737
#12
Stay on the subject , I'm on this plane now.
The documentary was just okay. There has been far too much misinformation about MCAS. Namely, why it had to exist in the first place. I cringe when I hear "to prevent a stall! because the engines are higher up." Not true. MCAS exists to keep the commonality with the NG in all regimes of flight. It was something done to keep certification with the NG the same. The MAX could have flown perfectly without MCAS, it just risked not being certified as the same type as the NG.
The MAX flies very nicely, it's a great airplane, and an improvement over the NG. The MAX9 compared to the NG is like the 321NEO to the A320. You can tell and feel the difference. They're both great airplane and a vast improvement over the NG and 320, respectively.
Now the next fiasco is going to be the MAX 10 certification. The FAA has already certified the MAX8+9 with the current annunciator panel recall like all other 737s. But now if it doesn't meet the certification deadline by the end of the year, they may force the MAX10 to have an EICAS setup. This could kill the MAX10 program. A lot of airlines have their future orders pegged to the MAX10 with the assumption that they will be similar to the MAX8 and 9 so pilots can fly all 3 variants. It honestly makes no sense to certify the MAX8/9 one way, and then force the 10 to be another way simply for a deadline. All future new airplanes (eg, a 797) should fall under the new guidelines, but the MAX 7/8/9/10 have been announced and planned for years and should be grandfathered in.
Time will tell. I still think Boeing will get it their way. The MAX10 should be certified like the MAX8/9 for commonality.
The documentary was just okay. There has been far too much misinformation about MCAS. Namely, why it had to exist in the first place. I cringe when I hear "to prevent a stall! because the engines are higher up." Not true. MCAS exists to keep the commonality with the NG in all regimes of flight. It was something done to keep certification with the NG the same. The MAX could have flown perfectly without MCAS, it just risked not being certified as the same type as the NG.
The MAX flies very nicely, it's a great airplane, and an improvement over the NG. The MAX9 compared to the NG is like the 321NEO to the A320. You can tell and feel the difference. They're both great airplane and a vast improvement over the NG and 320, respectively.
Now the next fiasco is going to be the MAX 10 certification. The FAA has already certified the MAX8+9 with the current annunciator panel recall like all other 737s. But now if it doesn't meet the certification deadline by the end of the year, they may force the MAX10 to have an EICAS setup. This could kill the MAX10 program. A lot of airlines have their future orders pegged to the MAX10 with the assumption that they will be similar to the MAX8 and 9 so pilots can fly all 3 variants. It honestly makes no sense to certify the MAX8/9 one way, and then force the 10 to be another way simply for a deadline. All future new airplanes (eg, a 797) should fall under the new guidelines, but the MAX 7/8/9/10 have been announced and planned for years and should be grandfathered in.
Time will tell. I still think Boeing will get it their way. The MAX10 should be certified like the MAX8/9 for commonality.
Common sense would say, add EICAS, and add it to all max platforms and NGs and put out a computer training course that says, instead of hunting for lights just look at the screen. End of procedure.
#13
Went and saw an advanced screening of "Top Gun 2 - Maverick" last night. (Spoiler Alert: It did not "take my breath away". Talking to the old farts with US Navy caps on was fun though. AT LEAST half the audience had some kind of pilot rating because of TG1. It was like Oshkosh, only in a theatre)
There's this scene where Maverick and Goose's son "Rooster" steal an F-14 for plot reasons.
The F-14 was pretty bad arse 35 years ago. Even the RIO looked cool.
Now (and the plot TG2 alludes to it), it looks like junk.
This is what the "modern" 737 looks like compared to your basic CRJ.
An anachronism.
How is this even possible?
#14
Going to admit something here:
Went and saw an advanced screening of "Top Gun 2 - Maverick" last night. (Spoiler Alert: It did not "take my breath away". Talking to the old farts with US Navy caps on was fun though. AT LEAST half the audience had some kind of pilot rating because of TG1. It was like Oshkosh, only in a theatre)
There's this scene where Maverick and Goose's son "Rooster" steal an F-14 for plot reasons.
The F-14 was pretty bad arse 35 years ago. Even the RIO looked cool.
Now (and the plot TG2 alludes to it), it looks like junk.
This is what the "modern" 737 looks like compared to your basic CRJ.
An anachronism.
How is this even possible?
Went and saw an advanced screening of "Top Gun 2 - Maverick" last night. (Spoiler Alert: It did not "take my breath away". Talking to the old farts with US Navy caps on was fun though. AT LEAST half the audience had some kind of pilot rating because of TG1. It was like Oshkosh, only in a theatre)
There's this scene where Maverick and Goose's son "Rooster" steal an F-14 for plot reasons.
The F-14 was pretty bad arse 35 years ago. Even the RIO looked cool.
Now (and the plot TG2 alludes to it), it looks like junk.
This is what the "modern" 737 looks like compared to your basic CRJ.
An anachronism.
How is this even possible?
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
But for planes, the certification will certainly be a hurdle. Long term, I'd bet against Boeing (commercial airline division, anyway), hold Airbus, and expect China to dominate this market in our lifetimes (something everyone thought Airbus could never do 30 years ago).
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 191
100% this. If the classics and the NGs can be the same type rating with just some minor differences training, then there is no reason why they can’t do precisely what you say.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 397
Going to admit something here:
Went and saw an advanced screening of "Top Gun 2 - Maverick" last night. (Spoiler Alert: It did not "take my breath away". Talking to the old farts with US Navy caps on was fun though. AT LEAST half the audience had some kind of pilot rating because of TG1. It was like Oshkosh, only in a theatre)
There's this scene where Maverick and Goose's son "Rooster" steal an F-14 for plot reasons.
The F-14 was pretty bad arse 35 years ago. Even the RIO looked cool.
Now (and the plot TG2 alludes to it), it looks like junk.
This is what the "modern" 737 looks like compared to your basic CRJ.
An anachronism.
How is this even possible?
Went and saw an advanced screening of "Top Gun 2 - Maverick" last night. (Spoiler Alert: It did not "take my breath away". Talking to the old farts with US Navy caps on was fun though. AT LEAST half the audience had some kind of pilot rating because of TG1. It was like Oshkosh, only in a theatre)
There's this scene where Maverick and Goose's son "Rooster" steal an F-14 for plot reasons.
The F-14 was pretty bad arse 35 years ago. Even the RIO looked cool.
Now (and the plot TG2 alludes to it), it looks like junk.
This is what the "modern" 737 looks like compared to your basic CRJ.
An anachronism.
How is this even possible?
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,419
system synoptic pages would also be a nice option on the lower DU.
#19
I'm not a fan of the recall on the 737 but it's just a repeater. Press the button and glance at the overhead for any orange (amber, whatever) there is no guarantee the 6 each side will light (inop bulb etc.) but if one does, QRH. It's rudimentary but the recall/system lights are only there to put a light in your face for easy viewing. It's not that hard.
#20
If you are talking about the Mary Schiavo book, spot on. If I remember correctly she was the DOT IG or something that exposed the dual mandate of the FAA and the obvious double standard they had in promoting aviation and their responsibility as the safetynet. She got the moniker "Scary Mary", but she was 100% right. It clearly points out how the government is not really interested in public safety, but control over every aspect of our lives. I have always wondered why the .gov is running day to day ATC operations rather than just ensuring that those that are are dong so in a standard manner in accordance with DOT guidelines/rules. What it is now is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post