General Aviation Thread

[Ananda]

Boeing users will be more reluctant to switch but may have no choice as a Boeing NMA isn’t happening anytime soon and a 4500-5000 mile range 737(?) won’t be much sooner to market if at all.

Yeah, I put it as I don't see any other options for Boeing on this decade to catch up in the middle of the market with Airbus, asside making 737-10 with 4000+ miles range. It will be still less that A321 XLR, but 500-600 miles short perhaps can still be acceptable for Boeing narrow body users, rather than build new support and training if they have to move to Airbus.

Whatever the new design they can come out, it'll be available in the market at the end of Decade at soonest. Unless they tinkering with MAX range, they have to let go this decade narrow body market lead to Airbus.

Speaking of new concept:

Airbus Reveals Three Stunning Concepts For Zero Emission Aircraft

simpleflying.com

Airbus put three concept of zero emissions Airliners. Two are conventional design of narrow body jet and turboprop. While the third one blended wing design.
For me, the challenge is not in the design, but how to attract Industry to move for Hydrogen. It will be a very expensive effort to change global fuel infrastructure to Hydrogen.

At the meantime making an eco-friendly Jet Fuel will be more attractive to come as middle ground between costs and eco-friendly political statement.

 

[2007yellow430]

Ironic considering that two 737 loads of crew and passengers died because the Max-8 software was too controlling.

oldsig

those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them. By not requiring simulator training these crashes were a foregone conclusion. We train for emergencies, when things break. Didn’t happen to US trained pilots. Airbus has its own flaws. Example: the Brazilian crash. Had it had yokes installed, would never have occurred.

Art

 

[oldsig127]

those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators.

Art

Boeing pilot by any chance? ;-)

oldsig

 

[John Fedup]

those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them. By not requiring simulator training these crashes were a foregone conclusion. We train for emergencies, when things break. Didn’t happen to US trained pilots. Airbus has its own flaws. Example: the Brazilian crash. Had it had yokes installed, would never have occurred.

Art

Probably poor training but even worse design and QA.

 

[ngatimozart]

those of us who fly feel the reason they crashed wasn’t the plane. It was poor training. You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them. By not requiring simulator training these crashes were a foregone conclusion. We train for emergencies, when things break. Didn’t happen to US trained pilots. Airbus has its own flaws. Example: the Brazilian crash. Had it had yokes installed, would never have occurred.

Art

The evidence suggests that the root cause of the problem was Boeing's decision NOT to notify the FAA and the airlines about the change in the behaviour of the aircraft when the new software encountered this particular problem. So how can that be the airlines fault if they are unaware of it in the first place. Secondly the FAA had contracted out significant portions of its regulatory functions to the manufacturer. Jeez that's like leaving the diehard alcoholic in charge of the brewery. That's pretty slack indeed. I am no fan of Airbus but at present feel far safer in an Airbus product than a Boeing product. BTW just because a pilot has been trained in the US doesn't mean that they're gods gift to aviation. The US puts out its fair share of aviation idiots like everyone else. You ain't special in that department.

 

[John Fedup]

Yeah, I put it as I don't see any other options for Boeing on this decade to catch up in the middle of the market with Airbus, asside making 737-10 with 4000+ miles range. It will be still less that A321 XLR, but 500-600 miles short perhaps can still be acceptable for Boeing narrow body users, rather than build new support and training if they have to move to Airbus.

Whatever the new design they can come out, it'll be available in the market at the end of Decade at soonest. Unless they tinkering with MAX range, they have to let go this decade narrow body market lead to Airbus.

Speaking of new concept:

Airbus Reveals Three Stunning Concepts For Zero Emission Aircraft

simpleflying.com

Airbus put three concept of zero emissions Airliners. Two are conventional design of narrow body jet and turboprop. While the third one blended wing design.
For me, the challenge is not in the design, but how to attract Industry to move for Hydrogen. It will be a very expensive effort to change global fuel infrastructure to Hydrogen.

At the meantime making an eco-friendly Jet Fuel will be more attractive to come as middle ground between costs and eco-friendly political statement.

@vonnoobie posted a good link on the Australian industry thread concerning Australia’s national hydrogen roadmap. After reading it, it removed a lot of my skepticism about the hydrogen future.

 

[ngatimozart]

Probably poor training but even worse design and QA.

How do you know? From what I remember reading the pilots training was good. If the airline didn't know of the changes because they weren't told how could they train their pilots for it?

 

[John Fedup]

How do you know? From what I remember reading the pilots training was good. If the airline didn't know of the changes because they weren't told how could they train their pilots for it?

“Possibly” would have been a better word choice than “probably”. We likely will never know.

 

[Ananda]

You’ll note that in both crashes the pilots did not train with simulators. That was a crucial issue. Some emergencies have to be dealt with immediately. This was one of them.

Boeing Persuaded Lion Air To Forgo Simulator Training For 737 MAX Pilots, Newly Released Messages Show

As one of the first customers to receive the plane, Boeing feared that if Lion Air put pilots through simulator sessions, it would undermine the company’s campaign to minimize conversion training. A year later, the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX started a crisis that has rocked Boeing.

www.forbes.com

It's Boeing that persuade Lion Air Group to not give more Simulators Training regime for Pilot transition from 737-800 to MAX 8. Lion Air do have large simulators facilities for 737. After all they're one of the Largest operator of 737-800/900 and MAX 8/9. Those 737 distribute to the Group 2 Airlines in Indonesia and 1 in Malaysia and another in Thailand.

They ask for update software for their Simulators for transitioning their Pilots from 800 to MAX8. Boeing then persuade them to not add more Simulators hours. They're convincing the Airlines that what they're already spend on 737 NG simulation is suitable enough for MAX.
Thus it's not the matter of lack of training, it's Boeing cover up on MAX difference on handling toward Airlines that operating 737 NG.

That's already shown on Congressional Findings.

 

[John Fedup]

Boeing Persuaded Lion Air To Forgo Simulator Training For 737 MAX Pilots, Newly Released Messages Show

As one of the first customers to receive the plane, Boeing feared that if Lion Air put pilots through simulator sessions, it would undermine the company’s campaign to minimize conversion training. A year later, the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX started a crisis that has rocked Boeing.

www.forbes.com

It's Boeing that persuade Lion Air Group to not give more Simulators Training regime for Pilot transition from 737-800 to MAX 8. Lion Air do have large simulators facilities for 737. After all they're one of the Largest operator of 737-800/900 and MAX 8/9. Those 737 distribute to the Group 2 Airlines in Indonesia and 1 in Malaysia and another in Thailand.

They ask for update software for their Simulators for transitioning their Pilots from 800 to MAX8. Boeing then persuade them to not add more Simulators hours. They're convincing the Airlines that what they're already spend on 737 NG simulation is suitable enough for MAX.
Thus it's not the matter of lack of training, it's Boeing cover up on MAX difference on handling toward Airlines that operating 737 NG.

That's already shown on Congressional Findings.

Articles like the above confirm my belief that Boeing efforts to morph the 737-10 (or whatever name they decide on) into a A321XLR alternative simply won’t fly with many airlines.

 

[2007yellow430]

The evidence suggests that the root cause of the problem was Boeing's decision NOT to notify the FAA and the airlines about the change in the behaviour of the aircraft when the new software encountered this particular problem. So how can that be the airlines fault if they are unaware of it in the first place. Secondly the FAA had contracted out significant portions of its regulatory functions to the manufacturer. Jeez that's like leaving the diehard alcoholic in charge of the brewery. That's pretty slack indeed. I am no fan of Airbus but at present feel far safer in an Airbus product than a Boeing product. BTW just because a pilot has been trained in the US doesn't mean that they're gods gift to aviation. The US puts out its fair share of aviation idiots like everyone else. You ain't special in that department.

You’re right, there are US trained pilots who aren’t good. But,if you look at the fatality rate for US flagged airlines, you’ll notice it is the lowest, world wide. That comes from required recurrence training, 99% done in simulators. They trained for this very thing in simulators. Where (The simulator) you can do things that you wouldn’t dare in a real situation. When the shit hits the fan in certain instances, you have to react immediately, not pull the AFM out to see what to do. That was my point.

Art

 

[vonnoobie]

But,if you look at the fatality rate for US flagged airlines, you’ll notice it is the lowest, world wide.

Based on what do you make this claim? I would be interested in a source to show the figures. Cheers

 

[Ananda]

I watch this video yesterday..and I say to my self..daaammeed..that engine is huge...

When I see that engine compare to the other 747 engine that being used as test plane..well the test plane is 747-300 if I'm not mistaken, and the engine is self already big. This GE9X really make those engine like mini turbofan engine it self.

 

[ngatimozart]

She's certainly a huge engine. That's a heck of a lot of thrust. Suck the doors off the hangar.

 

[Ananda]

Seems EASA already give positive assessment for MAX. They seems quite satisfied with the changes that Boeing make. With two leading Aviation Agencies (FAA and EASA) already shown positive assessment, this can mean 737-8/9/10 can potentially facing recertification in several months ahead.
Perhaps this will coincide with the return of commercial Airliners to close full capacity in Q2 next year, when projected Vaccines of COVID already reach enough public population.

EASA executive director: Boeing 737 MAX is safe to fly

In a ground-breaking development, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) executive director Patrick Ky has declared the Boeing 737 MAX to be safe to fly.

www.aerotime.aero

EASA still got what they want with the third sensors that will provide more safety layers. This sensors being predicted to be installed first on 737-10, and will be installed later on with existing MAX fleet.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Seems EASA already give positive assessment for MAX. They seems quite satisfied with the changes that Boeing make. With two leading Aviation Agencies (FAA and EASA) already shown positive assessment, this can mean 737-8/9/10 can potentially facing recertification in several months ahead.
Perhaps this will coincide with the return of commercial Airliners to close full capacity in Q2 next year, when projected Vaccines of COVID already reach enough public population.

EASA executive director: Boeing 737 MAX is safe to fly

In a ground-breaking development, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) executive director Patrick Ky has declared the Boeing 737 MAX to be safe to fly.

www.aerotime.aero

EASA still got what they want with the third sensors that will provide more safety layers. This sensors being predicted to be installed first on 737-10, and will be installed later on with existing MAX fleet.

The Synthetic Air Data System (SADS) is actually not a new additional sensor, like the Angle of Attack (AoA) sensors or TAT-probe. The SADS does not directly measure the data. The system uses a number of sources of information, including GPS, altitude, and wind information in order to measure airspeed or the AoA. The SADS is also present on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Some time ago Garuda Indonesia planned to convert the 737 MAX-8 orders into MAX-10 orders, because "the MAX-10 doesnt have the MCAS on board". If thats true (i can not find it on internet on which MAX-series the MCAS is actually installed), then its remarkable that the first MAX which get the SADS is the 10.

 

[Ananda]

Some time ago Garuda Indonesia planned to convert the 737 MAX-8 orders into MAX-10 orders, because "the MAX-10 doesnt have the MCAS on board". If thats true (i can not find it on internet on which MAX-series the MCAS is actually installed),

From what I heard through my colleague that handle Garuda account, their plan to convert 49 orders of Max 8 to combination of 787 and 737-10 more to their business plan for International City to City model. However it's also true that Boeing told them, that 10 since it's their newest of MAX already build from beginning with all the modification that they're shown to FAA, EASA and other Aviation Agencies.

Thus it's understandable that 10 will be the first from Max family that having SADS installed in the production line. I believe Boeing homework is still huge as they have to reinstall all the modification to existing 8 and 9 already in the market or now parked in their facilities. SADS is not additional sensors for Boeing just like you say, Boeing don't put it in MAX before I suspect more to costs basis and in line with their marketing drive to the Airlines on how MAX and NG share common flight rating.

All this modifications will put MAX on different flight rating than NG, which means the Airlines has to put different flight Training modules in their Simulators for their Pilots transitioning to MAX from NG.
Something that Boeing should told the Airlines from beginning, as MAX turn out having different flight characteristics than NG.

 

[Ananda]

WSJ News Exclusive | Boeing Discussing New Plane as It Starts to Emerge From 737 MAX Crisis

Early talks with customers are gauging interest in a single-aisle aircraft with improved engines that could carry between 200 and 250 passengers.

www.wsj.com

According to Wall Street Journal, there's sign now Boeing will begin their next move with NMA. This after FAA and EASA shown positive sign for 737 MAX modifications.
Indication shown that NMA will be small twin aisle (some analyst prediction in the length of 737-10 or 757-300) with 2-3-2 seating configuration in Economy class. This will put it right in the middle of 737-8/9/10 and 787.

Eventough the pandemic still will affect Airlines Industry next year or even up to 22, however in my opinion Boeing need begin NMA process now, if they still want NMA to come out by end of this Decade. It will still take at least 7 years for brand new design to enter the market from conception stage.

Talking with some colleagues in Financial Industry that handle Airlines accounts, Boeing now talking with some Airlines in Asia-Pacific on 737-10 as A321 Neo alternative. They are asking if the Airlines will be interested with 737-10 at current configuration or with modifications on range for A321 Neo alternative.
Thus it seems to cater what Market need on middle of market, 737-10 so far is the only product by Boeing that can be thrown by them to try compete with A321 Neo.

Still seems what Airlines need for Middle of Market is 757 replacement, which 737-10 is simply not enough to fit all the need for middle of market. Off course this with assumption that Airlines industry will be back to normal by end of next year or early 22.

 

[John Fedup]

Sure seems like the proposed NMA is close to a 787-8. Perhaps Boeing should just work with it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sure seems like the proposed NMA is close to a 787-8. Perhaps Boeing should just work with it.

What's the matter John, can't sleep?

I don't know. I would have thought that they would go for a B757 replacement which is something that I think that the market wants. One thing that I sort of sense since the McDonnell Douglas cabal takeover of Boeing management, is the arrogance that set in and apart from the B787 the apparent lack of a new clean design product. It had all the appearances of them sitting on their laurels and making only incremental changes to their current catalogue.