PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on December 23, 2019, 07:46:44 AM
-
Well it seems the 737 Max debacle is taking its toll. I wonder what culpability the FAA has?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-resignation
-
When all of this is said and done, the final report will be interesting. Boeing, the FAA and Southwest will all be culpable.
This will change how large aircraft get certified in the future.
-
When all of this is said and done, the final report will be interesting. Boeing, the FAA and Southwest will all be culpable.
This will change how large aircraft get certified in the future.
How would a customer be culpable?
-
How would a customer be culpable?
Southwest demanded that the Max be on the same type rating as the other 737's, or they wouldn't buy it. This is one of the major reasons you see the latest models of the 737 with the hodgepodge cockpits that look modern with 1960 switches and guages scattered about. Southwest had a lot of input into the 737Max so they could keep a common type with only differences training. Boeing felt pressured to comply to keep from losing a major customer.
The Max was so different from the other 737 types that Boeing was doing some "creative" writing in the documentation to obscure some items that would have thrown the Max into another type. The MCAS was a part of that.
Boeing screwed up by trying to appease the customer and the FAA screwed up by letting Boeing self certify the product and not providing adequate oversight.
The swiss cheese model. Boeing should have been frank with SW and told them what they wanted wasn't going to be feasible. The FAA should have been more proactive. SW should start looking to a future with a new type.
The 737 has gone about as far as that model can go. Remember it's a mid 60's design airframe.
-
Southwest demanded that the Max be on the same type rating as the other 737's, or they wouldn't buy it. This is one of the major reasons you see the latest models of the 737 with the hodgepodge cockpits that look modern with 1960 switches and guages scattered about. Southwest had a lot of input into the 737Max so they could keep a common type with only differences training. Boeing felt pressured to comply to keep from losing a major customer.
The Max was so different from the other 737 types that Boeing was doing some "creative" writing in the documentation to obscure some items that would have thrown the Max into another type. The MCAS was a part of that.
Boeing screwed up by trying to appease the customer and the FAA screwed up by letting Boeing self certify the product and not providing adequate oversight.
The swiss cheese model. Boeing should have been frank with SW and told them what they wanted wasn't going to be feasible. The FAA should have been more proactive. SW should start looking to a future with a new type.
The 737 has gone about as far as that model can go. Remember it's a mid 60's design airframe.
I knew all of that, but I fail to see how SW could be culpable of anything. They made a demand of their supplier, and their supplier acquiesced, unwisely as it turned out.
-
I knew all of that, but I fail to see how SW could be culpable of anything. They made a demand of their supplier, and their supplier acquiesced, unwisely as it turned out.
It gets rather complicated, and that's all I can add. In time the reports will come out, and it won't be a pretty sight for anyone involved. Think back to the Columbia and the Challenger, when that came to light a lot of people were asking "How could that had possibly happened?"
-
I knew all of that, but I fail to see how SW could be culpable of anything. They made a demand of their supplier, and their supplier acquiesced, unwisely as it turned out.
If SWA is a large enough piece of the total revenue for Boeing, I'm sure it can argued and won in court that they had leverage on Boeing. How much that would translate into culpability and financial liability/restitution is another matter. Not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt SWA will be spared any injury simply because they are a customer.
-
If SWA is a large enough piece of the total revenue for Boeing, I'm sure it can argued and won in court that they had leverage on Boeing. How much that would translate into culpability and financial liability/restitution is another matter. Not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt SWA will be spared any injury simply because they are a customer.
100% of SWA’s fleet is Boeing 737s. What were they going to do for leverage - go to Airbus?
I have a friend who flew the KC-135 (Boeing 707 variant), 727, 737, 757, and 767 for United. Another friend currently flies the 767 and 777 for Delta. They ALWAYS comment about the comfortable commonality of a Boeing product from model to model.
Whatever change might have been made to the 737 or a new type for the MAX, it still would have been a Boeing.
-
100% of SWA’s fleet is Boeing 737s. What were they going to do for leverage - go to Airbus?
I have a friend who flew the KC-135 (Boeing 707 variant), 727, 737, 757, and 767 for United. Another friend currently flies the 767 and 777 for Delta. They ALWAYS comment about the comfortable commonality of a Boeing product from model to model.
Whatever change might have been made to the 737 or a new type for the MAX, it still would have been a Boeing.
Sorry Stan, but to say “comfortable commonality” between a 72, 73 (all variants) and 75/76 is just not there. And I’m speaking type rating wise.
Boeing for years configured their cockpits to the customer order. A TWA cockpit was vastly different from a Delta cockpit of the same type. And airlines could actually order variations on the systems. It wasn’t until the 76/75 that Boeing began standardizing the cockpit. The 75/76 cockpits and systems are so identical that the type rating says “B757/B767”, so you get both for one.
Take a look at the cockpits from the 737-300 up through the Max. The Max cockpit was way different, and it’s engine/systems were different. The Max in no way resembles the earlier models. And the Achilles heel of the Max was flight handling, which required the MCAS to get certified.
Airbus with regards to type similarity beats Boeing all day long. The A-318, 319, 320 and 321 are the same system and cockpit, and are flown on one type (A-320).
The cockpits of the A-320, A-330, A-340, and A-380 are so similar that a typed pilot in one model can transposition to another with minimal sim training.
Boeing is finally coming around with the same concept in the 777 and 787, 797.
-
Do you suppose they’ll ban the thread about this over at POA?
-
Sorry Stan, but to say “comfortable commonality” between a 72, 73 (all variants) and 75/76 is just not there. And I’m speaking type rating wise.
Boeing for years configured their cockpits to the customer order. A TWA cockpit was vastly different from a Delta cockpit of the same type. And airlines could actually order variations on the systems. It wasn’t until the 76/75 that Boeing began standardizing the cockpit. The 75/76 cockpits and systems are so identical that the type rating says “B757/B767”, so you get both for one.
Take a look at the cockpits from the 737-300 up through the Max. The Max cockpit was way different, and it’s engine/systems were different. The Max in no way resembles the earlier models. And the Achilles heel of the Max was flight handling, which required the MCAS to get certified.
Airbus with regards to type similarity beats Boeing all day long. The A-318, 319, 320 and 321 are the same system and cockpit, and are flown on one type (A-320).
The cockpits of the A-320, A-330, A-340, and A-380 are so similar that a typed pilot in one model can transposition to another with minimal sim training.
Boeing is finally coming around with the same concept in the 777 and 787, 797.
How many hours do you have in Boeings? Sorry, I’m going to take the word of my friend who flew for Uncle Sam from Guam to the Gulf of Tonkin in the early 70s in Vietnam until he retired from United at age 60. 100% of that time of at 35 years was in Boeings. That’s why gas passers were so much in demand by the airlines in that era - because they have a shit ton of time in Boeings.
Obviously the type ratings are different. I’m not stupid. I’m saying that these guys told me there was a comfort level when you went from model to model from the location of common switches, tillers, etc. etc. That doesn’t mean they were the same, and I never said that. Im saying there was commonality in many respects.
-
Do you suppose they’ll ban the thread about this over at POA?
We are NOT allowed to discuss, think, nor wonder about that. You are getting close to an "action".
-
Thread locked pending Exalted MC review!
-
Thread locked pending Exalted MC review!
in before (*&SDF>.....
-
Do you suppose they’ll ban the thread about this over at POA?
Not that one but there’s one in medical matters talking about pot. James and I are probably both skirting the edge of that one.
-
Not that one but there’s one in medical matters talking about pot. James and I are probably both skirting the edge of that one.
You were warned. You must now DO A SHOT, and not Kahlua or some Fu Fu drink. Real booze!
-
You were warned. You must now DO A SHOT, and not Kahlua or some Fu Fu drink. Real booze!
I just might do that. I need a drink. I'm trying to replace the broken seat on my cheap Chinese piece of shit low flow toilet and I'm not in a good mood.