I will NEVER fly on a 737 MAX! EVER!

originally posted by: KansasGirl
But...it's the pilots' faults, right? Wasn't that the consensus from the experts, the last I checked the last thead on it? The pilots didn't know how to shut off the auto-pilot and do a manual trim with that wheel thing. Not the plane's fault.

As I understood it........

The manual trim wheel is not usable due force required to move it, on prior models when auto trim/computer circuit breaker was "off" the pilots power assisted trim from yoke switch worked - in the MAX this switch was made to be unpowered forcing use of manual trim wheel which of course was unusable.

Besides simple fact that reducing power in stall condition is about the most un-natural thing to do! which is whats partly required to stabilize flight due engine position.

Bad design outright for a passenger aircraft.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Could be worse, you could be on the Devil's Chariot, the CRJ-200.

a reply to: Phoenix

Here's a great article from the Seattle Times from back in March, shortly after they were grounded. I hadn't seen this one before. It's pretty comprehensive.

Since MCAS was supposed to activate only in extreme circumstances far outside the normal flight envelope, Boeing decided that 737 pilots needed no extra training on the system — and indeed that they didn’t even need to know about it. It was not mentioned in their flight manuals.

That stance allowed the new jet to earn a common “type rating” with existing 737 models, allowing airlines to minimize training of pilots moving to the MAX.

...

Minimizing MAX pilot transition training was an important cost saving for Boeing’s airline customers, a key selling point for the jet, which has racked up more than 5,000 orders.

The company’s website pitched the jet to airlines with a promise that “as you build your 737 MAX fleet, millions of dollars will be saved because of its commonality with the Next-Generation 737.”

Flawed analysis, failed oversight

Specifically to your point:

Going against a long Boeing tradition of giving the pilot complete control of the aircraft, the MAX’s new MCAS automatic flight control system was designed to act in the background, without pilot input. It was needed because the MAX’s much larger engines had to be placed farther forward on the wing, changing the airframe’s aerodynamic lift.

Designed to activate automatically only in the extreme flight situation of a high-speed stall, this extra kick downward of the nose would make the plane feel the same to a pilot as the older-model 737s.

(same source as above)

So Boeing knew they were going against a "long Boeing tradition", but yet didn't feel this was an important enough issue to even include a mention of MCAS in their flight manuals? And here again we see the desire to simulate the experience of older model 737's, reinforcing their apparent desire to not have a new aircraft type.

Sure seems to me like calculated deception.

And then there's this...

After the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, Boeing for the first time provided to airlines details about MCAS. Boeing’s bulletin to the airlines stated that the limit of MCAS’s command was 2.5 degrees.

That number was new to FAA engineers who had seen 0.6 degrees in the safety assessment.

So no one even knew about MCAS until after the Lion Air incident, and even the FAA got blindsided by the change in the amount of control MCAS had on the stabilizer.

Source...again

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But at least when you're on a CRJ-200 you know your pilot is only 12 years old and and getting paid enough to live in used Dodge van in the airport parking lot. A pilot whose total flight time is probably in the double digits. And you know the plane has never been caressed by the wrench of an actual mechanic, only banged on and buggered up by a pair of channel lock pliers in the hands of some ramp rat. And that the airport in Casper, WY only has one vending machine.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
And that airport in Casper, WY only has one vending machine.

Sounds just like Laramie.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Or Rock Springs, or...or.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Love Wyoming. Hate Wyoming airports.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Grew up in Wyoming. Love Wyoming too. Not real fond of Wyoming airports either.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have a friend, former F-16 jock, who flies for one of the majors. He has flown the MAX many times and rather likes the airplane. But he does say that under certain loading conditions, the airplane has limitations and restrictions.

Otherwise, I agree completely with you. Neither will I ride the MAX, but I don't ride the airlines much anymore because I can't stand the BS in the airline terminal.

Not only the text messages you reference, but also within the ASRS run by NASA. The Aviation Safety Reporting System.

When this story first broke, even the presstitutes at NBC news searched the ASRS and found that 4 or 5 reports had been filed against the MAX by US line pilots (anonymous) months before the first fatal accident. Those pilots squawked the handling characteristics, just as the texts from the test pilots did.

Yes, Boeing is criminally liable for cheating the certification process.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So no one even knew about MCAS until after the Lion Air incident, and even the FAA got blindsided by the change in the amount of control MCAS had on the stabilizer.

"Noone knew it existed"? Or "many people didn't know exactly what it does"? Because only one of those is true.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Well, Boeing and the FAA certainly knew it existed, but the airlines didn't / weren't trained on it and it wasn't covered in any of their manuals.

So, take your pick.

In my opinion, that constitutes "no one". Everyone was busy running around saying the Max was the same as the NG's, but it wasn't. So, it sure seems to me like somebody had a responsibility to point out "why" it wasn't the same. And that reason (among others) is MCAS being able to autonomously control the aircraft with sizeable control inputs, repeatedly. That's a pretty big difference.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But at least when you're on a CRJ-200 you know your pilot is only 12 years old and and getting paid enough to live in used Dodge van in the airport parking lot. A pilot whose total flight time is probably in the double digits. And you know the plane has never been caressed by the wrench of an actual mechanic, only banged on and buggered up by a pair of channel lock pliers in the hands of some ramp rat. And that the airport in Casper, WY only has one vending machine.

Haha! But times are slowly changing, I’ve got a couple of offers to fly for the regionals with a bit better pay then what they used to pay, and bonus, but I still won’t move to the dark side, I love my job too much.


How they should fix the pilot shortage is to hire the part time pilots, guys who have a great day job but would like to stay current in the off season.

Edit: as one poster mentioned about the BS in the terminals, I agree, I HATE traveling the airline route, what used to be enjoyable is now dreadful. A few weeks ago the seats were so tight I couldn’t get my helmet bag between the seats to store during the flight! Talk about no leg room.

a reply to: 38181

I think the terminals are 1000% better than actually being on the plane.

The actual flying part is just pure misery for me. Terminals are a PITA for sure, but they're not physically painful. Flying for me is physically painful. I'm not fat, but I'm not small, and I can't make myself any smaller no matter how much the plane and other people try to make me. In the terminal, I can be as tall as I am. On the plane I am constrained (heavily) on how tall I can be, how long my legs are allowed to be, how wide my ass is allowed to be and how wide my shoulders are. Short of lowering the overhead bins to just above the seat top (which I'm sure they're contemplating to see if they can fit some people up there), I'm constrained in every way possible.