General Aviation Thread

[ASSAIL]

Augusta Westland (Leonardo) are sending a team to Auckland next week to modify the AW169’s used by the rescue folk.
Apparently the flight controls are way too sensitive in tight hovering scenarios and the flight control system needs replacing.
My son is part of the team going across the ditch, he’s an Avionics Tech adult Apprentice with AW

 

[2007yellow430]

Too bad Boeing didn't stop to think that putting engines too large to fit under the wings of a 60 year old aircraft might be a bad idea. Too bad Boeing didn't stop to think that putting these over large engines forward of their normal position and making the aircraft apt to stall under thrust was a bad idea. Too bad Boeing tried to use software to fix a hardware problem, and that software was poorly designed, seemingly untested in certain conditions and then implementing it without telling anyone. Bizarre.

And a pox on Boeing for trying to blame the pilots.

I agree the FAA is too close to industry, but in this case, this plane should never have got off the drawing board.

The plane represents a sad decline in Boeings culture, putting $$$$$ way before safety.

Planes aren’t cars. They are built to be flown by knowledgeable people, not unknowledgeable folks. If Boeing did have a problem, it was not requiring simulator training and making such ytaining mandatory. Every commercial airplane has issues. Period. Airbus has had its share of crashes due to design defects, as well has Boeing. That’s why our FAA has what’s called Airworthiness Directives. I don’t know of a single plane, whether used commercially or privately that hasn’t had such a directive.
Art

 

[ngatimozart]

Planes aren’t cars. They are built to be flown by knowledgeable people, not unknowledgeable folks. If Boeing did have a problem, it was not requiring simulator training and making such ytaining mandatory. Every commercial airplane has issues. Period. Airbus has had its share of crashes due to design defects, as well has Boeing. That’s why our FAA has what’s called Airworthiness Directives. I don’t know of a single plane, whether used commercially or privately that hasn’t had such a directive.
Art

Yep, but it has been shown that the FAA farmed out some of its regulatory responsibilities to Boeing, so Boeing was basically certifying itself using FAA certification authority. Not a good state of affairs at all. Boeing was basically short cutting the system.

 

[Ananda]

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn....143d06-f69c-11e9-b2d2-1f37c9d82dbb_story.html

Lion Air 737 MAX investigation concluded. Basically the report put the blame on Boeing, Lion Air Practice and also the service company that considered not doing proper recalibrate of the air attack sensors.

Lion Air is not what you can call have 'solid' maintenance practice. Now the report also put the questions on Lion Air pilot training procedures.
After decades of high but cut throat growth in Indonesian Airlines industry, the domestic market practically have close to duopoly with Lion Group and state Owned Garuda control most of the market. Air Asia Indonesia comes in distant third.

While Garuda has improved much and already gain Skytrax Five Star status, Air Asia Indonesia also belong to Air Asia group that also rated high in Skytrax on budget airlines category. The similar thing can not be said on Lion Air that rank low on Skytrax survey (Two Stars if not mistaken on the latest Skytrax survey).

Thus eventough MAX clearly have trouble design, but Lion Air practice also provide some responsible. It's circulated in local media and internet shortly after the crash, that Garuda's sole MAX also has shown some similar symptoms. However Garuda's crew seems trained better on controlling them.

Not that it omitted Boeing and FAA responsibility on this, as putting defected Airliners to the market.
As for me personally, it's strengthen decisions that I made for more than ten years. I only flew with Garuda (and it's subsidiaries Citilink) and Air Asia Indonesia for domestic routes.

 

[Ananda]

Southwest Airlines Board Could Consider Airbus - Why That Matters - Simple Flying

If Southwest do take Airbus, it will be severe blow to 737 MAX program. It's not just due to Southwest is the largest single airline consumers of 737 family, but it's also the most loyal. Basically Southwest become the brand ambassador of 737 reliability as business model.

If that happen, Boeing in my opinion has been relegated as second players place. It will be an Industry that still dominated by Airbus and Boeing, but Boeing will be in very hard position re-catch Airbus if their single aisle has been relegated as permanent 'second choice'.

Southwest effect if changing to either A320 will be 'knock-out' blow to 737, as many other Airlines that using 737 are looking to Southwest as barometer.
Even if Southwest only replacing some of the routes with A220 it is already a major blow to Boeing, since Boeing now try to offer 737 and E Jets combo versus Airbus A320 and A220 combo.

I believe this development trend will be determined next year.

 

[John Fedup]

Canada's Westjet operates operates domestically just like South West, a single fleet of 737s. It will be interesting see if they rethink operations. Air Canada recently switched from Airbus to 737 MAX but they also have A220s on order. They have a large fleet of Dreamliners. To date I believe they have taken delivery on 18 out of 40 or so MAXs on order. With service not expected until Feb 2020, any serious delay beyond that could see them considering cancellation.

