All
← Back to Squawk list
Crash victim families seek new type certification for Boeing 737 Max
Relatives of 737 Max crash victims want regulators to re-certificate the troubled Boeing narrowbody as a completely new aircraft, and only after crash investigations are complete. (www.flightglobal.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Honestly, it's just not that different. Most of the systems and interfaces are the same, and you can learn the differences in a single sitting. Focus on reprogramming the MCAS, and solving the problem. I'm very sorry for the loss the families endured. I hope positive change comes from their involuntary sacrifices. Be it a new type cert or not.
I disagree... They are still very similar.. I do feel simulator and classroom training should be required, but not a total re-certification of the aircraft...
Shifting the engines forward and higher on the wing changes the entire performance of the air surfaces. You can't say that doing that doesn't cause changes that are needed to address that issue. Boeing created a monster, and tried to put a paper mask on it to hide the problems, and then deliberately lie about the planes performance. Boeing made the decision to Band-Aid the plane, and base that 'fix' on options, and single point of failure.
How would you like to drive a car that has an issue where it could pull hard right at any point during a drive, and to 'fix' it, the company makes the plane pull hard left when you appear to be turning right? Would you sit for that kind of incompetence? Would you be happy if your family was killed because the system the manufacturer didn't tell anyone about swerved the car into a bridge abutment?
The 737 Max either needs a complete redesign, or it needs a more professional 'fix' for the problem, and Boeing needs to stop making safety items 'optional'. Fire suppression, optional? Angle of attack backup sensors, optional? An idiot light to warm then the sensors disagree, optional? ALL of that should be STANDARD EQUIPMENT!
But that negates the fact that the plane is not performing like it should due to design shortcuts they took to 'game the system'. I agree the 737 Max *should* be certificated as a new design. Will it? Boeing has a lot of high paid cheerleaders in high places in the current administration. They will probably get away with some level of protection, but I won't want to fly on one of those planes.
How would you like to drive a car that has an issue where it could pull hard right at any point during a drive, and to 'fix' it, the company makes the plane pull hard left when you appear to be turning right? Would you sit for that kind of incompetence? Would you be happy if your family was killed because the system the manufacturer didn't tell anyone about swerved the car into a bridge abutment?
The 737 Max either needs a complete redesign, or it needs a more professional 'fix' for the problem, and Boeing needs to stop making safety items 'optional'. Fire suppression, optional? Angle of attack backup sensors, optional? An idiot light to warm then the sensors disagree, optional? ALL of that should be STANDARD EQUIPMENT!
But that negates the fact that the plane is not performing like it should due to design shortcuts they took to 'game the system'. I agree the 737 Max *should* be certificated as a new design. Will it? Boeing has a lot of high paid cheerleaders in high places in the current administration. They will probably get away with some level of protection, but I won't want to fly on one of those planes.
That is not what I said.... What I said it was the same basic a/c and I do not feel that it needs to have a brand new certification.... I never said it did not have problems... It does and needs addressed... But stand by that it is still a 737. When Boeing makes a plane they have options... All us Airlines Chose 2 AOA Vanes... Other Countries Airlines decided to opt out of that feature. They told Boeing what they wanted, the FAA Certified it, and that was that.
Give you another good example... Look at cars made today.... The 2007- 2009 Suburban's, Yukon's, Escalades had ground issues.... When you would turn the vehicle off, everything would DIE immediately... No Lights, Needles would freeze... Only way to get it running again was to disconnect the Positive to the battery for about 10 seconds and reconnect... The problem is a bad ground... The generic fix is to replace the Negative Battery Cable.... Works for about 2 or 3 weeks... this is a known issue and GM will not do anything about it. Most people myself traded them off. Class Action Law suits threatened.... But even so... They are still Suburbans, Yukon's, and Escalades! and they are still the same series even though they may have some problems...
Look at the CRJ... From the CRJ 50, 100, 200 were all the same. The 700, 900, 1000 went to a similar upgrade... Longer, New Engines, New Electronics, but the cockpit was arranged the same... Very little difference between the changes of the 200 to 700 just as the -800 to the -800 MAX!
I must admit I was shocked to find that the Dual AOA vane was an option.... Every plane I have worked on has 2 and are inspected frequently... Maybe the bigger blame would be on the countries that allow only 1 AOA vane! Boeing sold a plane that was certified to be sold in that country... Everyone wants to say that Boeing is the Bad guy here.... Well, lets add it up.... The FAA Bought off on it, the Foreign Governments Bought off on it, the Airlines did not want to give more simulator training.... Sounds like a bunch of cheap scapes put money ahead of the lives of people. Boeing was selling an approved product to customers that did not want to pay for extra safety equipment.... Make note, that in the US non crashed and all had 2 AOA Vanes. The AOA Vane was the big fault here! If they had had 2 AOA Vanes those crashes probably would not have happened.
Looking at your statement on Standard Equipment.... In the US, 2 AOA Sensors are required.... Other countries with lower standards do not... We require emmision controls on all new cars, some countries do not.... A Backup Sensor, or backup Camera are nice features.... My Suburan has both... I like them, but they are not required and do no make anything safer.
In your last statement, it is true that Boeing was too friendly with the FAA... So was South West, and one reason they got into big trouble.... I would rather fly on a Boeing before any Airbus! Geez... Some of those pilots cannot even diagnose frozen pitot tubes... I trust a plane more that the Crew Flies the plane, not in a plane where the crew doesn't have to think and only follows a computer... Note the Russian plane that followed the flight path straight into the ground after a kid hit the yolk! It is easy to throw stones when someone is down on their luck... Boeing has been the best for years and years, but yet they have 1 issue and everyone turns on them... Sorry charlie!
Give you another good example... Look at cars made today.... The 2007- 2009 Suburban's, Yukon's, Escalades had ground issues.... When you would turn the vehicle off, everything would DIE immediately... No Lights, Needles would freeze... Only way to get it running again was to disconnect the Positive to the battery for about 10 seconds and reconnect... The problem is a bad ground... The generic fix is to replace the Negative Battery Cable.... Works for about 2 or 3 weeks... this is a known issue and GM will not do anything about it. Most people myself traded them off. Class Action Law suits threatened.... But even so... They are still Suburbans, Yukon's, and Escalades! and they are still the same series even though they may have some problems...
Look at the CRJ... From the CRJ 50, 100, 200 were all the same. The 700, 900, 1000 went to a similar upgrade... Longer, New Engines, New Electronics, but the cockpit was arranged the same... Very little difference between the changes of the 200 to 700 just as the -800 to the -800 MAX!
I must admit I was shocked to find that the Dual AOA vane was an option.... Every plane I have worked on has 2 and are inspected frequently... Maybe the bigger blame would be on the countries that allow only 1 AOA vane! Boeing sold a plane that was certified to be sold in that country... Everyone wants to say that Boeing is the Bad guy here.... Well, lets add it up.... The FAA Bought off on it, the Foreign Governments Bought off on it, the Airlines did not want to give more simulator training.... Sounds like a bunch of cheap scapes put money ahead of the lives of people. Boeing was selling an approved product to customers that did not want to pay for extra safety equipment.... Make note, that in the US non crashed and all had 2 AOA Vanes. The AOA Vane was the big fault here! If they had had 2 AOA Vanes those crashes probably would not have happened.
Looking at your statement on Standard Equipment.... In the US, 2 AOA Sensors are required.... Other countries with lower standards do not... We require emmision controls on all new cars, some countries do not.... A Backup Sensor, or backup Camera are nice features.... My Suburan has both... I like them, but they are not required and do no make anything safer.
In your last statement, it is true that Boeing was too friendly with the FAA... So was South West, and one reason they got into big trouble.... I would rather fly on a Boeing before any Airbus! Geez... Some of those pilots cannot even diagnose frozen pitot tubes... I trust a plane more that the Crew Flies the plane, not in a plane where the crew doesn't have to think and only follows a computer... Note the Russian plane that followed the flight path straight into the ground after a kid hit the yolk! It is easy to throw stones when someone is down on their luck... Boeing has been the best for years and years, but yet they have 1 issue and everyone turns on them... Sorry charlie!
Don't think comparing to cars that don't require a driver getting vehicle specific certification for is relevant.
I gave more of a comparison that that.... Read further!
I know, read the rest, just Robert's assertion about a car comparison being relevant somehow doesn't gel with me.
...as in wouldn't have responded to that bit.
So, don't!!
