Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there is no 'gliding-it-down' with these latest crashes.
'Point-it-down' and burrow deep.
The sea (water) is not forgiving to a direct hit. (Non compressible liquid = hard landing)
No doubt, like I said, going into the water nose first at 400+mph or into land is equally as bad, the water is basically like hitting concrete at that speed and direction.
Some countries have said they do not want the plane "landing" in their country as the issue could happen in their air space and threaten the safety of people on the ground.
-----------------------------
You can love or hate Trump but here is his latest tweet.
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....
In this case he is partially right. What he means is that airplanes are becoming too automated. Sure it takes more of the workload away from the crew . The problem is can the crew still revert back to their basic skills and fly the plane if needed? The older guys have experience flying basic simple planes. Newer guys not so much.
The MCAS system on the 737 MAX is it really needed? Learn to fly the plane with heavier engines instead of relying on buggy software. Even if this is not the problem it is still another extra automation system that might get forgotten until it fails.
That happened because the protection system (known as "normal law") disengaged due to the computer getting bad readings and the pilot reacted extremely poorly. To this day, Air France 447 is the single most egregious pilot error I have personally ever seen in the airline environment.
But in most normal cases, stalling an Airbus is indeed impossible. The US Airways A320 landing on the Hudson would have been harder in a 737, because the pilot could make a full power-off landing and pull the stick back all the way with assurance that he wouldn't stall and smack the airplane into the water.
Hoe can anyone say it is impossible when it has been done. “Normal” has nothing to do with it. The Lion Air and AF447 both seemed to start from bad readings from the pitot tubes. The pilot crashed the Airbus by pulling back on the stick.
I don’t disagree about the US Airways water landing. I’m sure that you are right about that.
Southwest had its 26th B737Max-8 delivered on the same day when the Lion Air Crash happened on 29 October 2018. Since then it has taken 8 more deliveries.
Southwest planned on acquiring 44 B737Max jets in 2019 according to their quarterly report filed January 24, 2019.
I suspect that Southwest better delay their Hawaii service. I think it will probably be impossible without the Max8.
Southwest was planning on retiring some of their older 513 Boeing 737-700s this year (143 seats)
They have 207 Boeing 737-800s so it is possible they may be able to purchase a few dozen older ones
AFAIK, Southwest's MAX 8s are not ETOPS-qualified, which is needed for Hawaii service. I think the older 737-8H4s (738 NG) numbered in the 8300 series are the ETOPS planes, so that is probably what they will use. I did read somewhere that they have ordered MAX 7s for future delivery, and those may be ETOPS as well. Of course, that may depend on what happens with the Lion Air and Ethiopian investigations.
Last edited by transitfan; 03-13-2019 at 09:01 AM..
Reason: typo
AFAIK, Southwest's MAX 8s are not ETOPS-qualified, which is needed for Hawaii service.
You are absolutely correct. I completely erred when I said I suspect that Southwest better delay their Hawaii service. I think it will probably be impossible without the Max8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transitfan
I think the older 737-8H4s (738 NG) numbered in the 8300 series are the ETOPS planes, so that is probably what they will use.
Starting this Sunday that is exactly what Southwest will do. They are starting flights from Northern California to various airports in Hawaii. Oakland is closer to Honolulu than it is to BWI (by less than 2%).
The initial press release said Southwest wants to introduce Hawaii flights from San Diego which may be more difficult with the 738 NG. Although the great circle distance is not outside of the range of the 738 NG, the trade winds may be a factor.
The other factor that Southwest may face is if it loses 34 jets it won't have enough for it's present service. They may have trouble introducing new service until they can acquire new jets. Some people are surprised to know that a big part of Southwest's fleet was acquired second hand from other airlines. They often imply that all their jets were acquired brand new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
The starting dates for Hawaii routes, according to Southwest's website are:
Oakland-Honolulu: March 17 (3,876 km)
Oakland-Maui: April 7
Oakland-Kona May 12
San Jose-Honolulu: May 5
San Jose-Kona: May 12
San Jose-Maui: May 26
Southwest is starting their Hawaii Service this week using the shorter routes and the older B737-800. It seems as if the choice of jet has nothing to do with the crash, as Southwests had not begun tests on the Max-8 yet. Southwest last year announced that it planned to fly to Hawaii from four California cities: San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose and Oakland.
At this time, the world's longest commercial flight on a Boeing 737-800 is Panama City to Montevideo (great circle 5,447 km) on Copa Airlines (CM #284). The great circle distances from San Diego to Hawaii is 4206 km) but the trade winds are much stronger than Panama City to Montevideo). I suspect that Southwest will not begin flights from SAN until they have the MAX-8.
The MAX-8 has more range than the -800. Before the shutdown, Gol Transportes Aéreos was flying a MAX-8 from Brasília to Orlando (6,112 km) which took almost 10 hours.
Since both these planes crashed moment after takeoff. Reports say that pilots asked to return to the airport. Obviously there is a problem that develops quickly after takeoff. Evidently it happens very fast, and there is no time to fix it in the air. The planes crash.
I would say there is plenty of cause to ground the Max immediately. What are they waiting for a 3rd crash to happen. They have these Max crossing the Atlantic every day on Norwegian Air. Southwest is about to fly from Calif Airports to Hawaii. I'd say peoples life's come before money. More time on the ground checking these 737 Max. Please.
I don't want to drag politics into this, but I feel I must. The more "pro business" an administration is the less likely it is to let regulators do their job. I worry that the leadership of the FAA has been compromised. The fact that the planes have been grounded in the EU and in Britain tells me that they probably should be grounded here as well. We don't want a compromised government agency. The FAA is there to see that flying is safe for the general public. We must insist that it do its job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
