Quantcast

Large plane discussion

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Michigan Mom

OBS Chief
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
668
Location
MI
"The flight time leaving DAY does make sense for making a same day cruise connection. The flight time leaving MIA does not make sense for returning cruise passengers. One's off the ship by no later than 10:00-10:30 A. M. A 9:30 P. M. departure from MIA would not be desirable. I have no doubt that AA's market research does show sufficient demand during the Fall and Winter for such a flight to MIA if cruising does return late 2020 or early 2021."

The late night flight is a catch-all. It's less important to connect the cruise passengers home... than it is to get them to their departures. On return, if they are off the ship in the morning, there are many connecting options to get them home sooner. When stuff happens, weather or whatever, having a late night nonstop to get people home is useful. Traditionally these late night flights protect the misconnects and the nonrevs who have been unable to board a flight earlier. By that time, normally there are not a huge number of people to be stranded, so if the late night flight cancels, not too many people who have to stay overnight and try again in the morning.
Of course, there are hell nights such as rolling thunderstorms in Miami where a multitude of flights are affected and the experience becomes the stuff of people saying "I will never fly XX again" which goes out the window at the next fare sale.
 

Dakota 400

Conductor
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,091
I saw straps on one of the beds in the video. Compliance might be another issue...
I find trying to comfortably rest/sleep being strapped in with my seat belt to be difficult. I tend to do some "tossing and turning" during the night and the belt hinders my movement. On a Singapore Airlines Business Class flight, I initially fastened the belt over me. Uncomfortable; I debated should I or should I not unfasten it. I did unfasten the belt. During the night, a flight attendant saw that I was unbelted and she fastened me in again!
 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,743
Location
Los Angeles
Looks like the 737 Max is about to return to service. Except for a lot of lip service, I haven't read any concrete evidence of what caused the problem, or what the fix is.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
Looks like the 737 Max is about to return to service. Except for a lot of lip service, I haven't read any concrete evidence of what caused the problem, or what the fix is.
I am surprised that you claim to be so uninformed. Are you sure you have been looking at the right places. Maybe those that are sufficiently interested in the subject should spend time reading the entire long thread on this subject on airliners.net. What happened and how Boeing got itself into this mess is very well understood, as are the reasons for how it is getting fixed.



It is all a tedious read, but what the problem was, how it was analyzed and what fixes were considered and finally what was actually done, are all to be found in there if one reads it patiently and weeds out the wheat from the chaff. ;)
 
Last edited:

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
Here in a nutshell is Boeing has to say, of course carefully avoiding anything that might suggest that they are quite culpable directly, though mentioneing several items designed to make it harder for them to play as fast and as loose in the future.

 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,743
Location
Los Angeles
I am surprised that you claim to be so uninformed. Are you sure you have been looking at the right places. Maybe those that are sufficiently interested in the subject should spend time reading the entire long thread on this subject on airliners.net. What happened and how Boeing got itself into this mess is very well understood, as are the reasons for how it is getting fixed.



It is all a tedious read, but what the problem was, how it was analyzed and what fioxes were considered and finally what was actually done, are all to be found in there if one reads it patiently and weeds out the wheat from the chaff. ;)
You are so right, I do feel uninformed. All I’ve heard is a lot of if’s, how’s and when. Never why.
Boeing must be convinced.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jis

Dakota 400

Conductor
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,091
Boeing must be convinced.
It is the regulatory bodies on both sides of the Atlantic that need to be convinced that went wrong initially has been properly corrected.

I don't care if Boeing is convinced. It's not relevant. The recent news about construction flaws with the 787 says to me--as a Boeing shareholder--the Company is still in "deep doo-doo" to use the phrase that President George Herbert Walker Bush once used.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
It is the regulatory bodies on both sides of the Atlantic that need to be convinced that went wrong initially has been properly corrected.

I don't care if Boeing is convinced. It's not relevant. The recent news about construction flaws with the 787 says to me--as a Boeing shareholder--the Company is still in "deep doo-doo" to use the phrase that President George Herbert Walker Bush once used.
And in the US, the regulatory body first had to extract its head from a very dark abnormal place where it had gotten lodged for several years, for it and start behaving again like a regulatory body instead of as a cheer leader and rubber stamping outfit for the industry it is supposed to be regulating. If anything that was a significant part of the entire development of the problem and then also in the failure to ground the plane when trouble surfaced, and continuing to sing from Boeing's playbook (poorly trained pilots, yadda, yadda, yadda), until the rest of the world embarrassed them enough to cause them to finally act. Heck even India grounded those planes before the US regulatory body could manage to get around to it!

 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,743
Location
Los Angeles
And in the US, the regulatory body first had to extract its head from a very dark abnormal place where it had gotten lodged for several years, for it and start behaving again like a regulatory body instead of as a cheer leader and rubber stamping outfit for the industry it is supposed to be regulating. If anything that was a significant part of the entire development of the problem and then also in the failure to ground the plane when trouble surfaced, and continuing to sing from Boeing's playbook (poorly trained pilots, yadda, yadda, yadda), until the rest of the world embarrassed them enough to cause them to finally act. Heck even India grounded those planes before the US regulatory body could manage to get around to it!

9 factors contributed to the root cause of the accidents. Are all those attributed to the MCAS. Lack of training, uh- Er- oh. Who knows what they came up with. Somebody suggested, "maybe we should think about drawing from a pool of pilots to do the testing instead of using Boeing Test pilots". Because test pilots may too used to overcoming certain situations.
I wonder if they wrote a new Manual now. Or like every other 737 including this one, just add revisions.
It flys just like the last model except for rev. X Y Z AA AB and so on. Sounds to me like that plane is very peculiar. I'm hoping the thousands of pilots flying it understand it better now.
 

jiml

Conductor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
1,587
Location
Toronto area
Link to Reuters story regarding House report posted in 737MAX thread if any haven't seen it.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
I'm hoping the thousands of pilots flying it understand it better now.
At least now they require model specific Flight Simulator based training, instead of just carrying a small cheat sheet on their electronic pad. This includes handling failure of AOA and handling such with or without MCAS active. Also MCAS does not have primary authority any more and is limited to attempting to correct things to just a couple of attempts, instead of being able to crash the plane in its over enthusiasm to correct a situation that pilots can mostly handle fine without its help apparently. I have read some experts wonder why the MCAS is even there anymore, but those I suspect are folks trying to stir the pot a bit more and see where it goes. :D
 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,743
Location
Los Angeles
At least now they require model specific Flight Simulator based training, instead of just carrying a small cheat sheet on their electronic pad. This includes handling failure of AOA and handling such with or without MCAS active. Also MCAS does not have primary authority any more and is limited to attempting to correct things to just a couple of attempts, instead of being able to crash the plane in its over enthusiasm to correct a situation that pilots can mostly handle fine without its help apparently. I have read some experts wonder why the MCAS is even there anymore, but those I suspect are folks trying to stir the pot a bit more and see where it goes. :D
I really shouldn't have given an opinion on a subject I'm not remotely qualified in. Thanks for pointing out those upgrades.
 

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
11,544
Location
Texas
I really shouldn't have given an opinion on a subject I'm not remotely qualified in. Thanks for pointing out those upgrades.
No, you were fine. It's not your duty to convince anyone that the 73M is safe or unsafe. That responsibility is on the manufacturer, federal regulators, and the airlines that chose to presume safety over the warnings of whistleblowers and activists. Unfortunately the FAA (like most federal agencies) has been perverted into a loyalty-first regulator that cares more about keeping cozy business partners happy than keeping everyday Americans safe. I therefore recommend that we take same-source claims of safety with a healthy dose of earned skepticism and focus on how foreign regulators react to these changes instead.
 
Last edited:

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
25,876
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
No, you were fine. It's not your duty to convince anyone that the 73M is safe or unsafe. That responsibility is on the manufacturer, federal regulators, and the airlines that chose to presume safety over the warnings of whistleblowers and activists. Unfortunately the FAA (like most federal agencies) has been perverted into a loyalty-first regulator that cares more about keeping cozy business partners happy than keeping everyday Americans safe. I therefore recommend that we take same-source claims of safety with a healthy dose of earned skepticism and focus on how foreign regulators react to these changes instead.
Yes, I would tend to avoid the 73M until EASA re certifies it. The fixes are still suboptimal IMHO. Specifically this business about comparing 2 AoAs, instead of going with triple redundancy is another example of cutting corners and is provably failure prone. The argument to and fro is about probabilities and we know how that one worked out in the first round. As things stand I believe the 73M with MCAS will forever be a marginally less safe plane than equivalent planes from other manufacturers and will therefore be something to avoid - just IMHO of course. This will be hard to do in the US, but will not be that hard to do elsewhere, except in a few third world countries.
 
Last edited:

Dakota 400

Conductor
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,091
I therefore recommend that we take same-source claims of safety with a healthy dose of earned skepticism and focus on how foreign regulators react to these changes instead.
I very much agree with you!

As things stand I believe the 73M with MCAS will forever be a marginally less safe plane than equivalent planes from other manufacturers and will there fore be something to avoid
That's my plan. But, as you said, it may be difficult to do. Sometimes, I have found, it is possible to determine the exact model of a plane that is scheduled for a flight. There could always be unplanned substitutions, however.
 
Top