WHAT’s the Issue NOW?!
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2022
- Go to curiositystream.thld.co/mento... and use code MENTOURNOW to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
Recently, a new Boeing 737MAX crisis has been in the headline. This time, it is talks about possibly cancelling the MAX 7 and 10 variants so what is this all about?!
In todays video I will sort out all of the controversies and issues that is currently facing the latest two MAX variants and what it might mean for the future of these Boeing aircraft.
Sources Below:
Videos
• The New Boeing 737 MAX 10
• Boeing 737 Max 10 Make...
• China Southern Removes...
• Boeing 737 MAX 9 Compl...
• 737 MAX 7 Farnborough ...
• Video from 737 MAX Cer...
• Boeing 777X Officially...
• Boeing 777 Cargo Fire ...
Articles
edition.cnn.com/2022/07/18/bu...
www.industryweek.com/leadersh...
www.globaltimes.cn/page/20211...
mentourpilot.com/russia-just-...
www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr...
www.reuters.com/business/aero...
www.airdatanews.com/support-g...
www.seattletimes.com/business...
Go to curiositystream.thld.co/mentournow_1122 and use code MENTOURNOW to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
You still not watched Flight/Risk on Amazon Prime? Lots of answers.
Could you check out 74gears last CZcams video, i would love your opinion on the Ryanair segment
@@johnmoloney5296 he has already replied to it FFS.
@@GeordieBoy69 where, i didn't see it?
Nej!
Jag fattar inte att du fortfarande gör en massa sponsrad reklam. Det bryter videons flöde och jag är inte ens intresserad i någon av produkterna. Jag vill till och med inte ens köpa dom om du håller på. Bojkott!!!
Tänk dig att du är ute och går i en vacker park och tar in hur vacker den är, sen hoppar jag plötsligt ut mitt i det från ingenstans och blockerar dig från att gå någonstans, sen börjar jag babbla om nån produkt du inte ens är intresserad av, och fortsätter om du inte gör något. Du skulle självklart villja stoppa mig och fortsätta gå i parken. Det här är exakt vad du gör med din sponsrade reklam i dina videor. Jag är anledningen bakom den här videons tredje Dislike på grund av den sponsrade reklamen.
As a airline pilot who flew the B737 for 16 years before moving on to airbus, Boeing’s reluctance to install EICAS in the 737 was frustrating. I have experienced the EICAS on the 767 and the ECAM on the A330 and they are vastly superior to the sixties era master warning system on the 737. Although still a serviceable system, a significant safety feature was left out just to satisfy some of Boeings larger 737 customers, such as Southwest Airlines, who didn’t want to pay for the additional training costs.
Well said, there is a reason for the EICAS being in Modern aircraft, simply put they reduce the pilot workload in times of stress adding to safety. Boeing and its key customers for the 737 would rather have cheaper than safer.!
One of the arguments is that it could be confusing for pilots, and thus dangerous, if two airplanes which are very similar (and certainly similar in name) have such different warning systems and thus have to be operated in very different ways.
Now I'm a layman in this so how do you value that argument, as a pilot having flown the 737 and other airplanes from Boeing and different manufacturers? Is that a serious argument, or would you consider it a straw man argument?
Boeing's strength is strength. Airbus' strength is design; They hired Porsche to design the cockpit of their airplanes. I am a committed Boeing guy, and I even recognize the stupidity of Boeing's designs. Honeywell Pegasus, which is used in the 757 and 767 is HORRID~!
@@Flies2FLL was it HORRID 40 years ago when it came out?
With 45 years of advanced material reinforcement failure analysis engineering experience, Boeing needs to move on to a 737 replacement and cancel the 737 MAX 7 & 10. Boeing already killed nearly 400 innocent lives due to corporate greed, fraud and corruption, 100% avoidable and under new review for criminal prosecution.
I will not fly on the 737 MAX period.
I love how the whole reason for the Max was "reducing costs" (because short-sighted Majors and their MBA management) and now this has become the biggest money burner in a long time. The 737 is basically a Chevy Kingswood with a DVD player installed.
A Chevy Kingswood... with mag tires, supercharger scoop... and DVD player.
Lol, that’s funny.
airbus fanboy crying evrywherw
Sadly the story of América for the last halve century, developing MBA's instead of Engineers.
I have 4 sons, none of them wanted to go into engineering
the EICAS should have become a required standard 20 years ago. An Online-help system has been a necessity in every piece of software delivered since the 1990's.
But it was not because an airplane is not a spreadsheet or word processor. The pilots will still need to fly the plane without it when the screens go dark.
@@danharold3087 Absolutely agree. There should always be a printed backup manual available, the lives of people may depend on it.
@@danharold3087 Doesn't mean they need to keep living entirely in the stone age
@@petep.2092
The "online help" was a metaphor for being able to access a *full* manual at any time.
Why change it? Because every other Boeing model has EICAS - it is *only* the 737 family which does *NOT* have EICAS. If the 737 system is so good, why has Boeing introduced a newer system into its other planes?
Where the law fails is that it should have mandated retro-fitting of EICAS to existing 737 family planes by, say, 2030, to bring them upto to the safety standard enjoyed by the rest of the Boeing models, ensuring commonality to the better standard across all planes.
I agree, it was bad airmanship that brought down the two Max's - the bad airmanship of the MCAS system trying to lower the nose when the plane was in safe level flight because it thought the nose was up and about to stall.
If a pilot thought the nose was up, heading for a stall, and pushed the nose down, but failed to look at his altitude, rate of climb and airspeed to see that he was actually flying level and not on the brink of a stall, you would agree he is a bad pilot and should not be in control of a plane; and yet that is exactly how MCAS was interacting with the MAXs that crashed.
Before you bring up the trim cut-out switches, a reminder that all they do is cut the power to the vertical stabilizer trim motor, they *DO NOT* disable MCAS - it is still in the background commanding a trim change, which can't currently be actioned as there is no power for the motor - but, more significantly, they also disable the use of the trim motor by the pilots themselves.
The FDR for one crashed flight shows the crew fighting with MCAS, repeatedly trimming the plane correctly to be undone by MCAS, a system of which *they had no idea* existed in the MAX as it was not mentioned in any manuals. It appears the crash investigators themselves only learnt about MCAS when a Boeing engineer sent to help them told them anout the automatic system responsible for the undoing of the pilots efforts to correct the trim.
If the pilots were not fully trained, then part of that is due to Boeing not telling their trainers about MCAS, what it did, and how it did it.
@@petep.2092 I like comparing its function to a context-based online help system, like hovering the mouse over an item to see it's attached function tooltip.
Have we forgotten the last time Boeing tried to avoid extra pilot training?
Apparently so... Educate us please.
@@BobbyGeneric145 MCAS????? Surely you can't be that ignorant?
@@BobbyGeneric145 MCAS
@@BobbyGeneric145 737 max mcas, caused two crashes
Good remark
Avoiding extra pilot training and rushing certification, what can go wrong?
Yeah the faa skated on the max crashes big time.
I think that the FAA can be judged for the crashes as well, because how can it be possible, that a plane with such safety issues and that huge lack of information for pilots can pass all tests?
@@Kasi11 Regulatory capture. Boeing is the only major aircraft manufacturer left in the US. So to find experts on aircraft, the FAA has to recruit from... Boeing. It has been this way for over 25 years. The FAA primarily regulates Boeing in terms of manufacturers, and recruits primarily from Boeing to find external experts. Similarly Boeing recruits regulatory experts from the FAA. The result is that the FAA and Boeing have essentially become interchangeable entities.
@@TheoreticalString Yes, but when an aircraft like the Max (beofre the update) can pass all tests, then there is something really wrong. It does not depend on where the experts are from and if they did not do all tests like they should have done, because Boeing was quite much time behiend the A320 Neo, then they were responsible for the crashes too.
@@Kasi11 yes you are right the faa was at fault in the crashes as well but the got a free pass
It just shows hows disastrous was Boeing's panic decision in the early 2000s to develop the MAX to ward off the A320, rather than build a clean sheet design as they'd originally intended. An enormous amount of problems have flowed from that.
