It landed and ran through the runway. Nothing like the other two.
Yep. Looks like a wet runway overrun.
Let’s blame Boeing!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 04, 2019, 11:46:36 AM
An example we use regarding landing performance in a popular corporate jet:
10,000 foot runway with a computed landing roll of 4,000 feet.
The additions due to not being on speed and in the slot and just letting it land:
Extra 5 knots over the threshold adds 250 feet.
Extra 10 feet over the threshold adds 200 feet.
Extended flare going for the "grease job" adds 1250 feet.
Extra two seconds delay in braking adds 920 feet.
So just those few changes add 2,620 to the landing roll. Gets worse if you are faster/higher over the threshold.
Add in missing the touchdown zone and pretty soon you are getting skosh on runway remaining.
I'm guessing we will eventually find out this one was a long landing with some or all of the above factors. A tailwind factor would make it worse as well.
Which just goes to prove this was all Boeing's fault.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 04, 2019, 11:54:46 AM
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 04, 2019, 12:40:54 PM
Can someone give me the cliff notes version of where the whole Ethiopia crash investigation is at? I haven't kept up, and I don't want to sift through all the mainstream media BS, from people who don't know a airbus from a aeronca.
I understand there is an issue with the AOA/MCAS, which led to uncommanded stabilizer trim movement/stall recovery action. But I still don't understand why the pilots were unable to just flip the trim motor cutout switches and trim it manually. :headscratch: Has that part of the accident chain been explained yet?
I mean, for as long as there has been motorized pitch trim on aircraft, the SOP has been. "If it runs away, turn it OFF." In a 737 you don't even have to turn it off, just grabbing the trim wheel will do.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Devil 505 on May 04, 2019, 01:03:26 PM
How does touching down 10 feet beyond threshold equate in stopping 200 feet further than if touchdown occurred at the threshold?
First of all, (on a runway with an instrument approach) the "bullseye" in the TDZ (Touchdown Zone) is the big white 1000' markers. If you google up images of touchdown zone markings you'll see these usually marked as the aiming point. Practical Test Standards allow touchdown 250 short of or 500 feet past the big solid white markers.
So it's not _beyond_ the threshold, it's above the threshold or TCH (Threshold Crossing Height). I should have been more clear; sorry.
Standard for that aircraft and many others is to be 50' high crossing the threshold.
So if your TCH is 60' instead of the prescribed 50' that extra ten feet high will add 200 feet to your rollout.
Similarly, in that aircraft you fly the approach at Vref + 5kts and then reduce power so as to cross the threshold at Vref. If you are still doing Vref + 5, then you are adding 250 feet to your rollout.
The FAA is adding emphasis to all of this due to runway excursions on landing roll.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Devil 505 on May 04, 2019, 03:09:46 PM
Thanks. That makes more sense.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 04, 2019, 04:14:43 PM
Like I said, I understand the issue with the AOA/MCAS. It's an issue and Boeing and FAA are dealing with it.
What I don't understand is why the crew could not, or did not, turn off the motor and trim manually. A runaway, or uncommanded pitch trim input should not, in and of itself crash an aircraft. It is a simple task, a FROM MEMORY item (no checklist needed) uncommanded/runaway pitch trim = flip cutoff switches and trim the plane by hand. (then get out the checklist)
The faulty AOA reading and MCAS inputs are only one link in the accident chain, and for the life of my I can't fathom the other links.
They did, but only moved the manual trim about 20% of what was needed. They then turned the electric trim system back on. #LawnDart
Also, they never reduced thrust. The aerodynamic load on the stab at 320+ KIAS was significant, complicating any effort to manually trim.
A faulty AOA indication is easily verified as such with the use of basic airmanship.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 04, 2019, 05:31:52 PM
Boggles my mind that 2 ATP rated pilots could screw up what seems so simple.
I guess it's easy for us to see without the pressure and stress they must have been under in the moment. But still shocking to me.
Technically they were Ethiopian. I wouldn't equate their requirements for a Commercial Certificate to the US ATP. I've seen some incompetent pilots in my career, and the US is by no means exempt, but overall I rate them (American pilots) highly. My experience with third world pilots is the exact opposite. It's an unfortunate mix of culture (fear of authority, graft, nepotism, etc.) and poor training.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DaveBB on May 04, 2019, 05:55:37 PM
Boggles my mind that 2 ATP rated pilots could screw up what seems so simple.
I guess it's easy for us to see without the pressure and stress they must have been under in the moment. But still shocking to me.
The sad thing is Saggs, 2 ATP qualified pilots would have found the issue to be relatively simple. Put the airplane manually into a safe attitude (with stab trim disengaged) and set a much lower thrust value (lower than the 94% N1 they kept) to establish speed in the 225 to 250 KIAS range.
These pilots by North American standards were grossly inexperienced - especially the First Officer. The pressure and stress that you mentioned was largely self imposed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 04, 2019, 07:56:13 PM
Actually...no. Training and experience saved the first Lion Air. The next day...lack of training and experience killed them. When I say training and experience, I'm specifically talking about the Runaway Stab Trim procedure which has been essentially the same in B-707, B-727,B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767. In short, any pilot with previous Boeing experience has probably seen in the simulator many times and had it in his QRH forever.
Quote
I have no dog in the fight. I can be purely objective.
Feel free to be objective all you like. Nonetheless, it wasn't the MCAS that crashed those two aircraft. In both instances, it was a very basic AOA failure/problem. Any transport rated pilot should be able to recognize and overcome an AOA problem. As Vraicu and Busher pointed out upthread, all that's required to solve an erroneous AOA problem is basic airmanship and situational awareness. AOA problems are something that every ATP rated pilot should have dealt with in the sim or even in real life.
However, sometimes the crews fail. See AF 447, another AOA problem.
If you are doing 340+ knots in a reasonable climb, you aren't stalling. Fly the jet.
340kts, a 1500 fpm+ rate of climb and 94% power isn't an MCAS problem. It's a situational awareness problem.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 04, 2019, 08:01:06 PM
We already know what it is going to say. Pilot error due to not following procedure to correct MCAS system. In all reality, the flight control software killed them. If they knew what to do, they would have done it. Boeing has an $800,000 software 'unlock' that would have told them if the AOA sensors were disagreeing. Anyhow, the flight control software killed them.
Vraciu, don't you dare chime in. I'm getting pretty sick of you. Idiot.
Hoping you are not in a cockpit in any country.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 04, 2019, 08:05:24 PM
Actually...no. Training and experience saved the first Lion Air. The next day...lack of training and experience killed them. When I say training and experience, I'm specifically talking about the Runaway Stab Trim procedure which has been essentially the same in B-707, B-727,B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767. In short, any pilot with previous Boeing experience has probably seen in the simulator many times and had it in his QRH forever.
Feel free to be objective all you like. Nonetheless, it wasn't the MCAS that crashed those two aircraft. In both instances, it was a very basic AOA failure/problem. Any transport rated pilot should be able to recognize and overcome an AOA problem. As Vraicu and Busher pointed out upthread, all that's required to solve an erroneous AOA problem is basic airmanship and situational awareness. AOA problems are something that every ATP rated pilot should have dealt with in the sim or even in real life.
However, sometimes the crews fail. See AF 447, another AOA problem.
If you are doing 340+ knots in a reasonable climb, you aren't stalling. Fly the jet.
340kts, a 1500 fpm+ rate of climb and 94% power isn't an MCAS problem. It's a situational awareness problem.
Heino Caesar (Lufthansa) predicted that Air Chance crash back in 1996 based purely on design philosophy. Boy was he right.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 04, 2019, 09:38:19 PM
Don’t reckon it helped any. Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Aviation accidents are rarely traced to a single causal factor, and most of them have some kind of contributing human factors (I can't think of any accidents off the top of my head that don't have causal human factors, be they aircrew, MX, ATC or management)
That is why in investigations they call it the accident chain, several factors linked which together lead to an accident/incident, and if any link in that chain is broken then the accident/incident is averted.
It is obvious in this case that the failure in the MCAS system was one of those links, but it is also painfully obvious that there are human factor links as well. (training, culture, philosophy, etc)
I'm not a commercial pilot, I am an A&P mechanic. So looking at it from my perspective I can say there is never, nor never will be a perfect airplane. Big airliners are so complex, with so many interconnected systems that something is always breaking/broken or inop. Engineers knew this and so designed aircraft with many levels of redundancy, but at some point something will fail that necessitates remedial action by the flight crew. Which is why crew training, as well as well written abnormal and emergency checklists are so important.
So, yeah. The failures of the aircraft systems didn't help, but it also seems like it should have been a problem easily overcome by a properly trained and competent crew.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 04, 2019, 10:47:44 PM
Heino Caesar (Lufthansa) predicted that Air Chance crash back in 1996 based purely on design philosophy. Boy was he right.
I remember watching the NTSB animation of AF 447 which shows the throttle and stick inputs. Watching the FOs stick inputs was infuriating, you can tell the exact moment when captain realized what was going on and tried to recover... but the FO screwed them.
I've seen a clip with Sullenberger talking about the airbus design philosophy (non linked side sticks) as a contributing factor in that too.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FESS67 on May 05, 2019, 02:46:57 AM
We already know what it is going to say. Pilot error due to not following procedure to correct MCAS system. In all reality, the flight control software killed them. If they knew what to do, they would have done it. Boeing has an $800,000 software 'unlock' that would have told them if the AOA sensors were disagreeing. Anyhow, the flight control software killed them.
Vraciu, don't you dare chime in. I'm getting pretty sick of you. Idiot.
Hey DaveBB. You seem like a smart guy, let me ask you a simple question.
There is a guy, let's call him John, driving on the highway and he is using cruise control. It is keeping him right on the limit and he does not fear the cops or speed cameras, life is sweet. Ahead, there are some roadworks and John sees these roadworks but does not turn the cruise control off. John crashes and dies.
Question: Did the cruise control kill John?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 05, 2019, 06:39:40 AM
So, yeah. The failures of the aircraft systems didn't help, but it also seems like it should have been a problem easily overcome by a properly trained and competent crew.
This.
EXACTLY This.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 05, 2019, 08:39:09 AM
I remember watching the NTSB animation of AF 447 which shows the throttle and stick inputs. Watching the FOs stick inputs was infuriating, you can tell the exact moment when captain realized what was going on and tried to recover... but the FO screwed them.
I've seen a clip with Sullenberger talking about the airbus design philosophy (non linked side sticks) as a contributing factor in that too.
Agreed.
Excellent comments, btw. I have enjoyed reading your calm, rational, and professional insight. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 05, 2019, 08:55:52 AM
The sad thing is Saggs, 2 ATP qualified pilots would have found the issue to be relatively simple. Put the airplane manually into a safe attitude (with stab trim disengaged) and set a much lower thrust value (lower than the 94% N1 they kept) to establish speed in the 225 to 250 KIAS range.
These pilots by North American standards were grossly inexperienced - especially the First Officer. The pressure and stress that you mentioned was largely self imposed.
Yep. I was speaking earlier about the US ATP so I did not mention my Canadian friends. They, too, are very good pilots overall.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 05, 2019, 02:48:08 PM
Hey DaveBB. You seem like a smart guy, let me ask you a simple question.
There is a guy, let's call him John, driving on the highway and he is using cruise control. It is keeping him right on the limit and he does not fear the cops or speed cameras, life is sweet. Ahead, there are some roadworks and John sees these roadworks but does not turn the cruise control off. John crashes and dies.
Question: Did the cruise control kill John?
🦗 *crickets* 🦗
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 05, 2019, 06:53:17 PM
Hey DaveBB. You seem like a smart guy, let me ask you a simple question.
There is a guy, let's call him John, driving on the highway and he is using cruise control. It is keeping him right on the limit and he does not fear the cops or speed cameras, life is sweet. Ahead, there are some roadworks and John sees these roadworks but does not turn the cruise control off. John crashes and dies.
Question: Did the cruise control kill John?
it does if John doesn't know the cruise control is on because the car manufacturer decided to charge 800 bucks extra to only tap the brake once to disconnect.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 05, 2019, 07:15:23 PM
it does if John doesn't know the cruise control is on because the car manufacturer decided to charge 800 bucks extra to only tap the brake once to disconnect.
semp
I think you lost the analogy here. If you are equating cruise control to the aircraft's automatic pitch trimming (whether by autopilot or emergency stall recovery program) The pilots know it's on because the big wheels on either side of the pedestal are turning without anyone touching them, also movement of the h-stab position indicator, and possibly an audible indication in the pilots headset whenever it is moving, I don't know if 737s have that or not.
If you are equating cruise control to the aircraft not having the optional AOA disagree warning; all I can say is that is an uncommon feature, and by virtue of the fact that there are tens of thousands of airliners operating millions of hours every month safely without that feature, it is not necessary for safe operation.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 05, 2019, 07:25:51 PM
it does if John doesn't know the cruise control is on because the car manufacturer decided to charge 800 bucks extra to only tap the brake once to disconnect.
semp
The powers that be have done an amazing job of convincing the believers of the world that these poor expert pilots were ambushed by the evil gremlin known only as MCAS. My God, they didn't have a prayer and in a better world, that evil murderous empire know as Boeing would be burned to the ground.
Newsflash gentlemen; there are dozens of integrated systems in a commercial jet just waiting to kill you if they don't work as the computer geeks designed them to work.
Pardon the sarcasm but this crap is really getting old. If the engines still run and the wings are still attached, just fly the G*d**mn jet
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 05, 2019, 07:50:42 PM
you guys can sit here and debate all you want. fact is Manu already admitted there's a problem with software, they're fixing it. fact is none of you experts were there. one crew correctly identified the problem not because he knew but because he looked thru the manual and he wasn't distracted in flying the airplane. that info should have been passed but they didn't.
anyway what do I know about flying airplanes other than ah.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Meatwad on May 05, 2019, 07:54:16 PM
Hey DaveBB. You seem like a smart guy, let me ask you a simple question.
There is a guy, let's call him John, driving on the highway and he is using cruise control. It is keeping him right on the limit and he does not fear the cops or speed cameras, life is sweet. Ahead, there are some roadworks and John sees these roadworks but does not turn the cruise control off. John crashes and dies.
Question: Did the cruise control kill John?
No, John killed himself due to refusing to decelerate to the upcoming hazards even after knowing in advance they were there. John probably shouldnt of had his drivers license or should of took a refresher on driving
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 05, 2019, 08:04:39 PM
you guys can sit here and debate all you want. fact is Manu already admitted there's a problem with software, they're fixing it. fact is none of you experts were there. one crew correctly identified the problem not because he knew but because he looked thru the manual and he wasn't distracted in flying the airplane. that info should have been passed but they didn't.
anyway what do I know about flying airplanes other than ah.
semp
The crew screwed up. They reengaged a runaway trim system after disabling it. MCAS or no MCAS, YOU DO NOT DO THAT.
I’ve been giving crews runaway stab trim in the simulator and not one has failed to follow the proper procedure.
The rest of your commentary was adequately dealt with by others. No need for me to add to it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 05, 2019, 08:06:15 PM
I think you lost the analogy here. If you are equating cruise control to the aircraft's automatic pitch trimming (whether by autopilot or emergency stall recovery program) The pilots know it's on because the big wheels on either side of the pedestal are turning without anyone touching them, also movement of the h-stab position indicator, and possibly an audible indication in the pilots headset whenever it is moving, I don't know if 737s have that or not.
If you are equating cruise control to the aircraft not having the optional AOA disagree warning; all I can say is that is an uncommon feature, and by virtue of the fact that there are tens of thousands of airliners operating millions of hours every month safely without that feature, it is not necessary for safe operation.
Bingo. MCAS or no MCAS the procedure is the same as it has been since the 1960s. There is no excuse for turning on a runaway trim system after disabling it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 05, 2019, 08:29:30 PM
you guys can sit here and debate all you want. fact is Manu already admitted there's a problem with software, they're fixing it. fact is none of you experts were there. one crew correctly identified the problem not because he knew but because he looked thru the manual and he wasn't distracted in flying the airplane. that info should have been passed but they didn't.
anyway what do I know about flying airplanes other than ah.
semp
No Semp, I am sorry but the fact is, the Lion Air Crash was caused by a non-airworthy jet being dispatched. In Canada and the United States, when an airplane has a snag entered in the logbook, that airplane is grounded until the snag is rectified (or deferred under the MEL) by a qualified and endorsed mechanic. Dispatching this airplane was borderline criminal under our laws. Assuming the accident pilot knew of the snag and in our world he would have to; his acceptance of the airplane is beyond belief.
Oh and to your belief that the jumpseat pilot was studying the manual to provide the necessary guidance to the pilots; I sure as hell hope not. You only add support to those who believe the accident pilots were totally incompetent. Stab trim runaway is a basic and simple memory action dealt with easily in 99% of the checkrides carried out everyday in North America.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 05, 2019, 08:35:51 PM
The Lion Air and Ethiopian MAX crashes were initially simply box stock AOA malfunctions that the crews failed to handle correctly.
There are many things involved here that may not be obvious to people in other industries.
For example, MCAS does not work with the flaps extended. So you retract the flaps and the aircraft pitches down and (for whatever reason) you don't understand that pitch down. What to do? Simple...the problem occurred when the flaps were retracted so just immediately "undo" what you did. Put the flaps back out. This kind of stuff is basic airmanship and should be intuitive. If the Ethiopian crew had just done THAT...no MCAS problem. They did a lot of other things wrong, starting with failing to react correctly to an AOA problem but that's just one example.
However, I realize all you folks in other industries that have never spent any time working in a transport category aircraft cockpit probably have a better understanding of what goes into being a trained and experienced ATP rated airman than people that have actually been ATP rated airmen for tens of thousands of hours and have actually trained other ATP rated airmen.
Busher: I'm with ya buddy! :bhead
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 05, 2019, 09:09:09 PM
The Lion Air and Ethiopian MAX crashes were initially simply box stock AOA malfunctions that the crews failed to handle correctly.
There are many things involved here that may not be obvious to people in other industries.
For example, MCAS does not work with the flaps extended. So you retract the flaps and the aircraft pitches down and (for whatever reason) you don't understand that pitch down. What to do? Simple...the problem occurred when the flaps were retracted so just immediately "undo" what you did. Put the flaps back out. This kind of stuff is basic airmanship and should be intuitive. If the Ethiopian crew had just done THAT...no MCAS problem. They did a lot of other things wrong, starting with failing to react correctly to an AOA problem but that's just one example.
However, I realize all you folks in other industries that have never spent any time working in a transport category aircraft cockpit probably have a better understanding of what goes into being a trained and experienced ATP rated airman than people that have actually been ATP rated airmen for tens of thousands of hours and have actually trained other ATP rated airmen.
Busher: I'm with ya buddy! :bhead
I stand with Busher as well as you, Toad.
One of my co-pilots when I flew for a Fortune 10 company was a retired F-16 Fighter Weapons Instructor. His favorite thing to teach his students was:
What do you do when you turn off your landing light and the engine quits?
Turn it back on because that’s what killed your engine.
The same goes for any system. If you move a switch or a selector leave your hand there until you get the expected result. If you don’t get said result move the switch or selector back to its previous position. Simple.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 05, 2019, 09:17:50 PM
The Lion Air and Ethiopian MAX crashes were initially simply box stock AOA malfunctions that the crews failed to handle correctly.
There are many things involved here that may not be obvious to people in other industries.
For example, MCAS does not work with the flaps extended. So you retract the flaps and the aircraft pitches down and (for whatever reason) you don't understand that pitch down. What to do? Simple...the problem occurred when the flaps were retracted so just immediately "undo" what you did. Put the flaps back out. This kind of stuff is basic airmanship and should be intuitive. If the Ethiopian crew had just done THAT...no MCAS problem. They did a lot of other things wrong, starting with failing to react correctly to an AOA problem but that's just one example.
However, I realize all you folks in other industries that have never spent any time working in a transport category aircraft cockpit probably have a better understanding of what goes into being a trained and experienced ATP rated airman than people that have actually been ATP rated airmen for tens of thousands of hours and have actually trained other ATP rated airmen.
Busher: I'm with ya buddy! :bhead
Thanks Toad. I think all our brothers in the air are probably saddened by what's going on in the profession we cherished. I worry that poorly maintained airplanes flown by crews that are thrust into the cockpit before they are ready, will lead to more totally senseless accidents.
Keep the faith Brother. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 05, 2019, 10:40:39 PM
you guys can sit here and debate all you want. fact is Manu already admitted there's a problem with software, they're fixing it. fact is none of you experts were there. one crew correctly identified the problem not because he knew but because he looked thru the manual and he wasn't distracted in flying the airplane. that info should have been passed but they didn't.
anyway what do I know about flying airplanes other than ah.
semp
They crashed because there were no experts in the cockpit.
You just posted something not in evidence. I have not seen anything about the jump seat pilot looking through a manual. If he was looking for something that is supposed to be known and not on a checklist, that is more proof of sub par training.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 06, 2019, 01:48:54 AM
They crashed because there were no experts in the cockpit.
You just posted something not in evidence. I have not seen anything about the jump seat pilot looking through a manual. If he was looking for something that is supposed to be known and not on a checklist, that is more proof of sub par training.
maybe i misread, but the pilot in the jump sit wasnt worrying about flying the airplane. that was a plus, he just concentrating on finding out what was wrong. you could say the copilot should have done that, in the airplane that crashed, whatever.
I remember watching a documentary on airplane crashes, i dont really remember which airline but it was somewhre in south america similar to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroPeru_Flight_603
pilots received incorrect stall and overspeed warnings and many others, the pilots were confused as to which instrument was giving a correct reading. turned out the altitude was the only one giving correct readings but they disregarded because they couldnt trust any instrument. airplane crashed.
in the documentary they asked this pilot that was analyzing the crash. he flat out said he wasnt gonna blame the pilots, they did what they could based on the info they had. he said based on the info i have now, i would have put the airplane in cruise control and wait for another airplane that was near by coming to help them sort the problem. but i was not in the airplane. cant really tell you for sure if i had done anything different had i been inside the cockpit.
some of you guys have typed responses that took you longer to think than the air lion or the the Ethiopian crash were up in the air. you have hindsight, they didnt. you have read news reports, and preliminary data , they didnt.
you could say I would have, should have, whatever, you were not there.
that's all i see, people blaming somebody when it was not a single thing that made the airplanes crash, it was several things.
anyway what do i know about airplanes.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: MiloMorai on May 06, 2019, 04:48:42 AM
Boeing has admitted they knew there was a problem a year before the crash.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 06, 2019, 09:33:07 AM
maybe i misread, but the pilot in the jump sit wasnt worrying about flying the airplane. that was a plus, he just concentrating on finding out what was wrong. you could say the copilot should have done that, in the airplane that crashed, whatever.
No, he just happened to know the procedure for a stab trim runaway, which is a memory item every 737 pilot is required to know.
Quote
I remember watching a documentary on airplane crashes, i dont really remember which airline but it was somewhre in south america similar to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroPeru_Flight_603
pilots received incorrect stall and overspeed warnings and many others, the pilots were confused as to which instrument was giving a correct reading. turned out the altitude was the only one giving correct readings but they disregarded because they couldnt trust any instrument. airplane crashed.
in the documentary they asked this pilot that was analyzing the crash. he flat out said he wasnt gonna blame the pilots, they did what they could based on the info they had. he said based on the info i have now, i would have put the airplane in cruise control and wait for another airplane that was near by coming to help them sort the problem. but i was not in the airplane. cant really tell you for sure if i had done anything different had i been inside the cockpit.
some of you guys have typed responses that took you longer to think than the air lion or the the Ethiopian crash were up in the air. you have hindsight, they didnt. you have read news reports, and preliminary data , they didnt.
you could say I would have, should have, whatever, you were not there.
that's all i see, people blaming somebody when it was not a single thing that made the airplanes crash, it was several things.
That crash was a pitch, power, performance issue. I cover it regularly. Have had it thrown at me in the sim plenty, as well. It is a scenario that is easily handled if one is properly trained. A blocked static port is a situation that is taught from at least the earliest days of Instrument training.
The altimeter would be stuck and the airspeed indicator would act unreliably by behaving more like an altimeter in reverse. In this case the airspeed indicator was reading faster than they were flying. The crew reduced power until they stalled it. Basic airmanship failure. Pitch, power, performance would have saved the day. Simple.
X Degrees of Pitch + Y Fuel Flow = Z Airspeed
I have never done a preflight inspection on a 757 but I am wondering why a taped over static port went unnoticed. I can physically touch them on all the jets I’ve flown. Things I can’t touch I point at to verify they’re there. How was this missed? The plane should never have left the ground.
As for the rest... We are saying what we say because we are trained professionals. We’ve seen these scenarios in real life or the sim. We teach them. We focus on these things in training.
Hindsight is the first step in foresight. We learn from the mistakes of others. In the end, when it comes to flying jets if you are not thinking ahead you’re already behind.
Quote
anyway what do i know about airplanes.
semp
Indeed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 06, 2019, 10:17:43 AM
Boeing has admitted they knew there was a problem a year before the crash.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797
#FakeNews
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 06, 2019, 11:56:59 AM
The BBC is pro Airbus and this is a hit piece. Nikki Haley was just added to the board of directors of Boeing, they know this crap will have to be countered with an individual who has dealt with it at the global level for the USA. Boeing and the US are seen as the same entity just as Airbus and the EU are, the BBC is pro EU.
In the US there have been no MAX problems like those two crashes outside the US with companies that are not as rigorous as American companies in their training of pilots and service of their aircraft. Look up the incident history of those two airlines across all of their aircraft for the last 20 years. Unless this is devolving into a purse fight to attack Vriacu regardless of the fact he is a professional in the industry in question.
I won't do that because it's an expression of pure ignorance, especially since my father was a commercial pilot. Now if this was a game related matter, kowabunga and go for the throat.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 06, 2019, 12:09:45 PM
Thanks, bustr. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 07, 2019, 04:00:19 PM
Very good points Guncrasher/Semp. You took the words out of my mouth. Obviously there was several issues with the aircraft (the crew being one of them).
People in these threads tend argue from authority and it’s always a bad take or a jab at the pilots. No one wants to blame a manufacturer here. In my world of chillers and refrigeration if the guy who builds the unit screws it up and ships several orders out guess who takes the loss and blame? The manufacturer. Boeing shipped a plane with a problem and then said hey here’s a bandaid, they messed up they clearly know this hence why it’s grounded and they publicly apologized saying so.
Don’t waste your time Semp as it’s not worth the name calling you’ll receive.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 07, 2019, 04:04:55 PM
Look up the incident history of those two airlines across all of their aircraft for the last 20 years.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 07, 2019, 04:40:31 PM
Look up the incident history of those two airlines across all of their aircraft for the last 20 years.
Don’t waste your time feeding trolls.
:salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 07, 2019, 04:54:14 PM
think vraciu missed the point I was trying to make.
the pilot making the review in the documentary was right on. he wasn't there.
now think about the 2 crashes. 3 different crews and one pilot in the jump seat who correctly identified the problem. 1 out of 7 pilots did identify the problem. 2 airplanes crashed and 1 got lucky possibly.
was it pilot training, or Manu's software problem. design problem. or a combination. think about that, cause I find kind of funny that a software update is waiting approval.
anyway, what do I know. for all I know airplanes fly on sail boat fuel since I don't see fuel pumps addy the airport. it's a joke btw.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 07, 2019, 05:15:19 PM
I don't know why "your trolls" cannot understand that 1: post certification upgrades and modifications to airliners are common even when there has been no accident. And 2: that way beyond a system like MCAS, there are dozens of other systems that can kill you if they malfunction or they are mishandled. That's why pilots are there - to fly the f***ing jet when these events happen.
I have no idea why Boeing decided to get AIRBUSSY and install a stall intervention system. Pilots have been trained for a 100 years... He who stalleth..falleth.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 07, 2019, 07:03:06 PM
think vraciu missed the point I was trying to make.
the pilot making the review in the documentary was right on. he wasn't there.
now think about the 2 crashes. 3 different crews and one pilot in the jump seat who correctly identified the problem. 1 out of 7 pilots did identify the problem. 2 airplanes crashed and 1 got lucky possibly.
was it pilot training, or Manu's software problem. design problem. or a combination. think about that, cause I find kind of funny that a software update is waiting approval.
anyway, what do I know. for all I know airplanes fly on sail boat fuel since I don't see fuel pumps addy the airport. it's a joke btw.
semp
It’s a crew training/experience problem. Period.
The latest accident was pilot error. They had everything they needed to save the jet, just like the crew with the jumpseater did.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 07, 2019, 07:05:46 PM
I don't know why "your trolls" cannot understand that 1: post certification upgrades and modifications to airliners are common even when there has been no accident. And 2: that way beyond a system like MCAS, there are dozens of other systems that can kill you if they malfunction or they are mishandled. That's why pilots are there - to fly the f***ing jet when these events happen.
I have no idea why Boeing decided to get AIRBUSSY and install a stall intervention system. Pilots have been trained for a 100 years... He who stalleth..falleth.
I wish I knew. It’s clearly the “triumph” of the uncluttered (uninformed) mind. Every pilot that has chimed in on this thread would have saved the day—even without a type rating in the danged thing. There are some things you just don’t do in any plane. This last crash is an example of several...
Agree with your points, Busher.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 07, 2019, 07:14:22 PM
As for the rest... We are saying what we say because we are trained professionals. We’ve seen these scenarios in real life or the sim. We teach them. We focus on these things in training.
Shame on you Vraciu! Don't you realize that you are "arguing from authority" ?
Just because there are people that have spent 30,000 hours in transport category cockpits, who have spent thousands of hours in Category D simulators of transport category cockpits practicing normal/abnormal/emergency procedures, who have spent thousands of hours instructing and training other pilots to fly transport category aircraft and who also have held Designated Examiner status for the FAA and given the tests and evaluated pilots to determine if they are worthy of a Type Rating in a particular transport category jet......
.....that DOES NOT mean that such people have any particular insight into what pilots should do when confronted with a simple AOA failure in a transport category aircraft.
No, far better to listen to those with absolutely no experience in aviation who know that any malfunction in an aircraft is impossible for a well trained pilot to handle and clearly indicates a fatal design flaw by the manufacturer. After all, no manufacturer should have the expectancy of a basic, reasonable level of competency in the end user trained and certified as competent by a national aviation authority, right?
This despite the fact that malfunctions do happen in transport category aircraft and are successfully handled every day by well trained pilots. Why....kind of like what happened on the Lion Air MAX aircraft with the well trained pilot on the jumpseat.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 07, 2019, 08:09:53 PM
I'm not questioning the expertise of any pilot here. like I said I know nothing about airplanes.
but what I wonder about is the reasoning that pilots are to blame only. pilots didn't just start pushing levers and buttons and whatever.
something was different with the airplane they tried to fix it, they didn't, airplanes crashed. blaming only the pilots who didn't fix the problem with the airplane is wrong.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 07, 2019, 08:30:28 PM
I'm not questioning the expertise of any pilot here. like I said I know nothing about airplanes.
but what I wonder about is the reasoning that pilots are to blame only. pilots didn't just start pushing levers and buttons and whatever.
something was different with the airplane they tried to fix it, they didn't, airplanes crashed. blaming only the pilots who didn't fix the problem with the airplane is wrong.
semp
Semp, I understand your point completely. The "blame" is not totally with the pilots. The malfeasance exists in allowing inexperienced or poorly trained airmen to occupy an airline flightdeck. Responsibility also has to be assigned to the airline's management and the overseeing regulatory authority.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 07, 2019, 08:35:05 PM
How many AOA malfunctions on takeoff have you dealt with in a Class D simulator?
That would be none, right? By your own admission.
Both the Lion Air and Ethiopian accidents were AOA malfunctions. It's an abnormal, not even an emergency. It could and should be easily handled by pilots that (you may have read this here before) FLY THE JET.
The evidence of the first Lion Air Max with the jump seater that knew what to do should really drop the scales from your eyes. It apparently has not done so.
Saying that well...the SECOND Lion Air crew didn't know what to do is simply saying they were not properly trained and experienced because what you do for an AOA malfunction is essentially the same in all aircraft. Know your pitch, know your power. Or (you may have read this here before) Pitch + Power = Performance.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 07, 2019, 08:36:30 PM
Semp, I understand your point completely. The "blame" is not totally with the pilots. The malfeasance exists in allowing inexperienced or poorly trained airmen to occupy an airline flightdeck. Responsibility also has to be assigned to the airline's management and the overseeing regulatory authority.
Simple truth.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 08, 2019, 02:47:57 AM
I now know that ace takes his car to the grocery store when it has a mechanical problem.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2019, 07:26:10 AM
People in these threads tend argue from authority and it’s always a bad take or a jab at the pilots. ...
Nonsense. There are people here arguing from experience. Actual experience is relevant knowledge and is completely different than the fallacy of arguing from authority.
Your ad hominem attacks are, of course, fallacious and not a counter argument.
Remind me why we can't blame the pilots inadequate response to an ordinary emergency?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 08, 2019, 12:03:42 PM
Nonsense. There are people here arguing from experience. Actual experience is relevant knowledge and is completely different than the fallacy of arguing from authority.
Your ad hominem attacks are, of course, fallacious and not a counter argument.
Remind me why we can't blame the pilots inadequate response to an ordinary emergency?
Ace is exactly what he is describing.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: eagl on May 08, 2019, 12:20:25 PM
I have no idea why Boeing decided to get AIRBUSSY and install a stall intervention system. Pilots have been trained for a 100 years... He who stalleth..falleth.
MCAS is there because the MAX has a pitch-up tendency in the stall when you add power to recover. Most aircraft that have this stall characteristic end up with a full-up stick PUSHER, and this is actually not an uncommon stall characteristic. New aircraft that behave poorly in the stall simply have fly-by-wire features that make it so it doesn't happen. Older designs like the 737 either need a stick pusher or an automatic stab trim function. Just like when most planes lower flaps they get a pitching moment which is automatically adjusted for by a pitch trim compensator. The difference here is that the pitch up moment in the stall is "new" for the MAX due to the changed aerodynamics with the larger motors, and unfortunately the FAA was transitioning to a more advisory role (yay FAA cuts!) at the time the MAX got certified, so the MCAS probably didn't get the oversight it needed.
As originally delivered, MCAS worked and when it went stupid there was a checklist that would fix it. As modified, it will be significantly less likely to go stupid.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 08, 2019, 03:48:11 PM
Was there enough observable before the two flights for the pilots to have known they might be flying doomed birds? If not, post accident it has been found the management in both cases were not as rigorous as US cargo carrier management in their maintenance and pilot training. That means the two governments and air carrier companies are at fault. The pilots have to be at fault for allowing themselves to be part of such screwed up situations that eventually caused so many fatalities. Otherwise now we are letting them off the hook because of professional ignorance and saying they are victims and not the commanders of the craft they screwed up in their duty to be able to fly.
ACE is blaming Boeing while guncrasher's argument is not much better. Like gun banners blame guns and their manufactures for pulling their own trigger slaughtering everyone in some theater, while the killer is annotated a victim of society and not culpable. Pilots of 140,000lb death traps are not victims and better damned well strive to be as close to superhuman as possible. And held to much higher standards than most other humans on this planet becasue every flight they make they are potential killers of such large numbers of human beings in moments.
If you want to be the captain and crew of a 140,000lb flying death trap who's ever brand of death trap you are flying. You have a moral responsibility to all the innocent victims who will place their trust in your professional abilities to always be more than just some poorly trained monkey holding the stick while a computer decides life and death. Including knowing all the idiosyncrasies of your current death trap that can potentially kill you. ACE and guncrasher are trying to make excuses for crews that failed that moral responsibility. Pilots don't get to have bad days or fall back on excuses that they weren't trained properly. My old man who did it all out of his own pocket got his own arse trained up to the level of commercial cargo and people carrier and teacher. Those pilots and crew failed their moral responsibility long before they made their last flight by going along with failed systems of management and government.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 08, 2019, 05:58:11 PM
MCAS is there because the MAX has a pitch-up tendency in the stall when you add power to recover. Most aircraft that have this stall characteristic end up with a full-up stick PUSHER, and this is actually not an uncommon stall characteristic. New aircraft that behave poorly in the stall simply have fly-by-wire features that make it so it doesn't happen. Older designs like the 737 either need a stick pusher or an automatic stab trim function. Just like when most planes lower flaps they get a pitching moment which is automatically adjusted for by a pitch trim compensator. The difference here is that the pitch up moment in the stall is "new" for the MAX due to the changed aerodynamics with the larger motors, and unfortunately the FAA was transitioning to a more advisory role (yay FAA cuts!) at the time the MAX got certified, so the MCAS probably didn't get the oversight it needed.
As originally delivered, MCAS worked and when it went stupid there was a checklist that would fix it. As modified, it will be significantly less likely to go stupid.
Thank you Eagl. I have no time in the 737 so this was enlightening.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 08, 2019, 06:21:49 PM
Was there enough observable before the two flights for the pilots to have known they might be flying doomed birds? If not, post accident it has been found the management in both cases were not as rigorous as US cargo carrier management in their maintenance and pilot training. That means the two governments and air carrier companies are at fault. The pilots have to be at fault for allowing themselves to be part of such screwed up situations that eventually caused so many fatalities. Otherwise now we are letting them off the hook because of professional ignorance and saying they are victims and not the commanders of the craft they screwed up in their duty to be able to fly.
ACE is blaming Boeing while guncrasher's argument is not much better. Like gun banners blame guns and their manufactures for pulling their own trigger slaughtering everyone in some theater, while the killer is annotated a victim of society and not culpable. Pilots of 140,000lb death traps are not victims and better damned well strive to be as close to superhuman as possible. And held to much higher standards than most other humans on this planet becasue every flight they make they are potential killers of such large numbers of human beings in moments.
If you want to be the captain and crew of a 140,000lb flying death trap who's ever brand of death trap you are flying. You have a moral responsibility to all the innocent victims who will place their trust in your professional abilities to always be more than just some poorly trained monkey holding the stick while a computer decides life and death. Including knowing all the idiosyncrasies of your current death trap that can potentially kill you. ACE and guncrasher are trying to make excuses for crews that failed that moral responsibility. Pilots don't get to have bad days or fall back on excuses that they weren't trained properly. My old man who did it all out of his own pocket got his own arse trained up to the level of commercial cargo and people carrier and teacher. Those pilots and crew failed their moral responsibility long before they made their last flight by going along with failed systems of management and government.
Bustr; I support your position of moral and professional responsibility completely; and I am sure my fellow airman including Toad, Vraciu, Eagl, Puma (I hope I did not forget anyone) do as well.
But sadly self-evaluation is not human nature. While the vast majority of airmen I flew with or trained always seemed to seek knowledge and training that would make them better pilots, there were those that seemed to believe they were God's gift to aviation. More often than not, the latter group wasn't particularly impressive. I tend to think the desire to always learn and improve might be cultural and it is certainly encouraged among western pilots. Whether that same motivation exists in other cultures, I cannot comment.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 08, 2019, 07:51:54 PM
I wonder if you just post to up your post count sometimes lol. I’ll wait for your childish remark to this.
Have someone explain it to you.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 08, 2019, 11:32:47 PM
3 commercial planes screwing up on the runway in less than 2 weeks. Unbelievable.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 09, 2019, 04:02:40 AM
the first car I bought was a 1977 mustang. it was fast. I mean you would tap on the gas and the wheels would spin. anyway few days after I bought it, i was on the freeway on ramp, i noticed 2 big rigs coming over, I knew I could go faster and safely merge. so I did, now I stepped on the gas I moved left and the trucks were at a safe distance behind me. but I had a problem the accelerator got stuck so the throttle was wide open, the car just kept going faster and faster, i stepped hard on the gas pedal trying to get it unstuck. didnt work, next option I could think of was put it in neutral. so i coasted with the throttle stuck at full gas it was noisy, i safely pulled over on the shoulder, open the hood and was able to release the level for the throttle that got stuck.
now think about a few years back when some japanese company had problems with cars accelerating out of control. they say it was the car floor mats or a problem with software or whatever i dont really remember and for this it doesnt matter. there was a problem that would happen rarely but it did happen.
now a few people got killed including a police officer that had 2 or 3 other passengers in the car. he was at 100 mph trying to control the car while a passenger was talking to 911 operator. a few other cars had burned their breaks all the way to the metal because they kept breaking while the car was at full speed.
now if you know how to drive this is basic, and I mean basic knowledge. you will burn the breaks if you step on them while stepping on full gas at the same time. you cant stop car like that. you put it in neutral and let the car rev up as much as it wants but the breaks now will safely slow it down.
so who's fault was it for all those crashes, the drivers who didnt follow basic rules or the whatever made the cars accelerate out of control or combination of both. I think it was a combination of both.
i know, you already mentioned the crews that crashes failed to follow basic rules of flight. lots of really experienced pilots here with billions of hours in simulations and trainers who I really believe are really good in their field. even a guy who said his father trained way above what is required and I believe that. I trust all your knowledge in this field as I have none.
but you still cant tell what happened in the pilots head when they first thought "oh toejam, something is wrong". you were not there. you blame the pilots for compounding the errors and that is true, they did agravated a situation, just like the car drivers made the situation worst, they should have just put the car in neutral, stop, turn off the engine and call a tow truck. people died. but it's not just the pilots/drivers errors, something else happened. and all the errors started after that first "oh toejam something happened".
anyway I am gonna have a beer and have a good thought for all the people that died in those planes and all the people that died in those car crashes. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 09, 2019, 06:34:34 AM
It’s probably purely 100% the pilots fault. Airplanes never have anything wrong with them.
It's not a binary choice of aircraft v pilot when assigning fault. In this incident like all aviation accidents there is a whole accident chain.
The first link seems to be Boeing's design decisions, then a sensor/software fault, then the failure of the flight crew to take proper corrective action.
I don't blame the pilots for the last part, I blame their operator and regulatory agency for an obvious lack of training and required experience level.
Corrective actions should happen at for each of these links. Boeing is doing their part to correct the faults on their end, the FAA will do what it does (which only effects US carriers) We can only hope that the carriers involved do their part in improved training and experience.
You can play the blame game all day long, and that won't help anyone or save any lives. Instead each entity involved should be focused on solutions. Boeing seems to be doing their part to fix this issue, hopefully the carriers will do the same.
Having said all that, it is the lack of training that is most alarming to me. Because even when Boeing fix this, there will be other issues arise, because the perfect airplane that never has any faults is a unicorn. Modern airliners are almost unbelievably complex in the many interconnected systems and safety measures. Something going wrong is for pilots is not a matter of if, but when, and aircrews must be trained to deal with it.
We have reached a level of automation in modern airliners where the planes can basically fly themselves (even autoland if a cat 3b aircraft and airfield)... so why do we still have pilots always in the seat? Because that automation will fail somehow, at sometime and no computer can match the human brain at complex problem solving. Therefore in my mind training is the paramount of importance.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 11, 2019, 05:54:46 PM
Saggs, I believe everything you said is exactly on point.
But when training to achieve a valid flying credential now can rival a medical degree in cost, I have no idea where the qualified pilots the industry needs will come from. North American pilots are now starting their career in a jet aircraft with the FAA mandated minimum flight time. I am not convinced that the rest of the world is as motivated to enhance safety by tightening their standards.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 11, 2019, 06:33:59 PM
Saggs, I believe everything you said is exactly on point.
But when training to achieve a valid flying credential now can rival a medical degree in cost, I have no idea where the qualified pilots the industry needs will come from. North American pilots are now starting their career in a jet aircraft with the FAA mandated minimum flight time. I am not convinced that the rest of the world is as motivated to enhance safety by tightening their standards.
Yes, the pilot shortage is an industry wide problem, also mechanics too.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 11, 2019, 07:41:37 PM
TROLL ALERT. It's a BS article.
Once you cutout a runaway stab trim the yoke buttons cease to function. That's the friggin' point of the procedure!!!!!!
VIRTUALLY EVERY TRANSPORT CATEGORY JET AIRPLANE IS LIKE THIS.
"On the newer 737 MAX, according to documents reviewed by The Times, those two switches were changed to perform the same function – flipping either one of them would turn off all electric controls of the stabilizer. That means there is no longer an option to turn off automated functions – such as MCAS – without also turning off the thumb buttons the pilots would normally use to control the stabilizer."
Like, duh... :rolleyes:
—————
BTW, how can it be “no longer an option” when MCAS is new (and specific to the MAX)?
This article is hogwash top to bottom.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 11, 2019, 07:42:59 PM
That article highlights a training issue, and tries to make it the manufactures fault. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Agreed.
I love reading idiots talking about an industry they are clueless about. It's downright embarrassing that these types of articles get published at all.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 11, 2019, 08:06:26 PM
Then the article. "So the switches which are clearly labelled 'STAB TRIM' when moved to the 'CUT OUT' position, you're telling me that they 'cut out' the 'stab trim'?!?!" "I'm shocked and outraged Boeing would do such a thing.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 11, 2019, 08:14:39 PM
NO! They did not! This switch configuration has been in EVERY 737 since day one. A complete fabrication of the facts. In other words, a bold faced lie.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 11, 2019, 08:16:30 PM
Legacy 600/650 QRH RE: PITCH TRIM RUNAWAY
NAP-13
Condition: Uncommanded pitch and trim indication changes.
EICAS Warning: AUTOPILOT FAIL may be presented.
EICAS Caution: AUTO TRIM FAIL may be presented.
QUICK DISCONNECT.......PRESS AND HOLD [Edit in: This is a memory item.]
NOTE: Do not change flap setting.
At Safe Altitude:
Pitch Trim Main Sys Cutout........PUSH OUT. [This also disables the dual rocker trim switches on the yoke.] Pitch Trim Backup Sys Cutout....PUSH OUT. [This also disables the dual rocker trim switches on the pedestal.] Quick Disconnect Button...........RELEASE.
WARNING: DO NOT OPEN SPEED BRAKE.
Prepare to overcome unwanted pitch change.
[It then directs you to a flow chart where you attempt to determine if either the Main or the Backup Pitch Trim is serviceable. If not, it directs you to the PITCH TRIM INOP Procedure.]
PITCH TRIM INOPERATIVE Procedure (EAP 8-3).......ACCOMPLISH.
————
The Legacy has a backup trim that is electric with no manual override, unlike the 737 which DOES have a manual backup. Otherwise, the procedure is the same in terms of disabling the system.
Keeping the yoke trim active when disabling the main pitch trim system during a runaway stab procedure defeats the entire effort and purpose of disabling said system in the first place.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 11, 2019, 08:38:25 PM
Falcon 900EX QRH Tab 35: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Runaway
Audio warning: continuous clacker. EID: possible amber PITCH MISTRIM flashing.
- Firmly hold the control column. - Actuate the TAILPLANE EMERG switch to trim the airplane. [Edit In: This disables the Main Trim system which is operated by the dual rocker switches on the yoke. The rocker switches will not function.]
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 11, 2019, 08:52:50 PM
NO! They did not! This switch configuration has been in EVERY 737 since day one. A complete fabrication of the facts. In other words, a bold faced lie.
This.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 11, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
Then the article. "So the switches which are clearly labelled 'STAB TRIM' when moved to the 'CUT OUT' position, you're telling me that they 'cut out' the 'stab trim'?!?!" "I'm shocked and outraged Boeing would do such a thing.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No Saggs, those switches when moved to "cut out" disable the electric trim switches on the Captain's and First Officer's control columns. The stab can still be trimmed manually with trim wheels adjacent to both pilots' knees. Had the Ethiopian pilots managed their speed appropriately (they never reduced thrust below a takeoff setting), they could have far more easily hand flown the airplane to a safe landing using manual trim.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 11, 2019, 09:00:54 PM
No Saggs, those switches when moved to "cut out" disable the electric trim switches on the Captain's and First Officer's control columns. The stab can still be trimmed manually with trim wheels adjacent to both pilots' knees. Had the Ethiopian pilots managed their speed appropriately (they never reduced thrust below a takeoff setting), they could have far more easily hand flown the airplane to a safe landing using manual trim.
He was being facetious, old friend.
The point being: Boeing labeled switches in the manner they behaved? The horror!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 11, 2019, 09:05:44 PM
So you're telling me airplanes don't work the same way as refrigerators? Whodathunkit?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 11, 2019, 10:20:22 PM
Swing and a miss.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 11, 2019, 10:49:12 PM
Chillers* much more complex. If you’re going to cherry pick at least do the picking right.
Using gas of choice, pump the gas through a closed system the gas compresses because further along there is an orifice tube that limits gas passage. The compressed gas passes through a heat exchanger to remove heat from compression. Reaching the orifice tube the compressed gas passes through to the low pressure side. In doing so, it can now pull heat back in (gets cold). It passes through an evaporator. Air is passed through the evaporator and the heat is removed resulting in chilled air. The gas continues on the a device that contains a desiccant to remove any possible moisture and then back to the pump. Pretty simple device working on the basis of compression and decompression.
There are other chillers that simply work off of water evaporation.
Now your turn on the 737.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 12, 2019, 07:43:09 AM
Well, I don't pretend to be an expert on chiller design and operation.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 12, 2019, 07:45:24 AM
.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 12, 2019, 08:52:11 AM
Using gas of choice, pump the gas through a closed system the gas compresses because further along there is an orifice tube that limits gas passage. The compressed gas passes through a heat exchanger to remove heat from compression. Reaching the orifice tube the compressed gas passes through to the low pressure side. In doing so, it can now pull heat back in (gets cold). It passes through an evaporator. Air is passed through the evaporator and the heat is removed resulting in chilled air. The gas continues on the a device that contains a desiccant to remove any possible moisture and then back to the pump. Pretty simple device working on the basis of compression and decompression.
There are other chillers that simply work off of water evaporation.
Now your turn on the 737.
Google is your friend. Ya know plagiarism isn’t cool these days.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 12, 2019, 08:56:16 AM
Using gas of choice, pump the gas through a closed system the gas compresses because further along there is an orifice tube that limits gas passage. The compressed gas passes through a heat exchanger to remove heat from compression. Reaching the orifice tube the compressed gas passes through to the low pressure side. In doing so, it can now pull heat back in (gets cold). It passes through an evaporator. Air is passed through the evaporator and the heat is removed resulting in chilled air. The gas continues on the a device that contains a desiccant to remove any possible moisture and then back to the pump. Pretty simple device working on the basis of compression and decompression.
There are other chillers that simply work off of water evaporation.
The point being: Boeing labeled switches in the manner they behaved? The horror!
:o
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 12, 2019, 01:07:49 PM
I think that that article is pointing out a nuance that doesn't apply. It seems to be saying that in 737 NG you had the option of disabling automated inputs to the trim system while not completely deactivating it so that you would be able to use the electric trim with the yoke buttons. My understanding of MCAS is that there is no way to turn it itself off so in order to disable it you have to turn off the electric trim completely, when there is really nothing wrong with the electric trim itself. The article misunderstands the elimination of the the option to disable the autopilots inputs to trim as the elimination of the ability to disable MCAS separately from from yoke button control.
What is interesting to me is why Boeing didn't tell pilots about MCAS. Quoting from another source that seems even keeled:
To counter the MAX’s lower stability margins at high AOA, Boeing introduced MCAS. Dependent on AOA value and rate, altitude (air density) and Mach (changed flow conditions) the MCAS, which is a software loop in the Flight Control computer, initiates a nose down trim above a threshold AOA.
It can be stopped by the Pilot counter-trimming on the Yoke or by him hitting the CUTOUT switches on the center pedestal. It’s not stopped by the Pilot pulling the Yoke, which for normal trim from the autopilot or runaway manual trim triggers trim hold sensors. This would negate why MCAS was implemented, the Pilot pulling so hard on the Yoke that the aircraft is flying close to stall.
It’s probably this counterintuitive characteristic, which goes against what has been trained many times in the simulator for unwanted autopilot trim or manual trim runaway, which has confused the pilots of JT610. They learned that holding against the trim stopped the nose down, and then they could take action, like counter-trimming or outright CUTOUT the trim servo. But it didn’t. After a 10 second trim to a 2.5° nose down stabilizer position, the trimming started again despite the Pilots pulling against it. The faulty high AOA signal was still present.
How should they know that pulling on the Yoke didn’t stop the trim? It was described nowhere; neither in the aircraft’s manual, the AFM, nor in the Pilot’s manual, the FCOM. This has created strong reactions from airlines with the 737 MAX on the flight line and their Pilots. They have learned the NG and the MAX flies the same. They fly them interchangeably during the week.
With that as background I do not find Muilenburg's explanation very satisfying:
"When you take a look at the original design of the MCAS system. I think in some cases, in the media, it has been reported or described as an anti-stall system, which it is not." Muilenburg told reporters shortly after Boeing's annual shareholder meeting. "It's a system that's designed to provide handling qualities for the pilot that meet pilot preferences."
Muilenburg added, "We want the airplane to behave in the air similar to the previous generation of 737s. That's the preferred pilot feel for the airplane, and MCAS is designed to provide those kinds of handling qualities at a high angle of attack."
"It's a purposeful design. It's something that's designed to be part of how the airplanes fly. So it's part of the certification process," the Boeing CEO said. "It's not something that's a separate procedure or something that needs to be trained on separately."
"It's fundamentally embedded in the handling qualities of the airplane. So when you train on the airplane, you are being trained on MCAS," he added. "It's not a separate system to be trained on."
It might not be a separate system to be trained on but why not just disclose the fact that it exists to the people flying the airplane?
Would you put the existence of MCAS down their with minutia that you don't really need to know like what size a piston is in a hydraulic system? It isn't a rhetorical question I am curious because I would think you would want pilots to know more rather than less.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 12, 2019, 02:56:24 PM
United’s pilots have said from the beginning they were aware of the MCAS System...
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 12, 2019, 02:57:04 PM
There is a consistent suggestion being made in this thread that when "big computer" burps, all hope is lost, the airplane and its contents are doomed. At least with Boeing (I cannot comment on airbus technology - I never trained on one), little has changed in the fundamentals of the flying of the airplane since the 707 first flew in 1957. In the early days (including mine back to the early '70's) of flying jet transports, pilots had to be able to fly - your career depended upon it - failure to demonstrate satisfactory skills meant a career change. Autopilots existed then but they were sloppy, the could hold a heading and an altitude with some precision and they could fly and instrument approach but the pilots had to control power (autothrottles were in the future). Frankly, it was easier and more fun just to fly the approach manually. Unlike today's jets, the function of the autopilot was not required for dispatch. Computer operation of commercial jets was a logical extension of the technological age. They allowed with their precision, fuel savings, more exact navigation, landings when visibility is basically nil, etc. Its a personal opinion but I believe these advancements lead to an era where people but most dangerously, airline managements and regulatory authorities chose to forget what pilots are there for. Training and qualification standards eroded to a degree where one fatal accident caused the FAA to make dramatic changes. While North American airlines are finding pilot recruitment to be far more difficult under these new rules, they will hopefully enhance aviation safety. Similar training and qualification standards are not applied in the same way in the rest of the world; especially in what we like to call the "third world". You may recall the ban applied by the EU to Garuda Indonesian and other airlines beginning in what I recall to be 2010. They earned the ban due to an abhorrent safety record and over the next 7 to 8 years, they committed to internal changes that brought them back to the standards of a world class airline. Until all airlines and regulatory bodies, commit to safety by putting pilots in control that are more than "meat in the seat", I suggest you review what airline your travel agent booked you on.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DaveBB on May 12, 2019, 07:18:15 PM
Have you watched the video of how long it takes the horizontal stab to change position? It's well over a full minute to go to maximum deflection. A software error killed these dudes, not lack of flying ability. If all it took was switching off the auto-pilot, hundreds of people would still be alive.
Actively ignoring Vraciu.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 12, 2019, 07:35:04 PM
Two egregious pilot errors killed everybody on the aircraft. First they failed to reduce thrust which caused an overspeed problem with manual trimming. Then, after finally turning the MCAS off, they turned it back on, although it may have been too late to recover the dive by then, due to the failure to reduce thrust.
All they needed to do to save the plane was switch off the electric trim when the big trim wheels started spinning for no good reason.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 12, 2019, 09:44:23 PM
Have you watched the video of how long it takes the horizontal stab to change position? It's well over a full minute to go to maximum deflection. A software error killed these dudes, not lack of flying ability. If all it took was switching off the auto-pilot, hundreds of people would still be alive.
Actively ignoring Vraciu.
Dave, I retired with a little over 33000 hours of flying time. I am well aware of how long it takes to move the stab to full deflection. They did not need anywhere near full deflection. The autopilot will not engage or stay engaged when there is a speed, altitude, or angle of attack difference between Captain and First Officer. The autopilot disengages and the safety of the airplane relies upon experienced calm well trained pilots to sort out who's instruments are wrong (using the steam technology backup airspeed and altimeters). Then the pilot with that valid instruments hand flies the airplane to a safe landing.
It was in someone's best interest after these two tragedies, to question only the safety of the airplane rather than complete an unbiased and professional investigation of all possible causal factors. That accomplished nothing other than to create a bunch of opinions unsupported by evidence. In the Ethiopian preliminary report, I found at least 4 items that in our world would have lead to a far more in-depth investigation.
So, to close Dave, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing a summary of your jet transport experience. It might help support your conviction that Boeing builds unsafe airplanes with software errors.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 12, 2019, 11:29:20 PM
Hey V do you have a source for United's pilots saying they knew about MCAS, all I can find is a reference to an interview with Todd Insler referred to as the chairman for the United branch of ALPA basically saying that pilots didn't have to know, a sort of precap of what Boeings CEO said. I think there is room in the world for both Boeing's job with MCAS to have been pretty lousy and for the 2 737max crashes to be 99% down to inadequate crew training/experience. I do think the accidents do point out the inadequacy of the training/experience/safety culture at the airlines that had the accidents.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
Have you watched the video of how long it takes the horizontal stab to change position? It's well over a full minute to go to maximum deflection. A software error killed these dudes, not lack of flying ability. If all it took was switching off the auto-pilot, hundreds of people would still be alive.
Actively ignoring reality.
FIFY.
Truth hurts, but you can’t run from it. They killed themselves by their inability to fly and unwillingness to complete, along with the active decision to violate/ignore, the published emergency procedure for this condition—which is the same one used by most transport category jets. (I posted but two examples of many.)
“Switching off the autopilot”??????? Wut?
As for full nose down, they would never have gotten there if they had not reengaged the stab trim after shutting it off. I repeat: They killed themselves.
I don’t care if you ignore me. You’ve discredited yourself many times in multiple threads on this issue alone and I’ve long ago stopped taking you even remotely seriously. I cannot make a blind man see, and thus you are not my audience when I refute your grossly uninformed opinions regarding commercial aviation in general and the 737 Max/MCAS in particular.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 09:43:30 AM
Hey V do you have a source for United's pilots saying they knew about MCAS, all I can find is a reference to an interview with Todd Insler referred to as the chairman for the United branch of ALPA basically saying that pilots didn't have to know, a sort of precap of what Boeings CEO said. I think there is room in the world for both Boeing's job with MCAS to have been pretty lousy and for the 2 737max crashes to be 99% down to inadequate crew training/experience. I do think the accidents do point out the inadequacy of the training/experience/safety culture at the airlines that had the accidents.
Yes, but I will have to find it again. You might beat me to it via a search. Standby.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 09:46:38 AM
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 09:49:41 AM
I have also found a description of MCAS in a BOEING manual that predates both accidents.
Note HIGH SPEED PITCHUP CONDITIONS — OUTSIDE THE NORMAL ENVELOPE : The very thing those pilots caused by running around at takeoff thrust for an ungodly extended period. Is this a contributing factor? Sure sounds like it to me.
Bottom line is, they had what they needed to save the jet. They complicated matters because they did not reduce thrust.
http://www.b737.org.uk/images/mcas-mtm.jpg
(http://www.b737.org.uk/images/mcas-mtm.jpg)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 10:42:47 AM
Two egregious pilot errors killed everybody on the aircraft. First they failed to reduce thrust which caused an overspeed problem with manual trimming. Then, after finally turning the MCAS off, they turned it back on, although it may have been too late to recover the dive by then, due to the failure to reduce thrust.
All they needed to do to save the plane was switch off the electric trim when the big trim wheels started spinning for no good reason.
Exactly this.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 10:45:32 AM
Dave, I retired with a little over 33000 hours of flying time. I am well aware of how long it takes to move the stab to full deflection. They did not need anywhere near full deflection. The autopilot will not engage or stay engaged when there is a speed, altitude, or angle of attack difference between Captain and First Officer. The autopilot disengages and the safety of the airplane relies upon experienced calm well trained pilots to sort out who's instruments are wrong (using the steam technology backup airspeed and altimeters). Then the pilot with that valid instruments hand flies the airplane to a safe landing.
It was in someone's best interest after these two tragedies, to question only the safety of the airplane rather than complete an unbiased and professional investigation of all possible causal factors. That accomplished nothing other than to create a bunch of opinions unsupported by evidence. In the Ethiopian preliminary report, I found at least 4 items that in our world would have lead to a far more in-depth investigation.
E’topia is trying to save its own rear end knowing that if the truth got out about their standards people would think twice, like I do, about boarding one of their jets.
Quote
So, to close Dave, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing a summary of your jet transport experience. It might help support your conviction that Boeing builds unsafe airplanes with software errors.
I’ll take a stab at it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 11:30:02 AM
Have you watched the video of how long it takes the horizontal stab to change position? It's well over a full minute to go to maximum deflection. A software error killed these dudes, not lack of flying ability. If all it took was switching off the auto-pilot, hundreds of people would still be alive.
Actively ignoring Vraciu.
Well, you are, simply, wrong. These pilots killed themselves, pure and simple. And, they took their passengers with them. Their actions and lack of competency resulted in avoidable tragedy.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 13, 2019, 12:22:08 PM
V that last sentence from the manual is pretty confusing. Is it saying that the column cutout doesn't stop MCAS commanded forward trim if the F/O is pulling while the Captains side does? Or is it saying the reverse? Or neither?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 12:50:30 PM
Jeez guys when someone disagrees with what you say y’all get all in a tizzy and immediately resort to name calling and trying to talk down to someone( really shows the maturity here).
Shuffler, nice write up on the AC theory. You have your filter in the wrong spot however.. it’ll work on both sides but you really want it on the liquid side as it’s better for flow and actually catching debris. It’s kind of funny how that relates to this thread. You see, in my world we put multiple sensors(or filters) where one could do the job. It’s called a fail safe and it keeps the unit alive and working. Obviously some engineer or higher power at Boeing called for less AOA sensors on the MAX.
In the end y’all are totally right in saying the pilots messed up. I’ve said that since more info came about. But to sit and say the plane is totally fine is down right wrong. They had a malfunction, Boeing probably new this would happen so they put a bandaid(a cutoff switch) to help the problem. That’s wrong you may not agree and that’s fine but the people that have died due to that exact issue would probably have something different to say about it. .
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 12:55:14 PM
In the end y’all are totally right in saying the pilots messed up. I’ve said that since more info came about. But to sit and say the plane is totally fine is down right wrong. They had a malfunction, Boeing probably new this would happen so they put a bandaid(a cutoff switch) to help the problem. That’s wrong you may not agree and that’s fine but the people that have died due to that exact issue would probably have something different to say about it.
The “CUTOFF” switches have been in every 737 since day one. The switches are not a “bandaid”. They are designed for the pilots to stop a runaway malfunction. Used properly and in accordance with the Non Normal Checklist, the switches will help the pilots prevent a tragic situation from occurring. The pilots in these two incidents apparently did not comply with the NNC and as a result, were the first to arrive at the scene of the crash.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 01:24:23 PM
V that last sentence from the manual is pretty confusing. Is it saying that the column cutout doesn't stop MCAS commanded forward trim if the F/O is pulling while the Captains side does? Or is it saying the reverse? Or neither?
I’ll have to defer to the 737 experts. The column cutout switches for normal stab trim respond to column movement. That’s likely been the same forever. MCAS overrides the F/O column [position] cutout because it is the one that interfaces with the FCC. That’s how I read it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 01:27:53 PM
The “CUTOFF” switches have been in every 737 since day one. The switches are not a “bandaid”. They are designed for the pilots to stop a runaway malfunction. Used properly and in accordance with the Non Normal Checklist, the switches will help the pilots prevent a tragic situation from occurring. The pilots in these two incidents apparently did not comply with the NNC and as a result, were the first to arrive at the scene of the crash.
Sure. To carry on here would you agree to fix the issue? Or just keep on rolling til it happens again. Whether in your opinion more training or simply add more AOA sensors. In my opinion both are needed. Obviously more training and secondly fix the damn software bug. Thankfully I believe the Corp will do both.
Edit: when I say more training I mean more for the inexperienced crews overseas. I think the US has plenty of standards in place for this type of accident to not happen granted again imo the software issue should be fixed before being allowed to fly again. In no way am I shaming our pilots or any of you in this thread. Just generalizing the word.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 01:28:33 PM
The “CUTOFF” switches have been in every 737 since day one. The switches are not a “bandaid”. They are designed for the pilots to stop a runaway malfunction. Used properly and in accordance with the Non Normal Checklist, the switches will help the pilots prevent a tragic situation from occurring. The pilots in these two incidents apparently did not comply with the NNC and as a result, were the first to arrive at the scene of the crash.
As it is with most large jet airplanes.
Two examples on which I am current and serve/have served as an instructor:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 13, 2019, 01:33:18 PM
The desicant is generally on the gas/low pressure side. Desiccant removes moisture which causes the gas to become acidic and eat the system up from the inside.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 01:39:11 PM
The desicant is generally on the gas/low pressure side. Desiccant removes moisture which causes the gas to become acidic and eat the system up from the inside.
Negative on installing it and leaving it on the low pressure side. You only want to install it on the low pressure side after a burnout IE acid is introduced into the system. You then would go back 2 weeks later and remove it. And install a new one before the TXV. You could leave it on the low side if you wanted. But in less than a year you’d be changing a compressor due to that exact filter being clogged causing a shortage of superheated vapor to your vapor pump that relies on cool gas to cool it down.
Go take a look at the units outside of your home. I’d be willing to bet they are exactly the same as all the ones in my area. Here we install them on the liquid line. Can show several install pics of units if you’d like. Even some that are extremely old just to show it’s always been installed on the liquid side of the system.
Texas, assuming your profile is still correct may have different codes than I do which would make a big difference in system performance.
For your eyes shuffler. https://www.google.com/amp/s/hvacrschool.com/proper-liquid-line-drier-location/amp/
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 13, 2019, 02:22:03 PM
Do you realize how many systems there are for refridgerant? Also different gasses. We can get into heavy cooling. Up to now I have been describing small systems with light gas. All basically the same but there are some differences when you get into heavier gas.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 02:23:45 PM
Sure. To carry on here would you agree to fix the issue? Or just keep on rolling til it happens again. Whether in your opinion more training or simply add more AOA sensors. In my opinion both are needed. Obviously more training and secondly fix the damn software bug. Thankfully I believe the Corp will do both.
Edit: when I say more training I mean more for the inexperienced crews overseas. I think the US has plenty of standards in place for this type of accident to not happen granted again imo the software issue should be fixed before being allowed to fly again. In no way am I shaming our pilots or any of you in this thread. Just generalizing the word.
The “fix” is, and would have been, for Boeing to be up front with the operators and provide the training documents from the git go. No doubt Boeing is going to get a huge bloody nose from hiding this info, not to mention 💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵s in lawsuits. The experts in the media and politics have bad mouthed and grounded the airframe, when in reality it was poor pilot performance.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 02:26:02 PM
Do you realize how many systems there are for refridgerant? Also different gasses. We can get into heavy cooling. Up to now I have been describing small systems with light gas. All basically the same but there are some differences when you get into heavier gas.
Negative on installing it and leaving it on the low pressure side. You only want to install it on the low pressure side after a burnout IE acid is introduced into the system. You then would go back 2 weeks later and remove it. And install a new one before the TXV. You could leave it on the low side if you wanted. But in less than a year you’d be changing a compressor due to that exact filter being clogged causing a shortage of superheated vapor to your vapor pump that relies on cool gas to cool it down.
Go take a look at the units outside of your home. I’d be willing to bet they are exactly the same as all the ones in my area. Here we install them on the liquid line. Can show several install pics of units if you’d like. Even some that are extremely old just to show it’s always been installed on the liquid side of the system.
Texas, assuming your profile is still correct may have different codes than I do which would make a big difference in system performance.
For your eyes shuffler. https://www.google.com/amp/s/hvacrschool.com/proper-liquid-line-drier-location/amp/
Do you realize how many systems there are for refridgerant? Also different gasses. We can get into heavy cooling. Up to now I have been describing small systems with light gas. All basically the same but there are some differences when you get into heavier gas.
Doesn’t change the basic principal of cleaning the system. You want it after the pump not before. Only before, after acidic refrigerant has been introduced. By then it’s already to late.
Let’s not derail any further. If you’d like to learn more we can PM about it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 13, 2019, 02:36:55 PM
Jeez guys when someone disagrees with what you say y’all get all in a tizzy and immediately resort to name calling and trying to talk down to someone( really shows the maturity here).
Shuffler, nice write up on the AC theory. You have your filter in the wrong spot however.. it’ll work on both sides but you really want it on the liquid side as it’s better for flow and actually catching debris. It’s kind of funny how that relates to this thread. You see, in my world we put multiple sensors(or filters) where one could do the job. It’s called a fail safe and it keeps the unit alive and working. Obviously some engineer or higher power at Boeing called for less AOA sensors on the MAX.
In the end y’all are totally right in saying the pilots messed up. I’ve said that since more info came about. But to sit and say the plane is totally fine is down right wrong. They had a malfunction, Boeing probably new this would happen so they put a bandaid(a cutoff switch) to help the problem. That’s wrong you may not agree and that’s fine but the people that have died due to that exact issue would probably have something different to say about it. .
The reason Boeing and the FAA signed off on the current procedures is because the current training is sufficient for the pilots to respond properly.
If maintenance had fixed the known bad sensor the pilots wouldn't have been tested that time.
Of course Boeing will try to make it harder for pilots to screw up. They have the greatest interest in preventing Boeing crashes.
We can wish for higher quality pilots but the Ethiopian report is clear that the pilots had been signed off on the required training and standards. That's a cultural problem we can't fix.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 02:44:11 PM
The reason Boeing and the FAA signed off on the current procedures is because the current training is sufficient for the pilots to respond properly.
If maintenance had fixed the known bad sensor the pilots wouldn't have been tested that time.
Of course Boeing will try to make it harder for pilots to screw up. They have the greatest interest in preventing Boeing crashes.
We can wish for higher quality pilots but the Ethiopian report is clear that the pilots had been signed off on the required training and standards. That's a cultural problem we can't fix.
Why not add more sensors? Instead of just 1 or even 2 why not more? As far as I know they utilize just 1 sensor correct? If so why? That’s horrible engineering practice to have something that impacts the plane so much to only be tied to one little bell and whistle. Again, yes we know there is a on/off switch but before it even gets to that point why not have more control over the MCAS system with more AOA sensor. Surely adding that wouldn’t bankrupt the company.
The “fix” is, and would have been, for Boeing to be up front with the operators and provide the training documents from the git go. No doubt Boeing is going to get a huge bloody nose from hiding this info, not to mention 💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵s in lawsuits. The experts in the media and politics have bad mouthed and grounded the airframe, when in reality it was poor pilot performance.
So we can agree Boeing has a huge fault here in this situation. That’s my point. They effed up. Now they have plenty of time to fix the AOA sensor issue.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 13, 2019, 02:57:38 PM
Because the bad sensor didn't cause the crash. It was part of the chain that the pilots failed to break.
Many airplanes only use a single sensor.
Why not add more sensors? That’s up to the manufacturer. EMBRAER probably would because that’s how they do things. DASSAULT probably wouldn’t. I obviously prefer the former approach being an EMBRAER guy. If it meets the certification requirements it doesn’t really matter as long as there is a procedure to handle it—which there was in this case.
Why not add three? By this logic every airplane should have 20 engines because 19 may fail.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 03:33:45 PM
the last paragraph of your post vraciu is very telling. Why is safety an “option”. That’s down right ignorant for Boeing to sell safety features as options.
Let me buy a truck for 80,000. Oh but for 85,000 you can have airbags.
To quote our resident expert it just gets ridiculous at some point.
Boeing made a mistake. Damn right they are paying for it. Sadly it was at the cost of several human lives.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 03:35:26 PM
Why not add more sensors? Instead of just 1 or even 2 why not more? As far as I know they utilize just 1 sensor correct? If so why? That’s horrible engineering practice to have something that impacts the plane so much to only be tied to one little bell and whistle. Again, yes we know there is a on/off switch but before it even gets to that point why not have more control over the MCAS system with more AOA sensor. Surely adding that wouldn’t bankrupt the company.
So we can agree Boeing has a huge fault here in this situation. That’s my point. They effed up. Now they have plenty of time to fix the AOA sensor issue.
Two sensors are pretty much the norm, at least the models I flew. Why add more sensors just to fix a pilot performance issue? Again, yeah Boeing blew it big time with the secret keeping at the beginning.
For reference, the two sensors are circled in red.
Two sensors are pretty much the norm, at least the models I flew. Why add more sensors just to fix pilot performance issue? Again, yeah Boeing blew it big time with the secret keeping at the beginning.
For reference, the two sensors are circled in red.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DaveBB on May 13, 2019, 03:38:59 PM
With only two sensors, if one malfunctions, how do you know which one to trust? If it had 3 or even 5 sensors, the computer could go with the sensors that agreed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 03:41:42 PM
With only two sensors, if one malfunctions, how do you know which one to trust? If it had 3 or even 5 sensors, the computer could go with the sensors that agreed.
That’s why you have a pilot.
When HAL tries to close the pod bay doors you need a human to solve the problem.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 03:42:16 PM
Two sensors are pretty much the norm, at least the models I flew. Why add more sensors just to fix a pilot performance issue? Again, yeah Boeing blew it big time with the secret keeping at the beginning.
For reference, the two sensors are circled in red.
So 2 is the norm. Makes senses. That’s all you SHOULD need. However, why is it sold as an option? That’s plain ignorant to sell a safety feature. Just make it standard. That part is a lawsuit in itself.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 13, 2019, 03:46:47 PM
Doesn’t change the basic principal of cleaning the system. You want it after the pump not before. Only before, after acidic refrigerant has been introduced. By then it’s already to late.
Let’s not derail any further. If you’d like to learn more we can PM about it.
OK.... go out and raise the hood of your vehicle. Note where the desiccant is located. Your shrader to fill is generally located near there as it is the low side.
This really has nothing to do with this thread other than waiting on you to post how simple the 737 is. We are still waiting for your response.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 03:48:53 PM
With only two sensors, if one malfunctions, how do you know which one to trust? If it had 3 or even 5 sensors, the computer could go with the sensors that agreed.
Or, the pilots could dummy down, look out the window, and FLY THE JET.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 13, 2019, 03:52:05 PM
the last paragraph of your post vraciu is very telling. Why is safety an “option”. That’s down right ignorant for Boeing to sell safety features as options.
Let me buy a truck for 80,000. Oh but for 85,000 you can have airbags.
To quote our resident expert it just gets ridiculous at some point.
Boeing made a mistake. Damn right they are paying for it. Sadly it was at the cost of several human lives.
Actually options are lane keeping assist, sensors if you are closing on a vehicle too fast, backing sensors, backing cameras. I am sure there are others.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 03:52:36 PM
OK.... go out and raise the hood of your vehicle. Note where the desiccant is located. Your shrader to fill is generally located near there as it is the low side.
This really has nothing to do with this thread other than waiting on you to post how simple the 737 is. We are still waiting for your response.
Actually options are lane keeping assist, sensors if you are closing on a vehicle too fast, backing sensors, backing cameras. I am sure there are others.
Exactly.
As for the AOA sensors, two is standard. MCAS apparently only uses one sensor for info unless the CUSTOMER CHOOSES the option of using both. This latter point I have only seen bandied about. I as yet cannot cite a BOEING or FAA source.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 03:55:39 PM
OK.... go out and raise the hood of your vehicle. Note where the desiccant is located. Your shrader to fill is generally located near there as it is the low side.
This really has nothing to do with this thread other than waiting on you to post how simple the 737 is. We are still waiting for your response.
You took the lead I was just answering your wrong theory crafted (probably googled) answer. There’s many ways to skin a cat. Doesn’t make it the right way.
As for how simple the 737 is I have never made such claim. I know for a fact just looking inside the cockpit it’s not a simple machine. So please do not assume I am thinking it is simple. Assuming only makes a you know what. :aok
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 13, 2019, 03:57:04 PM
Believe at your peril. I am quite certain all 737s with glass cockpits would at least have the AOA band on the PFD airspeed tape.
Lion Air’s 737 Max aircraft, similar to many low-cost airlines, do not have those same heads-up displays [that Southwest does] installed on its 737 fleet and most 737 Max operators do not have the added AOA indicators on the heads-down flight displays today. According to photos and video footage reviewed by The Air Current, the Lion Air Max fleet does not have the visual AOA indicators installed on its primary flight displays. Additionally, Lion Air did not have the same AOA DISAGREE light that are on Southwest’s aircraft, according to a report from Reuters.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 03:58:39 PM
Lion Air’s 737 Max aircraft, similar to many low-cost airlines, do not have those same heads-up displays [that Southwest does] installed on its 737 fleet and most 737 Max operators do not have the added AOA indicators on the heads-down flight displays today. According to photos and video footage reviewed by The Air Current, the Lion Air Max fleet does not have the visual AOA indicators installed on its primary flight displays. Additionally, Lion Air did not have the same AOA DISAGREE light that are on Southwest’s aircraft, according to a report from Reuters.
May I ask do you know when this was published?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 04:01:53 PM
OK.... go out and raise the hood of your vehicle. Note where the desiccant is located. Your shrader to fill is generally located near there as it is the low side.
This really has nothing to do with this thread other than waiting on you to post how simple the 737 is. We are still waiting for your response.
Believe you are getting what we call “accumulators” and what you are calling desiccant mixed up. Two total similar looking devices with two different purposes.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 13, 2019, 04:14:21 PM
You took the lead I was just answering your wrong theory crafted (probably googled) answer. There’s many ways to skin a cat. Doesn’t make it the right way.
As for how simple the 737 is I have never made such claim. I know for a fact just looking inside the cockpit it’s not a simple machine. So please do not assume I am thinking it is simple. Assuming only makes a you know what. :aok
LOL you are clueless.
You did compare the 737 and refrigeration. That is why I posted about refrigeration.
Those of us raised long a go can do lots of things. A/C is just one of many things I know how to work on.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 04:19:01 PM
You did compare the 737 and refrigeration. That is why I posted about refrigeration.
Those of us raised long a go can do lots of things. A/C is just one of many things I know how to work on.
Same here. Can fix anything in front of me as long as I got my tool bag and an electrical schematic. Don’t write off people younger than you ;)
Believe you are the clueless one here shuffler. Using an analogy isn’t saying the two respective fields are the same. I believe you have lost some comprehension.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 13, 2019, 05:10:25 PM
The FAA passed off the MAX design for flight based on US standards. Highest alt takeoff is tested for Denver at 5000ft while general pilot skill type expected to fly the fleet are very well trained ex-military and well trained company pilots on rigorous simulators at scheduled intervals over their flight careers.
American carriers have the best maintenance in the world. All the years the fleet has been active in the US they are not falling out of the sky left and right due to the MCAS. Suddenly two over seas companies with less rigorous training and maintenance have accidents who's companies chose to purchase the minimum package for cost saving like many do outside the US. And Southwest airlines only purchased the upgrade for the full Monti display package of the AOA in question in 2018, with no previous MAX falling out of the sky becasue that option was not active in the cockpits. Gosh the US is so lucky we have such well trained pilots while the rest of the world has to suffer....
In Ethiopia the airport was at 6000ft and the pilot quality and training sucked along with horrible maintenance. In Indonesia, a highly qualified pilot saved the MAX in question on an earlier flight by being a qualified pilot. Lion Air doesn't have a stellar record in pilot quality, training, or maintenance. So ACE is going all outrage on Boeing over what? They designed their jet for qualified pilots who knew how to fly when the garbage hit the fan. You don't get a parachute in a commercial airliner like our military pilots get so there is a life and death precident to be the best pilots on the planet. ACE's argument parses like Boeing was supposed to assume at some point their planes would be flown by 3rd graders and are an evil corporation for not building the plane so any 3rd grader can pilot a modern airliner. ACE also appears to have personal issues with large American corporations on top of that clouding his judgement. Airbus has a long list of crashes and incidents, many due to pilot error outside of the US while the MAX inside the US does not. Our pilots are very well trained, remember Sully and his Airbus landing it in the Hudson saving all his passengers and crew like the highly qualified Indonesian pilot did for Lion Air's MAX as a ride along.....
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 13, 2019, 05:19:58 PM
Bustr your assumptions of me are wrong. I don’t have anything against any particular company. I side with the FAA and the grounding of the plane until the issue is solved. The same entity (the FAA) that allowed the jet to fly also just cut its legs due to a safety concern. It’s so simple fix the AOA sensor issue and it’ll fly again.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 13, 2019, 06:00:27 PM
I appreciate what you want here but you won't seem to consider that even if manufacturers are mandated to keep adding to the safety features of commercial airplanes, it will still for some time (I hope), require human intervention when the complexity of any of these systems fails to work as designed. Despite redundancy, design engineers have still not achieved "fail-safe" operation of aircraft systems.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 06:58:17 PM
LOL - you're joking right? Qualified airline pilots couldn't care less whether its clear or IMC.
He’s not joking. He seriously thinks that is an issue.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 13, 2019, 08:59:35 PM
Remember 2014 when they grounded all the Airbus A321s after Lufthansa 1829 lost 4000 feet due to an AOA malfunction? The bad AOA info triggered the HAL 900 computer programming and pushed the nose down despite the pilots having the side stick full aft. Luckily, they started at 30K+ so they managed to disable the HAL 9000 before they hit the dirt.
You don't remember that?
Well...yah.....because they never grounded the A321s even though this was an AOA malfunction that triggered a computer driven stall protection maneuver. Sound familiar?
And hey...how come modern jets don't have eleventy-seven AOA probes anyway? Then the computer could just use the ones that agreed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 13, 2019, 09:35:52 PM
Often heard phrase after the 737 NGs (Next Generation) were on line: “Why’s it doing that?”, followed shortly thereafter by going into a manual mode so the jet would do what it was originally commanded to do. A big learning curve early on but, disconnecting the automation or malfunction and the pilots flying the jet always had a successful and safe outcome.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 13, 2019, 10:33:53 PM
the last paragraph of your post vraciu is very telling. Why is safety an “option”. That’s down right ignorant for Boeing to sell safety features as options.
Let me buy a truck for 80,000. Oh but for 85,000 you can have airbags.
To quote our resident expert it just gets ridiculous at some point.
Boeing made a mistake. Damn right they are paying for it. Sadly it was at the cost of several human lives.
:rofl
Your own analogy discredits your argument, as there ARE many 'safety' features that are optional (at additional cost) in passenger vehicles. What? You want Ford/GM/Chrysler to just throw in every feature for free, like you say Boeing should?
The 'feature' that was optional on the MAX, is not even an option on most airliners flying today. So... Does that make them "unsafe" aircraft?
The poor training here is just as big, or bigger a causal factor in this accident then aircraft design or software flaws.
After reading some of your earlier posts. I suggest you go read up on something known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. You are a perfect example of it.
There is a reason why FAA safety employees and NTSB air accident investigators are guys with decades of experience in aviation, and not just guys off the street.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 13, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
Same here. Can fix anything in front of me as long as I got my tool bag and an electrical schematic. Don’t write off people younger than you ;)
Wow, so humble. :rolleyes:
OK, since you can fix ANYTHING with only a wiring schematic. Here's one I had to fix the other day. MD-82, JT8D-217 engines. #1 engine will not accelerate past idle. OK, Mr. fix anything, how do I fix this? What's my first troubleshooting step?
Hint: You don't need the wiring schematic, it's not an electrical problem.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 14, 2019, 06:38:54 AM
OK, since you can fix ANYTHING with only a wiring schematic. Here's one I had to fix the other day. MD-82, JT8D-217 engines. #1 engine will not accelerate past idle. OK, Mr. fix anything, how do I fix this? What's my first troubleshooting step?
Hint: You don't need the wiring schematic, it's not an electrical problem.
First troubleshooting step would be to check fuel to the engine. But that’s what I would do without all of the training you have received. Id need to be in front of it not over a computer. So you can tout how wrong I am etc. it’s not about being humble. It’s about being confident in your abilities. As I sure you are aswell.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 14, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
quick question. you guys have mentioned several times that trained pilots should have been able to handle the malfunction or however you want to call it.
why are the planes grounded?
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 14, 2019, 01:02:19 PM
quick question. you guys have mentioned several times that trained pilots should have been able to handle the malfunction or however you want to call it.
why are the planes grounded?
semp
I believe they stated earlier that it is political.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 14, 2019, 01:07:28 PM
quick question. you guys have mentioned several times that trained pilots should have been able to handle the malfunction or however you want to call it.
why are the planes grounded?
semp
Knee jerk reaction by politicians.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 14, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
When HAL tries to close the pod bay doors you need a human to solve the problem.
based on what you guys have said here and again most of what you post I think wtf are they talking about. as like I said I know nothing about it.
why do I get the feeling that if Dave had died because hal9000 didn't open the doors, that you would blame him for not bringing his helmet.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 14, 2019, 01:28:13 PM
Boeing gave $100,000 to Trump's election committee so Trump grounded the fleet to save Boeing from being witch hunted by the media. So far the attacks on Boeing have been light and not really gaining traction and Boeing gave up one executive's head to the media who fell on his sword per the boards direction while giving away an elective upgrade for the MCAS. US airline pilots had no problem flying the MAX as is since it's inception. Ethiopia put up a stink becasue, who will pay for an investment that huge in that tiny country other than trying to use the international media to fleece Boeing to cover their poor maintenance and none existent quality training. Lion Air has known problems with maintenance and training. Past this semp you are just trolling to see if you can get anyone to loose their cookies.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 14, 2019, 01:55:39 PM
I'm not trolling buster as a passenger I'm concerned. that's the only reason I'm posting.
from a pure passenger point if vie and I mean only my point if view. I see a bit if arrogance in some here.
what I see is if there's a problem we can trained to handle it and not we can handle the problem but it should also be fixed. that bothers me.
let me tell you why. I'm afraid of flying, but I will fly if I have to. when I was in the marines while everybody else carried ammo food, whatever. I carried barf bags. and trust me I never had enough.
I would rather have a pilot that says I can handle this situation but it should be fixed than a pilot that sees a problem and says I can handle it.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 14, 2019, 02:41:07 PM
I'm not trolling buster as a passenger I'm concerned. that's the only reason I'm posting.
from a pure passenger point if vie and I mean only my point if view. I see a bit if arrogance in some here.
what I see is if there's a problem we can trained to handle it and not we can handle the problem but it should also be fixed. that bothers me.
let me tell you why. I'm afraid of flying, but I will fly if I have to. when I was in the marines while everybody else carried ammo food, whatever. I carried barf bags. and trust me I never had enough.
I would rather have a pilot that says I can handle this situation but it should be fixed than a pilot that sees a problem and says I can handle it.
semp
Semp, it became clear from the outset that some organization had decided it was the airplane that was completely at fault and the media ran with only that as ammunition. Normally accidents lead to a comprehensive unbiased investigation of any and all factors that may have contributed to the crash. That did not happen. The authorities from the FAA to the president were left with no other political choice but to ground the fleet since "everyone" had concluded it was a design fault in the 737-Max. Those most qualified people able to get to the bottom of all elements that contributed to the crash have not be heard from.
I believe I can say and I hope my fellow airmen will agree, while this abnormality (note I did not say emergency) would have been a pain-in-the-ass if it happened to me at work, I honestly believe it would have been a return to land and of course, a call to my wife that I'll be later than planned getting home.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 14, 2019, 02:43:27 PM
I'm not trolling buster as a passenger I'm concerned. that's the only reason I'm posting.
from a pure passenger point if vie and I mean only my point if view. I see a bit if arrogance in some here.
what I see is if there's a problem we can trained to handle it and not we can handle the problem but it should also be fixed. that bothers me.
let me tell you why. I'm afraid of flying, but I will fly if I have to. when I was in the marines while everybody else carried ammo food, whatever. I carried barf bags. and trust me I never had enough.
I would rather have a pilot that says I can handle this situation but it should be fixed than a pilot that sees a problem and says I can handle it.
semp
There are no perfect planes, cars. or boats. All you can do is train pilots to handle any situation that may occur.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 14, 2019, 04:29:49 PM
but do you think this abnormality while rare should be fixed now that while rare it may happen again.
semp
Any improvement to a commercial airplane is welcome. I am just not convinced that a properly maintained could have this issue. As I said before, there are many items in the Ethiopian Preliminary report that give me serious concerns it was properly maintained.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 14, 2019, 05:59:06 PM
quick question. you guys have mentioned several times that trained pilots should have been able to handle the malfunction or however you want to call it.
why are the planes grounded?
semp
Because it wasn't immediately clear what caused the accident and Boeing has to worry about public perception.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 14, 2019, 06:23:43 PM
Any improvement to a commercial airplane is welcome. I am just not convinced that a properly maintained could have this issue. As I said before, there are many items in the Ethiopian Preliminary report that give me serious concerns it was properly maintained.
I agree.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 14, 2019, 06:26:42 PM
Any improvement to a commercial airplane is welcome. I am just not convinced that a properly maintained could have this issue. As I said before, there are many items in the Ethiopian Preliminary report that give me serious concerns it was properly maintained.
Yep.
And frankly, if a bone needed to be thrown it could have been handled without a panic grounding of the entire fleet. The unintended consequences of placing perfectly good airplanes into storage and then bringing them back out are potentially more hazardous than letting them continue to fly with operators competent enough to do so safely.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 14, 2019, 07:57:23 PM
Due to the overwhelming political aspect we can be thankful Boeing will be punished for building a very good airplane that may need a minor tweak to the software.
We can be thankful a clueless media can still convince the lemming herd that clueless reporters are reliable sources of information.
Most of all we can be thankful that the issues of incompetent maintenance and incompetent aviators will not be addressed and the incompetence can continue without pause. [/sarcasm]
If you'll excuse me, I have to go to Sloan Kettering in New York and critique their brain cancer surgery. Because I read all about how to do it in the NY Times. They have great medical reporters.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: SysError on May 14, 2019, 08:10:59 PM
"Former Boeing Engineers Say Relentless Cost-Cutting Sacrificed Safety The failures of the 737 Max appear to be the result of an emphasis on speed, cost, and above all shareholder value."
"Former Boeing Engineers Say Relentless Cost-Cutting Sacrificed Safety The failures of the 737 Max appear to be the result of an emphasis on speed, cost, and above all shareholder value."
"Former Boeing Engineers Say Relentless Cost-Cutting Sacrificed Safety The failures of the 737 Max appear to be the result of an emphasis on speed, cost, and above all shareholder value."
I read this article and like every other preceding publication, it draws a clearly stated conclusion before independent professionals have had an opportunity to complete their investigation.
"Yet somehow a company renowned for its meticulous engineering installed software that drove the aircraft into the ground while the pilots searched desperately for answers."
The rest of the article reads like the normal fallout that results from lousy industrial relations with a Union; and as a long time union member (ALPA) it saddens me when corporations and their employees cannot find the common ground to realize they are a team. But I guess the management team walks the carpet dance in fear of the shareholders at all companies.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 14, 2019, 08:46:36 PM
quick question. you guys have mentioned several times that trained pilots should have been able to handle the malfunction or however you want to call it.
why are the planes grounded?
semp
Trained pilots should have been able to handle the malfunction, true. The root cause of the malfunction should be corrected, also true.
Everybody arguing here about it's Boeings fault vs. it's the crews fault. The reality is there is enough blame for both. As I've said before there is never one single causal factor in an accident like this, but rather an accident chain with multiple links, break any one of the links and you prevent the accident.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 14, 2019, 09:00:09 PM
Due to the overwhelming political aspect we can be thankful Boeing will be punished for building a very good airplane that may need a minor tweak to the software.
We can be thankful a clueless media can still convince the lemming herd that clueless reporters are reliable sources of information.
Most of all we can be thankful that the issues of incompetent maintenance and incompetent aviators will not be addressed and the incompetence can continue without pause. [/sarcasm]
If you'll excuse me, I have to go to Sloan Kettering in New York and critique their brain cancer surgery. Because I read all about how to do it in the NY Times. They have great medical reporters.
Thank you for this Toad. Not sure if you're glad to be out of the industry but I am. I was still working (and maybe you were as well) through the beginning of the "political" era. It was a pleasure for the door to hit me in the butt on retirement. But I do hope a great company like Boeing survives this crap. I'm still convinced the Airbus approach is the wrong one.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: saggs on May 14, 2019, 09:03:18 PM
First troubleshooting step would be to check fuel to the engine.
No, that would be silly because A) if there was no fuel getting to the FCU it would not start at all and B) before they even attempted to start the crew would have gotten a MASTER WARNING light and a FUEL PRESS LOW annunciation light on the panel.
Hung starts and failures to spool up on turbines is usually an air issue, like any of the air sensing lines to the FCU has a leak or obstruction, or a sticky/malfunctioning PRBC valve. Less likely is a fault in the FCU itself, or somebody screwed up a fuel trim, even less likely (but possible) is a rigging issue.
But that’s what I would do without all of the training you have received.
A ha. Here you get to the issue. You are arguing with people who have thousands of hours of training, and decades of experience in a very specialized field, you admit you have none. Yet, you think you are right and they are wrong.
it’s not about being humble. It’s about being confident in your abilities. As I sure you are aswell.
Stating as you did that you can "fix anything in front of me with just a schematic" is not confidence, it's over-confidence or arrogance. That kind of attitude in aviation maintenance is very dangerous, even deadly.
Bluntly put. You don't know enough to even realize how much you don't know.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 14, 2019, 09:17:59 PM
No, that would be silly because A) if there was no fuel getting to the FCU it would not start at all and B) before they even attempted to start the crew would have gotten a MASTER WARNING light and a FUEL PRESS LOW annunciation light on the panel.
Hung starts and failures to spool up on turbines is usually an air issue, like any of the air sensing lines to the FCU has a leak or obstruction, or a sticky/malfunctioning PRBC valve. Less likely is a fault in the FCU itself, or somebody screwed up a fuel trim, even less likely (but possible) is a rigging issue.
A ha. Here you get to the issue. You are arguing with people who have thousands of hours of training, and decades of experience in a very specialized field, you admit you have none. Yet, you think you are right and they are wrong.
Stating as you did that you can "fix anything in front of me with just a schematic" is not confidence, it's over-confidence or arrogance. That kind of attitude in aviation maintenance is very dangerous, even deadly.
Bluntly put. You don't know enough to even realize how much you don't know.
Thank you for the education in the first paragraphs.
It’s not a matter of whose right and whose wrong. It’s about doing the right thing. Again you’ve taken me way out of context. You even ended your assumption of me with an insult that’s typical online behavior when things don’t go your way.
Sorry you mistake confidence as arrogance that’s your issue not mine. My father instilled in me to be able to do and fix things on my own without the help of others. So yes I firmly believe as anyone who works on things for a living should, that I can fix or at least tell you what is wrong with the equipment in front of me. That is not arrogance. Arrogance is saying I’m the best I have not once said that nor ever will.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 14, 2019, 09:33:19 PM
"Former Boeing Engineers Say Relentless Cost-Cutting Sacrificed Safety The failures of the 737 Max appear to be the result of an emphasis on speed, cost, and above all shareholder value."
Thank you for the education in the first paragraphs.
It’s not a matter of whose right and whose wrong. It’s about doing the right thing. Again you’ve taken me way out of context. You even ended your assumption of me with an insult that’s typical online behavior when things don’t go your way.
Sorry you mistake confidence as arrogance that’s your issue not mine. My father instilled in me to be able to do and fix things on my own without the help of others. So yes I firmly believe as anyone who works on things for a living should, that I can fix or at least tell you what is wrong with the equipment in front of me. That is not arrogance. Arrogance is saying I’m the best I have not once said that nor ever will.
And as Charles Darwin said "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 14, 2019, 10:06:25 PM
If you'll excuse me, I have to go to Sloan Kettering in New York and critique their brain cancer surgery. Because I read all about how to do it in the NY Times. They have great medical reporters.
Hey, I've done that! There are a couple of Youtube videos, too. Easier than you'd think, but your fingers get wet and the guy moves around quite a bit and makes loud noises as you work. Can be distracting until you've done it a few times.
Would you folks lighten up just a bit? We all get that the pilots could have done better, that the maintenance might have been the initial problem (I called that!), but there's also an issue with the software and the warnings about it. Nothing wrong about discussing that.
We're all friends here. Let's try to keep it that way, OK?
- oldman
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 14, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
Hey, I've done that! There are a couple of Youtube videos, too. Easier than you'd think, but your fingers get wet and the guy moves around quite a bit and makes loud noises as you work. Can be distracting until you've done it a few times.
Would you folks lighten up just a bit? We all get that the pilots could have done better, that the maintenance might have been the initial problem (I called that!), but there's also an issue with the software and the warnings about it. Nothing wrong about discussing that.
We're all friends here. Let's try to keep it that way, OK?
- oldman
Yep. Problems all up the chain. Yet industry guys want to solely blame the pilots and maintenance lol.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 15, 2019, 09:44:17 AM
You're saying the people who know how it works blame the people who screwed up. :aok
An interesting statistic would be how many times the MAX has had a bad AOA sensor without crashing.
Indeed.
The plane was flyable. Had the crew shown the most basic levels of airmanship they would have been able to save the day. Instead, we have two guys put into a situation that was over their heads because “This is Africa.”
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 15, 2019, 10:24:20 AM
You're saying the people who know how it works blame the people who screwed up. :aok
An interesting statistic would be how many times the MAX has had a bad AOA sensor without crashing.
Reviewing all previous posts, I think its fair to say that all the professional airmen who have posted in this string, are offering (maybe arguing) a counterpoint to the already-drawn conclusion that MCAS crashed the 737's - that there was nothing the pilots could do; all were doomed. You may recall the detailed and complex investigation of TWA 800. All indications pointed to a bomb but the NTSB who are expert in investigation without bias, ultimately helped to make the 747 a safer airplane. I believe, due the location, the NTSB only has observer status in these two accidents, so I remain convinced that the truth of all contributing factors will never be published,
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 15, 2019, 10:29:39 AM
Reviewing all previous posts, I think its fair to say that all the professional airmen who have posted in this string, are offering (maybe arguing) a counterpoint to the already-drawn conclusion that MCAS crashed the 737's - that there was nothing the pilots could do; all were doomed. You may recall the detailed and complex investigation of TWA 800. All indications pointed to a bomb but the NTSB who are expert in investigation without bias, ultimately helped to make the 747 a safer airplane. I believe, due the location, the NTSB only has observer status in these two accidents, so I remain convinced that the truth of all contributing factors will never be published,
Correct. The professionals (in the previously locked thread) asked that people refrain from speculating at least until the bodies had reached room temperature. But the resident experts (like the OP) decided to run wild with one-sided speculation. Thus the professionals offered a dose of reality despite the fact that we preferred letting the investigators do their job first.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: SysError on May 15, 2019, 10:58:47 AM
I believe, due the location, the NTSB only has observer status in these two accidents, so I remain convinced that the truth of all contributing factors will never be published,
Is it BEA - French accident investigator - that has the lead?
Have they done stuff in the past that concerns you?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 15, 2019, 10:59:01 AM
I believe, due the location, the NTSB only has observer status in these two accidents, so I remain convinced that the truth of all contributing factors will never be published,
Agree. That will be the additional tragedy to these two incidents.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 15, 2019, 11:09:16 AM
I believe, due the location, the NTSB only has observer status in these two accidents, so I remain convinced that the truth of all contributing factors will never be published,
Totally agree.
This is a political hit job. Easier to blame Boeing than to address an institutional disregard for proper maintenance procedures and proper pilot selection and training.
the already-drawn conclusion that MCAS crashed the 737's - that there was nothing the pilots could do; all were doomed.
Which of course is easily disproved by the fact that the same Lion Air aircraft had the same AOA problem the previous day and was successfully flown to landing because an EXPERIENCED pilot knew exactly what to do.
