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
    really? that's not what 737 pilots are saying, especially about this particular "difference"
    This particular difference was not included in the iPad training.
    Now, I am not saying that this particular difference should't require simulator training. Just saying that it is not uncommon, for an evolution within a type, to have differences training based on computer-based training and sometimes some ground school with no simulator training.

    --- 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


    • We still are talking about ET #302, don't we. Sometimes I have to make sure that I still see the beginning of it all.

      March 2019. Less than six months ago. Current status of the fatal crash is: under investigation. And this is forum entry # 1021 on topic.

      I know what I wrote a few weeks ago. What would I do if I owned not more than a 737 Max type license. Back then I wrote, watch Nightly News, read this forum and wait. What by then I didn't know, if somebody like the FAA says that your a/c type is no longer airworthy, your favorite airline is able to send you a zero dollar paycheck.

      Again, I know how long it takes to investigate only 1 fatal jet crash. I was already a jetphotos forum member when AF #447 occurred. And back then not more than 228 humans died. As far as I can remember, it took clearly more than 12 months until they decided that they will not stop until they recover the FDR and the CVR of that A330-200.

      I don't remember that in June 2009, more than 10 years ago, all Airbus A330-200 have been grounded. Most probably because it was 1 airline with 'only 1 bad flight' on the 332.
      As far as I know, LH has never had 1 problem with the type A330-300 since 2004, so that one second airline, a good eye witness for a technical problem simply was not there. An almost perfect indicator for pilot error. Which it was in case of #447.

      Today we speak of 2 airlines with 2 fatal crashes, 2 a/c, and all together 157+189 = 346 dead humans. That's a different category.

      I can perfectly understand that 737 Max pilots now sue. In my eyes, jet pilot is a profession where you should never be without money. Never. Not if you fulfil two qualities:
      1. Today you expect to sit in the cockpit of 'your' 737.
      2. The only reason why you don't is because your a/c type caused 346 dead humans within less than a year.

      What happens if you are involved in an accident in your car without your fault with the result that you can't fly for let's say 2 months. I'd expect that 'your airline' finds a solution, and they pay you at least something. If they pay 100% of what you got before the accident happened, I don't know.

      But the 737 Max today is not under investigation for 2 months. In July the problem exists since 4 months, without the fault of one 737 Max pilot. Even if you'd ask KLM or LH, which in Europe are among the strongest concerning 'we give pilots what they need, we don't want to see one of our pilot in financial problems.' . I don't know what CEO Spohr decides if LH owned 1 a/c type 737 Max, which has to stay on the ground only due to a technical problem. The same goes for the KLM CEO.

      I have heard of pilots who change the a/c type, from A320 to the 747. Because the 747 is what they always dream of. But I've never heard of pilots who only learn a second type license because one of the two has a fatal technical problem.

      So the pilots sue. I absolutely second that.
      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


      • My weekend is now complete! I can relax!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
          Yep, just read that. Guessing it has to do with error handling in the case of lost input. I guess the good news is that they are doing thorough non happy path testing.
          More informative article in Aviation Week

          https://aviationweek.com/commercial-...37-max-testing

          As I understand it, the FAA doesn't like the speed at which the microprocessor moves the elevator in response to manual control inputs. They want it to react faster.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
            More informative article in Aviation Week

            https://aviationweek.com/commercial-...37-max-testing

            As I understand it, the FAA doesn't like the speed at which the microprocessor moves the elevator in response to manual control inputs. They want it to react faster.
            Originally posted by Aviation Week
            According to the source, the FAA pilots found response to the electric-trim inputs took too long. “They had a difficult time quickly resolving the situation,” the source explained.

            The issue has been traced to how quickly a specific flight control computer chip is processing data, the source said.
            So, I take it the architecture here is not switch-wire-motor. It sounds like there's a stealthy bit of FBW in-between.

            Comment


            • Oh, hello...

              https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/o...g-737-max.html

              Comment


              • I agree with the article in general, but why can't anybody be neutral these days and everybody pushes an agenda instead?

                The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s
                This is misleading to say the least. A pilot flying a 737 classic (-300, -400, -500) cannot fly a Max without simulator training. Let alone one coming from the -200 or, as the article suggests, the original 737-100. Only a pilot coming from the NG can move to the Max with a basic differences training without actual training in the plane or SIM. And know what? Unlike what the article suggests, the NG is very similar to the Max in size, capacity, performance, weight, systems and handling characteristics.

                Before you reply to this message, please read it carefully and pay attention to what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.

                --- 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


                • I also generally liked the article but got a kick out of this part:
                  Originally posted by The NYT
                  The agency recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration require airlines to install a modified part, to prevent future rudder reversals, as soon as Boeing made them available, but Boeing failed to do that.
                  So the people at Boeing are deadbeats because they failed to do what the NTSB recommended that the FAA do?
                  Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                  Eric Law

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    I agree with the article in general, but why can't anybody be neutral these days and everybody pushes an agenda instead?



                    This is misleading to say the least. A pilot flying a 737 classic (-300, -400, -500) cannot fly a Max without simulator training. Let alone one coming from the -200 or, as the article suggests, the original 737-100. Only a pilot coming from the NG can move to the Max with a basic differences training without actual training in the plane or SIM. And know what? Unlike what the article suggests, the NG is very similar to the Max in size, capacity, performance, weight, systems and handling characteristics.

                    Before you reply to this message, please read it carefully and pay attention to what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.
                    You're right, that part is ill-informed. Just skip that part. It doesn't alter the point being made. The problem at Boeing is a cancer of upper management, a culture that, for decades, has put short-term financial performance over the quality--and safety--of the product. Yet, they remain the management...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                      So the people at Boeing are deadbeats because they failed to do what the NTSB recommended that the FAA do?
                      Why should Boeing need an FAA mandate to address a design with a safety issue? The mechanism was susceptible to jamming, leading to rudder reversal. That was plainly obvious. The danger was eventually removed by adding a second actuator. This is the endemic issue at Boeing (particularly with the 737): a philosophy of convenience that insists that pilots can be the only redundancy against critical system or mechanical failures, until enough people die to overcome that idea and force their hand into adding designed redundancy. They knew about the issue with the rudder reversals. They knew about the issue with the autothrottle logic. They knew about the issue with MCAS. In each case their solution was left to correct pilot actions alone. They also knew thiat doesn't always work.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        I agree with the article in general, but why can't anybody be neutral these days and everybody pushes an agenda instead?
                        Well...New York Times has been pushing agendas since long before "these days"...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          Well...New York Times has been pushing agendas since long before "these days"...
                          name a news/media source that doesn't "push agendas."

                          why be neutral? why is it not more than ok to call boeing and the faa out? we should be talking about criminal prosecutions at this point not calling out a newspaper for leaning on the side of the people that died.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                            name a news/media source that doesn't "push agendas."

                            why be neutral? why is it not more than ok to call boeing and the faa out? we should be talking about criminal prosecutions at this point not calling out a newspaper for leaning on the side of the people that died.
                            The difference between neutral and pushing an agenda means when you have an objective or position a priory and then select, prioritize, and interpret the data to fit that objective and position, you are not being neutral, you are pushing an agenda.

                            I have nothing against calling out Boeing and the FAA for their actions and omissions. I do have an issue when a news source says:

                            The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s
                            That is misleading to say the least and it is redacted in a way not to be plain lie but to fit a position. The position can be justified with accurate information.

                            --- 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 TeeVee View Post

                              why be neutral?
                              Because it's their job?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                Because it's their job?
                                Such stuff generates fewer clicks...
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X