Page 17 of 53 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 1046

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

  1. #321
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Not sure if the "pepper mill" was pure sarcasm or a fun name for the trim wheel.
    You keep posting 'saltshaker' instead of 'stickshaker'. Is that a fun name for a not-so-fun event?

  2. #322
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    You keep posting 'saltshaker' instead of 'stickshaker'. Is that a fun name for a not-so-fun event?
    No, it is my lack of monitoring of the automation (auto-correct when I post from my cellphone).

    --- 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 ---

  3. #323
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    These two switches have been in every Boeing commercial jet aircraft since the 707. Right in front of the First Officers left knee. Attachment 22701

    (btw im a programmer not a pilot or ingenieur)
    i really would like to discuss this malfunction here



    rules that MCAS get ACTIVATED:
    if --- angle of attack is high -- OR -- autopilot is off -- OR -- flaps are up -- OR -- steeply turning

    rules that MCAS get DEACTIVATED
    if --- Pilots override with manual trim -- OR -- Angle of Attack is lowered

    what happens IF MCAS gets ACTIVATED:
    result -> move the tail up to 2.5 degree

    where does MCAS get its data
    ->always only from 1 of 2 sensors (WTF?!)

    so thats the Boeing program code:
    (im doin it for purpose in that language)
    in this case if the sensor have bad data because of malfunction of the sensor (freezed , dirty or whatever)

    hidden background cycle while flying: (lets name this cycle MTTP (move the tail procedure)

    first. we get data task: (WGDT)
    read ONLY sensor 1 .. AOA too high?
    is autopilot off ?
    are flaps up ?
    are we steeply turning ?

    second. any of the questions answered yes?
    then

    ----->lets move the tail up to 2.5 degree

    now thats running hiddenly in the background

    the problem here that i see is that the way its coded
    the pilots CANT deactivate it

    WGDT
    is always answered YES if the sensor provides bad data
    so while flying, the whole time in the air
    MCAS would kick in and move the tail up to 2.5 degree

    these little differences in both flights that crashed could be results due WGD answered in different ways to yes
    it could be that auto pilot was still on, flaps were still down, and no turning and
    in that moment that autopilot turned off, flaps got up or they turned in some direction
    MCAS kicked in and the death cycle was no outcome
    (maybe if they turned autopilot on, flaps down, and just were flying straight the death cycle would stop, but hey where are they flying then?)

    it would be a never ending fight of MCAS kicks in, and pilots manually correct lets say to 1 degree, then MCAS kicks in move the tail to 2.5 degree, then pilots again correct it to 1 degree.... then MCAS kicks in move the tail to 2.5 degree and so on.......

    even if they deactivate the whole board computer so that the background cycle does not running anymore (maybe the only way it does deactivate MCAS?)
    the question would be...are the pilots aware to fly a aircraft that is designed to fly only with MCAS because its hard to maneuver/ land and so on.. or would this aircraft be unflyable without MCAS??!

    thats a really bad way of coding
    even if i had only 1 day time to code because i have to provide it
    every coder would see this heavy bug i just cant understand it

    everyone can correct me if i understand the fly behavior wrong
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	737-max-trim-control.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	401.1 KB 
ID:	22716  

  4. #324
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,969

    Default

    For a programmer, you are doing a poor job distinguishing between OR and AND. The logic would be:

    SUB: MCAS
    IF AP=off AND flaps=retracted, THEN MCAS=ARMED, ELSE MCAS=DISARMED
    IF (certain combination of AoA from 1 sensor + speed + load factor + thrust setting) AND MCAS=ARMED, THEN
    RECORD ACTUAL_TRIM AS TRIM0
    TRIM_TARGET=TRIM0-2.5
    WHILE ACTUAL_TRIM>TRIM_TARGET
    Command trim down
    IF thumb sitch active, THEN Stop trim down command AND exit WHILE loop AND Keep MCAS=DISARMED for 5 seconds
    DO
    RUN MCAS

    (note: if the pilots grab the trim wheel, the MCAS will still be armed and able to command trim down but the pilot will forcefully override it by not allowing the wheel to turn; if the trim cutout switch is in the cutout position, the MCAS will still command trim don but the trim will not move since the motor is not energized)

    --- 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 ---

  5. #325
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    That picture is a 737 MAX 8 pedestal. Turn the switches off, no more electric trim, no more MCAS. Evan, you are going to love this! Training, training and more training.
    I thought the MAX is not legally allowed to fly without MCAS.