So all the blather about doomed by MCAS, faulty computer programs and lack of a (optional...but hey, CHEAP is the middle name of airline management) PFD AOA display is just that....blather that is, at best, very, very far down in the list of causal factors.
Not that the FINAL would ever dare admit that fact of course.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 15, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
They are only useless if you do not understand them.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 15, 2019, 11:51:32 AM
Another point of interest to me: what's the name of the jumpseat pilot that saved the Lion Air aircraft on the day before the crash?
I've looked for this info, being interested in the jumpseater's background/training. I have been unable to find anything at all on this guy.
Funny because you would think he would be being lauded as a hero.
Anyone know who it was?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Zimme83 on May 15, 2019, 12:32:50 PM
He was just lucky. He thought the unreliable airspeed messed with the auto trim and cut the switches. He improvised and it happened to be the right call.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 15, 2019, 01:06:57 PM
They are only useless if you do not understand them.
Understand it completely. Still was absolutely useless and didn’t relate to the thread at all or anyone in it. This is an online forum why keep trying to throw little jabs?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 15, 2019, 01:35:18 PM
He was just lucky. He thought the unreliable airspeed messed with the auto trim and cut the switches. He improvised and it happened to be the right call.
How is it you know what he thought?
Much more likely that he used his obvious experience and training in the jet and got involved out of self preservation.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 15, 2019, 02:08:17 PM
He was just lucky. He thought the unreliable airspeed messed with the auto trim and cut the switches. He improvised and it happened to be the right call.
So this jumpseat pilot has identified himself and described the incident? You are restating what he said?
Do you have a link?
Or are you just speculating and speaking for this unknown aviator?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 15, 2019, 02:23:23 PM
This is about the pilot from Bloomberg News but, if I read it correctly, the Indonesian government is withholding his name while the incident is still under investigation. Says he knew to disable the trim system that was forcing the nose down. And supposedly part of the checklist the crew is supposed to memorize. The plane in question also had ongoing issues that the maintenance group were not getting resolved. How was this plane allowed in the air in the face of that and now ..... crickets out of Indonesia....... just like Ethiopia...... chirp.
This is about the pilot from Bloomberg News but, if I read it correctly, the Indonesian government is withholding his name while the incident is still under investigation. Says he knew to disable the trim system that was forcing the nose down. And supposedly part of the checklist the crew is supposed to memorize. The plane in question also had ongoing issues that the maintenance group were not getting resolved. How was this plane allowed in the air in the face of that and now ..... crickets out of Indonesia....... just like Ethiopia...... chirp.
He was just lucky. He thought the unreliable airspeed messed with the auto trim and cut the switches. He improvised and it happened to be the right call.
:rofl
SMH.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 15, 2019, 03:42:53 PM
He was just lucky. He thought the unreliable airspeed messed with the auto trim and cut the switches. He improvised and it happened to be the right call.
You’re probably right. To bad the peanut gallery will say otherwise.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 15, 2019, 03:44:48 PM
You’re probably right. To bad the peanut gallery will say otherwise.
Yup - after 46 years of flying airplanes, 39 of them as a professional, I now know how lucky I am that I fluked it right so many times. Thank you Ace.
You don't get it - we won't ever know the complete truth of all the factors that contributed these crashes. Obviously the intervention of the MCAS was a factor, I don't argue that, but I want to know everything about the maintenance records, the pilot training records, the weight of the airplane, the CofG of the airplane, how the performance numbers for every takeoff are calculated (and who does them). I could go on and on with this list but hopefully you get what I want to get to the bottom of.
But I remain convinced that politics and vested interests have already biased what will be revealed in the final report such that only Boeing will be found to be culpable; and that does nothing to serve the goal of enhancing aviation safety worldwide.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 15, 2019, 06:03:54 PM
That is why Nikki Haley was suddenly placed on the Board of Boeing.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 15, 2019, 10:52:41 PM
Understand it completely. Still was absolutely useless and didn’t relate to the thread at all or anyone in it. This is an online forum why keep trying to throw little jabs?
Perhaps you should read some of your postings.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 16, 2019, 01:39:01 AM
I heard from many people who know about airplanes here. like i said before I know nothing about airplanes other than on occasion i watch reviews of airplane crashes on youtube and I am pretty sure the guy making the videos has as much experience flying as I do.
anyway, i have read here from people who have real knowledge and I believe them. on the other hand something bugs me, I've read that pilot training, maintenance, rest of stuff I dont know is may not be as good as here in the us. not saying you guys said it was crappy, just saying it may not be as good as the usa. I hear things like not following "basic rules of flying" or something similar like that caused the crash.
why arent more airplanes crashing in africa, south america, south east asia... and more often. why 2 unlucky sets of crews happen to fly the same airplane type and crash. if subpar training is an issue why the same airplane? why not 2 different types?
I see some fail to even say that pilots caused 99% of the crash, but the airplane "malfunction" or whatever caused the other 1%. boeing being held fully responsible i believe is wrong, on the other hand pilots being held fully responsible by something that started with the airplane is wrong. if both sets of pilots were so poorly trained dont you think they would have crashed any other plane? why arent airplane crashing more often if they are so poorly trained? pretty sure they dont always fly in optimal conditions.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 16, 2019, 08:06:32 AM
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 16, 2019, 08:10:22 AM
Airplanes crash in Africa all the time. They’re notorious for it. It doesn’t happen more often because the airplanes are so good they can handle a lot of abuse. But they have limits.
I had a ground crew (push) tow a Legacy into a hangar wall bending the right elevator. If another Captain hadn’t seen it happen they would have just pulled it away from the hangar wall and gone about their day as if nothing had happened.
DANA just ran an MD-80 off the end of the runway in Port Harcourt. They also had a dual flameout a few years ago and crashed into the middle of Lagos killing all aboard. The list is long and undistinguished.
Board Third World Airlines at your peril.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 16, 2019, 08:31:10 AM
Semp, you may want to review this timeline published by the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10785301
Remember the number of airplanes flying in North America vs the rest of the world. I will try to find that number I do remember when Korean Air was banned from our airspace, in order to match the third world accident rate, US airlines would have had to lose an airplane each week. Sad huh.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 16, 2019, 08:35:05 AM
Semp, you may want to review this timeline published by the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10785301
Remember the number of airplanes flying in North America vs the rest of the world. I will try to find that number I do remember when Korean Air was banned from our airspace, in order to match the third world accident rate, US airlines would have had to lose an airplane each week. Sad huh.
That list is missing a few. It also doesn’t count accidents where (I guess) nobody dies. There are chewed up jets and wiped out approach lights all over the place from overruns and guys landing short. Kaduna had a 737 sitting with its belly ripped open after the guys landed on the rabbit. Thank Gawd for tough Boeing planes.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 16, 2019, 10:37:34 AM
Semp, you may want to review this timeline published by the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10785301
Remember the number of airplanes flying in North America vs the rest of the world. I will try to find that number I do remember when Korean Air was banned from our airspace, in order to match the third world accident rate, US airlines would have had to lose an airplane each week. Sad huh.
Here’s a good visual of what’s flying on any given day.
https://flightaware.com/live/
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 16, 2019, 10:52:03 AM
He was just lucky. He thought the unreliable airspeed messed with the auto trim and cut the switches. He improvised and it happened to be the right call.
Let's call it speculating and running. ---> :bolt:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 16, 2019, 07:48:57 PM
Headline in my local news. Boeing announced that orders for the 737 Max have ceased. It does not elaborate as to whether existing unfilled orders have been cancelled. Christmas comes early for Airbus and hopefully Boeing as a corporation survives.
Conviction by public opinion without disclosure of all of the evidence. Even if all contributing factors should come to light at some point, they will be published on page 17 of the Times in a small byline.
Shall we chip in for some vacation travel for Ace and Zimme on Cubana or maybe Air Koryo?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 16, 2019, 09:17:33 PM
:rofl Busher!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 16, 2019, 09:54:59 PM
Headline in my local news. Boeing announced that orders for the 737 Max have ceased. It does not elaborate as to whether existing unfilled orders have been cancelled. Christmas comes early for Airbus and hopefully Boeing as a corporation survives.
Conviction by public opinion without disclosure of all of the evidence. Even if all contributing factors should come to light at some point, they will be published on page 17 of the Times in a small byline.
Shall we chip in for some vacation travel for Ace and Zimme on Cubana or maybe Air Koryo?
:rofl :aok
(I noted early on this was a hit job by the pro-Airbus cabal headed by EASA. They’ve succeeded.)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 16, 2019, 10:10:11 PM
Busher are you seriously worried that the 737max crashes are a threat to Boeing's survival? I am surprised if you are. In my opinion the 737max is a short term problem somewhat more costly than the 787 fires but in no way an existential threat.
I think the danger Boeing faces is the potential loss of its engineering culture over the long term if the management changes that are being reported, (reports derided as hit pieces here,) are somewhat accurate. The danger of that is not just that somebody says it is so but that it is so. I guess my point is that if people are worried about some kind of anti Boeing plot destroying the company I frankly think they are completely off base and fundamentally not serious.
Remember that of the Fortune 500 companies that were on the list in 1955 only 60 are still on it today. Large complex industrial companies are very capable of shooting themselves in the foot and reloading, just look at GM, GE, Bethlehem Steel.
If you look at the upwards march of Boeing's earnings over last ten years you can take that at face value as meaning that Boeing is a really well run company that is able to wring efficiency's out of complex manufacturing systems and grow sales or you could wonder where exactly is the fat being trimmed and suspect that they are moving to the wrong side of the engineering/cost cutting line and are setting themselves up to fall behind. I suppose you could believe both at the same time as well.
I think airplane building is a pretty amazing business. So much capital so much need to keep advancing the technology, such high stakes with sales, and potentially such a huge growth in the market coming.
Anyway this is no De Havilland Comet end of the British Empire moment.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 16, 2019, 11:32:37 PM
Shall we chip in for some vacation travel for Ace and Zimme on Cubana or maybe Air Koryo?
I don't know anything about Cubana today or Air Koryo.
I can tell you this though: in the late 70's Cuban Mig-21 pilots could fly the toejam out of that airplane. They were the very best, by a very long way, of the Commie pilots who came out to intercept our RC-135s.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 17, 2019, 06:49:03 AM
Headline in my local news. Boeing announced that orders for the 737 Max have ceased. It does not elaborate as to whether existing unfilled orders have been cancelled. Christmas comes early for Airbus and hopefully Boeing as a corporation survives.
Conviction by public opinion without disclosure of all of the evidence. Even if all contributing factors should come to light at some point, they will be published on page 17 of the Times in a small byline.
Shall we chip in for some vacation travel for Ace and Zimme on Cubana or maybe Air Koryo?
Let me get my passport!!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 17, 2019, 06:54:34 AM
Busher are you seriously worried that the 737max crashes are a threat to Boeing's survival? I am surprised if you are. In my opinion the 737max is a short term problem somewhat more costly than the 787 fires but in no way an existential threat.
Anyway this is no De Havilland Comet end of the British Empire moment.
No, I believe Boeing will survive but not without serious damage.
I could speculate that the 737 order book might shrink; I could speculate that its newly built media reputation might affect the introduction of the 777X; I could speculate the Boeing's lousy record in it's industrial relations might affect quality control.
But I don't speculate so I'll wait for the end result.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 17, 2019, 10:10:50 AM
Yes, you are hilarious. Don't like turnabout, eh Mr. Forum Moderator?
You just don’t look before posting. That’s not my fault you lack common sense lol.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 17, 2019, 11:20:51 AM
Thank you for making my point.
You offered the insult that I lack common sense. YOU initiated this. You defer to insults.
Also, contrary to your self validated role as Forum Moderator, there's no rules. Any one can ask another poster a question at any time. There's no specified internet protocol to wait a certain period of time, some number of minutes/hours/days, before asking or repeating a question.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 17, 2019, 11:25:29 AM
You offered the insult that I lack common sense. YOU initiated this. You defer to insults.
Also, contrary to your self validated role as Forum Moderator, there's no rules. Any one can ask another poster a question at any time. There's no specified internet protocol to wait a certain period of time, some number of minutes/hours/days, before asking or repeating a question.
You’ve fed the troll plenty enough humble pie for one day. (Well done.) :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 17, 2019, 12:33:39 PM
You offered the insult that I lack common sense. YOU initiated this. You defer to insults.
Also, contrary to your self validated role as Forum Moderator, there's no rules. Any one can ask another poster a question at any time. There's no specified internet protocol to wait a certain period of time, some number of minutes/hours/days, before asking or repeating a question.
No buddy. You got it backwards again. You wanted to jump his post but looked like a fool because he hasn’t been online. :rofl. Take that humble pie an eat it. I’ll stick to my pecan. Maybe your buddy will congratulate you on your next post :rofl
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 17, 2019, 01:02:58 PM
Busher are you seriously worried that the 737max crashes are a threat to Boeing's survival? I am surprised if you are. In my opinion the 737max is a short term problem somewhat more costly than the 787 fires but in no way an existential threat.
I think the danger Boeing faces is the potential loss of its engineering culture over the long term if the management changes that are being reported, (reports derided as hit pieces here,) are somewhat accurate. The danger of that is not just that somebody says it is so but that it is so. I guess my point is that if people are worried about some kind of anti Boeing plot destroying the company I frankly think they are completely off base and fundamentally not serious.
Remember that of the Fortune 500 companies that were on the list in 1955 only 60 are still on it today. Large complex industrial companies are very capable of shooting themselves in the foot and reloading, just look at GM, GE, Bethlehem Steel.
If you look at the upwards march of Boeing's earnings over last ten years you can take that at face value as meaning that Boeing is a really well run company that is able to wring efficiency's out of complex manufacturing systems and grow sales or you could wonder where exactly is the fat being trimmed and suspect that they are moving to the wrong side of the engineering/cost cutting line and are setting themselves up to fall behind. I suppose you could believe both at the same time as well.
I think airplane building is a pretty amazing business. So much capital so much need to keep advancing the technology, such high stakes with sales, and potentially such a huge growth in the market coming.
Anyway this is no De Havilland Comet end of the British Empire moment.
More like the Lockheed Electra, a type with an actual defect.
Airbus was on the mat. The 380 was a colossal blunder and Boeing was set to dominate the industry for the next decade, hence the onset of a perfectly timed smear campaign. Never let a manufactured crisis go to waste.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Mister Fork on May 17, 2019, 01:08:57 PM
...and that everyone has forgotten that the first large aviation regulatory body to ban the MAX was the...? (hint, it maybe somewhere across the pond)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 17, 2019, 02:12:51 PM
The CAA of China?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Arlo on May 17, 2019, 02:15:52 PM
The Duchy of Grand Fenwick's Air Transport Regulation and Balloon Agency.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Mister Fork on May 17, 2019, 04:13:32 PM
Not to steal the thread but we had a crash here yesterday
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/225154
Whistling Debt.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Meatwad on May 17, 2019, 09:10:12 PM
Only ADS-B data around here showed another aircraft of the exact same type from the same airport but different serial number and registration. Dont believe it was the one crashed unless the data on flightaware/flightradar is incorrect. I have ADS-B equipment here since I am a hosting site for flightradar24 and a raspberry pi for flightaware but would have to sit and see if there is a log that can be pulled directly from the unit itself
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 17, 2019, 11:25:03 PM
Yes, you are hilarious. Don't like turnabout, eh Mr. Forum Moderator?
He continues to make himself look more silly with every post. I seriously believe he is just trolling. I can't see someone even half way functional being that clueless.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 17, 2019, 11:28:53 PM
let it go :cheers:
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 18, 2019, 07:38:40 AM
He continues to make himself look more silly with every post. I seriously believe he is just trolling. I can't see someone even half way functional being that clueless.
It’s intentional trolling. One can only attain such density through intent—or bouncing off a wall with one’s head two dozen times. Block him and move on. Best method.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 18, 2019, 08:05:22 AM
Ace isn't trolling, this is just what happens when people aren't polite and respectful.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 18, 2019, 09:53:41 AM
No buddy. You got it backwards again. You wanted to jump his post but looked like a fool because he hasn’t been online. :rofl.
I think I have it quite right, thanks awfully.
He was purely speculating or else he has incredible powers that allow him to read the memory of an aviator half a world away whose identity has not yet been released. Speculating is the polite word for it
You'll soon have reason to :rofl again, Mr. Forum Moderator.
I'll be bumping that yet again so it doesn't get buried in the back pages.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 18, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
In the meantime....can you believe the incredibly poor design of the Sukoi Superjet 100?
Amazing the world-wide aviation authorities haven't grounded that fleet yet.
It's all politics Toad. Remember Air France 447? The A330 was introduced in 1994. Over the next many years (approx. 15) that s***box (apologies to any pros who like flying airbus) went through numerous pitot head design replacements; one of which was mandated by an AWD (the rest just recommendations). Prior to the accident, Air France alone had 9 Air Safety Reports of airspeed anomalies. For the non-professionals, the autopilot will not remain engaged when the 2 airdata computers disagree. Air France apparently did not think their pilots would have an issue maintaining stable flight during a temporary airspeed loss and NO aviation authority considered grounding the 330.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 18, 2019, 07:22:30 PM
It's all politics Toad. Remember Air France 447? The A330 was introduced in 1994. Over the next many years (approx. 15) that s***box (apologies to any pros who like flying airbus) went through numerous pitot head design replacements; one of which was mandated by an AWD (the rest just recommendations). Prior to the accident, Air France alone had 9 Air Safety Reports of airspeed anomalies. For the non-professionals, the autopilot will not remain engaged when the 2 airdata computers disagree. Air France apparently did not think their pilots would have an issue maintaining stable flight during a temporary airspeed loss and NO aviation authority considered grounding the 330.
This why my French pilot friends call that airline Air Chance.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 19, 2019, 10:42:30 AM
Indeed I do. I use that one as an example in ground school fairly often. One of my fellow instructors is a current A320 pilot and will defend Airbus to the bitter end. He has a really difficult time defending AB when you bring up AF447.
It goes far beyond the history of problems with the Thales probes. The very basics of the cockpit design and automation are part of the problem.
Not to mention the pilot training/proficiency aspect of AF447 which is clearly also at the heart of the two MAX crashes.
As you point out though, Airbus has thick layers of political protection so other than mandating a probe change the rest of the problems were ignored.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 19, 2019, 05:52:24 PM
Indeed I do. I use that one as an example in ground school fairly often. One of my fellow instructors is a current A320 pilot and will defend Airbus to the bitter end. He has a really difficult time defending AB when you bring up AF447.
It goes far beyond the history of problems with the Thales probes. The very basics of the cockpit design and automation are part of the problem.
Not to mention the pilot training/proficiency aspect of AF447 which is clearly also at the heart of the two MAX crashes.
As you point out though, Airbus has thick layers of political protection so other than mandating a probe change the rest of the problems were ignored.
I didn't realize until now that you were still active in the industry as an instructor. Gives me faith that young pilots are still getting the benefit of your years of experience. Hopefully they pick your brain for every bit of knowledge they can get. No one will ever convince me that flying airplanes is not an apprenticeship.
How your friend defends Airbus is very confusing - I can't think of a single thing to defend them. Never endorsed on one but I have flown the simulator - I didn't like it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 19, 2019, 06:12:14 PM
I didn't realize until now that you were still active in the industry as an instructor.
I flunked Retirement. :) I am just not good at having nothing to do. Oh, sure....at first it was great. Do all the things you've always wanted to do, spend more time on hobbies, etc. After a while I just needed to get back into it I guess. Nice thing about it now is that I can walk away any time. I don't really have to work. I work because I enjoy it; good airplane to teach, good company to work for. If that changes "Handles: Raise. Triggers: Squeeze". Whoosh...I'd be outta there.
The best article I read on AF447 was the one by William Langewiesche. He did a great job explaining that accident chain from poor design all the way through pilot training/competency. If you haven't read it, it's worth the time.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Oldman731 on May 19, 2019, 07:42:31 PM
The best article I read on AF447 was the one by William Langewiesche. He did a great job explaining that accident chain from poor design all the way through pilot training/competency. If you haven't read it, it's worth the time.
You suppose he's related to Wolfgang?
Would be helpful, you know, to post a link!
- oldman
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 19, 2019, 08:08:01 PM
I didn't realize until now that you were still active in the industry as an instructor. Gives me faith that young pilots are still getting the benefit of your years of experience. Hopefully they pick your brain for every bit of knowledge they can get. No one will ever convince me that flying airplanes is not an apprenticeship.
How your friend defends Airbus is very confusing - I can't think of a single thing to defend them. Never endorsed on one but I have flown the simulator - I didn't like it.
Hey. I’m keeping these kids straight, too, ya’ know. :P
Toad and I work next door to each other. Small friggin’ world. :O
I flunked Retirement. :) I am just not good at having nothing to do. Oh, sure....at first it was great. Do all the things you've always wanted to do, spend more time on hobbies, etc. After a while I just needed to get back into it I guess. Nice thing about it now is that I can walk away any time. I don't really have to work. I work because I enjoy it; good airplane to teach, good company to work for. If that changes "Handles: Raise. Triggers: Squeeze". Whoosh...I'd be outta there.
The best article I read on AF447 was the one by William Langewiesche. He did a great job explaining that accident chain from poor design all the way through pilot training/competency. If you haven't read it, it's worth the time.
I hope I’m that lucky. I’m playing Roger Staubach-style come from behind on retirement. Not sure I’ll make it. May wind up dying broke as a joke in the sim instructor chair. :uhoh
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 19, 2019, 08:38:00 PM
Toad and Vraciu, I have the utmost respect for what you both do for the industry, for the young guys wanting to learn from your experience, and for yourselves... I am glad its still fun for you both.
I am still enjoying retirement covering 20 odd thousand a year with my wife on our Harley.
And I will find that article. Thanks
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 19, 2019, 09:19:12 PM
Toad and Vraciu, I have the utmost respect for what you both do for the industry, for the young guys wanting to learn from your experience, and for yourselves... I am glad its still fun for you both.
I am still enjoying retirement covering 20 odd thousand a year with my wife on our Harley.
And I will find that article. Thanks
Thanks, man. I had good examples like you, Toad, Puma, etc. to follow. Commuting to my job flying for the Regionals in cockpits flown by pilots like you was the best CRM Training I could have asked for. I just hope to pass some of that along to guys and gals who weren’t blessed with the same opportunity. :salute
Enjoy yourself. Well-earned. :cheers:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 19, 2019, 09:26:16 PM
Air France article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FTJR on May 19, 2019, 10:57:26 PM
Air France article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash)
Great article and propthetic at the same time.. Last paragraph
Next time it will be some other airline, some other culture, and some other failure—but it will almost certainly involve automation and will perplex us when it occurs
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 19, 2019, 11:53:09 PM
You should read his article on the A320 and the Hudson River ditching: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/06/us-airways-200906 (https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/06/us-airways-200906)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 20, 2019, 06:47:53 AM
Great article and propthetic at the same time.. Last paragraph
Next time it will be some other airline, some other culture, and some other failure—but it will almost certainly involve automation and will perplex us when it occurs
I mentioned Heino Caesar of Lufthansa. He was fighting this battle from almost the day the 320 came out. I wish I could read German as most of his work is not in English.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Oldman731 on May 20, 2019, 08:37:35 AM
Air France article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash)
A magnificent article. Thanks to Toad for bringing it up, and you for finding it for us.
- oldman
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 20, 2019, 10:43:23 AM
I am reading it now and my hair is standing up. Geeze.
I just finished it and I am almost sick to my stomach. It may sound simple but I will argue (again) that until automation can be made fail-safe, pilots have to be trained (for as long as it takes and no matter what the cost), to calmly "see the big picture" and fly the airplane.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 20, 2019, 01:08:46 PM
I haven't posted in this thread simply because I generally respect the actual pilots opinions on this thread and have mostly just been reading them. I believe that too much software is always a bad thing when it contradicts a pilots normal response. Like Trump said, "just let the pilots fly the plane". It keeps them more aware in the cockpit anyway. Being able the hack a planes software and remotely fly them is what scares the crap outa me. So many suspicious plane crashes this year already...
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 20, 2019, 04:15:35 PM
to calmly "see the big picture" and fly the airplane.
And that, as you might expect, is the focus of the ground school discussion of this AF447 tragedy.
There has been a re-emphasis on flight control problems, pitot-static problems, AOA problems and (in my particular aircraft) stall barrier malfunctions in the simulation phase of training as well.
The ancient "maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation and take proper action" mantra still works in the computer age.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 20, 2019, 04:52:15 PM
And that, as you might expect, is the focus of the ground school discussion of this AF447 tragedy.
There has been a re-emphasis on flight control problems, pitot-static problems, AOA problems and (in my particular aircraft) stall barrier malfunctions in the simulation phase of training as well.
The ancient "maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation and take proper action" mantra still works in the computer age.
I could not support what you do more, Toad. BUT - 3rd world airlines are still going to put people carriers in the air with automation techs at the controls. And they will sour the long-held belief that "you are safer in an airliner.... etc."
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: MiloMorai on May 20, 2019, 08:47:12 PM
Boeing has admitted that there is problems with their simulators.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Mister Fork on May 20, 2019, 09:31:18 PM
Anyone else find it interesting that in both the MAX8 and the Air France 447 have a lot of similarities?
And then there is a pilot like Sully. Experienced to the max. Was him switching on the APU moments after impact (without going to a checklist of both engines) was just an experience factor?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 21, 2019, 08:36:07 AM
Anyone else find it interesting that in both the MAX8 and the Air France 447 have a lot of similarities?
And then there is a pilot like Sully. Experienced to the max. Was him switching on the APU moments after impact (without going to a checklist of both engines) was just an experience factor?
I don’t know the emergency procedures on the Airbus (i.e. what is a memory item and what is not). That said they were likely outside the windmilling air start envelope so the only way to turn a motor in that case is with the APU.
In the Legacy 600/650/ERJ I would have done the exact same thing—assuming my APU wasn’t still running as I make a habit to leave mine on for takeoff to run the bleed air system and give me a fifth generator for cases like this.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 21, 2019, 09:17:50 AM
Also, for an electric jet like the Bus I am sure it has a RAT but I would be much more comfortable with an APU running things.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 21, 2019, 09:58:39 AM
Another little interesting bit is Sullenberger said the HAL 9000 also prevented him from flaring more at touchdown, resulting in a harder impact. This is in a talk he gave at Google which I think is on YouTube.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 21, 2019, 10:22:35 AM
Another little interesting bit is Sullenberger said the HAL 9000 also prevented him from flaring more at touchdown, resulting in a harder impact. This is in a talk he gave at Google which I think is on YouTube.
I never chose to bid Airbus - there was always the issue of HAL deciding if my actions fit within it's intelligence before it let me do it.
But a question for my fellow pilots. You recall the A320 crash on June 26, 1988, it crashed while making a low pass over Mulhouse–Habsheim Airport as part of the Habsheim Air Show. We have all watched the video. While I appreciate he got way to deep into the back side of the drag curve, I always wondered, had he been in a conventional jet, could he have traded off a slight amount of angle of attack to gain enough lift to fly it out. I know the discussion is speculative as hell but the investigation never considered how Hal might have restricted pilot input in the recovery attempt. And for the Airbus lovers, I'll concede he should not have put the 320 or any other airplane in that situation in the first place.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 21, 2019, 12:43:38 PM
There is a LOT of controversy over that Mulhouse crash. A lot of different versions of what happened. Some pieces say the PIC disengaged the Alpha Floor protection, others say he did not.
There's conspiracy versions out there that say the FDR data was switched to protect Airbus. The official version denies that.
I think it's undeniable the PIC and SIC were highly experienced overall. I also think it's undeniable that finding fault with the HAL 9000 would probably have ended the A320 right there, so I think there's clearly a political aspect to the investigation.
Bottom line for me, a highly experience PIC realized he was too low. I think given the experience level, he probably DID push the power up and attempt a go-around. The PIC says he pulled back on the stick and the HAL 9000 nosed down to prevent a stall. Did that happen? Who knows?
Don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 21, 2019, 01:08:33 PM
That Bus crash was a seminal moment.
The PIC insists he wanted to go around but the jet wouldn't let him.
This leads back to Busher's point, namely the jet not letting you do more in extremis.
Now loop back to Air Chance 447. An extreme AOA indication was dismissed and muted by HAL which utterly confused a crew that wasn't familiar with old school flying, aka Pitch, Power, Performance. I am hammering away at this with every class that comes through my schoolhouse. This seems to be a lost art or something instead of a basic REQUIREMENT.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 21, 2019, 02:14:32 PM
Oh, and to specifically address the question of AOA, I guess it depends on the Normal Law stall margins. In a raw mode I am sure you can coax a bit more out of the wing than what HAL allows, but I can't say for sure.
A Falcon 900 even when stalled apparently isn't stalling. At ~23° AOA the inboard slats automatically stow which lowers the nose to keep the wing flying. It's pretty ingenious really.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 22, 2019, 10:22:21 AM
And then there is a pilot like Sully. Experienced to the max. Was him switching on the APU moments after impact (without going to a checklist of both engines) was just an experience factor?
A combination of experience, situational awareness, aircraft systems knowledge, and thinking outside the box.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 22, 2019, 10:30:00 AM
I never chose to bid Airbus - there was always the issue of HAL deciding if my actions fit within it's intelligence before it let me do it.
But a question for my fellow pilots. You recall the A320 crash on June 26, 1988, it crashed while making a low pass over Mulhouse–Habsheim Airport as part of the Habsheim Air Show. We have all watched the video. While I appreciate he got way to deep into the back side of the drag curve, I always wondered, had he been in a conventional jet, could he have traded off a slight amount of angle of attack to gain enough lift to fly it out. I know the discussion is speculative as hell but the investigation never considered how Hal might have restricted pilot input in the recovery attempt. And for the Airbus lovers, I'll concede he should not have put the 320 or any other airplane in that situation in the first place.
I’m in agreement. It falls back to the very basics of Private Pilot 101, no matter how complex the ride.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DaveBB on May 22, 2019, 04:10:31 PM
On an interesting note, the F-16's flight control computer will actually allow the pilot to get into an unrecoverable stall. However, due to proper testing by Americas finest test pilots, a recovery procedure was developed. The first thing the pilot is supposed to do is disengage the flight control computer, then rock the plane into a nose down attitude.
Flight control computers have a past and present history of not allowing 'private pilot 101'.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 22, 2019, 04:30:38 PM
On an interesting note, the F-16's flight control computer will actually allow the pilot to get into an unrecoverable stall. However, due to proper testing by Americas finest test pilots, a recovery procedure was developed. The first thing the pilot is supposed to do is disengage the flight control computer, then rock the plane into a nose down attitude.
Sources please.
If you disengage the FCC/FLCC (Flight Control Computer) on an F-16 you’re finished. It’s statically (and probably dynamically) unstable, aka negatively stable, throughout most of its envelope requiring thousands of corrections a second to keep it flying. Without the computer there is zero input to the flight controls. #LawnDart
Quote
Flight control computers have a past and present history of not allowing 'private pilot 101'.
Really? So a Viper Pilot is not permitted to fly pitch/power/performance? I’m sure they’ll find that quite a surprise. You better let them know, ASAP.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 22, 2019, 04:48:51 PM
Here’s the real story vs. fiction from people who should know better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo
The F-16 is not statically stable (that is why it is so maneuverable), so as you move through different AoA, the center of rotation moves relative to the center of gravity because the amount of lift changes over various parts of the airplane. These changes prevent the elevons from pushing the nose over enough to get the airplane to pitch down. At zero pitch rate (between 50-60 deg. AoA) the aircraft will just stay in that position and drop like a rock. So trying to lower the nose with the elevons will not work. However, there is a way out if altitude is available.
Although there is no nose down moment available to overcome the situation, there still is a nose up moment according to the graphs in the flight manual. By selecting the MPO (Manual Pitch Override) switch, overriding the FBW black boxes and pulling nose up there is enough moment available to move the nose further up. Once above 60 degrees AoA (you'll have to use your senses because the AoA indicater is pegged in the upper region), some nose down moment over the elevators becomes available again, enough to increase the pitch rate nose down through the critical 50 to 60 degrees AoA range and rock your way out of a deep stall.
So they are not disabling the computer. They are overriding its limits, essentially telling HAL 9000 he’s an idiot and to get out of the way so they can move the controls in a way he thinks unwise.
Are you listening, Airbus?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 22, 2019, 08:37:43 PM
On an interesting note, the F-16's flight control computer will actually allow the pilot to get into an unrecoverable stall. However, due to proper testing by Americas finest test pilots, a recovery procedure was developed. The first thing the pilot is supposed to do is disengage the flight control computer, then rock the plane into a nose down attitude.
Flight control computers have a past and present history of not allowing 'private pilot 101'.
Got factual references for your theory?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 22, 2019, 08:45:32 PM
Sounds like some 2001 A space Odyssey stuff goin on here. Wasn't the robot named HAL?
Oh of course hes trolling. He's saying "I know what you did last summer."
If he is, very few are aware of it.
Frankly, I consider the theory nonsense. Anything Cashill says you can pretty much believe the opposite.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 23, 2019, 08:44:39 AM
The Navy missile theory of TWA 800? The reason I doubt it is because I don't think a crew of sailors that know they were doing a missile drill right when TWA 800 went down could keep that secret. Somebody would have blabbed by now. Think of the millions they'd get for the book rights.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 23, 2019, 09:01:40 AM
The Navy missile theory of TWA 800? The reason I doubt it is because I don't think a crew of sailors that know they were doing a missile drill right when TWA 800 went down could keep that secret. Somebody would have blabbed by now. Think of the millions they'd get for the book rights.
That's no joke.
It's also how you know the moon landings were real based on plain common sense.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 23, 2019, 09:19:41 AM
The Navy missile theory of TWA 800? The reason I doubt it is because I don't think a crew of sailors that know they were doing a missile drill right when TWA 800 went down could keep that secret. Somebody would have blabbed by now. Think of the millions they'd get for the book rights.
Ehh, they can keep anything a secret and cover it with their "official" story and it won't matter what anyone says or thinks. Military members would not come out and say anything, just like they don't say anything about UFOs they see and record. That's why the Pentagon said they document UFO cases recently, but won't tell us Jack Crap after that about their "research". Military members would be in serious trouble if they told. Now, I'm not saying a rocket did hit it. Just that they can cover up pretty much anything, especially back then. Money payoffs are also a hell of a drug.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 23, 2019, 09:36:55 AM
People dismiss real conspiracies because of blind adherence to belief in the fake ones.
TWA 800 was probably a coverup for a bomb on board. That's the most plausible scenario. There was too much riding on that being discovered by the public. In any case the Navy didn't do it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 23, 2019, 09:54:40 AM
People dismiss real conspiracies because of blind adherence to belief in the fake ones.
TWA 800 was probably a coverup for a bomb on board. That's the most plausible scenario. There was too much riding on that being discovered by the public. In any case the Navy didn't do it.
Yeah I don't believe the Navy would do it... but a DS could for what ever reason. <Think recent missile shot at AF1> Weren't there hundreds of accounts of people saying they saw a missile though? Was before my time so I don't really know a lot of info about it. That being said. It's still easy to cover it up with what ever their "official" story is. He knows a good bit about planes which is why I wouldn't put him past it to know about it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 23, 2019, 10:04:29 AM
Yeah I don't believe the Navy would do it... but a DS could for what ever reason. <Think recent missile shot at AF1> Weren't there hundreds of accounts of people saying they saw a missile though? Was before my time so I don't really know a lot of info about it. That being said. It's still easy to cover it up with what ever their "official" story is. He knows a good bit about planes which is why I wouldn't put him past it to know about it.
I could see a Stinger-type missile used by hostiles fired from a boat. But the Navy? No.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 23, 2019, 11:12:41 AM
A 70 year old man whose been on planes his entire life, owned a few commercial jets, and was looking into getting in the airline industry. Now he's president with access to many government files. I'm sure he knows a lot more than your great media has lead you to believe.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 23, 2019, 11:28:01 AM
A 70 year old man whose been on planes his entire life, owned a few commercial jets, and was looking into getting in the airline industry. Now he's president with access to many government files. I'm sure he knows a lot more than your great media has lead you to believe.
Whatever you choose to believe.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 23, 2019, 12:09:02 PM
BTW, have you seen Mini-AOC? Hilarious. Makes A-Yuck look like the fool she is.
Ohhhh yes. Very funny and spot on.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 23, 2019, 12:32:16 PM
I can see this locked for violations of RULE 14 soon... I hope.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 23, 2019, 12:49:06 PM
This is like the first 5 minutes after a strategy meeting when everyone starts talking about lunch, their (secretaries)mistresses, grand kids\kids, Fake News, politics, golf, hemorrhoids.....
I think this meeting is officially over.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Oldman731 on May 23, 2019, 12:54:15 PM
IN for the (https://i.postimg.cc/1RMZNCz1/160539-DB-FB85-4-A96-9374-9-DD123-B0670-C.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)bbva branch hours (https://banks-nearme.com/bbva-compass-near-me)
Flashing LED lights...
LOL
Another reminds me story..... My wife had surgery on her elbow last Friday. She is doing fine and all. Anyway I was on my way home and called her to see if she needed me to stop and pick up anything for her in town. It goes straight to her answering message...... I call again.... straight to her message. That is unusual so I switch over on my phone and the first thing I do is open the garage. Now I know that will get the dogs barking thinking I am home. Then I flash the lights in the dining room. My wife looks out the window and does not see my truck. She knows the garage opened by the way the dogs are barking..... they bark different. She then remembers she did not lock the door going into the garage. The dogs are outside so instead of going that direction to let them in, or toward the garage door, she heads to the bedroom, locks the door and grabs one of her pistols. Then she calls me. Man am I red faced. I told he I opened the garage... and probably should not have, because I was trying to get her attention. I had also blinked lights in different parts of the house. She said she thought someone had gained access to the garage when she saw my truck was not out there.
LOL In any case I told her that in the future I would flicker the lights only to get her attention. As it turned out her battery is going bad in her phone and is being replaced today. Her phone was off when I called.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 23, 2019, 05:14:52 PM
A 70 year old man whose been on planes his entire life, owned a few commercial jets, and was looking into getting in the airline industry. Now he's president with access to many government files. I'm sure he knows a lot more than your great media has lead you to believe.
Do you think the earth is flat? You come off as someone who does
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 24, 2019, 12:39:30 PM
Do you think the earth is flat? You come off as someone who does
It's like you guys just don't understand what I am trying to say. I must live in mirror world now... Sigh..... :bhead
No... And I've actually taken a weather and climate with a lab course in college by a climatologist, got an A in it too. Was actually one of my favorite classes of all time. I learned a lot about how the earth works relative to the sun and why it being a sphere makes a lot of sense scientifically. Flat surfaces are not balanced like spheres are.
Do you know what an Infiltration psyop is? That's what flat Earth is. Understand the difference between spyops and real research.
The biggest arrogant mistake is thinking that every conservative person believes in the same narratives. I have simply shared news articles that I thought were interesting related to plane crashes. It was nice of Trump to visit those people and it does seem coincidental. These aren't "my ideas". I am not trying to offend anyone. Y'all need to research more and understand why I've come to conclusions rather than mock me. It just makes you all look arrogant. I am happy and proud of my country. We will not be taken advantage of any longer.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 24, 2019, 02:58:33 PM
Real conservatives don't claim victim status to then get up on a soap box and tell the audience how intellectually wonderful "I am" so I know how not nice you are treating me.
They accpet the audience is not interested in what is being presented instead of getting their feelings hurt. It's hard to take you seriously when you get all woke and hurt like a millennial snowflake over nonsense. Nobody cares what you did in college, it's nice you went and got good grades. The audience in this post are men who have spent their lifetime doing what I'm in doubt you ever will. Stop trying so hard to force them to acknowledge you, so far you have presented nothing that any of their sons or grandsons aren't doing some variation of while acting "that age" over it, and showing exactly how young and inexperienced they are in life.
Men who have spent their life times flying jets in the Military and then in civilian life, are not going to decide you are a genius becasue you can read articles and present conclusions into a discussion about the aircraft they have been Captains of. They are going to treat you as foolish as you are acting.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 24, 2019, 04:07:07 PM
Anyone heard anything else on the 737 max planes that went down?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 24, 2019, 05:26:29 PM
Real conservatives don't claim victim status to then get up on a soap box and tell the audience how intellectually wonderful "I am" so I know how not nice you are treating me.
They accpet the audience is not interested in what is being presented instead of getting their feelings hurt. It's hard to take you seriously when you get all woke and hurt like a millennial snowflake over nonsense. Nobody cares what you did in college, it's nice you went and got good grades. The audience in this post are men who have spent their lifetime doing what I'm in doubt you ever will. Stop trying so hard to force them to acknowledge you, so far you have presented nothing that any of their sons or grandsons aren't doing some variation of while acting "that age" over it, and showing exactly how young and inexperienced they are in life.
Men who have spent their life times flying jets in the Military and then in civilian life, are not going to decide you are a genius becasue you can read articles and present conclusions into a discussion about the aircraft they have been Captains of. They are going to treat you as foolish as you are acting.
You just don't get it do you Bustr?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 24, 2019, 07:38:43 PM
Anyone heard anything else on the 737 max planes that went down?
Big meeting here in Dallas a couple days ago with the FAA and foreign carriers/agencies. Dog and Pony show to make the manufactured crisis display an equally manufactured "solution" to appease the uneducated masses.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 24, 2019, 07:40:47 PM
Don't feed the troll. He's just baiting. Ignore him.
I am being dead A$ $ serious.
Watch this and watch it again. Really watch it and really listen to it, twice. I am so tired of y'all's petulant arrogance to current events. It makes me sick to my stomach that you mock me without truly understanding what I am telling you. I've done nothing but make rational comments and you are trolling clowns. Real justice for these crimes are coming. Youve been warned.
Watch this and watch it again. Really watch it and really listen to it, twice. I am so tired of y'all's petulant arrogance to current events. It makes me sick to my stomach that you mock me without truly understanding what I am telling you. I've done nothing but make rational comments and you are trolling clowns. Real justice for these crimes are coming. Youve been warned.
Aren’t you trying to convince us yer smart? :headscratch:
Missread.
No. I'm trying to convince you all to be smart. I have said nothing in this thread to contradict or correct any pilots analysis on anything. I simply posted an interesting connection about a plane crash, and then I get mocked. Its a shame. I was actually one of the first people here to post a generally accurate article about the 737s software issues. I think there are far more nefarious issues with the software. Too many crazy plane crashes with important people on them. We cannot allow this to happen anymore.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 24, 2019, 11:24:26 PM
No. I'm trying to convince you all to be smart. I have said nothing in this thread to contradict or correct any pilots analysis on anything. I simply posted an interesting connection about a plane crash, and then I get mocked. Its a shame. I was actually one of the first people here to post a generally accurate article about the 737s software issues. I think there are far more nefarious issues with the software. Too many crazy plane crashes with important people on them. We cannot allow this to happen anymore.
Important people? As opposed to unimportant people I guess.
Oh boy.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 24, 2019, 11:40:44 PM
only person that ever made an airplane crash to kill one person was pablo Escobar.
rest of your conspiracy crap. is just that, crap.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 25, 2019, 01:22:49 AM
Yes. Code One has actually taken down the article, and I've noticed that even the recovery video was removed from YouTube. However, someone uploaded the text of the article about F-16s and deep stalls. See if this link works for you:
Real long story short, the F-16 does not have enough pitch authority at certain angles of attack and will fall in a high angle of attack straight down at about 120knts. The flight control computer will try to pitch the aircraft down but it won't do it. The pilot can either completely turn off the flight control computer or hold a "Manual Pitch Override" switch to exaggerate the slight nose oscillation until it gets the nose out of this dead-zone of AoA.
Here is a crash report of an F-16 that got into a deep stall in which the pilot did not rock the aircraft using Manual Pitch Override. This recovery procedure is specifically referenced. https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/final-aib_report.pdf
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DaveBB on May 25, 2019, 06:53:54 AM
Someone was nice enough to actually upload the issue for me!
Of note, it wasn't until the Block 10 F-16 that a manual pitch override switch was actually added to the aircraft.
Well, at least you’re trying to get closer to the facts now (after I corrected you for your original incorrect assertions about disabling the flight control computers). You’re welcome.
And the post that followed, which includes video: https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,397004.msg5265848.html#msg5265848
Video Link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo
Joe Bill Dryden* explained it ages ago. https://www.codeonemagazine.com/f16_article.html?item_id=174
The only times you have direct control of the surface are (1) when the weight-on-wheels, or WOW, switch is closed (i.e., you are sitting on the ground), (2) when you have the manual pitch override, or MPO, switch on and push in the nose-down direction, or (3) when the MPO switch is on, the angle of attack is above twenty-nine degrees, and you pull in the nose-up direction. As a result of the computer determining both magnitude AND direction of surface movement, the F-16 gives you a nearly constant response from a constant input across the entire flight envelope. This is only one of the results you'll see with the electronic rate (g) command system.
This is NOT disabling the FCC/FLCC as you originally asserted. If you were to do that you’d lose the airplane as the computer is what commands movement of the control surfaces. Without a flight control computer the F-16 is unflyable.
— *JBD killed himself on an acceptance flight while ejecting from an F-16C after, for reasons unknown, attempting a Split-S at very low altitude. A cautionary tale for the most experienced pilots out there to take heed of.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 25, 2019, 07:56:51 AM
Yes. Code One has actually taken down the article, and I've noticed that even the recovery video was removed from YouTube. However, someone uploaded the text of the article about F-16s and deep stalls. See if this link works for you:
Real long story short, the F-16 does not have enough pitch authority at certain angles of attack and will fall in a high angle of attack straight down at about 120knts. The flight control computer will try to pitch the aircraft down but it won't do it. The pilot can either completely turn off the flight control computer or hold a "Manual Pitch Override" switch to exaggerate the slight nose oscillation until it gets the nose out of this dead-zone of AoA.
Here is a crash report of an F-16 that got into a deep stall in which the pilot did not rock the aircraft using Manual Pitch Override. This recovery procedure is specifically referenced. https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/final-aib_report.pdf
Here’s the real story vs. fiction from people who should know better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo
The F-16 is not statically stable (that is why it is so maneuverable), so as you move through different AoA, the center of rotation moves relative to the center of gravity because the amount of lift changes over various parts of the airplane. These changes prevent the elevons from pushing the nose over enough to get the airplane to pitch down. At zero pitch rate (between 50-60 deg. AoA) the aircraft will just stay in that position and drop like a rock. So trying to lower the nose with the elevons will not work. However, there is a way out if altitude is available.
Although there is no nose down moment available to overcome the situation, there still is a nose up moment according to the graphs in the flight manual. By selecting the MPO (Manual Pitch Override) switch, overriding the FBW black boxes and pulling nose up there is enough moment available to move the nose further up. Once above 60 degrees AoA (you'll have to use your senses because the AoA indicator is pegged in the upper region), some nose down moment over the elevators becomes available again, enough to increase the pitch rate nose down through the critical 50 to 60 degrees AoA range and rock your way out of a deep stall.
So they are not disabling the computer. They are overriding its limits, essentially telling HAL 9000 he’s an idiot and to get out of the way so they can move the controls in a way he thinks unwise.
Are you listening, Airbus?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 25, 2019, 07:19:04 PM
It takes a long time to dumb down an excellent aircraft so that even the most incompetent pilots can fly it with minimal chance of screwing it up.
Its fitting. As my career was winding down, it had become obvious that management's style and behaviour had changed dramatically from what it had been at the start. They no longer had the slightest respect for what pilots do, or can do.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 26, 2019, 08:02:53 AM
Its fitting. As my career was winding down, it had become obvious that management's style and behaviour had changed dramatically from what it had been at the start. They no longer had the slightest respect for what pilots do, or can do.
Sounds like every regional in the USA. Management couldn’t care less about its crews.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 26, 2019, 10:15:58 AM
Its fitting. As my career was winding down, it had become obvious that management's style and behaviour had changed dramatically from what it had been at the start. They no longer had the slightest respect for what pilots do, or can do.
That seems to be a common characteristic of airlines that start out small and cohesive. With growth and expansion, they start losing that LUVing feeling, especially within the employee groups. Then, upper management takes advantage of the “divide and conquer” tactic, causing internal decay.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 26, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
Its fitting. As my career was winding down, it had become obvious that management's style and behaviour had changed dramatically from what it had been at the start. They no longer had the slightest respect for what pilots do, or can do.
Ahh that is typical across every major business. Profits over people it wins every time
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 26, 2019, 10:22:04 PM
Don't bite, guys. Whatever the troll said, don't bite. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Mister Fork on May 26, 2019, 10:33:57 PM
This topic horse was dead with the original sensationalist (factually incorrect) post and its title.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 27, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
Snicker
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 27, 2019, 01:26:06 PM
I got called a troll by a guy who danced on a dead pilots grave. Damn I’ll chalk that one up in the “Win” Column. You got it puma no more beating the dead horse! .
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 27, 2019, 01:44:07 PM
I got called a troll by a guy who danced on a dead pilots grave. Damn I’ll chalk that one up in the “Win” Column. You got it puma no more beating the dead horse! .
Yeah, starts looking like bloody pulp at some point. Good call. 👍
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 27, 2019, 02:04:27 PM
Yeah, starts looking like bloody pulp at some point. Good call. 👍
Yeah I agree. I Let the thread go a while back. I just agreed to disagree with the majority.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 27, 2019, 03:08:17 PM
Some wisdom pertinent to the situation:
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps. -- Ernest Gann
What is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery. -- Wilbur Wright
It is a good thing to learn caution from the misfortunes of others. -- Publilius Syrus
Mistakes are inevitable in aviation, especially when one is still learning new things. The trick is to not make the mistake that will kill you. -- Stephen Coonts
If you can’t afford to do something right, then be darn sure you can afford to do it wrong. -- Charlie Nelson
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect. — Captain A. G. Lamplugh
Don’t ever let an airplane take you someplace where your brain hasn’t arrived at least a couple of minutes earlier. -- Andy Anderson
Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. -- Publius Syrus
Something was usually beginning before the last thing ended. -- Captain Isbell, "Cassada" by James Salter
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 27, 2019, 03:44:15 PM
At this point you are talking to yourself. It’s weird.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 27, 2019, 03:50:00 PM
I got called a troll by a guy who danced on a dead pilots grave.
And this right here is the difference between a "real" pilot and an imposter (even if that imposter actually does have flight time). A real pilot isn't afraid to conduct an honest debrief and thoroughly discuss what really happened in a mishap without trying to sugar coat or gloss over anything. Because in the long run, a brutally honest debrief saves lives. A real pilot knows this, an imposter never will no matter how many hours he flies with his head shoved firmly up his poop hole in search of his personal safe space.
When pilots make a mistake, speaking the brutal truth is the only way to prevent someone else from making the same mistake. Glossing over it just means someone else who doesn't get the real story will repeat the error and likely kill a bunch of people out of ignorance. It isn't dancing on someone's grave, and in fact learning from "pilot error" is one of the most fundamentally traditional ways pilots honor their dead brothers and sisters. Again, if you don't get it, you're an imposter and never will get it because you're not one of us. Don't be mad about that, facts don't care about your feelz.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 27, 2019, 05:52:16 PM
And this right here is the difference between a "real" pilot and an imposter (even if that imposter actually does have flight time). A real pilot isn't afraid to conduct an honest debrief and thoroughly discuss what really happened in a mishap without trying to sugar coat or gloss over anything. Because in the long run, a brutally honest debrief saves lives. A real pilot knows this, an imposter never will no matter how many hours he flies with his head shoved firmly up his poop hole in search of his personal safe space.
When pilots make a mistake, speaking the brutal truth is the only way to prevent someone else from making the same mistake. Glossing over it just means someone else who doesn't get the real story will repeat the error and likely kill a bunch of people out of ignorance. It isn't dancing on someone's grave, and in fact learning from "pilot error" is one of the most fundamentally traditional ways pilots honor their dead brothers and sisters. Again, if you don't get it, you're an imposter and never will get it because you're not one of us. Don't be mad about that, facts don't care about your feelz.
Nice write up. I was more referring to absolutely degrading a human over a mistake/accident. If you think it’s cool to stomp on the grave of a man that’s on you. We can discuss what happened and how all day long but calling the man names? Nah I’ll keep it respectful.
I really think you missed the whole point. We aren’t talking about the 737 crash it was a different pilot.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 27, 2019, 06:54:48 PM
And this right here is the difference between a "real" pilot and an imposter (even if that imposter actually does have flight time). A real pilot isn't afraid to conduct an honest debrief and thoroughly discuss what really happened in a mishap without trying to sugar coat or gloss over anything. Because in the long run, a brutally honest debrief saves lives. A real pilot knows this, an imposter never will no matter how many hours he flies with his head shoved firmly up his poop hole in search of his personal safe space.
When pilots make a mistake, speaking the brutal truth is the only way to prevent someone else from making the same mistake. Glossing over it just means someone else who doesn't get the real story will repeat the error and likely kill a bunch of people out of ignorance. It isn't dancing on someone's grave, and in fact learning from "pilot error" is one of the most fundamentally traditional ways pilots honor their dead brothers and sisters. Again, if you don't get it, you're an imposter and never will get it because you're not one of us. Don't be mad about that, facts don't care about your feelz.
Well said. Well said.
When we step aboard the jet (or any aircraft aircraft for that matter) we are well-advised to be a professional. An expert technically and tactically. None of us should ever want to be remembered for killing people--or just killing ourself while taking a priceless piece of history, an expensive frontline fighter jet, or some run of the mill Cessna 152 along with us--because we did the wrong thing. If one's own life isn't worth it then that person should at least consider those who are along with them and/or those they leave behind.
As you noted, it is not dancing on the graves of the dead to properly and brutally analyze the human factors that cause a fatal crash. It is an expectation of the job. It just might save lives going forward.
This crew blew it.
The Viper driver earlier in this thread blew it.
People who have mashed up countless warbirds have also blown it.
It is in our interests to keep that in mind when we think it can't happen to us.
The dancers are the trolls who keep making excuses for what boils down to complacency, arrogance, or just plain incompetence.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 27, 2019, 08:04:13 PM
Second hand from a former USAF friend:
Quote
We have shared opinions on the international conference hosted by the FAA here in the DFW area. My initial pessimism was too sharp. The conference, in a perfect setting of PC, with experts from around the world, some with actual aviation experience, some with absolutely none, providing their professional knowledge, experience and expertise, after serious and deep contemplation, have made a discovery!
There is a true and alarming danger to flying 737 airplanes!!
After each and every conferee made his professional contribution it was agreed that “all Boeing 737 airplanes, over 10,000 at last count, have electrical pitch trim and should be/could be/perhaps//was possible to have/might be susceptible to trim problems!
There has been no actual “evidence” revealed that supports this concern but it could be! An in depth investigation “must” be conducted to confirm these airplanes are safe as they might crash. This will delay the application to FAA to return the Max to operate!
Ethiopian Airways crashed on March 10. FAA capitulated 3 days later: 78 days or so since the tragedy and it has been formally, internationally, officially determined they had a problem with which they could not cope. Other pilots can cope. That is not internationally polite!
FAA, our WDC elite and Congressional critters have done devastating damage to Boeing, public confidence and our international standing. Oh, and to there own reputation though they know not enough to even be embarrassed.
You just know Boeing had their Flight Dynamics team on this in a flash, their test pilots in both the simulators and airplanes, digging into each and every conceivable inflight event possible.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 27, 2019, 09:56:53 PM
For so many years, air accidents were completely and thoroughly investigated to determine a "probable cause"; all in the interest of advancing air safety through improvements in the machines and the pilots that operate them. At least in the case of these two accidents, that level of investigation does not seem to be happening. Air safety is never enhanced when vested interests influence the conclusions. When with the ALPA tech/safety committee years ago, the NTSB representatives teaching us a course on accident investigation stressed in our training that you must always complete the work without bias or foregone conclusion. To those who are totally confident in their "opinion", trust me; the world is not flat.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 28, 2019, 12:00:14 PM
Agree. Sometimes we can’t get out of our own way fast enough.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 28, 2019, 03:36:15 PM
Vriacu,
ACE does not care about the pilots of the two MAX that went down or he would have stopped posting in these MAX posts you, Puma, and others who have been real Military and commercial pilots are posting in. My father was a commercial pilot after he retired form the Air Force and I could not avoid being in the company of pilots becasue of that. And I've flown with them. ACE has no clue about commercial aviation, or the fact you as pilot and crew are held to higher standards by the profession becasue each of you is seconds away from being mass murders of hundreds the moment you push the throttle forward. Those mistakes are not up for snowflake internet moral high ground competitions that ACE keeps trolling you with. ACE just wants to win his whizzing match with you and has thrown the last tactic of internet cowards by claiming the moral high ground by agreeing to disagree. Those pilots are dead and MUDERED hundreds of innocent passengers becasue THEY SCREWED UP. None of those passengers signed away their right to live as part of the cost to get a seat on those flights. Pilots don't get do overs the moment they kill passengers if the are alive or under a head stone because gravity never stops trying to kill crew and passengers.
As for Boeing and their MAX fleet being grounded with no real problem found. Boeing made a $100,000 donation to Trump's election committee. Grounding the fleet is to save Boeing from being financially ruined by the Dems in the House for that. That is why Nikkie Hailey was made a member of the board. Boeing is one of a few companies that has an impact on the GDP and Wall street by itself. The Dems will ruin Boeing if they can through unelected bureaucrats becasue it's coming up on Trump's reelection time and the economy is booming which is bad for them. Grounding the fleet is also avoiding the Dems becoming the designers of the next social justice globally inclusive airliner economic failure. If the Dems can create the optics the MAX is dangerous becasue Boeing gave Trump $100,000 to help get him elected, they will hammer that and Boeing into bankruptcy. The FAA is not full of Trump lovers nor is the TSA. It got really quiet quickly with the media about the pilots and crew from the two crashes while the focus was left pointing at the MAX and Boeing. American pilots have been flying the MAX for years safely coast to coast right up to the fleet being grounded. Either we have demigods for pilots in the US or, the MAX is safe to fly.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 28, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
This happening to Boeing might be about the money, but for different reasons than you would expect.
Especially crazy when someone goes on Reddit and "predicts" the crash a few days beforehand.
Here is Outerlight's perspective about this. I consider him a pretty solid researcher.
https://youtu.be/pQfzGN4b7-I
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 28, 2019, 05:22:51 PM
ACE does not care about the pilots of the two MAX that went down or he would have stopped posting in these MAX posts you, Puma, and others who have been real Military and commercial pilots are posting in. My father was a commercial pilot after he retired form the Air Force and I could not avoid being in the company of pilots becasue of that. And I've flown with them. ACE has no clue about commercial aviation, or the fact you as pilot and crew are held to higher standards by the profession becasue each of you is seconds away from being mass murders of hundreds the moment you push the throttle forward. Those mistakes are not up for snowflake internet moral high ground competitions that ACE keeps trolling you with. ACE just wants to win his whizzing match with you and has thrown the last tactic of internet cowards by claiming the moral high ground by agreeing to disagree. Those pilots are dead and MUDERED hundreds of innocent passengers becasue THEY SCREWED UP. None of those passengers signed away their right to live as part of the cost to get a seat on those flights. Pilots don't get do overs the moment they kill passengers if the are alive or under a head stone because gravity never stops trying to kill crew and passengers.
As for Boeing and their MAX fleet being grounded with no real problem found. Boeing made a $100,000 donation to Trump's election committee. Grounding the fleet is to save Boeing from being financially ruined by the Dems in the House for that. That is why Nikkie Hailey was made a member of the board. Boeing is one of a few companies that has an impact on the GDP and Wall street by itself. The Dems will ruin Boeing if they can through unelected bureaucrats becasue it's coming up on Trump's reelection time and the economy is booming which is bad for them. Grounding the fleet is also avoiding the Dems becoming the designers of the next social justice globally inclusive airliner economic failure. If the Dems can create the optics the MAX is dangerous becasue Boeing gave Trump $100,000 to help get him elected, they will hammer that and Boeing into bankruptcy. The FAA is not full of Trump lovers nor is the TSA. It got really quiet quickly with the media about the pilots and crew from the two crashes while the focus was left pointing at the MAX and Boeing. American pilots have been flying the MAX for years safely coast to coast right up to the fleet being grounded. Either we have demigods for pilots in the US or, the MAX is safe to fly.
You got it all figured out
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on May 28, 2019, 07:08:24 PM
I wish skuzzy was still here. It’s like a car crash, I don’t want to look but I can’t stop myself.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 28, 2019, 09:34:32 PM
ACE does not care about the pilots of the two MAX that went down or he would have stopped posting in these MAX posts you, Puma, and others who have been real Military and commercial pilots are posting in. My father was a commercial pilot after he retired form the Air Force and I could not avoid being in the company of pilots becasue of that. And I've flown with them. ACE has no clue about commercial aviation, or the fact you as pilot and crew are held to higher standards by the profession becasue each of you is seconds away from being mass murders of hundreds the moment you push the throttle forward. Those mistakes are not up for snowflake internet moral high ground competitions that ACE keeps trolling you with. ACE just wants to win his whizzing match with you and has thrown the last tactic of internet cowards by claiming the moral high ground by agreeing to disagree. Those pilots are dead and MUDERED hundreds of innocent passengers becasue THEY SCREWED UP. None of those passengers signed away their right to live as part of the cost to get a seat on those flights. Pilots don't get do overs the moment they kill passengers if the are alive or under a head stone because gravity never stops trying to kill crew and passengers.
As for Boeing and their MAX fleet being grounded with no real problem found. Boeing made a $100,000 donation to Trump's election committee. Grounding the fleet is to save Boeing from being financially ruined by the Dems in the House for that. That is why Nikkie Hailey was made a member of the board. Boeing is one of a few companies that has an impact on the GDP and Wall street by itself. The Dems will ruin Boeing if they can through unelected bureaucrats becasue it's coming up on Trump's reelection time and the economy is booming which is bad for them. Grounding the fleet is also avoiding the Dems becoming the designers of the next social justice globally inclusive airliner economic failure. If the Dems can create the optics the MAX is dangerous becasue Boeing gave Trump $100,000 to help get him elected, they will hammer that and Boeing into bankruptcy. The FAA is not full of Trump lovers nor is the TSA. It got really quiet quickly with the media about the pilots and crew from the two crashes while the focus was left pointing at the MAX and Boeing. American pilots have been flying the MAX for years safely coast to coast right up to the fleet being grounded. Either we have demigods for pilots in the US or, the MAX is safe to fly.
Well said. Thank you for making the effort to do so. You speak from a position of understanding and it shows. I can’t add anything more to what you’ve said—it’s spot on. Thanks again. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 28, 2019, 11:11:50 PM
wow the airplane was grounded or restricted in 50 countries. damn democrats can really reach out and touch.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 29, 2019, 07:56:57 AM
It's because we lead the world in every way. Smart and stupid.
Every 737 ever built has electric trim. And an off switch.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 29, 2019, 08:07:15 AM
As for Boeing and their MAX fleet being grounded with no real problem found. Boeing made a $100,000 donation to Trump's election committee. Grounding the fleet is to save Boeing from being financially ruined by the Dems in the House for that. That is why Nikkie Hailey was made a member of the board.
OK, I admit I don't get the connection with Nikki Hailey. How does her presence on the board change anything?
Also, a $100k donation to a Presidential campaign is pocket change when you consider the Trump campaign spent about $1 billion. How does that contribution become a player in the MAX grounding?
So, clue me in here. What's the significance?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 29, 2019, 08:40:38 AM
OK, I admit I don't get the connection with Nikki Hailey. How does her presence on the board change anything?
Also, a $100k donation to a Presidential campaign is pocket change when you consider the Trump campaign spent about $1 billion. How does that contribution become a player in the MAX grounding?
So, clue me in here. What's the significance?
She’s pretty attractive.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 29, 2019, 09:08:58 AM
OK, I admit I don't get the connection with Nikki Hailey. How does her presence on the board change anything?
Also, a $100k donation to a Presidential campaign is pocket change when you consider the Trump campaign spent about $1 billion. How does that contribution become a player in the MAX grounding?
So, clue me in here. What's the significance?
Ya thanks Toad. I was starting to think I was the only one trying to find a connection.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 29, 2019, 09:41:52 AM
Ya thanks Toad. I was starting to think I was the only one trying to find a connection.
I tend to be very savvy politically—which is why I called the shot on the FAA grounding and why well before it happened, along with the EASA smear job—but I, too, cannot figure the Nikki thing out. Maybe her ties to politicians in South Carolina as the former Governor is why. Or it’s payback for her previous help.
I can’t stand her so I haven’t really bothered to think about it much, I’ll admit.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: perdue3 on May 29, 2019, 10:46:27 AM
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 01:20:17 PM
STA is very nice, great airplane STM, the derivative PT-22, not so much. Has it’s own ground loop problem along with nasty spin characteristics. Abrupt and tight, like a drill bit after 3 turns. Not enough rudder to get it out after 5 turns. It is an exhilarating experience at just 3 turns I speak from experience
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: perdue3 on May 29, 2019, 01:28:33 PM
STA is very nice, great airplane STM, the derivative PT-22, not so much. Has it’s own ground loop problem along with nasty spin characteristics. Abrupt and tight, like a drill bit after 3 turns. Not enough rudder to get it out after 5 turns. It is an exhilarating experience at just 3 turns I speak from experience
STM is a military version of the STA, right? Both had Menasco's and same wing, and both are Ryan ST's. The A had the bigger Menasco, the B was one place, and the M was fitted for a machine gun? The PT-22, for the most part, was fitted with a Kinner. As you say, not as good. Are you referring to the Kinner powered PT-22's or Menasco powered PT-22's?
The Menasco PT-22's could not have been all that different from an STA. Maybe they had the supercharged 150?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 01:53:55 PM
Yeah I should be more specific. STM wasn’t tough enough for Military training They quickly made changes and the -22 was the result. Not sure if wing NACA design changed that much other than additional sweep. Never researched any other wing changes
“The Menasco power plant was quickly replaced with the more powerful and reliable Kinner radial engine. Gone too were the elegant wheel pants, which were found to hinder daily undercarriage inspections. Thicker alumi-clad skin, a heavier engine, and beefier landing gear all added weight. These modifications drastically changed the center of gravity, necessitating the wings be swept rearward four degrees in compensation. The resulting aircraft was indeed tougher, but the Ryan PT-22 now claimed a higher wing loading and in the process had developed a cadre of bad habits, giving it the narrowest margin of safety for any trainer of that era”
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 29, 2019, 02:20:41 PM
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on May 29, 2019, 03:09:42 PM
Another singer pop star from Brazil dies in a plane crash. So many singers gone to plane crashes...who wants to count? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. What are the odds?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: perdue3 on May 29, 2019, 03:42:53 PM
Yeah I should be more specific. STM wasn’t tough enough for Military training They quickly made changes and the -22 was the result. Not sure if wing NACA design changed that much other than additional sweep. Never researched any other wing changes
“The Menasco power plant was quickly replaced with the more powerful and reliable Kinner radial engine. Gone too were the elegant wheel pants, which were found to hinder daily undercarriage inspections. Thicker alumi-clad skin, a heavier engine, and beefier landing gear all added weight. These modifications drastically changed the center of gravity, necessitating the wings be swept rearward four degrees in compensation. The resulting aircraft was indeed tougher, but the Ryan PT-22 now claimed a higher wing loading and in the process had developed a cadre of bad habits, giving it the narrowest margin of safety for any trainer of that era”
In all honesty, the Menasco was not a great engine. From a military perspective, it is quite obvious why the wheelpants and strut covers were removed. It is also quite reasonable to replace the engine. In my opinion, at that point why not find a more suitable aircraft? The PT-22 definitely was not the most popular trainer anyway. I just prefer the STA to the PT-19 is all :)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 04:30:16 PM
The STA is an extremely beautiful airplane, no question. When I was looking they were $100K or more. Parts, either airframe or engine were rare and expensive. The Menasco doesn't have the reliability of a Ranger, not by a long shot; pretty important in very old single engine aircraft. ;)
The PT-22 is the dead sexiest of the three major WW2 basic trainers IMO. When I was looking they were ~$65k and the Kinner Master Rod was the weakest point of the aircraft. Master Rods were damn hard to find if you could find one at all. I think somebody eventually had a very small number made. Not sure of the status now. Rest of the parts are kinda tough too. The other thing I found off-putting for me was that at my height, half my face was above the rear windscreen in flight. This means bugs would smack you in your face and head at 90 mph. Very tight cockpit for a 6' 2" guy too.
The PT-19 is without doubt the easiest of the 3 trainers to fly, land in high crosswinds and also maintain. I bought mine for $30k with about 180 hours after complete strip down to frame and restore. Parts for engine and airframe are still relatively available compared to the Ryans. The cockpit is very roomy, even for big folks. The windscreen protects your face. The view, compared to Stearman is unbelievably better but then so is the view from a Ryan.
So, if I were a multi-millionaire, I'd have an STA. Probably wouldn't fly it much though. The -19? A blast to fly and a workhorse. I flew mine a bunch. Worst situation I was in was probably the day I got caught by surprise rain/thunderstorms the weather liar had not predicted. Even then the worry was the rain stripping the varnish off the Sensenich prop. It handled a MAJOR crosswind on a grass strip without a bit of trouble. I was glad I wasn't in a Stearman that day!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: perdue3 on May 29, 2019, 05:13:12 PM
My first flight instructor got a chance to fly a PT-19 in Georgia, said it was probably best handling airplane he ever had a hold of. I used to have an R/C PT-19, but I got a little sick of the engine on it and sold it. Now, I have an R/C STA lol.
I know the PT-19 would be more efficient and less costly than a Stearman, but I don't know if I have ever dreamed about a PT-19. I certainly would prefer a Ranger to any Menasco. My uncle has a Fairchild 24R project that I am hoping will fly one day. The PT-22 is pretty, but the YPT-16 is far more sexy in my opinion. :D
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 06:19:57 PM
I have some time in a Fairchild 24 too. The guy that restored my PT-19 had one of those, along with a Ranger powered Great Lakes. We went flying in the 24. A very nice airplane. Even has roll up/down side windows like a car. Pretty easy to land.
My problem with a Stearman is the view just sucks. It's all wings, struts and wires. In a PT-19 or a PT-22 it's like being in a convertible with the top down. The "the long, delirious, burning blue" and "the wind-swept heights" are right there . Doing rolls and lazy 8s and loops with your vision unencumbered is just a superfine experience.
I love open cockpit and the more open the better.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 29, 2019, 06:25:28 PM
The STA is an extremely beautiful airplane, no question. When I was looking they were $100K or more. Parts, either airframe or engine were rare and expensive. The Menasco doesn't have the reliability of a Ranger, not by a long shot; pretty important in very old single engine aircraft. ;)
The PT-22 is the dead sexiest of the three major WW2 basic trainers IMO. When I was looking they were ~$65k and the Kinner Master Rod was the weakest point of the aircraft. Master Rods were damn hard to find if you could find one at all. I think somebody eventually had a very small number made. Not sure of the status now. Rest of the parts are kinda tough too. The other thing I found off-putting for me was that at my height, half my face was above the rear windscreen in flight. This means bugs would smack you in your face and head at 90 mph. Very tight cockpit for a 6' 2" guy too.
The PT-19 is without doubt the easiest of the 3 trainers to fly, land in high crosswinds and also maintain. I bought mine for $30k with about 180 hours after complete strip down to frame and restore. Parts for engine and airframe are still relatively available compared to the Ryans. The cockpit is very roomy, even for big folks. The windscreen protects your face. The view, compared to Stearman is unbelievably better but then so is the view from a Ryan.
So, if I were a multi-millionaire, I'd have an STA. Probably wouldn't fly it much though. The -19? A blast to fly and a workhorse. I flew mine a bunch. Worst situation I was in was probably the day I got caught by surprise rain/thunderstorms the weather liar had not predicted. Even then the worry was the rain stripping the varnish off the Sensenich prop. It handled a MAJOR crosswind on a grass strip without a bit of trouble. I was glad I wasn't in a Stearman that day!
Man, I dunno. I always found the -22 to be hideous. Liked the -26 so much more.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 29, 2019, 06:32:00 PM
I got quite a bit of time in an 8F when I was a kid (50+ years ago). Could you enlighten me (read remind an old man) how the 8E and 8F differ?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 06:50:13 PM
Busher: horsepower!
Quote
It also developed the 8E and 8F with electrical systems and 85- and 90-hp Continentals, respectively. https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/luscombe-8
There was a 8F at the field where my PT was restored; looked at it some and the price was right but man...that's another small cockpit. I passed. Neat airplane though.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 29, 2019, 06:55:47 PM
I have some time in a Fairchild 24 too. The guy that restored my PT-19 had one of those, along with a Ranger powered Great Lakes. We went flying in the 24. A very nice airplane. Even has roll up/down side windows like a car. Pretty easy to land.
My problem with a Stearman is the view just sucks. It's all wings, struts and wires. In a PT-19 or a PT-22 it's like being in a convertible with the top down. The "the long, delirious, burning blue" and "the wind-swept heights" are right there . Doing rolls and lazy 8s and loops with your vision unencumbered is just a superfine experience.
I love open cockpit and the more open the better.
I am happy for you that the thrill is still there. Since I have no connect to GA anymore, does the -19 fly "experimental" now or do you have to maintain a CoA? In Canada where I worked and retired, GA is dying a slow death primarily due fuel costs. We buy by the liter but converting to the US Gallon, the price ranges from $7 to $8/gal. Until 1995, my Dad (also a retired airline pilot) shared and enjoyed a PA30 that now resides in New Jersey. I couldn't afford it today anyway.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 06:56:13 PM
Man, I dunno. I always found the -22 to be hideous. Liked the -26 so much more.
WHAT? Hideous?? Sacrilege! The PT-22 is svelte and sexy. Even the flying wires are coolness. I still like the looks of that aircraft.
My dad had a PT-26 same time my brother and I had PT-19s. He lived in NE, so the canopy seriously extended his flying season. Nonetheless, I did not enjoy flying his as much. Too much canopy framing hindering my view. It buffeted you worse than the PT-19 when you slid back the canopy too. It was hot in the summer when closed. Usually just cracked it back the first notch to let a little air in and limit the buffeting. Nah....-19s 4EVAR! :)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 29, 2019, 06:57:27 PM
There was a 8F at the field where my PT was restored; looked at it some and the price was right but man...that's another small cockpit. I passed. Neat airplane though.
Wow, you're testing an old man's memory. Continental 85hp comes to mind.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 07:11:20 PM
I am happy for you that the thrill is still there. Since I have no connect to GA anymore, does the -19 fly "experimental" now or do you have to maintain a CoA? In Canada where I worked and retired, GA is dying a slow death primarily due fuel costs. We buy by the liter but converting to the US Gallon, the price ranges from $7 to $8/gal. Until 1995, my Dad (also a retired airline pilot) shared and enjoyed a PA30 that now resides in New Jersey. I couldn't afford it today anyway.
Busher, I lost my medical in 2002. All I have now is memories. Well...and a nice six axis Level D simulator to play with.
The PT-19 is a Fairchild M62A to the FAA so it's not "experimental". Normal regs apply for inspection and maintenance. Just have to do an annual. It's a 1930s hardware store airplane; we used to joke that if you had a, screwdriver, pliers, a 1/2 " and 7/16" wrench you had almost a full tool set. Easy to work on. I pulled all the panels for the annual and helped out as "go-for' and I put all the panels back on. My annuals weren't that expensive. Just not all that much to check LOL!
It's about a 9.5 gallon/hour aircraft so back then I was ~$40-50 an hour on fuel and I just doubled that for maintenance reserve. The Ranger was designed to use oil as part of the cooling of the inline inverted 6, so it used about .8 quart per hour as well. They had a really amazing air inlet in the cowl that ran through baffles and exited between each cylinder with almost the same pressure from front to rear.
My Dad's PT-26 was in Canadian colors. Two old Canadian farmers that had trained in -26s decided to restore a pair of them and relive their youth. They did good jobs on both. They lost their tickets about a year after they finished and a ex-Marine F9 pilot imported one. He lost his vision/medical a year later, so we bought the -26. My Dad flew it about 10 years. it was a good airplane. Ended up getting imported back into Canada when Dad could no longer fly in his late 80s.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: perdue3 on May 29, 2019, 08:07:53 PM
On the Silvaire,
Once Luscombe AC folded, they were bought by Temco. Temco produced 8F's with flaps along with the Globe Swift. So, apart from an O-200, some 8F's had flaps and were built by Temco. My second flight instructor has won numerous awards with his Swift and Luscombe 8E.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on May 29, 2019, 08:47:32 PM
man reading this thread I think we could write a song. memories of the things we did before...
bet it would be cool.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on May 29, 2019, 08:55:16 PM
Definitely enjoying the read on where this thread is going.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 29, 2019, 08:59:06 PM
Busher, I lost my medical in 2002. All I have now is memories. Well...and a nice six axis Level D simulator to play with.
Must be contagious. I didn't get to retire. They discovered a slightly enlarged Aorta when I was 59 (that hasn't changed in 12 years..LOL).
I used to really enjoy wrenching the twin Comanche with Dad when the annual came due. It saved some dollars but most of all, I learned a lot and had a lot of fun.
I am glad your Dad got to fly so long into his senior years.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 29, 2019, 09:17:01 PM
Busher, I lost my medical in 2002. All I have now is memories. Well...and a nice six axis Level D simulator to play with.
The PT-19 is a Fairchild M62A to the FAA so it's not "experimental". Normal regs apply for inspection and maintenance. Just have to do an annual. It's a 1930s hardware store airplane; we used to joke that if you had a, screwdriver, pliers, a 1/2 " and 7/16" wrench you had almost a full tool set. Easy to work on. I pulled all the panels for the annual and helped out as "go-for' and I put all the panels back on. My annuals weren't that expensive. Just not all that much to check LOL!
It's about a 9.5 gallon/hour aircraft so back then I was ~$40-50 an hour on fuel and I just doubled that for maintenance reserve. The Ranger was designed to use oil as part of the cooling of the inline inverted 6, so it used about .8 quart per hour as well. They had a really amazing air inlet in the cowl that ran through baffles and exited between each cylinder with almost the same pressure from front to rear.
My Dad's PT-26 was in Canadian colors. Two old Canadian farmers that had trained in -26s decided to restore a pair of them and relive their youth. They did good jobs on both. They lost their tickets about a year after they finished and a ex-Marine F9 pilot imported one. He lost his vision/medical a year later, so we bought the -26. My Dad flew it about 10 years. it was a good airplane. Ended up getting imported back into Canada when Dad could no longer fly in his late 80s.
Just out of curiosity why would you design an engine to drink oil for lack of a better term? There has to be a reason. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to just run it in a water loop through the Rad or use more air through the nose?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 09:41:35 PM
Just out of curiosity why would you design an engine to drink oil for lack of a better term? There has to be a reason. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to just run it in a water loop through the Rad or use more air through the nose?
Ace the Ranger L440 was an air cooled inverted inline 6. Hence no radiator. It was a low compression, low revving (<2500) motor that used a pressurized oil system. Technically it is not drinking oil... it's actually consuming the oil as it both lubricates and helps to cool the engine. Antiquated by today's standards but it worked. The R2800 on the Convair 440 I flew in the late 60's used oil by the gallon per hour doing the same job.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 09:44:13 PM
Must be contagious. I didn't get to retire. They discovered a slightly enlarged Aorta when I was 59 (that hasn't changed in 12 years..LOL).
I used to really enjoy wrenching the twin Comanche with Dad when the annual came due. It saved some dollars but most of all, I learned a lot and had a lot of fun.
I am glad your Dad got to fly so long into his senior years.
Yeah...there's a lot of things the Docs are just guessing at.
Hangar time with your plane is always good times. Even just the wash/wax. Used to work on the PT and put on the White Cliffs of Dover CD, all WW2 music. I know the airplane enjoyed it.
Dad was a lucky man. Lived to be 95; got to take his grandchildren up in the aircraft he started his career in.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 29, 2019, 09:46:00 PM
WHAT? Hideous?? Sacrilege! The PT-22 is svelte and sexy. Even the flying wires are coolness. I still like the looks of that aircraft.
So ugly even its mother didn’t love it. I think they made it out of crashed Stearman and Peashooter parts. :P
Quote
My dad had a PT-26 same time my brother and I had PT-19s. He lived in NE, so the canopy seriously extended his flying season. Nonetheless, I did not enjoy flying his as much. Too much canopy framing hindering my view. It buffeted you worse than the PT-19 when you slid back the canopy too. It was hot in the summer when closed. Usually just cracked it back the first notch to let a little air in and limit the buffeting. Nah....-19s 4EVAR! :)
That’s some interesting stuff there. Wow. Wouldn’t be much fun to fly the -26 in South Texas then.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 09:47:07 PM
Technically it is not drinking oil... it's actually consuming the oil as it both lubricates and helps to cool the engine. Antiquated by today's standards but it worked.
Exactly so, Busher. For the time, it was a simple, cost effective and efficient technique.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 29, 2019, 09:53:14 PM
Wow. Wouldn’t be much fun to fly the -26 in South Texas then.
Well, a -26 can easily be converted to look like a 19. That canopy comes off pretty easy and is worth a lot of money to the right people because all those parts are hard to find.. The problem is finding the windscreen frames for the -19 transition. Those are pretty hard to find too; the guy that rebuilt my aircraft made them from Fairchild drawings. Engine parts are easier by far.
Both of those things have been done by various folks though. A true -26 has some stuff a 19A or 19B does not have, like a big floor mounted compass and upper and lower ID lights. The cockpits each had a Morse code key so the lights could be used to signal via Morse. Of course, those parts are hard to find to, especially the Morse keys.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 29, 2019, 09:54:36 PM
Ace the Ranger L440 was an air cooled inverted inline 6. Hence no radiator. It was a low compression, low revving (<2500) motor that used a pressurized oil system. Technically it is not drinking oil... it's actually consuming the oil as it both lubricates and helps to cool the engine. Antiquated by today's standards but it worked. The R2800 on the Convair 440 I flew in the late 60's used oil by the gallon per hour doing the same job.
Makes sense. Thanks for that post.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 29, 2019, 10:20:53 PM
Good stuff, Toad. :aok
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 30, 2019, 12:56:18 AM
OK, I admit I don't get the connection with Nikki Hailey. How does her presence on the board change anything?
Also, a $100k donation to a Presidential campaign is pocket change when you consider the Trump campaign spent about $1 billion. How does that contribution become a player in the MAX grounding?
So, clue me in here. What's the significance?
Nikki Hailey just spent two years at the UN running interference for Trump against the world. The MAX issue is a world issue and she is still inside of her shelf life for back channel credibility and has a security clearance. Why give the Dems a free lunch when they have screwed lesser people for wearing MAGA hats in public? The amount could have been $20 and that is enough to place Boeing in the bad Orange Man's camp. Boeing gave to his election campaign and not Hilliery's. Look at his economy now. Grounding the fleet and one Executive falling on his sword publicly was the simple thing to do and it cut the lynch mob off before they knew they were supposed to be outraged by the media narrative of: Boeing killed people with a faulty design while hiding the knowledge for years. That is how it was spun for a few days, the fleet was grounded, and an Executive lost his job, even though the MAX flew safely in the US for years before those two crashes happened. And now you don't hear anything about the two airlines or their pilots since too close of scrutiny started painting a poor picture regarding maintenance and pilot quality.
Boeing is too important to the US economy to allow them dragged through the muck with any chance the Dems would bankrupt them for being on the bad orange man's side. They are that angry at Trump, destroying Boeing would help hurt Trump's economy. They do not care about the US if it's not under their control. Look how bad it was just before Trump turned it around. We were told to accpet a 1.3 GDP and high unemployment across the board as the new normal and all the pain that goes with an economy that anemic. And I remember listening to the last guy tell a citizen, just live with it becasue it could never be changed in our new world economy. Nikki was a pretty obvious move since getting the worldwide fleet back in the air will take the same kinds of relationships she had as the ambassador to the UN while needing a security clearance at that high of a level. My father retired NSA and was still contracted by state to ferry high value Soviet persons up and down the Eastern seaboard becasue he spoke Russian and had a clearance. Then my mother retired from NSA a few years later.
Haven't most of you guys reached the shelf life on your clearances?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: perdue3 on May 30, 2019, 05:28:27 AM
Nikki Hailey just spent two years at the UN running interference for Trump against the world. The MAX issue is a world issue and she is still inside of her shelf life for back channel credibility and has a security clearance. Why give the Dems a free lunch when they have screwed lesser people for wearing MAGA hats in public? The amount could have been $20 and that is enough to place Boeing in the bad Orange Man's camp. Boeing gave to his election campaign and not Hilliery's. Look at his economy now. Grounding the fleet and one Executive falling on his sword publicly was the simple thing to do and it cut the lynch mob off before they knew they were supposed to be outraged by the media narrative of: Boeing killed people with a faulty design while hiding the knowledge for years. That is how it was spun for a few days, the fleet was grounded, and an Executive lost his job, even though the MAX flew safely in the US for years before those two crashes happened. And now you don't hear anything about the two airlines or their pilots since too close of scrutiny started painting a poor picture regarding maintenance and pilot quality.
Boeing is too important to the US economy to allow them dragged through the muck with any chance the Dems would bankrupt them for being on the bad orange man's side. They are that angry at Trump, destroying Boeing would help hurt Trump's economy. They do not care about the US if it's not under their control. Look how bad it was just before Trump turned it around. We were told to accpet a 1.3 GDP and high unemployment across the board as the new normal and all the pain that goes with an economy that anemic. And I remember listening to the last guy tell a citizen, just live with it becasue it could never be changed in our new world economy. Nikki was a pretty obvious move since getting the worldwide fleet back in the air will take the same kinds of relationships she had as the ambassador to the UN while needing a security clearance at that high of a level. My father retired NSA and was still contracted by state to ferry high value Soviet persons up and down the Eastern seaboard becasue he spoke Russian and had a clearance. Then my mother retired from NSA a few years later.
Haven't most of you guys reached the shelf life on your clearances?
Thanks for reminding us what this thread is about. I am out of here. Good talk Toad!
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 30, 2019, 08:35:54 AM
The more I think about it the more I am convinced Haley’s appointment to the board was payback for her help getting that plant built in SC. She knew/knows where all the bodies are buried and helped stave off a unionization effort. Boeing gave her a fluff job as a thank you.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 30, 2019, 09:47:17 AM
Nikki Hailey just spent two years at the UN running interference for Trump against the world. The MAX issue is a world issue and she is still inside of her shelf life for back channel credibility and has a security clearance. Why give the Dems a free lunch when they have screwed lesser people for wearing MAGA hats in public? The amount could have been $20 and that is enough to place Boeing in the bad Orange Man's camp. Boeing gave to his election campaign and not Hilliery's. Look at his economy now. Grounding the fleet and one Executive falling on his sword publicly was the simple thing to do and it cut the lynch mob off before they knew they were supposed to be outraged by the media narrative of: Boeing killed people with a faulty design while hiding the knowledge for years. That is how it was spun for a few days, the fleet was grounded, and an Executive lost his job, even though the MAX flew safely in the US for years before those two crashes happened. And now you don't hear anything about the two airlines or their pilots since too close of scrutiny started painting a poor picture regarding maintenance and pilot quality.
Boeing is too important to the US economy to allow them dragged through the muck with any chance the Dems would bankrupt them for being on the bad orange man's side. They are that angry at Trump, destroying Boeing would help hurt Trump's economy. They do not care about the US if it's not under their control. Look how bad it was just before Trump turned it around. We were told to accpet a 1.3 GDP and high unemployment across the board as the new normal and all the pain that goes with an economy that anemic. And I remember listening to the last guy tell a citizen, just live with it becasue it could never be changed in our new world economy. Nikki was a pretty obvious move since getting the worldwide fleet back in the air will take the same kinds of relationships she had as the ambassador to the UN while needing a security clearance at that high of a level. My father retired NSA and was still contracted by state to ferry high value Soviet persons up and down the Eastern seaboard becasue he spoke Russian and had a clearance. Then my mother retired from NSA a few years later.
Haven't most of you guys reached the shelf life on your clearances?
I really hope Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts come back for "Conspiracy Theory 2" :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 30, 2019, 10:35:25 AM
Nikki Hailey just spent two years at the UN running interference for Trump against the world. The MAX issue is a world issue and she is still inside of her shelf life for back channel credibility and has a security clearance. Why give the Dems a free lunch when they have screwed lesser people for wearing MAGA hats in public? The amount could have been $20 and that is enough to place Boeing in the bad Orange Man's camp. Boeing gave to his election campaign and not Hilliery's. Look at his economy now. Grounding the fleet and one Executive falling on his sword publicly was the simple thing to do and it cut the lynch mob off before they knew they were supposed to be outraged by the media narrative of: Boeing killed people with a faulty design while hiding the knowledge for years. That is how it was spun for a few days, the fleet was grounded, and an Executive lost his job, even though the MAX flew safely in the US for years before those two crashes happened. And now you don't hear anything about the two airlines or their pilots since too close of scrutiny started painting a poor picture regarding maintenance and pilot quality.
Boeing is too important to the US economy to allow them dragged through the muck with any chance the Dems would bankrupt them for being on the bad orange man's side. They are that angry at Trump, destroying Boeing would help hurt Trump's economy. They do not care about the US if it's not under their control. Look how bad it was just before Trump turned it around. We were told to accpet a 1.3 GDP and high unemployment across the board as the new normal and all the pain that goes with an economy that anemic. And I remember listening to the last guy tell a citizen, just live with it becasue it could never be changed in our new world economy. Nikki was a pretty obvious move since getting the worldwide fleet back in the air will take the same kinds of relationships she had as the ambassador to the UN while needing a security clearance at that high of a level. My father retired NSA and was still contracted by state to ferry high value Soviet persons up and down the Eastern seaboard becasue he spoke Russian and had a clearance. Then my mother retired from NSA a few years later.
Haven't most of you guys reached the shelf life on your clearances?
Rule number #1 of the NSA club. Do not talk about the NSA club.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: bustr on May 30, 2019, 12:42:53 PM
Why, I used to visit my mother at the Ft. Meade main building to do joint credit union account signatures in the building while she worked for NSA as a Russian military analyst. Half our family friends were senior analysts my parents worked with and my father flew with at the Ft. Meade flying club. ACE you really are a tiny minded dork.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 30, 2019, 12:49:38 PM
Why, I used to visit my mother at the Ft. Meade main building to do joint credit union account signatures in the building while she worked for NSA as a Russian military analyst. Half our family friends were senior analysts my parents worked with and my father flew with at the Ft. Meade flying club. ACE you really are a tiny minded dork.
Damn bustr it was a movie quote. Relax! I’m not over here calling you names jeez man :rofl
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Oldman731 on May 31, 2019, 08:34:24 AM
An interesting article by another American airline pilot in AOPA's Friday update. Hope the link works for everyone (who isn't already in AOPA). I thought this part was interesting, in light of the preceding pages of this thread:
While foreign airlines were quick to ground the Max, the United States lagged behind in grounding. Why? I’m sure national pride and hobbling a giant U.S. manufacturer had something to do with it, but part of it was because many U.S. pilots, myself included, felt confident that we knew exactly what to do if MCAS attempted to wrest control of our airplane. As further evidence emerged from the accidents, however, it became clear that grounding the airplanes was the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 31, 2019, 08:52:55 AM
He says grounding was the right thing to do but I missed the reason why.
He mentions the difficulty in manual trimming without mentioning the incorrect thrust setting that exacerbated it.
He also mentions how every 737 pilot learned about MCAS after the first crash, without commenting on the Ethiopian pilots still seeming to be unprepared for it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 31, 2019, 08:54:25 AM
An interesting article by another American airline pilot in AOPA's Friday update. Hope the link works for everyone (who isn't already in AOPA). I thought this part was interesting, in light of the preceding pages of this thread:
While foreign airlines were quick to ground the Max, the United States lagged behind in grounding. Why? I’m sure national pride and hobbling a giant U.S. manufacturer had something to do with it, but part of it was because many U.S. pilots, myself included, felt confident that we knew exactly what to do if MCAS attempted to wrest control of our airplane. As further evidence emerged from the accidents, however, it became clear that grounding the airplanes was the right thing to do.
He says grounding was the right thing to do but I missed the reason why.
He mentions the difficulty in manual trimming without mentioning the incorrect thrust setting that exacerbated it.
He also mentions how every 737 pilot learned about MCAS after the first crash, without commenting on the Ethiopian pilots still seeming to be unprepared for it.
He mentioned point number two.
”Further, power was left at the takeoff setting, increasing airspeed to and beyond VMO, setting off yet another alarm (overspeed clacker) and putting yet higher loads on the tail.”
I agree with the rest of your comment.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 31, 2019, 08:57:21 AM
An interesting article by another American airline pilot in AOPA's Friday update. Hope the link works for everyone (who isn't already in AOPA). I thought this part was interesting, in light of the preceding pages of this thread:
While foreign airlines were quick to ground the Max, the United States lagged behind in grounding. Why? I’m sure national pride and hobbling a giant U.S. manufacturer had something to do with it, but part of it was because many U.S. pilots, myself included, felt confident that we knew exactly what to do if MCAS attempted to wrest control of our airplane. As further evidence emerged from the accidents, however, it became clear that grounding the airplanes was the right thing to do.
He says grounding was the right thing to do but I missed the reason why.
Because he doesn’t have a reason why.
This was a knee jerk decision influenced directly by politics and appearance rather than rationality. If the rest of the world wants to dive off a cliff let them. The FAA should have kept it flying. Trump had to put the bogus conflict of interest firestorm out before it got going so here we are.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 31, 2019, 09:20:58 AM
”Was the initial scoffing by U.S. pilots an example of pilot exceptionalism? Perhaps. I look at it more from the standpoint of training, knowledge, and confidence in my own seat-of-the-pants flying skill honed from decades of flying real airplanes as opposed to simulators.
(...)
“Naturally, any of these accidents could have happened to U.S. pilots, but I think the chances of that are exponentially smaller because most U.S. airline pilots were trained primarily in airplanes, not simulators. The United States’ relatively healthy general aviation industry (as well as the military) trains pilots in actual airplanes, cementing the seat-of-the-pants feel that a simulator just can’t replicate. In most parts of the world, general aviation has been regulated out of the sky...”
Racisssssss!!! :old: :rofl
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 31, 2019, 09:36:58 AM
I'm not seeing an explicit thrust/speed comment, just high loads on the tail and the conflict between the yoke and jack screw requiring neutral yoke.
I just edited the post to include it.
“Further, power was left at the takeoff setting, increasing airspeed to and beyond VMO, setting off yet another alarm (overspeed clacker) and putting yet higher loads on the tail.”
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 31, 2019, 10:24:14 AM
Edit: I did some sight seeing at my local AFB and they have a beautiful F4 out front. Can I share with you some pictures via PM and some simple questions I know you got the answers to? :)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 31, 2019, 10:59:18 AM
Edit: I did some sight seeing at my local AFB and they have a beautiful F4 out front. Can I share with you some pictures via PM and some simple questions I know you got the answers to? :)
Sure.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on May 31, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
“Further, power was left at the takeoff setting, increasing airspeed to and beyond VMO, setting off yet another alarm (overspeed clacker) and putting yet higher loads on the tail.”
Thanks. Brain fart. Skimmed over it twice in the article.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 31, 2019, 11:28:07 AM
Thanks. Brain fart. Skimmed over it twice in the article.
You're welcome, sir. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: mikeWe9a on May 31, 2019, 11:44:03 AM
Yesterday's video by Blancolirio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qDLR4s45U) indicated that Boeing either has provided or is about to provide the FAA with its proposed fixes for the 737 Max, though the FAA has no timetable set for the recertification process.
Mike
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on May 31, 2019, 02:08:02 PM
Yesterday's video by Blancolirio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qDLR4s45U) indicated that Boeing either has provided or is about to provide the FAA with its proposed fixes for the 737 Max, though the FAA has no timetable set for the recertification process.
Mike
Awesome. Glad they are being transparent about what went wrong and how they are going to fix it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on May 31, 2019, 02:12:47 PM
Yesterday's video by Blancolirio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qDLR4s45U) indicated that Boeing either has provided or is about to provide the FAA with its proposed fixes for the 737 Max, though the FAA has no timetable set for the recertification process.
Mike
Falling on a double-edged sword.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 31, 2019, 03:01:11 PM
What went wrong is two different crews were unable to recognize and handle an AOA malfunction.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 31, 2019, 03:14:55 PM
What went wrong is two different crews were unable to recognize and handle an AOA malfunction.
Yup.
Been incorporating trim runaways into my sims for a long time now. Every crew so far has handled the situation to a successful outcome.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 31, 2019, 03:45:35 PM
Vraciu, same here.
Since the second lack of situational awareness caused a MAX crash I have been giving Runaway Stabilizer, AOA failure and the Stall Barrier failure on takeoff at about 50 feet in the sim. Each PIC gets one or the other AOA based malfunctions and both get the Stab. All no notice of course.
In the G550, the Stall Barrier is kinda/sorta like MCAS. It activates a hydraulic stick pusher that shoves the nose down. The AOA fail gives a steady stick shaker but doesn't move the nose. Uncommanded Stabilizer gives an immediate large pitch up.
So far no crew has failed to recognize these as malfunctions and use normal pitch/power to ......wait for it.....
FLY THE AIRCRAFT!!!!! to a safe resolution of the problem.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on May 31, 2019, 06:12:15 PM
An Ethiopian pilot has spoken up; indeed he quit the airline over safety concerns. I appreciate he's Canadian like me and God knows we are all left-wing s**t-disturbers. So the airline is claiming he was fired (like any airline can afford to fire experienced pilots today for anything less than doing the owner's wife); and hence, his comments are being made in bad faith. They continue to lay all blame on Boeing.
The most notable thing is, that no western airline I have ever been associated with rejects hearing pilot safety concerns.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on May 31, 2019, 09:53:49 PM
Thanks for that one, Busher.
So von Hoesslin called the card before it was played, to the "T".
Too bad about von Hoesslin dying in that car crash tomorrow or next week.
And even ole Randy Babbitt, who bailed out of failing Eastern into ALPA to gain a luxurious lifestyle and then jumped to the FAA Administrator job recognizes the truth:
Quote
“So Boeing was at fault because a light came on or this thing tripped mistakenly, but it shouldn’t have brought the airplane down,” Babbitt said of the anti-stall system. “That was very fixable and a pretty simple solution. And they didn’t come to grips with it. … They let the plane get away from them.”
Ummm....yep.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on May 31, 2019, 11:49:13 PM
So von Hoesslin called the card before it was played, to the "T".
Too bad about von Hoesslin dying in that car crash tomorrow or next week.
And even ole Randy Babbitt, who bailed out of failing Eastern into ALPA to gain a luxurious lifestyle and then jumped to the FAA Administrator job recognizes the truth:
Ummm....yep.
Finally, truth of the matter comes from the top.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 01, 2019, 07:31:27 AM
Babbitt was FAA Administrator for just a few years, like 2006-2009. Don't want anyone to think he still is.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on June 01, 2019, 08:10:20 AM
So von Hoesslin called the card before it was played, to the "T".
Too bad about von Hoesslin dying in that car crash tomorrow or next week.
And even ole Randy Babbitt, who bailed out of failing Eastern into ALPA to gain a luxurious lifestyle and then jumped to the FAA Administrator job recognizes the truth:
Ummm....yep.
Those two just hate people from other countries, particularly those on the African continent. /sarcasticblue
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on June 01, 2019, 02:41:32 PM
Every pilot typed on this jet should know how to stop a trim runaway. If he doesn’t then he needs to turn in his ticket.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 06, 2019, 09:04:47 AM
I hate conspiracy theorists but it sure seems like someone needs to keep the "Evil Boeing" in the public's face.
These accidents are the first I can remember that the cause was determined before the professional investigators had a chance to draw their conclusions.
It does pi$$ me off that professional pilots would speak to the news before ALPA tech-safety released their contribution to the investigation.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 06, 2019, 09:47:57 AM
I hate conspiracy theorists but it sure seems like someone needs to keep the "Evil Boeing" in the public's face.
These accidents are the first I can remember that the cause was determined before the professional investigators had a chance to draw their conclusions.
