Max display setup
06-05-2022, 02:14 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,412
Originally Posted by flensr
Market forces should dictate products on the market. Exactly how many 737s have crashed in the last 30 years due to not having EICAS? In the last 20? Last 10? What's the compelling reason to kill off a profitable product line for an American company? I agree that Boeing had a lot to answer for and to correct with the MAX certification, but requiring a new feature to be added in the absence of a compelling safety vulnerability is a violent shift away from our free market economic practices that could have economic costs in in the Billions. You just can't do that without a compelling reason, unless you're a greedy congresscritter stuffing your pockets full because we're all too collectively stupid to demand term limits.
06-05-2022, 02:27 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Originally Posted by at6d
ILet’s not forget that Asiana cartwheeled a 777 at SFO. “Experienced” aviators and EICAS in day VMC, and the airplane wasn’t trying to kill them.
The 737 MAX crashes were the result of a broken aircraft, and in both cases, the crews had no idea what was wrong. EICAS could have changed that.
06-05-2022, 02:51 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 499
Originally Posted by flyprdu
I'm not sure why EICAS would play a factor on Asiana, since there was nothing mechanically wrong with that aircraft.
The 737 MAX crashes were the result of a broken aircraft, and in both cases, the crews had no idea what was wrong. EICAS could have changed that.
The 737 MAX crashes were the result of a broken aircraft, and in both cases, the crews had no idea what was wrong. EICAS could have changed that.
Eicas would not fix that. The captain correctly ID’ed the problem. The FO was ab initio, and I believe they got him his sim time “creatively”
06-05-2022, 03:22 PM
#34
Strike averted!
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: B737
Posts: 3,638
Originally Posted by flyprdu
I'm not sure why EICAS would play a factor on Asiana, since there was nothing mechanically wrong with that aircraft.
The 737 MAX crashes were the result of a broken aircraft, and in both cases, the crews had no idea what was wrong. EICAS could have changed that.
The 737 MAX crashes were the result of a broken aircraft, and in both cases, the crews had no idea what was wrong. EICAS could have changed that.
06-05-2022, 05:13 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Originally Posted by at6d
My point is that plenty of times pilots have flown non-broken aircraft into the ground. Airmanship was definitely a very large factor in the MAX crashes. Don’t forget, another crew had experienced the failure and successfully landed before.
Would an EICAS system that spoon-feeds the proper reactions to an AOA failure and subsequent MCAS malfunction been an asset to those crews that died?
06-05-2022, 05:29 PM
#36
Strike averted!
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: B737
Posts: 3,638
Originally Posted by flyprdu
Regardless of your opinion of the pilots, answer this question:
Are you still going to argue that an EICAS has no benefit?
Are you still going to argue that an EICAS has no benefit?
Could an EICAS alert have helped? I guess? Sure. Why not an “MCAS!!” audible?
Runaway trim response?
Could pulling back the thrust levers have helped?
My argument is that a 250 hour total time FO (total time within like a one year time span) would likely still have been a negative factor in the outcome.
Airmanship is not automatic. It’s a skill that must be learned, practiced, and honed—EICAS or not.
06-05-2022, 05:36 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Originally Posted by at6d
I didn’t say it has no benefit. Don’t tell me what my argument is and then use that against me!
Could an EICAS alert have helped? I guess? Sure. Why not an “MCAS!!” audible?
Runaway trim response?
Could pulling back the thrust levers have helped?
My argument is that a 250 hour total time FO (total time within like a one year time span) would likely still have been a negative factor in the outcome.
Airmanship is not automatic. It’s a skill that must be learned, practiced, and honed—EICAS or not.
Could an EICAS alert have helped? I guess? Sure. Why not an “MCAS!!” audible?
Runaway trim response?
Could pulling back the thrust levers have helped?
My argument is that a 250 hour total time FO (total time within like a one year time span) would likely still have been a negative factor in the outcome.
Airmanship is not automatic. It’s a skill that must be learned, practiced, and honed—EICAS or not.
The aircraft malfunctions. The lack of annunciations. The lack of systems monitoring. The lack of ways to cancel erroneous warnings. Pilot experience and poor airmanship.
The majority of the holes in the cheese are on the aircraft side the equation. I'm hopeful that the EICAS exemption does expire. The more holes plugged, the better.
06-05-2022, 06:35 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 791
Originally Posted by flyprdu
Part of the mishandling of the aircraft was due to confusion and lack of information. They simply did not know that the aircraft was trying to kill them.
Clacker and stick shaker at the same time. And nothing to indicate that anything was wrong with the aircraft.
Imagine how valuable an AOA FAULT caution message would be. Or a MCAS ACTIVE advisory message. Instead they were trying to read the 737 tea leaves while the aircraft hurled itself into the ground.
EICAS would have given those crews a chance. The 737 MAX has the largest screens of any narrowbody, and no room for EICAS. The airplane is a joke.
Clacker and stick shaker at the same time. And nothing to indicate that anything was wrong with the aircraft.
Imagine how valuable an AOA FAULT caution message would be. Or a MCAS ACTIVE advisory message. Instead they were trying to read the 737 tea leaves while the aircraft hurled itself into the ground.
EICAS would have given those crews a chance. The 737 MAX has the largest screens of any narrowbody, and no room for EICAS. The airplane is a joke.
06-05-2022, 09:04 PM
#40
Line holder
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: On the bus,seat 0A
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by flensr
Market forces should dictate products on the market. Exactly how many 737s have crashed in the last 30 years due to not having EICAS? In the last 20? Last 10? What's the compelling reason to kill off a profitable product line for an American company? I agree that Boeing had a lot to answer for and to correct with the MAX certification, but requiring a new feature to be added in the absence of a compelling safety vulnerability is a violent shift away from our free market economic practices that could have economic costs in in the Billions. You just can't do that without a compelling reason, unless you're a greedy congresscritter stuffing your pockets full because we're all too collectively stupid to demand term limits.
They should have put it in decades ago, procrastinated in the name of profit, and are finally held accountable for that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
