Notices

SWA leaving Newark

Old 07-28-2019, 07:31 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,800
Default

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.
flyguy81 is offline  
Old 07-28-2019, 11:08 PM
  #32  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
Default

Originally Posted by flyguy81 View Post
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.
Right....but how many of those A330/340's crashed? There were also known mitigation procedures promulgated for A330 crews at least to understand the possible presentation of an iced pitot probe on the planes avionics and how to deal with it.
full of luv is offline  
Old 07-29-2019, 03:55 AM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: CA
Posts: 1,198
Default

Originally Posted by flyguy81 View Post
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.
Haven’t they already run the scenario with other crews and the result was invariably the same? Even with the best Kernals with the straightest ties and highest sick banks would have struggled.
Softpayman is offline  
Old 07-29-2019, 07:35 AM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
WHACKMASTER's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,540
Default

Originally Posted by Softpayman View Post
Even with the best Kernals with the straightest ties and highest sick banks would have struggled.
Perhaps that’s the problem
WHACKMASTER is online now  
Old 07-29-2019, 07:48 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,800
Default

Originally Posted by full of luv View Post
Right....but how many of those A330/340's crashed? There were also known mitigation procedures promulgated for A330 crews at least to understand the possible presentation of an iced pitot probe on the planes avionics and how to deal with it.
We also have a unreliable airspeed and trim runaway checklists. In fact, we ran unreliable airspeed in the sim last year....
flyguy81 is offline  
Old 07-29-2019, 08:28 PM
  #36  
Line holder
 
symbian simian's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: On the bus,seat 0A
Posts: 3,215
Default

Originally Posted by flyguy81 View Post
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.
Well, no. The iced up pitot caused all sorts of havoc but it didn't cause the crash. If the crew had done nothing they would still be alive. It was the pilot pulling back for the next 3 minutes or so that caused the crash.
symbian simian is offline  
Old 07-29-2019, 08:58 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,800
Default

Originally Posted by symbian simian View Post
Well, no. The iced up pitot caused all sorts of havoc but it didn't cause the crash. If the crew had done nothing they would still be alive. It was the pilot pulling back for the next 3 minutes or so that caused the crash.
Because they had unreliable airspeed. And didn’t realize it. Which was caused by....iced up tubes.
flyguy81 is offline  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:39 AM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 802
Default

Originally Posted by flyguy81 View Post
Because they had unreliable airspeed. And didn’t realize it. Which was caused by....iced up tubes.
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.
Proximity is offline  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:56 PM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,800
Default

Originally Posted by Proximity View Post
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.
You can leave flaps in and MCAS stops activating. In the case of Ethiopian they raised the flaps around 200’ AGL. I’ve never seen them at 0° below around 1500’ AGL. Don’t know if that’s their policy or not to raise them that low to the ground.

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.
flyguy81 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Brakes Set
Southwest
10
06-25-2012 10:03 PM
candlerman
Southwest
12
02-23-2012 05:35 PM
I_Love_Lamp
Major
103
03-29-2010 06:57 PM
EWRflyr
Major
21
12-02-2009 04:00 PM
Metal121
Major
84
07-08-2007 04:08 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices