|
Originally Posted by Meow1215
(Post 2789778)
That is temporary, the investigation hasn’t been finished. Boeing could be vindicated on the MCAS for all we know.
The nacelle on the Max creates lift during high AoA, this is negative stability condition that violates the above FAR. The FAA approved the MCAS system to comply with that based on 0.6degrees of pitch, which they may rescind now that it requires 2.5. I would think the aircraft is in violation of part (d) regardless of a software fix. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2790761)
I doubt that, from the FARs
[/LIST] The nacelle on the Max creates lift during high AoA, this is negative stability condition that violates the above FAR. The FAA approved the MCAS system to comply with that based on 0.6degrees of pitch, which they may rescind now that it requires 2.5. I would think the aircraft is in violation of part (d) regardless of a software fix. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2790431)
I don’t think this is correct since we are setting up a overhaul facility for the Prats and that was tied into the purchase decision.
|
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2790849)
I guess all the airbuses are illegal! The nacelles by the way don’t create negative stability. They did however change the handling from the 737NG such that a common type rating may not have been granted. MCAS was designed to provide handling like the NG’s in high AOA situations.
|
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 |
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 |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2790761)
I doubt that, from the FARs
The nacelle on the Max creates lift during high AoA, this is negative stability condition that violates the above FAR. The FAA approved the MCAS system to comply with that based on 0.6degrees of pitch, which they may rescind now that it requires 2.5. I would think the aircraft is in violation of part (d) regardless of a software fix. |
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 |
Originally Posted by 3 green
(Post 3189145)
I know recently they have been sending them out to California for retirement. The latest is that 40 to 50 will stay around until we get enough 737's and 320's to completely take over the 717 flying.
|
Originally Posted by Speedbird2263
(Post 3189227)
I’d imagine the A220s would be better suited to take over the 717 flying no? I remember when flying some DCI routes in the past with CR7&9s, quite a bit of those got upgraded to the 717 and the A220-100 would be a 1 for 1 replacement at least capacity wise.
|
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
(Post 3189236)
Not from what I understand. The 717 replacement for DCI routes seems to focus on shorter routes that had high frequency. Think Chattanooga and Augusta from ATL. The A220 seems to go on routes that are longer and thinner that compete against another carrier’s hub. More like Delta flying the A220 from BOS to American’s DFW hub. A220 is a superior product with great fuel efficiency. That’s why it wins over the 717 and not necessarily are 1 for 1 replacement to the 717. That’s the perspective from an outsider looking in.
|
Originally Posted by Speedbird2263
(Post 3189257)
Agreed it is superior in product & efficiency. It will certainly be interesting to see how the DL network folks replace/upguage the 717 flying going forward.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 3189262)
Especially since the large RJ "armada" is permanently reduced by 35.
|
Current plan is parked 717s will not return. Going forward with 50ish and will gradually retire those planes. Salute to the 717
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Redbird611
(Post 3189264)
Well, it is supposed to be anyway...
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 3189272)
The longer they wait the more it will cost them. Those 35 will be gone and I don't think we'll give any relief on that.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 3189268)
Current plan is parked 717s will not return. Going forward with 50ish and will gradually retire those planes. Salute to the 717
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk |
|
Originally Posted by DLASFlyer
(Post 3189444)
|
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.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk |
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3189557)
Got a source for that claim?
pretty straightforward article. FAA would require it regardless |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Originally Posted by waldo135
(Post 3189625)
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...st-safeguards/
pretty straightforward article. FAA would require it regardless |
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.
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. |
Sorry to be technically correct it is the MD-10 and MD-11 that have the same type.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:55 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands