I read it that he’s pointing out the laughable juxtaposition of someone basically rubbishing a commercial pilots opinion, cos he’s read a bit about planes n that, online.

You get all kinds of experts on here. I remember one big hitter trying to explain the shoreham crash when it happened..his experience on the subject..he had flow model planes in the past.

Boeing to hold a briefing on Wednesday…(linky)

What are you trying to say?

I read it that he’s pointing out the laughable juxtaposition of someone basically rubbishing a commercial pilots opinion, cos he’s read a bit about planes n that, online.

Well, another problem with the internet. Misunderstanding what is being said. I was only having an issue with his choice of wording, the way he was making his point. Absolutely nothing else. I’m certainly not trying to say he is wrong or that I know better.

Boeing to hold a briefing on Wednesday…(linky)

Any chance they’ll resolve the conveyor belt question while they’re at it?

It’s a very basic aircraft, ultimately. One of the reasons it’s like this is because Boeing’s biggest customers are opposed to change.

I guess that is the biggest driver of the MAX project. Enlightening post anyway – thanks. I’ve worked briefly on a couple of Boeing systems and it chimes with my experience.

Are you currently on Airbus types? (I’m not trying to imply bias! just interested)

Are you currently on Airbus types? (I’m not trying to imply bias! just interested)

No. 5000 hours on the A320 series but been flying the 787 for a couple of years now.

Jesus, that’s some range!

I remember one big hitter trying to explain the shoreham crash when it happened..his experience on the subject..he had flow model planes in the past.

A bit OT, but, just for shoots and giggles, I had a quick search through the shoreham thread, amusingly enough, your big hitter called it as pilot error… much like the AAIB report.

A European Aviation and Space Agency (EASA) document from 2016 has emerged (link)

a little snippet part way thru ^^^^ linked article

“FAA declined to comment on the European document. A trim-related “equivalent level of safety” (ELOS) memorandum listed in its 737 MAX certification document is not available on the FAA website. The agency declined to provide it to Reuters.”

from the FAA “Equivalent level of safety (ELOS) findings are granted when literal compliance with a certification regulation cannot be shown and compensating factors exist which can provide an ELOS ………. Compensating factors are normally any design changes, limitations, or equipment imposed that will facilitate granting the equivalency.”

Can you please translate that to plain English for us lesser mortals?

my translation but suspect others better qualified….

The FAA signed off an exception related to “trim” on the 737 max – the documentation covering this should probably be available on line but isn’t and either its so dull no one would be interested or its a very interesting read and hence declining to give Reuters a copy

Only skimmed this on my phone but I’m not convinced it’s that relevant. Even before MCAS the 737 has unusual behaviour with trimming at low speeds where the aircraft may silently trim against the pilot to increase control loading at low speeds (not a 737 pilot, just passing on anecdote from a colleague).

It wouldn’t be unusual to find electric trim input inhibited at very low speeds, as it would ensure that releasing the controls introduces a natural pitch down moment.

not a pilot but thought that trim was the issue – maybe not in what i would think of as the conventional sense – that is just something that maintains control position but the automated (and unexpected) input of substantial trim to reduce the angle of attack if a stall is predicted

hols2 linked to what a pleb thought was a useful article….https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

to paraphrase (cos’ article won’t cut and paste) MCAS’s sole function is to trim the stabilizer nose down

IANAP, or flown model planes though I can make paper ones…

This thread is a really interesting read… My partner heads up a software testing function and she said that the testing community were putting a lot of time and interest into this…. but to me, it does sound like Boeing’s passengers are paying for the Beta testing which should have really been done beforehand… (IANAST either…).

Well, another problem with the internet. Misunderstanding what is being said. I was only having an issue with his choice of wording, the way he was making his point. Absolutely nothing else. I’m certainly not trying to say he is wrong or that I know better.

That’s certainly not the way it came across – it appeared that your criticism of a commercial pilot’s opinion was based on the fact that you’d read a bit about flying aircraft.

Can only assume that Boeing are a new aircraft company and still learning the basics: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-737-max-fuel-tanks-a9343581.html

They seem an absolute shower of ****.
So they’ve found stuff in the fuel tanks of brand new aircraft – one would assume that this means there’s a reasonable chance that there might be some stuff in the fuel tanks of the planes that are currently grounded all aver the world. Will Boeing now have to pay to have all those planes checked also?

They must be the most untrustworthy plane manufacturer out there at the moment (and their space division is no better either!)

It’s a grim reminder that no matter how big a company is, they can’t be allowed to certify their own work.

The FAA should take as much of the blame as Boeing; letting them get away with obviously lax quality standards for so long is a serious lapse of an oversight body.

I struggle to believe this sort of thing will be confined to the 737 Max. What is to stop crap gathering in the tanks of all the other Boeing products? And worse.

Not unusual to find stuff in fuel tanks of aircraft. Bits of rivets and bolts, swarf. All sorts of detritus left over from original production and stuff that gathers during service through maintenance. Things are alot better now with alot of focus on clearing up, but there will still be some stuff in there. The fuel systems are designed to be tolerant of this stuff as it is anticipated in the design that there will be this rubbish rattling around in the fuel tanks. It’s impossible to completely clear out the tanks on production. By the time the tanks have been fitted out there is no way you can get into some area’s again to clear out the stuff.

The reality is it’s all small stuff and not alot of it and completely benign and safe, but doesn’t sound good to the average bod on the street. Everyone is triggered around news about Boeing right now. Normally this would be non-news, but it gets out in the context of the MAX and the media jump on it.

Yet the 737 GM is involved and “Boeing said it immediately made corrections in its production system to prevent a recurrence”. Why would the bother changing process for something that’s already taken into account and completely benign?

About 5 years ago I went to a talk about HSTs coming into service on the Western Region.

“So I climbed up into the fuel tank, a filthy box slung underneath which gleamed inside. It was quite psychedelic to be honest, plus with the diesel fumes. Anyway I started to look for anything which might have been causing the engine to cut out. We’d taken everything else to pieces and checked it all twice; the fuel tank was literally the last place we expected to find anything, but there in the corner was a packet of sandwiches that someone must have lost back in Derby. It had been washing up against the outlet causing the fuel pressure to drop and the engine to shut down.

“43020 Damien was renamed Mother’s Pride.”

Why would the bother changing process for something that’s already taken into account and completely benign?

to close the story down.  It’s much easier than explaining that it’s ok for McMoonters tool to be slapping around inside your fuel tank

Yet the 737 GM is involved and “Boeing said it immediately made corrections in its production system to prevent a recurrence”. Why would the bother changing process for something that’s already taken into account and completely benign?

Because nothing is ever perfect.

You probably think your driving is “safe”. Doesn’t mean that an article on Saccadic masking or the Duch reach around isn’t a worthwhile read to improve it from “unlikely to have an accident” to “incrementally even less likely to have an accident”.

So it depends whether someone at Boeing thinks that the amount of rubbish in the tanks is more or less than what the strainer / filter can deal with. Assuming less, then no problem, carry on as normal, but best give future ones an extra check to get from “safe enough” to “a bit safer than safe enough” if it’s no extra cost. There’s also the issue of distribution curves (where 6-sigma gets its name from), if there’s a bit of dirt in one, there’s more in another, if you work on getting them all a bit cleaner then the worst ones are less likely to be above the threshold where it becomes a problem.

to close the story down

So we’re saying they’re telling big porky pies?

if it’s no extra cost.

Extra checks can’t come for free if they’re extra.

Doing extra work is one of the 7 wastes, and not something you do if you’re confident in your work

I haven’t worn a mask?