Trip7

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

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

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

Got a source for that claim?

waldo135

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

pretty straightforward article. FAA would require it regardless

GyroNole

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Title 14

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.