Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   717 phase out? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/120677-717-phase-out.html)

Trip7 02-01-2021 04:26 PM


Originally Posted by tennisguru (Post 3189453)
That tweet also shows that JetBlue dumped 6 A321's. I seriously doubt that is meant to show permanent retirements, but instead probably a temporary operational reduction due the normal post Christmas lull. The AE that closed today is supposed to add 70 717Bs, so it's not like the category is shrinking.

They are adding FOs to backstop the bleeding that will occur from that position when the May AE drops. Similar to how nearly all NYC narrow bodies had a significant amount of positions added

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

copy 02-01-2021 04:49 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3189116)
The Max is stable throughout its flight envelope without MCAS. MCAS was added to insure a common type rating and that there would be no required sim training for transition. The A321NEO on the other hand has actual stability issues in its flight envelope discovered after the Max issues. Currently that’s being managed with CG restrictions however a software fix is in the works. Some operators have to block aft seats.

MCAS was added because the stick force gradient in high power, high alpha situations was not adequate for it to be certified under applicable certification standards. It has nothing to do with a common type rating. Even if it were its own type rating, it would still need MCAS, or an aerodynamic fix, which they couldn’t effectively engineer, so they went with MCAS.

notEnuf 02-01-2021 05:07 PM


Originally Posted by copy (Post 3189506)
MCAS was added because the stick force gradient in high power, high alpha situations was not adequate for it to be certified under applicable certification standards. It has nothing to do with a common type rating. Even if it were its own type rating, it would still need MCAS, or an aerodynamic fix, which they couldn’t effectively engineer, so they went with MCAS.

This MCAS, the forward CG from underslung engines being pushed forward and in front of the wing along with the complimentary tail stand and the extendo gear is the result of over engineering an obsolete airframe in the interest of cost control. But I don't really care. Flown right, respecting all of its quirks, it can be operated safely. Even the Wrights, who had no frame of reference, abandoned the flyer for more suitable designs.

ShyGuy 02-01-2021 06:29 PM


Originally Posted by copy (Post 3189506)
MCAS was added because the stick force gradient in high power, high alpha situations was not adequate for it to be certified under applicable certification standards. It has nothing to do with a common type rating. Even if it were its own type rating, it would still need MCAS, or an aerodynamic fix, which they couldn’t effectively engineer, so they went with MCAS.

Got a source for that claim?

waldo135 02-02-2021 04:56 AM


Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 3189557)
Got a source for that claim?

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...st-safeguards/

pretty straightforward article. FAA would require it regardless

GyroNole 02-02-2021 06:35 AM


Originally Posted by Lifeisgood (Post 3189112)
Are 717s being aggressively retired?
The latest aircraft fleet information file on DLnet dated 01 January shows 50 717s in the fleet.
I thought we had around 92?
Thx


49 Tails going forward per the Fleet LLCA (skyhub)....I am on the fleet and I do not know if the ones that were flown west were the tails that we owned and the remaining are the leases from Boeing or not...

I have flown with a technical pilot on the fleet twice and both times we discussed FMS constraints going forward and the amount of money required to comply with future FAA airspace restrictions...There were also some non-airspace airworthiness directives requiring expensive modifications that probably were not cost effective either...can’t remember what they were.

I have also heard there may be some white-tail MAXs being looked at (amount/timeline UNK)....maybe in conjunction with lease turn-ins?...

I do know that I won’t be told what’s going to happen until it does nor will my opinion be solicited.

I don’t suspect the 717 fleet will be around in the same numbers beyond two years from now...but have zero evidence or sources for that summation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 green 02-02-2021 02:56 PM


Originally Posted by GyroNole (Post 3189657)
49 Tails going forward per the Fleet LLCA (skyhub)....I am on the fleet and I do not know if the ones that were flown west were the tails that we owned and the remaining are the leases from Boeing or not...

I have flown with a technical pilot on the fleet twice and both times we discussed FMS constraints going forward and the amount of money required to comply with future FAA airspace restrictions...There were also some non-airspace airworthiness directives requiring expensive modifications that probably were not cost effective either...can’t remember what they were.

I have also heard there may be some white-tail MAXs being looked at (amount/timeline UNK)....maybe in conjunction with lease turn-ins?...

I do know that I won’t be told what’s going to happen until it does nor will my opinion be solicited.

I don’t suspect the 717 fleet will be around in the same numbers beyond two years from now...but have zero evidence or sources for that summation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with all of what you said. I have also noticed lately, that the 717 is doing a lot more longer leg segments, and fewer short flights now too. More DAL, PHL, EWR, IAH, BDL, MKE and ORD type legs.

GyroNole 02-02-2021 03:06 PM


Originally Posted by 3 green (Post 3189887)
I agree with all of what you said. I have also noticed lately, that the 717 is doing a lot more longer leg segments, and fewer short flights now too. More DAL, PHL, EWR, IAH, BDL, MKE and ORD type legs.


Could be seasonal...I used to commute from PNS and we got 7-9 88s daily in the winter...with a mix of 739 and even 757 turns in the summer.

So to go there now (at least turns) to me is indicative of low traffic count.

PHL and ORD...MKE too are maybe from lower loads...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ShyGuy 02-02-2021 03:42 PM


Originally Posted by waldo135 (Post 3189625)
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...st-safeguards/

pretty straightforward article. FAA would require it regardless

This is an old article, before the media reported correctly on MCAS. MCAS was required to mimic current NG pitching behavior at higher AOA. The MAX could have been certified without MCAS, but at the expense of needing a new type rating.

Texasbound 02-02-2021 04:20 PM


Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 3189903)
This is an old article, before the media reported correctly on MCAS. MCAS was required to mimic current NG pitching behavior at higher AOA. The MAX could have been certified without MCAS, but at the expense of needing a new type rating.

The media has not once, ever, reported correctly on MCAS.


Title 14


SECTION 25.203 Stall characteristics.

§ 25.203 Stall characteristics.(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls.

I am not going to go dragging out the Advisory Circular guidance (AC 25-7D) on flight test. It is written for engineers and basically says stick force per G has to be constant approaching a stall. Because of the bigger engines, they created a lifting force close to stall, in accelerated stall testing. Not high AOA, which is why MCAS is only active with Flaps up. No adverse characteristics with flaps down stalls. MCAS makes the stick force per G constant in accelerated stalls, that is a requirement for Part 25 Aircraft certification, has nothing to do with a common type rating. Common type rating only refers to the amount and type of training required.

The DC-10 and MD-11 do not have the same stall characteristics and they have a common type rating, as do many other aircraft.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands