Jump to content
BANGKOK 25 May 2019 06:29
webfact

Boeing reshuffles top engineers amid 737 MAX crisis

Recommended Posts

The more they get into this the more it’s looking to me that a major part of it is lack of training on the new systems those poor pilots should be provided with the training to instantly recognize the problem and the proper reaction to it not fighting the plane trying to look through the manual to figure it out as the case in the lion air crash 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ulic said:

Manufactures, pilots, airline maintenance and pilot training will all be put under the microscope and a clear picture will emerge as to exactly what happened, all in an effort to correct deficiencies and make the industry safer.

  

Then, the recommendations from the very clear NTSB report will be ignored or dragged out for as long as humanly possible, in order to make the industry more profitable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If corners were found to be cut , corporate manslaughter charges should follow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a real fix, this is similar to beating the dog cuz Mrs. Flannigan farted. I've personally worked with Boeing engineers, they only hire the best people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A day before the first crash in Indonesia, it happened again with the same aircraft. But a disaster was avoided because another pilot who was only visiting the cockpit knew what to do and how to disconnect MCAS to avoid a stall.

 

If this is true it's just shocking really. And sad. Why did they not report this to Boeing the same day? 

 

Edited by balo
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 3:58 PM, Humpy said:

One wonders why the need for a 'gizzmo' to right the aircraft at the stall and beyond.= and no means of overriding the system, that is if the system had an override ! Airliners have managed without this 'gizzmo' for many many years. Two highly trained and highly paid pilots up front can monitor speed and angle of climb and take steps to correct as necessary . Audible and 'control column  shake' warnings have been fitted to many aircraft for years in case the pilots were distracted. Keep it simple Boeing .

 

KISS works very well.

Keep

It

Simple

Stupid.

 

Keeping things simple have worked for many decades.

The more bells and whistles you hang on to aircraft the harder they are to fly and the harder they are to maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The pilots of a Boeing 737 MAX frantically scoured a manual before their plane crashed into the Java Sea in October, killing all 189 people on board.

Recordings from the cockpit of the Lion Air plane suggest that the pilots were struggling to understand why the jet was lurching downwards, but ran out of time before it hit the water.

Two minutes into the flight, the first officer reported a "flight control problem" to air traffic control and said that they intended to maintain an altitude of 5,000ft.

https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-737-max-pilots-scoured-manual-in-minutes-before-lion-air-crash-in-indonesia-11670763

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 9:58 AM, Humpy said:

One wonders why the need for a 'gizzmo' to right the aircraft at the stall and beyond.= and no means of overriding the system, that is if the system had an override ! Airliners have managed without this 'gizzmo' for many many years. Two highly trained and highly paid pilots up front can monitor speed and angle of climb and take steps to correct as necessary . Audible and 'control column  shake' warnings have been fitted to many aircraft for years in case the pilots were distracted. Keep it simple Boeing .

 

 

I think you don’t understand the underlaying problem. It’s not a gizmo thing added to a normal balanced a/c.

This 737 Max with it’s forward mounted bigger/heavier engines is very difficult or almost impossible to take out of a stall and will stall under to high Angel of Attack.

This is due to the center of gravity change at high AoA. The a/c stalls and gets very nose heavy and can’t easily recover.

 

At high altitude in thin air, the difference in speed between ’stall’ and ’overspeed’ is very small ( look up ’coffin corner’) and the a/c can stall very quickly at high speed. That’s probably why Boeing made this MCAS system to work in the background, without descibing it in the pilots manual.

 

Now these accidents in Indonesia and Ethiopia was, what we know, probably caused by one faulty AoA sensor (stuck in high AoA-mode) at low altitude that triggered the MCAS and sent the a/c in a deadly high speed dive...that don’t can be stopped by the normal stick/yoke.

The other AoA sensor may be working normally and shows the pilot normal values on the screen.

 

The problem is that just one faulty AoA sensor, without redundancy can trig the MCAS down trim, alarm and stick shaker during normal take off flight, when the flaps were retracted.

 

The pilots had no idea what was happening and how to turn off the system was not learned or even described in the flight manual.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JohanB said:

The a/c stalls and gets very nose heavy and can’t easily recover.

Isn't that the preferred way of stalling nose first and the aircraft gains forward speed?. Are you trying to say a tail first stall is better?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Seems appropriate but somewhat surprising nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

I believe what the U.S. Justice Department and now the FBI are looking into was whether there was any criminal conduct or illegality in the processes that led to the 737 Max being developed and marketed by Boeing, and approved as ready for flight by the FAA -- when apparently, the jet wasn't QUITE ready....

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 8:45 AM, lannarebirth said:

The NTSB is the gold standard of investigative agencies. Their report will pull no punches and be both believed and acted upon by everyone.

Today it is very difficult to find gold standards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

Isn't that the preferred way of stalling nose first and the aircraft gains forward speed?. Are you trying to say a tail first stall is better?

I think the reference is to the aircraft having a limited range of CofG which is further limited in the configuration/flight condition of a stall. Aircraft are usually designed to stall the main wing first. Stalling the tailplane is a "deep stall" and has different characteristics.  Stalling the tailplane before the mainwing is not something I've tried, but I'd expect a severe tail-down movement as the tailplane loses lift. You'd need to ask a Pitts jockey to try it for you. 😉

 

Boeing, Airbus, et al are always pushing the boundaries of aerodynamics - sometimes with spectacularly impressive results, but the underlying rules of the science are the same and must be respected.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...