- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/27/19 at 8:09 pm to flyingtexastiger
Perfect post and absolutely exemplifies my opinion of Boeing.
If your opinion is accurate, and it very well may be, Boeing should've followed Herb Kelleher 's advice, " The customer is not always right".
If your opinion is accurate, and it very well may be, Boeing should've followed Herb Kelleher 's advice, " The customer is not always right".
Posted on 7/27/19 at 8:14 pm to Joehat
quote:
hope legislation is passed to prohibit Boeing or any airlines from putting lipstick on this pig of a plane and putting it back in the skies...
Why? That sounds ridiculous.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 8:15 pm to JohnnyKilroy
It worked for Value Jet.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 8:22 pm to Reservoir dawg
quote:
Airbus FBW has become super safe.
Not sure if you're a "bus" driver but have you read the latest ELAC AD? Not super safe...super lucky.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 8:55 pm to aileron
quote:
Not sure if you're a "bus" driver but have you read the latest ELAC AD? Not super safe...super lucky.
The issue has been resolved with a software update.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:01 pm to Reservoir dawg
quote:
The issue has been resolved with a software update
Ha...this is the 6th revision of the software. Are you a betting man?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:24 pm to aileron
quote:
Ha...this is the 6th revision of the software. Are you a betting man?
What are you suggesting, a line of aircraft that is proven and been in commercial service since 1989 is unsafe because a revision had to be made in the software to enhance the safety of continued operation?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:28 pm to Reservoir dawg
quote:
What are you suggesting, a line of aircraft that is proven and been in commercial service since 1989 is unsafe because a revision had to be made in the software to enhance the safety of continued operation
Yes...and apparently the FAA and EASA agree with me.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:39 pm to Reservoir dawg
quote:
What are you suggesting, a line of aircraft that is proven and been in commercial service since 1989 is unsafe because a revision had to be made in the software to enhance the safety of continued operation?
The MAX hasn't been in service since 1989. You need to read the thread and understand that the “regular” 737s are vastly different from the MAX. Boeing did this to avoid getting a whole new aircraft certified because it’s expensive to do so.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:44 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It's not the hardware of the plane itself causing the problems.
Some purported person in the know commented on the 737 Max in a past thread. They stated that the Max with larger engines was modified by extending the engines farther forward. That causes a pitch up tendency. So my reading of that is there is a hardware problem with engine position. The software tries to correct this too aggressively. That person stated the plane should have been modified with taller landing gear with engines tucked underneath the wings in a manner such as the 757. Sounded like a decent explanation. The suggestion was that Boeing didn't want that extensive a redesign.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:46 pm to aileron
quote:
Yes...and apparently the FAA and EASA agree with me.
Point me in the direction of an accident that was caused by the ELAC system with an A320 series aircraft.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:47 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I'm sorry but if you've redesigned your airplane so much that it requires almost an entirely new flight control system then it's not the same airplane. Boeing and the FAA should've known better. The 737MAX is not a 737 just because a piece of paper says so.
I don’t know shite from shinola when it comes to planes, but I do know that I drive by Hobby Airport every day and United has 8 737 Max planes at a hanger there and they look absolutely nothing like a 737. Not even the 800s. They are way way bigger than a 737.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:52 pm to Marlo Stanfield
quote:
Not even the 800s. They are way way bigger than a 737.
The MAX-8 is roughly the size of a -800. United does have a maintenance facility at Hobby.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:53 pm to RedRifle
I’d say it’s more likely than not that this plane gets eliminated or re-branded at this point. Most people don’t know what kind of plane they fly on, but a large portion of people will now look for the max and avoid it (if it comes back).
Posted on 7/27/19 at 9:59 pm to Reservoir dawg
I think United’s are Max 9s. They are huge compared to the 737s that are in and out of Hobby all day. My office is right by Hobby and I drive by it on my way home every day. Saw the United planes back when the first started and saw United has a hanger there on the Telephone side right by the old control tower.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:00 pm to Marlo Stanfield
quote:
I think United’s are Max 9s.
You are correct. I had forgotten.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:25 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Some purported person in the know commented on the 737 Max in a past thread. They stated that the Max with larger engines was modified by extending the engines farther forward. That causes a pitch up tendency. So my reading of that is there is a hardware problem with engine position. The software tries to correct this too aggressively. That person stated the plane should have been modified with taller landing gear with engines tucked underneath the wings in a manner such as the 757. Sounded like a decent explanation. The suggestion was that Boeing didn't want that extensive a redesign.
Moving the larger engines up and forward is not an issue. Using software to software to handle the change in flight characteristics is not an issue. Boeing is not The only company to use software to deal with changes. Airbus has had its share of software issues and for years allowed some of its models to fly with questionable out of tubes that lead to The crash of Air France 447.
The issue is the software in the planes of many airlines relied on a single sensor for inputs and proper pilot training. Pilots were not trained and relying on a single sensor is asking for failure.
Both issues are solvable and calls to scrap the plane are just silly by those saying that.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:47 pm to BHM
If it’s so easy, then why can’t a $200 billion+ company solve it?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 11:35 pm to RedRifle
Here in Washington, they are shitting bricks with the unknown as countless people are being furloughed
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News