Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Channel 9 Under Investigation MAX Promo

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Channel 9 Under Investigation MAX Promo

Old 8th Apr 2021, 00:59
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel!.
It is not that difficult.

But if it is. Maybe it is time to ease up on the in-flight catering.
Lambswool is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 01:58
  #82 (permalink)  
SRM
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
You can stop the TRIM WHEELS on the MAX by using the palm of you hand I’ve tried it on numerous occasions during flight control functionals, its not difficult or rocket science.


SRM is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 02:47
  #83 (permalink)  
SRM
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
You can stop the TRIM WHEELS on the MAX by using the palm of you hand I’ve tried it on numerous occasions during flight control functionals, its not difficult or rocket science.


SRM is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 03:51
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
The suggestion was it could be done with the feet, the trim wheel is in the same position as it has always been, I call bollocks on the STAB TRIM runaway foot method. Please upload a photo of your average 180cm 92kg airline pilot with their feet on a stab trim wheel while it is turning in speed trim mode.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 03:58
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Any pilot who publicly criticises and condemns another pilot, about matters aviation, is many things. "Professional" is not one of them.

Any pilot who publicly attributes an aviation accident or incident to another pilot's error, alone, is many things. "Wise" is not one them.
So, one fine day, flying GA, after lunch with the boys, a fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company dashed out to his aeroplane, rushed the preflight, tookoff, next thing I heard was a faltering engine, then a thud with a lot of dust. In his rush to preflight and takeoff, he forgot to check the fuel selector.

Is it therefore unwise and unprofessional to call out such stupidity and warn others or just use weasel words and tiptoe around the "real" issue, the Pilot's Error?

What are current statistics for Pilot Error, something on the order of 50% for airline accidents involve Human Error and at least 80% for all Aviation accidents? Face up to it. Being a professional means you face up to that fact, know you are not perfect and work your ass off to mitigate the risk factors and human error.

Or, don't. I don't care. Just hope I am not your passenger. I have enjoyed my career for 36 years, no accidents, no incidents, no violations, in the 47 countries I have operated and seven ATPLs.

Last edited by FWRWATPLX2; 8th Apr 2021 at 03:59. Reason: punctuation
FWRWATPLX2 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 04:04
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by SRM View Post
You can stop the TRIM WHEELS on the MAX by using the palm of you hand I’ve tried it on numerous occasions during flight control functionals, its not difficult or rocket science.
You do realize the duties on the flight deck of a two-person aircraft are divided into "Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Flying" and "Non-Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Monitoring" . . . So, the PF does not have to be a magician or a a contortionist, merely a very good manager of his resources available to him/her.

Yes, you can use your hand, and I have, but I was MERELY stating that putting your size 101/2 on the rubberized trim wheel is more effective. Unless you are wearing high heels when you are flying.
FWRWATPLX2 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 04:08
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
You do realize the duties on the flight deck of a two-person aircraft are divided into "Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Flying" and "Non-Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Monitoring" . . . So, the PF does not have to be a magician or a a contortionist, merely a very good manager of his resources available to him/her.

Yes, you can use your hand, and I have, but I was MERELY stating that putting your size 101/2 on the rubberized trim wheel is more effective. Unless you are wearing high heels when you are flying.
FWRWATPLX2 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 04:53
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
PM is subject to the same ergonomic and physiological limitations as any other person on the flight deck. I also know that the PM is required to remain in the control seat during normal and non-normal operations. If you are required to stamp your feet on the stab trim you have to be:

a) out of the control seat and
b) flying in an aircraft that should never have been certified if that is what is required to maintain control

Clearly every regulatory agency should have contacted you first before grounding the aircraft and require Boeing to spend the last two year fixing, (according to you), a sound design that only hit the headlines because of incompetence.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 08:13
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,269
Here’s a good video showing the forces required for control after a runaway Stab Trim and the difficulty of maintaining flight, even with two pilots exerting maximum effort to keep the aircraft level. Note the almost inability of the FO to trim nose up at 13:27. Also explained is the “roller coaster” technique which Boeing has removed from their manuals.

dr dre is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 10:33
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,423
Originally Posted by FWRWATPLX2 View Post
So, one fine day, flying GA, after lunch with the boys, a fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company dashed out to his aeroplane, rushed the preflight, tookoff, next thing I heard was a faltering engine, then a thud with a lot of dust. In his rush to preflight and takeoff, he forgot to check the fuel selector.

Is it therefore unwise and unprofessional to call out such stupidity and warn others or just use weasel words and tiptoe around the "real" issue, the Pilot's Error?

What are current statistics for Pilot Error, something on the order of 50% for airline accidents involve Human Error and at least 80% for all Aviation accidents? Face up to it. Being a professional means you face up to that fact, know you are not perfect and work your ass off to mitigate the risk factors and human error.

Or, don't. I don't care. Just hope I am not your passenger. I have enjoyed my career for 36 years, no accidents, no incidents, no violations, in the 47 countries I have operated and seven ATPLs.
Did you immediately go public and condemn your "fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company" for being the cause of the accident? If yes, you are neither professional nor wise.

The "current statistics" are contributed to by unprofessional fools who think they are God's gift to aviation and throw their colleagues under the bus or watch them being run over.

You'll understand what I'm talking about, when one of the many mistakes you make turn out tails rather than heads.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 12:51
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Did you immediately go public and condemn your "fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company" for being the cause of the accident? If yes, you are neither professional nor wise.

The "current statistics" are contributed to by unprofessional fools who think they are God's gift to aviation and throw their colleagues under the bus or watch them being run over.

You'll understand what I'm talking about, when one of the many mistakes you make turn out tails rather than heads.
I see where you are coming from LB however, in my experience, an increasing number of accident reports are replete with all manner of contributory and non-contributory factors which blur the landscape on what is, fundamentally, human error. Are all mitigating factors mitigating just because the investigator says so, or is this all just becoming a lawyers playground?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 15:37
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: north pole
Posts: 70
Technically, if one is professional, “one vows to perform their trade to the highest known standard.”
“ironically, the usage of the term ... declined from the late 1800s to the 1950s”

appears to formerly imply above average competence.

however all it means now is, “I get paid”

similar to the gaggle of “experts” one finds on every news channel.
70 Mustang is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 20:58
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by FWRWATPLX2 View Post
So, one fine day, flying GA, after lunch with the boys, a fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company dashed out to his aeroplane, rushed the preflight, tookoff, next thing I heard was a faltering engine, then a thud with a lot of dust. In his rush to preflight and takeoff, he forgot to check the fuel selector.

Is it therefore unwise and unprofessional to call out such stupidity and warn others or just use weasel words and tiptoe around the "real" issue, the Pilot's Error?

What are current statistics for Pilot Error, something on the order of 50% for airline accidents involve Human Error and at least 80% for all Aviation accidents? Face up to it. Being a professional means you face up to that fact, know you are not perfect and work your ass off to mitigate the risk factors and human error.

Or, don't. I don't care. Just hope I am not your passenger. I have enjoyed my career for 36 years, no accidents, no incidents, no violations, in the 47 countries I have operated and seven ATPLs.
The real question here is ‘how many accidents do we have to have due to fuel selection errors before we admit a systemic design problem that needs to be addressed’.

After 5 years of writing accident and incident reports as a lead investigator I have never seen or produced a report that has Pilot error as the SOLE cause of an accident.

An aircraft should never be released to service with a known problem that can cascade very quickly to a loss of control. As a Check Captain I have seen a lot of mishandling in the Sim that often leads to repeats due to being out of prescribed limits, it never leads to crash or loss of control i.e it may be messy but all in all modern airliners are very forgiving. To say that a design flaw that leads to total loss of control when slightly mishandled is an accident purely from pilot error ignores ALL of the systemic failures that put those pilots in that position.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 22:10
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
Good point well made Ollie.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 22:42
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion View Post
After 5 years of writing accident and incident reports as a lead investigator I have never seen or produced a report that has Pilot error as the SOLE cause of an accident.
Really? Never seen a 'gear up landing' or 'CFIT' accident report? How about this one - Airbus? Or this Gear up one?

Now you can argue 'contributory factors' all you want but aren't we always saying the buck stops with the PIC?
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 23:29
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
The PIC is the final defense but what Ollie is saying is that there can be a series of contributing factors. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator all want the pilot to be last line of defense because they don't want to take responsibility for the design, operation or regulation that put the crew in the position where an accident resulted. No one is saying that the PIC is never responsible but let me reinforce the point that Ollie made, they are not the SOLE cause. As this discussion is about the MAX you can not find a better example of how the manufacturer and the regulator put the crew into a situation outside what they would normally expect for line operations. To simply say that the crew should have just applied an existing procedure and it would have been fine is deliberately ignoring the fact that the MAX has been grounded while Boeing and the FAA address a problem that should have never been put into production.

Last edited by Lookleft; 9th Apr 2021 at 00:08. Reason: there are the have nots then there are the not haves
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 23:58
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
The PIC is the final defense but what Ollie is saying is that there can be a series of contributing factors. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator all want the pilot to be last line of defense because they don't want to take responsibility for the design, operation or regulation that put the crew in the position where an accident resulted. No one is saying that the PIC is never responsible but let me reinforce the point that Ollie made, they are not the SOLE cause. As this discussion is about the MAX you can not find a better example of how the manufacturer and the regulator put the crew into a situation outside what they would normally expect for line operations. To simply say that the crew should have just applied an existing procedure and it would have been fine is deliberately ignoring the fact that the MAX has been grounded while Boeing and the FAA address a problem that should not have never have been put into production.
This says it all.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2021, 00:19
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,423
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer View Post
I see where you are coming from LB however, in my experience, an increasing number of accident reports are replete with all manner of contributory and non-contributory factors which blur the landscape on what is, fundamentally, human error. Are all mitigating factors mitigating just because the investigator says so, or is this all just becoming a lawyers playground?
Accident reports that are merely a blanc mange of waffle are a related but different problem.

If a professional, independent, expert investigatory body, tasked with ascertaining the cause/s of an accident/incident (let's not get into that quagmire) and informed by more than one side of a story, comes to the conclusion that the cause is pilot error alone, so be it. That's its job.

Circumstances of death and damage always were, and always will be, a lawyers' playground.

PS: What OO and LL said.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 9th Apr 2021 at 00:22. Reason: Added PS.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2021, 00:32
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
The PIC is the final defense but what Ollie is saying is that there can be a series of contributing factors. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator all want the pilot to be last line of defense because they don't want to take responsibility for the design, operation or regulation that put the crew in the position where an accident resulted. No one is saying that the PIC is never responsible but let me reinforce the point that Ollie made, they are not the SOLE cause. As this discussion is about the MAX you can not find a better example of how the manufacturer and the regulator put the crew into a situation outside what they would normally expect for line operations. To simply say that the crew should have just applied an existing procedure and it would have been fine is deliberately ignoring the fact that the MAX has been grounded while Boeing and the FAA address a problem that should have never been put into production.
I am testing the veracity of the assertion that one has
never seen or produced a report that has Pilot error as the SOLE cause of an accident
The existence of contributory factors (not causes) may or may not mitigate human error. I was not providing specific commentary on the Boeing MCAS case.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2021, 00:33
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer View Post
Really? Never seen a 'gear up landing' or 'CFIT' accident report? How about this one - Airbus? Or this Gear up one?

Now you can argue 'contributory factors' all you want but aren't we always saying the buck stops with the PIC?

I think you will find in both of those reports there were contributing factors highlighted in training, currency, crm and sop compliance. I have never said pilots can’t be responsible for an accident, what I am saying is a pilot will never be SOLELY responsible. Even the German who flew the plane into a mountain shouldn’t have been there as he was known to have suicidal thoughts and ironically the fortified cockpit door introduced to enhance safety was also a contributing factor. There is not a better example of systemic design and certification failures leading to an accident than the MAX issues. To blame it SOLELY at feet of the pilots is to excuse gross negligence on the part of Boeing and the FAA.
Ollie Onion is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.