7623 replies to this topic

[jonny]

The A340 doesn't have MCAS and it has never crashed.

The 777 and 747 are two of the safest planes ever built. No MCAS.

Edited by jonny, 18 March 2019 - 04:50 PM.

[Mike K.]

A340 and A330 are the same plane, but one has four engines.

Quite a few a340’s have been involved in crashes, including a crash in Toronto that seriously injured about a dozen people, and a few A330’s have gone down.

No A340’s have fallen out of the sky, however.

[Flierwayne]

• 2 August 2005 – Air France Flight 358was destroyed by a crash and subsequent fire after it overran runway 24L at Toronto Pearson International Airportwhile landing in a thunderstorm. The aircraft slid into Etobicoke Creekand caught fire. All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived; 43 people were injured, 12 seriously.^[140][141]
• 9 November 2007 – an Iberia AirlinesA340-600 was badly damaged after sliding off the runway at Ecuador's Mariscal Sucre International Airport. The landing gear collapsed and two engines broke off. All 333 passengers and crew were evacuated via inflatable slides, and there were no serious injuries. The aircraft was scrapped.^[142]

As stated above the A330 which is basically a two engined 340 has had crashes.

 

It is also hard to quantify the safety of an aircraft by it"s accident rate.

 

The Concorde was the safest aircraft in the sky until one crashed in Paris. Then it became the worst.

Only 9 were flying so losing one changed the picture.

[Mike K.]

It is also hard to quantify the safety of an aircraft by it"s accident rate.

 

The Concorde was the safest aircraft in the sky until one crashed in Paris. Then it became the worst.

Only 9 were flying so losing one changed the picture.

 

 

That's a legit point. 

 

Welcome to VV, btw.

[Jackerbie]

Air Canada has grounded the MAX series until July, and has tapped Air Transat to pick up the slack.

[jonny]

It is also hard to quantify the safety of an aircraft by it"s accident rate.

 

Of course it is.

 

The point I was rebutting was this notion that MCAS is some sort of life saver or necessary evil. Plenty of other airliners that didn't have MCAS are as safe or safer than the MAX. The NG is incredibly save - no MCAS.

 

MCAS is required because of the new, larger engines Boeing put on the MAX vs the NG which caused the MAX to have an upward thrust vector. It's not a safety system - it's a workaround to a physics problem. 

 

That MAX pilots did not even know that the MAX had MCAS prior to the Lion Air crash is troubling, to say the least. 

[Victoria Watcher]

the MCAS was placed on the max because of human failure. despite knowing they are flying a max and the centre of gravity is different human brains have trouble understanding that when all other brain inputs are the same as other 737s. so to compensate for our brain shortcomings boeing installed a computer that does not suffer from the same problem.

[Victoria Watcher]

many pilots have weighed in to say MCAS or no MCAS they would know how to fix the problem immediately but apparently these third world pilots were trained less well.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 March 2019 - 10:13 AM.

[jonny]

the MCAS was placed on the max because of human failure. despite knowing they are flying a max and the centre of gravity is different human brains have trouble understanding that when all other brain inputs are the same as other 737s. so to compensate for our brain shortcomings boeing installed a computer that does not suffer from the same problem.

 

MCAS was put into place for exactly the reasons I described above. The MAX would not have been certified without MCAS because its handling is inherently unstable due to the new engines being moved forward and up. This is well documented. 

 

MCAS is a bandaid software solution designed to cover up serious engineering flaws that stemmed from trying to squeak too much out of the 737 airframe. To compound the problem, Boeing cheaped out on MCAS (i.e. 737s have two angle of attack vanes, but MCAS only uses one. The MAX has an "options package" that includes MCAS warning lights. The two MAX planes that crashed did not have this "option".) 

 

At its heart, this is an economic problem. Boeing wanted to continue to use the 737 airframe because that's a cheaper option than designing a new airframe. But, they also wanted to use bigger, more fuel efficient engines with bigger fans. 

[Victoria Watcher]

the max is not unstable. it’s just different from other 737s. the MCAS is there for when pilots screw up and pilot it wrong (as if it’s nit a max).

[jonny]

the max is not unstable. it’s just different from other 737s. the MCAS is there for when pilots screw up and pilot it wrong (as if it’s nit a max).

 

Why does the MAX require MCAS to get certified, but not the 777, 787, 757, 767, 747, earlier 737s,etc. etc.if the reason it is there is "for when pilots screw up"?

 

If pilots screwing up was the driving force for this software bandaid, every single modern aircraft would have a system like MCAS. Yet they don't. 

[Victoria Watcher]

it needs it because both pilots and certifying FAA pilots pilot the max as if it's a 737 non max (since they've been flying and testing them sometimes for decades).  then mcas corrects all that human error. this unique situation is not so true of other models you mention.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 March 2019 - 11:16 AM.

[Mike K.]

I'd wager that most aircraft models have unique systems in order to assist in their operation or give them an edge, etc.

[jonny]

it needs it because both pilots and certifying FAA pilots pilot the max as if it's a 737 non max (since they've been flying and testing them sometimes for decades). 

 

Thank you for finally agreeing that Boeing implemented MCAS as a bandaid to cover over their engineering and design shortcuts with respect to the 737 MAX. 

[Victoria Watcher]

it's actually a useful system that was implemented to compensate for several in this case faulty components of human nature like a confirmation bias.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 March 2019 - 11:54 AM.

[Missed Approach]

If anyone is intersted, 

 

Air Canada has grounded the MAX series until July, and has tapped Air Transat to pick up the slack.

Everyone is tapping everyone, charter carriers everywhere are pressing their aircraft into service, Omni 767-300 was used for SunWings  for CUN to YYZ the other day. AC 767 Rouge aircraft being pressed into mainline routes. Encore caring mainline guests as well. Its going to be a very interesting next couple of months. No quick fix in sight. 

[Jackerbie]

^ Specifically, Air Canada has chartered Air Transat to run the YVR-YUL service (which Air Transat already runs daily, so that's interesting), and has leased Air Transat planes for YUL-CUN.

[Missed Approach]

Just looking over the Feb passenger numbers at YYJ, wow........ ( I guess weather related or everyone took the ferry )

Then I looked at YLW....... 

 

[Victoria Watcher]

Just looking over the Feb passenger numbers at YYJ, wow........ ( I guess weather related or everyone took the ferry )

Then I looked at YLW....... 

 

129,000 yyj   vs. 179,000 ylw

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 March 2019 - 03:26 PM.

[Mike K.]

5.3% decrease over 2018, but still higher than 2017’s 128,516.