Boeing altered key switches in 737 MAX cockpit limiting ability to shut off MCAS

Post by jsjohnst » Sun, May 12, 2019, 1:17 PM UTC

v8engine wrote: post #193

jsjohnst wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked article says why, but to paraphrase, the training has always said to flip both switches. Previously the only time you’d need to flip the switches was due to an electric motor being stuck-on. It’s only with the MAX that there was an actual useful reason to flip one vs the other, but the training was always to flip both and Boeing decided to simplify it. My personal guess is that it was internally totally di…

Just to spare others from the search: Before 2004, those Boeing technical employees who worked safety on behalf of the FAA were called “Designated Engineering Representatives,” or DERs. Though paid by Boeing, they were appointed by the FAA and reported directly to their technical counterparts at the FAA. What changed since 2004 is that safety engineers, now called Authorized Representatives, are appointed by and repo…

Post by echelon » Sun, May 12, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

pentae wrote: post #266

sean_the_geek wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count one more please. Searched for flight, saw Boing 737, no thank you! Paid premium for Airbus. That’s for three passengers.

You know the 737 and the 737 MAX are two completely different planes right?

Post by bumby » Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #65

erentz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the endgame now for 737 MAX planes? The bugs will be addressed and they'll still fly. Airlines have no choice, there's a limited capacity in the world for airplane construction, several thousands of orders on the books for the 737 and 320 waiting to be filled. What can an airline do? They can cut back some orders but not all orders. > I'd honestly like to see the 737 MAX taken out of service and Boeing simp…

> 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/Vi…

Post by josecastillo » Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #262

eCa wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Airlines have no choice Anecdotal: I know of at least one family that booked a trip on a non-Boeing airline, at additional cost, to avoid risking being on a Max. Imagine that after the Max is back in service, that there is a serious incident in the first few months - it doesn't have to be fatal, just a close call of some kind - how many more customers will avoid the Max at all costs?

How do you know the plane model before you board? It's not shown when buying the ticket, it's not written on the ticket either.

Post by _ph_ » Sun, May 12, 2019, 3:10 PM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #65

erentz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the endgame now for 737 MAX planes? The bugs will be addressed and they'll still fly. Airlines have no choice, there's a limited capacity in the world for airplane construction, several thousands of orders on the books for the 737 and 320 waiting to be filled. What can an airline do? They can cut back some orders but not all orders. > I'd honestly like to see the 737 MAX taken out of service and Boeing simp…

> 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/Vi…