kgwilson

All old news now & covered in the original thread. No surprises though that Boeings CEO does not agree when making his announcement to the press a week or so ago. The cost so far is over a billion & when the airlines want compensation for their inability to fly the Max this will balloon as well as the payouts to families of the victims. Given that Boeing hid the MCAS information there may be a case for corporate manslaughter charges.

 

 

Most? I think you'll find that all certified aeroplanes requiring a fuel pump will have a fuel pressure gauge. eg Airtourer, PA-28s, Cessna 172 with fuel injected engines, Decathlons ...... - I think that about covers "most GA single engine aircraft" here?

The Archer 2 & 172 M,N & S models I used to fly didn't have them. Maybe they do now but there are plenty of old GA singles around.

 

 

Turn the electric pump on before starting engine. Read pressure?

Only if you have a fuel pressure gauge. Most recreational and GA single engine aircraft do not have fuel flow or fuel pressure gauges.

 

Going back to the original post I would be suspicious of an instructor who just says the electric pump is used because it is in the POH. Either he did not feel like explaining it or didn't know. If it was the latter I'd get a new instructor.

 

 

I wonder what the "remedial actions" were. Fuel pumps on (if it/they was off), carb heat, change tanks and restart are the 3 basic ones I'd use. 140 litres of fuel still in the tanks is a fair bit.

 

 

Standard Jabiru procedure is to turn on master switch, electric fuel pump on for 5 seconds then off. Start engine without electric pump. This shows the mechanical pump is working. If it wasn't the engine might start on the fuel in the carburettor bowl but would quickly stop. If the electric pump was left on you would not know whether the mechanical pump is operating or not. Standard procedure is then to warm up & run up with electric pump off. Final pre takeoff check includes pump on. This allows for mechanical pump failure on takeoff so you won't need a forced landing.

 

Following this is arbitrary but mostly it is advised to turn the pump off at the top of the climb. This means your mechanical pump is continuing to work. If the engine falters turn the pump back on and land.

 

Downwind checks should include pump on for reasons as above.

 

Low wing aircraft can be different as fuel has to be pumped up to the engine. Once the fuel lines are fully primed to the carb the mechanical pump will suck the fuel through except of course if it fails or you have a vaporisation issue in the lines.

 

 

It doesn't seem to matter what comes from RA-Aus, someone will pick holes in it and searching for them is being a bit pedantic. We are all human and make mistakes, and we are all entitled to our opinions. There are 8 opinions in the reply.

 

Here is an alternative view.

 

1 The statistcs have shown our safety record has improved over the past 5 years but we can't become complacent.

 

2. They wouldn't have been mustering by air if the weather was poor.

 

3. From the media. Nothing more to say.

 

4. A euphamism to get the point across that there is no witch hunt (another euphamism)

 

5. If I didn't think it was safe to fly I wouldn't do it. By definition it is unsafe to get out of bed, to walk out the door, to drive a car.......

 

6. We still want it to be the safest it can be. What,s wrong with that.

 

7. That's what happens with all accidents. Flying, cars, motorbikes etc.

 

8. There is nothing wrong with using any sort of scenario as a metaphor to lead into the purpose of the subject matter.

 

 

It doesn't seem to matter what comes from RA-Aus someone will pick holes in it and searching for them is being a bit pedantic.

 

 

What would frequent access mean? Several times a day, once a day or less. I personally would not define frequent if I accessed an area once a week or less. I also wonder how they define adverse in relation to criminal history. I wouldn't be happy letting someone in to a secure area even if they had a petty theft conviction.

 

 

Building a good product has to compete with the rise of nationalism in this global economy. Boeing was for a very long time the unassailable leader until the upstart European consortium Airbus entered the fray. Unfortunately for Boeing they build very good competitive products and pioneered fly by wire and side sticks with efficient wings to challenge the (Boeing) establishment. When Boeing has to have laws changed to protect its market, nationalism wins but this can only occur when there is some government intervention. The free market, where it still exists, will determine the success or failure of products.

 

The high public profile of this issue and plethora of expert opinions, videos, whistle blowers, and public perception will hopefully result in a total rethink. Boeing is like an empire. It has risen to dizzy heights and its hierarchy has become complacent basking in its success while turning a blind eye to creeping corruption and failure to recognise the reality of a true competitive rival.

 

Airbus on the other hand has recognised the failure of its most costly and ambitious project but is moving on with other things like the new A350 and existing A320 NEOs. They don't have to do anything but build honest, high quality competitive products. Boeing has the biggest hurdle it has ever faced, regaining public trust.

 

 

 

After his initial critical and informative clips about the 737 Max he now seems to has taken a defensive role which is a surprise. Putting engines that are too large to fit where they should be and increasing the power quite a bit has IMHO altered the longitudinal stability of the aircraft. If it didn't then there would be no need for the MCAS system to deal with that. The bean counters determined the pathway, the engineers had to make sure that they kept on the path & then the bean counters tightened the path demanding no new SIM training and removal of MCAS from the manual. What seemed at first to be a bit of a smell has turned out to be a major stink. Boeing & FAA may not be able to defend this one successfully.

 

 

My comment about talking to others about Jab engines are identical to 440032.

 

I have a generation 3 3300A in my home built & it is brilliant. I imagine the engine will far outlive me based on the hours I do annually. I use Aeroshell W100+ (doesn't get cold enough for multigrade) & change oil & the filter every 25 hours. Cost is $45.00. I run it on Mogas 98. Top speed at 3300 rpm is 140 knots plus. Cruise around 120 at 2850- 2900 rpm. Climbs 1 up at 1500 fpm at 80 knots. Fuel consumption averages 19-20 lph & I don't need any oil topup between changes. The 2200 is identical to the 3300 with 2 pots lopped off so 80 HP instead of 120 HP so cheaper to feed & maintain. Follow the maintenance manual to the letter & you will have no problems. There were some issues with overheating in early Jabs, mainly poor air flow. I paid a lot of attention to this during my build & the engine always runs cool. Pull the prop through 2 full compressions before the first start of the day to feel for any softness. If a cylinder feels a bit soft do a leakdown check.

 

The local flying school has 2 Jabs with 2200A engines. They are now on the second engine in the J170. The top end was done at 1000 hours & at 2000 hours they put in a new engine because at $14,000 it was cheaper than an overhaul.

 

 

It is absolutely obvious that commercial considerations completely trumped safety considerations. Boeing was so desperate to get back in the single aisle jet sales race to recoup some lost market share that their financial masters called the shots. The MCAS detail was deleted from the manual and they forgot to remove its definition from the glossary. This simple error shows to me when those people who were told to make the changes did so under some duress and while it could have been an oversight it also may not have been.

 

 

I also get a petrol smell when I lift the canopy after the aircraft has been in the hangar for a few days or more. It is gone in a minute or so. My centre tank usually has 25-40 litres in it. It is made from Vinyl ester & I think the smell must come through the tank walls. There are definitely no leaks. I use heavy duty reinforced rubber compound automotive fuel line & have an electric pump, fuel filter & stop cock in the cabin area. All checked for leaks & smell.

 

 

Here is a (somewhat lengthy) article that addresses many of the 737 Max issues touched on by many forum members in this thread.  It is aimed at a more general audience than an aviation community, but still addresses the main foci of criticism in this tragic event.

[ATTACH]39158[/ATTACH]

Interesting article, not least because it concurs with most of my own thinking. The final line though leaves you wondering if the author is indicating that there should be a complete redesign of the 737.

 

 

You can get 1 US Quart Philips brand on Ebay for $29.68 plus $9.99 postage. Posted from WA. Also sold by Aeroshell. They have a depot at Archerfield called Archerfield Refuelling. Give them a call. I was passing through & needed some Aeroshell W100 engine oil. I rang them & they met me at the gate & drove me out to the depot & I paid $7.64 a quart.

 

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Phillips-Aviation-Hydraulic-oil-5606H-Rotax-Aircraft-MATCO-Cessna-Piper-Pilot-RV/332689978329?epid=15020510500&hash=item4d75de33d9:g:4rAAAOSwxllbJ2~t

 

 

If the prop is wood it disintegrates easily. I did one. Bits flew off everywhere but the engine never stopped & there was little rpm degradation at the time & it was just above idle. As recommended by Jabiru I pulled the engine out, the flange runout was perfect & I replaced the flywheel bolts. The check was to clean the female thread thoroughly & put in the new bolts 3 full turns & wiggle them. Any movement of 0.05mm or more & they had to be retapped. There was no movement at all so all good. The new bolts are not loctited in like the old ones which were a mission to get out but have nordloc washers.

 

 

Totally agree Yenn, there must have been a fair number of people involved with the engineering, surely a few would have raised concerns.     

I'm sure they did but economics is a powerful voice. Below is part of a report published today.

 

To understand how Boeing has found itself in this predicament, it pays to get familiar with the story of the 737's direct competitor, the Airbus A320.

 

In 2010, the European manufacturer announced plans to create a new version of the aircraft, the A320neo (short for "new engine option"), which promised airlines greater fuel efficiency at a time when the Boeing 737 models in service — the Next Generation series launched in 1993 — could not compete.

 

So, a race quickly ensued after Airbus fired the starting gun.

 

At this point, Boeing found itself at a crossroads: make a new version of the 737 from scratch or retrofit the existing Next Generation series with newer technologies.

 

Boeing went with the latter, which meant that an existing 737 frame was fitted with larger, more fuel-efficient engines that altered its aerodynamics in a way that made it prone to tilt up during flight.

 

Boeing engineer and cockpit designer Rick Ludtke told the New York Times that the 737 MAX's designers were told they "could not drive any new training that required a simulator".

 

"They wanted the minimum change to simplify the training differences, minimum change to reduce costs, and to get it done quickly," he told the paper.

 

 

Well, No. If a new engine was installed the report would have said so. Bulk stripping and new rings etc does not produce a new 180 HP engine. The picture of the fuel placard on the left of the picture showing the filler cap on the wing is the placard for both tanks. It is also on a black background. The wing is white.

 

 

There is no mention of the installation of a new O360 engine. The engine was bulk stripped according to the report and presumably new rings etc installed requiring a run in. Only the propeller & both wings were replaced. I don't know where the placard was located but it was not on the wings The useable fuel of 72.2 litres was written on the wing in the photo though.

 

 

I never rely on fuel gauges. Fuel tanks in wings are very wide and shallow so any slight parking angle will give erroneous results even on the dipstick let alone the gauge.

 

I set my fuel sender float arm length according to the VDO manual for the depth of my main tank when I installed it. All well & good but the gauge read is based on the linear value provided by the float position. The problem is that most fuel tanks are not perfect cubes or rectangles so the reading will only be perfectly accurate at empty and full. This is why you should have a placard with the actual fuel amounts and the gauge reading on the panel. When you are flying it isn't much use having the placard in the manual as it was in this case.

 

I also sympathise with the pilot as he would have got back if he had 182 litres on board instead of 144. The only issue was that he'd have used about half of his reserve getting back. As he was using a higher power setting than normal running in the engine at 2500rpm  fuel consumption would have been higher than at a standard cruise of around 2350rpm. At that rpm he would most likely have got back with 144 litres and with 182 litres with the 45 minute reserve intact

 

Now of course the reserve has been lowered to 30 minutes & the controversial Fuel Mayday introduced. Stupid rule IMHO. I still stick with the 45 min reserve.

 

 

Other than the long grass it was a great place to land. Huge flat paddock with a single tree in the middle. That is usually a magnet for aircraft & he missed it.

 

 

Facts and industry knowledge do not apply to opinion though. Example is putting blame on the poor training standards of so called "3rd world airlines". Ethiopian has an excellent safety and management record

 

 

The problems reported by 4 US pilots did not involve runaway trim attributed to the MCAS system with faulty AOA indication. They disengaged the autopilot & continued the flight. Training may be an issue with some of the "3rd world" airlines but the captain of the Ethiopian aircraft had over 2000 hours though the first officer only 200. They have a good safety record and a category 1 rating with FAA allowing them to fly to the US & have EASA certification for Europe. They have the largest fleet in Africa operating both 787 Dreamliners and A350s.

 

 

It's all about money. A new design would have cost an enormous amount of money and taken some years to get certified. More cost. Meanwhile the A320 NEO family's share of the market skyrockets.

 

The Boeing accountants win & say fix the existing design. So they make changes, self certify as approved by FAA and don't tell pilots much about the MCAS system as their Max upgrade is just a couple of hours on an ipad. They get 5000 orders as the MAX is well priced & they are back in the race.

 

Then the excrement hits the proverbial fan. 2 crashes & over 300 deaths, all Max's grounded, share price plummets, orders stop, production is slowed and the recriminations have hardly begun. The accountants will be passing the buck to the engineers who will blame the certifiers who will blame the software etc and it goes on.

 

The cost has probably already surpassed the option of the new design. A billion or so for the deaths, but the big costs are going to be the claims for parking, maintenance & loss of income from the 54 operators of about 350 planes for however long they are on the ground.

 

 

Easy, turn your phone off &/or delete every social media account you have or ever had, block all email addresses except those you explicitly trust & these aren't your bank, accountant, friends, lawyer, or anyone in business, i.e withdraw from the modern world.