US administration blames foreign pilots for 737 Max crashes
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently, there is a sub-type of the ME-109 that gets a pitch up from flap extension. Strange enough to be remarkable. Generally speaking, a high wing airplane will give a nose up pitch, and low wings a nose down. But since we are talking about what a 737 pilot should do in a certain situation, he or she should know that extending the flaps will give a pitch down moment.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
absolutely no idea about any ME 109, initial flap extension on most airplanes I have flown induces a pitch up, but not all, the point is to use any possible tool to one's advantage, more manual flying can increase a pilot's awareness of his airplanes reactions to flaps, speedbrakes, etc that one day could save his life...
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a fools game to say who are better or worse...the Operating environment in Canada is a difficult and unforgiving environment and the accidents reflect that. Resolute - non-radar environment, mountainous terrain, no TAWS, flying around in true, 400 miles to the alternate, etc. Dryden - F28 with a broken APU, icing conditions on the ground, both engines need to be shut down to de-ice which would ground the aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I say that? Please reread my post. Carefully.
It’s a fools game to say who are better or worse...the Operating environment in Canada is a difficult and unforgiving environment and the accidents reflect that. Resolute - non-radar environment, mountainous terrain, no TAWS, flying around in true, 400 miles to the alternate, etc. Dryden - F28 with a broken APU, icing conditions on the ground, both engines need to be shut down to de-ice which would ground the aircraft.
Originally Posted by L39 Guy
The safety record of “western” airlines is pretty damn good and no one has to be ashamed or apologize for that. How many fatal jet crashes in Canada? 2011, a B737 at Resolute Bay. Prior to that, 1989 in Dryden, Ontario.
The Germans, Brits, Japanese, Aussie’s, Kiwi’s, etc. have even better safety records. And when one considers how many aircraft operate in all of these countries, the relative safety record of “western” airlines is even more impressive.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t know about you but I use flight controls like the elevator and stab trim to control pitch not engine thrust moments. Maybe I am doing something wrong. Please let me know if I am.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is EXACTLY what you said:
Originally Posted by L39 Guy
The safety record of “western” airlines is pretty damn good and no one has to be ashamed or apologize for that. How many fatal jet crashes in Canada? 2011, a B737 at Resolute Bay. Prior to that, 1989 in Dryden, Ontario.
The Germans, Brits, Japanese, Aussie’s, Kiwi’s, etc. have even better safety records. And when one considers how many aircraft operate in all of these countries, the relative safety record of “western” airlines is even more impressive.
Originally Posted by L39 Guy
The safety record of “western” airlines is pretty damn good and no one has to be ashamed or apologize for that. How many fatal jet crashes in Canada? 2011, a B737 at Resolute Bay. Prior to that, 1989 in Dryden, Ontario.
The Germans, Brits, Japanese, Aussie’s, Kiwi’s, etc. have even better safety records. And when one considers how many aircraft operate in all of these countries, the relative safety record of “western” airlines is even more impressive.
Don’t be so sensitive. Crikey.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 8th floor
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm extremely saddened when otherwise rational and intelligent people seem to suddenly throw rationality out the window whenever their favorite political team becomes part of a discussion. And this applies to all sides of the political spectrum.
As an example I'm an EU citizen, and I was discussing a health care related issue with a friend, and we reached the same conclusion, without any disagreement whatsoever. Then I mentioned the political party he voted for had a completely different opinion regarding that issue. He went "Actually...", and suddenly started finding excuses for that political party's position regarding the issue.
I'm probably guilty of this as well, probably sometimes even without realizing it. The first instinct when I hear something bad about my favorite political party is to defend it. Which can result in something similar to confirmation bias. I know it's not always easy, but we should try to let facts and logic and not emotion guide the conversation.
As an example I'm an EU citizen, and I was discussing a health care related issue with a friend, and we reached the same conclusion, without any disagreement whatsoever. Then I mentioned the political party he voted for had a completely different opinion regarding that issue. He went "Actually...", and suddenly started finding excuses for that political party's position regarding the issue.
I'm probably guilty of this as well, probably sometimes even without realizing it. The first instinct when I hear something bad about my favorite political party is to defend it. Which can result in something similar to confirmation bias. I know it's not always easy, but we should try to let facts and logic and not emotion guide the conversation.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew an (almost) honest politician, once.
See also Celine's Third Law
An honest politician is a national calamity
Celine recognizes that the third law seems preposterous from the beginning. While a dishonest politician is interested only in bettering his own lot through abusing the public trust, an honest politician is far more dangerous since he is honestly interested in bettering society through political action, and that means writing and implementing more and more laws.
Celine argues that creating more laws simply creates more criminals. Laws inherently restrict individual freedom, and the explosive rate at which laws are being created means that every citizen in the course of his daily life does not have the research capacity to not violate at least one of the plethora of laws. It is only through honest politicians trying to change the world through laws that true tyranny can come into being through excessive legislation.
Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets. Honest idealist politicians cripple the people's freedom through enormous numbers of laws. So corrupt politicians are preferable according to Celine, despite the possibility of an honest politician who honestly opposes the formation of new laws (or wants to do away with some).
Celine recognizes that the third law seems preposterous from the beginning. While a dishonest politician is interested only in bettering his own lot through abusing the public trust, an honest politician is far more dangerous since he is honestly interested in bettering society through political action, and that means writing and implementing more and more laws.
Celine argues that creating more laws simply creates more criminals. Laws inherently restrict individual freedom, and the explosive rate at which laws are being created means that every citizen in the course of his daily life does not have the research capacity to not violate at least one of the plethora of laws. It is only through honest politicians trying to change the world through laws that true tyranny can come into being through excessive legislation.
Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets. Honest idealist politicians cripple the people's freedom through enormous numbers of laws. So corrupt politicians are preferable according to Celine, despite the possibility of an honest politician who honestly opposes the formation of new laws (or wants to do away with some).
Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 18th May 2019 at 06:41.
Aussie's got pretty lucky with QF 32 even QF 72 could have ended much different if it had one more event (still no know reason for it).
Interesting is the fact until the 737 MAX crash Ethiopian Airlines had a similar safety record to the United States over the last 12 years.
Or put another way over the decade from 11 Feb 2009 - 2019 Ethiopian airlines had a perfect safety record compared to the United States of 51 fatalities (+ cargo ops crew and jump seater's) for the same period.
Interesting is the fact until the 737 MAX crash Ethiopian Airlines had a similar safety record to the United States over the last 12 years.
Or put another way over the decade from 11 Feb 2009 - 2019 Ethiopian airlines had a perfect safety record compared to the United States of 51 fatalities (+ cargo ops crew and jump seater's) for the same period.
Member Berry, et al, # 90
Not so much off topic, but the reality of managing difficult situations.
Such problems are described as ‘wicked’ - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
“Wicked problems cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analysed and solved in sequential steps. The main reason for this is that there is no clear problem definition of wicked problems.”
This thread topic highlights the problem of understanding, unfortunately complicated by politics, legal ramifications, and human behaviour - before, during and after the event.
The current situation could be a defining point for human factors in flight safety; will the FAA standup and ‘be counted’ - practicing what they preach.
There are similar defining points for the processes of certification, design, operations; here external agencies might tip the balance, but I wound not bet on either a quick or meaningful change.
‘If you continuously compete with others you become bitter,
but if you continuously compete with yourself, you become better.’
A one page CRM / HF primer on thinking http://ta-tutor.com/sites/ta-tutor.com/files/handouts/
And more expansive view of thinking required for ‘wicked problems’. https://www.demos.co.uk/files/systemfailure2.pdf
Not so much off topic, but the reality of managing difficult situations.
Such problems are described as ‘wicked’ - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
“Wicked problems cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analysed and solved in sequential steps. The main reason for this is that there is no clear problem definition of wicked problems.”
This thread topic highlights the problem of understanding, unfortunately complicated by politics, legal ramifications, and human behaviour - before, during and after the event.
The current situation could be a defining point for human factors in flight safety; will the FAA standup and ‘be counted’ - practicing what they preach.
There are similar defining points for the processes of certification, design, operations; here external agencies might tip the balance, but I wound not bet on either a quick or meaningful change.
‘If you continuously compete with others you become bitter,
but if you continuously compete with yourself, you become better.’
A one page CRM / HF primer on thinking http://ta-tutor.com/sites/ta-tutor.com/files/handouts/
And more expansive view of thinking required for ‘wicked problems’. https://www.demos.co.uk/files/systemfailure2.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It just bothers me that we continue to tear down our system based on what has happened in another country.”
If what we read in the pprune forum and from what we hear from Boeing and the regulatory bodies in the USA, it is worrying that the FAA "outsource" a portion of its certification to the aircraft manufacturer. It is worrying that it appears there are significant gaps in the training, that a safety feature is left out but you can buy it at a modest few thousand (belittles that hackneyed phrase "safety is our number 1 concern")
Some drongo politician disparages all (non US) countries and carriers and in effect crew "I'm trying to not to be disrespectful because they are deceased" (and then promptly do so by association)"...do we not have concerns not only with the training of pilots in other nations....."
If a system is questionable then perhaps "we" should "continue to tear down our system" and make it better regardless of which country is involved since the manufacturer sells aircraft worldwide.
Boeing says that aircraft when (properly) re-certified to fly will be the safest aircraft to fly. Well I should hope that all aircraft that aircraft manufacturers deliver should be so.
And yes, there are differing standards in the capability of cockpit crew regardless from which country the come
If what we read in the pprune forum and from what we hear from Boeing and the regulatory bodies in the USA, it is worrying that the FAA "outsource" a portion of its certification to the aircraft manufacturer. It is worrying that it appears there are significant gaps in the training, that a safety feature is left out but you can buy it at a modest few thousand (belittles that hackneyed phrase "safety is our number 1 concern")
Some drongo politician disparages all (non US) countries and carriers and in effect crew "I'm trying to not to be disrespectful because they are deceased" (and then promptly do so by association)"...do we not have concerns not only with the training of pilots in other nations....."
If a system is questionable then perhaps "we" should "continue to tear down our system" and make it better regardless of which country is involved since the manufacturer sells aircraft worldwide.
Boeing says that aircraft when (properly) re-certified to fly will be the safest aircraft to fly. Well I should hope that all aircraft that aircraft manufacturers deliver should be so.
And yes, there are differing standards in the capability of cockpit crew regardless from which country the come
The latest reported comments ascribed to Boeing and the FAA are offensive to the majority of customers for the US product that these two entities have responsibility over.
At some point, perhaps the CEO of Boeing should take time out and read the FCTM that his company provided to the crew.
For the record, Boeings own document states that in the case of a severe out of trim condition, that the aircraft should be flown to regain the speed commensurate to the out of trim case, and then the trim forces will be relieved sufficiently to permit the trim system to be reset as desired. It is remarkable that Boeing and the FAA apparently cite keeping power on as a sign of incompetence, when the trim moment form thrust on is nose up, and the out of trim condition requires gaining high speed as soon as possible, which suggests keeping power on as not being such a stupid idea that it would be used to make offensive comment from the people who gave MCAS unannounced, killed 350+ people... frankly, I am embarrassed on their behalf. For the pilot brethren who suggest in the forum herein that keeping power on was stupid, go back and do some simple maths guys before making assertions of incompetence on the dead crews.
Boeing designs a system that has the authority to put in more than 3 times the certified out of trim demonstration requirement FAR 25.255(a), without condescending to tell the apparently deficient foreign devils that fly their magnificent product. It was Boeing and the FAA ODA system that oversaw the MCAS design, and it was Boeing who decided not to bother telling the crews of the system until it was necessary following the first blood spill. Following that, it was Boeing who still did not reinforce the extent that out of trim would give catastrophic problems to a crew in handling, it was up to a newspaper report to show that a competent crew would find the handling nearly impossible when doing a briefed simulation of the event.
