kgwilson

The loose bolts found on the United 737 Max's are not the ones that prevent the door plug from moving up (the ones that so far can't be found) but the bolts that actually held the hinge assembly on to the door. This explained from around 5:25 in Juan Brownes latest youtube clip.

I see that Dave Calhoun the Boeing CEO has admitted Boeing f***ed up again. He should have been rolled after the Max 8 MCAS disaster as he was one of the major executives responsible for Boeings profit over engineering philosophy back in 2018-19. I don't think anything will really change. Boeing, like GM is considered "Too big to fail" an American ICON and the USAs biggest export earner. Government contracts will continue to keep the gravy train running so they will say the right things and keep on doing what they have always been doing. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-10/boeing-ceo-acknowledges-errors-made-following-panel-blowout/103306160

Will it even work in Canada. It won't in the US.

I just read that an aircraft technician with 23 years experience whose company operates Max-9s and has this to say I've been an aircraft technician for 23 years and we operate the Max9. I’ve opened and closed one of these plugs as well. Keep in mind that other 737 NG’s have these plugs installed in the longer fuselage models, not just the Max. They all work the same way and there’s never been an incident like this. I’m not saying this is what happened, but I can’t see how this could lug could come loose unless the two upper capture bolts, and the two lower bolts through the spring hinges weren’t installed. Even if a set of bolts, either uppers or lowers were missing with the opposites installed, I can’t see how the plug could come loose and depart the airframe. Just my ten cents. To open the plugs, the corresponding row of seats where it’s located has to be removed, and the surrounding interior side wall paneling and insulation. There’s also a seal that reacts to ambient temp that helps keep everything nice and tight. If they find the bolts were never installed that will be another nail in the Boeing coffin.

Juan Browne flys for American Airlines and his own Luscombe. His Youtube Channel Bancolirio is pretty informative but he does give credit to the expertise of others where required. Interestingly the best and most technically proficient individual regarding Boeing 737s of all models is an Englishman & 737 Captain Chris Brady who has the Boeing 737 Technical channel on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdjozru7tpmCMePCESlcZsw

If the bolts have been found to be loose on other Max-9s, either they were not tightened sufficiently when installed or there is no split pin in the castle nut. If the split pin is there a castle nut can't unwind.

The US is and always has been very profit driven. While the Industrial revolution began in the UK and many people in Britain became very wealthy and by the end of the 19th Century Britain was the largest most powerful country on earth, it didn't last long with The US perfecting and enhancing manufacturing techniques with the birth of mass production catapulting the early entrepreneurs to millionaire & then billionaire status. Fast forward 100 years and massive corporations headed by ruthless management had become addicted to profit and wealth while steadily eroding the rights of those who made them that way. Now it seems to have become ingrained in US society and government, so when huge organisations start to show their failings and these are exposed by journalists and eventually by total disasters, you guessed it they are kept propped up by the Government. General motors was bankrupt so the government gave them 13.4 billion as they were deemed to big to fail. Boeing is still going due to huge US government military contracts with the government cancelling contracts for airbus aircraft and throwing a lifeline to Boeing for inferior alternatives. How long this continues is anyones guess but chickens eventually come home to roost.

The fuselage of a number of Boeing 737s that had landing crashes between 2010 and 2016 broke in to several pieces whereas earlier versions in similar crashes stayed intact. This was noted in a SBS doco produced some years ago when some ex Boeing employees became Whistleblowers. Boeing sacked these people to try and protect its reputation but there were some very sorry sagas of sub contractors providing sub standard fuselage ribs and visits to their factories to find various jigs and CNC equipment out of order due to lack of maintenance and staff making parts by hand. The dollar rules and always has at Boeing, though they have made some excellent aircraft since the 1940s. The original mantra of "If it's not Boeing I'm not going" has now changed to "If it's Boeing I'm not going".

Aluminium is highly flammable and burns with intense heat, much worse than carbon fibre composite. During the Falklands war HMS Sheffield was hit by an Execet missile and its superstructure was aluminium as a weight saving measure and very thick. The ship burned fiercely till it was just a floating hulk. That was the end of aluminium in warships. Lithium batteries are no different from other batteries in that they store energy. An internal short circuit, incorrect charging or heat from an external source can cause thermal runaway which releases this energy as heat very quickly. The main difference from other batteries is the energy density, so the heat is much more intense. Note that the original Boeing 787 Dreamliner had a lithium battery thermal runaway issue that grounded the entire fleet until they sorted the problem out. Boeing still has a cost saving above engineering attitude in my opinion.

A lot of us followed the Max 8 debacle at the time & while it cost Boeing billions and had their share values plummet as well as the embarrassment, Calhoun, one of the main perpetrators kept his job. Even the CEO at the time who was their fall guy got a multi million dollar golden parachute. This is corporate America closing ranks and protecting its own. Who cares about the travelling public. They don't have much choice especially in the US.

Interestingly the approval for use in NZ is only with a proper mechanical mount. Suction cups are not approved. Given the number of pilots who have had the SE2 fall off (including me) it seems that was a good move. I just pick it up, realign it, suck it back on & keep going. Not really a problem but that would depend on location and aircraft. The left side of the bubble canopy is a good location for me as it is out of the way but with good GPS visibility as well as forward and side visibility. I did some initial tests & while not in any way scientific I made various turns to see when the aircraft I picked up disappeared. I had visibility from about 185 deg through 360 to about 130 deg so only the right rear quadrant I got no signal.

No. It has to be Mode S compliant and even then has to have extended squitter capability. Then you can add an ADSB out module. Price installed about 6k. Best option is to get a SE2 for about $550.00 after rebate. Then you can see all other ADSB out equipped aircraft & they can see you if they have ADSB in.

This doesn't add to the reputation of the 787 Max. Apart from the failure of the trim system that they didn't tell anyone about, Boeing was having problems with contracted suppliers though this was over 10 years ago. Parts were supplied out of spec and had to be modified before assembly. That was when the bean counters over ruled the engineers. This panel certainly didn't make the grade though.

This is a clear case of Human factors issues or as the Japanese press release stated "Human error". The main things being stress & fatigue. A lot of work in preceding days plus 50 minutes taxiing. How much sleep had the pilot had. Did he have other issues in his life affecting his decision making etc. The fact that the red Stop Bar lights were inoperative is a minor factor but a factor none the less. Given No 1 by ATC just means takeoff order and shows the Dash 8 had priority for takeoff, not approval. The Japanese culture is generally to follow rules and authority. The CVR will provide any indication of whether the co-pilot said anything when the captain decided to enter the runway without clearance. The co-pilot may not have felt he should question the pilots decision for any number of reasons. The rest of the crew were probably oblivious to all of this. To then sit there on the runway ready for 40 seconds is also odd. If they had clearance they would normally do final checks, flaps set, pitch full fine, spool up and go & on a busy runway this is often done at the holding point and just the spool up on the runway.

That'll give you good visibiliy and reception. I mount mine on the side of my bubble canopy & it falls off periodically, usually on to my lap. A good clean of the suction cup & the canopy fixes the problem for quite a while till it falls off again.

The fact that 34R was not used as a landing runway for the prior 19 minutes is completely irrelevant. All runways can be used for either at any time. Also if the Dash 8 had been taxiing for 50 minutes there were landings on 34R during that time. I can't see why the usage of No1 has anything to do with it. This is the order of take off as assigned but the holding points are specific. Just because you are No 1 does not mean line up on the runway.

With the Dash 8 on the runway facing away from the approaching A350 it would have been almost impossible to see. The only indication are the Nav lights on the wing tips and possibly a red beacon on the tail. The runway lights define the runway which is just black between those lights. Juan Browne is an airline pilot and that is his summation. Why the Dash 8 thought he had clearance when the last transmission from him was the correct readback to taxi to holding point C5 is what needs to be established. He only made 2 radio calls, the first to establish communication, Tower provided the taxi instruction, Dash 8 read back correctly. Nothing more. Assuming the captain survives, the investigation will try to find out from him what he was thinking & why he made the decision to enter the runway.

This crash demonstrates to me (as Juan Browne said) the importance of correct readback of ATC instructions. The commercial transcript is not clear & while in English, it is with a heavy Japanese accent & seems to tell the Dash 8 to taxi to the C5 holding point. Some reports say this is disputed by the Dash 8 pilot though he is apparently very severely injured. The transcript does not say hold short but also does not have any indication of proceeding on to the runway. The readback (if it was made) is not in the transcript. The initial report that should come out quickly (but it won't) and should include the ATC recording of all of the communication between ATC and both aircraft (but it might not) will be very telling.

It is amazing that everyone aboard the A350 got off. The Japanese do seem to respond well to instructions as they were told to get out and not take anything & they did. I've see other scenarios that end up in tragedies where stupid passengers are grabbing their hand luggage and others falling over them trying to get out. The resultant chaos that ensues ends up with injured people on the slides from failure to follow instructions, crashing in to one another, falling off or being hit by idiots and their luggage. It seems ridiculous but it has happened and has all been videoed.

Well one of them was on the wrong runway at the time or ATC f***ed up.

I don't think personal flying cars or whatever you want to call them will be an authorised form of transport unless fully autonomous and only after a lots of testing and real world operation is able to prove at least 99% reliability, performance and compliance. First will come semi autonomous taxi style commuter transport with a pilot to make sure that the computers do what they are supposed to do and everything goes to plan. These are quite likely to begin as airport to inner city drop off & pickup points, much the same as what billionaires and executives do today with helicopters. Later will come fully autonomous aerial taxi services and lastly personal transport but with an automated computer as chauffeur.

I remember my first commercial flight in a DC3. I was about 12 years old and it was deafening. Heading to Europe in the early 70s everything was pretty good except for the smoking. Airlines in Asia and middle east were atrocious. In India they had people, chooks, and goats in the passenger cabin & the aircraft were dirty & didn't look maintained at all. This was on the internal airline Indian Airways. Almost all of the people of Asian & Arabic descent smoked like chimneys. I flew BOAC, BEA, TWA, & Pan Am & they were good other than smoking. I am glad I travelled over land coming home 3 years later. I had planned to fly with Indonesian airline Merpati from Denpasar to Darwin but the stories I got from Aussie surfers about crashes, luggage disappearing, delays, cancellations etc put me right off. We might be crammed in like sardines now but flying is infinitely better now than whatever the golden days were.

It surprises me how many recreational pilots get APs installed. I built my aircraft to fly it not be a passenger.

Hi Matt, PM me and I'll give you my details. My S100 is hangared at South Grafton. I went for a fly today in fact. I live at Corindi Beach. Kevin

Merry Christmas from me too. It does seem a bit ironic though, that an aircraft designed as a killing machine should be used as a symbol of peace and goodwill.