 

[John Fedup]

Some disturbing news about about P&W geared turbofans used in A220s. Initial delivery delays were one of the issues that forced Bombardier to eventually seek an Airbus bailout. Seems on going problems continue with P&W geared turbofans. Would be surprised if this issue is just limited to A220 engines.

A220 operators told to limit engine thrust at high altitude

 

[John Fedup]

According to this link, intense lobbing by Boeing resulted in new laws reducing oversight just weeks before the Lion Air crash. The FAA didn’t support the changes. Reduced oversight worked so well with the financial sector in 2007 so why not aviation? Wonder how Boeing shareholders feel about this now?

Before deadly 737 MAX crashes, Boeing pushed for law that undercut oversight

 

[2007yellow430]

Yep, but it has been shown that the FAA farmed out some of its regulatory responsibilities to Boeing, so Boeing was basically certifying itself using FAA certification authority. Not a good state of affairs at all. Boeing was basically short cutting the system.

The 737 MAX crash occurred because something broke. With about 4000 flying hours in a multitude of planes, some of which are turbine powered, I can say, there are always problems when equipment breaks. With simulator trading, those pilots could have resolved this, without a crash. Boeing needed to require simulator training, but nothing was stopping the airline from providing it. I don’t fly certain airlines because of their trading. Classic example of why.



Art

 

[Ananda]

https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.amppr...max-return-began-with-near-crash-in-simulator

This article on Blomberg, discuss on why it take so long for Boeing to remedy the problem in MAX.
According to this, the problem with MCAS in the end required Boeing to rework nearly the whole computer system architecture. They have to redo main computer and back up computers system interaction, and rework system architecture of emergency for all possible scenarios.

This is in my opinion same thing as to rebuilt MAX computer system. Either this as all aviation regulators (especially FAA and Euro counterpart) now practically told Boeing they are going to recheck everything or simply the regulator fell they are cought off guard before and now in save face mode, thus overreacted on everything with MAX.

 

[John Fedup]

Nice to see the regulators doing their jobs but one has to wonder how many knowledgeable professionals they have to accomplish this after allowing aircraft manufacturers to self regulate for years. Rather disconcerting to hear about how old the computer technology was on the 737. The time to develop a clean sheet design would have lost significant marketshare the the A320Neo but the final profit would be better in the end compared to the MAX horror show.

 

[Ananda]

Rather disconcerting to hear about how old the computer technology was on the 737.

Agree, but that's how Boeing persuade their customers for MAX. Similar but only update systems mean their 737 NG pilots will only need relative simple adjustments for qualify with MAX.

Clean sheet designs seems by some 'bean counters' in Boeing considered not only much more costly and time delays, but also 'fear' need more adjustments from NG's customers pilots to be qualified.
Reading that article, shown how far Boeing trying to put familiar systems on MAX for NG's Pilots, but in expense of many systems consider now as inadequate for adjustments in MAX.

There are limits on how far you can continue streching old design..this is should be realisation for Airbus and Boeing after MAX.
For me, MC-21 and C919 eventough will be hard to be real threat for 320 and MAX families, hope will force those two for new clean designs.

 

[John Fedup]

I guess to a certain extent Airbus already has a clean sheet design for the small end of the A320 market with their recently acquired A220. The A320/321 were much better candidates for “Neo” conversion than the 737. Therefore Airbus is unlikely to consider a new clean sheet narrow design anytime soon. Boeing on the other hand needs both new 737 and 757 designs or possibly some kind of hybrid that could sort of address both markets while at the same time keeping the bean counters happy. Given all their recent problems, they are in a lousy situation.

As for the MC-21 and C-919, both will have to prove themselves in their home markets, especially the MC-21 before trying to take on the duopoly in the export market. The same applies to the joint Russian-Chinese widebody project.

 

[2007yellow430]

I guess to a certain extent Airbus already has a clean sheet design for the small end of the A320 market with their recently acquired A220. The A320/321 were much better candidates for “Neo” conversion than the 737. Therefore Airbus is unlikely to consider a new clean sheet narrow design anytime soon. Boeing on the other hand needs both new 737 and 757 designs or possibly some kind of hybrid that could sort of address both markets while at the same time keeping the bean counters happy. Given all their recent problems, they are in a lousy situation.

As for the MC-21 and C-919, both will have to prove themselves in their home markets, especially the MC-21 before trying to take on the duopoly in the export market. The same applies to the joint Russian-Chinese widebody project.

