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)

Quote:

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.

I doubt that, from the FARs

Quote:

(a) A pull must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the specified trim speed, and a push must be required to obtain and maintain speeds above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained except speeds higher than the landing gear or wing flap operating limit speeds or VFC/MFC,whichever is appropriate, or lower than the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight.
(b) The airspeed must return to within 10 percent of the original trim speed for the climb, approach, and landing conditions specified in §25.175 (a), (c), and (d), and must return to within 7.5 percent of the original trim speed for the cruising condition specified in §25.175(b), when the control force is slowly released from any speed within the range specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The average gradient of the stable slope of the stick force versus speed curve may not be less than 1 pound for each 6 knots.
(d) Within the free return speed range specified in paragraph (b) of this section, it is permissible for the airplane, without control forces, to stabilize on speeds above or below the desired trim speeds if exceptional attention on the part of the pilot is not required to return to and maintain the desired trim speed and altitude

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

You are correct. For some reason I thought Delta had ordered the CFW engines when the order was placed. Well I hope the kinks get worked out by the time Delta gets ahold of the P&W engines. Is the P&W ETOPS certified still?

Fwiw. For the 220 and 321neo

https://pwgtf.com/#

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2790849)

The Airbii are in compliance with their certification, the Max is not.

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

Quote:

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

I'm interested as well. I've heard so many rumors that are all just as plausible as the next, not sure what to believe. Park by 2025? Earlier than 2025 now? Trading them for a Max/787 deal? As far as 50 vs 92, is that active or total? They could just be parked for rona.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.