Practical or pedantic:
Ejection seats have a canopy release system as well, the canopy gives way to allow ejection (some types had a capsule, the pilot ejected in it, canopy and all). The passenger jet would have difficulty with this aspect.
And there is a known incidence of spinal compression and even vertebral fracture in pilots who have ejected, they are thoroughly checked medically before being allowed to fly.
An old person who is not pilot level fit and ejects will have issues after the event.
Ejection seats have a canopy release system as well, the canopy gives way to allow ejection (some types had a capsule, the pilot ejected in it, canopy and all). The passenger jet would have difficulty with this aspect.
And there is a known incidence of spinal compression and even vertebral fracture in pilots who have ejected, they are thoroughly checked medically before being allowed to fly.
An old person who is not pilot level fit and ejects will have issues after the event.
Not pedantic at all: ejection requires the canopy to be jettisoned, impossible in an airliner unless decompression tore the ceiling off.
Seriously, ejection is not a picnic: crew are rocketed out of the plane with a force of about 7 or 8g, which most of us wouldn't be able to bear without serious injury. I've spoken to two pilots who have ejected and both had back issues after the event, although the ejection saved their lives.
Geoff
Yes agree 100%. They should completely deregulate aircraft manufacturing and the market will then take care of it. The bad guys planes will crash, and the good guys will (just?) fly so consumers will only fly on the good guys planes so the bad guys will go out of business. Funeral parlours will make a ton of money from the bad guys plane crashes, creating employment opportunities across the country, so whichever way you look at it, deregulation is always good for the economy.
🤦♂️
I worked with a guy for a year or so who was an ex Royal Airforce officer on the engineering/technical side who flew jets. On one occasional he had a complete systems failure coming into land and crashed the plane on the airfield. He was hauled over the coals for not ejecting. The plane was written off, but he kept his job.
Yep. -45 to -60 deg C. Almost cold enough to liquify CO2.Hey, it's cold at 30,000 feet.
jeff
Remember the saying 'if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going'?
Now, we look very carefully when booking flights to see which aircraft are operated. The drive to the airport is more dangerous than any commercial flight, of course, but at least if you have a crash it will be at relatively low speed - at least in Melbourne traffic - and you have a chance of surviving.
Geoff
Now, we look very carefully when booking flights to see which aircraft are operated. The drive to the airport is more dangerous than any commercial flight, of course, but at least if you have a crash it will be at relatively low speed - at least in Melbourne traffic - and you have a chance of surviving.
Geoff
True, but sometimes an airline will change the type of aircraft to a different one for operational reasons, so even that facility has its flaws.
Some airlines, such as Bonza in Oz, only operate one type - however, its planes are all 737Max.........
Geoff
Flying from Europe, you would probably be on something larger anyway, like a 787 dreamliner or A380.
The internet says these Oceania Airlines don't have 737 Max planes in their fleet: Qantas, Air New Zealand, Rex Airlines, Air Tahiti & Air Tahiti Nui, Aircalin
jeff
Last edited:
The BIG PROBLEM is the culture at Boeing Commercial management and it begun with the outsourcing of the 787.
The believed (still do?) that you can have it "fast, cheap and good"...
When the 787 was badly behind schedule because the vendors were not getting the job done, we had a company wide (I used to work at the Spring Factory) call for engineers to go to the vendors and get their stuff finished and qualified.
Simply put, the vendors were not up to snuff... but eventually, the 787 did turn out to be fine airplane. But it sure was not cheap!
The 737MAX was a huge misstep for sales and marketing. They should have bitten the bullet and built a 797 ( a mini 787 ) with plenty of room under the wings to install modern high bypass engines. Or they could have redesigned the wing box to raise the fuselage... but nooo.. they got cheap and just raised the nose.
Now, from an engineering perspective, the solution is fine, BUT the handling of the aircraft changed ( center of gravity was affected ) so they added additional control devices.... OK so far... but now several Far Eastern airlines complained that their pilots would require re-certification on the MAX... so Sales decided to hide the new devices.. .and worse... to make the redundant systems optional...
What do you think happened? Well, the cheap airlines did not spend the money and the pilots didn't get trained... so, bingo! crash with all on board... gone.
WTH was Corporate thinking? Not very well.
..
Now with this particular AK airframe. This is really an error by the airline proper. They have outsourced the maintenance of their airplanes... and this particular one had a propensity to throw decompression errors... so what did the airline do? Keep the plane from flying ETOPS. Seriously? That plane should have been pulled off the line and a Root Cause Analysis done. A tear down of the airframe would have found the problem and Boeing would have had to pay for a new plane for sure....
BUT, adherence to safety, no matter how short term expensive may be, is the cheapest way all along.
...
American Industry ( heck it aiin't much better in China or Europe ) has been corrupted by too many MBAs and lawyers.
The believed (still do?) that you can have it "fast, cheap and good"...
When the 787 was badly behind schedule because the vendors were not getting the job done, we had a company wide (I used to work at the Spring Factory) call for engineers to go to the vendors and get their stuff finished and qualified.
Simply put, the vendors were not up to snuff... but eventually, the 787 did turn out to be fine airplane. But it sure was not cheap!
The 737MAX was a huge misstep for sales and marketing. They should have bitten the bullet and built a 797 ( a mini 787 ) with plenty of room under the wings to install modern high bypass engines. Or they could have redesigned the wing box to raise the fuselage... but nooo.. they got cheap and just raised the nose.
Now, from an engineering perspective, the solution is fine, BUT the handling of the aircraft changed ( center of gravity was affected ) so they added additional control devices.... OK so far... but now several Far Eastern airlines complained that their pilots would require re-certification on the MAX... so Sales decided to hide the new devices.. .and worse... to make the redundant systems optional...
What do you think happened? Well, the cheap airlines did not spend the money and the pilots didn't get trained... so, bingo! crash with all on board... gone.
WTH was Corporate thinking? Not very well.
..
Now with this particular AK airframe. This is really an error by the airline proper. They have outsourced the maintenance of their airplanes... and this particular one had a propensity to throw decompression errors... so what did the airline do? Keep the plane from flying ETOPS. Seriously? That plane should have been pulled off the line and a Root Cause Analysis done. A tear down of the airframe would have found the problem and Boeing would have had to pay for a new plane for sure....
BUT, adherence to safety, no matter how short term expensive may be, is the cheapest way all along.
...
American Industry ( heck it aiin't much better in China or Europe ) has been corrupted by too many MBAs and lawyers.
You’d consider the numerous layers of lipstick applied to the now almost 60 yr old 737 airframe design sufficient to qualify it as a “modern” design? 
While paling in comparison to the numbers for the 737, IINM the 777 series has been the largest selling twin engine wide body design. Been on the latter at least once, and it was certainly a far more spacious and comfortable design the the former.
While paling in comparison to the numbers for the 737, IINM the 777 series has been the largest selling twin engine wide body design. Been on the latter at least once, and it was certainly a far more spacious and comfortable design the the former.
Actually, the fuselage design of the 737 (shared with the 727 and 757) is fine. The wings, empenage, control surfaces, engines, wiring and avionics have all been redesigned over the years, and that's what matters in an airplane.
The issue the pre MAX 737 had was insufficient clearance between the wings and ground to hold the newer, large diameter high bypass motors. So it was either a new wing box to allow a taller landing gear or a new plane. They came up with a compromise which is a taller front and "fixing the rest with the software".
At the time, going to a 797 was risky as the technology was a huge gamble but redesigning the wing box was redoing the fuselage so it pretty much called for new wings... ie: a new plane -but with still "old" technology.
So, just raising the nose landing gear was seen as the least risky.
Not optimum but doable. From an engineering point of view.
The 767 and 777 were done much later, in the 80s. They are entirely different aircraft from the 727/737/757.
At some point now, Boeing is gonna have to greenlight the 797 to replace the 737. Boeing's marketing has destroyed the goodwill and brand name of the 737. Given the 787 has by now shaken off the early bugs from its new technology, it should carry little risk.
A single isle 13 foot fuselage should be quite doable... with 150/180/220 seating and 2000/4000/6000 mile ranges capable of operating on 4000 foot runways and with low noise abatement. Make a combi version for cargo.
The issue the pre MAX 737 had was insufficient clearance between the wings and ground to hold the newer, large diameter high bypass motors. So it was either a new wing box to allow a taller landing gear or a new plane. They came up with a compromise which is a taller front and "fixing the rest with the software".
At the time, going to a 797 was risky as the technology was a huge gamble but redesigning the wing box was redoing the fuselage so it pretty much called for new wings... ie: a new plane -but with still "old" technology.
So, just raising the nose landing gear was seen as the least risky.
Not optimum but doable. From an engineering point of view.
The 767 and 777 were done much later, in the 80s. They are entirely different aircraft from the 727/737/757.
At some point now, Boeing is gonna have to greenlight the 797 to replace the 737. Boeing's marketing has destroyed the goodwill and brand name of the 737. Given the 787 has by now shaken off the early bugs from its new technology, it should carry little risk.
A single isle 13 foot fuselage should be quite doable... with 150/180/220 seating and 2000/4000/6000 mile ranges capable of operating on 4000 foot runways and with low noise abatement. Make a combi version for cargo.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.