Originally posted by TeeVee
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostI guarantee you that had I been on the crew in either A/C it would not have ended the way it did.
That kind of attitude, which is, rather unfortunately prevalent in certain countries - cough cough, is, IMO, extremely dangerous to the safety of an aircraft in the event of failures. MCAS operation was not detailed prior to the first incident, and only vaguely prior to the second. Stanley Key had the same attitude. Seriously Bobby, your attitude presents a danger to flight safety as it presupposes a holier than thou attitude. You should be ashamed for such comments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostExactly. Hence 3WE's comment "I don't think it functions quite the same".
2. It isn't needed or actively used by pilots to adjust for trim needs or control pressures.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Post2. It isn't needed or actively used by pilots to adjust for trim needs or control pressures.
True, the 737 trim wheel gives an aural cue that it is in motion, but that could get missed when the stickshaker is on. The 320 trim wheel, on the other hand, is perhaps more in plain sight.
In either case, these things are obsolete.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post***I did not miss your point. And I am sure that someone(s) did realize that this design was terrible and unacceptable. And nothing was done.***
The evil orange, greedy corporate America is all about balancing that, making the right decision and forging ahead with a great jetliner that tears apart when window rivet holes get fatigued, or hugely-popular, flexible and successful jetliners with huge flaps + slow-spooling turbo engines that like to take out approach lights.
The question is if there was a genuine broken culture: Were there many complainers? Were they unduly pressured? Unduly ignored?
I don't doubt that there were complainers, pressures and a few folks who ignored things- but does it royally stink/wreak of conspiracy and cover up?
Originally posted by Gabriel***have you heard the story of the naked king?***
After joining corporate America, I realized it's a creepy, slightly hyperbolic, story about human behavior.
Along these lines and as you stated (I think)- I would expect the CEO to spin things in a positive manner via extremely scripted and legal-approved statements.
I think it's unreasonable to expect otherwise, even though we like to call a shovel a shovel.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI think that's true of both. The trim wheel, in flight, is only there for abnormal situations where the normal trim has failed in some way. It stands to reason that pilots on either aircraft are not so practiced with using it in actual flight.
True, the 737 trim wheel gives an aural cue that it is in motion, but that could get missed when the stickshaker is on. The 320 trim wheel, on the other hand, is perhaps more in plain sight.
In either case, these things are obsolete.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SmoothAir View PostThat is utterly impossible for you to predict - you can hypothesise - yes certainly - but to 'guarantee' ? - absolutely and utterly not. It is also arrogant beyond extreme.
That kind of attitude, which is, rather unfortunately prevalent in certain countries - cough cough, is, IMO, extremely dangerous to the safety of an aircraft in the event of failures. MCAS operation was not detailed prior to the first incident, and only vaguely prior to the second. Stanley Key had the same attitude. Seriously Bobby, your attitude presents a danger to flight safety as it presupposes a holier than thou attitude. You should be ashamed for such comments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Post...producing a deadly flawed aircraft.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Posti'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you comprehend the major difference between fudging an emissions test and producing a deadly flawed aircraft.
I see irresponsible and perhaps negligent behavior in Boeing's (and FAA's?) actions regarding the design and certification of the MCAS but, unlike VW, I don't see them intentionally doing something that they knew would result in having their planes crash and people get killed.
Edit to add: Do you understand the VW scandal? It was not "fudging AN emission test". It was equipping ALL the cars with the affected engines (11 million of them) with a required device to minimize the emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides, so their emission levels are within the limits required by the regulations, and then program software in that device that would identify when the car (each and every car with the affected engine) was undergoing emission testing (every time any given car would go through that test) to let the device work as intended, and inhibit it the rest of the time, during normal use of the car, so it would emit 40 times more NOx during normal driving than during testing. The device was there in the cars all the time, it cold have worked as designed to control the emissions, but VW decided to keep it turned off EXCEPT during testing. They intentionally broke the law while at the same time made it look as they were complying with the law they knew that this results in increased health problems that, they knew, end up killing people. How do you call that? Oh, yes, homicide in the 1st degree premeditated. It is not very different to adding mercury in the recipe of candy bars except the ones that I send to the FDA for testing.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
{TeeVee and Gabeee bickering over emissions tests}
Now, how many of you have dealt with Government regulatory agencies? (Or gotten a new license plate recently).
The Government regulatory agencies do not quite function with the efficiency of a 737 (even an DCAS-equipped 737-MinLav).
Sooo...hey, let's partner regulatory with the company and maybe it's a win-win (I did not use the word "perfect").
Perfect is expensive (if not impossible)
Originally posted by Elaw{A snarky, missle with a warhead that contains a big mass of truth}
In addition, all airplanes should have crash-survival provisions so that 99% of the passengers can survive a 500 MPH impact. Add on a really long nose and a 100 ft seat pitch where just the right airbag blows off before you hit the cumulo-granite cloud.
Boeing Bobby, ATL and Dummy cannot pilot all airplanes, unfortunately.
By the way...I know there's lots of automation, but I'm sure we gave up SOMETHING when the flight engineer position went away. You know, that would be a great way to monitor the DCAS system. The FE would have a light that says DCAS-active...and could advise the pilots via very strict CRM language.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Subject: Bobby's J-3 doesn't have electricity.
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostI have my cell phone in my pocket, does that count?
We'd hate for you to spend any time looking out the windows.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostExactly. Hence 3WE's comment "I don't think it functions quite the same".
So why didn't they update the 737 trim system in this way? Cohort? Conspiracy? No. They didn't because doing so would trigger a new type certification. Everything that is wrong or dangerously antique about the 737-Max is either directly or indirectly the result of a mission directive to avoid a costly and time-consuming certification process, which in turn was the result of trying to get a quick product to market after having neglected to develop a new airframe years earlier. Everything about the development of the 737-Max was driven by accelerated time-to-market. It was a rushed solution.
You (and I) find it hard to fathom how a pilot would just stop using the pitch thumb switches and let the aircraft nose over to an unrecoverable state.
I find it even harder to fathom how Boeing could have not seen the necessity by the late 1990's for a new airframe to mount the coming, game-changing generation of 70+ inch turbofans.
In both instances, the question is, "what were they thinking"?'.
Comment
Comment