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

  • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    EMISSIONS tests. yeah! that's important!
    It is.

    --- 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


    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      I guarantee you that had I been on the crew in either A/C it would not have ended the way it did.
      That 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 Gabriel View Post
        Exactly. Hence 3WE's comment "I don't think it functions quite the same".
        1. It doesn't clack.
        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 Post
          2. It isn't needed or actively used by pilots to adjust for trim needs or control pressures.
          I 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 Evan View Post
            In either case, these things are obsolete.
            Noted.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            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.***
              Yes you did miss my point. I too am fairly sure someone(s) complained. Someone always complains and a proper company culture allows complaints. Conversely, there'd be very little progress if ALL complaints are fully addressed...

              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?***
              Yes. I used to think it was a cute story about the power of children.

              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 Post
                I 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.
                I agree with the Airbus reference. It is interesting - well - fairly obvious - that mechanical intervention on Boeing trim wheel - speed of operation - is FAR FAR greater than the ability of the pilot(s) to recover manually from the applied shift of AOA of the stab when the kill switches are activated (caveat - at what point in the identified runaway the situation is identified and the fat dumb and happy hits the kill switches) - especially with hindsight and bravado, which is highly problematic due to lack of knowledge of the MCAS. The degree of such 'counteraction' is dependent on so many factors. Low to the ground, the MECHANICAL activation of the trim wheel on the Boeing is far far faster than the pilot's ability to manually correct the situation - unless of course one predicts or identifies an mcas issue. Even then, the time taken to manually correct a mechanical trim activation in relation to time taken ALWAYS favours the mechanical trim (ON BOEING). An accident awaiting when MCAS is applied - let alone in a 'normal' trim runaway.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SmoothAir View Post
                  That 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.
                  Guess I will go sit in the corner for a half hour. SMFH 🙄. You just have no idea, just like Evan, but I think you might be Evan!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    Guess I will go sit in the corner for a half hour. SMFH ��. You just have no idea, just like Evan, but I think you might be Evan!
                    the naughty step.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      It is.
                      i'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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        ...producing a deadly flawed aircraft.
                        Should this be interpreted to mean that the 737 MAXwhatever series have a deadly flaw, whereas all other aircraft meant to carry passengers have no flaws whatsoever that could result in the death of said pax?
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          i'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 do. The nitrogen oxides emitted by diesel engines, which VWs emission control system was supposed to minimize, and it did, during testing only, kill more people that commercial aviation accidents. Except in a more indirect, more subtle, less yellow press worthy way. Not to mention that that WAS a totally intentional act of doing something that they knew was illegal and harmful for human health.

                          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}
                            Love it...some truth on both sides.

                            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}
                            Indeed.

                            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 Post
                              I have my cell phone in my pocket, does that count?
                              You know, I bet Gabe could fix you up with a TOPMS and ADSB App...

                              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 Post
                                Exactly. Hence 3WE's comment "I don't think it functions quite the same".
                                Hence the answer 'no it doesn't'. Boeing's workhorse single-aisle airframe in the year 2019 should have had powered 'alternate' trim. It should have logic to detect a trim malfunction and automatically switch over to that alternate trim. It should never experience trim runaway. And of course, it should never have needed artificial stability to mount modern turbofans. Airbus has had such an airframe since 1988.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X