Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Omni on February 26, 2019, 11:22:59 am
-
I saw a video yesterday that outlined the final events of this flight based on radar traces. It showed this 767 descended for the last ~12 seconds @25000 ft/min. Just to confirm, 25000 was not a typo. No wonder it broke up when it hit but what would cause that kind of dive.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shMMcYAyFVE ?
-
I've seen a couple of those too but they don't tell ya much about what the hey happened. I have an idea but I guess we'll have to weight for the black boxes to get the data.
-
I saw a video yesterday that outlined the final events of this flight based on radar traces. It showed this 767 descended for the last ~12 seconds @25000 ft/min. Just to confirm, 25000 was not a typo. No wonder it broke up when it hit but what would cause that kind of dive.
That is 284mph. That is certainly faster than the terminal velocity of a level airplane, I suspect even if it was in an unpowered nose dive that would be too fast. 12 seconds is 5000 feet above the water level, and I understand it turned when it was at about 8000 feet.
-
That is 284mph. That is certainly faster than the terminal velocity of a level airplane, I suspect even if it was in an unpowered nose dive that would be too fast. 12 seconds is 5000 feet above the water level, and I understand it turned when it was at about 8000 feet.
284 mph is well below the Vne for a 767 but it is way faster than it would ever even approach in a normal descent. One question I would be asking in this case would be to the load sheet since this was a strictly cargo aircraft. what was the cargo and where was it loaded? A load shift on descent could throw the C of G far enough forward to put the plane into an uncontrollable dive.
-
284 mph is well below the Vne for a 767 but it is way faster than it would ever even approach in a normal descent. One question I would be asking in this case would be to the load sheet since this was a strictly cargo aircraft. what was the cargo and where was it loaded? A load shift on descent could throw the C of G far enough forward to put the plane into an uncontrollable dive.
I thought we were talking about descent rate, not Vne.
Agreed on heavy cargo shifting as a potential cause of the problem.
-
I thought we were talking about descent rate, not Vne.
Agreed on heavy cargo shifting as a potential cause of the problem.
Yeah a normal descent rate would be ~1500-2000 ft.min. From what I've seen/heard so far the plane was in one piece when it went in, but was in a nose dive according to an eye witness. Put the nose down to begin descent and a heavy portion of the load slides forward, the C of G could easily move far enough forward to overcome control inputs. And then perhaps the nose slides even further. She's all over but the paperwork.
-
That is 284mph. That is certainly faster than the terminal velocity of a level airplane, I suspect even if it was in an unpowered nose dive that would be too fast. 12 seconds is 5000 feet above the water level, and I understand it turned when it was at about 8000 feet.
Normal speed below 10,000 is 250 kts then slowing to 210 kts prior to extending flaps and gear and slowing to its final approach speed. This is really strange.
-
Normal speed below 10,000 is 250 kts then slowing to 210 kts prior to extending flaps and gear and slowing to its final approach speed. This is really strange.
According to the radar trace I saw there was a line of t-storms between them and the airport but they crashed before they got into that so it seems wx wasn't a contributor. I'm still interested in the possibility of load shift. Hard to tell that from this type of wreckage but the FDR might provide a clue with control positions.
-
According to the radar trace I saw there was a line of t-storms between them and the airport but they crashed before they got into that so it seems wx wasn't a contributor. I'm still interested in the possibility of load shift. Hard to tell that from this type of wreckage but the FDR might provide a clue with control positions.
Ya but what a strange place for a load shift, no high body angle, no heavy acceleration or deceleration. Normally load shifts happen on takeoff where you have a high nose up body angle and acceleration at the same time. Guess it could have happened on descent though.
The video shows the elevators full nose down but that must be just be part of the program used to make it.
-
Ya but what a strange place for a load shift, no high body angle, no heavy acceleration or deceleration. Normally load shifts happen on takeoff where you have a high nose up body angle and acceleration at the same time. Guess it could have happened on descent though.
The video shows the elevators full nose down but that must be just be part of the program used to make it.
My little attempt at speculation would have the fwd portion of the load not properly secured, so on takeoff it would be held in place by pallets aft that were secured. Then a combination of nose down deck angle/deceleration starts a slow slide fwd during the step down approach that the radar shows, finally resulting in steep nose down attitude/high ROD. Just a guess at this point, and hopefully they get the "boxes" so whatever happened can be revealed.