Boeing and the FAA are stating, not even insinuating that the crews involved here, and for good measure adding collective guilt to all 'foreign" pilots are of lesser competency than good ol' boys. M'kay, For the record, having spent 40 years flying with US and foreign pilots, in military and airline operations, having flown all Boeings from the 727 to the 787 as well as the 320, 330, and 340, I have to say, there is more commonality than anything else, sorry Mr Trump's band of brothers, the crews from S%$t'ole are not that much different. Is US air travel safer than overseas? Generally, yes, but that says as much about the infrastructure and rules as it does on crew training. Is crew training of a lesser standard overseas? Well, before the CEO of Boeign goes on record on that matter, was he aware that Boeing is or has been the training provider for Ethiopian???? Seems kind of odd to bitch about standards, when the legally responsible party to the standards is.... Boeing. Comments have been made about the AZ214 at San Francisco, where the training organisation was again Boeing, who held contracts for training for KE and AZ for the last 20 odd years in various forms and names of entities, Alteon, Boeing etc.
A B767 just got parked awkwardly in Texas, there was no sudden cry from the S%$t'ole countries concerned with FAA standards... nope, not a word, and nor should there have been.
Over the years I have flown with F15, F16 F22 and A10 pilots, some are great, most are good, some I would not let near a Cessna 150 without supervision. I have flown with Ethiopian pilots, and in fact the absolute best instructor I have ever seen work a simulator was an Ethiopian. Back in the day, the red necks from the usual countries, both sides of the equator would be disparaging with the national pilots and most other foreign pilots, however would fawn over the Ethiopian instructor, he was that good. Two of the best instructors I have had on helicopters were not US, they were Japanese, and I cherish the training they gave me. The next one of note on choppers was a poor little french farm boy from Guadaloupe, and he was and is exceptional. On the Boeing aircraft, without any doubt the best instructors I have ever had didn't come from Seattle, they were oddly almost uniformly Zoroastrians, The most knowledgeable airbus pilot I have ever worked with was a refugee from Iran, and he had a better knowledge base on the aircraft than the TP's that I was also working with at the same time. I don't mind flying with US pilots, I do not however see a great divide between them and the rest of the world, nor in fact do I see much difference between airline operation in audit of European airlines, Asian airlines, North and South American airlines, when conducting partner airline audits. In accident investigation, I have seen people of all skin colour and backgrounds do odd things occasionally with bad results. The US pilot contingent in that group had their share of odd ball events, more or less in keeping with the great unwashed from the S%$t'ole countries that are suggested to be incompetent.
Overall, I am hardly surprised that the OEM and the NAA of the disgrace that is the saga of MCAS are striking out, but they are off base with their assertions. The OEM is in danger of angering their customer base by such comments, and it is not going to add to their bottom line, rather it may well detract. Personally, as a stinking foreigner, albeit with pink skin, I would not buy a Boeing product by choice given the Trump like comments made on the competency of foreign pilots. The foreign airlines have a choice of products to acquire, and having flown more or less all of the offerings, the competition is competent, and comes without the racist bigoted comments of recent reports.
Take out the rhetoric and racism, and fix your plane guys. Suggest that you test your products with the intent of 25.255(a) not just the inadequate words that have so grossly failed us, the pilots and the passengers who pay for the purchase of your product. The aviation world was sharply awoken to the difference between certification standards and the perceived safety that flows from that by the AA587 loss. (it is interesting to note that no bigoted, disparaging comments were made on the pilot of that flight, nor on the pilots of AA965, AA1572, DL191 etc... just sayin'....)
Hofstede discusses the differences between cultures that do have some effect in the operation of a crew, however, this problem was a fundamental flying capability problem, and Boing and the FAA are hardly winning hearts and minds by their comments, coming hot on the heel of the Colgan debacle, Comairs efforts in Kentucky, and the B767 parked in the bayou. The MD11 at RJAA was dispalying a shiny USA flag on the tail...
P.S., the FAA has good people in it, most fighting the system above them, in TAD, FSDOs at and various other acronyms, such as ACO and MIDO's. As a standard, having had professional licenses in 10 different countries, the FAA is not of any particular standout quality in their requirements or process. The FAA happens to be big and that is about the sum of it.
P.P.S. When is a full, honest investigation into the airworthiness of all of the B737NGs built with non compliant structure going to occur? It is hardly the behaviour of a first world nation to sack the QA auditors that brought that to light, that smacks of a 3rd world S%$t'ole type country response in itself.
P.P.P.S. the B767 Captain off the Comorros was a heroic person (ET961). He was being hit over the head with a damn fire axe as he ditched an aircraft without engines against that level of distraction. Sully and Jeff at least were not being accosted when they demonstrated their professionalism on the Hudson.
Bigotry is demeaning to all.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.ch...-blames-pilots
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-two-faulty-boeing-jets-crash-the-trump-administration-blames-foreign-pilots/2019/05/15/e940a692-774e-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b2b63241a64
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...7-max-crashes/
At some point, perhaps the CEO of Boeing should take time out and read the FCTM that his company provided to the crew.
For the record, Boeings own document states that in the case of a severe out of trim condition, that the aircraft should be flown to regain the speed commensurate to the out of trim case, and then the trim forces will be relieved sufficiently to permit the trim system to be reset as desired. It is remarkable that Boeing and the FAA apparently cite keeping power on as a sign of incompetence, when the trim moment form thrust on is nose up, and the out of trim condition requires gaining high speed as soon as possible, which suggests keeping power on as not being such a stupid idea that it would be used to make offensive comment from the people who gave MCAS unannounced, killed 350+ people... frankly, I am embarrassed on their behalf. For the pilot brethren who suggest in the forum herein that keeping power on was stupid, go back and do some simple maths guys before making assertions of incompetence on the dead crews.
Boeing designs a system that has the authority to put in more than 3 times the certified out of trim demonstration requirement FAR 25.255(a), without condescending to tell the apparently deficient foreign devils that fly their magnificent product. It was Boeing and the FAA ODA system that oversaw the MCAS design, and it was Boeing who decided not to bother telling the crews of the system until it was necessary following the first blood spill. Following that, it was Boeing who still did not reinforce the extent that out of trim would give catastrophic problems to a crew in handling, it was up to a newspaper report to show that a competent crew would find the handling nearly impossible when doing a briefed simulation of the event.
Boeing and the FAA are stating, not even insinuating that the crews involved here, and for good measure adding collective guilt to all 'foreign" pilots are of lesser competency than good ol' boys. M'kay, For the record, having spent 40 years flying with US and foreign pilots, in military and airline operations, having flown all Boeings from the 727 to the 787 as well as the 320, 330, and 340, I have to say, there is more commonality than anything else, sorry Mr Trump's band of brothers, the crews from S%$t'ole are not that much different. Is US air travel safer than overseas? Generally, yes, but that says as much about the infrastructure and rules as it does on crew training. Is crew training of a lesser standard overseas? Well, before the CEO of Boeign goes on record on that matter, was he aware that Boeing is or has been the training provider for Ethiopian???? Seems kind of odd to bitch about standards, when the legally responsible party to the standards is.... Boeing. Comments have been made about the AZ214 at San Francisco, where the training organisation was again Boeing, who held contracts for training for KE and AZ for the last 20 odd years in various forms and names of entities, Alteon, Boeing etc.
A B767 just got parked awkwardly in Texas, there was no sudden cry from the S%$t'ole countries concerned with FAA standards... nope, not a word, and nor should there have been.
Over the years I have flown with F15, F16 F22 and A10 pilots, some are great, most are good, some I would not let near a Cessna 150 without supervision. I have flown with Ethiopian pilots, and in fact the absolute best instructor I have ever seen work a simulator was an Ethiopian. Back in the day, the red necks from the usual countries, both sides of the equator would be disparaging with the national pilots and most other foreign pilots, however would fawn over the Ethiopian instructor, he was that good. Two of the best instructors I have had on helicopters were not US, they were Japanese, and I cherish the training they gave me. The next one of note on choppers was a poor little french farm boy from Guadaloupe, and he was and is exceptional. On the Boeing aircraft, without any doubt the best instructors I have ever had didn't come from Seattle, they were oddly almost uniformly Zoroastrians, The most knowledgeable airbus pilot I have ever worked with was a refugee from Iran, and he had a better knowledge base on the aircraft than the TP's that I was also working with at the same time. I don't mind flying with US pilots, I do not however see a great divide between them and the rest of the world, nor in fact do I see much difference between airline operation in audit of European airlines, Asian airlines, North and South American airlines, when conducting partner airline audits. In accident investigation, I have seen people of all skin colour and backgrounds do odd things occasionally with bad results. The US pilot contingent in that group had their share of odd ball events, more or less in keeping with the great unwashed from the S%$t'ole countries that are suggested to be incompetent.
Overall, I am hardly surprised that the OEM and the NAA of the disgrace that is the saga of MCAS are striking out, but they are off base with their assertions. The OEM is in danger of angering their customer base by such comments, and it is not going to add to their bottom line, rather it may well detract. Personally, as a stinking foreigner, albeit with pink skin, I would not buy a Boeing product by choice given the Trump like comments made on the competency of foreign pilots. The foreign airlines have a choice of products to acquire, and having flown more or less all of the offerings, the competition is competent, and comes without the racist bigoted comments of recent reports.
Take out the rhetoric and racism, and fix your plane guys. Suggest that you test your products with the intent of 25.255(a) not just the inadequate words that have so grossly failed us, the pilots and the passengers who pay for the purchase of your product. The aviation world was sharply awoken to the difference between certification standards and the perceived safety that flows from that by the AA587 loss. (it is interesting to note that no bigoted, disparaging comments were made on the pilot of that flight, nor on the pilots of AA965, AA1572, DL191 etc... just sayin'....)
Hofstede discusses the differences between cultures that do have some effect in the operation of a crew, however, this problem was a fundamental flying capability problem, and Boing and the FAA are hardly winning hearts and minds by their comments, coming hot on the heel of the Colgan debacle, Comairs efforts in Kentucky, and the B767 parked in the bayou. The MD11 at RJAA was dispalying a shiny USA flag on the tail...
P.S., the FAA has good people in it, most fighting the system above them, in TAD, FSDOs at and various other acronyms, such as ACO and MIDO's. As a standard, having had professional licenses in 10 different countries, the FAA is not of any particular standout quality in their requirements or process. The FAA happens to be big and that is about the sum of it.
P.P.S. When is a full, honest investigation into the airworthiness of all of the B737NGs built with non compliant structure going to occur? It is hardly the behaviour of a first world nation to sack the QA auditors that brought that to light, that smacks of a 3rd world S%$t'ole type country response in itself.
P.P.P.S. the B767 Captain off the Comorros was a heroic person (ET961). He was being hit over the head with a damn fire axe as he ditched an aircraft without engines against that level of distraction. Sully and Jeff at least were not being accosted when they demonstrated their professionalism on the Hudson.
Bigotry is demeaning to all.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.ch...-blames-pilots
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-two-faulty-boeing-jets-crash-the-trump-administration-blames-foreign-pilots/2019/05/15/e940a692-774e-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b2b63241a64
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...7-max-crashes/
Last edited by fdr; 18th May 2019 at 10:56.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironbut57
I was just about to post a basic fact, and then You beat me to it.
It is like this:
At one point sooner or later speed hast to be controlled and if the stab is so out of trim that pitch up and climb is not possible to control speed, power to idle is next.
On the 737-800 the nose drop is pronounced , but manageable.
The MAX has less as the thrust line is higher.
Regardless of initial nose down pitch you need to get speed back to the 270- 220 range.
So:
Idle
Full speedbrake
Pull like the Dickens and the speed WILL slow down, and the aircraft becomes easier to control and trim.
( I would even consider the gear, but lets keep it simple)
Keeping 94% N1 flat out , level will most likely give close to supersonic speed with M-buffet ,Tuck under and what have you.
The multiple false statements that reducing power is not an option is just ridicules.
With regards to blaming different " Pilot cultures" for this mess, I think that is a rather weak defense for a inherently flawed design.
We all have choices to make now that FAA is about to approve the patch.
I hope the major N-CAAs and EASA can see that this aircraft can not fly without aerodynamic modifications.
If they feel lucky and certify it, at least a two hr sim session MUST apply in a full MAX sim.
I for one am looking forward to fly it, but there is no way I will be a pax or deadhead in it.
I always knew the 737-800 had its killing corners which we trained , but letting this one loose is a pure gamble.
In my educated opinion.
Regards
Cpt B
737-800
It is like this:
At one point sooner or later speed hast to be controlled and if the stab is so out of trim that pitch up and climb is not possible to control speed, power to idle is next.
On the 737-800 the nose drop is pronounced , but manageable.
The MAX has less as the thrust line is higher.
Regardless of initial nose down pitch you need to get speed back to the 270- 220 range.
So:
Idle
Full speedbrake
Pull like the Dickens and the speed WILL slow down, and the aircraft becomes easier to control and trim.
( I would even consider the gear, but lets keep it simple)
Keeping 94% N1 flat out , level will most likely give close to supersonic speed with M-buffet ,Tuck under and what have you.
The multiple false statements that reducing power is not an option is just ridicules.
With regards to blaming different " Pilot cultures" for this mess, I think that is a rather weak defense for a inherently flawed design.
We all have choices to make now that FAA is about to approve the patch.
I hope the major N-CAAs and EASA can see that this aircraft can not fly without aerodynamic modifications.
If they feel lucky and certify it, at least a two hr sim session MUST apply in a full MAX sim.
I for one am looking forward to fly it, but there is no way I will be a pax or deadhead in it.
I always knew the 737-800 had its killing corners which we trained , but letting this one loose is a pure gamble.
In my educated opinion.
Regards
Cpt B
737-800
Last edited by BluSdUp; 18th May 2019 at 10:36. Reason: clarety
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that at no point during the congressional hearings did anyone ask how come the AoA indication failed on both crashed planes.
I am just an engineer with a PhD, not a pilot, and so for me the origin of a malfunction is significant. Safety doesn't start when someone puts his ass on the seat in the pointy end. And as a computer geek I do suspect that the AoA indicator issue is entirely spurious, a software artefact. In a similar occurrence, QF72, the AoA issues were entirely a software problem.
I suspect this sudden silence on an important topic is because a failed sensor is not a liability issue, while a bug is squarely in Boeing's wheelhouse.
Edmund
I am just an engineer with a PhD, not a pilot, and so for me the origin of a malfunction is significant. Safety doesn't start when someone puts his ass on the seat in the pointy end. And as a computer geek I do suspect that the AoA indicator issue is entirely spurious, a software artefact. In a similar occurrence, QF72, the AoA issues were entirely a software problem.
I suspect this sudden silence on an important topic is because a failed sensor is not a liability issue, while a bug is squarely in Boeing's wheelhouse.
Edmund
Last edited by edmundronald; 18th May 2019 at 12:22.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just about to post a basic fact, and then You beat me to it.
It is like this:
At one point sooner or later speed hast to be controlled and if the stab is so out of trim that pitch up and climb is not possible to control speed, power to idle is next.
On the 737-800 the nose drop is pronounced , but manageable.
The MAX has less as the thrust line is higher.
Regardless of initial nose down pitch you need to get speed back to the 270- 220 range.
So:
Idle
Full speedbrake
Pull like the Dickens and the speed WILL slow down, and the aircraft becomes easier to control and trim.
( I would even consider the gear, but lets keep it simple)
Keeping 94% N1 flat out , level will most likely give close to supersonic speed with M-buffet ,Tuck under and what have you.
The multiple false statements that reducing power is not an option is just ridicules.
With regards to blaming different " Pilot cultures" for this mess, I think that is a rather weak defense for a inherently flawed design.
We all have choices to make now that FAA is about to approve the patch.
I hope the major N-CAAs and EASA can see that this aircraft can not fly without aerodynamic modifications.
If they feel lucky and certify it, at least a two hr sim session MUST apply in a full MAX sim.
I for one am looking forward to fly it, but there is no way I will be a pax or deadhead in it.
I always knew the 737-800 had its killing corners which we trained , but letting this one loose is a pure gamble.
In my educated opinion.
Regards
Cpt B
737-800
It is like this:
At one point sooner or later speed hast to be controlled and if the stab is so out of trim that pitch up and climb is not possible to control speed, power to idle is next.
On the 737-800 the nose drop is pronounced , but manageable.
The MAX has less as the thrust line is higher.
Regardless of initial nose down pitch you need to get speed back to the 270- 220 range.
So:
Idle
Full speedbrake
Pull like the Dickens and the speed WILL slow down, and the aircraft becomes easier to control and trim.
( I would even consider the gear, but lets keep it simple)
Keeping 94% N1 flat out , level will most likely give close to supersonic speed with M-buffet ,Tuck under and what have you.
The multiple false statements that reducing power is not an option is just ridicules.
With regards to blaming different " Pilot cultures" for this mess, I think that is a rather weak defense for a inherently flawed design.
We all have choices to make now that FAA is about to approve the patch.
I hope the major N-CAAs and EASA can see that this aircraft can not fly without aerodynamic modifications.
If they feel lucky and certify it, at least a two hr sim session MUST apply in a full MAX sim.
I for one am looking forward to fly it, but there is no way I will be a pax or deadhead in it.
I always knew the 737-800 had its killing corners which we trained , but letting this one loose is a pure gamble.
In my educated opinion.
Regards
Cpt B
737-800
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beautifully, and accurately said, fdr. Copied and saved as an example of a logical factual, and unbiased reply to the garbage exemplified by the subject, and some commenters on, this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original Boeing 737 entered airline service in February 1968 with Lufthansa. In 1968 they didn't do digital processing and Kalman filtering of flight instrument data. In other words the MCAS system is based on recent tech, the MAX is to some extent a hybrid of old and new, and thus the type certificate which was based on validating an entirely mechanical design should not have been extended without a very painstaking review.
After the pitch-down incident of QF72, the fault was pinned on bad processing of AoA data. The final report dwells in detail on the *novel* difficulties posed by the validation of digital systems and the problems posed by complex systems. Incorporating a new system for attitude correction (MCAS) and digital processing in the 737 raised both of these issues, and allowed new problems to creep unnoticed into an old design.
Let me try and be clearer - a pilot knows that if your airspeed falls too low, the plane stalls. An engineer knows that if you add a computer to an existing design of a mechanical machine you get an unpredictable new design that will be unpredictable unless it is tested to death. This is engineering 101, and the guys at Boeing who added MCAS to the Max knew it, the FAA guys knew it, and in the end the pilots who tested it to death proved it yet again.
Edmund
After the pitch-down incident of QF72, the fault was pinned on bad processing of AoA data. The final report dwells in detail on the *novel* difficulties posed by the validation of digital systems and the problems posed by complex systems. Incorporating a new system for attitude correction (MCAS) and digital processing in the 737 raised both of these issues, and allowed new problems to creep unnoticed into an old design.
Let me try and be clearer - a pilot knows that if your airspeed falls too low, the plane stalls. An engineer knows that if you add a computer to an existing design of a mechanical machine you get an unpredictable new design that will be unpredictable unless it is tested to death. This is engineering 101, and the guys at Boeing who added MCAS to the Max knew it, the FAA guys knew it, and in the end the pilots who tested it to death proved it yet again.
Edmund