Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 2790120)
I don't think a sim eval is doing to accomplish what you think it will. Do you really see significant value in a 15-30 minute snap-shot of someone flying an aircraft (sim) cold that they've potentially never operated before? Climbs, descents, turns, various combos, an ILS - whatever. Most everyone who has attained the requisite experience to get to an interview is probably going to pass this evaluation. The small minority who may be weeded out by a sim evaluation will just as likely have that happen during their new hire training.
event was not a pass fail ride from what I hear. I think it’s treated more like the HR panel where a score is given based off flying and added to the total score. I think the pool system (not first in first out like most companies) at UPS is inconvenient and costing them quality candidates. I would hesitate to follow their lead in many ways, but I think they got the sim portion of their interview right. Maybe UPS’s round dial, no FD, no AP, ILS in the wx simulator is exactly what we want in light of recent crashes in our industry? At the end of the day, the company will hire who they want, but pilots at each company should have a say. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2790476)
Maybe not. The increased MCAS authority *for one operating cycle* still probably produces enough ND trim to relieve control forces in a stall recovery. It can also, by the sound of it, be manually overridden if needed at that point.
The software fix would just limit it to a single operation, as well as require consensus from two functioning AoA sensors to trigger. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2790730)
My understanding was at high AoA, the nacelle produces lift, the MCAS was installed to counteract that, which the FAA reluctantly approved. This characteristic is not allowed under FAR 25.
Or do you mean pitch up moment with thrust increase? |
Originally Posted by rvfanatic
(Post 2790720)
Maybe UPS’s round dial, no FD, no AP, ILS in the wx simulator is exactly what we want in light of recent crashes in our industry? At the end of the day, the company will hire who they want, but pilots at each company should have a say.
IMO the most accurate sim test would be representative of what the applicant CURRENTLY flies. A generic non-motion PC-based trainer could be selected to the appropriate configuration with the flip of a switch. If not that, then something representative of what the applicant will be flying if gets the job. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2790929)
Nacelle lift is not allowed? That would be hard to eliminate on almost any configuration with a high AoA?
Or do you mean pitch up moment with thrust increase? |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2790929)
Nacelle lift is not allowed? That would be hard to eliminate on almost any configuration with a high AoA?
Or do you mean pitch up moment with thrust increase? |
Hello, I have had a friend of mine comment on one of my posts, it was just an article about the crash and he left this
“MCAS was not installed as a safety feature. Not buying that sales pitch crap. It was installed to offset a design flaw, specifically that the bigger powerful engines had to be moved forward and higher on the wing which then would tend to push the nose up. It changes the center of gravity of the airplane. Airplane software is great when it's operating like cruise control -- not when it's being asked to correct a design problem. And the design problem was a marketing decision. FAA's approval of a software solution to an aerodynamic problem. Software should be intended to improve planes, and not to patch bad designs, nor make it fly. To rush out a new narrowbody and maintain parity with Airbus 320 NEO, Boeing purposely created a plane that was aerodynamically unstable because the company did not want the aircraft to require certification as a new plane, a - with good reason - lengthy process .” Now I wanted to do research but it’s kind of hard pin pointing this exact info for someone who’s not a pilot so for the best knowledge, I wanna ask pilots about this. Again please excuse any ignorance in my question or please help yourself with correcting anything. |
Originally Posted by Firefighter
(Post 2791147)
Hello, I have had a friend of mine comment on one of my posts, it was just an article about the crash and he left this
“MCAS was not installed as a safety feature. Not buying that sales pitch crap. It was installed to offset a design flaw, specifically that the bigger powerful engines had to be moved forward and higher on the wing which then would tend to push the nose up. It changes the center of gravity of the airplane. Airplane software is great when it's operating like cruise control -- not when it's being asked to correct a design problem. And the design problem was a marketing decision. FAA's approval of a software solution to an aerodynamic problem. Software should be intended to improve planes, and not to patch bad designs, nor make it fly. To rush out a new narrowbody and maintain parity with Airbus 320 NEO, Boeing purposely created a plane that was aerodynamically unstable because the company did not want the aircraft to require certification as a new plane, a - with good reason - lengthy process .” Now I wanted to do research but it’s kind of hard pin pointing this exact info for someone who’s not a pilot so for the best knowledge, I wanna ask pilots about this. Again please excuse any ignorance in my question or please help yourself with correcting anything. The investigation will figure out whether or not Boeing hid the issue to market the aircraft. So, wait and see is the best answer to your question. |
Originally Posted by Firefighter
(Post 2791147)
Hello, I have had a friend of mine comment on one of my posts, it was just an article about the crash and he left this
“MCAS was not installed as a safety feature. Not buying that sales pitch crap. It was installed to offset a design flaw, specifically that the bigger powerful engines had to be moved forward and higher on the wing which then would tend to push the nose up. It changes the center of gravity of the airplane. Airplane software is great when it's operating like cruise control -- not when it's being asked to correct a design problem. And the design problem was a marketing decision. FAA's approval of a software solution to an aerodynamic problem. Software should be intended to improve planes, and not to patch bad designs, nor make it fly. To rush out a new narrowbody and maintain parity with Airbus 320 NEO, Boeing purposely created a plane that was aerodynamically unstable because the company did not want the aircraft to require certification as a new plane, a - with good reason - lengthy process .” Now I wanted to do research but it’s kind of hard pin pointing this exact info for someone who’s not a pilot so for the best knowledge, I wanna ask pilots about this. Again please excuse any ignorance in my question or please help yourself with correcting anything. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2791185)
MCAS is a compliance issue, it's not a safety feature. Augmented control systems are allowed provided they don't malfunction according to FAR 25.672. The question for the FAA will be whether the 2.5 vs 0.6 trim degree change is considered too excessive a control input, if so, the aircraft will require some form of design change. This is quite simple to do, but performance would be reduced IF that's the case.
The investigation will figure out whether or not Boeing hid the issue to market the aircraft. So, wait and see is the best answer to your question. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:44 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands