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 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.


    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

    Comment


    • 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 Files

      Comment


      • 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 ---

        Comment


        • 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 ---

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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?".

              Comment


              • 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...

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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 ---

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        it looks to me like the total and static pressures were the same but there must some AoA-correction algorithm
                        As I'm sure you know, the system uses the AoA data to adjust for the AoA variations of the pitot probes, so the difference wouldn't be like a typical UAS event.
                        But please don't get into the fluid dynamics of this. I promised myself a week off from fluid dynamics.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          I refuse to know why...I know that troubles you.
                          Indeed.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HansPeter View Post
                            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.
                            If your point is that American companies are more corrupt than European ones, I think you're going to have a hard time winning that argument. You are quoting data? Like this: https://ourworldindata.org/corruption
                            First, the data is based on perception which is about all we have to work with, but lets play along. You'll noticed that a big chunk of Western Europe is ranked worse than the US, namely Spain, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Less worse is France, Portugal, Poland. Equal with the US we have Ireland and Austria. Only slightly better we have UK, Germany, Scandanavia and Switzerland. Ironic give the Swiss have been holding everyone else's corrupt money since the beginning of time, and the Germans having been the center for countless corruption scandals including the VW affair which is quite recent (me still being an owner of a scandalous vehicle here in Canada). I also know Canada ranks up there with the scandanavian countries in low corruption, but I also know we are awash in foreign money being laundered here.

                            As for Airbus, we here in Canada know all about bribery. One of our most famous former Prime Ministers was caught taking a briefcase of 300K from Karl Heinz Schreiber on behalf of Airbus to close the 1.8B deal for Air Canada to buy a fleet of A320's. [as an aside, Boeing is blacklisted in Canada for a while now for forcing Bombardier to give up the CSeries airplane, a competitor being the B737... irony]

                            But here, why not look at something more recent?

                            A potentially vast corruption scandal threatens to overrun Airbus, with a Paris-based sales group suspected of having paid bribes around the world. German CEO Tom Enders is leading the clean-up effort, but documents reveal that he might not be as spotless as he claims. By DER SPIEGEL Staff


                            All of this adds up to a potential Siemens sequel for the German economy, one which has gone virtually unnoticed by the public at large. A new global bribery scandal, similar to the earthquake of corruption that rocked the Munich-based industrial giant in 2006, and continued for years afterward. In Britain and France, anti-corruption agencies are currently investigating Airbus, while Munich-based public prosecutors are doing the same in Germany together with their counterparts in Vienna. Airbus has submitted a voluntary disclosure in the UK. And suspicious cases have begun popping up around the world, including in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, China, Tunisia, Kazakhstan and Mali.

                            ...

                            The parallels to the Siemens scandal are difficult to ignore. Both companies do business around the world, including in countries thought to be particularly corrupt, and both did business with fly-by-night companies and employed slippery consultants who received millions of dollars to set up business deals, likely by way of bribing politicians and officials. Both corporations likewise developed a company culture of acceptance for the practice, an understanding that things had always been done that way, that everyone else does it too, and that it is, in fact, the only way such a business can be run.

                            In one respect, though, the case of Airbus is even more explosive. After all, much of the company remains state-owned, with Germany and France together owning a 22 percent stake. That makes the case a political one -- and one that could affect the relationship between the two countries. The government in Berlin is eyeing Airbus nervously as the German and French executives in the company attack one another and hate, anger and distrust run rampant. Who knew what, when? Who cast blame at who? Who must now pay? Who will have power in the company when it's all over? The Germans? The French? The battle for truth has become a battle between two countries.

                            It's pretty damning outline systematic corruption and bribery on a worldwide basis going straight to the top of Airbus. If you read that article you shockingly see all those companies that supposedly have less problems with corruption... Austria, Germany etc. So first, the data doesn't even support your point, and second, even if it did, the data doesn't tell the whole story.

                            I don't think every man steals, I know it. Some people just do it more quietly than others.

                            Now is Boeing guilty of putting profits over safety? Of course they are. Every single corporation in the world will do that when regulations are relaxed because that is what the system incentivizes them to do. This will happen in Oil and Gas (i.e. BP and Transocean). It will happen in Pharma (i.e. vioxx), it will happen in Auto (VW), banking (too many to list) and it will happen in Aerospace. It is actually quite predictable. It is predictable that if you have a system of poor regulation and oversight over corporations you will get profits prioritized over everything else including public safety. Very predictable.

