User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 1:07:00 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most Boeings flying today, including the 737,are not fly-by-wire. They're hydraulically actuated with manual reversion available. Even the Airbus 320 series which is true fly-by-wire has mechanical back ups to keep us flying while resetting computers in the event of a catastrophic electrical failure (which has never happened). But all the Boeing aircraft except for the 777, 787, and I think the 747-800 are all flying around in what would be the equivalent of Airbus direct law, i.e. no built in protections available with the exception of a stick pusher, and it's hydraulic. There isn’t a traditional stick pusher on the 73 either. Elevator feel shift, and speed trim, but no pusher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 1:15:26 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They crammed two massive engines that were too forward of the wing, creating a stall condition at high attack angles, and extended a fuselage that didn’t need to be extended. ALL of that because Boeing didn’t want to redesign the 757. They should have just built the Airbus A320 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 1:19:17 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They should have just built the Airbus A320 Yep.   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 1:25:01 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryJust this past weekend I flew on both a 737 and an A320. One felt like I was in a sardine can. The other, was actually quite comfortable. I'll let you guess which was which |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 1:36:13 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FWIW modern airplanes aren't landed by pilots, they are landed by computer algorythms. What are you talking about? Most modern airplanes operated by airlines can be landed by a computer algorithm, but that is done very rarely. The vast majority of landing are flown by hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 2:18:06 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm too lazy to math right now, but a commercial jet flying at ~40,000 ft and doing the "cruize" thing at ~550 mph according to the computer that is actually flying the airplane, is only going about 30 knots above stall speed. I know that sounds weird, but, keep in mind, the air is thinner. So more speed is required to maintain stable flight at that altitude. That's why when sensors go out/malfunction, these airplanes fall out the fucking sky. And then it's blamed on "Pilot Error", instead of Engineering Error. Or more like Corporate Profits Error. I mean… wow. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 3:47:08 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What are you talking about? Most modern airplanes operated by airlines can be landed by a computer algorithm, but that is done very rarely. The vast majority of landing are flown by hand. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FWIW modern airplanes aren't landed by pilots, they are landed by computer algorythms. What are you talking about? Most modern airplanes operated by airlines can be landed by a computer algorithm, but that is done very rarely. The vast majority of landing are flown by hand. Just an example showing they haven't a clue what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 5:20:11 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought GD had sold the Ft Worth group to Lockmart by then. Guess not. I know a guy who was involved in the lawsuits as an SME. The lawsuits were a shitshow evidently. I also know several folks that went to work at Vought in Dallas because they got dumped from over there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: LockMart got stung doing the dump the whole project team as well after the A12 debacle. Took them a looong time to recover from that idiocy. @planemaker A12 debacle? LockMart design for a carrier-based stealth fighter. Rumor was it was referred to as the Flying Dorito. It failed to impress Navy leadership due to a number of technical, cost, and schedule issues. It was cancelled. They actually went to court over that one. LockMart at the time needed to downsize so they took the opportunity to dump the vast majority of the project team. Stupid on their part since that team had just gone from concept to flight, something rare in the industry now. That was a MacDac/General Dynamics program, not Lockmart. It was canceled in Jan 1991 and the lawsuits weren't finished until Jan. 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II It was a MacDac/GD program but the lawsuits were settled by Boeing and Lockheed, respectively, after they bought out the two respective companies. Lockheed got GD in 1993 (Ft. Worth division). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 5:20:53 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Graduated from the CM Johnson National Academy of Aviation Sciences, B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, Summa cum laude Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I've been on this site for nearly 20 years and rarely do I see a series of posts with so much bullshit as I just read from cherokeerose. rose, what is your technical background in aerospace/aviation? Graduated from the CM Johnson National Academy of Aviation Sciences, B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, Summa cum laude  Attached Fileand  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 5:25:24 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Folks, all is well and good, but unless you are retired, your knowledge is severely outdated, or you well and truly don't give a fuck, please think before you put your CV out there. I genuinely love all you engineers and old curmudgeons (but I repeat myself). But I also selfishly wish for the USA to keep whatever edge it can, for as long as it can. And all this personal data can be cross referenced automatically by all the AL-GORE-rythms from all these young whipper snappers. And we all aren't plaster saints, are we? So don't give anyone one inch of rope. **For those of you who know what's up and what you're about, pay no mind to the calls from the peanut gallery, and I tip my hat to you** Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Graduated from the CM Johnson National Academy of Aviation Sciences, B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, Summa cum laude Folks, all is well and good, but unless you are retired, your knowledge is severely outdated, or you well and truly don't give a fuck, please think before you put your CV out there. I genuinely love all you engineers and old curmudgeons (but I repeat myself). But I also selfishly wish for the USA to keep whatever edge it can, for as long as it can. And all this personal data can be cross referenced automatically by all the AL-GORE-rythms from all these young whipper snappers. And we all aren't plaster saints, are we? So don't give anyone one inch of rope. **For those of you who know what's up and what you're about, pay no mind to the calls from the peanut gallery, and I tip my hat to you** My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 6:12:42 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I take it you are not aware of who CM Johnson is, are you? CM Johnson was a very famous and competent "pilot" in years past. Fortunately, he was banned several years ago. My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Graduated from the CM Johnson National Academy of Aviation Sciences, B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, Summa cum laude Folks, all is well and good, but unless you are retired, your knowledge is severely outdated, or you well and truly don't give a fuck, please think before you put your CV out there. I genuinely love all you engineers and old curmudgeons (but I repeat myself). But I also selfishly wish for the USA to keep whatever edge it can, for as long as it can. And all this personal data can be cross referenced automatically by all the AL-GORE-rythms from all these young whipper snappers. And we all aren't plaster saints, are we? So don't give anyone one inch of rope. **For those of you who know what's up and what you're about, pay no mind to the calls from the peanut gallery, and I tip my hat to you** My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. I wondered that at first, but I don’t remember CM J being quite that... off ... I mean, you could tell he was a Larping, stolen valor, Janes educated wannabe, but he usually consigned himself to arguing about random military trivia. This other one is different. More like an old man who got all his aeronautical credentials from the History channel. (I’m being kind here, because as I said, we need to be empathetic when possible.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 7:17:52 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just this past weekend I flew on both a 737 and an A320. One felt like I was in a sardine can. The other, was actually quite comfortable. I'll let you guess which was which Oooh, I know! I know! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 7:19:17 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wondered that at first, but I don’t remember CM J being quite that... off ... I mean, you could tell he was a Larping, stolen valor, Janes educated wannabe, but he usually consigned himself to arguing about random military trivia. This other one is different. More like an old man who got all his aeronautical credentials from the History channel. (I’m being kind here, because as I said, we need to be empathetic when possible.) He never talked about selling his kids off to a doctor or attorney either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 7:20:38 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The crashes had nothing to do with those stupid, click bait hit pieces about $9 programmers. I despise Boeing, but at least attempt to know the truth. Boeing has multiple layers of problems, from top to bottom in the offices and the shops, and I doubt there will be any improvement without an overhaul that looks like a clean slate. Picture a company that operates like a mix of Alice in Wonderland, 1984, and the East German Surveillance Society, lubricated by every slice of the current fad of "social justice". . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You can't make up for outsourcing code to idiots for $9/hr with "oversight" either, when the "oversight" allows it. Not to mention the other idiots that designed and approved how the controls were setup, how they interacted with the software, and designed the pilot training and procedures. Boeing could have saved a lot of time, money, and terror by just lining all those passengers up and shooting them. Boeing has multiple layers of problems, from top to bottom in the offices and the shops, and I doubt there will be any improvement without an overhaul that looks like a clean slate. Picture a company that operates like a mix of Alice in Wonderland, 1984, and the East German Surveillance Society, lubricated by every slice of the current fad of "social justice". . The sad reality being that this is the future of many such industries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 8:48:14 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The sad reality being that this is the future of many such industries. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can't make up for outsourcing code to idiots for $9/hr with "oversight" either, when the "oversight" allows it. Not to mention the other idiots that designed and approved how the controls were setup, how they interacted with the software, and designed the pilot training and procedures. Boeing could have saved a lot of time, money, and terror by just lining all those passengers up and shooting them. Boeing has multiple layers of problems, from top to bottom in the offices and the shops, and I doubt there will be any improvement without an overhaul that looks like a clean slate. Picture a company that operates like a mix of Alice in Wonderland, 1984, and the East German Surveillance Society, lubricated by every slice of the current fad of "social justice". . The sad reality being that this is the future of many such industries. At this point, they have their head so far up their collective asses that's it's going to take a miracle to build a new plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 8:48:56 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I take it you are not aware of who CM Johnson is, are you? CM Johnson was a very famous and competent "pilot" in years past. Fortunately, he was banned several years ago. My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Graduated from the CM Johnson National Academy of Aviation Sciences, B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, Summa cum laude Folks, all is well and good, but unless you are retired, your knowledge is severely outdated, or you well and truly don't give a fuck, please think before you put your CV out there. I genuinely love all you engineers and old curmudgeons (but I repeat myself). But I also selfishly wish for the USA to keep whatever edge it can, for as long as it can. And all this personal data can be cross referenced automatically by all the AL-GORE-rythms from all these young whipper snappers. And we all aren't plaster saints, are we? So don't give anyone one inch of rope. **For those of you who know what's up and what you're about, pay no mind to the calls from the peanut gallery, and I tip my hat to you** My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. I actually don't think so. CherokeeRose' Dunning-Krueger extends to more than just aviation. My professional expertise is completely unrelated to aviation but she opines freely about that too and her posts in those threads all give me Forrest Whittaker Eye. ETA, YADATROT: So, the reason why the 737 MAX crashed was because the airplane thought it should be pointed up more than it needed to be, and when it pointed up (err, pitched up? What I know of aviation begins and ends with the closure of the cigar bar in DEN Concourse B) the engines weren't getting enough air, and pilots trained in third-world countries didn't figure it out in time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 10:32:40 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I take it you are not aware of who CM Johnson is, are you? CM Johnson was a very famous and competent "pilot" in years past. Fortunately, he was banned several years ago. My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. Ohhhhh! No, I completely missed that reference. I don't keep a black book of all the trolls and malcontents who come and go from this forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:38:56 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ohhhhh! No, I completely missed that reference. I don't keep a black book of all the trolls and malcontents who come and go from this forum. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I take it you are not aware of who CM Johnson is, are you? CM Johnson was a very famous and competent "pilot" in years past. Fortunately, he was banned several years ago. My bet is that CMCherokee (or whatever his name is) is his alternate ego here. Ohhhhh! No, I completely missed that reference. I don't keep a black book of all the trolls and malcontents who come and go from this forum. I don't either, but CM got into a real down and dragged out argument one time about fighter capabilities - with a real fighter pilot.  CM was the one with the "Thulsa Doom" avatar.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2021 11:40:24 PM EST
[#19]
PULL THE BREAKERS ON THE AP AND HAND FLY THAT PLANE CAPTAIN!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 3:25:56 PM EST
[#20]
Ridiculous how much misinformation there is on this subject.
Yeah, Boeing fucked up not having redundant sensors. But any pilot trained for a trim runaway would not crash the plane when an MCAS malfunction happens (trim runaways happen without MCAS too). There's a reason third world airlines splash a lot of airplanes, and it's not MCAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 3:52:05 PM EST
[#21]
I flew on a 737 Max(Southwest) to ABQ last weekend. The chatty lady next to me said, "Oh, this is a nice new plane." I told her two of these planes crashed a few years ago, she didn't say another word to me and looked a bit concerned after that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 4:04:53 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is it necessary to design new planes? There are existing designs to cover all different endurance and passenger requirements. Why dont they just keep existing designs? was new engine design to compete with the more efficient, higher performance Airbus planes. Boeing was losing billions in sales to Airbus before the Max. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 4:04:58 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I flew on a 737 Max(Southwest) to ABQ last weekend. The chatty lady next to me said, "Oh, this is a nice new plane." I told her two of these planes crashed a few years ago, she didn't say another word to me and looked a bit concerned after that. “Did you feel that?” 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 4:26:15 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I flew on a 737 Max(Southwest) to ABQ last weekend. The chatty lady next to me said, "Oh, this is a nice new plane." I told her two of these planes crashed a few years ago, she didn't say another word to me and looked a bit concerned after that. My father has gotten odd looks because he at one time watched Mayday episodes while flying  “Lady next to him was like why would you watch that right now?”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 5:29:55 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My father has gotten odd looks because he at one time watched Mayday episodes while flying “Lady next to him was like why would you watch that right now?” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I flew on a 737 Max(Southwest) to ABQ last weekend. The chatty lady next to me said, "Oh, this is a nice new plane." I told her two of these planes crashed a few years ago, she didn't say another word to me and looked a bit concerned after that. My father has gotten odd looks because he at one time watched Mayday episodes while flying “Lady next to him was like why would you watch that right now?” No bullshit, I swear to God on my mother's life I'm not making this up. Back in the early 90s I rode on a TWA flight (think it was a DC-10) that had the ceiling mounted monitors that folded out over the aisle. You just plugged your headsets into the armrest to listen but there was no choice on what the movie was. You watched it or you didn't. The fucking movie they played was Alive. I was amazed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2021 5:31:01 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I actually don't think so. CherokeeRose' Dunning-Krueger extends to more than just aviation. My professional expertise is completely unrelated to aviation but she opines freely about that too and her posts in those threads all give me Forrest Whittaker Eye. ETA, YADATROT: So, the reason why the 737 MAX crashed was because the airplane thought it should be pointed up more than it needed to be, and when it pointed up (err, pitched up? What I know of aviation begins and ends with the closure of the cigar bar in DEN Concourse B) the engines weren't getting enough air, and pilots trained in third-world countries didn't figure it out in time? No, they crashed because MCAS thought they were poited too far up when they weren't, so MCAS tried to push the nose down when it shouldn't have. The pilots in both cases either did or did not turn MCAS off in time to manually recover and fly the plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 9:48:06 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they crashed because MCAS thought they were poited too far up when they weren't, so MCAS tried to push the nose down when it shouldn't have. The pilots in both cases either did or did not turn MCAS off in time to manually recover and fly the plane. They wouldn't turn MCAS off. They would hit the trim cutout switch which would disable auto trim of any kind. They'd then manually trim the plane. Following the checklist of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 9:55:16 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No bullshit, I swear to God on my mother's life I'm not making this up. Back in the early 90s I rode on a TWA flight (think it was a DC-10) that had the ceiling mounted monitors that folded out over the aisle. You just plugged your headsets into the armrest to listen but there was no choice on what the movie was. You watched it or you didn't. The fucking movie they played was Alive. I was amazed. It was either a DC-10 or it was TWA. Anyway, the good thing about watching "Alive" in flight is that it would make a coach meal look appetizing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:10:22 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What are you talking about? Most modern airplanes operated by airlines can be landed by a computer algorithm, but that is done very rarely. The vast majority of landing are flown by hand. Saying "algorithm" is pretty useless at the pilot level. CherokeeRose is VERY mildly correct that there are various laws in the Airbus that limit pilot inputs, and GROSSLY incorrect that these are at the edge of safety. Basically the opposite is true; the various laws keep the 320 at the dead center of various certification standards for stability (though, I am not a professional certification or test pilot.) There is autoland, and in the case of the A320, a pitch down function that allows for natural tendencies to flare since you command load factor, and not usually not pitch in the 320. In the case of the 320, at about 50' AGL or so, in Landing Mode, the flare law kicks in. Here is a good Safety First about Tailstrike Prevention in the 320 on it, that kind of shows the interface between the stick command at landing... https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsdesk/documents/archives/a320-prevention-of-tailstrikes.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:15:09 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oooh, I know! I know! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just this past weekend I flew on both a 737 and an A320. One felt like I was in a sardine can. The other, was actually quite comfortable. I'll let you guess which was which Oooh, I know! I know! The A320 does have some nice passenger features. My girlfriend has a mobility impaired Aunt, who nearly exclusively flies on Bus flights because the Aft lav can be opened up into one larger lav for those folks, and at least a quorum of 737s don't have it. The Bus can rock in the back on long trips...kind of a Dutch roll if you're really susceptible to that sort of thing. Most of the time I'm sleeping, so it doesn't bother me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:20:35 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: was new engine design to compete with the more efficient, higher performance Airbus planes. Boeing was losing billions in sales to Airbus before the Max. Well, like I said, they weren't going to sell 800 narrow body units to Ryan and Southwest that weren't a standard 737NG. Period. Neither company were going to invest in a new fleet