-
Ya but what a strange place for a load shift, no high body angle, no heavy acceleration or deceleration. Normally load shifts happen on takeoff where you have a high nose up body angle and acceleration at the same time. Guess it could have happened on descent though.
The video shows the elevators full nose down but that must be just be part of the program used to make it.
Not sure if you've seen this one but that's not much of a debris trail for a 767. Suggests a lot more vert. vel. than horiz. I'd say.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/search-at-texas-cargo-plane-crash-site-for-third-body-black-box-continues
-
Normally load shifts happen on takeoff where you have a high nose up body angle and acceleration at the same time.
I assume the load is secured from moving in multiple directions, depending on the items in the load. I could see the case where a strap holding the load from moving forward was improperly attached, or perhaps failed in transit.
That being said, I did hear one statement that the load contained no large items like vehicles being transported. Most of the items were probably in containers, or on palettes. I would assume those lock into rails in the aircraft body, although how those locks work I have no idea; they might also be subject to directional forces.
-
I assume the load is secured from moving in multiple directions, depending on the items in the load. I could see the case where a strap holding the load from moving forward was improperly attached, or perhaps failed in transit.
That being said, I did hear one statement that the load contained no large items like vehicles being transported. Most of the items were probably in containers, or on palettes. I would assume those lock into rails in the aircraft body, although how those locks work I have no idea; they might also be subject to directional forces.
In a cargo aircraft the palettes do lock into rails on the deck which holds them in place. However that doesn't stop the load on top from moving if not properly strapped down.
-
In a cargo aircraft the palettes do lock into rails on the deck which holds them in place. However that doesn't stop the load on top from moving if not properly strapped down.
Pallets or containers. If containers the locks would have to be not set or failed, if pallets, yes the cargo would have to be secured properly. Lots to learn here, need those recorders, also wonder what is on the ATC tapes.
-
Looking forward to watching CNN's upcoming show as to what may have happened to MH 370. All the searching so far still isn't conclusive as to just what occured.
-
Speaking of airplane crashes, just finished watching the special CNN aired on MH 370 flight. Not sure why they bothered because I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.
-
Now another plane crash, this time Ethiopia Airlines which killed all on board (157) including 18 Canadians. A brand new 737, same model which crashed in Indonesia back in October also killing all (189) on board. What is interesting, after you get by the tragedy is that both crashed shortly after take off and basically nose dived hitting at high speed and leaving a relatively small debris trail of bits and pieces you could hardly identify as airplane parts. Hopefully they can get the black boxes from this recent one since it crashed on land, and see if there is some sort of inherent problem with this type.
-
I don't know anything about the Max but the stabilizer trim on previous B737's has always been electric. There are two cut-out switches on the pedestal which cut off the power to the trim motors and there has always been a procedure for a runaway stabilizer. Cut off the power, then use the manual trim wheels. The Max looks the same and I'm wondering why there might be a problem with it.
-
I don't know anything about the Max but the stabilizer trim on previous B737's has always been electric. There are two cut-out switches on the pedestal which cut off the power to the trim motors and there has always been a procedure for a runaway stabilizer. Cut off the power, then use the manual trim wheels. The Max looks the same and I'm wondering why there might be a problem with it.
And there was the recent Texas crash, of course a different model ,767, and a much older airframe, but it also went in at a horrendously high VS. I'm hoping for some black boxes soon, especially if there is some sort of correlation.
-
One thing I am hearing is that the anti-stall system, new on the 737 Max may have malfunctioned due to erroneous readings from an A of A input which forced the nose down, and the pilots may have not been properly trained as to how to over ride they system. Boeing says all the info on the system is in the AFM but I sometimes wonder about the training level of some of these far flung airlines.
-
One thing I am hearing is that the anti-stall system, new on the 737 Max may have malfunctioned due to erroneous readings from an A of A input which forced the nose down, and the pilots may have not been properly trained as to how to over ride they system. Boeing says all the info on the system is in the AFM but I sometimes wonder about the training level of some of these far flung airlines.
s
Me too, you would think this would be top of the list when it came to training with most carriers after Lion Air and they would all be running simulator scenarios during recurrent training for everyone. Unlike previous models, this version seems to have a stick pusher system.
How about this for pure speculation. For some reason (say angle of attack sensor malfunction) aircraft thinks it's about to stall and starts pushing and trimming nose down. Crew says no way and starts pulling nose up. AP keeps trimming nose down and eventually the stabilizer overrides the ailerons and she pitches nose down and goes in like a dart.
Airbus has had stall prevention systems in their fly by wire aircraft for years but the 737 is not fly by wire. Former versions can be flown in manual reversion with no hydraulic boost at all. It's like driving a dump truck with no power steering but it works. You wonder what the problem is here or if there even is a problem.
-
s
Me too, you would think this would be top of the list when it came to training with most carriers after Lion Air and they would all be running simulator scenarios during recurrent training for everyone. Unlike previous models, this version seems to have a stick pusher system.
How about this for pure speculation. For some reason (say angle of attack sensor malfunction) aircraft thinks it's about to stall and starts pushing and trimming nose down. Crew says no way and starts pulling nose up. AP keeps trimming nose down and eventually the stabilizer overrides the ailerons and she pitches nose down and goes in like a dart.
Airbus has had stall prevention systems in their fly by wire aircraft for years but the 737 is not fly by wire. Former versions can be flown in manual reversion with no hydraulic boost at all. It's like driving a dump truck with no power steering but it works. You wonder what the problem is here or if there even is a problem.
That concurs with my speculation. Of course it's all speculation so far, but the idea that a lack of training as to how to over ride the auto trim if it malfunctions caused by a stuck angle of attack sensor could certainly create a scenario which could end in a nose dive. I am getting the idea that those sim. sessions should be focused a tad more on actually flying a plane hands on as well as how to push all the buttons. Look at the one that hit the seawall going into SFO on a CAVU day simply because the ILS and VASIS were US that day. A few simple calculations along with a few looks out the windscreen should have prevented that.
-
Still, there may be sensor problems. I don't recall ever having a false stick shaker warning.
-
Still, there may be sensor problems. I don't recall ever having a false stick shaker warning.
Perhaps this new auto trim system bypasses the stick shaker because it "thinks" it is handling the approaching stall/misiterpreted nose up attitude.
-
Perhaps this new auto trim system bypasses the stick shaker because it "thinks" it is handling the approaching stall/misiterpreted nose up attitude.
Still it is a matter of turning off the electrical inputs. One of the cutout switches disables the auto pilot trim and the other the manual trim. Based on the old system, a manual trim failure (stuck trim switch etc) would be obvious as the trim would operate rapidly but an autopilot induced failure could be much more subtle.
-
Still it is a matter of turning off the electrical inputs. One of the cutout switches disables the auto pilot trim and the other the manual trim. Based on the old system, a manual trim failure (stuck trim switch etc) would be obvious as the trim would operate rapidly but an autopilot induced failure could be much more subtle.
Well again what I've heard is only speculation but it suggests in both these cases there was not proper training as to how to disable and then over ride the new auto trim system if it malfunctioned. Both of these recent crashes occurred shortly after take off when altitude/attitude changes would be occurring during climb out requiring trim assistance.
-
The **** hell if you ever see me on a plane with "Ethiopia Airlines" painted on the side.
-
Well again what I've heard is only speculation but it suggests in both these cases there was not proper training as to how to disable and then over ride the new auto trim system if it malfunctioned. Both of these recent crashes occurred shortly after take off when altitude/attitude changes would be occurring during climb out requiring trim assistance.
And yet photos I have seen of he Max cockpit show the same cut-out switches and manual trim wheels as the older versions.
-
The **** hell if you ever see me on a plane with "Ethiopia Airlines" painted on the side.
Oh, why not. They have a very good safety rating, or do you just not like fureners? Especially if they are a different color.
-
And yet photos I have seen of he Max cockpit show the same cut-out switches and manual trim wheels as the older versions.
Apparently not.
Boeing didn't tell airline pilots about features of a new flight-control system in its 737 Max that reportedly is a focus of the investigation into last month's deadly crash in Indonesia, according to pilots who fly the jet in the U.S.
Pilots say they were not trained in new features of an anti-stall system in the aircraft that differ from previous models of the popular 737.
The automated system is designed to help pilots avoid raising the plane's nose too high, which can cause the plane to stall, or lose the aerodynamic lift needed to keep flying. The system automatically pushes the nose of the plane down.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2018/11/14/pilots-says-boeing-didnt-disclose-new-control-feature-737-max/2001713002/
-
Interesting. If you have a GPWS warning and ground contact is a factor, it is procedure to climb at stick shaker threshold until you are out of danger. The aircraft would still need the capability to do that. Too much we don't know about this system.
-
Interesting. If you have a GPWS warning and ground contact is a factor, it is procedure to climb at stick shaker threshold until you are out of danger. The aircraft would still need the capability to do that. Too much we don't know about this system.
Yes you would think a GPWS should be able to over ride something like an auto trim, however it could be the vertical velocity and ground proximity were so high and so close there was not time for an effectrive recovery. I wanna see what those blk boxes have to say for sure.
-
I hear they have found both black boxes from the Ethiopian Airlines crash so hopefully they are in good enough shapes to reveal what exactly went wrong. I note that both air Canada and Westjet who operate this aircraft type are continuing to fly them while a number of other airlines are grounding them for the time being.
-
Just heard that the UK, France and Germany have all banned the Max8 from their airspace. That's won't be good for business.
-
Would YOu get aboard a Boeing Max 8?
-
Would YOu get aboard a Boeing Max 8?
Not at the moment, just like I avoided DC-10's in the 70's. Eventually however they will figure out if there is something that needs to be corrected, and do it.
-
Not at the moment, just like I avoided DC-10's in the 70's. Eventually however they will figure out if there is something that needs to be corrected, and do it.
Yeah the 737 airframe has been around for many years and has a great record. Looks like they went a little overboard with the software. Maybe because the airlines could save money if they replaced pilots with computers. If that's the case it backfired big time.
I'll bet there are some serious meetings going on at Boeing HQ just now.
-
Would YOu get aboard a Boeing Max 8?
Based on what I see so far, yes.
-
Based on what I see so far, yes.
Hey, Donald Trump says those planes too complicated. Now he should know right?
-
Hey, Donald Trump says those planes too complicated. Now he should know right?
He has a 757 so he must be an expert.
-
He has a 757 so he must be an expert.
And probably shares in Boeing so sales must proceed regardless. He'll of course stick with AF One.
-
He has a 757 so he must be an expert.
He would have been a very very great Air Force pilot, if it wasn't for those darned bone spurs.
He's an expert on everything! Here he is lecturing a US Navy sailor about the aircraft carrier catapult system: (https://taskandpurpose.com/trump-aircraft-carrier-steam)
"You know the catapult is quite important. So I said, 'What is this?' 'Sir, this is our digital catapult system.' He said, 'Well, we're going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology].' I said, 'You don't use steam anymore for catapult?' 'No sir.' I said, 'Ah, how is it working?' 'Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn't have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going, and steam's going all over the place. There's planes thrown in the air.'
"It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it's very complicated; you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said — and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, 'What system are you going to be —' 'Sir, we're staying with digital.' I said, 'No you're not. You're going to goddamned steam. The digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money, and it's no good.'"
A very smart man, bigly bigly educated about the nuclear and the steam and the digital, and also the cyber, very smart, very very knowledgeable, a very stable genius.
-k
-
I have a 737 for sale-CHEAP! Just bring a towbar with you to get it home.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/garneau-boeing-ethiopia-crash-1.5054234
Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8, bans jet from airspace following fatal crash
Social Sharing
-
He would have been a very very great Air Force pilot, if it wasn't for those darned bone spurs.
He's an expert on everything! Here he is lecturing a US Navy sailor about the aircraft carrier catapult system: (https://taskandpurpose.com/trump-aircraft-carrier-steam)
A very smart man, bigly bigly educated about the nuclear and the steam and the digital, and also the cyber, very smart, very very knowledgeable, a very stable genius.
-k
Well the electromagnetic systems have been problematic and it's not like they don't have a supply of steam as it is used to power the ship. If he knew the Brits first used steam turbines to power ships and also invented the steam catapult, he would probably be against those as well.
-
Well the electromagnetic systems have been problematic and it's not like they don't have a supply of steam as it is used to power the ship. If he knew the Brits first used steam turbines to power ships and also invented the steam catapult, he would probably be against those as well.
If I were an American I would strongly suggest that the taxpayer should open their wallets and provide the current potus with a luxuriously appointed new airplane since that 747 is getting a bit old. You can guess which type I would suggest, and just with one proviso that he does not fly it over Canada.
-
I have a 737 for sale-CHEAP! Just bring a towbar with you to get it home.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/garneau-boeing-ethiopia-crash-1.5054234
Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max 8, bans jet from airspace following fatal crash
Social Sharing
I still think Garneau is bending to public and political pressure. From what I have read the MCAS can be deactivated by simply using the manual electric trim switches or cutting off the power to the actuators. The problem is the crew can end up fighting the system by trying to override it with elevators which is the purpose of the system in the first place. The software fix will probably just limit the MCAS authority over the stabilizer so it can't trim to a position where it cannot be overridden by elevators. Then the crew will be able to stall the aircraft just like every other 737 and the system can just say, I tried but you ignored me.
-
I still think Garneau is bending to public and political pressure. From what I have read the MCAS can be deactivated by simply using the manual electric trim switches or cutting off the power to the actuators. The problem is the crew can end up fighting the system by trying to override it with elevators which is the purpose of the system in the first place. The software fix will probably just limit the MCAS authority over the stabilizer so it can't trim to a position where it cannot be overridden by elevators. Then the crew will be able to stall the aircraft just like every other 737 and the system can just say, I tried but you ignored me.
From what I've heard so far it seems they threw this MCAS system in but didn't provide proper training on how to over ride it if need be. Where there seems to be an inconsistency is when Boeing says there is nothing wrong with this system while they hasten to provide an STC for it.
-
I don't think Canada or the US want to do this. But many other countries are banning their airspaces of these planes. So their hands are kind of forced.
It's really a testament to how safe flying is that two crashes in half a year have led to an absolute panic in the industry.
That being said, if I was on one of these planes, I'd definitely be a little concerned at take-off. Just human nature.
-
Well now this gets interesting, I don't have a site yet but apparently there are some US pilots who have spoken out that they have had similar control problems with the Max 8 that were reported by pilots on both those planes before they crashed, and that Boeing wanted to provide a software update to correct control problems but that process was delayed due to the government shutdown that little **** ant "bonespurs" took the country on.
-
Well now this gets interesting, I don't have a site yet but apparently there are some US pilots who have spoken out that they have had similar control problems with the Max 8 that were reported by pilots on both those planes before they crashed, and that Boeing wanted to provide a software update to correct control problems but that process was delayed due to the government shutdown that little **** ant "bonespurs" took the country on.
But the Wall tho.
-
But the Wall tho.
Aha! perhaps the Max8 is a government ploy to make sure you can't fly over the wall once it's built. Donald thinks of everything.
-
From what I've heard so far it seems they threw this MCAS system in but didn't provide proper training on how to over ride it if need be. Where there seems to be an inconsistency is when Boeing says there is nothing wrong with this system while they hasten to provide an STC for it.
They will have to now just to placate the public and politicians. Mob rule has carried the day. We have seen other aircraft where the fix to a problem has been to people proof the machine because there was nothing inherently wrong with the machine in the first place. The MCAS system was installed to people proof the MAX by preventing stalls but it seems to have worked the other way with some crews because they weren't able to recognize the real problem. There is word going around that a software patch had been issued but was awaiting FAA approval during the government shutdown. I would take that with a grain of salt but I guess it might be possible.
I think the basic problem is training or the lack of it on this system. Remember the Air France crew that flew the wood chopper A320 full of passengers during an airshow because they didn't understand how it going into land mode affected engine response on this new fly by wire aircraft. The number of 727's that landed short of the runway because former piston engine pilots weren't used to the sink rate of this aircraft on approach and the spool up time jet engines require before they start making real power. Nothing wrong with either aircraft design, just the understanding of the crews that operated early versions.
-
They will have to now just to placate the public and politicians. Mob rule has carried the day. We have seen other aircraft where the fix to a problem has been to people proof the machine because there was nothing inherently wrong with the machine in the first place. The MCAS system was installed to people proof the MAX by preventing stalls but it seems to have worked the other way with some crews because they weren't able to recognize the real problem. There is word going around that a software patch had been issued but was awaiting FAA approval during the government shutdown. I would take that with a grain of salt but I guess it might be possible.
I think the basic problem is training or the lack of it on this system. Remember the Air France crew that flew the wood chopper A320 full of passengers during an airshow because they didn't understand how it going into land mode affected engine response on this new fly by wire aircraft. The number of 727's that landed short of the runway because former piston engine pilots weren't used to the sink rate of this aircraft on approach and the spool up time jet engines require before they start making real power. Nothing wrong with either aircraft design, just the understanding of the crews that operated early versions.
You would think in this day and age and the accuracy of flight sims. available/operated by FSI etal, a pilot should enter a cockpit fully versed on all systems in the plane they are about to fly.
-
Well there we go, Trump just announces the Max8 is grounded in the US now.
-
You would think in this day and age and the accuracy of flight sims. available/operated by FSI etal, a pilot should enter a cockpit fully versed on all systems in the plane they are about to fly.
The MCAS certainly seems to have been overlooked. The MCAS is intended to make the MAX fly like previous 737's but something was missed. Are there any dedicated MAX simulators or are operators just using previous generation simulators running MAX software? The same simulators are often used for different types that have the same cockpit layouts just by changing the program. 767/757, DC10/DC10-30. B747-100-200-300, different fly by wire Airbuses that have the same cockpit layouts etc.
-
The MCAS certainly seems to have been overlooked. The MCAS is intended to make the MAX fly like previous 737's but something was missed. Are there any dedicated MAX simulators or are operators just using previous generation simulators running MAX software? The same simulators are often used for different types that have the same cockpit layouts just by changing the program. 767/757, DC10/DC10-30. B747-100-200-300, different fly by wire Airbuses that have the same cockpit layouts etc.
I await with bated breath as to what comes from the black boxes from the ET flight. Especially the CVR to see if there was confusion as to control inputs by the pilots vs aircraft reactions. I'm willing to bet it comes down to a lack of training.
-
The French have apparently successfully downloaded the data from the black boxes from the ET crash and the FDR apparently shows that both that 737 Max 8 and the Lion Air one experienced very similar malfunctions. Boeing is gonna take a **** kicking on this I suspect.
-
Good analysis:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-17/best-analysis-what-really-happened-boeing-737-max-pilot-software-engineer
-
Good analysis:
Zerohedge? Seriously?
-
Zerohedge? Seriously?
Yeah it tries to ignore the software problem which is exactly what Boeing is focusing on. Moving the engines fwd did affect the center of thrust and the software was supposed to compensate for that. Problems with the A of A could have also contributed.
-
center of thrust
It has been fun listening to many of those in the media, including of all places I would have expected more from (Nova), what the real issues are. Most are focused on "center of gravity", which yes did change in an empty plane, but as you point out the thrust vector is the real challenge that the MCAS software is trying to address.
-
It has been fun listening to many of those in the media, including of all places I would have expected more from (Nova), what the real issues are. Most are focused on "center of gravity", which yes did change in an empty plane, but as you point out the thrust vector is the real challenge that the MCAS software is trying to address.
Of course C of G is an important issue but it's not all that complicated and is calculated for every flight before it takes off. The major weight change that could affect C of G of an airliner, especially on a long flight is the fuel burn, and that is why the fuel tanks are in the wings which are very near the C of G of the basic empty airplane. It's the C of T that made that plane pitch nose up more than usual, hence the MCAS to offset that.
I did hear a brief report a while back about 5 US flight crews who reported having had similar control problems with the plane but it didn't elaborate on how they got beyond it. For instance was the problem not that big a deal they couldn't overcome it, did it simply disappear, or did you deactivate the system? The latter is something I would certainly want to be familiar with if I was sitting up front of a Max 8.
-
For instance was the problem not that big a deal they couldn't overcome it, did it simply disappear, or did you deactivate the system?
If you actually read the twitter feed on Zero Hedge instead of sneering at it you would have found out that warning indicator lights in the cockpit were optional features which the airlines in question did not pay for. You can blame Boeing for giving customers the choice to forego this feature.
-
If you actually read the twitter feed on Zero Hedge instead of sneering at it you would have found out that warning indicator lights in the cockpit were optional features which the airlines in question did not pay for. You can blame Boeing for giving customers the choice to forego this feature.
Boeing failed to provide proper upgrade training on what turned out to be a software system with flaws. Their CEO has committed to updating the training as well as the software. Have you happenned to notice that all airlines have grounded this aircraft?
And I don't "sneer" at over 300 people being killed.
-
It has been fun listening to many of those in the media, including of all places I would have expected more from (Nova), what the real issues are. Most are focused on "center of gravity", which yes did change in an empty plane, but as you point out the thrust vector is the real challenge that the MCAS software is trying to address.
Ya, you keep hearing C of G being mentioned yet the changes moved it forward. Moving the C or G forward will actually make an aircraft more aerodynamically stable. Nose heavy aircraft are more stable than tail heavy aircraft. The issue is the thrust vector in relation to the aircraft's pitch axis. All aircraft with under wing mounted engines will tend to pitch up at high power settings, some more than others. There does seem to be a problem with the programming of the MCAS and a big hole in the training but I doubt there is a serious problem with the aircraft design. I've been retired for 13 years but are many of today's pilots so reliant on the magic that they don't recognize basic problems? When I flew old generation 737's and other aircraft, a un commanded or runaway stabilizer trim was a recall checklist, not read and do and the first item on the 737 was the trim cut-out switches. Rule #1, fly the **** airplane.
