Author Topic: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread  (Read 110684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 100222
  • Reputation: -115
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1845 on: January 11, 2020, 08:41:41 AM »
I'll read that again when I have found my anorak  whistle:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 132994
  • Reputation: -49
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1846 on: January 11, 2020, 08:50:47 AM »
14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA... eeek:

Good post!  Thumbs:
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
  • Reputation: 0
  • No surrender
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1847 on: January 11, 2020, 08:55:44 AM »
14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA... eeek:

Good post!  Thumbs:

Thank you BM. I expected no less from our Lock Keeper...

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 100222
  • Reputation: -115
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1848 on: January 11, 2020, 08:58:20 AM »
 redface:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline Steve

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 45505
  • Reputation: -3
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1849 on: January 11, 2020, 10:36:15 AM »
14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA... eeek:

Good post!  Thumbs:
:thumbsup:

With USA laws on punitive damages it's not impossible that this could drive Boeing into Chapter 11 bankruptcy when they could have got away with something like a $5B write off if they'd acted promptly

There's a reason why Airbus use 3 AoA sensors (737 Max uses two) and it comes from the basic science around single fault vulnerability of safety critical systems with no easy fail safe state. The CAA, EASA and FAA require such systems are analysed to show no single fault liability so what did Boeing do?  They lied saying the 737 MCAS wasn't a safety critical function

In the UK the guilty would face manslaughter charges, not sure same applies in the USA

Well, whatever nevermind

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
  • Reputation: 0
  • No surrender
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1850 on: January 11, 2020, 01:13:25 PM »
14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA... eeek:

Good post!  Thumbs:
:thumbsup:

With USA laws on punitive damages it's not impossible that this could drive Boeing into Chapter 11 bankruptcy when they could have got away with something like a $5B write off if they'd acted promptly

There's a reason why Airbus use 3 AoA sensors (737 Max uses two) and it comes from the basic science around single fault vulnerability of safety critical systems with no easy fail safe state. The CAA, EASA and FAA require such systems are analysed to show no single fault liability so what did Boeing do?  They lied saying the 737 MCAS wasn't a safety critical function

In the UK the guilty would face manslaughter charges, not sure same applies in the USA

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 100222
  • Reputation: -115
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1851 on: January 11, 2020, 02:23:36 PM »
Retrieves anorak from cleaners  ::)
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
  • Reputation: 0
  • No surrender
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1852 on: January 11, 2020, 02:26:09 PM »
Retrieves anorak from cleaners  ::)

 ::) ::) ::) Lock spaz.

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 132994
  • Reputation: -49
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 100222
  • Reputation: -115
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1854 on: January 11, 2020, 02:39:01 PM »
 cussing: cussing: cussing: cussing: cussing:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
  • Reputation: 0
  • No surrender
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1855 on: January 11, 2020, 02:44:36 PM »
cussing: cussing: cussing: cussing: cussing:

Love you really you beautiful tubby ginger mongtard  razz: razz: razz:

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 100222
  • Reputation: -115
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1856 on: January 11, 2020, 03:08:38 PM »
Behold!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9eA9TUImVc

I wonder if Tipsy would let me take her up the Trent one day?  rubschin:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline The Moan Ranger

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
  • Reputation: 0
  • No surrender
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1857 on: January 11, 2020, 03:12:16 PM »
Behold!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9eA9TUImVc

I wonder if Tipsy would let me take her up the Trent one day?  rubschin:

Why does it say "in the life off"?

Online Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 100222
  • Reputation: -115
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1858 on: January 11, 2020, 03:20:39 PM »
I have told him about that  evil: evil:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline Steve

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 45505
  • Reputation: -3
Re: TMR's all new "Tales from the Underworld" thread
« Reply #1859 on: January 11, 2020, 03:36:51 PM »
14 months ago, when the Lion Air 737 Max crashed, the various airline forums I frequent wen into overdrive. Several of the contributors are vastly experienced in all aviation matters and they all concluded that the Max was a very poorly designed aircraft.

