Fergasun

Where is the Outrage over Boeing 737-MAX?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Uhhh.....I'm on the military side.  And no it doesn't.

 

FBW is just a matter of how the flight surfaces get told to move/not move.  It is the manner in which that input is sent, whether initiated via human input or input from a computer that serves as the autopilot function.  And autopilot is more than just navigational controls.  For example, SAS falls under the autopilot umbrella and it just reduces the feeling of buffeting.  I posted a link about it a while back.  

watch

the

video

As much as I've ever read, watched, and studied about fighter jets and their inherent instability the FBW system is the system that keeps them in the air. You are using it in a more generalized way to describe digital flight controls, but the FBW systems were developed to keep like the X-29, F-117 and other experiemental planes flying because by design they were unflyable without the FBW system.

Edited by AsburySkinsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Watch the video.

Autopilot is navigational controls etc, not "keep the damn plane in the air" controls, that's FBW.

Maybe on the civilian side ya'll generalize terms, but this is what it means on the military side.

 

The plane can easily stay airborne if the MCAS is disabled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twa said:

 

The plane can easily stay airborne if the MCAS is disabled

You mean the plane can easily stay airborne when the malfunctioning MCAS system is disabled, this is the first question asked.

The second question you ask is "was this a known problem?"

The third is "What lengths did Boeing go to in order to fix this problem?"

The fourth is "What lengths did Boeing go to in order to inform pilots of the malfunction?"

You keep jumping straight to "the pilots were asleep at the wheel." Which oddly enough is where you started before you knew the facts, and surprisingly the facts didn't change your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

watch

the

video

I'll give it a shot again after work.  In the rare chance it actually says what you are trying to say, I'll point out that the video is wrong.  And provide even more links that show you are wrong.  But considering the fact that you just claimed that the military side agrees with you, and I've spent over half my life in the military aviation maintenance and operation field, makes me question how much of an honest debate you are even interested in.  I feel like I'm trying to talk to twa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You mean the plane can easily stay airborne when the malfunctioning MCAS system is disabled, this is the first question asked.

The second question you ask is "was this a known problem?"

The third is "What lengths did Boeing go to in order to fix this problem?"

The fourth is "What lengths did Boeing go to in order to inform pilots of the malfunction?"

You keep jumping straight to "the pilots were asleep at the wheel." Which oddly enough is where you started before you knew the facts, and surprisingly the facts didn't change your mind.

 

I have the expectation that problems arise when a plane is in flight and that pilots should be able to fly a aircraft that remains airworthy despite a electronic malfunction.

I knew the facts (and understood them) well before you and before posting.

 

The definition of insanity or ignorance is repeating the same error till ya hit the ground..

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'll give it a shot again after work.  In the rare chance it actually says what you are trying to say, I'll point out that the video is wrong.  And provide even more links that show you are wrong.  But considering the fact that you just claimed that the military side agrees with you, and I've spent over half my life in the military aviation maintenance and operation field, makes me question how much of an honest debate you are even interested in.  I feel like I'm trying to talk to twa.

 

607628188_Welcometosciencehellprofessor.jpg.c87d716e27ec4aa32ababe041819ae98.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say a truck company released a commercial 18-wheeler, which was 14% more fuel efficient than comparable trucks on the market.  But it had a flaw, which was a tendency to drift to the right.  So they added some sensor to detect whether the vehicle was drifting right, and automatically steer to left correct it.    Problem is sometimes the sensor failed, and it would steer to the left when it was travelling in a straight line.   Now the company knew about this flaw, which had caused a multiple fatality accident when a truck veered into oncoming traffic, but their response was to circulate a memo to all trucking companies informing them of the problem, but otherwise not taking any other corrective action, such as recalling the truck, or forcing recertification of drivers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Let's say a truck company released a commercial 18-wheeler, which was 14% more fuel efficient than comparable trucks on the market.  But it had a flaw, which was a tendency to drift to the right.  So they added some sensor to detect whether the vehicle was drifting right, and automatically steer to left correct it.    Problem is sometimes the sensor failed, and it would steer to the left when it was travelling in a straight line.   Now the company knew about this flaw, which had caused a multiple fatality accident when a truck veered into oncoming traffic, but their response was to circulate a memo to all trucking companies informing them of the problem, but otherwise not taking any other corrective action, such as recalling the truck, or forcing recertification of drivers.

No, it's the driver's fault.

THIS is how a company responds to a flaw in its systems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

No, it's the driver's fault.

 

if he continues to drive it w/o disabling it

 

add

 

let's say your cruise control keeps accelerating....just keep riding the brake?...or turn it off?

Edited by twa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

if he continues to drive it w/o disabling it

Read this article sweetie.