Most of the professional pilots that I know, who fly or flew the A320, hate it. There is a strong dislike for the computer control, the side stick and other issues. While computer control is more efficient, so the bean counters love it, there are times when pilots need more options, which the computer keeps. However the training regime is changing, so pilots with substantial non airline experience is declining, so it may not make any difference.

Art

 

[John Fedup]

Love it or hate it, computer control is only going to increase with just about everything, my new RAV4 Hydrid has 1200 pages of frigging manual. I have heard Boeing guys don’t like the A320 but that was more when it first came out. Certainly the MAX with its MCAS can’t be impressing experienced Boeing guys either. As for the bean counters, it is my understanding they want maximum use of the autopilot for improved fuel economy.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting article discussing Boeing's options, FSA (future small airplane) or NMA. The pros and cons are outlined. The runaway success of the A321neo and the forthcoming A321XLR along with the MAX issue leaves Boeing with a difficult choice. The likely large revenue decline, penalties, and KC-46 delays are additional headaches. IMO, tough days ahead for Boeing management and for shareholders if management screws up.

https://aviationweek.com/new-civil-aircraft/opinion-case-shelving-boeing-s-nma

 

[J_Can]

Most of the professional pilots that I know, who fly or flew the A320, hate it. There is a strong dislike for the computer control, the side stick and other issues. While computer control is more efficient, so the bean counters love it, there are times when pilots need more options, which the computer keeps. However the training regime is changing, so pilots with substantial non airline experience is declining, so it may not make any difference.

Art

The problem is not really so much that the computer holds onto or prevent certain flight characteristics for Airbus, Boeing does that to. The problem is that Airbus aircraft even in a degraded flight envelope will use the fly by wire system to automatically provide smooth control inputs. Most of the time this is great but sometime as a pilot we want to feel a stick shaker or other very felt tactile tells. Most of Boeing aircraft will allow for that as far as I know until the Max. The Max would give you a tell and then mcas would just completely override it.

This said, all of this info is classroom based info for me, the only large complex aircraft I have flown is what I currently fly the Dash-8. Which has a whole host of problems inherit to the design and subsequent upgrade paths bombardier took.

 

[John Fedup]

The MAX crisis has allowed the A320 family to overtake the 737 family orderbook although Boeing has delivered over 1500 more aircraft but had a 20 year head start over the A320. Another consequence of the MCAS system.

A320's order total overtakes 737's as Max crisis persists

 

[Ananda]

Interesting article discussing Boeing's options, FSA (future small airplane) or NMA. The pros and cons are outlined. The runaway success of the A321neo and the forthcoming A321XLR along with the MAX issue leaves Boeing with a difficult choice. The likely large revenue decline, penalties, and KC-46 delays are additional headaches. IMO, tough days ahead for Boeing management and for shareholders if management screws up.

https://aviationweek.com/new-civil-aircraft/opinion-case-shelving-boeing-s-nma

Interesting article @john, thanks for posting it. I recently read some analysts from a global Investment Banking (I only have the hard copy thus no online Link), that review Asia Pacific Aviation market.

In there, even tough Asia Pacific market is the largest growth Aviation market now and the future, the dominance of single aisle Airliners (dominated by 737 and 320) is much higher in proportion than North America and Western Europe. Then I recall that most demand for 757 capacity (NMA) class replacement come from North American and West Euro Airlines, that need it for mostly trans Atlantic route between smaller Euro Markets direct to US or Canada.

Eventough the Investment Bank that I mentioned is focus on Asia Pacific market, but it's mentioned what Asia Pacific need is increasing single aisles that have long range capabilities. The trend on this industry is similar which is increasing point to point route.
Thus the report put classes of A321 LR or XLR plus MAX 10 can be gain in the future.

Based on that, seems Asia Pacific is not really need NMA and perhaps the demand of NMA only arise in Trans Atlantic and US domestics. Perhaps Boeing come to similar conclusion.

Anyway new clean sheets single aisles definitely must be come out soon from Boeing. MAX clearly can not keep up with 320 family. Even they manage to handle MCAS problem, MAX10 seems can not cover 321 LR/XLR.
737 is showing it's end on potential development. So the other article that you post on 320 finally break 737 total number, should be clearisation for Boeing to develop new single aisle.

 

[John Fedup]

Your comments on the Asia-Pacific single aisle preference probably explains why both Japan and China haves decided to enter this very competitive market. Boeing was right about a new clean sheet jumbo not being a good idea and their increased interest in a FSA over a NMA is probably a correct assessment by their marketing team. They would be hard pressed to do two clean sheets at present. Besides, the A320XLR has a huge head start over the proposed NMA.