But building a clean sheet design would cost money, and then Boeing would not be able to pay out the shareholders as much in dividends, which means that the management team would not have received large bonuses. I mean what can go wrong with a management model where none of the managers know anything about the product that they are making? But they do know how to get bonuses.
@@spacecadet35 It was not so mauch about money as time. By the time an all new plane was flying all the airlines would have been flying A320NEOs for their narrowbodies.
and still are.
@@kenoliver8913 the 757 which share the same body was a very good candidate for NG and MAX evolutions, unfortunately the executives choosed the basset hound 737
@Tyler Braden Last time I flew inside a NG, I found it particularly uncomfortable, flying lower than A320, there's more turbulences
I feel Boeing really shot itself in the foot by deciding to go with a "modernized NG" instead of just going with a totally new design. Almost certainly they would have saved money at this point by completely reimaging the 737.
The 737-MAX exists because it's what their customers wanted, they didn't want a totally new design. They have pilots and maintenance engineers trained for the 737 and warehouses with spare parts for the 737, so they didn't want a new plane, they just wanted a more fuel-efficient 737 and that's what they got. Now maybe the airlines shouldn't have gotten what they asked for and instead have been dragged into the 21th century kicking and screaming, but I don't really blame Boeing for making the product the market demanded
@@MatthijsvanDuin no one demanded an aircraft that flies itself into the ground 😕
@@mark675 Nobody is contesting that the implementation of MCAS was a giant screw-up, certainly I am not, but that's not what we're talking about here
Boeing probably made the right call not going with a clean sheet design. Airlines were not willing to wait and technology advances were not really there yet to justify a 20Billion investment. Where they screwed up was cost cutting and schedule shortcuts on MCAS to meet cost and deadline pressure.
@@mark675 MCAS isn't the problem. Boeing sells many planes to the military of America and other countries that have MCAS installed and none of those planes crashed because of mcas. I want to know how they screwed it up as bad as they did...
Things are not going well for Boeing right now.
Not only with the 737-max, the starliner is having a lot of issues as well.
Other companies, please take note - this is what happens when you a solid engineering company and replace the engineers with project and business managers.
Boeing Commercial Boeing Defense, Space & Security
I don't know how money flows between them.
They put profits over safety
@@MICKbig06 "Let's put a fuel tank where it might catch fire when it contacts the runway" EASA sorry boys your putting profit ahead of safety.
Every airliner is a collection of compromises.
its hard to feel any sympathy for boeing. if they hadnt messed up the 737 max in the first place none of this would have been an issue.
@@ikespacef1574 yup
Of Boeing could have just made a new airframe instead of milking the 737 till it’s utters fell right off
@@ikespacef1574 But, had Boeing done the right thing from the get go, those crashes would not have happened, period.
@@ikespacef1574 definitely not what the reports said about the pilots flying those planes.
@@ikespacef1574 No? They came up with a faulty design for an aircraft, and instead of fixing the design flaws they tried with a SW-fix, which sucked. And now they are stuck with a front-heavy airplane that need sw just to stay in the air. So what the hell are you talking about?
Over the last couple of decades, Boeing has had an increasing difficult time getting any of their projects done on time. As Finnish-Australian technologist Sami Mäkeläinen recently pointed out, "Pushing an all-new 797 to 2035 would put its arrival to market 27 years after the 787 was first supposed to go into service in 2008. For comparison, over a 27-year period in the last century Boeing developed the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767."
Its the same with everything. Look at the F-35 and other major defense projects. It may be because technology is getting so complex.
@mandellorian The Australian Government's Collins Class submarine replacement program is a perfect example of this.
New type rating. Avoiding that was the whole reason for shoe-horning the Max into the 737 family.
It's also likely why the 737 NG wasn't fitted with an EICAS when introduced in back in the 1990's. Type commonality with the 737 Classic.
Well they hadn’t had any issues with poor type conversation training in the 737 family before. It wasn’t as if a brand new 737 classic had been crashed into one of Britains busiest roads because a pilot didn’t understand the differences between a 737-200 and a 737-400. Oh…
@@markevans2294 But is it the same? I was looking at the changes made along the way a while back. Fuzzy recall that there were updates to the cockpit somewhere along the line. Anyone?
@@davidwright7193 The well-documented problem was that Boeing tried to circumvent a new type rating by using MCAS to handle the increased pitch up caused by the larger engines on the MAX without providing adequate training for the pilots. People died for no good reason. Everyone ignored MAX pilot's reported problems until two perfectly flyable aircraft crashed and many lives were lost.And the resulting cans of worms opened up went beyond MCAS and training to include wiring issues. I was a big believer in Boeing and owned a fair amount of Boeing stock which I had fortuitously sold before the MAX grounding. But I wouldn't touch Boeing stock with a 10ft pole because of how the MAX was developed and how both Boeing and the FAA handled its initial certification. Having said that, I have and would fly the MAX anytime.
@@danharold3087 Everything fundamental is different. Calling it a "737" at all is one of the biggest porkie pies ever told ...
The crime here was that Boeing offered the safety devices as a option for extra costs! Was hoping the CEO would do jail time for this action.
Nah, he got a $66M payoff and then fined a few million as a slap on the wrist. Deep corruption.
The crime was that Boeing designed MCAS with a single point of failure as the primary input (attitude sensor - only one). THEN, Boeing failed to include ANY documentation about the MCAS in the pilot's manual on the MAX. As a result, no pilot was even aware that there was a system aboard that would put the aircraft into a dive - by design.
@@WakeUpAmerican000s yep, I was an Aerospace software engineer, worked with Boeing in the 1990s on the 777 (normally hyper anal in my experience) and could not believe how that poorly documented single point failure got certified. I think that’s a result of the culture change, in part due to the MD acquisition and commercial pressure from Airbus. Dollars mattered more than safe engineering.
It’s like buying a new car and the dealer tells you seat belts and air bags are extra and the dealer will ask you do you want brakes on your car maybe do you want a steering wheel This max is a piece of garbage
@@mikethompson3534 sounds like you looked at buying a BMW 😂
I watched a documentary on CZcams a while ago about how they built the 777, totally awesome.
When I hear about the short cuts taken by management types on the 737 max and the cosy complacent relationship with the FAA, it’s very depressing :(
The 777 was developed in a different era/environment. It was the last model done by "Boeing the engineering company.". After that, and especially after the Douglas disaster " merger," it became ALL about cost & return for shareholders. Very sad
@mildpigeon
I read about the old fashioned and cumbersome way the CAD systems were used in the design of the 777. I hope it has improved.
I think at this point it’s clear that Boeing need a clean sheet 737 replacement even if it means putting all their other new projects on hold. Updating this 60s era aircraft is getting really messy for them.
Agreed...but... then they lose their biggest advantage over Airbus with the customers that are already trained on 737.
@@mrfrenzy.When Airbus came into the world no one was trained on them either, if Boeing really got out there and redo the plane from the ground up I'm sure there are enough Airlines to adapt it.
@@derSkedda Not so sure. Development costs would be higher from inflation alone. I doubt it would have an attractive price.
At this point anybody doing a clean sheet design must do so with a plane that has a very compelling advantage or it will not sell. It is why everybody is stretching, NEO, and adding new wings. In other words milking existing designs. Boeing wants to get deeper into virtual design prior to building new planes. Reducing development time and designing easier to build planes will be their goal.
@@mrfrenzy. Well Boeing's solution to the problem was killing their customers ... Brilliant, eh?
@@derSkedda you cant just which on a toss of a dime.it takes alot.the.max is just fine.boeing will build a new plane in time and not before.
Honestly a 60 year old airframe can only be updated and lengthened so much. It's time for a replacement. The fact that had to spend so much effort to make the adaptive landing gear to compensate for the planes length while sitting at the same height is a sign the airframe is maxed out
It may be purely coincidental, but I keep seeing pictures of passenger plane crashes and their aftermath where the plane has broken into three pieces at roughly the same place each time . . .
@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 Welcome to the NG series.
@James Neilson Graham (love in the time of war) That's not a bad thing, if the plans breaks apart on impact it dissipates some of the energy from the crash. All of the accidents you see like that are probably ones with survivors
The uncertainty of the certification is the reason KLM is switching to the A320 family to replace the current 737 fleet. Boeing couldn't give KLM the guaranty of the MAX 10.
Ironic that the MAX 7 was the variant used to certify the safety of the MAX 8 and MAX 9.
It definitely feels like the 737 as a type is getting strained. It's so low and long that avoiding tailstrikes takes special care, it's hard to fit bigger engines, the alerting system is still stuck in an older era, and I heard from a baggage handler that the cargo compartments are simply awful and dated. The Max 10 surely will be the most they can squeeze out of it. Still sad to see how they gutted the 757 because it seems like it would be a good aircraft to build for the current market.
Completely agree. And as an aircraft mechanic I can confirm that the cargo compartments are indeed awful and outdated. It's very much comparable to a regional jet like the Embraer 190. Just an aluminium floor and flimsy fibreglass panels on the sidewalls. Meanwhile, the A320 has had a cargo load system which supports luggage containers since its introduction. In a market where airlines can't find people who would do the baggage handling (hello Schiphol), just the labour savings the A320 brings are invaluable. Airbus cargo compartments generally are stronger and are much lower maintenance. Though when an Airbus cargo compartment sidewall does break, you can wait for a very long time for parts to be provided (pretty much standard with most Airbus parts).
@@CheapBastard1988 More than once I've bought a ticket marked B737/Embraer190.
The flights are short and the planes are full.
The NG series was "strained"! The MAX is beyond.
The 757 was one of my favorites. It went out of production because the then-new 737NG's took its market; nobody was buying it anymore.
@@Ldavies2 - the 757 was a late 1970's design, and it was disliked by passengers in the USA because the USA airlines configured that narrow body with six seats, and an aisle that was too narrow to roll a standard airline carry-on bag. It was a god-awful uncomfortable plane when configured that way. (e.g. United, Delta and others)
I'm still annoyed that no one went to prison for the max scandal.
The situation in China may get even more complex for Boeing, considering the Chinese made Comac C919 has not long been certified and is now ramping up production rates, an Airplane that has lots of Chinese customers ready to buy it and one that fits right inside the 737 and A320 market.
Yes! We will follow that closely.
FWIW, maybe it is better for Boeing and the US if China uses it's own planes. Because as it stands, when a Boeing plane crashes in China, Boeing doesn't enjoy the same level of transparency and fairness that they have outside China, with the full opportunity to exonerate themselves, where they are not at fault. Also, if it becomes necessary for the US to sanction China at the level they have had to sanction Russia, there is less harm to Boeing and the US. I say let these two rogue regimes fly the planes they can rustle up themselves, rather than sullying an epic brand and virtually a pillar of the US economy with their poor safety and human rights records.
are we certain the Comac C919 will be allowed to fly abroad (outside China, North Korea and Russia)?
Except its Chinese garbage.
@@alexnicolaou3579 Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar are all to dependent on China to not certify it. Mongolia also, and possibly even Malysia and Nepal. And besides those countries, and the ones you mentioned, there are not many that Comac could reach from China anyway. Even if chinese airlines keep 737 MAX grounded, they can still easily fly to those few countries like Japan, Thailand and India with a combination of Airbus and Embraer aircraft.
I recall one of Mentour Pilot's accident review videos indicating a difference between variants as a contributing factor.
I think you’re referring to the ATR in Taiwan
Did he cover the Kegworth air disaster (British Midland 092), 1989? A difference between the 737-400 and earlier models led the pilots to shut down the functioning right engine after the left engine lost a blade.
( Edit: he did, czcams.com/video/xbCTTKw3o5o/video.html )
Yes, differences between variants have always been a contributing factor. Actually, subtle differences are the worst, for example where Boeing switched the air-conditioning from one engine to the other and confused the pilots British Midland Airways Flight 092. On the other hand, if we do not make changes, we will still be flying on DC-3s and B707s. Changes are needed and changes must be implemented, as airlines should invest in training their pilots.
@@todortodorov940: An important factor leading to the British Midland 092 Kegworth crash was the pilots' inability to see the engines. Passengers and cabin crew could see what was going on, but not the pilots - which seems kind of absurd. Sadly, the cabin crew lacked the boldness to communicate their concerns. Training of cabin crew has improved as a result of the accident, with cabin crew encouraged to alert pilots to problems without hesitation. One of the accident report's recommendations referred, if I remember correctly, to the desirability of fitting cameras, trained on the engines, to all aircraft - but this has not, as far as I know, been widely put into effect . . .
I'm pretty sure everyone in the US pronounces it "I-CAS". It definitely belongs on the Max. BTW, Petter, maybe you could do a video on the LEAP-1x engine fuel nozzles. GE were so proud of their 3D printed and laser drilled nozzles. Now we're replacing them as a set constantly. It's a real PITA.
if it were the biggest issue ..
Really?! Pronunciation is the issue here?
It's a bit strange that even a simple car can exactly tell the driver what the problem is (for example TPMS system, or some older BMWs can send an error message about engine failure like misfire in one of the cylinders, and so on) but in a million dollar airplane, the pilots have to check all the parameters one by one, to figure out what caused the master caution alert. And after that, they have to find the non-normal checklist on paper? In 2022? Come on, Airbus uses ECAM for decades!
In a car when the system diagnosis is wrong you get stuck on a side of the road, worst case the engine spat a cylinder out.
In an aircraft you can't just pull over because automation decided to extinguish that one working engine you had left.
Besides certification requirements are stricter for aircraft.
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 nobody said automation should extinguish the engine.
The car can NOT say what causes the engine failure, it can only guess. For example if the ECU reports "misfire", the most common failures are:
1. Injectors
2. Fuel delivery
3. Ignition
4. Wiring problems
That's why the mechanic (just like the pilot) has checklists what proceducers to try and in what order to isolate the fault.
@@der.Schtefan No real difference. Pilot is overwhelmed and does what the computer told him to do.
We need pilots capable of managing these problems. That might means time in a simulator with the airplane creating maximum confusion.
@@mrfrenzy. A lot of people can fix their car based on what the computer tells them. When the computer gets it wrong a lot of the so called modern mechanics are lost. We need to train pilots on their planes not depend on computers
Shame they didn't have an appropriate engine to make the 757 Max a reality which would of been the real game changer aircraft for both Boeing and it's customers.
Yep boeing's management decisions over the past few years are really looking pretty terrible if they'd done a clean sheet 737 replacement and a 757 max airbus would be looking alot less happy...
@@tomriley5790 the 757 program ended because there were no more orders in the early 2000's. This new craze for aircraft of that size is one that started in the last few years.
I just finished reading 'Flying Blind' yesterday and its both heartbreaking and disgusting to see how the safety culture was eroded by the usual money grabbing thugs.
Fantastic read! Fully agree with how frustrating and disgusting the culture shift/gross negligence at Boeing ruined a great American company. If it’s Boeing, I’m not going!
You mean like NASA, about 1986 or 2003? Hmm, ya know - you just *may* have something there!
except that the real problems were very poor maintenance and poor pilot training led to both of the accidents, and not MCAS which has been on Boeing jets long before the Max
What was really sickening, was the US governments compliance with the thugs, letting them walk away with $millions in front of the dead passengers families.
@@johnbatson8779 NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. BOEING MANAGEMENT NEVER TOLD AIRLINES ABOUT THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EXTRA PILOT TRAINING, WHICH THEY PROMISED WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. THEN COMPOUNDED THAT WITH AN ALL OUT ATTACK ON THE PILOTS COMPETENCY. SHEAR BLOODY GREED. WATCH THE NETFLIX VIDEO ABOUT THE "MAX"
This is such a good channel.. I know little about planes and even less about the aviation industry, but it is absolutely fascinating to watch and try to understand everything that is going on.
Good to know that they are considering use of an additional method of determining AOA. This would be important in case there was a major difference between the outputs of the two sensors.
Thank you for the Curiosity Stream code, this is wonderful!
When I look out the window at my departure gate, i breath a sigh of relief if I see an Airbus parked there.
Air France 447 enters the chat!
Ya ya ya. Depends on which airline sells the cheaper ticket. You could care less on what type of airplane is flying.
@@acidgambit8138 You can fly on every plane at least once, so indeed, why bother?
@nuniabiz7982 are you suggesting that it was a problem with the aircraft?
But just to keep up with your dumb remark, TWA flight 800 enters the conversation (at least that one was bad plane design) or maybe UA flight 811 (again bad design) ... and I didn't even had to go to this new shit 737 that crashed twice immediately, why? Like he said, no one was checking on Boeing's work. They did what they wanted and everyone trusted them. Here's the result, so yes, when I see an Airbus I'm much more comfortable. 😊
You can say that again.
All I hear is 'we don't want to make a safer system and had hoped this law we'd stiched up with a deadline in 2022 would be rules for thee but not for me but we're too incompetent to get our airplane certified in time so we'd rather just cancel it entirely than make it safer'
The problem is that there is not enough room for the large fuel efficient engine under the wing. And so the engine is mounted forward and elevated in a position that is not ideal for center of gravity. And that’s a fundamental flaw that is impossible to fix. Everything else they did was just a bandaid. 😮😮😮 🤔 🧐 🤨
CG is probably not directly the issue as CG can be moved around at the design stage particularly as they have the option to extend parts of the airframe for Max 7, Max 8, Max 9, Max 10 lengths (with apparently no need to call it a new 7X7 model). The issue is that the large engine is so far forward that it acts as (and this is simplifying it) an additional low aspect ratio wing. Again simplistically for a given wing area you will get a given lift and given stall speed but high aspect ratio wings (which have some aerodynamic benefits) stall at a lower angle of attack than low aspect ratio wings (this is why Concorde had the drop down nose, because the angle of attach was so high, the pilots couldn't see over a fixed nose when landing).
One potential upshot of this is that you have a main wing that stalls at a given angle of attack and if properly designed will have the center of lift of the wing just behind the CG so that the nose drops when the aircraft stalls so that the aircraft picks up speed and starts flying again.
Now if you have an engine pod that is not stalling when the wing is, it's still building lift, it's probably a trickier situation for a civilian pilot to handle (it does happen on some military jets), and I would argue is a flight characteristic quite different from previous 737s despite Boeing hoping "pilots wouldn't need any retraining".
There's a CG component here, but CGs can be moved in design and in fuel and passenger placement. The real issue is likely the size and aerodynamic location/effects of the engines. And I agree with your comment, the electronics feel to me like a band-aid for an underlying design issue.
I saw my first 747 Dreamlifter yesterday when it flew right over my apartment and it was SO COOL!! I’m right in the flight path for SeaTac and I love it.
It flies right over my stables as well, here in Charleston SC
The original 737-100 was a plane that had much smaller engines, and a slightly shorter fuselage. Over the many decades, Boeing steadily increased the size and power of it's engines, until after 56 years of modifications, we had the 737-800. This was as far as Boeing could push it's modifications safely. Then they decided to force even bigger engines upon the plane, but because the new engines were to large for the wings, they foolishly decided to cut away part of the wings, and insert the even bigger engines right into the wings, causing a disruption of the entire flight body of the aircraft. The plane tended to "leap frog" through the air. A last minute software fix was implemented, with disaterous results.
What you are saying is not true. The plane flies just fine with the new engines and flies just like the previous model. The only difference was that in a specific way of flying that a pilot would normally never do, it would fly differently. Pilots could be easily trained for this difference. However due to the way type ratings work, it would be considered a different airplane and pilots would have to go through two months of certification just because of this one change. This would cost the airlines a lot of time and money.
To make it easier for the airlines Boeing installed an add-on software called MCAS to make the plane fly the same in that specific situation. However Boeing made huge mistakes in how they implemented MCAS and communicated about it. This led to two crashes. The MCAS problem has been corrected. There are over 600 737 MAX flying now, over 600,000 flights with no problems.
It is valid to criticize Boeing for how they handled MCAS. But there is no need to make up things that are not true because that creates confusion in the discussion.
@@StevePemberton2 I fly all the time. I know of no airline that still flies the Boeing "737 Max".
@@henrikrolfsen584 Just listing North America the following airlines are right now flying the 737 MAX: Air Canada, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, WestJet. If you go onto the airline websites and search for "Fleet" they show all of the airplane types that they fly any you can see 737 MAX listed.
There are over 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. Orders are subject to change but Boeing is selling and delivering the 737 MAX at a very rapid pace. The airplane is a big improvement over the previous model, which was already a bestseller, because of the new model's increased fuel efficiency and range. Airline travelers don't care what type of plane they fly on for the most part. Most have totally forgotten about the problems since it is no longer a front page story. The plane is safe, otherwise they wouldn't be able to fly 600 of them every day without incident.
I don't work for Boeing. I am just stating facts. How Boeing handled MCAS should not be forgotten, it was very wrong. We can get mad and say we won't fly Boeing anymore, unfortunately the reality of the world that we live in is that companies do wrong things, they get caught and they are held accountable and hopefully they lose huge amounts of money, even though of course that does not replace lives that were lost. Anyone can feel free to boycott any company they want to. Feel free to not fly on Boeing, that is your right.
@@StevePemberton2 All my tickets say: 737-800. None of them say "737 Max".
@@henrikrolfsen584 I guess that proves you have never flown on a 737 MAX. Was that the point that you were trying to make?
YOU might have complete confidence in the safety of the final product. I, on the other hand, do not have confidence in ANYTHING that Boeing does at the moment.
Boeing planes are safe and reliable. The only recent issue was with the MCAS system, and that problem has been resolved with a grounding of the fleet, system upgrades, and pilot retraining. Given that the 7 is literally an existing 737 outfitted with new engines, a safe MCAS makes that a safe plane. The 10 is a stretched 9, but that should only affect the performance of the plane.
Boeing is a scummy manufacturer with a history of blaming airlines and pilots for their problems. But, as their designs are not new, their planes are proven to be safe. Boeing engineers are excellent at what they do, and extremely efficient at fixing problems. It’s management that gets in the way, and management is not allowed to do so now.
@@dex6316 Jedi mind tricks.
@@dex6316 “the only recent issue”
Except the Dreamliner and Starliner, a decline in maintenance, and manufacturing standards. Even the factory workers don’t trust the planes.
Love your content and your an amazing great aviator, I was the one that told you about the problems with the sc boing plant ( one of the only times you seemed genuinely concerned) lol but I just got off a max 8 and right after takeoff when the nose was way up there was a quick and sudden loss of altitude enough to make the other passengers around me gasp verbally ,the weather was very windy so it was most likely do to that I suspected but the body of the plane itself seemed to get blown around easier on both flights even in clear weather it seems to roll very easily like you can always feel the wind moving it. I’m gonna go ahead and say the lighter airframe and weird center of gravity didn’t feel that great to be flying on , and from all the research I’ve done this generation of these boings will not age well at all because of the loose tolerances of the bear straps and doorways will create stress fracturing much earlier then the ole aluminum frames
I work on business aircraft and we would have to see an aircraft over 30 years old to get one without an EICAS… more specifically a CAS (because the engine indicating portion is clearly shown in the videos of the 737). Even then, we get aircraft at that age that do have a CAS. I understand the money is different, but believe me, private jet manufacturers and systems manufacturers love saving money as much as the airlines do. I’ve been following the 737 for a while and I never knew it didn’t have a CAS system. It just seems absolutely ridiculous that a modern jet doesn’t have that implemented.
Glad to see some commentary that talks about the FAA shortcomings. I ultimately blame the FAA for the MAX problems cause they set the rules and they certify the planes.
The fox guarding the hen house.
I worked for Boeing as a designer, mech eng. Can attest to near infinite level detail design in each part.
Retired Aero here
Thank you for the Update!
Also in planes this complex, it is probably a good idea to have computer assisted problem diagnosis and solutions for pilots.
Excellent explanation. This is not as big an issue as many are portraying it. If no extension is granted, the MAX10 does not turn into a pumpkin at midnight on Dec. 28. Bear in mind that this is all in the hands of US lawmakers, and they can do anything they want and take as long as they want to do it. If an extension is not granted by Dec 28, Boeing and the FAA will continue with the certification campaign, and the airplane will be conditionally certified as-is in the summer of 2023. By that time - or sometime shortly thereafter - legislation will materialize that says the MAX10 gets to fly without an EICAS depending on this or that large or small condition(s) which Boeing and the airlines won’t like very much but will ultimately accept because they won’t have an option and the airplane will get its unconditional certification.
imagine how many orders boeing will lose in that period. Airbus already planned to increase the delivery rate of A320 to 65+ per month by the end of 2023
And if a plane comes down because the pilots were overwhelmed trying to complete a manual checklist imagine how that is going to make congress and the FAA, not to mention Boeing, look. Boeing seems to forget that the puropse of a good regulator is often to save an industry from itself.
Very interesting Petter.
The tale of woe continues
The EICAS SYSTEM on Boeing is called ECAM Warning on Airbus and is installed as standard across all Airbus Aircrafts. This is a basic safety system that helps pilots to troubleshoot the in-flight problems with respect to QRH. Simply follow the steps et voilà. I am surprised that this is an "option" on Boeing aircrafts. Wow!
Great information as always Mentour keep up the great work 🛫🛫👍👍
The 737 Max has just been so plagued with issues I doubt it will even outlive them.
I still certainly avoid the plane on principle. And also the fact it’s less comfortable than other ✈️
@@samueldavila2156 so your saying 777-300er Is bad? I never have flown on a max but Other boeing jets are fine
@@iamgeek01 not a fan of 3-4-3 in economy. 777s are great in premium or business though. And I do love flying on a 787.
@@freddiesflightreviews I do agree on the 3-4-3 configuration
@@freddiesflightreviews seating has mostly to do with the airline
@@samueldavila2156 Me too! Even if it means paying more. I don't trust Boeing.
Aside from the excellent and informative video, I love all the stock footage of airliners doing maneuvers they would never do in service. Which is basically mainly what I do in flight sims, stuff that would get real pilots fired LOL (or potentially severely damage aircraft >_> )
Thanks for sharing!
Uh. Isn't that basically what sims are for?
:-)
Can you maybe make a video about any or all of 3 questions I got: 1. What is the job of onboard aircraft engineer/mechanic? Why are they needed or not needed anymore? 2. Why are planes no longer silver, I really regret I grew up in time when this all has changed, and I really regret not seeing silver airplanes in the sky? 3. Why, considering so many accidents, aircraft do not use an actual radar ground proximity warning, instead relying on air pressure or old databases, instead of a real-time data which can show the shape and height of terrain ahead?
I remember when I flew the Fokker F-100 it had an EICAS system. So that has been around a while. They had a slightly different name for it on the Airbus.
I flew both and there is a lot of resemblance in some systems in both airbus and Fokker 100. As far as I remember there was a placard in Fokker cockpit saying something about some systems being conceived on Deutsch Airbus.. also it was way known in the industry that some Fokker engineers migrated to airbus.
Fokker however had better handling. But to work, besides the very dry air thanks to the lousy bleed system in all these aircraft, the chairs in the 320/330, that are now replaced for better ones in the 350: and noise in older versions, there is nothing like airbus for a work day. However, the airplane can’t do miracles. So no one can be confortable after 12 hours duty. It’s the rules that must be changed for working times, not the airplane.
@@joaodantas8530 For sure. i flew the old F-28 also. I liked the control yoke in the f-100 more than the side stick in the Airbus. But I didn't like the placement of nav display below the PFD. The yoke blocked the view of it. They should have set it to the side like in the Airbus.
Geez; imagine the public actually expecting the police (the FAA) to actually do the job they are paid to do and certify planes themselves and not conduct a corrupt relationship by having the manufacturer do it for them.
world is a fuck
What's your issue? The same practice works just great for Pfizer and the FDA (not).
@@chumpchange1846 lol. Exactly. Let’s get the people that derive the biggest financial benefit a big say in if their product is safe and fit for purpose. Nothing can go wrong…
The FAA had every interest to do their job. Several administrations at the White House, however, were pushing on cutting funding and outsourcing this very important regulatory function to Boeing instead. This cosy relationship was not only predictable; it was planned.
Applying that logic, we'd still be in blimps, dirigeables, and hot air baloons. *LOL*
Remember when Volvo came up with the 3 point seatbelt?
Same here I think.
Also, when you fly, you want to be assured the pilots are the best trained ones, not the average. This is serious stuff, not just a drive to the shops.
The average should be good enough, or they shouldn't be flying at all.
I was on two flights recently, easyJet and Jet2
I could see screws and rivets in all the overhead lockers and handles on the back of the seats in the Boeing ,it looks like it was built fifty years ago ,and yet no visable hardware on the airbus ,just a observation
I haven't flown in years because of COVID. But if I was going to book a flight and I discovered the plane was a 737 Max (of any variant), I would switch to a different airframe or cancel the flight.
Same
Interesting. The whole idea behind creating the MAX was to prevent airlines from having to recertify their pilots. It caused 2 major crashes and in the end they might have to abandon the whole thing, because d'uh, if you make new planes you have to train the pilots how to use them. It was always a plan more about making profit now, instead of investing into the future. Maybe they would have been better off making a new plane way back when they realized they couldn't compete with the Airbus jet. Instead they tried to skirt around the problem and got hundreds of people killed. What a sad story.
And how sad that it's so often repeated. We never learn - because we're incentivized not to by unregulated capitalism.
Airbus did the same with the 320 neos. They are the same as the older a320s.
ysfsim difference is Airbus made sure their plane didn't have a sudden attraction to the ground or sea.
@@ryanjonathanmartin3933 I guess you ignore the airbus' that went down or close to it
@@ysfsim when was that?
Wow I’m really surprised the ACAS system wasn’t already fitted. It appears such an important system to have.
EICAS?
@@user-Aaron- !?
EICAS = crew alerting, ACAS = collision avoidance
It’s mixed bag. There has been crashes in the 737 where alarm confusion lead the incorrect crew action(like the crash where the pilots didn’t identify the alarm when the plane wasn’t pressurizing properly). In a ECAM or EICAS equipped plane a message like CAB ALT HI or something along those lines, possibly with a verbal warning, but the 737 just sounds a horn.
However, having two different warning systems would likely also cause confusion as that’s a major change, and if the crew has to handle emergencies a entirely different way across variants that’s bound to cause issues.
@@MatthijsvanDuin Ah ok, thanks!
When we got the first max at American Airlines they sent some guys to genfam. We used to get a weeks training with an instructor for any new aircraft. When the guys going to the second class for the max the crew chief said you have done acceptance checks and installed WiFi in the 800 this is easy. No matter what some person cheaps out and probably never turned a wrench who has too much control.
I loved flying on the Max 8. It felt right. I’m gonna fly on the Max 9 in December and April.
It's incredible that airlines are ordering this before Christ technology instead of the 320Neo
If it cheap enough, people will buy anything. My local supermarket puts "50% off" labels on food products that will expire shortly.
@@todortodorov940 exactly! Plus, airbus has a ridiculous waiting list, and probably way less discount.
Plus, airlines know eventually Boeing will figure it out. Probably sooner than they could ever get their hands on a a320 neo
It's cheaper to keep 737s if airlines already use 737 NGs. If you switch to a completely different aircraft you need pilots with new type certificates, new ground equipment and new simulators.
Also 737s are relatively cheap to build.
A320 neo has its fare share if problems where daaged sensors cras the plne
320 is not that young also. 320 neo is just updated version same as 737max.
Once again, the A320 series has proved to be future proof... since the 80-90s. That aircraft had EICAS implemented since the beginning, while Boeing has gone to such extend of avoiding too many technological advances in order to keep selling aircraft...
have you seen the other Boeing models?? They are pretty advanced
It blows my mind that EICAS wasn’t already a thing and that there aren’t cameras all around the aircraft to see damage (if there is any) around the plane. There’s so many things that aircraft manufacturers should be doing to improve safety, but due to lack of oversight they overlook this.
another great and infortamive video thanks
Boeing: If you can't meet the standard, lobby to change the standard.
right?! what a joke Boeing has become
Typically they get exemptions from updating to newer regs. Sometimes they are denied.
@@Ldavies2 hopefully this time they don't. The stupidity of the "double 6 pack" cannot be overstated, a 60-year-old ridiculous design. When you have multiple failures at once, the deck is really stacked against the humans trying to make heads or tails of it. But, it's boeing, they have plenty of money, they'll buy their exemption through lobbying and crying, always comes down to the money...
Even worse is that Boeing will almost always be able to do whatever it wants because of its relationship with the U.S. military. In January 2021, Boeing settled with the U.S. Department of Justice over fraud charges related to the 737 MAX and the MCAS system; Boeing admitted that it lied to the FAA in order to get the plane certified and it agreed to pay over $2.5 billion in fines and compensation. Eight months later, Boeing was granted a contract valued at up to $23.8 billion from the U.S. Department of Defense.
According to Reuters, that contract was to "provide services including engineering, field support and material management" to a fleet of 275 C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft managed by the United States Air Force and eight global partners over a 10-year period. That's an average of $8.6 million per aircraft per year (assuming they all remain active for the full duration). I'll let those with knowledge of the aircraft opine whether or not that sounds like a reasonable cost.
@@nomore6167
That's pretty cheap, seems to me.
Yes and not so much, though. The divisions of The Boeing Company (commercial, military, space) are separate entities. They do not share a bank account, except at the very top level. So Commercial took the DOJ hit for the Max. All the military contract does is make the overall corporate finance situation better; it does not specifically help the Commercial division.
Having watched many of this channels crash analysis posts.
It does look that commonality is key within a model to eliminate confusion
in high stress high workload situations
you want your pilots to act automatically from deep training. Not having many more steps in the situation assessment.
Clearly ACAS system is a better system... But with so many pilots certified on the base 737 platform.. over millions of miles
So is it logical that in a hundred more years Boeing will still make the same design? Commonality is fine sure, but please don't forget the age when the Commonality started. Cars are safer in that regard as airbags wasn't fitted 60 years ago and now we have FSD software.
@@topethermohenes7658 At some point every plane design is abandoned. The 737 is an old one but it seems everyone including Boeing agrees it is the last iteration of the design.
@@danharold3087 imo, the NG shoudve been the last, the max is just pushing it. Like the max 8 will be in production For at least 15 more years, that makes the 737 an 80 year old design by the time production stops and it'll take another 20 years or more before the last max flies, thats a total of 100 years+ in operation, like damn that's too much
@@topethermohenes7658 Had things gone differently they should have stopped with the NG. I imagine there are a lot of people at Boeing who planned it that way. But don't be afraid of 'good' old airplanes. DC-3 is still in service with Buffalo air in Canada. There is a company near Oshkosh WI rebuilding them with turboprops. Buffalo uses the DC-3 because it is the best plane to fly their routes. They use a DC-3 for scheduled passenger service. You can imagine the problems they have with Transport Canada their FAA. If red tape does not shut them down lack of aviation fuel for the radials at the remote runways will. In anticipation of this they have purchased a B737-301SF, I don't know how close it is to flying. Last flew in 2016
B52's are another example of an old plane.
I don't know how long the MAX planes will exist as passenger planes. In time they will be converted to freighters.
@@danharold3087 its not that im scared of old planes, what im weary of are old planes trying to act like and compete to new planes, its just not made to trade blows with modern planes. Like the a320 in another 20-30 years should just be retired in favor of a fresh design
One shortcoming of the 737 design is the landing gear is to short, Boeing didn't anticipate the high bypass turbo fan engines of the future with that design, therefore they had to mount the engines real high according to the wings center line, just to get adequate ground clearance with the new larger diameter engines
3:04 why is airplane fuselage during assembly mostly green?
Hello Mr mentor huge fan of the work you do here on the channel I love you're work and hope you continue to educate us on aviation as of recent their has been a plane crush in to a lake in home country TANZANIA of an airline precision Air I would really apprentice it if in time you would get the chance to do a review of the incident in one of you're pod casts biggest fun thank you
Boeing "learned a lesson" that they knew for years, that you can't let companies regulate themselves.
Very well presented and some excellent insights..into the behind the scenes.
.
Much appreciate the effort and the HARD work that goes behind these productions.
Don't forget the avionics were not the only issues with the Max, principally the wishbone cracking. The suspected cause for this was the moment of the fuselage against the engines, and the Max 10 makes it worse.
"The 737 Max, which was grounded in March after two fatal plane crashes, is not affected by this issue."
But I expect this is something they will be looking at.
@@danharold3087 Given the issue was fundamentally that Boeing's tail was wagging the FAA dog, isn't this a lesson not being learned? What's IATA got to say about what's going on?
In systems design terms, where you should have triple-redundancy, they're diving straight back into the bad old days of market dominance becoming an accident waiting to happen, in some shape or form.
Great video! Something important to point out though is that the current alerting system of the 737 has a great safety record and the accident rate of the NG is the exact same as of the 320 even though it is equipped with EICAS.
Excellent point.
It’s not about just accident rates. What if the accident rates are identical, but near misses are double? I’m not saying this is the case, just that u can’t base this on just accident rates.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 This is not the avoidance system. It is the engine alerting system
@@danharold3087 I’m type rated on the 737 as well as on aircraft with eicas systems. So I know what it is.
You are confusing a “near miss” with only one aspect: one airplane hitting another.
What I meant with “near miss” is basically almost having any kind of problem that results in an almost accident.
For instance, having an engine failure, one of the worst things to happen, can be a lot less of an emergency with an aircraft with an eicas, especially throwing in some bad weather and some other unfortunate circumstances, compared to the 737. It doesn’t mean the 737 will crash and the A320 won’t. But, and I’m pulling these example numbers out of my ass, in the same situation, the 737 might be 3 wrong steps away from crashing and the A320 is still 7 wrong steps away from crashing.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I get your point and I don't have any data on near misses. But my point was that over millions of departures all over the world over a quarter century the NG has proven to be one of the safest airliners ever made and yet not equiped with EICAS.
My dad was a Boeing engineer on the original 737 project in the 1960s and, notwithstanding all the problems with the Max variants, I'm taking it as a tribute to him and others that its still a cornerstone of the industry and worthy of extended Internet debates.
the EARLY 737s [737-100 thru all variants of the 737 Next Gen] were Aerodynamically SAFE airplanes - they did not go into uncommanded nose down or nose up situations and the pilots could manually fly them [muscle power] in a neutral level flight and make an emergency landing at the nearest airport - their build quality was not quite as good as on the 727 .. they had structural cracking issues in the aft pressure bulkhead and in the wing root and fuselage webbing below the floor .. but those issues could be dealt with at every Heavy C-Check Inspection and they were extremely safe airplanes .. I personally preferred flying on the Boeing 727 or the McDonnell Douglas DC9/MD80, because their quality of construction was superior, but I never refused to fly in the 737 -- until they started building the MAX .. by pushing the engines forward they drove the CG too far forward, out of the safe parameters - which made the plane naturally "nose heavy" .. a condition that they pilots Could NOT overcome .. I refused to fly on ANY 737 Max flight and would rebook a flight to ANY other airplane ..
@@bradhartliep879 MAX is safe unless fitted with the original MCAS. It literally took control and flew the planes into the ground.
Every plane with under wing engines changes pitch with throttle settings. The MAX has stronger engines so they can be run slower for a better fuel burn. But when you climb out with lots of throttle it pitches up more than the NG. One can overcome this in several ways including throttling back. There is an excellent video on the Mentor Pilot channel on the 737NG trim system. Understanding that system is most of what you need to better understand the MAX crashes. Pilots tell me that the 737MAX can be flown with MCAS off. They say it is one of the best handling jets and love it other than the cramped cockpit.
@@danharold3087 Just to clarify few thigs. Every plane has a tendency to react in certain way when the pilot interacts with the controls, that being the yoke, the throttle or any other flight control.
The MCAS is unnecessary system on the MAX, as both the old and the new 737s, due to the engine location, do have a tendency to pitch up on full throttle. The MCAS on the MAX was introduced with the sole purpose to make the pitch-up behavior on the MAX feel exactly the same as the older NG brother. Unless the reader is very new to the topic; the reason was to save airlines the need to train their pilots the characteristics of the new models and thereby save the airlines money - there is no technical need for the MCAS on the MAX.
Yes no doubt the 737's an amazing aircraft, hugely successful but I think it's had its time.
You are right to be proud of your father's work. There is no doubt at all that the 737 was a wonderful design. But then so was the Model T and we aren't driving Model T MAX10s around.
Keep up the good work!
I just flew a 737-600 from Calgary to Belize. Seemed to be fine to me. West Jet provided great in flight service in this, hopefully, certified plane.
It's true that both the Max 7 and 10 have been flying for some time, but it's one thing that the types have been flying with Boeing experienced and in-house pilots, and another is the type being flown by the masses. The Boeing pilots may have info not available to other operators for better or worse. The Max issues in my opinion go further than operations, but I'm sure there are politics involved with new training and type ratings.
There is an important issue that I haven't seen mentioned: airlines need to rent simulator time to train new pilots. At the time of the grounding, there were only a handful of simulators, IIRC only two, available to retrain every pilot.
If the MAX had been released as a new type, there would have been massively expensive and time consuming delays in getting pilots recertified. The airlines very much wanted "the same plane," and Boeing "delivered" it by using software to disguise a very important shift in the thrust centerline of the new, larger engines (now mounted higher in the wing to provide adequate ground clearance).
@@Lawrence330 Hi. I am in the high end simulator training business and Max simulators have been around even before the first one flew. Where would the Boeing pilots trained to fly the prototype, if not in the sim? Even while the type was grounded, simulators continued to get built and delivered. I have also being in the airline industry since the 80s, and trust me, airlines would do whatever to save a buck, until and airplane digs a hole in the ground, and all their savings are spent several times over. Pilots need training for any new type, even the Max with all its gadgets. I was once one of them, and have lost more than one friend to poor traning and cutting corners.
I can't help it, but it feels like yet another shortcut that Boeing is about to take...
Yeah ... The FAA & Boeing are just compounding their previous mistakes to protect Boeing's investment. Simple really and entirely predictable.
EICAS was mandated 40 years ago. Boeing got exemptions for 40 years for the 737. Every other airliner, but the 737, has EICAS. For me is not understandable that the MAX was ever certified without EICAS.
The military 737 derivate, the P8 has EICAS.
Thank you and have a great week.
You just can't help but feel for Boeing right now. Goodbye 747, hello, ummmmm, workin' on it....
The 737 even without EICAS is one one the safest aircraft families you can find, very much comparable to the A320 family which from the beginning had EICAS. I would think mixing warning systems and Cockpit Layout in the 737 Family and especially in the MAX subfamily is more dangerous than just using the "old" Master Caution system.
Perhaps they are, bur the point is still that the Max return to the skies were conditioned and now Boeing wants to be allowed to ignore those conditions, appalling really.
Definitely agree.
@@ThunderboltDragon Eh no, like explained in the video these new regulations weren't intended to apply to the MAX yet, they're just at risk of running into them because the certification of the -7 and -9 is taking way longer than originally anticipated
The video with Mentour using the manual trim of the 737 czcams.com/video/aoNOVlxJmow/video.html gave me the impression that the bigger 737 using old controls have safety problems.
Mentour, i would like you to share what your ideal cockpit of an aircraft would look like and what features you would add, keep or get rid of. Maybe you could design a Boeing Airbus aircraft? How many variants of aircraft are you trained in?
Can you do a video explaining the 8200 variant as it seems it's only been created for a specific airline. What are the differences with the max and why it is not mentioned in the boeing official fleet types?
How funny things are! They spited in the face of Embraer, lying about they didn't met the requirements in order to not concluded the JV, only to save some peanuts, and now they will have a huge loss because they don't have enough engineering workforce to comply with the certification.
I think Boeing is rather focused on the certification. More likely the FAA does not have the people or funding to do its job properly. Just like when they certified the MAX the first time.
The 737 is just an old 1950s crate with new bits bolted on to make it a flying death trap.
I worked in the training department for the Canadair Regional Jet in the late 1980's until 2005. I was the primary instructor for the EICAS and maintenance diagnostic systems on that aircraft. The CRJ had the option of three data concentrator units (DCU's) wired in parallel where one was sufficient to maintain the operation of the systems. Most airlines selected the option of only two DCU's because three was considered an overkill. There was even a switch for the maintenance diagnostic system behind the pilot's seat for the technicians to view the results of the system faults on the instrument panel displays. I think that was available to the crew in flight but I am no longer sure. The problem is that when Boeing decided to take a 60 year old design to try to match the Airbus A320. They patched up all the old systems to make it look new. They installed new engines and developed a new system to prevent problems caused by the location of the new engines. They connected that system to only one Air Data System (ADC). They upgraded the displays to PFD's and MFD's and connected them to the old avionics. Their engineers certified the new MAX'es for the FAA.
Anbra
There are many things wrong here. They indeed tried to match the a320 with their old 737 but it could've been a way more successful without the two accidents , if the mcas was properly designed with redundancy. And this has nothing to do with the old design or the airframe.
The goal here was never to create a new plane that no one will buy, customers wanted a 737 with new engines, similar to the airbus neo , they wanted small improvements with minimal costs. Or completely changing the aircraft type costs too much for them.
So yeah its easy to say that Boeing could have used any recent airframe like the 757 , the thing is, they could have even used a space ship airframe but again it wasnt what was requested by everyone.
That's why the 737 max has been created, and the mcas has been designed.
This software is not really" here to fix problems with the engines", thats just the easy and very unprecise explanation from TV.
The max flies normally without mcas in Standard, normal conditions.
But in certain situations with a high aoa, its handling was too different from the previous 737s because of the new engines, and that could ve lead to problems if in those cases it was flown exactly like before. But remember,the 737 max needs to be similar to its predecessors.
So they introduced the mcas, which is a manual flight aid that will trim the nose down whenever you exceed a relatively high aoa without flaps ,in order to keep the same feelings on the yoke, the same handling characteristics as the previous variants in all situations and despite the new engines.
And thanks to this solution and the lack of eicas, the 737 max shares the same type rating with the 737 classic.
So it's perfectly comprehensible that Boeing doesn't want the eicas as it would mean more differences , more training ,as you need to teach the pilots how to use it, and more training also means more costs, but again thats exactly what they tried to avoid by creating the 737 max.
Hey Mentour, love your videos. Always even handed and informative. Could I just point out one little thing I noticed, that would then make your videos perfect. It's about pronunciation. You say AY-CAS but having been an instructor on the 777-300ER, I can say with some degree of confidence that it is EYE-CAS. Pretty minor point and definitely doesn't detract from your well-produced videos. Keep up the good work, regards,
Only in America, which we all know doesn't actually speak English .... Americans are well know for butchering names willy nilly.
Where is Eye Ran? Or Eye Rack? Befuddling really. Is it supposed to be Eye-N'-Do-Nesia in America too?
Yup. I agree. I-CAS. Like i-Phone. That’s how we pronounce it.
After the 737MAX debâcle, Boeing stated the 737MAX would be the safest aircraft in the skies safety was paramount. Now they are trying to avoid having a new safety system fitted.
It’s a bit more complex than that. But you are not wrong.
Yes mate, as shown on Flight/Risk - they can be certified without safety in mind. Mind boggles.
