DashTrash

What happens if you get an asymmetrical extension? Too much Kool-Aid in that video! I was waiting for the pom poms to come out. Yay Boeing!!!

Firsttimeflyer

You are an idiot if you think mechanical links never fail.

Especially given the parameters current NG aircraft are forced to fly given their “limitations” imposed on pilots thanks to Boeing. The max 10 will be worse.

Firsttimeflyer

And as far as the max goes, apparently a second AOA vane is “optional”. This should be mandatory and required to be paid for and installed on all max aircraft before they fly again if today’s news has a decent amount of truth to it.

dmeg13021

The second vane is already there just like it always has been. MCAS just took its info from one instead of comparing the two. Software fix will use both inputs and most likely add “AoA disagree” notification, which would actually be nice for any shaker activation or unreliable airspeed event. Third part will limit number of times and actual stab travel MCAS can direct.

Larry in TN

As dmeg said, all 737s have two AoA vanes. The optional features are the "AOA DISAGREE" message and AoA display on the PFD.

The AoA display is usually associated with the HUD option for CATII/III approaches. Airlines that use the HUD for CATII/III have the AoA display option (at least on the HUD) and airlines that use autoland for CATII/III don't.

The AOA DISAGREE message has no pilot actions in the QRH. The procedure only explains what it means and that you could have unreliable airspeed or altitude indications (on the affected side) with the associated "IAS DISAGREE" and "ALT DISAGREE" messages.

There are no pilot actions or procedures which utilize the AoA.

Boeing: 737 MAX Software Enhancements

No, you want the stick shaker going off if either AoA detects an imminent stall. If one is failed, or the airflow over it is blanked by an unusual attitude, you still want the stall warning to work.

On the 737, the Captain's stick shaker activates based on the AoA from the left AoA vane and the F/O's based on the right AoA vane.

bifff15

I think that was humor / sarcasm...

Have a look at the F-18 landing gear. Convoluted yes, but also able to take carrier landings. I have a feeling BA will have no problem making the Max10 gear as reliable as other models.

Cheers,
Biff

pangolin

And most would have too since the aerodynamic loads would have made the trim wheel impossible to move. Unless you unload the tail and there may have been insufficient altitude to do that. Sadly they could have used the electric trim to neutralize the forces then turned the trim back off. How many of us would have had the presence of mind to do any of that in the seconds they had? MCAS was just badly implemented.

Firsttimeflyer

Ah, I missed it on my sarcasm detector after a long day so I apologize PNWflyer for the comment.

I sure hope they get it right, but these latest incidents make me question how much oversight is really going into the MAX changes in order to get the planes out of the factory as quick as possible. Given the competition from bombardier and Embraer and obviously Airbus I think that fueled some rushed decisions.

Was in the back a couple weeks ago and the guy thought he was landing the guppy on a carrier. Some of the comments from passengers were quite amusing. “At least we stopped on the boat”, “he must have been navy” among a couple others!

XHooker

Biff, the Hornet’s “Rube Goldberg” landing gear design has had catastrophic failures that have led to at least one high profile fatility I can think of off the top of my head. I doubt the Max10 design will be nearly as complex as the F-18, but it’s going to add a layer of complexity that increases the odds of a failure.

RJDio

How far behind the 8 ball are we on the 321neo order book? Has anyone ordered the 321xlr? Or know when airbus anticipate its rollout?