12 ms·

> The bugs will be addressed and they'll still fly. The engines are mounted incorrectly, so much so that Boeing believed pilots need the assistance of MCAS on

> The bugs will be addressed and they'll still fly. The engines are mounted incorrectly, so much so that Boeing believed pilots need the assistance of MCAS on take-off now. The bug isn't with its algorithms, rather the need for MCAS to begin with. They can't "address" it. That's why I'll be very careful not to ever book a flight on a 737 Max, probably easier to simply stick to Airbus-only airlines: Jetblue, Alaska/Virgin, etc.

rdl 7y ago
Alaska is Boeing, Virgin is Airbus, Alaska/Virgin is primarily Boeing...
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  And Bombardier and Embraer.
samstave 7y ago
Yup: https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/4/15/18306644/boeing-737-max-crash-video https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/4/15/18306644/boeing-737-max...
jhayward 7y ago
> The engines are mounted incorrectly, so much so that Boeing believed pilots need the assistance of MCAS on take-off now. This overstates the issue. The engine mounting changes the flight characteristics enough that the MAX 8 needs to be flown differently in certain corners of the flight envelope. The MCAS was added to avoid having to re-train pilots or trigger a new type certification. The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  Why is this commenter grey in my thread? They are absolutely correct, and anyone who disagrees really needs to say why.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  > The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe. I don't think this is a very...'precise' statement. what is "safe" in the context of aviation? If you had no MCAS, then this plane has a very bad propensity to stall. I hope we can both agree that's an unsafe airplane. You can't just say "don't do that [pull up too much] and then you're fine". The aircraft "wants" to pitch up too high and stall, which predicated the MCAS system itself. So to me, yeah the engine mounting (in and of itself) makes this plane quite unsafe. Now, with a properly functioning MCAS it may be "safe", but when the MCAS is itself another point of failure, my opinion is that the aircraft is only safe on paper, while in practice it's just got too many hacks and kludges for it to be practically safe for the millions of safe flight hours that these things are expect to deliver.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    No, it did not “have a bad propensity to stall”. That’s a very imprecise statement in the first place but if you take it to mean, it would try to stall during normal flight conditions, it’s definitely false. Airbus aircraft are “safe” despite the fact that dual conflicting pilot input is averaged without stick feedback (see the Airfrance flight from Brazil). If electronics being used to fly the aircraft upsets you, you’re going to be in for a real shocker on any airbus.
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      > That’s a very imprecise statement in the first place but if you take it to mean, it would try to stall during normal flight conditions, it’s definitely false. The precise wording would be that it is dynamically unstable, and the ball is with Boeing now to prove it's not the case. Also after all we discovered on the last weeks, Boeing better make a good case, or they won't convince anyone. The US aviation industry is about to change. I don't know into what, but it's not in a stable situation.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      if it didn't have a propensity to stall, why did they add the MCAS system?
    - 7y ago
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe. The engine position exacerbates a problem already plaguing the 737 since the Classic. I think you're understating the problem quite a bit here.
- usrusr 7y ago
  > The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe. Unless there is something about the magnitude of MCAS necessity that Boeing did not tell us yet. Boeing's original stance of "stupid pilots should have followed runaway trim procedures" does not seem very consistent with actively removing a two-stage disable feature that already existed (and which, in hindsight, might have saved those lives). How desperate exactly were they to never ever let the pilots catch a glimpse off the real flight characteristics?
logjammin 7y ago
Alaska was, before they bought Virgin, famously a Boeing-only airline! (And a 737-only airline at that!)
- cozzyd 7y ago
  I was gonna say... How could a Seattle-based airline be all Airbus?
- ulfw 7y ago
  Yet Horizon Air currently operates two types of aircraft, the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 turboprop and the Embraer 175 regional jet. They’re a 100% subsidiary of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Air puts its code on them.
bumby 7y ago
Did they change to require MCAS on take-off? Last I heard, MCAS was disabled at an altitude before 400 feet
_ph_ 7y ago
MCAS isn't even active during take-off: as long as the flaps are extended, it does not activate.

rdl 7y ago

Alaska is Boeing, Virgin is Airbus, Alaska/Virgin is primarily Boeing...

inferiorhuman 7y ago
And Bombardier and Embraer.

samstave 7y ago

Yup: https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/4/15/18306644/boeing-737-max-crash-video https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/4/15/18306644/boeing-737-max...

jhayward 7y ago

> The engines are mounted incorrectly, so much so that Boeing believed pilots need the assistance of MCAS on take-off now. This overstates the issue. The engine mounting changes the flight characteristics enough that the MAX 8 needs to be flown differently in certain corners of the flight envelope. The MCAS was added to avoid having to re-train pilots or trigger a new type certification. The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe.

EdwardDiego 7y ago
Why is this commenter grey in my thread? They are absolutely correct, and anyone who disagrees really needs to say why.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
> The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe. I don't think this is a very...'precise' statement. what is "safe" in the context of aviation? If you had no MCAS, then this plane has a very bad propensity to stall. I hope we can both agree that's an unsafe airplane. You can't just say "don't do that [pull up too much] and then you're fine". The aircraft "wants" to pitch up too high and stall, which predicated the MCAS system itself. So to me, yeah the engine mounting (in and of itself) makes this plane quite unsafe. Now, with a properly functioning MCAS it may be "safe", but when the MCAS is itself another point of failure, my opinion is that the aircraft is only safe on paper, while in practice it's just got too many hacks and kludges for it to be practically safe for the millions of safe flight hours that these things are expect to deliver.
- kortilla 7y ago
  No, it did not “have a bad propensity to stall”. That’s a very imprecise statement in the first place but if you take it to mean, it would try to stall during normal flight conditions, it’s definitely false. Airbus aircraft are “safe” despite the fact that dual conflicting pilot input is averaged without stick feedback (see the Airfrance flight from Brazil). If electronics being used to fly the aircraft upsets you, you’re going to be in for a real shocker on any airbus.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    > That’s a very imprecise statement in the first place but if you take it to mean, it would try to stall during normal flight conditions, it’s definitely false. The precise wording would be that it is dynamically unstable, and the ball is with Boeing now to prove it's not the case. Also after all we discovered on the last weeks, Boeing better make a good case, or they won't convince anyone. The US aviation industry is about to change. I don't know into what, but it's not in a stable situation.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    if it didn't have a propensity to stall, why did they add the MCAS system?
  - 7y ago
inferiorhuman 7y ago
The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe. The engine position exacerbates a problem already plaguing the 737 since the Classic. I think you're understating the problem quite a bit here.
usrusr 7y ago
> The engine mounting certainly does not make the plane unsafe. Unless there is something about the magnitude of MCAS necessity that Boeing did not tell us yet. Boeing's original stance of "stupid pilots should have followed runaway trim procedures" does not seem very consistent with actively removing a two-stage disable feature that already existed (and which, in hindsight, might have saved those lives). How desperate exactly were they to never ever let the pilots catch a glimpse off the real flight characteristics?

logjammin 7y ago

Alaska was, before they bought Virgin, famously a Boeing-only airline! (And a 737-only airline at that!)

cozzyd 7y ago
I was gonna say... How could a Seattle-based airline be all Airbus?
ulfw 7y ago
Yet Horizon Air currently operates two types of aircraft, the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 turboprop and the Embraer 175 regional jet. They’re a 100% subsidiary of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Air puts its code on them.

bumby 7y ago

Did they change to require MCAS on take-off? Last I heard, MCAS was disabled at an altitude before 400 feet

_ph_ 7y ago

MCAS isn't even active during take-off: as long as the flaps are extended, it does not activate.