Downfall the case against Boeing
03-22-2022 | 07:45 AM
#71
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 694
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
So, if a Fire Warning goes off when taking off at 120 knots and there are any other lights or alarms go off you are just going to hack the clock and wait for more than 10 seconds to do anything? No, you will immediately react, because that is what you were trained to do. Pilots should be trained to deal with emergencies. Even complicated ones, 10 seconds is an eternity. Even after 10 seconds with the MCAS trim runaways the main electric pitch trim switches still worked and would override MCAS. Yeah, then it would run again, but trim it back out... that is what the Captain in the Lion Air crash did, several times. If the FO had done the same the crash would not have happened. In the Ethiopian crash if either pilot had used the main electric trim for more than 2 seconds they would have been fine as well. The whole reason pilots ALPA want 2 trained pilots sitting in the front, is to fly the plane when it is broken. That is our job.
The problem with MCAS was the *intermittent* presentation... trim spins for a while then stops. Spins again, then stops, and so on. The PF is fixated on flying and doesn't notice the wheel. The PM assumes the PF is trimming intermittently, if he even notices. There was nothing in the manual about an intermittent run-away, and that's somewhat counter-intuitive.
I think the union guy is right... it would be a poop-show. I do think most US crews would have focused, as a team, on getting the nose up and limiting AS, so would have taken thrust to idle, used the cutout switches, and cranked the wheel manually. Would they have done it fast enough? Don't know, although IIRC there were a couple of MCAS events here in the US before the grounding.
AB designed the 320 later, so they had the advantage of more tech available. They also appear to have correctly assessed who would be flying their airplanes in the second and third world... not the ex-mil pilots of the post WW-II era which the 73 was designed for.
03-22-2022 | 07:48 AM
#72
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
So, if a Fire Warning goes off when taking off at 120 knots and there are any other lights or alarms go off you are just going to hack the clock and wait for more than 10 seconds to do anything? No, you will immediately react, because that is what you were trained to do. Pilots should be trained to deal with emergencies. Even complicated ones, 10 seconds is an eternity. Even after 10 seconds with the MCAS trim runaways the main electric pitch trim switches still worked and would override MCAS. Yeah, then it would run again, but trim it back out... that is what the Captain in the Lion Air crash did, several times. If the FO had done the same the crash would not have happened. In the Ethiopian crash if either pilot had used the main electric trim for more than 2 seconds they would have been fine as well. The whole reason pilots ALPA want 2 trained pilots sitting in the front, is to fly the plane when it is broken. That is our job.
Love how people praise AB for devaluing our job as pilots. We will just build an airplane that does everything for you and will give you a tray table so you have something to do. However, last I checked, pilots have still figured out how to crash AB aircraft.
Love how people praise AB for devaluing our job as pilots. We will just build an airplane that does everything for you and will give you a tray table so you have something to do. However, last I checked, pilots have still figured out how to crash AB aircraft.
03-22-2022 | 08:01 AM
#73
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 425
Likes: 5
A fire warning is pretty unambiguous
The problem with MCAS was the *intermittent* presentation... trim spins for a while then stops. Spins again, then stops, and so on. The PF is fixated on flying and doesn't notice the wheel. The PM assumes the PF is trimming intermittently, if he even notices. There was nothing in the manual about an intermittent run-away, and that's somewhat counter-intuitive.
I think the union guy is right... it would be a poop-show. I do think most US crews would have focused, as a team, on getting the nose up and limiting AS, so would have taken thrust to idle, used the cutout switches, and cranked the wheel manually. Would they have done it fast enough? Don't know, although IIRC there were a couple of MCAS events here in the US before the grounding.
Technology is de-valuing our pilot jobs, natural course of progress... we used to have 4-5 crew, now only two.
AB designed the 320 later, so they had the advantage of more tech available. They also appear to have correctly assessed who would be flying their airplanes in the second and third world... not the ex-mil pilots of the post WW-II era which the 73 was designed for.
The problem with MCAS was the *intermittent* presentation... trim spins for a while then stops. Spins again, then stops, and so on. The PF is fixated on flying and doesn't notice the wheel. The PM assumes the PF is trimming intermittently, if he even notices. There was nothing in the manual about an intermittent run-away, and that's somewhat counter-intuitive.
I think the union guy is right... it would be a poop-show. I do think most US crews would have focused, as a team, on getting the nose up and limiting AS, so would have taken thrust to idle, used the cutout switches, and cranked the wheel manually. Would they have done it fast enough? Don't know, although IIRC there were a couple of MCAS events here in the US before the grounding.
Technology is de-valuing our pilot jobs, natural course of progress... we used to have 4-5 crew, now only two.
AB designed the 320 later, so they had the advantage of more tech available. They also appear to have correctly assessed who would be flying their airplanes in the second and third world... not the ex-mil pilots of the post WW-II era which the 73 was designed for.
You don't need to see the trim wheel. As the pilot flying you primary duty is to fly the airplane. If the nose is trimming down the control forces would be increasing. What do you do when control forces increase? You trim those forces out or return to the trimmed speed. Lets not forget the Lion Air investigation said the pilots actions were causal in the mishap. I know you know what causal means. You also know there can be more than 1 causal factor. The Ethiopians can't be bothered to release a report.
Yes, pilots should always be capable of dealing with a design flaw. That is our job. Pilots should take pride in that.
03-22-2022 | 08:35 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,573
Likes: 283
From: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
You don't need to see the trim wheel. As the pilot flying you primary duty is to fly the airplane. If the nose is trimming down the control forces would be increasing. What do you do when control forces increase? You trim those forces out or return to the trimmed speed. Lets not forget the Lion Air investigation said the pilots actions were causal in the mishap. I know you know what causal means. You also know there can be more than 1 causal factor. The Ethiopians can't be bothered to release a report.
Yes, pilots should always be capable of dealing with a design flaw. That is our job. Pilots should take pride in that.
Yes, pilots should always be capable of dealing with a design flaw. That is our job. Pilots should take pride in that.
03-22-2022 | 08:42 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,573
Likes: 283
From: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
No they shouldn’t but pilots should also have enough basic hand-flying skills to actually have a chance of nursing a sick airplane back to the runway.
03-22-2022 | 09:12 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,911
Likes: 161
From: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
“This airplane is designed by clowns, who are in turn supervised by monkeys"
That's really all you need to know about the Boeing corporate culture, and the employee's there knew it.
But I'm sure that's all fixed now, so fly with confidence.
If it's Boeing, it's going. Ready or not.
That's really all you need to know about the Boeing corporate culture, and the employee's there knew it.
But I'm sure that's all fixed now, so fly with confidence.
If it's Boeing, it's going. Ready or not.
03-22-2022 | 09:52 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,551
Likes: 295
From: Sitting SC at the Five Towns
The biggest takeaway for me in regards to that docu was that the reason quoted for moving HQ from Seattle ("Boeing was Seattle and Seattle was Boeing") to Chicago: To "Get management away from the engineers."
I always wondered why they made that move. Now I know.
I always wondered why they made that move. Now I know.
03-22-2022 | 10:13 AM
#78
Banned
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
From: Power Isosceles
Easy there Charles Lindbergh, I’m sure they were trying to trim. But in the 737 (maybe other aircraft), if you are applying significant force on the yoke in the opposite direction of the trimmed condition (ie nose down trim and pulling back very hard on the yoke), the trim wheel is very difficult, if not impossible to move without releasing the back pressure in this instance. I’ve flown a variety of aircraft in my life, and I’m not aware of any other aircraft to which releasing the pressure on the yoke/stick was a requirement to move the trim. I suppose if you’ve flown the 737 you’re entire life, you’d be aware of it. But its not instinctual or natural. And maybe they thought that putting the AP on would help the out-of-trim situation, as it has its own servo. JMO
03-22-2022 | 10:23 AM
#80
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 694
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
We can count ourselves fortunate that we have enough cultural and institutional inertia here in the US that we won't be downgrading to MPL any time soon... even if airlines have to pay for primary training.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
