Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • preliminary report shows that MCAS was activated before nose dive of the Ethiopian plane.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...sh-11553836204

    Comment


    • Originally posted by thor View Post
      preliminary report shows that MCAS was activated before nose dive of the Ethiopian plane.

      [...]
      We all observe this topic, regardless if Boeing or Airbus or Cessna or Beech King Air or... ARJ85, take whatever you like, only make sure that
      your nonstop route is always shorter than the maximum range of your aircraft. In case of ARJ85, shorter than 1600 nautical miles if you like to take a risk,
      or always look for a gas station when you reach more than 49% of the maximum range. I must confess, on the long haul that's not always the case. But for an ARJ85, 50% are only 700 nmi. Not so very much for a four engined jet, if you ask me.
      So, please..

      Back on topic. MCAS is the word, isn't it. I don't know everything about the 737, like probably an experienced engineer for jet engines. Mayrhuber.

      But I know TCAS. Always a friend, a life-saver.

      In my eyes, MCAS will never reach that status, not and never after this topic with 482 entries (until today).

      Another two facts are, the type 737 is the type with the longer history if my nickname is the comparison. But only one of the two until today is good for crossing
      the Atlantic Ocean
      without MCAS. That's fact #1.

      Fact #2 is, if something like MCAS is planned for other Boeing families like 767, 757 or, God save us, the 747,
      then I'll take a 24 month break from aviation with the thought, is aviation still something which I'm able to support worldwide.

      Thank You.
      That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

      Comment


      • Hm. Until this moment, MCAS does not have an own en wiki entry. Which imho should stay like that!

        Confirmed:
        Boeing 737 Max and its MCAS

        Has someone ever tried to write down what's behind the abbreviation? You sooner become father of a child.

        Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. ? Augmentation mammoplasty?

        No. As I said, I'm very proud that within a LH-B744 cockpit we still are able to fly without it, both without augmentation #1 and without augmentation #2 !
        Only an assumption.



        PS: As I said, I'm not an engineer for jet engines. But. Since I know what Mayrhuber did for his company, during 48 years, still incredible, I know that this branch is important. Let it be construction engineering. Without it you can't build an airport, not even in Eastern Germany.. But that's something completely different.

        Hadn't it been easier, again from the viewpoint of engineering, to get the balance point in a 737 back to where it once was, e.g. in a 738,
        if you tared the difference between the classic unique 737-800 engines, with the famous 'flat belly nacelles'
        and the new 737 Max 8 engines (the a/c length is exactly the same cp 738_)
        and then again correct the rest with engineering. Higher roots for the wings, or 'longer legs' (higher nose- and main gear), or a combination of both.

        I only ask because I definitely know one type license where it worked. B748. Indeed that never in history has been the cheap solution. But it works. Since more than 50 years. In memoriam Joe F. Sutter, Boeing engineer.
        That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
        The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
        And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
        Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

        Comment


        • I always try to, if possible, not to write down alot of crap. So.

          This is what I mean by 'flat belly nacelles', here on a 737-300 with CFM56-3 engines:
          737-300 with 'flat belly nacelles'

          The diameter of that CFM56-3 engine? - Well. 153 cm. And two great photos, here the second one.

          737-800 with 'flat belly nacelles'
          That are CFM56-7 engines. 154 cm in diameter. Everything is fine.

          And now guess what. The 737 Max 8 urgently needed bigger engines (due to ..?), although exactly as long as the 737-800 (39,47 m).
          CFM Leap-1B, with a diameter of .. 175 cm.

          Almost +20% in diameter, good that they did not try the Leap-1A version... with 198 cm diameter.

          I don't like to say, that's where Leap got cheap. But. Hard structural facts in my eyes are part of engineering,
          and not part of a finally fatal software.

          PS: You know who invented the engine mountings for the 737-800? Joe F. Sutter, Boeing engineer. That's why the B738 is safe.
          In contrast to the leap version.
          That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

          Comment


          • Your posts never fail to amuse and amaze me.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              Your posts never fail to amuse and amaze me.
              same here...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                Your posts never fail to amuse and amaze me.
                Mostly just confuse me.

                Comment


                • Boeing Needs More Time to Assess 737 Max Software Fix, FAA Says
                  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-fix-faa-says

                  Comment


                  • Not much news there. Except for this:

                    Boeing said in an email Monday. “Safety is our first priority..."
                    This is the most urgent change they needed to make, so this is good news.

                    Comment


                    • Click image for larger version

Name:	56247833_2363832306962403_4359862014164598784_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	35.8 KB
ID:	1034010

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]23079[/ATTACH]
                        "minor bug fixes"

                        Comment


                        • It's supposed to be a joke! Sent to me by my MAX captain friend. You need to learn how to lighten up a little.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            It's supposed to be a joke! Sent to me by my MAX captain friend. You need to learn how to lighten up a little.
                            Yes, I divined that much. But this really captures how Boeing is trying to frame it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Yes, I divined that much. But this really captures how Boeing is trying to frame it.
                              Just remember, there are 2 switches that have been in EVERY Boeing commercial jet aircraft since the 707 right in front of the First Officers knee within easy reach of both pilot's. Turning them off would have solved the problem. There is a BIG difference between being legal, and being proficient !

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                Just remember, there are 2 switches that have been in EVERY Boeing commercial jet aircraft since the 707 right in front of the First Officers knee within easy reach of both pilot's. Turning them off would have solved the problem. There is a BIG difference between being legal, and being proficient !
                                I agree with much of what you say- but we do have questions about a few things.

                                Confusion: Gabiee made the point- there's a stall warning/stick shaker going off AND the nose is dropping and I don't really know what my airspeed is...and it's a higher workload environment and who knows what else is going on...

                                ...maybe I should let the nose fall...

                                You say "BIG difference between being legal and being proficient!"

                                I think Evanie (and maybe even your SWA friend) have said, "They didn't even tell us about this?"

                                It's a big ole kludge/duct tape to make you THINK the plane responds exactly the same to stallish stuff as the 737-Maxlav...Yeah- make them THINK it's exactly the same...

                                Not an ideal situation for proficiency.

                                Acknowledgement- there is that argument that another recent crash should maybe have been in their proficiency even if it wasn't addressed in formal recurrent training quite yet.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X