I'm a licensed Aircraft Mechanic & Inspector with twenty five-plus years in the field. I've had a varied career so far, with time spent in the sheetmetal, mechanic, and inspection specialties. Most of my time is on heavy Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft, of the passenger, cargo, and experimental type. This career isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it.
Please do NOT ask me to troubleshoot problems with your airplane, that is not what this Q&A is for.
I don’t know? Because they’re federal employees?
Let’s try to keep the questions on topic.
You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that.
No idea. Google is your friend.
If you are referring to the 737 Max aircraft, I think better experts than me have written extensively about the issue.
A quick synopsis, I suppose, would be that Boeing wanted to upgrade the 737 series to a certain level of performance and efficiency, which required re-engining the aircraft, among other things.
Then several “needs” of the program started colliding.
In order to make the new model more appealing to airlines, Boeing promised that no new flight training would be needed for the crews.
Then the new engine just wouldn’t fit in the same profile space as the old engine. So the pylon has to be redesigned. Which put the engine a little forward and higher than the old one. This changed the c/g of the aircraft slightly, and placed the thrust point a little different.
This made the aircraft handle a little differently. But in order to make good on their promise to the airlines, Boeing had to make the plane handle exactly like the old one. Which now required complicated systems to compensate for the design changes.
Cap that off with the FAA handing off the engineering design and test approvals to internal Boeing designers, and you have effectively no oversight of the program.
Now the planes get out into the hands of the commercial operations, and the systems don’t work exactly right, or a sensor has failure issues; and these pilots who are expecting to treat the new plane just like the old one, have problems.
Basically, the new system had to compensate for a tendency for the new plane to go “nose up” under heavy thrust, causing a stall condition. But the system often corrected too aggressively, causing the plane to lose altitude and pitch nose down.
And you know the result. Two of the flight crews were unable to override that automatic system in time to avoid a crash.
It’s sad. Especially because it was avoidable.
Obstetrician Gynecologist
Do you find it creepy when men want to go into gynecology?Investment Banker
What's a 100-hour work week like?Pharmaceutical Researcher
Is there or isn't there a cure for AIDS?sure. Maybe
We still use all the jump seats sometimes, if that’s what you mean. If we are carrying extra crew or maintenance personnel.
If you mean, “Can an aircraft mechanic fly jump seat somewhere as a company benefit?” Then I really don’t know. My company doesn’t do that. I suspect that would not be a common practice in the commercial airline world either.
Tri-jets were a solution for safety. For a time when four engines were too much, and not needed. But two weren’t enough, for either thrust needs, or safety.
ETOPS effectively put an end to the three engine aircraft.
There is a lot of history to the topic. I encourage you to research it. It is interesting.
-OR-
Login with Facebook(max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)