Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Let's you know they're workin'!

They don't quite spit out a thick layer of black smoke on take-off like the DC-8, CV-880, etc...but close.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 2:13 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

The flying public has been spoiled by many recent years of excellent airliner safety.  

....

And by your logic, bcordinary people have been "spoiled" by penicillin.

=====

Make no mistake, changes in trade, technology and even politics have made the lives of ordinary people - billions of people - better over the past few decades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

And by your logic, bcordinary people have been "spoiled" by penicillin.

=====

Make no mistake, changes in trade, technology and even politics have made the lives of ordinary people - billions of people - better over the past few decades. 

 

No worries...that's exactly what what I meant.

Airliner crashes use to be far more common.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go...into fresh snow...part of the reason the basic design of the 737 was so successful. Try n' cancel that flight in or out...

Note the anti-snowplow kit on the front wheels.

 

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...

The whole Max deal happened because one of Boeing's largest airline customers was about to sign for hundreds of Airbus machines with their new LEAP engines, that offered far better fuel economy than the NexGen 727 could deliver.   It was either lose one of their biggest clients (and leadership in the biz) or figure out how to get the same CFM engines to fit on the much shorter landing gear 737.  They new damn well they needed a new airplane, but that would be years to design and certify, while Airbus simply would have walked away with the whole market then dominated by the most popular commercial airplane in history (the 727).

Once they started down that road, they found that the aerodynamics of the larger engine placed further forward (so the LEAP fan would not drag on the ground...literally) would result in divergent pitch behaviour (it would pitch up at very low airspeeds more than the pilot was commanding).   The solution was to throw in some nose down trim to make it feel and behave exactly as any other 727 would.   IF Boeing had to add more training, or if they had to admit to such an invasive level of automation ( Boeing's design philosophy is to have live pilot as ultimate control authority) it would have been impossible to grant certification as another variation of the 737.   Since the FAA has let industry essentially self-certify, it was easy for Boeing engineers and execs to do a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" certification.   As has been implied: the relationship between Boeing and the Feds was far too cozy and sloppy.

Now, on the other hand, the real issue was that as certified, there was only one reference source (AOA vane) as the sole source of pitch info.  The second was optional, but since buyers had no GOOD idea what MCAS was, most did not opt for the second vane on the other side of the airplane.  It was not a software coding problem (at least on one of the two crashes) but a failed AOA vane that commanded the excessive nose down trim.  In training for ANY aircraft with automated trim, one of the basics is to know how to deal with a trim runaway.   Several instances in the Western world Max aircraft suffered exactly the same failures, and in each and ever case, the pilots dealt with it almost as a routine part of the flight.  The pilots of both crashes were, to be polite, totally incompetent.  MCAS only works with take off power and flaps in takeoff position.  Not only could they not deal with a reasonably simple runaway trim (one solution for that was to simply switch it off, as it said in the video explaining the new airplane) but they left the airplanes in a very unusual and improper configuration.   The reason this is a genuine problem is that for most of the last decade, the US not only lead but DEFINED the world of commercial aviation, and for the most part, Western training and culture meant that pilots earned their respective right and left seat positions on merit.   In many developing nation cultures, such jobs are granted based on privilege due to family and birthright.  A perfect fit for the automation-dominant Airbus fleet, but goes to hell in a handbasket at times when you need an actual pilot at the controls.

Oh: and seconding the comments on how safe commercial aviation has become and public expectations.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...