It does pi$$ me off that professional pilots would speak to the news before ALPA tech-safety released their contribution to the investigation.
Everything you hear about is a 'conspiracy theory" until you can research for yourself and find the conclusions for yourself. Everything in the MSM has a spin to fit their narrative. Of course there is an attack on Boeing. The question is why? Don't expect leftstream media to tell you that. You will probably never know the real reason any way due to national security concerns.
The fact that someone predicted a boeing crash a few days before 'that MSM will never tell you about' is the real concern. The guy could have got 'lucky' writing something like that. Though why would someone write that? Then it actually happens. Now there is a "conspiracy" for ya. If someone knew before hand that there would be a crash. That completely destroys the narrative.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: deSelys on June 06, 2019, 10:06:49 AM
Every pilot typed on this jet should know how to stop a trim runaway. If he doesn’t then he needs to turn in his ticket.
Is it correct to call this a 'trim runaway' though?
the electrical trim system was working fine
the rate of nose down action was much faster when activated by MCAS than by the pilot trim controls (apparently this won't be the case anymore after the software fix https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-reveals-737-max-software-fix-and-training-update-2019-3?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-reveals-737-max-software-fix-and-training-update-2019-3?r=US&IR=T))
So somebody decided that it would be better to require the shutdown of an entire system (electrical trim, which was not at fault) to deal with a software issue caused by a single* sensor failure... instead of giving to the pilots the option to just deactivate the software bit.
Maybe the pilots of Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines didn't handle the crisis as they should have, but the design of the system doesn't look like it tried to make their flying a little less complicated after throwing a curveball at them.
*According to 60 minutes Australia, the decision to link MCAS to a single sensor instead of both was made to avoid extra level D training (at 35:30)... if this is true => :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 06, 2019, 10:57:26 AM
When the chips are down, any man claiming to be an aviator HAS TO BE ABLE TO FLY THE JET.
No professional aviator that knows anything about Boeings, let me repeat that, NO PROFESSIONAL AVIATOR that knows anything about Boeings thinks either the Lion Air crash or the Ethiopian crash was an unrecoverable situation. MCAS did not kill those people; the pilots did.
In other words, despite the AOA failures, these aircraft COULD have been flown to a safe landing. If you doubt this, review what happened with the exact same Lion Air aircraft. Same aircraft, same malfunction but ONE jumpseat pilot that knew how to FLY THE JET. Therefore, no accident, no crash, no nothing; just a safe recovery.
Now, Boeing should have put MCAS info in the Differences Training. No question. The fact that it isn't in there, however, is not a reason that a competent pilot would not be able to deal with an AOA malfunction.
As an aside, I will point out the has been an evolving trend in the industry that has moved pilot training away from detailed systems knowledge. By that I mean the industry no longer teaches the pilot to "build the aircraft" in the old description.
For instance, in the earlier years of my career when you took your oral exam they would give you a situation like this:
"You are a molecule of fuel in the left wing tank. Describe the routing to the #2 engine burner cans and tell me all the pumps and valves you go through on the way to the engine. Include alternate routes."
Now we teach that "you turn on the boost pump in the left tank, fuel flows through the shutoff valve to the engine fuel control. The engine will suction feed to 20,000 feets."
So systems knowledge has been dumbed down as well. Guess why.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on June 06, 2019, 11:21:30 AM
Spot on Toad! Agree 110%! :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 06, 2019, 11:35:20 AM
Is it correct to call this a 'trim runaway' though?
It was an AOA failure that triggered MCAS, a situation that can be easily and safely resolved by the Runaway Stab Trim procedure in the QRH. So, if the Stab Trim is doing something you don't want it to do (or just don't understand: why is it doing that?)...yes, it's a trim runaway. Or some manufacturer's call it Uncommanded Stab Trim.
Quote
So somebody decided that it would be better to require the shutdown of an entire system (electrical trim, which was not at fault) to deal with a software issue caused by a single* sensor failure... instead of giving to the pilots the option to just deactivate the software bit.
Two issues here.
One, single sensor. It is totally normal for a single sensor to trigger a stall warning or stall protective device. In many aircraft, there are two independent sensors and systems and EITHER ONE seeing an abnormally high AOA will trigger stall warning or stall protection. There does NOT need to be correlation and comparison between the two sensors to trigger the warning or protection. This is absolutely NOT uncommon throughout the industry.
Issue two: I have been told there is a circuit breaker that disables MCAS. I haven't confirmed it though and obviously, if it exists, it's not part of any Boeing procedure for uncommanded MCAS or whatever they would call it.
Quote
Maybe the pilots of Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines didn't handle the crisis as they should have, but the design of the system doesn't look like it tried to make their flying a little less complicated after throwing a curveball at them.
Funny the Lion Air jumpseat pilot figured it out rather quickly though, isn't it? Maybe experience is a factor? Maybe this overwhelming need to "make their flying a little less complicated" has its roots in the fact that current standards for pilot training are rather low? That maybe the regulatory agencies should take a closer look at their standards?
Quote
*According to 60 minutes Australia, the decision to link MCAS to a single sensor instead of both was made to avoid extra level D training (at 35:30)... if this is true => :rolleyes:
As I said above, single sensor activation is not at all unusual.
Think about this: the proposed change to dual sensor confirmation will likely occur; it appears to be in the "fix".
Now suppose there's another bad single sensor situation on a MAX and the MCAS does not trigger because it is not confirmed by the other sensor. However, in this situation the CORRECT sensor is the one sensing the stall. So, the pilots are stalling the aircraft but MCAS does NOT trigger. Assume the incompetent pilots that got it into a stalled condition in the first place fail to recover and crash.
Now where to place the blame? We usually err on the side of safety. Doing the thing that is the safest thing. I think they may be going the other way on this fix.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 06, 2019, 12:47:13 PM
As an example, stall sensors on the Falcon 900 are not only independent, they're triggered at DIFFERENT angles of attack. They are in effect a single source.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Mister Fork on June 06, 2019, 05:13:40 PM
So are all pitot tubes to the airspeed gauges.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 06, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
Airspeed indicators get information via the pitot static system. Modern jets use Air Data Computers to provide more accurate info that accounts for all sorts of factors.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 06, 2019, 06:44:36 PM
When the chips are down, any man claiming to be an aviator HAS TO BE ABLE TO FLY THE JET.
No professional aviator that knows anything about Boeings, let me repeat that, NO PROFESSIONAL AVIATOR that knows anything about Boeings thinks either the Lion Air crash or the Ethiopian crash was an unrecoverable situation. MCAS did not kill those people; the pilots did.
In other words, despite the AOA failures, these aircraft COULD have been flown to a safe landing. If you doubt this, review what happened with the exact same Lion Air aircraft. Same aircraft, same malfunction but ONE jumpseat pilot that knew how to FLY THE JET. Therefore, no accident, no crash, no nothing; just a safe recovery.
Now, Boeing should have put MCAS info in the Differences Training. No question. The fact that it isn't in there, however, is not a reason that a competent pilot would not be able to deal with an AOA malfunction.
As an aside, I will point out the has been an evolving trend in the industry that has moved pilot training away from detailed systems knowledge. By that I mean the industry no longer teaches the pilot to "build the aircraft" in the old description.
For instance, in the earlier years of my career when you took your oral exam they would give you a situation like this:
"You are a molecule of fuel in the left wing tank. Describe the routing to the #2 engine burner cans and tell me all the pumps and valves you go through on the way to the engine. Include alternate routes."
Now we teach that "you turn on the boost pump in the left tank, fuel flows through the shutoff valve to the engine fuel control. The engine will suction feed to 20,000 feets."
So systems knowledge has been dumbed down as well. Guess why.
I still haven’t received an explanation on this...and why it is there yet magically nobody heard of it before.
Yeah, “building the jet” is important—I am glad I learned to fly jets when this was the norm.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 06, 2019, 07:32:50 PM
Again I thank Toad and Vraciu for their posts. Although, I have to ask, are you not getting tired of trying of trying to explain to those who have never flown a jet and likely have little respect for those who do, that the "Big Nasty Boeing 737 Pitbull" didn't kill anyone. I don't think its possible at this stage of technology to dumb down a transport jet enough to protect people against what is being called a pilot in the third world. To those that are arguing 2 sensors versus 1 is the obvious solution, I have to ask them, what happens when those 2 sensors disagree. The fact is, technology on airplanes breaks and when it does, the lives of those aboard relies upon two well trained and experienced airman to fly the jet. All of the opinions of the experienced airmen here are academic anyway; the jury is in because the walter cronkites have concluded who the culprit was; and with the quantity of public opinion and press, I can see the Boeing Company in chapter 11 before too long.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 06, 2019, 08:10:21 PM
Again I thank Toad and Vraciu for their posts. Although, I have to ask, are you not getting tired of trying of trying to explain to those who have never flown a jet and likely have little respect for those who do, that the "Big Nasty Boeing 737 Pitbull" didn't kill anyone. I don't think its possible at this stage of technology to dumb down a transport jet enough to protect people against what is being called a pilot in the third world. To those that are arguing 2 sensors versus 1 is the obvious solution, I have to ask them, what happens when those 2 sensors disagree. The fact is, technology on airplanes breaks and when it does, the lives of those aboard relies upon two well trained and experienced airman to fly the jet. All of the opinions of the experienced airmen here are academic anyway; the jury is in because the walter cronkites have concluded who the culprit was; and with the quantity of public opinion and press, I can see the Boeing Company in chapter 11 before too long.
It’s wearying but my audience isn’t the closed-minded drum-banging trolls, it is my fellow aviators like you (because I can still learn something) and the open-minded lurkers... Also folks like Bustr who are using logic and reasoning to try and reach a proper conclusion.
The speculation has made me crazy, but since the lemmings want to speculate and blame the jet we might as well speculate ourselves from an informed, professional perspective with the hope someone will find it edifying.
:salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on June 07, 2019, 01:04:11 AM
as a matter of fact I know vraciu tells his students where to add magnets to correct problems with software and hardware in the planes. that way if they crash it's pilot error.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 07, 2019, 08:12:40 AM
It’s wearying but my audience isn’t the closed-minded drum-banging trolls, it is my fellow aviators like you (because I can still learn something) and the open-minded lurkers... Also folks like Bustr who are using logic and reasoning to try and reach a proper conclusion.
The speculation has made me crazy, but since the lemmings want to speculate and blame the jet we might as well speculate ourselves from an informed, professional perspective with the hope someone will find it edifying.
:salute
I appreciate what you are saying but unfortunately I think the opportunity to "learn" from this accident has passed.
As you well know, the foundation for the NTSB's huge budget is to educate airlines, pilots, mechanics, manufacturers and even the FAA so that any of the factors contributing to a crash of an airline do not happen again.
I for one, do not believe that the details of all elements contributing to these accidents will ever be published in a credible report.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on June 07, 2019, 10:19:13 AM
I for one, do not believe that the details of all elements contributing to these accidents will ever be published in a credible report.
Couldn’t agree more. By now, most major accidents have some sort of info either released or leaked. For both of these, nothing but crickets. More than likely, saving face on a national level is the number one priority.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on June 07, 2019, 11:11:19 AM
I'm optimistic. Boeing made the appropriate noises and the people who matter know they build good airplanes. The flying public hasn't abandoned Toyotas, which had actual problems.
The software fix of slowing the rate of trim for the MCAS seems like it will make it less effective when it's actually needed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 07, 2019, 11:21:47 AM
I for one, do not believe that the details of all elements contributing to these accidents will ever be published in a credible report.
Agreed. They can't publish all of the factors after having pushed the MCAS KILLS! narrative.
Imagine what would happen if the truth came out. Imagine the investigating agencies said - well, there was a relatively simple AOA problem and both crews totally mis-handled it. So, the story line will not change no matter where the facts actually lead.
As for why Vraciu and I keep responding, I guess I we feel someone has to shine the light of truth into the dark corners of political correctness.
Quote
When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do. William Blake
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: deSelys on June 07, 2019, 03:01:34 PM
Sorry if I'm annoying, and don't feel forced to answer if you don't want to, but I have some extra questions:
1) re single sensor stall protection: from what I could find, warnings like stick shakers are indeed in most cases avtivated as soon as one sensor triggers, also for 'mild' actions like inhibition of 'pull up terrain' alerts or airbrakes retraction. More drastic systems like stick shakers otoh, are often interlinked to many different sensors (see description of the system on the Q400 in the Colgan Air accident report). I've read that there is no stick pusher on the Falcon 900, is this correct? Is there a similar system installed?
2) On the principle of 1 sensor is better than 2 because less chances of failure: the probabilities of failure are indeed lower but this gives much less options to have a 'graceful degradation' of the system. This is were I have a really hard time to understand your point of view. In the case of MCAS, an 'AOA disagree' alert could deactivate the system smoothly while informing the pilots that they now have to be more careful with the engine throttle (which they have to be anyway if they follow the trim runaway procedure...) without having to go through the 'roller coaster' event beforehand. I found yesterday a safety report about activation of stick shakers and stick pushers over a period of time by airliners and, if I remember correctly, there had been not one legit stick pusher activation reported (a couple due to malfunctions). I'll post it next week as it is in my browsing history at work, if I'm wrong I'll have my asbestos undies ready ;) So MCAS (originally implemented) is maybe a solution more hazardous than the risk it addresses.
3) About the 3rd pilot in cockpit the day before the Lion Air crash: maybe he hadn't extra knowledge but, free of having to repeatedly wrestle the controls and positioned further back allowing him to see the trim wheel spinning, he was much more able to correctly troubleshoot the event. So damn unacceptable that the info wasn't passed to the techs and the other pilots :(
4) about the page of the manual posted by Vraciu: I suggested that maybe it was a manual for technicians. Can somebody confirm this?
Thanks
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on June 07, 2019, 05:11:10 PM
deSelys MCAS isn't a stall prevention system except obliquely. It is meant to change the feel of the aircraft so that when it is in a very small part of the flight envelope the pressure the pilot puts on the control column to pitch up is consistent with other flight regimes. Without it if the airplane is flown into that small part of the envelope the presumption is that the pilot could inadvertently allow a pitch up to stall as he would have to actively hold pitch down to remain at a consistent angle of attack after pitching up which is the reverse of what one would expect. MCAS is supposed to add pitch down trim so that the 'feel' of the airplane is consistent. This is why, as described in the snippet from the manual provided by V, the switch in the control column that would ordinarily interrupt the action of the trim motors if the column was pulled back is effectively disabled as it would defeat the purpose of MCAS.
It is more akin to adding a bob weight than it is to a stick shaker or stall horn.
Clearly MCAS was a factor in the two fatal crashes so in a sense it would have to save a lot of lives before the equation you posit would balance. On the other hand there seems to be a very strong argument that the compounding of the failure of MCAS by the maladroitness of the aircrews reduces the relevance of MCAS to that of a spilling hot coffee in a pilots lap. Personally I think aircrews should be trained to a very high standard and have a lot of experience before they tote around 200 people. Realistically this isn't the case, how is this going to be fixed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 07, 2019, 06:33:08 PM
To answer the question above, the Falcon does not have a pusher except for British-certified airplanes. It's their thing I guess.
I am an EMBRAER guy all the way. To me they do things, at least on the 145-series, that make the most sense of anyone out there (with very few exceptions). The Legacy 600/650 manual explains the stall protection system and gives some parameters that will disable it. Had some of these been in place the Lion Air crash would have been avoided. (This does not absolve the crew for its decision making which turned a bad situation into a fatal one.)
The stick pusher does not actuate in the following conditions:
−On the ground (except during test). −Below 0.5 g. −If the quick disconnect button is pressed (except for JAA certification). −Below 200 ft AGL. If radio altimeter has failed, this condition reverts to a 10-second delay after takeoff. −If any cutout buttons are released. −Above 200 KIAS. −If at least one channel is inoperative.
As for the jumpseater observing the trim wheels rather than the crew... They’re right by the knees of the pilots themselves. There’s no mistaking that thing once it starts churning butter. It’s loud and is right there. I find it impossible to believe they didn’t hear it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 07, 2019, 09:19:12 PM
I appreciate what you are saying but unfortunately I think the opportunity to "learn" from this accident has passed.
As you well know, the foundation for the NTSB's huge budget is to educate airlines, pilots, mechanics, manufacturers and even the FAA so that any of the factors contributing to a crash of an airline do not happen again.
I for one, do not believe that the details of all elements contributing to these accidents will ever be published in a credible report.
I learn from the comments all you pros make. :aok
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: deSelys on June 08, 2019, 06:27:34 AM
Thanks for the info gents :aok :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 08, 2019, 01:47:29 PM
In the case of MCAS, an 'AOA disagree' alert could deactivate the system smoothly
In the aircraft I deal with, an AOA disagreement is signaled to the crew by a Crew Alerting System (CAS) message that displays in Amber and simply says "AOA Miscompare". When the crew looks up the CAS message in the QRH (Quick Reaction Handbook) it just says "Determine correct AOA indication". It assumes, therefore, crew situational awareness and competency. To your point, this AOA Miscompare DOES NOT disable any stick shaker or stall barrier function. Were either of those systems to actually trigger, there are different CAS messages and procedures.
Quote
3) About the 3rd pilot in cockpit the day before the Lion Air crash: maybe he hadn't extra knowledge but, free of having to repeatedly wrestle the controls and positioned further back allowing him to see the trim wheel spinning, he was much more able to correctly troubleshoot the event.
As Vraciu mentioned, it's pretty hard to miss the trim wheels spinning on either side of the center pedestal. They are right next to your inboard leg. I know in the earlier Boeings by design they made a "clank" sound as they spun; don't know about the MAX.
Secondly, when you earn your ATP part of the test is to see if you have the judgement and situational awareness to keep your wits about you and troubleshoot problems when things are going to excrement. The PIC and SIC in the Lion Air jumpseat situation should have realized they had an AOA/trim problem and dealt with it. Same with the Ethiopian crew.
As for stall warning events, there is a 2018 Annual C-FOQA Centerline Statistical Summary Report. FOQA stands for Flight Operational Quality Assurance. A lot (most?) modern aircraft now have tattle-tale Flight Data Recorders. When a limitation is exceeded or a serious flight event occurs, the systems report. These events go into the FOQA summary.
I have access to the 2018 report through mygulfstream.com. I could not find the report published on the open internet. Maybe someone else can.
Anyway, the 2018 summary shows the rate of stall warning events at about .05 per 100 flights, so 5 events per 100 flights.
This data was collected from 424,000 flights of 815 different aircraft of 22 different models, from Boeings, Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault, Embraer and Gulfstream.
So, think about that. in 2018, 5 out of 100 flights in this data set had a stall warning event. That does not speak well for pilot competency IMO. That's just too frequent.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 08, 2019, 05:29:08 PM
So, think about that. in 2018, 5 out of 100 flights in this data set had a stall warning event. That does not speak well for pilot competency IMO. That's just too frequent.
Toad, "too frequent" is a gross understatement. Stall events in commercial airliners should never happen.... I certainly never had one nor did any of the pilots I knew and worked with. I am shocked.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on June 08, 2019, 06:55:38 PM
Isn't .05 in 100 = 1 in 2000? Still high though.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 08, 2019, 07:26:18 PM
FLS, you are correct.
It's 1 stall warning in 2000 flights. My mistake.
In any event...still too high.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 08, 2019, 07:48:43 PM
Almost 90000 commercial flights everyday in the USA. By that math 45 have a stall warning incident?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Toad on June 08, 2019, 10:41:25 PM
About 3-4 years ago Busher there was a FOQA report of 360 in a year in just the large cabin Gulfstream fleet. All models from the GI up to the G650. So about one a day.
Scary, huh?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 08, 2019, 11:18:05 PM
To answer the question above, the Falcon does not have a pusher except for British-certified airplanes. It's their thing I guess.
I am an EMBRAER guy all the way. To me they do things, at least on the 145-series, that make the most sense of anyone out there (with very few exceptions). The Legacy 600/650 manual explains the stall protection system and gives some parameters that will disable it. Had some of these been in place the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes would have been avoided. (This does not absolve the crew for its decision making which turned a bad situation into a fatal one.)
The stick pusher does not actuate in the following conditions:
−On the ground (except during test). −Below 0.5 g. −If the quick disconnect button is pressed (except for JAA certification). −Below 200 ft AGL. If radio altimeter has failed, this condition reverts to a 10-second delay after takeoff. −If any cutout buttons are released. −Above 200 KIAS. −If at least one channel is inoperative.
As for the jumpseater observing the trim wheels rather than the crew... They’re right by the knees of the pilots themselves. There’s no mistaking that thing once it starts churning butter. It’s loud and is right there. I find it impossible to believe they didn’t hear it.
I hate to quote myself but I should have stated that the Et’opia crash could also have been avoided. Sorry.
Additionally, the June issue of BCA has an article by Fred George on the 737 MAX and MCAS, FWIW. It seems that there is a dearth of sim sessions in the 737 world where the crews must fly all the way to a landing after a pitch trim runaway (something we routinely practice in the Embraer 135/145).
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 09, 2019, 05:25:57 PM
About 3-4 years ago Busher there was a FOQA report of 360 in a year in just the large cabin Gulfstream fleet. All models from the GI up to the G650. So about one a day.
Scary, huh?
It is... very!
Toad, I am sure you can recall the days when pilots prided themselves on the fact that they could hand fly the airplane as accurately as the automation, but far more smoothly. I don't believe we are likely to see those days return.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 09, 2019, 05:32:34 PM
Toad, I am sure you can recall the days when pilots prided themselves on the fact that they could hand fly the airplane as accurately as the automation, but far more smoothly. I don't believe we are likely to see those days return.
(I can hand fly as well as anyone so don't take me wrong here.)
Heck, I am actually proud that I can fly smoothly *with* the automation. There are a lot of people who either can't or won't.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on June 09, 2019, 06:20:49 PM
(I can hand fly as well as anyone so don't take me wrong here.)
I have no doubt that you can. What should worry the authorities and the public is that the "modern pilot" may be losing the ability to do anything with the airplane when big Computer burps.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on June 09, 2019, 06:40:27 PM
I have no doubt that you can. What should worry the authorities and the public is that the "modern pilot" may be losing the ability to do anything with the airplane when big Computer burps.
I don't entirely disagree with your premise, but my belief isn't that pilots are losing the ability it's that they're not fully developing it to begin with. When I was at the Regionals I was able to hand fly enough to learn the jet. Then I moved on to the Charter world where SOPs didn't restrict it to the extent airlines began to (you can't restrict it as much under 91/135 because often a hand flown visual is the only way you're going to get in to some of the places Charter and Corporate operators fly).
The younger group of Legacy pilots coming over from the ERJ have nowhere near the same skill flying the jet as the folks in my peer group. Not only that but they're ham-fisted even with the automation. They either don't notice or don't care. Sign of the times. :(
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: MiloMorai on June 29, 2019, 03:07:24 PM
More Boeing troubles, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on June 29, 2019, 03:46:23 PM
They're just piling on with their pet issue. There was no software failure. From the only official reports so far, everything except the failed AOA sensor and the pilots worked properly.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: zack1234 on July 01, 2019, 02:07:25 AM
So Boeing is innocent of any crashes?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 09:20:26 AM
In an interview before the hearing, Mr. Sullenberger said he had modeled the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights in the simulator and had been able to gain control both times. But at the hearing he expressed sympathy for the pilots of the two flights, noting that the Lion Air pilots did not even know that the anti-stall software existed.
“Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews could have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems,” he said.
and
Quote
Much of the hearing focused on the issue of whether foreign pilots lack adequate training. Some pilots, and some members of Congress, have suggested that better-trained pilots would have been able to avoid accidents. But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes.
“We are all subject to hindsight bias,” he said. “I think it’s unlikely that other crews would have had very different experiences or performed very differently than these flights, certainly prior to the first flight.”
“We shouldn’t be blaming dead pilots,” Mr. Sullenberger added. “We shouldn’t expect pilots to compensate for flawed designs.”
and
Quote
“It is clear that the original version of MCAS was fatally flawed and should never have been approved,” Mr. Sullenberger said, adding that it was made too powerful and relied on only one sensor, creating a single point of failure.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on July 01, 2019, 11:21:59 AM
Mr Sullenberger said he avoided crashing in both simulations but not because of better training. What does he think the difference was? I'm guessing he would have saved it in the simulation even without prior knowledge of the defective sensor. Runaway trim, switch off.
Note Sullenberger even makes the point that the second crash occurred after knowing about the first crash and knowing about the MCAS system, but he explains it only as the Lion Air pilots not knowing about it, to change the effect. He skips the takeoff thrust setting mistake in the second crash which was possibly the most serious flight management issue. He's clearly protecting the pilots and making it sound like it could happen to anyone but so far it hasn't. It's only happened where training and maintenance quality are issues.
I think everyone agrees there can be improvements in the aircraft but I would blame the pilots when their mistakes cause the crash.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 11:36:57 AM
Sullenberger is not a deity. He did what any properly trained Captain in his situation would have done.
When I was learning to fly (and later teaching) in 152s there was always an emphasis on where to land if the fire went out. Same with jets. To this day I always fly with my Display Airports MFD option enabled and keep a sharp eye out for real estate to drop into in case of a loss of all engines event. Any Captain worth his salt is doing something similar.
Not taking anything away from him but Sully just happened to be the one to answer the call. I would have done the same--and did so in the Sim a decade before this event.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Arlo on July 01, 2019, 01:05:56 PM
Mr Sullenberger said he avoided crashing in both simulations but not because of better training.
Sorry, but where did he discount his own training (or even experience)? Seems expectation of the exact situation you want to recover from and the details of how to do so would very much affect the outcome.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on July 01, 2019, 01:15:24 PM
Sorry, but where did he discount his own training (or even experience)? Seems expectation of the exact situation you want to recover from and the details of how to do so would very much affect the outcome.
Did you read the quote above? "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes."
It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 02:17:39 PM
Did you read the quote above? "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes."
It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
Bingo.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on July 01, 2019, 02:44:29 PM
Did you read the quote above? "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes."
It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Arlo on July 01, 2019, 03:10:48 PM
Did you read the quote above? "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes."
Which isn't even close to your previous assertion. At best, its a presumption of Scully having supposedly said that his training played no part in his outcomes. Reading a quote and turning into a different meaning are different things.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on July 01, 2019, 03:32:04 PM
Did you read the quote above? "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes."
It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
I don't know about exactly, it might have more to do with being at a remove from the flight controls and instruments and in some sense having a better view of what was going on. I remember reading about a crash, (I think an Air Inda 747,) that was spatial disorientation at night with a failed horizon on the captains side, the cockpit voicer recorder had someone,(jump seater or engineer,) saying something like "not that one, THAT ONE" referring to which horizon was correct.
While I know that a lot of you will disagree, and some quite stridently, I have to say that the commentary here exhibits quite a lot of hindsight bias and outcome bias. These are not character flaws they are just part of a human nature that has equipped us with the ability to be the animal that has dominated the planet and are pretty hard to overcome.
The problem with this problem is that narrative has gotten so muddied and freighted with peoples preconceptions and with politics that it is hard to believe that a dispassionate investigative process is possible as what interstellar body of air safety is going to do it? I believe in the NTSB and I feel that that is where the best accident analysis will come from and the best idea of how to fix the problem. Unfortunately this is story with legs and there are, in my opinion, a lot of dishonest actors involved and so a mangled story that seems to flee from nuance is what we are left with.
If you are interested in accidents of a complex technical nature and human error here is a book: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error/dp/0754648257 (https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error/dp/0754648257)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on July 01, 2019, 04:26:16 PM
Which isn't even close to your previous assertion. At best, its a presumption of Scully having supposedly said that his training played no part in his outcomes. Reading a quote and turning into a different meaning are different things.
Implied meaning is a thing. You don't have to copy paste to preserve meaning. He clearly stated that better training alone wasn't a fix. Hence his superior training wasn't the critical factor in his simulator session. In other words, it wasn't better training.
Pembquist I get your point. I believe it used to be an argument for a flight engineer. :aok
Current thinking is that two paychecks in the cockpit are enough. The assumption being that they are competent and properly trained.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Arlo on July 01, 2019, 04:38:46 PM
Implied meaning is a thing. You don't have to copy paste to preserve meaning. He clearly stated that better training alone wasn't a fix. Hence his superior training wasn't the critical factor in his simulator session. In other words, it wasn't better training.
Devolution of what means what in your stated opinion. Not his. Anyway, carry on. :cheers:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 06:29:01 PM
I don't know about exactly, it might have more to do with being at a remove from the flight controls and instruments and in some sense having a better view of what was going on. I remember reading about a crash, (I think an Air Inda 747,) that was spatial disorientation at night with a failed horizon on the captains side, the cockpit voicer recorder had someone,(jump seater or engineer,) saying something like "not that one, THAT ONE" referring to which horizon was correct.
While I know that a lot of you will disagree, and some quite stridently, I have to say that the commentary here exhibits quite a lot of hindsight bias and outcome bias. These are not character flaws they are just part of a human nature that has equipped us with the ability to be the animal that has dominated the planet and are pretty hard to overcome.
The problem with this problem is that narrative has gotten so muddied and freighted with peoples preconceptions and with politics that it is hard to believe that a dispassionate investigative process is possible as what interstellar body of air safety is going to do it? I believe in the NTSB and I feel that that is where the best accident analysis will come from and the best idea of how to fix the problem. Unfortunately this is story with legs and there are, in my opinion, a lot of dishonest actors involved and so a mangled story that seems to flee from nuance is what we are left with.
If you are interested in accidents of a complex technical nature and human error here is a book: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error/dp/0754648257 (https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error/dp/0754648257)
Human factors is at the core of what we train. "Human factors can be mitigated but never eliminated" is a mantra I invented (or accidentally stole from someone) and gets to the heart of the issue. It's why we train train train train. We call it FORESIGHT BIAS so that we don't have ourselves read about in an accident report.
The NTSB will do a good job. What is done with their report is another matter. The Egypt Air suicide 767 crash is a prime example of what happens when the feelings of Snowflake Nation are more important than raw truth.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 06:30:22 PM
Implied meaning is a thing. You don't have to copy paste to preserve meaning. He clearly stated that better training alone wasn't a fix. Hence his superior training wasn't the critical factor in his simulator session. In other words, it wasn't better training.
Pembquist I get your point. I believe it used to be an argument for a flight engineer. :aok
Current thinking is that two paychecks in the cockpit are enough. The assumption being that they are competent and properly trained.
He seems to believe his own press a little too much. His F/O has stayed out of the limelight and I think that's the proper approach.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on July 01, 2019, 07:20:22 PM
I suppose if you can blame guns for violence you can blame planes for crashing but reality isn't PC.
And spare me the nit-picking exceptions. The number one reason for aircraft accidents is pilot error.
Reality is reality. Answers tend to involve more thought and time. Coming to instant conclusions on the topic at hand (attempted correlation set aside, I suppose, as out of place as it was) is not a sign of following the topic from multiple valid perspectives (especially if your not a pilot or accident investigator, yourself). Yes, I'm comfortable with reality and my place in it. :aok
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on July 01, 2019, 08:47:57 PM
Reality is reality. Answers tend to involve more thought and time. Coming to instant conclusions on the topic at hand (attempted correlation set aside, I suppose, as out of place as it was) is not a sign of following the topic from multiple valid perspectives (especially if your not a pilot or accident investigator, yourself). Yes, I'm comfortable with reality and my place in it. :aok
Your instant conclusions must be the exception. Mine are bad, yours are good. Got it. No obvious issues there.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Arlo on July 01, 2019, 08:51:48 PM
Everything you've ever criticized about my posts. Which have mostly been your misunderstandings. Proving your point but proving it about you.
Enough digression. You may disagree. I'm done.
Ah, this is a personal aggravation with you, then, with you not liking being asked questions about your conclusions. Thanks for your 'permission.' Poor misunderstood FLS. Relax, the easily bruised feelings aren't reciprocated. :aok :cheers:
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 09:21:48 PM
Reality is reality. Answers tend to involve more thought and time. Coming to instant conclusions on the topic at hand (attempted correlation set aside, I suppose, as out of place as it was) is not a sign of following the topic from multiple valid perspectives (especially if your not a pilot or accident investigator, yourself). Yes, I'm comfortable with reality and my place in it. :aok
The crew re-engaged a runaway stab trim. That’s game over. Pilot error.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on July 01, 2019, 09:22:47 PM
Big corporations (airlines) putting profits over people’s safety using unqualified crews and spec'ing their fleets as minimally equipped as possible. Surely not in the Third World.
FIFY.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on October 19, 2019, 01:41:32 PM
Big corporations putting profits over people’s safety. Surely not in America.
That's not what the story said. It said an employee accidentally mislead the FCC about something he told them about updates to the MCAS. Following normal runaway trim procedure would still have saved both aircraft.
There has never been any indication that Boeing doesn't prioritize safety, however there is a worldwide shortage of experienced pilots.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on October 19, 2019, 06:54:58 PM
That's not what the story said. It said an employee accidentally mislead the FCC about something he told them about updates to the MCAS. Following normal runaway trim procedure would still have saved both aircraft.
There has never been any indication that Boeing doesn't prioritize safety, however there is a worldwide shortage of experienced pilots.
