Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
Boeing itself labeled the failure of MCAS a "hazardous" level failure. ANY critical or hazardous level failure item in aviation requires that it not be hooked up to a sole (single) source. That's just airplane design and certification 101. It sounds like you really don't care about the rules but it definitely matters here.
You're an aeronautical engineer? Airplane design 101? Certification 101?
There are a legion of items in aviation in which the "item" is "hooked" to a "sole (single) source." Where have you been?
Ever flown a single engine airplane? Good god. What were you thinking???
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
For you to write off 4 dead pilots is a scape goat. "They let themselves fly out of the envelope blah blah"
The crew continued to accelerate and increase airspeed until impact, ensuring that recovery was not possible. The procedure requires maintaining airspeed. The procedure requires NOT restoring stab motor trim power.
Which of those requirements did they follow, again?
Have YOU read the report?? Clearly not.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
Treat it like a stab trim runaway, Boeing said. Never mind that once the CA AOA malfunctions, the stick shaker is going off, low speed cues creeping up on the PFD, the airplane is showing some other signs here other than a stab trim running away.
Oh, mommy, noises, scary noises, and thing are "going off!" Good god, what shall we do, mommy? When they hired us, they told us that nothing bad would ever happen, except all those things they did to us in that nasty simulator...
Are you kidding?
There is nothing mistakable about a trim runaway. BIG wheels by each pilots keee. You can see them moving. You can hear them moving. A BIG white stripe shows their movement. It can't b missed. MCAS ONLY works when the autopilot isn't moving. If the autopilot isn't auto trimming and the wheel is moving, GUESS WHAT?????
You have unwanted trim. The procedure for unwanted trim is the same, and has always been the same, and it's the same for the MCAS movement too, because IT IS THE SAME. Try to stop it, shut it off, dont' speed up. There it is. Rocket science.
Go do this, as you're missing some of the very basics here, even though you apparently think you know "airplane design 101" and "airplane certification 101." Go get a Cessna 172, or a piper, or an embraer, or a Boeing, or whatever you feel your wallet can afford, or go get the simulator, and run the trim nose down. Then speed up. Add ten knots. Add twenty. Add 100. Take it to over 500, and see what difference that makes in the effect on the airplane. Once you understand what should have been patently obvious to you as a student pilot, then come back and yap about it. Educate yourself, first.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
So no, it's not that simple. 2 757s (Birgenair and AeroPeru) crashed when nothing more than their speed sensors were messed up (and altitude for Aeroperu). The pitch indicator and thrust levers worked. But in the case of Aeroperu, they had multiple warnings all chiming at the same time. Low speed stick shaker, then overspeed, mach trim, rudder ratio, almost every item was conflicting. It's easy to look back now and say "pitch+power" but clearly that never happened with an over-loaded crew.
It's very easy to say pitch and power, because no crash would have happened if they'd flown the damn airplane.
You seem to be worried about cockpit noises: bells, whistles, shakers, etc. Maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
We don't do a lot of training for airplanes when everything is working, you see. We train almost all the time for nothing but abnormals and emergencies. It's why we're onboard. Judgement and all that. If nothing ever goes wrong, the flight could easily be automated to be without us. Our purpose for drawing breath on the planet earth, our reason for existence, and our value to our employers, our passengers and cargo, and mankind, is our ability to operate during an abnormal or emergency, and to make decisions.
Did no one explain this to you when you paid your quarter to ride? Are you sure you're tall enough?
You're aware that we're talking about the 737 Max here, and not 757's, right? Did you know that they're not the same airplane?
Start a new thread for your straw man argument. It's irrelevant.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
The aircraft should absolutely have been grounded the day after the Ethiopian crash. While you blame dead pilots, educated people around the world are looking at the overall system, the system failure that allowed the crews to be in the position they were to begin with.
This may be hard for you to grasp, but if nobody ever gets in an airplane, they'll never be in the position of handling an inflight emergency, either. By getting in the airplane, we put ourselves in the position to be exposed to all kinds of scary things. Big heights above the ground. Fast speeds. Birds. Noises in the cockpit. Bad coffee. Engine failures. Pneumatic failures. Fires. Runaway trim.
We have procedures for some of those things. We even train for them. That includes immediate action items that we memorize. It's our job to handle abnormal conditions, malfunctions, emergencies, weather, delays, diversions, and so on. Among those things that we're supposed to know and do is to NOT ACCELERATE BEYOND THE DESIGN ENVELOPE FOR THE AIRPLANE WHEN WE'RE HAVING A PROBLEM. Airmanship 101: fly the damn airplane.
Sorry. Millennial terms: FTDA.
Am I typing too fast for you?
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
Boeing getting their own employees to be approved by the FAA for certification and then pressuring their employees with time. Time they didn't have, to compete with NEOs. The FAA for allowing so much of the aircraft to be certified by the Boeing employees approved to do so, but failed to step in and provide true oversight of the process.
Shyguy, what happened to your expertise in design and certification. It appears you failed both design 101 and certification 101. Are you really this ignorant of the certification process and the use of designated authority? You don't seem to know what it does and what it does NOT do, and your talking points come straight off the evening news. Crack those textbooks and find out where you went wrong. You're not even close. Not remotely so.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
MCAS needs to go 0.6 deg down like Boeing originally said in the paperwork, and not 5 deg down like it does.
"5 deg down?" Been watching CNN, have we?
2.4 units down, and it takes 9 seconds...and can be stopped at any time in several ways. Moreover, if it does trim down, one should NOT accelerate beyond Vmo/Mmo and drive the airplane into the dirt like a lawn dart on a VFR morning from 7,000'. Airmanship 101 again. FTDA (fly the damn airplane), and all that.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
Too bad the FAA already got so much egg in its face. Even once the FAA and Boeing say the plane is safe and try to un-ground it, no one else in the world will do so until they also feel it is safe. China was the first to ground it, then Asia/Africa, EASA, Candians, and finally the FAA. The FAA has brought all those countries together and their full goal is to try and make sure everyone is happy so the grounding is lifted at once smoothly.
You really don't know what happened, or know anything about the JATR, do you?
I gave you a couple of links as a primer. Go read.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
Btw Burke, how about the Citation jet crash in Indiana that is being blamed on the new revolutionary Tamarack active load alleviation winglet?
BTW Guy, how about you focus on one relevant problem at a time, such as staying with the subject of the thread. If you want to discuss the citation mishap, by all means start a thread to do so, instead of dwelling on straw man stupidity. Focus.
The Citation is not a 737. The mishap is unrelated. That is, it's irrelevant. Focus.