Its always been safe.
@@GeordieBoy69 When the Max was grounded, it had a hull loss rate of 2/~390. That was not safe by any measure.
@@gdehms Depends what you consider was the cause of those two losses. It's not always the manufacturer. It can be the airline, and the training packages they do or don't invest in. FWIW, Boeing should have made the full training mandatory.
Didn't the Max have only a single physical AOA sensor initially which was the main reason for MCAS potential for failure?
I'm asking as it wasn't mentioned in the fixes that Boeing did to get the Max recertified, and it seems to be a crucial factor here (even though 2 AOA sensors are still not really great, as for redundancy there should be 3, like on lots of military cargo planes).
Having only one sensor definitely increased the odds of failure. But it could still happen with two or even three. However the real crucial factor was a new page in the training manual. "This is the MCAS system. This is what it is like if it malfunctions. This is how you turn it off." If the pilots of the two planes that crashed had this information both tragedies could have been avoided.
Recently flew on 4 different 737-900ER. What a dog, the landings on a fully loaded 737-900ER were dreadful and hard Prior to leaving the gate on each flight. We were delayed by glitches (pilot used that word) anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes. Previous flights before these 4 flights we flew on an airbus was far smoother. I miss the 727, 707’s
I recently flew into London on the MAX 8, they are a really nice aircraft, quiet and fast!
I heard that the testing that was done to unground the MAX-8 and MAX-9 was done using a MAX-7. If true, it really boggles the mind on the stumbling blocks for getting the MAX-7 certified.
I heard that too and it may have been on this channel. Or maybe Maximus. The entire thing is mind boggling stupid. Certification was never intended to be a race against time.
YES every varient of the 737max shares the exact same MCAS software, even if they used the MAX 10 , it would not have made any difference . They where testing the flight software itself , using the MAX 7 as a testbed . Nothing wrong with that
@@danharold3087 not mind boggling. They tested a system. Not an entire airplane.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 rager ,ade the mind boggling comment. However the did not test a system when they recertified the MAX they went over the entire airplane. IRRC they found other issues but not major. Fixed them too.
@@danharold3087 scroll up. U said: the entire thing is mind boggling stupid.
That’s what I went by.
I stand by what I said, they tested the MCAS. Doesn’t matter if it’s on the 7, 8, 9 or 10. It’s the same system.
What u are saying is that if they had a seatbelt issue, that it would be mind boggling if they tested new seatbelts on the 7 and not the 8 or 9. I know, I’m over simplifying it, but that’s basically the same concept.
I always thought that MAX 10 is simply stretching the airframe a bit to far I mean if you think of it, the base 737 variant was 100. Then stretched to 200/500/600, then streched Again to 300/700/MAX-7, than again to 400/800/MAX8 , than again to 900/MAX9 and now AGAIN to MAX10. There is only this much that you can ask of the airframe that in it's core is over half a century old.
The design is approaching 70 years old as it has the same nose and fuselage cross section/diameter as the Boeing 707, which first flew as the 367-80 in 1954.
@@kurtbitner6675 That is a testament to both how long in the tooth the design is, and just how adaptable the 737 airframe is. It is brilliant, but at the same time, it's about time this wonderful, ancient machine is put to pasture.
@@kurtbitner6675 wow both impressive and a sign that it's time for it to be in a museum...
Your derivative timeline is rather screwed up! But point made. However, the fact that its legacy airframe is very old is irrelevant. It has been updated at each step. Now, though, cutting costs rather than focusing on great engineering makes everything dangerous.
@@Ldavies2 the problem is that because it is so old it cannot be updated further. It was designed to be low to the ground for easy ground servicing at smaller airports (it was the RJ of its day). The JT8D was small to fit under the wing (turbofans didn’t exist at the time). Because it’s so low to the ground and the CFM LEAP-X is is so much bigger than the CFM56 it had to be even further forward of the wing (even the CFM56 was in front of the wing) which gave it the worse handling characteristics.
It keeps messing up there at Boeing. They miss the Foresight there because that is better than the hindsight.
It’s basically a 1960s aircraft tricked up (disastrously in the case of MCAS) to compete with AIRBUS due to a fundamental inability to lengthen the stubby gear and properly accommodate a large modern turbofan engine. Additionally there are other issues associated with the antiquated, spent designs, driven only by short-term financial considerations. Boeing should have bitten the bullet and created clean sheet narrow body designs if it really wanted to compete and remain viable in the long term.
Boeing should have done like what they did with the 744, where they redesigned the whole cockpit compared to older 747 models
If they are dealing with a new type certification, maybe they should bite that bullet and get a clean-sheet 737 replacement (with much more ground clearance) in the pipeline.
Where were you 15 or 20 years ago when that would have been helpful info.
Type rating is becoming less about type operation, & more about specific equipment certification. I believe it needs to move towards equipment endorsements, covering a broad range of types; while tightening the spectrum of type ratings. Things like FADEC, EFIS, ACAS, AFCS, etc. should be license endorsements; along side specific type ratings.
Question: how are the crew to read any disply, not just a troubleshooting one, if/when smoke infiltrates the cockpit?
Hi, this is quite normal as this trap is a bad one from the beginning - Boeing wanted to save money, but it cost them a fortune. Sometimes, making a new plane is less expensive than to try to hack an old one that doesn't fit, and this one did not from the moment they changed it's engines…
Let's start by looking at why airlines don't like to do pilot training. In this case simulator time.
All simulator time cuts into profits. Do you see a problem with this model.
If this was not the case there would not have been issues regarding the cost of pilot training.
The MAX's would never have crashed.
Seems fairly clear something is broken at this level.
Lets fix the root cause.
@@danharold3087 You're talking about _an effect_ Dan, I'm talking about the _cause_ and the cause is : when your plane shows a very bad behavior by changing it's engines, it is time to cancel the bad change or to go back to the drawing board, not to fiddle a computer trick.
Apart flying a bit I also do RC modeling, event on a balsa plane you don't get creative without knowing exactly what you're doing or the sanction is immediate - thus, you don't fly a trap that has a very bad aerodynamic. Needing a special device to avoid hard climbing is NOT a solution, it is a (BIG) problem.
@@hankhulator5007 "... event on a balsa plane you don't get creative without knowing exactly what you're doing ...". That naively assumes that the people making the decisions are actually rational, educated and intelligent, and very importantly, *willing to exercise those skills* , which was not the case during MAX development. As one Boeing employee put it: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys".
@@hankhulator5007 The behaviour in certain situations is definitely different from the pre-MAX 737s, but it's not terrible behaviour. It appears that the MCAS is not really necessary; the FTC, Transport Canada and EASA have all suggested that the MAX could be certified without it. It would simply require additional pilot training.
@@Curt_Sampson In my experience, when something is wrong, the rest is also wrong - we'll see about it in the next future ;)
Thank you for your clear explanations, dear Petter, and I can fully understand your excitement in the perspective of piloting the MAX models, as you are a 737 pilot. However, your optimism and legitimate enthusiasm aren't enough to convince me flying aboard an aircraft model which I (and many other professionals) consider as badly-born. I expressed my feeling on several occasions, saying for me the MAX model shouldn't have ever been existing. It is a largely shared opinion that the 737 MAX model reflects Boeing's approach to economics, putting profit before safety... There is no doubt that the B737 since its birth in the sixties, until the NG models that you're flying is probably one of the best aircrafts ever made, but this wonderful story and career should have stopped at the NG's. And the next model should have been designed from scratch, that's it. Needless to talk about the many issues with 787 and 777-X models... For me Boeing's great history, starting from a small family venture, and the famous "Boeing spirit", ended at the end of the 20th century, when its head office moved to Chicago and the top management positions held by financiers.
(This post reflects my personal opinion and I didn't want to offend anyone).
Well, that all makes sense to me. I'd forgotten about the HQ move. Your surmise about the change of management candidature could well be a major factor.
Can't agree more, any organisation led by financiers will end up having money as their God, unfortunately.
I was waiting for this video for so long