-
Rule #1, fly the **** airplane.
That's a good rule!
-k
-
Ya, you keep hearing C of G being mentioned yet the changes moved it forward. Moving the C or G forward will actually make an aircraft more aerodynamically stable. Nose heavy aircraft are more stable than tail heavy aircraft. The issue is the thrust vector in relation to the aircraft's pitch axis. All aircraft with under wing mounted engines will tend to pitch up at high power settings, some more than others. There does seem to be a problem with the programming of the MCAS and a big hole in the training but I doubt there is a serious problem with the aircraft design. I've been retired for 13 years but are many of today's pilots so reliant on the magic that they don't recognize basic problems? When I flew old generation 737's and other aircraft, a un commanded or runaway stabilizer trim was a recall checklist, not read and do and the first item on the 737 was the trim cut-out switches. Rule #1, fly the **** airplane.
We all know the old adage "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". Sounds like possibly some built in problems to complete #1
-
We all know the old adage "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". Sounds like possibly some built in problems to complete #1
I'm not trying to minimize Boeing's mistakes but I doubt very much they built an inherently bad airplane. Line pilots shouldn't have to be test pilots but if a stabilizer is trimming in the opposite direction you need it to go, it doesn't matter whether it is a faulty sensor giving the MCAS bogus information or simply a stuck trim switch, the issue isn't that complicated.
-
I'm not trying to minimize Boeing's mistakes but I doubt very much they built an inherently bad airplane. Line pilots shouldn't have to be test pilots but if a stabilizer is trimming in the opposite direction you need it to go, it doesn't matter whether it is a faulty sensor giving the MCAS bogus information or simply a stuck trim switch, the issue isn't that complicated.
Again we wait to see what is revealed from the boxes. Boeing has a serious PR problem to deal with, that's for sure.
-
Sounds like there could be criminal charges brought against Boeing regarding the 737 Max 8 certification. Glad I sold my shares some time back.
-
Sounds like there could be criminal charges brought against Boeing regarding the 737 Max 8 certification. Glad I sold my shares some time back.
I wonder if they will get a DPA
-
I wonder if they will get a DPA
Well 150,000 jobs is a few more than 9000, so maybe they will. Not to mention Trump flies around in a Boeing so he will want to keep knowledgeable people around to "kick the tires and light the fires"
-
This is a bit off topic and happily doesn't involve a crash, but it's noteworthy none the less. Just hearing about a British Airways flight which took off from London bound for Dusseldorf that actually landed in Scotland, or about 750 miles off the intended destination. Apparently a paperwork error caused the pilots to use the wrong flight plan. Maybe the next time I climb aboard as a passenger I will take my portable GPS with me to help make sure we get were we're supposed to.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/a-british-airways-flight-destined-for-germany-ended-up-in-scotland-by-mistake/wcm/a42af290-52be-4d99-bd54-aaf47c1377dd
-
This is a bit off topic and happily doesn't involve a crash, but it's noteworthy none the less. Just hearing about a British Airways flight which took off from London bound for Dusseldorf that actually landed in Scotland, or about 750 miles off the intended destination. Apparently a paperwork error caused the pilots to use the wrong flight plan. Maybe the next time I climb aboard as a passenger I will take my portable GPS with me to help make sure we get were we're supposed to.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/a-british-airways-flight-destined-for-germany-ended-up-in-scotland-by-mistake/wcm/a42af290-52be-4d99-bd54-aaf47c1377dd
Really odd, the same flight plan would have been filed with ATC by the dispatchers. Crews don't file their own plans for scheduled flights.
-
Really odd, the same flight plan would have been filed with ATC by the dispatchers. Crews don't file their own plans for scheduled flights.
Yep. The crew simply carried out the plan they were handed. Not dangerous but a tad embarrassing.
-
I thought a flight attendant asking for a show of hands from those who thought they were going to Dusseldorf was a cute touch.
-
I thought a flight attendant asking for a show of hands from those who thought they were going to Dusseldorf was a cute touch.
Always good to maintain a sense of humor.
-
This is a bit off topic ...
Need an 'Flying Culture' thread
-
Yep. The crew simply carried out the plan they were handed.
That is why the captain should always announce the destination at takeoff instead of just announcing where they landed. Perhaps an attentive passenger would have noticed and brought it to the attention of the flight crew.
-
That is why the captain should always announce the destination at takeoff instead of just announcing where they landed. Perhaps an attentive passenger would have noticed and brought it to the attention of the flight crew.
Better idea for flight attendants to announce it before pushing back. After that it gets more difficult..
-
That is why the captain should always announce the destination at takeoff instead of just announcing where they landed. Perhaps an attentive passenger would have noticed and brought it to the attention of the flight crew.
Apparently some of the pax. were convinced something wasn't right when they noticed they hadn't flown over any water. I imagine it would seem absurd though for a passenger to suggest to a flight attendant, "hey where the hell are we going"?
-
Hearing today the CEO of Boeing has admitted that their MCAS system combined with a faulty angle of attack sensor was responsible for both crashes of the 737. Can you imagine the dollars that will have to be paid from the wrongful death suits!
-
It'll be pricey but I've always liked their aircraft.
-
It'll be pricey but I've always liked their aircraft.
This aircraft will be made safe, just like the others. The issue is however they rushed it to market to compete with Airbus 320 neos.
-
It'll be pricey but I've always liked their aircraft.
Haven't we all, but it will be interesting to see how they will be able to convince pax to climb aboard another 737 Max after all this. And of course who knows what the lawsuits will add up to. Probably more zeros than my little calculator can handle.
-
This aircraft will be made safe, just like the others. The issue is however they rushed it to market to compete with Airbus 320 neos.
Well another major issue is that the first crash revealed a problem that probably should have led to grounding the fleet until the problem could be fixed, but nope, that didn't happen until another crash occurred.
-
It appears that the problem of a computer taking over trying to prevent a stall is not just a Boeing problem. On October 7, 2008, an Airbus A330 had a very similar issue during Quantas flight QF72. Due to faulty sensor input, the computer thought the plane was about to stall and forced the nose down. Fortunately in that case the pilot was able to recover - twice, and land the plane. While it didn't result in a crash, or in deaths, many serious injuries occurred and the plane was severely damaged to the violent changes in pitch from the computer.
-
It appears that the problem of a computer taking over trying to prevent a stall is not just a Boeing problem. On October 7, 2008, an Airbus A330 had a very similar issue during Quantas flight QF72. Due to faulty sensor input, the computer thought the plane was about to stall and forced the nose down. Fortunately in that case the pilot was able to recover - twice, and bring land the plane. While it didn't result in a crash, or in deaths, many serious injuries occurred and the plane was severely damaged to the violent changes in pitch from the computer.
I hadn't heard of that one but I would speculate another faulty angle of attack input to the software. Maybe it's time to back up a little and let pilots fly the damn planes a little more.
-
I agree with Garneau on this one.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/737-max-training-flight-simulator-garneau-1.5102010
-
I can imagine Boeing is not real happy to have their name in the headlines again with another 737 accident, this time running off the runway and into the St. John river on landing in JAX Florida. This was not a Max 8 (since they are all grounded) and I suspect a combination of bad weather and perhaps pilot error. Thankfully all pax. are OK other than maybe some minor injuries.
-
Boeing says it has fixed the software problem on the 737 Max 8. Would you get on one now?
Boeing said Thursday it has finished the development of a software fix to its troubled 737 Max.
The plane maker said in a statement it has flown the aircraft with the updated software on 207 flights for more than 360 hours.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/737-max-boeing-software-fix/index.html
-
Boeing says it has fixed the software problem on the 737 Max 8. Would you get on one now?
Not the first aircraft with a problem that has been [hopefully] corrected. Public confidence has been badly shaken, so it will take a long time to rebuild it. I would like to see better information on what the software fix was. I would say I have far less confidence in the FAA in reviewing it than in Boeing creating the fix.
-
Not the first aircraft with a problem that has been [hopefully] corrected. Public confidence has been badly shaken, so it will take a long time to rebuild it. I would like to see better information on what the software fix was. I would say I have far less confidence in the FAA in reviewing it than in Boeing creating the fix.
I think Boeing's big PR hurdle to get past is that they stuck this MCAS system in the Max 8 and then didn't spend the resources to educate the crews on the system worked even though there are stories from pilots who claimed to have had similar control problems with it even before the two fatal crashes. That suggests an intentional cover up along with the technical problems. A bad combination.