737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Discussion of cultural, religious, political or irrational subjects of any type, such as UFOs, wacko cults, mad dictators, horrible cult bands, ridiculous publications, whatever

Moderator: Abd

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby JuiceBeetle » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:11 pm

#Bbbgate
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Modsquad
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby ericbarbour » Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:06 pm

In a letter to Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg on Friday, FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson said: “I expect your explanation immediately.”

Lol
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby JuiceBeetle » Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:34 pm

Juan Browne again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY1pl8FZHws
737 Max Hearings Today 29 Oct 2019
The comments........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZO7sIbWrX8
737 Max hearings on Capitol Hill 29 Oct -Analysis and Opinion

3:40 "Mcas is put into place in order to make the 737 max design feel and handle like previous iterations of the 737.
Had Boeing decided to drop the 737 design and or at least get a separate type certificate for the 737 max Mcas would have not been needed at all."

The root of all trouble.
#Bbbgate
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Modsquad
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby JuiceBeetle » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:37 pm

https://samchui.com/2019/11/09/american ... cellation/
American Airlines and Southwest, two major customers for the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, announced that they will further extend the cancellation of the aircraft until March 2020, almost a year after the grounding.


https://samchui.com/2019/10/23/max-cris ... nes-fired/
Boeing has ousted Kevin McAllister, its CEO of the Commercial Airplanes division, as the crisis involving the company’s 737 MAX continues to cloud Boeing’s future.
#Bbbgate
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Modsquad
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby JuiceBeetle » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:55 pm

The 2018 Southwest SW1380 accident's (left-engine fan-blade out event, window broken, depressurization, 1 passenger mortality) NTSB report:
https://youtu.be/gWx4TWrPji8?t=742
Very detailed and technical, almost not boring. Worth 30 minutes (the technical presentations part).

The 737NG, just like the 737max required design compromises because of the short landing gears. The engines' cowling is flattened on the bottom to achieve the necessary ground clearance. At the bottom of the engine casing a "radial restraint fitting" holds the flattened shape of the cowling.
In a fateful turn of events, the broken fan-blade hit the engine casing at the bottom, where the radial restraint fitting is found. The fitting transferred the energy of the fan-blade into the cowling, which in turn broke apart, departed the engine and hit the fuselage at the window, which broke, causing the death of one passenger.

A small design compromise is part of the "chain of events" that caused this mortality. The max has a big design compromise for the same 50 year old reason: short legs.
#Bbbgate
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Modsquad
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby Strelnikov » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:45 pm

JuiceBeetle wrote:The 2018 Southwest SW1380 accident's (left-engine fan-blade out event, window broken, depressurization, 1 passenger mortality) NTSB report:
https://youtu.be/gWx4TWrPji8?t=742
Very detailed and technical, almost not boring. Worth 30 minutes (the technical presentations part).

The 737NG, just like the 737max required design compromises because of the short landing gears. The engines' cowling is flattened on the bottom to achieve the necessary ground clearance. At the bottom of the engine casing a "radial restraint fitting" holds the flattened shape of the cowling.
In a fateful turn of events, the broken fan-blade hit the engine casing at the bottom, where the radial restraint fitting is found. The fitting transferred the energy of the fan-blade into the cowling, which in turn broke apart, departed the engine and hit the fuselage at the window, which broke, causing the death of one passenger.

A small design compromise is part of the "chain of events" that caused this mortality. The max has a big design compromise for the same 50 year old reason: short legs.


I think they all have the short landing gear because you don't depart from an airliner onto the tarmac, there are extending gantry walkways that form a fake airlock between the aircraft and the terminal, and those would have to be modified if there was a difference in aircraft height at the door. The whole walkway thing is there to keep you from being rained or snowed on, it's a quasi-frippery, but they are now integral to these airports because they are on the second stories of the terminals. You have to build your infrastructure around your aircraft, no matter if it's civilian or military - if it got out that you had to take the stairs down on a 737NG because the jet is too tall for the gantry, certain passengers (cane users, acrophobics, the "bum knee" people, wheelchair users, etc.) would blanch. So the passenger died for uniformity.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.
User avatar
Strelnikov
Psyop
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: 737-MAX and how not to run an airplane company

Postby JuiceBeetle » Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:16 am

The airport walkways have an adjustable last segment that can be lowered and raised. The same walkways attach to the 737, the Airbus 320, and a big range of aircraft types.
Originally the 737 Classic was designed with short legs to facilitate luggage loading and easy boarding from the tarmac on small/undeveloped airports before terminals became so widespread.
The 737 NG and MAX still has the short legs for only one reason: to avoid a redesign of the fuselage and the necessary re-certification. Longer landing gears might require extensive design changes, possibly a new type rating: a very significant investment in terms of time (years) and money. With the MAX avoiding pilot re-certification for a new type rating became another motivating factor to keep the short legs and suffer the technical consequences. It's all about saving on a new design and certification.
#Bbbgate
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Modsquad
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Previous

Return to Dark Corners -- a place for odd and deviant subjects (WP related or not)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron