Why doesn't it work right? Do you even know why MCAS was implemented.
Ryanair buys 75 737 Max
- Thread starter nam
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Because unsuitable engines were incorrectly bolted on?
To counter the fact the bolted on engines not designed for it in the first place as Boeing went super cheap and lazy on the deign.
Man of Honour
That tends to be when they put in large orders, iirc they did the same after 9/11.
It was my understanding that is needed because they used larger bladed engines so needed to mount then further forward which altered the handling characteristics and to keep the plane handling like previous generations MCAS was used.
Because they redesigned on an older model plane, then went ahead with the engines to try and make them look more green then had to make the MCAS system so when flaps where down it didn't pitch the plane up ( i think up or down), they went cheap again and only had one sensor for when the system needed to kick in, and never told pilots about it being installed.
So you had a system fixing an inherent flaw in the aero deigned on the plane, from being cheap, then being cheap again to not pay for proper pilot training, training on a system that may not have made any difference to the two disasters from the plane. Their was also report more instances of the MCAS system cutting in when it wasnt supposed too but pilots got ahead of it.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Taken from an article here => https://www.perell.com/blog/boeing-737-max
There are many more analyses, just Google "why did the 737-max crash". A sad story of Engineering R&D being taken over by bean counters and marketeers
As someone with a fear of commercial flying I'm not really too enthused about getting on a 737 Max at any point, that being said the logical side of me thinks that as it is likely the most heavily scrutinised aircraft for safety in recent times you'd expect that to make it more safe to fly on than any other aircraft once they are operational again. In terms of Ryan Air - People will always moan about them but they will never go out of business because of their competitive prices, I doubt it would stop many given that people still fly with them despite the continuous controversies that airline is involved in. Personally I'd rather pay more and fly with someone like EasyJet than board a Ryan Air flight etc.
100% this. If a plane you're in ever gets into a serious malfunction you had better hope your pilots have a cool head and true understanding of it's sub-systems.
What would you do if the accelerater in your car wouldn't stop?
This will make you feel better:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...19/jun/15/boeing-dreamliner-b787-safety-fears
In the manuals it literally says the fire switch might not work, we couldn't believe what we were reading.
Oh my God. That is shocking. I honestly think it's one of the safest forms of transport, until pilot experience, training & ability under pressure is put to the test. At that point you really are *****.
Having seen those Air Crash Investigation programs as well, it doesn't matter how insignificant the issue is, it escalates very quickly when the plane doesn't respond in the way they expect.
Love the quote from that article “Engine fires are a very unlikely event and there have been no observed engine fires in the 787 fleet history."......but if there is one the chances of survival are put at risk by a sticky switch. According to them, 1% chance the button won't work. If I was in are air on a Dreamliner looking at a wing on fire knowing what I know now...
Having seen those Air Crash Investigation programs as well, it doesn't matter how insignificant the issue is, it escalates very quickly when the plane doesn't respond in the way they expect.
Love the quote from that article “Engine fires are a very unlikely event and there have been no observed engine fires in the 787 fleet history."......but if there is one the chances of survival are put at risk by a sticky switch. According to them, 1% chance the button won't work. If I was in are air on a Dreamliner looking at a wing on fire knowing what I know now...
Last edited:
Commissario
That's amazing.
Not "work to replace the switch" but "please remember to check it monthly and pray that if you need it, it hasn't failed in the last month".
I would have thought the correct approach would have been to either replace the switch with a new one that works, even if it means changing the design of it, or replacing the switches every X months, so if it starts ti exhibit the issue after a year you do the monthly check and replace it every 6-12 months when the aircraft has one of it's bigger services.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I was told a while back that many years ago, BOAC (as it was then) pilots when working to rule would check the cabin toilet doors and if one of the locks didn't turn on the "Occupied" light (a common fault) would refuse to take off until the plane was "airworthy" - happy days 
Man of Honour
Am I understanding the situation correctly:
The fire suppression system in each wing has a single switch as a point of failure, with no other way to trigger the system. The switch is known to be a flawed design that is broken by temperature that can exist in normal operation of the aircraft, so in any given plane the fire suppression system might or might not be working and there's no warning if it isn't.
And that's allowed. It's not something unknown that came to light during an investigation into a crash. It's something known in advance and acknowledged by the manufacturer. And the authorities have okayed it. Yeah, well, whatever, you probably won't need the fire suppression system anyway so it's not really important.
That seems like something that shouldn't happen. There shouldn't be one switch and one switch only that is the sole way to trigger a system to stop a fire in the wing spreading. Wings are rather important on a plane and it's rather important that they're not burning. "How far can you fly this plane with an uncontrollable fire in the wing before the wing is too burnt up to keep the plane in the air?" is not a question that should be a continuous concern. If there is a single switch that the whole system relies on (which there shouldn't be), it shouldn't be a switch that is known to be a faulty design that might fail in normal circumstances and in a way that provides no warning at all. Pre-flight checks...does the fire suppression system work? Hey, who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. No way of telling. But that's fine, no worries. The FAA says it's OK. Although they also say that it's a risk to anyone on the plane.
Have I completely failed to understand what's going on?
What if one fails and the 2 remaining disagree? Which one is correct? 4 sources for anything critical please.
Example with network time protocol:
"
- If there is only 1 source of time, the answer is obvious. It may not be a good source of time, but it's the only source of time that can be considered. Any issue with the time at the source will be passed on to the client.
- If there are 2 sources of time and they agree well enough, then the best "time" can be calculated easily. But if one source fails, then the solution degrades to the single-source solution outlined above. And if the two sources don't agree, then it's impossible to know which one is correct by simply looking at the time.
- If there are 3 sources of time, there is more data available to converge on a "best" time, and this time is more likely to be accurate. And the loss of one of the sources (by becoming unreachable or unusable) can be tolerated. But at that point, the solution degrades to the 2 source solution.
- 4 or more sources of time is better, as long as the sources are diverse. If one of these sources develops a problem there are still at least 3 other time sources.
"
Associate
This isn't time that the sensors are detecting. It's any other form of data, and if 1 fails and the other 2 disagree, then you need and can use other sources of info to work out and deduce which one is telling the truth. None of the systems on an aircraft have 4 sources, only 3 for critical data sources and systems.
I mean the bottom line is they are fixing inherent hardware issue with software and training. If it continues to fail, hopefully market economy will fix this issue. But people will end up dying before that happens. I guess 1-2 more crashes and no one will be able to force anyone to fly that thing regardless how cheap - although I'm not sure. Plenty of people who would risk their life for 10-20% reduction in air-fare. Maybe Ryanair will buy in bulk and boeing will line pockets of politicians to make it air worthy.
Last edited:
I may be remembering wrong but they never approved the original max design did they? I thought one of the main issues was that because it used the same body/wings as it's predecessor it didn't technically qualify as a new plane and so recertification was not required. This was part of the cost/corner cutting Boeing did to chuck them out the door half baked before the Airbus Neo secured all the contracts.