You’re wasting your breath.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on October 19, 2019, 07:04:59 PM
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on October 19, 2019, 07:05:30 PM
Wow, 38 pages and this turkey is resurrected? Whatever the truth might be concerning the facts contributing to these accidents was, that ship has long sailed. It typically takes the NTSB a significant amount of time to investigate an accident..... the cause of these crashes were decided in a matter of days. All that matters now is the long term damage to the Boeing Company. I for one, don't believe it will return to it's world renowned status as a builder of airliners.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on October 19, 2019, 07:10:33 PM
Wow, 38 pages and this turkey is resurrected? Whatever the truth might be concerning the facts contributing to these accidents was, that ship has long sailed. It typically takes the NTSB a significant amount of time to investigate an accident..... the cause of these crashes were decided in a matter of days. All that matters now is the long term damage to the Boeing Company. I for one, don't believe it will return to it's world renowned status as a builder of airliners.
Their best hope in my opinion is to lean heavily on their new partnership with EMBRAER. Systems-wise there is nobody better anywhere. How that came to be is a mystery but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on October 19, 2019, 07:11:38 PM
Following normal runaway trim procedure would still have saved both aircraft.
So very true, and simple.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: davidpt40 on October 24, 2019, 05:12:57 AM
Why wasn't the MCAS system designed to use two pitot tubes simultaneously, and if they didn't match, MCAS would simply shut off? Instead it simply crashes the aircraft.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on October 24, 2019, 08:00:28 AM
The MCAS was designed for a particular unlikely scenario, which so far I've haven't heard has ever happened, and the possibility of runaway trim from a bad sensor is managed by the normal runaway trim procedure.
If the MCAS was actually needed and it shut off because of a faulty sensor you might get a stall spin which could be disastrous. If it's not needed and it turns on because of a faulty sensor it's an easy fix if the pilots follow procedure.
The MCAS can be redesigned to slow the pitch change which might help when it's not needed but won't help when it is.
The primary cause of aircraft accidents is pilot error. There is still no reason to think the 737 crashes were exceptions.
The faulty AOA sensor and MCAS response were just links in a chain the pilots are trained to break.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: mikeWe9a on October 26, 2019, 09:03:47 PM
Why wasn't the MCAS system designed to use two pitot tubes simultaneously, and if they didn't match, MCAS would simply shut off? Instead it simply crashes the aircraft.
MCAS didn't crash those aircraft. Poor piloting crashed both aircraft, because the pilots failed to maintain basic aircraft control or to perform the standard emergency procedures which would have allowed them to safely operate the aircraft after the system failure.
Mike
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on October 26, 2019, 09:05:33 PM
MCAS didn't crash those aircraft. Poor piloting crashed both aircraft, because the pilots failed to maintain basic aircraft control or to perform the standard emergency procedures which would have allowed them to safely operate the aircraft after the system failure.
Mike
What he ^ said, exactly.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on October 27, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50177788
I found this but I have yet to un-earth the 353 page Indonesian report. I hope its published in English. It remains to be seen if it compares to the detailed nature of an NTSB report. It seems to place the cause of the accident on a combination of events: 1: The airplane was dispatched and was not airworthy 2: The failure of the airline to assure a safety culture where all snags should be clearly documented. 3: An aircrew that lacked in both experience and training to deal with the problems presented to them. 4: The MCAS failure triggered by the snags that existed when the aircraft took off.
The worldwide pilot shortage assures that the average pilot experience level in cockpits around the world will be declining. Aircraft manufacturers despite their best efforts, will never make an airplane that is immune to snags or pilot errors.
It remains that Boeing was guilty by accusation rather than investigation.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on October 30, 2019, 04:07:42 AM
redundant systems not available.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: SysError on October 30, 2019, 08:27:20 AM
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465775-1/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-testifies-737-max-safety (https://www.c-span.org/video/?465775-1/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-testifies-737-max-safety) IMO aircrew experience probably the least relevant factor.
Would it be safe to say that most of us here think the pilot's poor training is about half the issue?
Indonesia and Ethiopia and their respective airlines want you to think that it's 100% the plane. The fact that the four pilots didn't know the 'runaway elevator trim' procedure is very troubling. A lack of pilot training, poor maintenance (no surprise there), and poorly documented procedures for the MCAS from Boeing doomed those flights. And I'll give some credit to the Indonesian report for highlighting that the aircraft wasn't serviceable and shouldn't have been flying as a major cause.
We all acknowledge, Boeing has plenty of ownership on this issue, but to 99.9% blame the aircraft and .1% on the pilot, it's not reasonable.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: FLS on October 30, 2019, 12:33:33 PM
Runaway trim is not specific to MCAS or to Boeing. It's taught to every pilot. If the trim is doing something you don't want it to, you turn it off.
The Ethiopia crash was doomed by the throttles left at takeoff thrust. No reason to blame the pilots for the throttle setting? The Boeing CEO would be crucified if he correctly blamed the pilots for the crash. We just can't talk about that here. The pilots failed to break the chain of mistakes, including their own poor choices.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: SysError on October 30, 2019, 02:52:54 PM
Would it be safe to say that most of us here think the pilot's poor training is about half the issue?
Indonesia and Ethiopia and their respective airlines want you to think that it's 100% the plane. The fact that the four pilots didn't know the 'runaway elevator trim' procedure is very troubling. A lack of pilot training, poor maintenance (no surprise there), and poorly documented procedures for the MCAS from Boeing doomed those flights. And I'll give some credit to the Indonesian report for highlighting that the aircraft wasn't serviceable and shouldn't have been flying as a major cause.
We all acknowledge, Boeing has plenty of ownership on this issue, but to 99.9% blame the aircraft and .1% on the pilot, it's not reasonable.
Runaway trim is not specific to MCAS or to Boeing. It's taught to every pilot. If the trim is doing something you don't want it to, you turn it off.
The Ethiopia crash was doomed by the throttles left at takeoff thrust. No reason to blame the pilots for the throttle setting? The Boeing CEO would be crucified if he correctly blamed the pilots for the crash. We just can't talk about that here. The pilots failed to break the chain of mistakes, including their own poor choices.
I do not know how to break this into % here.
I think that might be fair to say that "The pilots failed to break the chain of mistakes", but it didn't start with them.
I am not sure why Boeing didn't take action after the initial reports and after the first crash. (I may have missed something in these posts and in the press).
As often is often said here, we should all wait for the final FAA report.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on October 30, 2019, 03:38:18 PM
Why wasn't the MCAS system designed to use two pitot tubes simultaneously, and if they didn't match, MCAS would simply shut off? Instead it simply crashes the aircraft.
Why not have any devices so we can see just how bad the pilots are without excuses?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Oldman731 on October 30, 2019, 04:23:02 PM
... I think that might be fair to say that "The pilots failed to break the chain of mistakes", but it didn't start with them. ...
Did you ever avoid a traffic accident? Did it really matter how it started? Nobody is being mean to the pilots. They reportedly met the local standards. Perhaps the mechanics did too.
The pilot's job, and there are two of them to help with this, is to break the chain of mistakes because nobody else is there to do it.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 02, 2019, 09:11:03 AM
Well, you're wrong. The crew was not only the last line of defense to save to save the jet, they were also the ultimate cause of its demise.
1) They failed to reduce thrust from the takeoff setting. 2) They re-engaged a malfunctioning pitch trim system in violation of the QRC/QRH.
I can't think of a properly trained, experienced crew doing BOTH of these things. I certainly can't imagine them doing item 2.
The MCAS is just a fancy name for the Speed Trim System (STS) that's been on the 737 for DECADES.
Vraciu, while I agree with what you say, the professional pilots here, both active and retired, have to realize that we will never be able to explain to those that do not fly complex transport certified jets what experience vs training can mean to the safe completion of any flight. With respect to all involved, Aces High is a great game but it does not create pilots. But a couple of years of groundschool and focused simulator training does not make an airline pilot either. There has never been a substitute for the apprenticeship of new First Officers learning everything they can from the "OLDFART" in the left seat that never seems stressed by any event in the airplane - minor or serious. I personally joined a major airline with almost 5000 hours of flying time, yet I enjoyed learning so much from many senior Captains that set the standard of what an airline pilot should be. I will concede that the MCAS in the "Max" has more control input authority than I personally would have given the system but I am also convinced that the events that preceded the crashes of these jets, would not have overwhelmed an experienced cockpit crew. Technology in the cockpit has become quite amazing and is fun to work with; but its made by humans and will occasionally "burp". Only experience can assure that abnormal behaviour of the airplane will be handled calmly and effectively.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 02, 2019, 11:36:33 AM
Vraciu, while I agree with what you say, the professional pilots here, both active and retired, have to realize that we will never be able to explain to those that do not fly complex transport certified jets what experience vs training can mean to the safe completion of any flight. With respect to all involved, Aces High is a great game but it does not create pilots. But a couple of years of groundschool and focused simulator training does not make an airline pilot either. There has never been a substitute for the apprenticeship of new First Officers learning everything they can from the "OLDFART" in the left seat that never seems stressed by any event in the airplane - minor or serious. I personally joined a major airline with almost 5000 hours of flying time, yet I enjoyed learning so much from many senior Captains that set the standard of what an airline pilot should be. I will concede that the MCAS in the "Max" has more control input authority than I personally would have given the system but I am also convinced that the events that preceded the crashes of these jets, would not have overwhelmed an experienced cockpit crew. Technology in the cockpit has become quite amazing and is fun to work with; but its made by humans and will occasionally "burp". Only experience can assure that abnormal behaviour of the airplane will be handled calmly and effectively.
Well said. :salute
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 02, 2019, 05:13:58 PM
has ...........I am also convinced that the events that preceded the crashes of these jets, would not have overwhelmed an experienced cockpit crew. Technology in the cockpit has become quite amazing and is fun to work with; but its made by humans and will occasionally "burp". Only experience can assure that abnormal behaviour of the airplane will be handled calmly and effectively.
Exactly. Both accidents were a perfect storm of events that lacked sufficient experience to stop the worst of outcomes.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on November 02, 2019, 05:30:25 PM
Pilots were not even trained to report previous issues with aircraft.
I can't comment on other airlines but in the one I worked for, properly documenting any and all snags in the aircraft's logbook along with an immediate report to maintenance control (the entire fleet had ACARS), was procedure.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 02, 2019, 09:23:33 PM
I can't comment on other airlines but in the one I worked for, properly documenting any and all snags in the aircraft's logbook along with an immediate report to maintenance control (the entire fleet had ACARS), was procedure.
In Africa flying broken airplanes is a way of life. Had a crew hand over a Legacy to me with two delaminated windshields. When I squawked it I asked them why they didn’t. I won’t reveal the answer but will let your imagination fill in the blanks.
I also took off in one with a known Yaw Damp issue—known to everyone but me, that is. When I squawked it for the fourth time and refused to fly it if it wasn’t fixed once and for all something was finally done about it.
At no time did I jeopardize safety, and I am glad I was flying the EMB during all this sort of nonsense, but it speaks to the mindset of what is considered normal over there. Literally and figuratively, Africa is where airplanes go to die.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 03, 2019, 12:30:21 AM
I can't comment on other airlines but in the one I worked for, properly documenting any and all snags in the aircraft's logbook along with an immediate report to maintenance control (the entire fleet had ACARS), was procedure.
Same here. After moving to the left seat, it was always a point to hand the logbook over to the FO for a backup review day to day, and when there was an MEL to write up. Best way to get a carpet dance in the Chief Pilot‘s for screwing up something in the logbook.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: guncrasher on November 03, 2019, 12:55:55 AM
I was once blamed for a crane damage. power went out and had no control, procedures require to step on the emergency break, but on this specific crane you had to pump it 5 times to make it work. didnt know that.
shouldda, couldda, wouldda, you were not there. it all started with a malfunction that should not have happened. so blame the pilots, they should have known that even under duress they could have had saved the day. what bothers me is that possibly this could not have been the only 2 incidents where it happened.
like i said before once i had a 1977 mustang v8, it was a fast car, you would tap the gas and the wheels would spin, but there was a problem with the carburetor if you pressed the gas all the way in, it would get stuck and no matter how hard you stepped on the breaks it would not slow down. it happened to me on the freeway and just by chance I remember that in driver's ed somebody asked what to do if it got stuck and couldnt stop the car. teacher thought about it and said put it in neutral and use the brakes to pull over, then turn engine off. so I did. I wonder how many other mustangs crashed that had the same problem.
semp
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Shuffler on November 03, 2019, 03:09:56 AM
A mustang and a crane are hardly an aircraft. A crain operator and a mustang driver are nowhere near as trained as a.pilot.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 03, 2019, 09:30:05 AM
A mustang and a crane are hardly an aircraft. A crain operator and a mustang driver are nowhere near as trained as a.pilot.
Hence the reason just anyone off the street can’t checkout a 737 for a trip around the pattern for a test flight vs going to the Ford Dealership and test driving/buying a Mustang. Hard to make a logical comparison between the two instances described below.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Arlo on November 03, 2019, 09:33:44 AM
Um, can a trained pilot "checkout a 737 for a trip around the pattern for a test flight" if he's not affiliated with the airline or squadron that owns it?
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 03, 2019, 09:49:23 AM
Um, can a trained pilot "checkout a 737 for a trip around the pattern for a test flight" if he's not affiliated with the airline or squadron that owns it?
Ummm, you miss the point with the comparison.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: pembquist on November 03, 2019, 09:52:46 AM
Um, can a trained pilot "checkout a 737 for a trip around the pattern for a test flight" if he's not affiliated with the airline or squadron that owns it?
If he is John Travolta.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 03, 2019, 09:57:31 AM
Um, can a trained pilot "checkout a 737 for a trip around the pattern for a test flight" if he's not affiliated with the airline or squadron that owns it?
Ah no. They don't keep demonstrators on the lot. Sorry for the sarcasm.
The saddest part of this fiasco for me will be the damage to the Boeing Company. The court of public opinion has issued its verdict and no one in authority seems willing to consider any other factor that contributed to the loss of life. Now we have Flight Attendants saying they will not work on the recertified airplane and politicians saying that they would walk before they got on a 737 Max (as if one of those clowns could tell a DC3 from a 707).
Since the NTSB is tasked with conducting investigations as deeply as necessary to determine all factors contributing to aircraft accidents, especially when an American made airplane is involved, I am quite surprised that the Agency has been so silent in these cases. Their job is not to defend the Boeing Company, but getting to the truth should be everyone's goal.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: SysError on November 04, 2019, 11:23:01 AM
Well, you're wrong. The crew was not only the last line of defense to save to save the jet, they were also the ultimate cause of its demise.
1) They failed to reduce thrust from the takeoff setting. 2) They re-engaged a malfunctioning pitch trim system in violation of the QRC/QRH.
I can't think of a properly trained, experienced crew doing BOTH of these things. I certainly can't imagine them doing item 2.
The MCAS is just a fancy name for the Speed Trim System (STS) that's been on the 737 for DECADES.
I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Boeing itself has stated that a pilot needed to react correctly in four seconds. However, Boeing's own analysis was that some pilots would take up to ten seconds to react correctly.
I do not know if that time calculation for correct reaction time assumed that pilots even knew about MCAS. A system which Boeing actively took measures to misrepresent to regulators and ACTIVELY conceal from pilots.
Boeing, against the cautions of some of its own engineers and test pilots, installed an automated single point of failure flight control system that turned the 737 Max into what now some are calling Flying Coffins.
It is astonishing to realize that about three days after the first crash, when Boeing’s own engineers figured out that it was an MCAS induced crash, that no meaningful action was taken.
I know that five and half hours is a lot to go through. Here are some interesting moments:
At about the 3:26:00 mark a pilot/congressman asks Boeing questions about MCAS. He is questioning if the STS procedures are in fact the same. (MCAS is not just another way to spell STS.) There is something there for everyone I guess. (It is about 5 minutes long)
At about the 1:25:00 mark Boeing provides a statement about what they currently think that they got wrong. (My guess is that they will expand and revise these comments as time goes by)
At the start of the hearing (at about 9:15) Chairman Defazio sums up, fairly well I think, some (but not all) of the Boeing 737 issues.
I do not want this happen, but I think that commercial airplane engineering and production in the US will become much smaller in years to come. Boeing managers and executives have turned this company into a Libertarian Scam. I do not know if it will survive. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing investors, once they see an impact to their precious shareholder value, will demand that the commercial airplane business gets sold off.
We will all lose.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Mister Fork on November 04, 2019, 12:10:22 PM
I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Boeing itself has stated that a pilot needed to react correctly in four seconds. However, Boeing's own analysis was that some pilots would take up to ten seconds to react correctly.
I do not know if that time calculation for correct reaction time assumed that pilots even knew about MCAS. A system in which Boeing actively took measures to misrepresent regulators and ACTIVELY conceal from pilots.
Boeing, against the cautions of some of its own engineers and test pilots, installed an automated single point of failure flight control system that turned the 737 Max into what now some are calling Flying Coffins.
It is astonishing to realize that about three days after the first crash when Boeing’s own engineers figured out that it was an MCAS induced crash, that no meaningful action was taken.
I know that five and a half hours is a lot to go through. Here are some interesting moments:
At about the 3:26:00 mark a pilot/congressman asks Boeing questions about MCAS. He is questioning if the STS procedures are in fact the same. (MCAS is not just another way to spell STS.) There is something there for everyone I guess. (It is about 5 minutes long)
At about the 1:25:00 mark Boeing provides a statement about what they currently think that they got wrong. (My guess is that they will expand and revise these comments as time goes by)
At the start of the hearing (at about 9:15) Chairman Defazio sums up, fairly well I think, some (but not all) of the Boeing 737 issues.
I do not want this to happen, but I think that commercial airplane engineering and production in the US will become much smaller in years to come. Boeing managers and executives have turned this company into a Libertarian Scam. I do not know if it will survive. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing investors, once they see an impact to their precious shareholder value, will demand that the commercial airplane business gets sold off.
We will all lose.
It's a valid perspective, and you're missing our main argument.
My buddy, who flies the 737-800, mentioned that there are three similar trim systems on the 7 and that the MCAS was meant to help it be even more 'stupid pilot proof.' When you have pilots flying a complicated bird, and one of the trim systems malfunctions and you're so inept, inexperienced and undertrained as a pilot, you're going to crash the aircraft.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 04, 2019, 12:22:51 PM
I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Boeing itself has stated that a pilot needed to react correctly in four seconds. However, Boeing's own analysis was that some pilots would take up to ten seconds to react correctly.
I do not know if that time calculation for correct reaction time assumed that pilots even knew about MCAS. A system which Boeing actively took measures to misrepresent to regulators and ACTIVELY conceal from pilots.
Boeing, against the cautions of some of its own engineers and test pilots, installed an automated single point of failure flight control system that turned the 737 Max into what now some are calling Flying Coffins.
It is astonishing to realize that about three days after the first crash, when Boeing’s own engineers figured out that it was an MCAS induced crash, that no meaningful action was taken.
I know that five and half hours is a lot to go through. Here are some interesting moments:
At about the 3:26:00 mark a pilot/congressman asks Boeing questions about MCAS. He is questioning if the STS procedures are in fact the same. (MCAS is not just another way to spell STS.) There is something there for everyone I guess. (It is about 5 minutes long)
At about the 1:25:00 mark Boeing provides a statement about what they currently think that they got wrong. (My guess is that they will expand and revise these comments as time goes by)
At the start of the hearing (at about 9:15) Chairman Defazio sums up, fairly well I think, some (but not all) of the Boeing 737 issues.
I do not want this happen, but I think that commercial airplane engineering and production in the US will become much smaller in years to come. Boeing managers and executives have turned this company into a Libertarian Scam. I do not know if it will survive. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing investors, once they see an impact to their precious shareholder value, will demand that the commercial airplane business gets sold off.
We will all lose.
Boeing is falling on its sword.
The plane crashed because the crew flew it into the ground. Period. End of story.
When they retracted the flaps the problem started. Undoing that action would have stopped the problem. Strike one.
They had the system deactivated but never came out of takeoff power which exacerbated the nose down out of trim condition. Strike two.
Being ignorant of the unload-trim-unload-trim procedure AND remaining at takeoff thrust they then reactivated the system that was misbehaving in the first place. Strike three.
The lack of experience and training they had was the ultimate problem. No system, and I mean NO system, can protect against a pilot who lacks skill, knowledge, and respect for proper procedures.
I'm not even typed in the airplane and I know this stuff.
And yes, the STS is just a poor man's MCAS (the MCAS is just a fancier Speed Trim System). They do nearly the exact same thing and when either of them runs away you handle it like any other uncommanded trim movement.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on November 04, 2019, 12:46:40 PM
"I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Boeing itself has stated that a pilot needed to react correctly in four seconds. However, Boeing's own analysis was that some pilots would take up to ten seconds to react correctly."
Since you are not a professional pilot, I am surprised by the first line of your comment. I could expand but I think you would concede there is no substitute for experience in the cockpit.
To the second line, I am certain the statement was not made by a qualified pilot from Boeing's Flight Operations Division. I know that all of my fellow professionals in this discussion will agree; Four seconds in a jet is an eternity. When the automation or any element of it (MCAS, Yaw Damper, Stab trim, ADCs etc) burp (and they all burp), an experienced qualified pilot takes control, disables the automation and flies the airplane to a safe and stable speed and attitude.
As to your comments that suggest the demise of North American made airliners, I do not disagree and it saddens me - I am not a fan of the French Airbus approach that pilots are only there to feed the dog.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 04, 2019, 12:52:47 PM
Airbus will never be as good as EMBRAER. I'll hope the latter learns to scale its jets to compete against the dreaded Borg.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 04, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
"I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Here’s the relatively simple RUNAWAY STABILIZER Non Normal from the Boeing 737 checklist that should have been followed and would have highly likely saved both Max 8s. This checklist item is common in each and every 737 QRH.
Note the first step is a Private Pilot 101 “Maintain aircraft control and fly the airplane” step, very basic.
Pilots, FLYING THE JET instead of being along for the ride could have saved both of these jets, in my opinion. If I remember correctly, it was the Indonesian jet that had this malfunction a day or so before the fatal crash. The difference being, there was an experienced pilot on the cockpit jumpseat who prompted the crew to do the correct checklist. They obviously landed safely.
You are correct about Boeing hiding the MCAS addition to the Max 8. They deserve a bloody nose over that intentional miss step.
Boeing makes a great airplane that is safe. They royally screwed the pooch by hiding the MCAS.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 04, 2019, 03:15:47 PM
"I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Here’s the relatively simple RUNAWAY STABILIZER Non Normal from the Boeing 737 checklist that should have been followed and would have highly likely saved both Max 8s. This checklist item is common in each and every 737 QRH.
Note the first step is a Private Pilot 101 “Maintain aircraft control and fly the airplane” step, very basic.
Pilots, FLYING THE JET instead of being along for the ride could have saved both of these jets, in my opinion. If I remember correctly, it was the Indonesian jet that had this malfunction a day or so before the fatal crash. The difference being, there was an experienced pilot on the cockpit jumpseat who prompted the crew to do the correct checklist. They obviously landed safely.
You are correct about Boeing hiding the MCAS addition to the Max 8. They deserve a bloody nose over that intentional miss step.
Boeing makes a great airplane that is safe. They royally screwed the pooch by hiding the MCAS.
1) I won't go so far as to say they hid it. The procedure to fix the issue is the same.
2) Is this Boeing's fault or the industry's? People are not being taught how to "build the jet" any more. This may have been overkill but we have gone completely in the other direction now. Knowing how to do more than just recognize "that's in the red" has given me incredible SA in the Jungle Jet and Falcon.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: ACE on November 04, 2019, 03:43:37 PM
I think that you might be missing my point. I think that the air crew's experience was probably the least relevant factor in the crashes. (Not a non-factor)
Boeing itself has stated that a pilot needed to react correctly in four seconds. However, Boeing's own analysis was that some pilots would take up to ten seconds to react correctly.
I do not know if that time calculation for correct reaction time assumed that pilots even knew about MCAS. A system which Boeing actively took measures to misrepresent to regulators and ACTIVELY conceal from pilots.
Boeing, against the cautions of some of its own engineers and test pilots, installed an automated single point of failure flight control system that turned the 737 Max into what now some are calling Flying Coffins.
It is astonishing to realize that about three days after the first crash, when Boeing’s own engineers figured out that it was an MCAS induced crash, that no meaningful action was taken.
I know that five and half hours is a lot to go through. Here are some interesting moments:
At about the 3:26:00 mark a pilot/congressman asks Boeing questions about MCAS. He is questioning if the STS procedures are in fact the same. (MCAS is not just another way to spell STS.) There is something there for everyone I guess. (It is about 5 minutes long)
At about the 1:25:00 mark Boeing provides a statement about what they currently think that they got wrong. (My guess is that they will expand and revise these comments as time goes by)
At the start of the hearing (at about 9:15) Chairman Defazio sums up, fairly well I think, some (but not all) of the Boeing 737 issues.
I do not want this happen, but I think that commercial airplane engineering and production in the US will become much smaller in years to come. Boeing managers and executives have turned this company into a Libertarian Scam. I do not know if it will survive. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing investors, once they see an impact to their precious shareholder value, will demand that the commercial airplane business gets sold off.
We will all lose.
Well said.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 04, 2019, 03:51:32 PM
1) I won't go so far as to say they hid it. The procedure to fix the issue is the same.
2) Is this Boeing's fault or the industry's? People are not being taught how to "build the jet" any more. This may have been overkill but we have gone completely in the other direction now. Knowing how to do more than just recognize "that's in the red" has given me incredible SA in the Jungle Jet and Falcon.
2017
http://www.b737.org.uk/images/mcas-mtm.jpg
(http://www.b737.org.uk/images/mcas-mtm.jpg)
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: SysError on November 04, 2019, 03:54:24 PM
[/b]Since you are not a professional pilot, I am surprised by the first line of your comment. I could expand but I think you would concede there is no substitute for experience in the cockpit.
In one a sense I take your point, however, I hasten to point out that given my background that I would have had a better chance of actually landing a job at Boeing working on MCAS than you - an experienced and expensive pilot.
In another sense I disagree with you. I am not making a finding fact, just expressing an opinion and identifying it as such.
To the second line, I am certain the statement was not made by a qualified pilot from Boeing's Flight Operations Division. I know that all of my fellow professionals in this discussion will agree; Four seconds in a jet is an eternity. When the automation or any element of it (MCAS, Yaw Damper, Stab trim, ADCs etc) burp (and they all burp), an experienced qualified pilot takes control, disables the automation and flies the airplane to a safe and stable speed and attitude.
The issue of how long the expected reaction time should have been came from Boeing. I do not know who Boeing came up with it. One reference to this can be found at the 10:10 mark. (it comes up few times)
In one a sense I take your point, however, I hasten to point out that given my background that I would have had a better chance of actually landing a job at Boeing working on MCAS than you - an experienced and expensive pilot.
Which is why it is dangerous for people who are not end users to be designing these things. Air France 447 proved that quite well.
As for expensive pilots, the cheap ones at Lion Air did a bang up job, didn't they?
Quote
The issue of how long the expected reaction time should have been came from Boeing. I do not know who Boeing came up with it. One reference to this can be found at the 10:10 mark. (it comes up few times)
Pilots, FLYING THE JET instead of being along for the ride could have saved both of these jets, in my opinion. If I remember correctly, it was the Indonesian jet that had this malfunction a day or so before the fatal crash. The difference being, there was an experienced pilot on the cockpit jumpseat who prompted the crew to do the correct checklist. They obviously landed safely.
Given what I heard, I imagine that they landed with soiled underwear.
From what I understand, the crew of the doomed flight were not briefed on what had happened the day before. If so, a clear failure.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: davidpt40 on November 04, 2019, 04:12:50 PM
Now about 50 737NGs have been grounded for cracks. Which isn't really as bad as it sound, most aircraft have minor cracking to a limited extent.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 04, 2019, 04:23:39 PM
Now about 50 737NGs have been grounded for cracks. Which isn't really as bad as it sound, most aircraft have minor cracking to a limited extent.
Unintended consequences. Some carriers wanted to retire their NGs and replace them with MAXs, but the kneejerk overreaction to the actions of an improperly trained and inexperienced crew have delayed that. Now tired jets are soldiering on longer than planned.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 04, 2019, 04:48:58 PM
I am not following you here. I do not understand what you are saying.
It is number that Boeing put out there.
No jet is going to reach an unrecoverable stab trim setting in four seconds short of a structural failure. Stabs don't move that fast by design unless they're fighters.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on November 04, 2019, 05:06:55 PM
Now about 50 737NGs have been grounded for cracks. Which isn't really as bad as it sound, most aircraft have minor cracking to a limited extent.
All airplanes crack - that's why they have inspections which I detailed in a post about 10 pages ago.
I suspect they weren't grounded... I suspect they were pulled out of service for a scheduled C or D check; but given Boeing's evil boogey-man status, a reporter told the story as if they were grounded by some overseeing authority.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Puma44 on November 04, 2019, 05:30:50 PM
All airplanes crack - that's why they have inspections which I detailed in a post about 10 pages ago.
I suspect they weren't grounded... I suspect they were pulled out of service for a scheduled C or D check; but given Boeing's evil boogey-man status, a reporter told the story as if they were grounded by some overseeing authority.
A number of jets out there have had various cracks found. The components (pickle fork?) were inspected fleet-wide. I don't know the 737 like I do the Falcon and EMBRAER but it sounds like it is being handled. They'll be repaired or replaced as needed.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Ciaphas on November 04, 2019, 10:41:31 PM
A number of jets out there have had various cracks found. The components (pickle fork?) were inspected fleet-wide. I don't know the 737 like I do the Falcon and EMBRAER but it sounds like it is being handled. They'll be repaired or replaced as needed.
It depends on the system. if they decide to do a 10% fleet inspection and do not find a single crack they will handle each crack as an individual repair procedure. If they find that, say 4 out of 10 are cracked , they will handle it fleet wide.
Because of the recent past, the auto response is to inspect fleet wide.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 05, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
It depends on the system. if they decide to do a 10% fleet inspection and do not find a single crack they will handle each crack as an individual repair procedure. If they find that, say 4 out of 10 are cracked , they will handle it fleet wide.
Because of the recent past, the auto response is to inspect fleet wide.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds right to me. I think the number found was around five percent.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: save on November 14, 2019, 05:36:27 AM
According to some resources, the pickle fork is not a part of the C-check, since it is a lifetime part that would endure 90000 cycles+.
The first time they found it was apparently during a rebuild of a 737NG to a freighter.
The replacement part(s) for the pickle fork is made of titanium instead of aluminum.
But now they found new problems :
Aviation Week is reporting that cracks have been found in other locations on the Pickle Forks and planes will have to be re-inspected. This is behind a paywall.
Fair use extract: "Checks of frame fittings and failsafe straps, or pickle forks, turned up cracks in four aircraft near fasteners that were not covered in the original inspection order issued Oct 3. As a result, Boeing on Nov. 5 recommended that operators expand the checks to include eight fasteners, up from two in the previous order. FAA will mandate the checks in an airworthiness directive (AD) slated to be published Nov. 13 and effective immediately." "The new directive, which is expected to be adopted by other regulators, calls for aircraft in the high-cycle category to be re-inspected within 60 days. Aircraft in the lower cycle category must re-inspect the entire area within 1,000 cycles."
According to a friend of mine who flew 737 until last year told me 2 old SAS 737 will be scrapped instead of repairing their pickle forks.
All airplanes crack - that's why they have inspections which I detailed in a post about 10 pages ago.
I suspect they weren't grounded... I suspect they were pulled out of service for a scheduled C or D check; but given Boeing's evil boogey-man status, a reporter told the story as if they were grounded by some overseeing authority.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 14, 2019, 07:58:30 AM
Generally speaking all airframes have a life limit. Cycles hurt more than hours. Nothing lasts forever, not even an ERJ or DC-3 (though they're close). At some point repairs are not worth the money. On to a newer jet.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: save on November 14, 2019, 10:59:06 AM
Very much true.
SAS are now retiring their B737 fleet now for the A320/A321-NEO variants, but my friend moved on to A330/A340.
They affectionately call the B737-600 'Lilla Grisen' (the small pig) due to it's fat look due to it's short length :).
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on November 14, 2019, 11:35:03 AM
We have reached the point where the most innocuous Service Bulletin from Boeing will make the news. An Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA will be headlines. United States Senator Jon Tester stated the he would walk before he flew on a 737-Max. Flight Attendants have issues with working aboard a re-certified airplane.
Air accidents usually take months and sometimes years of detailed investigation to determine ALL of the factors that played a role in the loss of the airplane. The "probable cause" of these accidents was published in the media within days. I can't imagine why Boeing did not retaliate and demand a comprehensive investigation when the world press began to besmirch the company's reputation, but it's obviously far too late for that now.
Clearly Boeing would like to re-certify the 737-Max; they have billions invested in the program and the already constructed airplanes. For reasons I will never understand the media seems hell-bent on making sure that never happens. Please don't suggest that they are defending the public interest because it's far more likely that Boeing just provides an easy target.
The damage to Boeing is immeasurable. Any bad press regarding the other airplanes they make could have catastrophic results.
I for one, kind of wish that the press has taken Airbus to task over the loss of Air France 445. Clearly Airbus can't build airplanes for incompetent pilots to fly either.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 14, 2019, 06:44:40 PM
447, B.
Yeah, Airbus has its own issues for sure.
There's a reason Embraer has the best safety record in the industry. People need to learn from them.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: save on November 14, 2019, 06:51:44 PM
Indeed, Airbus recently have had problems with their software for the A320 series, the wolves (journalists) always go in for the kill on the currenly most wounded.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Vraciu on November 14, 2019, 07:37:35 PM
Indeed, Airbus recently have had problems with their software for the A320 series, the wolves (journalists) always go in for the kill on the currenly most wounded.
So true. The sharks smell blood in the water.
Title: Re: Another 737 down
Post by: Busher on November 14, 2019, 07:43:53 PM