    I also thought trim runaway is defined as continuous.

    I thought flying with unreliable airspeed is a challenge by itself, and that maybe erroneous stall warnings and stickshaker can really confuse the crew.

    But what do I know.

  6. #326
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Indeed. That's how it went down with now-defunct VW.

    Oh, wait, I meant record 2018 sales VW.

    Sales may have been record breaking but so were the fines and expenses of some USD 30 billion. There were organizational changes and their CEO was replaced twice. At least one engineering director spent some time in jail in Germany and one executive was given the max 7 years in the US. More executives are under investigation.
    When you add all that (expenses plus turmoil) and then you consider the 40-50 billion they are investing in electrification (an indirect result of dieselgate), those record sales are just OK because their margins are lagging. They are even considering selling off some of their brands (my guess Bentley could be one of them).
    So no, it's not the way it was before.

  7. #327
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    For a programmer, you are doing a poor job distinguishing between OR and AND. The logic would be:

    SUB: MCAS
    IF AP=off AND flaps=retracted, THEN MCAS=ARMED, ELSE MCAS=DISARMED
    IF (certain combination of AoA from 1 sensor + speed + load factor + thrust setting) AND MCAS=ARMED, THEN
    RECORD ACTUAL_TRIM AS TRIM0
    TRIM_TARGET=TRIM0-2.5
    WHILE ACTUAL_TRIM>TRIM_TARGET
    Command trim down
    IF thumb sitch active, THEN Stop trim down command AND exit WHILE loop AND Keep MCAS=DISARMED for 5 seconds
    DO
    RUN MCAS

    (note: if the pilots grab the trim wheel, the MCAS will still be armed and able to command trim down but the pilot will forcefully override it by not allowing the wheel to turn; if the trim cutout switch is in the cutout position, the MCAS will still command trim don but the trim will not move since the motor is not energized)
    omg i Never tried to write here code thats usable to copy paste
    i did wrote that im using that Language for porpuse!
    and secondly no i do Not do a poor job i know the difference between AND and OR
    thats the reason i choosed AND!!!!
    your Code is still to good, i think the First line does not exist, and thats the reason mcas kicks in if Sensor Data is wrong!!!

    So you cannot deacrivste it
    the if clause always gets triggered When sensor data is malwaredw(Sensor delivering wrong Data is not happening First Time)

    We do Not know the Code
    But there are Many ways it can be coded
    My Code was poor on porpose
    You Could Code it in different ways with AND and OR or Even Both used
    And it Would all be the same good or same shit
    So just telling im using poor Code or cannot differenciate between AND and OR
    lol

    If you have informations about the Code or want to discuss Something out im here beachte Its important to figure out if it was poorly coded or is there another reason for this Crash accodent

  8. #328
    Junior Member HansPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    Please. This behaviour is hardly the dominion of the Americans alone. The EU does the exact same for Airbus and the politicians are equally adept at corruption and allowing their companies to skirt rules in favour of profit.
    Do you know the expression "Thief thinks every man steals"?

    To a certain extent your are properly right, but that doesn't make it right. We do, however, have data on corruption and most Western-/Northern-European country do have much lower levels of corruption then the U.S. Most countries in the top 20 with the lowest corruption are European. America clocks in at no. 22 just above United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.

    But we are not necessarily talking about corruption in this case. It's properly equally as much about incompetence, cutting corners and the thinking "well Airbus most be doing the same so its okay".

    Another thing is all this talk about diesels killing people. It's like "well I killed two people but what about this other guy he killed three people." It's called whataboutism and is an old communist trick to deflect criticism and focus away from ones own crimes and shortcomings.

    And just to be clear. I wouldn't like to live in a world where Airbus was the only option. We need both Boeing and Airbus. We need good competition and products of the highest quality.

    We should demand constant improvements in safety/survivability and not just better fuel economy.

    We should expect to be safer in the latest 737 then the 20 year old 777. Imagine if a car maker launched a new vehicle with better fuel economy but with safety on par with or lower then a model introduced in 1994.

  9. #329
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Ram View Post
    Sales may have been record breaking but so were the fines and expenses of some USD 30 billion. There were organizational changes and their CEO was replaced twice. At least one engineering director spent some time in jail in Germany and one executive was given the max 7 years in the US. More executives are under investigation.
    Bottom line: VW profited from their crime. Industry has taken notice of that. If Dieselgate had wiped them out, Industry would perhaps be a bit more reluctant to do such things.
    But entire economies depend upon sole private enterprises like this. Regulators and justices cannot injure them beyond a certain point, lest they also injure society. Global capitalism has won over justice.
    For this reason, we have to WATCH them and PREVENT them from neglecting safety or the environment. We can no longer impose after-the-fact punishments strong enough to function as a deterrent.
    This is called regulation. According to Fox News and the Republican party and their head Cheeto, it is a bad thing for society.
    So the real problem at the heart of all of this is widespread cognitive dissonance.

  10. #330
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    No, it is my lack of monitoring of the automation (auto-correct when I post from my cellphone).


    Isn't there a guarded give-me-the-phone switch?

  11. #331
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Bottom line: VW profited from their crime. Industry has taken notice of that. If Dieselgate had wiped them out, Industry would perhaps be a bit more reluctant to do such things.
    But entire economies depend upon sole private enterprises like this. Regulators and justices cannot injure them beyond a certain point, lest they also injure society. Global capitalism has won over justice.
    For this reason, we have to WATCH them and PREVENT them from neglecting safety or the environment. We can no longer impose after-the-fact punishments strong enough to function as a deterrent.
    Of course they profited. They also payed and genuinely made real changes. But what about the other car manufacturers, selling diesels which have always been and still are way dirtier? Nothing. I think that's where that industry protection is winning and no one is really talking about it. The only difference is those other manufacturers didn't try selling dirty diesels in the US, where the cheating devices are explicitly banned. But I still would have expected some sort of reaction.
    The way they seem to think is, VW is the "rich kid" and they can pay and take all the blame. And when people complain about the dirty air, just blame what VW did 5-10 years ago, while it's still going on 100% because of certain other manufacturers. It just baffles me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    This is called regulation. According to Fox News and the Republican party, it is a bad thing for society.
    So the real problem at the heart of all of this is widespread cognitive dissonance.
    And regulation has always been at a financial disadvantage compared to the industries they regulate. You can always buy an "overzealous" regulator by offering them a 10-fold increase in salary. Of course, now entire regulatory bodies have been captured by the industry.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...workers-warned

  12. #332
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,685

    Default

    Some interesting data released today for the WSDR (Wall Street Data Recorder) findings:

    The 737-MAX entered service with Malindo Air on May 22nd, 2017. There is a corresponding upward-pitching movement of the Market Cap plot. Might reveal what was at stake if Boeing or the FAA had delayed this introduction, even by a few months.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	boeing-marketcap.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	41.4 KB 
ID:	22724  

  13. #333
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinoby View Post
    and secondly no i do Not do a poor job i know the difference between AND and OR
    thats the reason i choosed AND!!!!
    Or did you?

    rules that MCAS get ACTIVATED:
    if --- angle of attack is high -- OR -- autopilot is off -- OR -- flaps are up -- OR -- steeply turning

    first. we get data task: (WGDT)
    read ONLY sensor 1 .. AOA too high?
    is autopilot off ?
    are flaps up ?
    are we steeply turning ?

    second. any of the questions answered yes
    "any" means 1 or more and hence it's an OR too.

    your Code is still to good, i think the First line does not exist, and thats the reason mcas kicks in if Sensor Data is wrong!!!
    I don't know if the line exists code-wise or if it is just a squat switch or proximity sensor, but the MCAS IS INHIBITED IF THE AP IS ON OR IF THE FLAPS ARE EXTENDED.

    Don't believe me, go look at the Boeing service bulletin, the FAA AD, or the explanation and FDR graphs of the initial report of the Lion Crash.

    --- 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 ---

  14. #334
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post


    Isn't there a guarded give-me-the-phone switch?
    No, but you can go to settings, then navigate to keyboard mode, then select auto-correct, check 2 checkmarks, and un-check another 3. But hey, it's the same!

    --- 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 ---

  15. #335
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    I guess the question is (and I understand the answer depends on context), how confusing is it?
    Maybe not so confusing that a Lion Air flight was successfully completed with MCAS not_causing a crash...

    I dunno...Gabbie's comment about sudden stick shaker with lost airspeed and some pitch over (triple threat/perfect storm)...maybe a few too many pilots mess up (maybe not the norm...but)…

    I go back to the 50's fly the GD airplane (including sticking with your power and attitude that WAS giving you perfectly good flight)...light a cigarette....diagnose problem...seems that this procedure would probably work for MCAS problems.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  16. #336
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    No, but you can go to settings, then navigate to keyboard mode, then select auto-correct, check 2 checkmarks, and un-check another 3. But hey, it's the same!
    click click clack clack. Too much dependence on automation.

    Bring back the dial phones. That gave you force-feedback and you never had to "wonder what's it doing now?".

  17. #337
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I go back to the 50's fly the GD airplane (including sticking with your power and attitude that WAS giving you perfectly good flight)...light a cigarette...
    With what? Your foot? Cuz this upset scenario is a double handful...

  18. #338
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    New York Times reporting that the pilot requested a return after three minutes in a panicked tone of voice. They are also reporting that it "accelerated to abnormal speed". It also apparently turned back while in a climb.

    I get the impression it was never stabilized on autoflight. But why the speed?
    A couple of days and a few hundred posts ago- I read your reply to my reply...

    I recall that the sources read a bit like journalists making a story where one did not exist...

    There is generally a 250 kt below 10,000 ft restriction and the plane may have accelerated beyond that in an unusual way (unusual in that we don't usually accelerate beyond that).

    I just don't see any mechanisms for the engines to go into "turbo-boost"- in particular that "turbo-boost" is more of a video game system than a 737 system...(some military planes may have something like that, though).

    As before- some sarcasm, but mostly serious. I think the speed increase came from reducing the nose up attitude...that's one mechanism that can do that.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #339
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    With what? Your foot? Cuz this upset scenario is a double handful...
    Read all the words...

    Maintaining attitude and power would have (yet again) worked. One might try using the yoke and the trim tab to maintain attitude. From what I have read, those two items have some function in providing nose-up inputs- with the trim even able to over-ride MCAS. And I have yet to hear of attitude indicator failure, nor power indicator failure on this nor Lion Air nor AirFrance...

    I don't know why you always seem to object to that procedure, other than it's really broad and hard to play the type-specific game with...I know that troubles you.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #340
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Maybe not so confusing that a Lion Air flight was successfully completed with MCAS not_causing a crash...

    I dunno...Gabbie's comment about sudden stick shaker with lost airspeed and some pitch over (triple threat/perfect storm)...maybe a few too many pilots mess up (maybe not the norm...but)…

    I go back to the 50's fly the GD airplane (including sticking with your power and attitude that WAS giving you perfectly good flight)...light a cigarette....diagnose problem...seems that this procedure would probably work for MCAS problems.
    Just to clarify, the one-sided stickshaker and the speed disagree were there since rotation, the speed difference was not huge (the speeds were about the same and about correct on both sides, it looks to me like the total and static pressures were the same but there must some AoA-correction algorithm, and since the AoAs differed bt some 20 degrees, the correction would have also differed and would have bee wrong on the affected side, but go and check the DFDR plots and you will see that the speeds were reacting in unison with just a bit of gap between the 2) and the MCAS kicked in minutes later when they retracted the flaps. By then I want to guess that they had already judged the stickshaker as spurious, else they would not have retracted the flaps and slats.

    --- 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 ---

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •