Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those typically aren't approved for civilian air-transport though, are they?
The MD-11 is a passenger aircraft.
Right, but that's quite atypical, isn't it?
American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
111–120 of 205 posts
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before very few. I absolutely would now. I bet more than a few traders looking for an edge are trying to find someone who works at Kayak to tell them how many more clicks there are in “see full flight details” before purchasing a flight there are now.
Thats great. But then when you get to the gate and there is a 737Max sat there waiting for you, do you board? Or do you accept that you won't get a refund and now need to buy another flight and just hope there is one today for an affordable price with a seat not on a 737Max?
Consumers aren't exactly helpless here. The worst-case scenario is the customer is unable to get another flight (for whatever reason) and 'has to' board the 737Max that one time. The customer can then choose not to book with that airline again. I'm already not a fan of AA, and with this news I can happily avoid this situation by simply not flying AA.
Will I always feel this way? We'll see. I'm fine with letting other people be volunteer guinea pigs before I commit to something.
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the natural conclusion to decades of corporate lobbying, revolving door political appointments with overt conflicts of interests and regulatory capture. Those with financial incentives get control or massive sway over oversight. In the short run, I'm sure it's to a corporation's advantage, other corporations follow suit because, hey CorpX is doing it. Before you know it, and often suddenly, no one trusts anyt…
Sadly, regulatory capture seems to be the end game of capitalism.
Crony capitalism.
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference with AF447 was that the aircraft at no point was defective, it was purely confusion on part of the flight crew and the issue with two pilots "in control" which the Captain absolutely should have dealt with.
The pitot tubes had iced-over and it wasn't the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Pitot_tu... But that's not what made me nervous about Airbus. Rather, that's when I learned that Airbuses are flown by side-sticks that aren't mechanically linked while Boeings are flown by yokes which are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Side-sti... The idea that two pilots can provide…
The advantages of fly-by-wire are too good to pass up, so that leaves the question of how to design an FBW system.
A high school teacher of mine in the 1970s predicted an accident like AF447. He framed it this way: the 'American' approach is to implement FBW to always do what the pilot inputs indicate, whereas the 'French' approach is to do the right thing, and override the pilot if the FBW 'knows' better. That's an interesting cultural cultural consistency as well!
So, the 'American' approach is better if the sensors are not working as expected, and it makes the software simpler. The 'French' approach is better if the pilot is wrong, but both the sensors and the software must be working perfectly. Everyone makes mistakes, and all software has bugs. What to do?
(In reality, some 'judgement' is needed by the software, even in the American approach.)
EDIT: That said, some of the design choices in the Airbus FBW are baffling, such as making the control input the average of two different inputs. I like to think AF447 is less likely to have happened in a Boeing ship, although the ulitimate cause of the crash was a pilot making what amounts to a beginner mistake.
Don't miss William Langewiesche's article!
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-...
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
For years after AF447 I was nervous flying airbus. In reality, it's extremely unlikely that you'll die flying. (I'd be nervous flying a Max too, but it's not rational.)
The difference with AF447 was that the aircraft at no point was defective, it was purely confusion on part of the flight crew and the issue with two pilots "in control" which the Captain absolutely should have dealt with.
It sure looks defective to me:
It was controlled more by pressure than movement, using joysticks instead of the traditional huge yoke. When one person was screwing up, the other could not observe this. On a Boeing, each person would feel the other person's force because the controls are physically linked.
The stall warning was designed for mild stalls, not severe stalls, and would turn off if the stall was really bad. They got into that state. Every time they reduced the stall, they would get back into the range in which the warning would alert. This caused them to go back into the worse condition, in which the stall warning just gave up.
The pitot tubes, used to sense speed, were prone to clogging with ice. Better equipment is expected on a large passenger plane.
That's all the aircraft itself. If you want to blame the pilots for any of that, then Boeing can rightly say the same for 737 troubles.
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pitot tubes had iced-over and it wasn't the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Pitot_tu... But that's not what made me nervous about Airbus. Rather, that's when I learned that Airbuses are flown by side-sticks that aren't mechanically linked while Boeings are flown by yokes which are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Side-sti... The idea that two pilots can provide…
Pitot tubes icing over is common on all planes not just Airbus planes. It's more or less expected and planned for.
No, large aircraft have pitot tube heaters. Flying in non-visual conditions without working pitot tubes would be crazy.
There are aircraft, for example the B-2, that can't fly at all without working pitot tubes.
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#117To be clear, the FAA is set to lift their grounding order on November 18.
https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-737max/exclusive-faa-...
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a similar tenet for purchasing refurbished hardware. The supplier only wants to stomach a single RMA, so they will put in the effort to make sure the re-certified doesn't ever come back.
That's not true at all. All work is a trade-off between effort/cost and reward. The person refurbishing the equipment will decide how much work is reasonable for the amount of money they are making on it. In an ideal world, we want to sell something that works perfectly and don't want any returns for sure but the truth is we never know its perfect and perfection costs money.
A piece of hardware that has been re-certified has absolutely been through more extensive testing than those sold as new, its a simple fact of the matter
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference with AF447 was that the aircraft at no point was defective, it was purely confusion on part of the flight crew and the issue with two pilots "in control" which the Captain absolutely should have dealt with.
I won't fly Air France, not just because of AF447, but also the time they diverted into an airport in the middle of a civil war and had a whip round in first class to pay for the gas to get out of there. https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/air-franc...
I won't fly Air France because they cost me 500 euros for nothing. I was in Paris and set to leave and they went on strike. I waited in line for hours to try and get on any flight out, and they said there was no chance I would leave that day, and I should book a hotel.
So we booked the cheapest thing we could find that would work with our baby, and it was 500 euros for the night. Two hours later they called us and told us to get to the airport right away if we wanted to leave France in less than a week.
So we left France on small plane, and couldn't get a refund on the hotel because it was less than 24. All because they couldn't figure out how to get us on that flight two hours earlier when I was at their customer service desk.
Re: American Airlines Is Quietly Bringing Back the 737Max
#120I’m at a point where I just opt for carriers with Airbus fleets. I do not trust modern day American corporations nor the oversight bodies. There are too many financial incentives to cut corners.
Which domestic US airline flies Airbus?