717 phase out?
03-26-2019, 07:43 PM
#81
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by Meow1215
That is temporary, the investigation hasn’t been finished. Boeing could be vindicated on the MCAS for all we know.
- (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.
Last edited by Mesabah; 03-26-2019 at 07:59 PM.
03-27-2019, 03:20 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Mesabah
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.
[/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.
03-27-2019, 04:37 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: Port Bus
Posts: 725
Originally Posted by sailingfun
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.
03-27-2019, 05:12 AM
#84
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
03-27-2019, 08:06 AM
#85
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by sailingfun
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.
02-01-2021, 04:28 AM
#87
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,549
Originally Posted by Lifeisgood
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
The latest aircraft fleet information file on DLnet dated 01 January shows 50 717s in the fleet.
I thought we had around 92?
Thx
02-01-2021, 04:32 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Mesabah
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 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.
02-01-2021, 05:59 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Lifeisgood
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
The latest aircraft fleet information file on DLnet dated 01 January shows 50 717s in the fleet.
I thought we had around 92?
Thx
02-01-2021, 08:34 AM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by 3 green
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
