@Pluto's Republic , refers to displays of information that are important to the pilots...airspeed, altitude, navigation. What I am really talking about here is mostly in the realms of aerodynamics and automation. Aerodynamics is the physical effects of the interaction of the relative wind, with the surfaces of the airplane. Automation, of course, is letting a computer do something that a pilot used to do. Using automation to make up for deficiencies in aerodynamics is awfully sloppy workmanship.

I am very interested in the technical aspects of the situation — the avionics. Is that the right word? I appreciate you laying it out for us.

@dkmich

Trump was right when he said airplanes were getting too complicated. The more gizmos and gadgets on anything including a refrigerator, the greater the odds something will break.

@leveymg Certifying a new aircraft takes an astronomical amount of money. The 737 first flew in '68, I think. The current versions are barely recognizeable as the same plane, but because Boeing made incremental changes along the way, they were able to keep its original certification as a 737, and not have to go through the complete process again. To increase the length of the landing gear, they would have to move the attachment points farther out on the wing, since they pivot inward upon retraction. That would change the wing structure, and would also require moving the engine mounts farther out. THAT would cause more assymetrical thrust in the case of an engine failure. I am sure it would fly fine...it would basically be like a 757. But It would be neither fish nor foul, and would have to be certified as a completely new airplane. Boeing was thinking of going in that direction, and then economic issues changed their mind. Again, this article touches on that: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/the-world-pulls-the-andon-cord...

I've noticed the 757/67 sits a lot higher than the 737 series and these later series designs don't have flattened engine nacelles. Seems pretty basic.

On another tack, has anyone else noticed that recent Microsoft products don't work as well as stuff they replaced? All the while, these companies are returning record profits to their shareholders. That's what's wrong with the 21st Century?

@Battle of Blair Mountain . Multi engine planes, early on. Then came ETOPS (Extended Twin Engine Operations AKA Engines Turn Or People Swim), rules letting a twin engine airplane fly across vast bodies of water. 757 work well, and bigger stuff, 767s, 777s. The Baby Boeing isn't really the best choice, economically, because of the great fuel needed to be carried, some of it used by running the APU all the time...it's an economies of scale thing. But, when one particular airline, with a lot of clout, flies only one kind of airplane, and trains all of its pilots on that one kind of airplane, there is some economic incentive to give them an ETOPS capable 737. Actually, Aloha did it first, with 737-700s, but went out of business doing so.

and why the FUCK aren't they doing it that way now?

@Deja , specifically a 767-300. The last two digits of the variant number can indicate the customer the plane was originally built for, so 767-375, with the "75" referring to Pacific Western, a Canadian airline. Yes, it was about 27 years old. I am sure it had AOA sensors...they feed various information into the flight data computers, which is then displayed onto the instruments in a form easy for the pilots to use. Those AOA sensors are not connected to an MCAS, though, as the 767 is a naturally stable aircraft and doesn't have such a system (I think the MAX8 is the first to have it.) I haven't really paid much attention to this crash, as the 767 is actually more modern in design than the slowly evolved 737...I really don't know how it's systems work. I just wait for the final report.

I was told on another essay that the Amazon cargo plane was a -375. That would make it from the 90s/00s, correct?

Do you know if those had the deadly sensor, maybe installed later? The plane was approaching HOU IAH for arrival. There's a poor quality video that shows it literally nose diving into extremely shallow water and muck.

The local news said it was speculated that the pilots were ignorant of how to use some type of software. Like they were trying to blame the pilots, and paint them as, well, stupid. That's how I took it, even though that's not what the word ignorant means.

Based on what you've taught me here, the pilots (all pilots across the planet, I guess), truly are ignorant of the software, what it does, how it works, and how to disable it -- because they were never told about it even being there, or trained on it -- not because they're all a bunch of bumbling idiots.

This is such shocking information. But thank you so much for dumbing it down for the rest of us. And sorry you're sick. Hope you get well soon!

@Anja Geitz , that we may get a patch-job fix to this problem. With that being the case, I predict there will be more killed. The indications are so distracting and confusing, that someone...some pilot...is not going to be able to overcome the cacaphony and nose down trim, and take another one into the ground. Not in the US...I think our pilots, armed with the information we now have, will immediately disable this system, and land the plane. So then we'll be able to (continue to) blame those inexperienced brown pilots.

In airplane crashes before they fix this?

@vtcc73 , I got to host a local showing of our favorite movie, here in Bisbee, a few weeks ago. It was a big hit.

We would play with the fuel in the -135, too. 16-37% MAC, manually controlled. The nav liked 16 for cell shots, 25 was nice for landing, and 37 was great for fuel economy. But we could feel the difference...I really liked that about the Boeing. They've really gone backwards, here more recently. Not telling us about a feature in the airplane...they've lost me. Four more years and a few months to go...then it's me in my little Hatz, and no more Boeings.

I'm really glad the boxes are in France. I think we will get more accurate information.

MAX still has trim wheels, thankfully. No one I've flown with recently has a clue as to how to use them...I think we will start lessons, next week. I've got my own modified takeoff/climb profile, too, to keep MCAS from waking up (if what they have told us is true), stay at flaps 1 until the Autopilot is engaged, then retract. It may become standard, who knows?

One of the locals here, who had questions for me, runs the dog shelter. I explained to her that MAX was a pit bull with a really nice disposition, really a nice gentle guy...the only problem with him at all is when he happens to see a Pomeranian. He will pull and pull to go chase it, alternating with chewing on your arm. First, he will bite around your wrist, for ten seconds, then wait five seconds, while barking and howling, then move farther up your arm for ten seconds...until finally he is biting at your throat. But controlling him is really simple...all you have to do is ignore all the commotion, and pat him gently on the head, and then everything will be fine. Still want to take him for a walk?

I purposely have ignored everything about the MAX 8 issues to see if any useful information might appear in the MSM. Nope. Not surprised in the least. I figured someone with actual knowledge might speak up. I should have expected a fellow Stratobladder comrade and SLUF driver would be the first. Well explained IMHO.

I'm also awestruck by the complete mess Boeing made of the MCAS. The first hint was that MAX 8 drivers immediately began asking "WTF is MCAS?" I knew Boeing was in the deep end of the pool strapped to an anvil. The corporate deny, deny, deny train seems to have derailed killing many on board. (Too early?)

I've mentioned my big airplane experience in these pages before. KC-135, 727/100/200, 757-200, 747-100/200/200F/400, A320, DC-10/40/30, and A330-200/300. I think I've got a decent perspective on the long running Boeing vs. Airbus fanboy war. My time is almost split evenly between Boeing and Airbus. The DC-10 showed me what an airplane would be like if Rube Goldberg or some random shoe clerk had ever designed and built a widebody airliner. Great to fly, the DC-10, but what a kludged together mess system wise. This Boeing debacle reminds me of the DC-10 trials and tribulations.

I'm also extremely pleased to have flown the 320 and 330 as long as I did. They did a lot that was different and technologically groundbreaking. They also did almost everything right although human factor/interface needed some tuning. Over the years I came to understand why they did what they did and now mostly agree with their choices. Unfortunately, the corporate mentality of defend rather than listen and consider is every bit as bad as Boeing's. Boeing also seems to have a "not invented here" mentality.

I got a lot from your technical explanation for the layman. WOW! says it all. None of it makes sense on casual inspection. I agree that a 10 second trim input is probably a dangerous idea. I suspect the system uses a the autopilot trim system which is probably at a much slower rate. It still seems excessive and certainly so in a non-FBW (a terrible term meaning Fly By Wire) machine. I also have heard that Boeing removed the manual elevator trim wheel so that there is no secondary indication of MCAS activation. Can you confirm this?

Here's my two cents on relaxed stability. My first introduction to actively modifying the CG in airliners inflight was the 747-400. The horizontal stabilizer was a fuel tank too. It was partially filled before departure for most fuel load configurations. Filling the wing and body tanks resulted in a somewhat forward CG so the tail tank with it's long moment arm allowed a closer to ideal, 25%, CG for takeoff. An aft CG, within limits of course, is better for cruise. The further aft the CG is the less down force the horizontal stabilizer has to provide. Generating that down force increases drag and hurts fuel economy and range. The 9900#, if I remember correctly (it's been 23 years since I flew the -400), was said to increase range by about 500 NM (nautical miles). The fuel system was automatic so it managed the transfer to maintain a proper CG.

The A330 also had a managed fuel system and a 5500# tail tank. I seem to remember that it had a token amount of fuel in it on departure to validate the fuel system's proper functioning. The system always transferred fuel to fill the tank during climb and then back to the main fuel tanks nearing the destination. The 330's range benefit was similar to the -400.

The difference in the 330 was the departure CG was almost always further aft than I saw on any non-FBW aircraft. The normal CG range was, IIRC, 16-42% MAC (Mean Aerodynamic Chord). It drew range benefits from departure until landing from the aft CG. The abnormal procedure for a transfer of the tail tank required the gravity feed valve to be opened manually for early verification that the fuel already in the tail wasn't trapped. I had two aft transfer failures. Both were indicated early in the flight and the abnormal procedure worked as advertised. The book said there was a 1-2% range degradation with an empty tail tank. Both of mine had a higher fuel burn closer to 2% for a 9-10 hour Atlantic crossing. It's easy to see why airlines loved the relaxed stability systems. 2% on every flight saves humongous amounts of fuel and $$$$.

One advantage, among many, the Airbus FBW flight control system had over all previous generation jet airliners, Boeing included, was that the airplane flew exactly the same regardless of CG, phase of flight, or configuration up to the limits of the flight controls to provide the necessary forces. The 330 had gobs of control authority in all axes so it was never an issue. We also had a manual elevator trim wheel. It was used on every departure to input the required horizontal trim setting for takeoff. (The system also calculated the airplane's CG and it yelled at us if there was an error.) One other function was for degraded flight control law abnormals where the jet didn't automatically control trim. It was also the emergency pitch control in the event all of the flight control computers failed. The intent was to enable pilots to keep the "blue side up" until at least one computer could be restored. I've been told by a couple of different Airbus tech reps that test crews had made successful landings in the jet with all of the computers disabled. I tried a couple in the simulator and was successful but it always took a couple attempts. By successful I mean we survived but it was ugly.

Airbus isn't guilt free when it comes to not telling pilots everything about their systems. I was in the initial line pilot cadre for the A330 at my airline. We flew the airplane for almost two years before one of our instructors discovered that the rudder had a manual backup mode that activated automatically with no indication when all of the computers became inoperative. We had been expecting to have to control roll with differential thrust but happily discovered that we could use the rudder. Landing with the computers turned off became much easier.

I'll plug myself before I end. I'm somewhat active on Quora in the flight section. The ignorant bickering of the Airbus/Boeing fanboys is rather irritating so I usually hop in when I can offer something useful. I loved every airplane that I flew from both manufacturers as well as McDonnel Douglas' DC-10. They were different and some were more enjoyable to fly than others. Some had terrible development problems, *** cough *** DC-10 *** cough ***, but the problems were ironed out, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. There was blood spilled in every major problem. That's a human failing. The FAA not rigorously enforcing their oversight responsibilities only increases the magnitude of the failures. It looks like another case of industry capture of a regulatory agency. The MAX 8 will get sorted out just like all the rest but Boeing is (re)learning about the hazards of standing in front of the ventileur when merde is in the air.

Here's my answer to a hot topic question on Quora about the Air France AF447 A330's high dive into the central Atlantic. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-airlines-still-fly-Airbus-A330-after-Air-Fr...