type. Honestly, had Boeing said "the MAX pilot needs a differences sim session on a NG sim with software load to replicate the handling of various components of the new aircraft" Boeing would likely be making a really compelling case that they did the due diligence requisite for a derivative 737NG and this was a human factors accident. Sometimes, the customer is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:25:39 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You've posted this complete non-sense before, and refused to justify it before. I'm one of the few A320 pilots who've purposely flown the aircraft in Alternate Law. It flies great. Modern aircraft are immensely safe, and when flown and maintained by well trained pilots and maintenance personnel, even safer. No where near "inherently unsafe." I can really only think of one modern (built since 1975) transport category aircraft I'd say was "challenging to fly" from a data standpoint, and that was the MD-11. I'm not getting what you are saying. Did you mean mechanical law? I think that's what most readers here will assume you meant, not one of the other modes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:42:09 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I actually don't think so. CherokeeRose' Dunning-Krueger extends to more than just aviation. My professional expertise is completely unrelated to aviation but she opines freely about that too and her posts in those threads all give me Forrest Whittaker Eye. ETA, YADATROT: So, the reason why the 737 MAX crashed was because the airplane thought it should be pointed up more than it needed to be, and when it pointed up (err, pitched up? What I know of aviation begins and ends with the closure of the cigar bar in DEN Concourse B) the engines weren't getting enough air, and pilots trained in third-world countries didn't figure it out in time? The engines in both crashes worked just fine. MCAS points the nose down. The control authority if the horizontal stabilizer trim is greater than the elevators. Once trim for so far out that the elevator couldn't keep the nose up the airplane went lawn dart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:42:14 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not getting what you are saying. Did you mean mechanical law? I think that's what most readers here will assume you meant, not one of the other modes. Alternate. I don't think Airbus allows for a purposeful degrade to anything past that in actual flight, and we did it rarely. Mechanical backup is just that...Mechanical. Its not a control law per se as it was explained to me. I don't think a Bus has gone into Mechanical backup ever. Here is a good summation of Control Laws in the Bus. Airbus Flight Laws Honestly, other than the indication of Alternate Law, the plane is the same. Its a non-event. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:45:34 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The A320 does have some nice passenger features. My girlfriend has a mobility impaired Aunt, who nearly exclusively flies on Bus flights because the Aft lav can be opened up into one larger lav for those folks, and at least a quorum of 737s don't have it. The Bus can rock in the back on long trips...kind of a Dutch roll if you're really susceptible to that sort of thing. Most of the time I'm sleeping, so it doesn't bother me. I just feel for the poor dog in the rear cargo hold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 11:05:40 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alternate. I don't think Airbus allows for a purposeful degrade to anything past that in actual flight, and we did it rarely. Mechanical backup is just that...Mechanical. Its not a control law per se as it was explained to me. I don't think a Bus has gone into Mechanical backup ever. Here is a good summation of Control Laws in the Bus. Airbus Flight Laws Honestly, other than the indication of Alternate Law, the plane is the same. Its a non-event. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not getting what you are saying. Did you mean mechanical law? I think that's what most readers here will assume you meant, not one of the other modes. Alternate. I don't think Airbus allows for a purposeful degrade to anything past that in actual flight, and we did it rarely. Mechanical backup is just that...Mechanical. Its not a control law per se as it was explained to me. I don't think a Bus has gone into Mechanical backup ever. Here is a good summation of Control Laws in the Bus. Airbus Flight Laws Honestly, other than the indication of Alternate Law, the plane is the same. Its a non-event. Flare Mode : System memorizes pitch attitude at 50' and begins to progressively reduce pitch, forcing pilot to flare the aircraft. So the plane reduces pitch while the pilot is increasing it? Is this just slowly forcing the pilot to manually control pitch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 11:10:46 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the plane reduces pitch while the pilot is increasing it? Is this just slowly forcing the pilot to manually control pitch? Yep. It forces a natural pilot flare, because that's the natural tendency from visual "Ground Rush" and what we've been taught since our first flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 11:12:40 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MCAS had flaws…Pilots killed everyone. Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 11:21:00 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: MCAS had flaws…Pilots killed everyone. Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. The failure started with the customer asking for a bigger, more fuel efficient 737, and Boeing NOT telling them it was a bad idea. Like most fatal aircraft accidents, it was a steady train of errors from there until people died. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 11:51:03 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. Much larger engines, so they had to be shifted forward to clear the ground, as Boeing could/would not alter the landing gear. I am NOT AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, but if not a version of the 757, I think a better solution if one wanted to continue to use 737 jigs and assemblies would have been a 2 or 3 foot extension at the wing root, allowing for taller gear. However, that might not be possible with the way the wing is built, which woudl push you into telescoping main gear legs, which could turn out to be a maintenance nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 1:30:26 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alternate. I don't think Airbus allows for a purposeful degrade to anything past that in actual flight, and we did it rarely. Mechanical backup is just that...Mechanical. Its not a control law per se as it was explained to me. I don't think a Bus has gone into Mechanical backup ever. Here is a good summation of Control Laws in the Bus. Airbus Flight Laws Honestly, other than the indication of Alternate Law, the plane is the same. Its a non-event. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not getting what you are saying. Did you mean mechanical law? I think that's what most readers here will assume you meant, not one of the other modes. Alternate. I don't think Airbus allows for a purposeful degrade to anything past that in actual flight, and we did it rarely. Mechanical backup is just that...Mechanical. Its not a control law per se as it was explained to me. I don't think a Bus has gone into Mechanical backup ever. Here is a good summation of Control Laws in the Bus. Airbus Flight Laws Honestly, other than the indication of Alternate Law, the plane is the same. Its a non-event. While a non-event, the bus can be stalled (and overspeed) in alternate law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 7:44:32 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The engines in both crashes worked just fine. MCAS points the nose down. The control authority if the horizontal stabilizer trim is greater than the elevators. Once trim for so far out that the elevator couldn't keep the nose up the airplane went lawn dart. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I actually don't think so. CherokeeRose' Dunning-Krueger extends to more than just aviation. My professional expertise is completely unrelated to aviation but she opines freely about that too and her posts in those threads all give me Forrest Whittaker Eye. ETA, YADATROT: So, the reason why the 737 MAX crashed was because the airplane thought it should be pointed up more than it needed to be, and when it pointed up (err, pitched up? What I know of aviation begins and ends with the closure of the cigar bar in DEN Concourse B) the engines weren't getting enough air, and pilots trained in third-world countries didn't figure it out in time? The engines in both crashes worked just fine. MCAS points the nose down. The control authority if the horizontal stabilizer trim is greater than the elevators. Once trim for so far out that the elevator couldn't keep the nose up the airplane went lawn dart. Sounds like I've got two different things conflated. MCAS? My google-fu is weak. And if two different sets of control surfaces are trying to do two different things, is that normal or should it have been setting off alarms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 8:01:00 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Much larger engines, so they had to be shifted forward to clear the ground, as Boeing could/would not alter the landing gear. I am NOT AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, but if not a version of the 757, I think a better solution if one wanted to continue to use 737 jigs and assemblies would have been a 2 or 3 foot extension at the wing root, allowing for taller gear. However, that might not be possible with the way the wing is built, which woudl push you into telescoping main gear legs, which could turn out to be a maintenance nightmare. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. Much larger engines, so they had to be shifted forward to clear the ground, as Boeing could/would not alter the landing gear. I am NOT AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, but if not a version of the 757, I think a better solution if one wanted to continue to use 737 jigs and assemblies would have been a 2 or 3 foot extension at the wing root, allowing for taller gear. However, that might not be possible with the way the wing is built, which woudl push you into telescoping main gear legs, which could turn out to be a maintenance nightmare. https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08/737max10-landing-gear-08-18.page |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 8:18:19 PM EST
[#44]
I keep seeing the phrase "alternate law" used. Can one of you explain please?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 8:19:48 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The redesigned landing gear - https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08/737max10-landing-gear-08-18.page Damn. While Boeing's at it, they can install a wheel assembly on the aft fuselage. Then as it rotates, it can look like a dog scratching it's ass on the carpet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 8:36:54 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like I've got two different things conflated. MCAS? My google-fu is weak. And if two different sets of control surfaces are trying to do two different things, is that normal or should it have been setting off alarms? Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like I've got two different things conflated. MCAS? My google-fu is weak. And if two different sets of control surfaces are trying to do two different things, is that normal or should it have been setting off alarms? MCAS=Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. Basically a system supposedly designed to make the MAX "feel" like a 737NG in certain parts of the envelope. It does this through the speed trim system trimming the horizontal stabilizer. Big jets use a stabilizer for pitch control, the entire horizontal tail surface moves. Then the pilots control the elevators via the control yokes. Think of the stabilizer as a coarse adjustment, and the elevator as a fine adjustment. The surface area of the stabilizer is many times greater than the surface of the elevators. So the stabilizer can exert more force than you can overcome with the elevators. It's normal for them to work opposite each other, to a small degree, but it's bad juju to get the stabilizer way out of trim. Quoted: I keep seeing the phrase "alternate law" used. Can one of you explain please? It's been years since I've flown the bus, but the flight control system has "laws". If parts of the system don't work properly, or receive bad data, the airplane will step down one or more laws. As you go from Normal law (everything works like it's supposed to) to alternate law, you loose some of the envelope protections. So you are flying a conventional airplane again, one that you can stall, or exceed other limitations. In Normal law, you cant stall the airbus, or exceed IIRC 65 degrees of bank and something like 30 degrees nose up or 15 degrees nose down. I'll let one of the current bus drivers give you better info on all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 8:49:31 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The redesigned landing gear - https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08/737max10-landing-gear-08-18.page Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. Much larger engines, so they had to be shifted forward to clear the ground, as Boeing could/would not alter the landing gear. I am NOT AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, but if not a version of the 757, I think a better solution if one wanted to continue to use 737 jigs and assemblies would have been a 2 or 3 foot extension at the wing root, allowing for taller gear. However, that might not be possible with the way the wing is built, which woudl push you into telescoping main gear legs, which could turn out to be a maintenance nightmare. https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08/737max10-landing-gear-08-18.page I am somewhat happy that I have no expectation of working on another Boeing in my career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 9:12:24 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The failure started with the customer asking for a bigger, more fuel efficient 737, and Boeing NOT telling them it was a bad idea. Like most fatal aircraft accidents, it was a steady train of errors from there until people died. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: MCAS had flaws…Pilots killed everyone. Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. The failure started with the customer asking for a bigger, more fuel efficient 737, and Boeing NOT telling them it was a bad idea. Like most fatal aircraft accidents, it was a steady train of errors from there until people died. You guys are as bad as the old Chero-rose. There’s nothing wrong with hanging bigger engines on an airplane. It’s a good thing that’s done all the time on all different airplanes. The problem was they gave the MCAS only one AOA vane input, and gave it the authority to order full nose down trim. It’s fixed now, because it compares AOA, and will disable itself if bad data is detected. Furthermore, flight crew are now aware of that failure mode, and can shut off the trim at the flip of a switch. Boeing screwed up initially, but it had nothing at all to do with the overall design. Just that one small system (mcas). The truth is actually simpler, yet harder to believe, than the convoluted bullshit you guys are spouting. Incidentally, you could fly a whole career, and never even activate MCAS. It wasn't actually needed to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 10:51:18 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The redesigned landing gear - https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08/737max10-landing-gear-08-18.page Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup. The failure started with Boeing using a 50 year old airframe and strapping engines not designed for it onto the wings. Much larger engines, so they had to be shifted forward to clear the ground, as Boeing could/would not alter the landing gear. I am NOT AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, but if not a version of the 757, I think a better solution if one wanted to continue to use 737 jigs and assemblies would have been a 2 or 3 foot extension at the wing root, allowing for taller gear. However, that might not be possible with the way the wing is built, which woudl push you into telescoping main gear legs, which could turn out to be a maintenance nightmare. https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/08/737max10-landing-gear-08-18.page That's clever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2021 11:23:19 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, like I said, they weren't going to sell 800 narrow body units to Ryan and Southwest that weren't a standard 737NG. Period. Neither company were going to invest in a new fleet type. Honestly, had Boeing said "the MAX pilot needs a differences sim session on a NG sim with software load to replicate the handling of various components of the new aircraft" Boeing would likely be making a really compelling case that they did the due diligence requisite for a derivative 737NG and this was a human factors accident. Sometimes, the customer is wrong. This in bold... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