                            Here is a good article summarizing nicely much of what we've talked about here.



                            Boeing has had wide latitude over a number of safety checks for years, despite warnings from Department of Transportation auditors in 2012 that the FAA was not doing enough to "hold Boeing accountable." That's because the FAA and Congress have given increasing power to aircraft designers over safety certifications in the name of government efficiency.

                            The FAA has outsourced safety certification for some parts of new aircraft to their manufacturers for decades, but the agency used to have approval authority over which engineers were selected for the job. In 2005, the FAA started to loosen regulations over Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), giving the companies more leeway over who was selected to do the work. While they were technically employees under FAA's authority, the engineers were still managed by the companies.

                            The changes were completely in place by 2009, and according to investigators, they gave Boeing a lot of leverage over safety-certification engineers. As Bloomberg reports, the 2012 Department of Transportation audit found that Boeing had created a "negative work environment" for engineers reviewing new designs—to the degree that many interviewed by auditors said that they'd faced retaliation for bringing up concerns.

                            Additional concerns were raised over Boeing's safety-certification practices in 2015 after fires aboard 787 "Dreamliners" were caused by lithium batteries used in auxiliary power. But under the Trump administration, things have been loosened up even more. In October of 2017—six months after the 737 MAX was certified—President Donald Trump signed a law that allows aircraft manufacturers to press the FAA to give them authority over how they certify components considered to be low- or medium-risk items. And if the manufacturers can convince the FAA that something falls into one of those two categories, they could essentially have free rein over how they certify their craft as safe.

                            Comment


                            • As widely speculated the AVHerald is now reporting the pilots may not have actually been trained on Trim runaway in MAX.

                              Following the Nov 6th 2018 release of the Boeing Bulletin regarding MCAS in the aftermath of the crash of the LionAir the airline did distribute the bulletin to their flight crew a number of days later following a reminder. Ethiopian Airlines had been equipped with one Boeing 737-700 NG simulator only when the first MAX aircraft were put into service, the first 737-8 MAX simulator was put into service mid January 2019. Only in March 2019 a trim runaway lesson was included in the NG and MAX training syllabus. Flight crew are scheduled to go through a simulator session every 6 months (as per industry standards), the accident flight crew may thus not yet have received training on a stabilizer trim runaway (in the NG or MAX Simulator).

                              The source added the B737 NG simulator was not able to reproduce different trim handling by both aircraft: on the NG aircraft automatic trim (e.g. by the SRS) could be counteracted by an (intuitive) elevator opposite control input (e.g. on a nose down trim a nose up elevator input would stop and disable the autotrim system) unless a double failure was inserted by the sim instructor whereas on the MAX the intuitive counter acting elevator input no longer stops the automatic trim in order to permit MCAS to work. The only means to disable automatic trim on the MAX is therefore the trim cutout switches (renamed PR and D/U) below the throttle quadrant on the center console (same location as on the NG), which completely disables all electric trim (also via the trim switches at the controls) and leaves the crew with manual trim via the trim wheel only, so that crew needs to rotate the trim wheel nose up promptly to recover from a stabilizer nose down trim introduced by an automatic trim (e.g. by MCAS or other faults).

                              The source also reported continuing on runway heading (072 degrees magnetic), respective in a corridor around 080 degrees keeps the aircraft over relatively flat terrain and is used as the go around procedure for runway 07L/R. To the south or north terrain rises. HA (R)-1 would not have posed a problem due to terrain, it is a military restriction. The aircraft was in visual meteorologic conditions throughout the flight.
                              One would expect that Ethiopian would know definitively whether the pilots had been through training or not. It may turn out this was exactly the same problem as Lion Air sensor issue + bad interface with unaware pilots on how the plane was designed to act.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                                Clearly, 2.5 degrees is a LOT more than 0.6 degrees. FAA categorized an MCAS fault to be "hazardous" but not "catastrophic" at 0.6 degrees. Presumably that was why they gave approval for just one AoA sensor. So, who approved 2.5 degrees I wonder? And why?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X