SWA leaving Newark
07-28-2019 | 07:31 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 301
The actual cause of AF447 was the inability of the flight crew to recognize a stall caused by iced up pitot tubes giving a unreliable airspeed indication. Between 2008-9 there were 9 incidents on ASR’s of temp loss of airspeed indications on AF 330/340 fleets. After the crash there were 6 more instances that weren’t on ASR’s. An AD was put out to swap the tubes but that was prior to the crash.
Afterwards....no grounding happened despite multiple airlines reporting faulty airspeed indications on that plane.
So...no problem with that model? Yeah....ok.
Afterwards....no grounding happened despite multiple airlines reporting faulty airspeed indications on that plane.
So...no problem with that model? Yeah....ok.
07-28-2019 | 11:08 PM
#32
Banned
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 0
From: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
The actual cause of AF447 was the inability of the flight crew to recognize a stall caused by iced up pitot tubes giving a unreliable airspeed indication. Between 2008-9 there were 9 incidents on ASR’s of temp loss of airspeed indications on AF 330/340 fleets. After the crash there were 6 more instances that weren’t on ASR’s. An AD was put out to swap the tubes but that was prior to the crash.
Afterwards....no grounding happened despite multiple airlines reporting faulty airspeed indications on that plane.
So...no problem with that model? Yeah....ok.
Afterwards....no grounding happened despite multiple airlines reporting faulty airspeed indications on that plane.
So...no problem with that model? Yeah....ok.
07-29-2019 | 03:55 AM
#33
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,295
Likes: 4
From: CA
Swapa, Apa, and Alpa. Swapa said nothing out of the ordinary from FOQA data collected since day 1. Same from AA and UAL.
As far as Lionair....the problem happened previously. The jumpseater caught it. Why wasn’t the plane grounded immediately? It would have been grounded in the US.
As far as Ethiopian....you have a low time FO with a new CA. They started the checklist and for whatever reason decided to do their own thing whild screaming along at full climb power.
Sure Boeing messed up with the software but you also have to fly the jet.
As far as Lionair....the problem happened previously. The jumpseater caught it. Why wasn’t the plane grounded immediately? It would have been grounded in the US.
As far as Ethiopian....you have a low time FO with a new CA. They started the checklist and for whatever reason decided to do their own thing whild screaming along at full climb power.
Sure Boeing messed up with the software but you also have to fly the jet.
07-29-2019 | 07:35 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,573
Likes: 283
From: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
07-29-2019 | 07:48 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 301
We also have a unreliable airspeed and trim runaway checklists. In fact, we ran unreliable airspeed in the sim last year....
07-29-2019 | 08:28 PM
#36
Line holder
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,167
Likes: 226
From: Aircraft & Seat: old & hard
The actual cause of AF447 was the inability of the flight crew to recognize a stall caused by iced up pitot tubes giving a unreliable airspeed indication. Between 2008-9 there were 9 incidents on ASR’s of temp loss of airspeed indications on AF 330/340 fleets. After the crash there were 6 more instances that weren’t on ASR’s. An AD was put out to swap the tubes but that was prior to the crash.
Afterwards....no grounding happened despite multiple airlines reporting faulty airspeed indications on that plane.
So...no problem with that model? Yeah....ok.
Afterwards....no grounding happened despite multiple airlines reporting faulty airspeed indications on that plane.
So...no problem with that model? Yeah....ok.
07-29-2019 | 08:58 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 301
Because they had unreliable airspeed. And didn’t realize it. Which was caused by....iced up tubes.
07-30-2019 | 08:39 AM
#38
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 997
Likes: 68
In the Airbus A330 iced pilot tube situation, you did not need to change the aircraft state to recover. You just needed to hold the current pitch and power setting and eventually the airspeed would return. In the 737 MAX MCAS scenerio, you need to make a prompt and active response, and the situation would never resolve over time. Moreover, the 737 MAX MCAS scenarios all happened at low altitude, whereas the A330 incidents were in cruise.
07-30-2019 | 01:56 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 301
To be fair, the situations were different.
In the Airbus A330 iced pilot tube situation, you did not need to change the aircraft state to recover. You just needed to hold the current pitch and power setting and eventually the airspeed would return. In the 737 MAX MCAS scenerio, you need to make a prompt and active response, and the situation would never resolve over time. Moreover, the 737 MAX MCAS scenarios all happened at low altitude, whereas the A330 incidents were in cruise.
In the Airbus A330 iced pilot tube situation, you did not need to change the aircraft state to recover. You just needed to hold the current pitch and power setting and eventually the airspeed would return. In the 737 MAX MCAS scenerio, you need to make a prompt and active response, and the situation would never resolve over time. Moreover, the 737 MAX MCAS scenarios all happened at low altitude, whereas the A330 incidents were in cruise.
Still doesn’t change the fact that multiple airlines reported issues with the pitot tubes and the plane wasn’t grounded 1 day.
Not saying the MAX didn’t deserve to be grounded. Just that it seems to be more political now between the various certifying agencies. The FAA shouldn’t care what the EU wants. Just that the aircraft meets US standards and is safe to fly over Toledo. Doesn’t matter what any of us thinks anyway....the things are paperweights until at least Oct.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
