Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bammer, Mar 11, 2019.
This. This was exactly my thought from the beginning with both of these 3rd world country crashes and the possibility of novice pilots.
You have a better chance of getting killed by a illegal in the cartel in Texas than in a plane crash. Glad your okay with Trump grounding a entire aircraft due to lousy pilot training but don't find that he has the power as the executive to build a wall for border security. Can you tell us why one is okay and the other is not as it relates to Executive power?
Lack of pilot training for the engines that have been place on that 737 frame is what I am hearing.
I dont want to worry about this next week. Now I don't have to. They should have retrained the pilots before flying it. Boeing should have let pilots know about the faulty software, but that would mean that their stock would take a temporary hit. They should have rolled out a new model instead of modifying the previous model in order to avoid retraining the pilots. Boeing was greedy. They thought that the $1MM bribe they gave Trump would be enough to keep the planes in the air. The problem is that he said that he thought this model was a POS that should never have been made (I dont agree with this).
They're probably going to figure this out really soon when the get the box data. Let 'em figure it out. Make me guess, sounds like crappy software and training issues. Problem is, that at this point it is a wild guess. It could very well be two entirely unrelated sequences of events. Old airospace engineer here who hasn't designed anything in years. Wait till Boeing stock tanks a little more then buy. The 737 Max is not the de Havilland Comet.
Agreed, a golden buy opportunity.
$373.30 today at closing. $372 after hours.
Hearing some rumors that in anticipation of what they think the data recorders are going to say, that there is already a software update for the plane which will certify it to fly again. The gist is that the system that automatically trims nose down if it thinks the plane is stalling can be fooled into doing the nose down trim thing if it gets bad data from the sensors such as AOA vane, pitot tube, etc. The software fix will most likely involve additional cross checks so that the trim system in question will only operate if all the air data sources are showing congruent information. In short, a system designed to help the pilot trim nose down when his airspeed gets too slow isn't inherently a bad system, but it has to be robust enough to only do that if the plane is actually slow and near stall. If the plane THINKS its slow and activates that trim while the plane is moving fast, it is no bueno. Frankly, I'm amazed that they engineered it this way in the first place. Seems like a pretty boneheaded approach to the whole thing and some really poor decisions were made if this is indeed the cause. I have no doubt the plane will enjoy a long successful service life but the start of service didn't have to be marked by these crashes. BTW our company airplanes have over 41,000 flights and over 90,000 hours logged so far and this anomaly has not surfaced even though the data for every flight is logged and available.
A close family member is a pilot and he says the issue is mainly with inexperienced pilots trying to override the flight software when its doing what it should be doing in the first place. His explanation goes likes this: The new plane is longer than the earlier 737s which caused the engineers to place the engines farther forward in an effort to counteract the additional weight in the rear of the craft from the longer fuselage. This placement of the engines leads the plane to be more prone to a nose rise condition when throttle is increased which *could* lead to a stall if not corrected. The engineers added software to detect the nose up condition and react by changing the trim to correct it. What he says is happening is that the software kicks in and the nose starts going down when the plane is at full throttle during takeoff. Inexperienced pilots don't expect this and respond by pulling back on the stick to bring the nose up. The software says "Crap...the plane is still going nose up! Gotta trim down more" and increases the trim to bring the nose down. The pilot sees the plane continue to go nose down despite his pulling back on the stick, so he pulls back on the stick harder. Computer increases trim in response. Lather, rinse. repeat. Eventually, the pilot is unable to pull back on the stick enough to counteract the program. When he stops pulling back on the stick, there is so much down trim being applied by the program that the jet nosedives and the software is unable to counteract before the plane crashes. This could be fixed by turning off that aspect of the piloting system or by letting the software adjust the trim on its own...but the pilots either don't know they can turn it off or forget to do it, or panic when they should have left it alone. Im guessing this is why we haven't seen crashes stateside. Pilots over here are more experienced and less prone to fighting the flight controls.
And by “more experienced” you mean “white”... I agree, it’s a general rule for me.
Is English your first language?
We need a "clueless dumbass" emoji.
Trump, as usual, talking out of his a**hole on a subject for which he has no knowledge, even though he is a self-proclaimed expert on all things aviation. Trump has nothing to do with the grounding of the 737-8 and -9 MAX. New evidence was discovered in the Ethiopian crash which led the FAA to ground the MAX fleet because it aligned the potential cause of the Ethiopian crash with the Lion Air crash late last year (MCAS). This is incorrect. Since Boeing decided against a clean-sheet design and instead opted to upgrade the current 737NG to compete with Airbus's A320/321 NEO, they chose to add larger, more efficient engines without increasing the height of the landing gear (which would be an incredibly expensive redesign). Instead, they placed the engines farther ahead of the wing, which gave them the ability to place them higher off the ground. It has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft length. Almost. The larger engine nacelles generate additional lift compared to the 737NG and as a result, Boeing introduced MCAS into the mix to combat against this additional nose up lift by automatically forcing the nose down. This is a general description of how the MCAS interacted with the Lion Air flight and potentially with Ethiopian, but there are two major factors that have been overlooked in this thread; 1) Boeing did not disclose to airlines that they introduced the MCAS system into the MAX family. It is not part of the training manual, sim training, nowhere to be found. Boeing figured there was no need to share information about the MCAS with the airlines because it would essentially operate in the background and didn't require intervention from pilots. Inexperienced pilots or not, if you are unaware of a new system, it's pretty damn hard to troubleshoot an issue when it arises. 2) For a fact, the Angle of Attack (AoA) vane was feeding incorrect data to the onboard computer of the Lion Air flight. This enabled the MCAS as the system "believed" the aircraft was approaching a stall even though this wasn't the case. So imagine yourself as a pilot, receiving incorrect AoA data and your aircraft automatically dives from the input of a system that you aren't aware of. The Ethiopian pilots reported to ATC that they were receiving erroneous speed readings which could've also initiated the MCAS, again as the system "thought" it was nearing a stall. Or it's possible that US airlines haven't had to deal with MCAS yet and if they have, by luck, they've been able to override MCAS by using the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches. This is exactly what the previous Lion Air flight did as they too experienced similar issues to the Lion Air flight that crashed. Experienced pilots or not, Boeing completely schit the bed by introducing the MCAS without disclosing or explaining the system to the airlines.
That's been my unstated theory. But my theories are c.r.a.p until the box data comes back. I run a software business now, no more airospace for me, and the reason I have reservations about this is that you're describing a feedback system which leads to a cascading cycle. Man it's hard to believe that something like that would go into production with that kind of problem. First rule of active control systems, don't design the control of anything in such a way that a correction and the feedback gets you into an ever worsening cycle. Second rule, plan for Major John. Major John in our shop is a euphemism for the least capable person who will be using the software.
I'll be taking SWA next week from SFO to JAX (connecting in MDW) for the first round of the tourney. Those pilots seem to be well trained and professional. I'd have no problem taking a MAX. Kind of sad I won't be able to.
Thanks for your corrections and insight @CapitalGator02 .
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.