737-8 max plane goes down (2018) - new not Max crash Indonesia

[PragueBlue]

As you can see from the OP, the teething problems on the MAX were a self-created black eye for Boeing, no question, but it was 8 years ago and everyone understands the issue now.

That said, you have to make yourself happy and if that means trains, that is your choice to make.

I respect your freedom to choose, even though you readily acknowledge your irrational fear. I like trains, too, as long as it’s a quiet cabin!

I usually get overnight trains and have a sleeping compartment to myself. Obviously takes more time than flying and is usually considerably more expensive but at least I'm at peace and can enjoy the journey.

 

[Sir peace frog]

(Not directed at you, @inbetween but just spring boarding off your post.)

Two A321neo engines blew up recently, but no-one seems to know or care, so no biggie, eh?!

F...ng neo ,why does it take so long for the neo engines to start ? on pushback the "normal engines" start pretty much straight away, neo fuck me, lucky to get a brew before the next plane :)

 

[RadcliffeRick]

A limiting factor on what though? The 737 is meant to be cheap and cheerful where any gains are always going to be pretty small and certainly invisible to passengers. The big buyers such as Ryanair and Southwest are very cost sensitive, they just want low costs above all else and new designs always represent higher costs, at least initially. The 737MAX has actually sold very well specifically because it is a reused design.

Newer designs are also a bit of a risk because the long term costs are mostly unknown. Manufacturers may use new and lighter materials such as carbon fibre for example which sounds great. This isn't great though when it turns out that repairing those materials costs a lot because they're more complicated.

Airbus are no different to Boeing anyway, they recently re-engined and rehashed their A320 and A330 which are both 40 year old designs. The only new aircraft that Airbus has built recently is the A350 and that only came to exist because their 4-engine programmes (A340 & A380) never sold well and were eventually killed off. Without the A350 Airbus would of had a gigantic hole in their assembly lines.

I am not an aircraft designer but...
The requirement in 1960 with low access to cargo doors because regional airports did not have the required offloading equipment has now been made irrelevant. The fact that the 800 series and the max have problems accommodating the new large fan engines speaks volumes about the design.
They have been a fantastic workhorse but time for a complete new design. Maybe too late as the Chinese are now in the market??

 

[Toney’s bookie]

F...ng neo ,why does it take so long for the neo engines to start ? on pushback the "normal engines" start pretty much straight away, neo fuck me, lucky to get a brew before the next plane :)

Because the NEO engines (or certainly the LEAP-1A) are very sensitive to temperature and so always go through a 2 minute cycle on start-up to blow ambient air through the core before fuel is introduced and the engine lights up. This ensures the engine is below a certain temperature before it starts. Nothing exciting!

If you fly on the first flight of the day when the engine is already cool it will start noticeably quicker.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Because the NEO engines (or certainly the LEAP-1A) are very sensitive to temperature and so always go through a 2 minute cycle on start-up to blow ambient air through the core before fuel is introduced and the engine lights up. This ensures the engine is below a certain temperature before it starts. Nothing exciting!

If you fly on the first flight of the day when the engine is already cool it will start noticeably quicker.

i wasn't getting excited!, i get fucking annoyed by the fucking things.

 

[RadcliffeRick]

Like all low burn, low emissions engines, they require everything to be in limits before they will start. Much different from the old engines that produced smoke trails.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

F...ng neo ,why does it take so long for the neo engines to start ? on pushback the "normal engines" start pretty much straight away, neo fuck me, lucky to get a brew before the next plane :)

Don’t know if the neo is the same as the MAX, but on the MAX it is because the rotor bows when it cools and thus has to be “run up” to straighten it before lighting the fire again! It runs very hot internal temps while operating. And, it tells you when it’s good and ready!

The MAX has a 5 minute start! I haven’t flown the neo, so I’m not sure, but…

…on the LEAP engine, if residual EGT is above a threshold (which it generally will be if the engine has been shutdown for less than ~six hours), it will motor the engine at a specific N2 speed range (less than max motoring) for about a minute to allow the high rotor to thermally stabilize. Once that's done, it goes ahead and proceeds with the normal start.
GEnx does much the same thing.

Bowed rotor is caused by the differential cooling after shutdown (hot air rises, so the bottom cools quicker than the top...) which will literally result in a small 'bow' in the rotor. Starting the engine with a bowed rotor will cause high vibes and can rub compressor seals resulting in a permanent loss of performance. Worse case it can even cause compressor blades to crack or fracture.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I am not an aircraft designer but...
The requirement in 1960 with low access to cargo doors because regional airports did not have the required offloading equipment has now been made irrelevant. The fact that the 800 series and the max have problems accommodating the new large fan engines speaks volumes about the design.
They have been a fantastic workhorse but time for a complete new design. Maybe too late as the Chinese are now in the market??

It was the entry door (1L), which had a ladder built in under it. You slid out the ladder for ingress and egress.

 

[inbetween]

(Not directed at you, @inbetween but just spring boarding off your post.)

Two A321neo engines blew up recently, but no-one seems to know or care, so no biggie, eh?!

Yep - the A380 had a catastrophic engine failure only a few years into service (QF32) which exposed a huge engine flaw. That incident could of ended very badly had it occurred slightly differently or had the pilots not acted so brilliantly. Rolls Royce equipped A380's were grounded for a long period following that.

Is the A380 unsafe as a result? Absolutely not and it'd be crazy to argue that. However, here we are arguing about whether the 737MAX is unsafe despite tens of thousands of flying hours proving otherwise. There were two fatal accidents but Boeing has satisfied regulators that they've fixed what caused those accidents. Hundreds more flights will take place today without issue so the evidence to say Boeing aircraft are unsafe just doesn't exist.

I know that it statistically is but my perception is somehow different. I haven't been on a plane for probably about 10 years now and hope I never have to again. I know it's not rational but it's just the way I feel. I only travel abroad by train these days, which is probably statistically more dangerous but doesn't feel that way.

Flying for me is absolute torture and the only way I can just about manage it is by flying first class on one of those planes that have separate compartments, so at least my tension doesn't affect others.

I think a lot of flying fear comes from a lack of knowledge and control. A train appears simple because it does one thing which is move in a straight line. Most people would probably say that that they could drive a train but not a plane because it appears far more complex and therefore most would assume that means it's dangerous.

This logic did make sense 50 years ago when flying was incredibly complex and aircraft were relatively dumb machines. This however isn't the case anymore, a plane flies itself 95% of the time and pilots now only effectively act as monitors. Aircraft are so intelligent nowadays that the weakest link in the chain is almost always the pilots themselves. Human error is still the single biggest contributor to virtually all accidents.

The single biggest reason why aviation is so safe nowadays is because of the huge efforts that have been made over the years to reduce that human error. That could be through automation, training or just teaching pilots to work together as a team.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yep - the A380 had a catastrophic engine failure only a few years into service (QF32) which exposed a huge engine flaw. That incident could of ended very badly had it occurred slightly differently or had the pilots not acted so brilliantly. Rolls Royce equipped A380's were grounded for a long period following that.

Is the A380 unsafe as a result? Absolutely not and it'd be crazy to argue that. However, here we are arguing about whether the 737MAX is unsafe despite tens of thousands of flying hours proving otherwise. There were two fatal accidents but Boeing has satisfied regulators that they've fixed what caused those accidents. Hundreds more flights will take place today without issue so the evidence to say Boeing aircraft are unsafe just doesn't exist.


I think a lot of flying fear comes from lack of knowledge and control. A train appears simple because it does one thing which is move in a straight line. Most people would probably say that that they could drive a train whereas a plane appears far more complex and most therefore assume that means it's dangerous.

This logic did make sense 50 years ago when flying was incredibly complex and aircraft were relatively dumb machines. This however isn't the case anymore, a plane flies itself 95% of the time and pilots effectively act as monitors. Aircraft are so intelligent nowadays that the weakest link in the chain is now almost always the pilots themselves. Human error is still the single biggest contributor to virtually all accidents.

The single biggest reason why aviation is so safe nowadays is because of the huge efforts made over the years to reduce that human error. That could be through automation, training or just teaching pilots to work together as a team. Even hospitals and doctors now turn to aviation for advice on how to avoid error.

Verbalize
Verify
Monitor

Verbalize what you’re going to do.
Verify that it gets done.
Monitor the result.

One of the biggest problems with newer aircraft is that they’re so smart you can be lulled into a state of complacency or false security. “Children of the magenta line” is the derogatory term used for those pilots who grew up with automation and have barely “flown-flown” aircraft, let alone aircraft without any automation.

It used to be that flying without any automation was normal and that as you progressed up the industry ladder, the aircraft became more automated and you enjoyed the relief.

Today, new pilots learn to fly (fully) automated aircraft that have programming requirements and the knowledge of how to takeoff and land. For those pilots, automation has been the norm, and any step down in automation borders on an emergency.

Indeed, there is currently a big push in aviation for pilots to be more proficient hand-flyers whenever possible and to save the full-up automation for when it’s needed.

This ensures proficiency and currency, while allowing each pilot to emphasize the skills they’re supposed to be using on the Flight Deck: Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring.

Lastly, there is a new initiative called FLIGHT PATH FIRST, which is designed to make certain both pilots are focused PRIMARILY on the fact that the aircraft is going exactly WHERE you want it to go HOW you want it to get there.

That might sound basic, but modern aircraft have multiple different modes of flight and ensuring the aircraft is doing what you want, in the mode you want, is not as straightforward as one might think, especially when turning automation on and off.

For instance, as an automated aircraft reaches its cruising altitude, it switches from CLIMB to CRUISE mode, then DESCENT as you approach your destination. They’re completely different and programmed differently.

e.g. If I was climbing without automation (hand-flying) the aircraft would be in one mode (basically manual mode, with the pilot determining speed & altitude), but if I reached 25,000 feet while climbing to 30,000 feet, and hit “AUTOPILOT” to take me the rest of the way, it might be pre-programmed at a different speed than I was flying. That then automatically pushes the nose down (to get faster) or pulls it up (to climb at a slower speed, if I was already at CLIMB thrust).

Conversely, you could have been asked by ATC to climb at 2,000 feet per minute or greater to avoid other traffic. When you hit VERTICAL SPEED and dial in 2000fpm, your speed can dramatically drop off, because you were climbing at CLIMB thrust using the VNAV (automated prompts) as your guide.

In short, it’s a very dynamic environment and one ATC request or one pilot’s choice of flight mode can change those dynamics in ways you may not have wanted or expected, requiring constant adjustment and/or correction.

The goal of a good flight crew is to make all of those machinations that are going on behind the scenes feel seamless to you and to never happen without both (all 3 or 4?) pilots understanding EXACTLY what the Pilot Flying is asking the aircraft to do (Verbalize & Verify) and then making sure it is doing it as intended (Monitor).

All of that is merely to say it becomes MUCH easier to just turn the automation on at a low altitude (the 787 autopilot can be turned on at 200 feet above the ground) and, if you so choose, not turn it off until after conducting an automated landing!

BUT, that “easier” causes skills decay and muscle memory atrophy, not to mention a level of complacency that must be overcome when the automation might not be available due to a malfunction…which is why I usually hand fly up yo 18,000’ and down from about 10,000’ depending on the arrival. Some places, like São Paulo do so much controlling of aircraft, it’s often easier to hand fly the descent than constantly be changing flight modes, while Heathrow has a thing called a Constant Descent Angle arrival that’s much easier to accomplish with automation.

What was the question, again???
(Apologies to those that lost interest and didn’t get this far to read the apology!!)