The MCAS kludge was put in to satisfy the airlines that insisted the new plane would not require extensive SIM training and could ber flown on their existing type rating. Southwest Airlines ordered 280 aircraft with $1 million refundable on each if SIM training was required. The new CFM Leap -1B engines had to be pushed too far forward and too high up (due to short landing gear) creating a fundamentally unstable aircraft. The 737 had been a step too far - it's a 60 year old design and even the more recent versions (737 NGs - like Ryanair, TUI, Jet2 use) were only certified due to "grandfathering rights" where old designs are approved as they have a track record of safety.

A new aircraft would not be approved with some of the 737NG designs - control cables too close together, fuel systems too close together, no overwing escape slides etc.

But Boeing, under pressure from the airlines, had little choice - they didn't have time for a "clean sheet" design new narrow body as Airbus was cleaning up with the A320NEO series and they had to get a product to market quicker. Thus was born the Max. Boeing then compounded their problems by being economical with the truth to the Federal Aviation Authority and even omitting to mention the MCAS system when it was first released. They only mentioned it to airlines after Lion Air. It should have been grounded there and then but they gambled and we then had the Ethiopian crash.

Boeing are in a bad way.

And the media still hasn't mentioned the Dreamliners having their lightning protection in the CFRP wings removed yet...without informing the FAA... eeek:

Good post!  Thumbs:
:thumbsup:

With USA laws on punitive damages it's not impossible that this could drive Boeing into Chapter 11 bankruptcy when they could have got away with something like a $5B write off if they'd acted promptly

There's a reason why Airbus use 3 AoA sensors (737 Max uses two) and it comes from the basic science around single fault vulnerability of safety critical systems with no easy fail safe state. The CAA, EASA and FAA require such systems are analysed to show no single fault liability so what did Boeing do?  They lied saying the 737 MCAS wasn't a safety critical function

In the UK the guilty would face manslaughter charges, not sure same applies in the USA

It won't go to Chapter 11 due to defence contracts and hidden subsidies. The 2 AoA sensors on the Max are also only active on one side one flight the other side the next flight. So effectively only 1 side per flight. Airbus use 3 with a voting system that ignores any weird reading. Even to a child this would seem more reliable.

The original 737 was a fantastic design for the time - short legs meant it could service all the smaller airfields in America where they was little in the way of infrastructure - integral stairs, low to the ground so it could be loaded/unloaded without belt loaders to reach the holds, only a 5 foot drop from the wings to the floor in an emergency and slimline P&W JT8D engines that snuggled beautifully under the wings. All the next incarnations were inherently compromised due to its low slung nature.

Then the A320 arrived - and let's not forget that it a 40+ year old design. But it had long legs and was designed for the European market with airbridges and no need to be low slung. The new CFM Leap - 1A fits just fine under the wing and it is remarkably efficient - conversations with some easyJet pilots reveal that a A320Neo uses 900kg/hr in the cruise compared to 1,200kg per hour per engine. That's a massive saving. Their A321s, with 235 seats hardly burn more fuel than their old A319s with 156 seats.

The only new narrow body aircraft - the Bombardier CS100/300 (now Airbus A220) is the only truly new narrow body and it is superb. Apart from the P&W GTF engines which, whilst slightly more efficient than the CFM Leap engines seem to be less reliable. So much so that Indigo (India) have had to ground the entire fleet.
:thumbsup: 

The long delay in getting the revised design (reported as both AoA's now have to agree before MCAS engages) certified suggests Boeing haven't come up with an argument that failure of MCAS to engage isn't a safety event because of the thrust induced stall

They might have been better just limiting MCAS to the 0.6 degrees they falsely told the FAA it was limited to.  Far less likely to push an aircraft into the ground than the 2.5 degrees movement it actually had.  Fitting a third AoA sensor and processing system to match AirBus is seemingly a no no.

As for punitive damages Johnson and Johnson got hit with $8B for one death.  That could set the starting point for 350 deaths at over $2T which is over 10 times its market capitalisation.   
Well, whatever nevermind