faced with a flight control problem, I'm not troubleshooting in the air. I will do what I need to get the airplane in a safe configuration to land and NO MORE.

I'm going to land it and let maintenance figure it out.

Back in the days when I had an ejection seat, I would fiddle with stuff in the air and give our guys all the data points and analysis they needed to fix the airplane the first time.

These days, I don't do that.

Lion Air pilots did that...they fiddled with the MACS over and over to try and get it to work. The previous flight, the mishap airplane had a problem, and the crew did some in flight troubleshooting and continued on to destination.

Crazy.

I think that in the course of investigation and cause, that we, of BITOG, will cover a lot of the same concepts we did in the Lion Air thread:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4908879/1

Limits of flight control authority, ability to over-ride systems, systems engineering philosophy, training, startle response, judgement...


With particular emphasis on the last three:

Training. Startle response. Judgement.

 

[bunnspecial]

Originally Posted by fdcg27


Ugh. Reminds me of SwissAir 111. They weren't even that far from civilization and still didn't make it.

Is there any way for a plane to vent itself to evacuate smoke? I say this having no real idea how air is managed in a plane of that type. Assuming mostly recirculation.


The MD-11 type seems to have been born under a dark cloud.
FWIU, most of the landing accidents involving this stretched DC-10 with less horizontal stab and elevator area were the result of crews attempting to land when they should have gone around. Trying to salvage an unstablized approach in this aircraft could easily prove fatal and the mounting of the gear to the wing spars could result in one side breaking and one not, guaranteed to put the airplane on its back.
There were airlines like KLM that operated the type for years with no problems, but good training and rigid adherence to operating standards along with vast institutional knowledge will do that for you.
In the case of the Swissair loss, the aircraft type had nothing to do with it while a faulty IFE install appears to have been the cause.
Had the crew immediately declared an emergency and hauled the thing around toward the nearest suitable piece of pavement without worrying about landing overweight and taking a little time to dump fuel, the outcome might have been different.
[/quote]

If I sat and watched, I could probably see at least a half dozen MD-11 take-offs and as many landings a day from work. UPS seems to know how to fly them safely. I'm not in a position to regularly see Fed-Ex flights, but I think they have more MD-11s than UPS and have an excellent track record with them(in addition to the DC-10/MD-10) also.

I do often joke that there are times when a look at the runway would have you think that M-D is still in business. It's not uncommon that I'll visit the post office(which is right across the street from the main runway) and see 3 UPS MD-11s along with a good collection of Delta MD-88s and MD-90s waiting to take-off(I work near UPS WorldPort in Louisville, so most of their cargo flights pass through).