THEY WERE NOT TRAINED IN ON THE ISSUE 

Boeing ****ed up, face it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

training is a airlines(or the host country) responsibility, and I've mentioned repeatedly the training is subpar in many other countries.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

training is a airlines(or the host country) responsibility, and I've mentioned repeatedly the training is subpar in many other countries.

 

 

Gatdamn son did you EVEN bother opening the article before you ignored it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

Gatdamn son did you EVEN bother opening the article before you ignored it?

 

Wait, you are saying I treated like you do my posts? :ols:

 

So you agree the airline put pilots in planes they were too ignorant to fly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t see why you can’t say that boeing has some blame, as does the airline, as do the pilots.  Several other pilots were able to handle the MCAS error prior to the Lion Air crash, the accident crew was not.

 

From  - This is a bit of an update from when i last read about the lion air crash, seems like the media may have embellished the facts...

 

https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4bf90724/0009&opt=0

 

 

On Mar 21st 2019 the KNKT reported another fully qualified Boeing 737-MAX 8 pilot was travelling home off duty on flight JT-43 from Denpasar to Jakarta, the flight immediately preceding the accident flight, which had encountered similiar problems as the accident flight, the crew of which however managed to land the aircraft at the destination. The pilot was interviewed by the KNKT. No further comments can be made. The KNKT also states, that media reports of what the CVR revealed do not match the actual CVR recordings and at the very best resemble just the personal opinions of people used as source for such media reports. The KNKT estimates the release of the final report for August or September 2019. The KNKT can not comment on possible similiarities between JT-610 and ET-302, however, have offered cooperation to the Ethiopian Authorities. Earlier media reports had suggested part of the CVR had been leaked to media, in addition media had reported a third pilot had occupied the observer's seat in the ****pit of flight JT-43 and was the one, who identified the automatic trim runaway issue at hand and initiated the trim cut out switches to be used.
 

 

Blame, but no need for “outrage”... boeing didn’t do anything malice or wrong, they made a system designed to make a plane safer and it had a bug in it. 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t see why you can’t say that boeing has some blame, as does the airline, as do the pilots.  

Go back and READ my comments.

My beef is with @twa because when he first heard about these crashes his comment was that it was due to pilots sleeping at the wheel.

Since then he's spent his time moving the goalposts and shifting blame away from Boeing.

Their **** was broke they knew it they didn't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras

 

As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their ****pits.

 

One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.

 

For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons.

 

Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane’s operations.

 

Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.

 

It is not yet known what caused the crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 five months earlier, both after erratic takeoffs. But investigators are looking at whether a new software system added to avoid stalls in Boeing’s 737 Max series may have been partly to blame. Faulty data from sensors on the Lion Air plane may have caused the system, known as MCAS, to malfunction, authorities investigating that crash suspect.

 

That software system takes readings from two vanelike devices called angle of attack sensors that determine how much the plane’s nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling.

 

Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crashes are mainy on the pilots or the airlines. ...the damn plane will fly fine if you are competent.

 

No crash I've seen was rapid enough not to be countered by taking control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Read this article sweetie.

THEY WERE NOT TRAINED IN ON THE ISSUE 

Boeing ****ed up, face it.

 

 

 

Are you aware that your post contradicts itself?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@twa I would say when you are flying at 5000ft, and the air plane pitches down sharply, unexpectedly, regardless of your inputs, troubleshooting an issue you’ve never experienced before becomes difficult. So i wouldn’t say it’s only the pilots and operators to blame...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Read the article

 

No. 

 

Your post contradicts itself. No other reading is necessary to make this statement. 

 

And as far as I'm aware, no one has granted you the authority to tell me what to do. 

 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@twa I would say when you are flying at 5000ft, and the air plane pitches down sharply, unexpectedly, regardless of your inputs, troubleshooting an issue you’ve never experienced before becomes difficult. So i wouldn’t say it’s only the pilots and operators to blame...

 

I will say that it sure sounds to me like Boeing has a big chunk of blame here. 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@twa I would say when you are flying at 5000ft, and the air plane pitches down sharply, unexpectedly, regardless of your inputs, troubleshooting an issue you’ve never experienced before becomes difficult. So i wouldn’t say it’s only the pilots and operators to blame...

 

Certainly difficult if your training is lacking.

The plane wants to go down yet rises when I pull back on the yoke(even with MCAS engaged) 

The engines and flaps obviously work, which leaves the tail(unless you are flying a plane you didn't know had a tail that adjusted horizontal trim)

 

if you don't know about the tail or how to disable the assist you have no business flying a commercial airliner thus equipped imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Steps required to disable mcas and why pilots may not have been trained to deal with max vs a normal 737 (from av herald)

 

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 PRI and B/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).

 

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

I will say that it sure sounds to me like Boeing has a big chunk of blame here. 

 

Certainly for the plane pitching downward(from the evidence so far)

But Is the pitch the reason for the crash or is it untrained pilots?

 

Clearly trained ones had no real problem avoiding crashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.