Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/13/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    The 737 MAx is referred to as a state of the art modern aircraft that is less than 2 years old in many articles I have read. This always makes me chuckle since it is far from the actual truth. While I have only sat in on a few systems seminars on the aircraft, the information I took away from those is that the MAX is simply makeup on a pig. The systems integration on the aircraft is, simply put, patches on a raft. They had a system and then "integrated" (I would call it interfacing) another system on top of it. Plug a glass cockpit in there and it sure looks whiz bank but behind the scenes the steam engine is still driving the ship. This addition of system over system actually over complicates the systems integration on the aircraft. Had they taken the time (and money) to completely redesign the systems on the aircraft to a more modern standard (Think FBW) with actual digital electronics running the show then these issues would not exist. The MCAS System was added to the aircraft in order to get the MAX certified. They changed the design (engine size, weight, location) and needed to compensate. So they added a "patch". As we all know patches are never as strong as the original material. I would say that in this case the patch has a flaw. The problem is the flaw, when it shows itself, needs to be identified and dealt with. Actually a simple task with just 2 switches involved. IMHO the MAX is not the aircraft Boeing should have built, it was just the easiest to compete with Airbus and, then, Bombardier. They could have kept the basic design but built a better aircraft. Sometimes the shortcut is the longer route.
  2. 2 points
    VS; Yes, I call it internet social media hyperventilation. It is inappropriate to hearken to millions of shrill, largely anonymous voices who conflate opinion with facts, in the face of what is already known; it is even worse to do so when nothing is known yet as is occurring in the present case.
  3. 2 points
    Hopefully the FAA & TC, (and that should include the NTSB and the TSB), know something if this is a consideration? A ban, if any, should be based upon data from the Ethiopian accident, period. If there is nothing new to say regarding the Ethiopian accident and the reasons are understood, then a grounding is unnecessary.
  4. 1 point
    Also to be clear, I am not un-pointing at Boeing. I am pointing ANOTHER finger at other causal factors. I believe we may finally be at a crossroads in aviation where training and standards are being displaced by technology. Instead of raising the lowest denominator we are expecting manufacturers to make ever more complex systems to overcome the shortcomings of industry to provide competent crews.
  5. 1 point
    So, if Boeing is correct that the aircraft was properly tested and certified, what if the problem is not with the manufacturer but with the operators and their governing agencies? Front line experience levels and training standards need to be a significant part of this conversation. By front line I mean pilots and maintenance personnel.
  6. 1 point
    I dunno. I think this is spin feeding spin and finally political fear of being offside. As far as I can tell, nothing a satellite would see could differentiate between an MCAS event, stab trim runway, or even crew incapacitation for that matter. The unfortunate history with the Altas 767 is a case in point. The cynic in me says that the only new development this morning is that the pressure reached Garneau's, or his advisors' pain threshold. Vs
  7. 1 point
    Yes. Critical to do so BEFORE the MCAS system has positioned the stab trim to an extreme ND position.
  8. 1 point
    I say we start with golf courses.... too much good farmland going to waste, too many trees cut down, to much chemical fertilizer and pesticides, and too many people driving too many miles to chase a little white ball. Food security and all that. Maybe I should start campaigning against other people's hobbies eh? And clearly, golf clubs need to be registered to keep them out of terrorist hands: https://torontosun.com/2017/06/07/alleged-golf-club-attacker-claimed-she-was-from-isis-source/wcm/04d0e0de-c0aa-43ab-8c1b-0c7b406cdd39
  9. 1 point
    This whole thing smacks of hysteria. Not to take anything away from the suffering due to either Lion Air or Ethiopian but the reaction is immense. What are we not seeing? Vs
  10. 1 point
    Hmmm. Doesn't MCAS require autopilot to be off? I'm wondering if these reports were about a different condition Vs
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Interesting, boestar, thank you for posting. So the system is installed, and one must buy it like one buys a higher MTOW & MLW, etc. I agree with your cautions regarding causing other issues. I doubt very much whether knowing the AoA of their aircraft would have prevented the loss of AF447, for example. While AoA is a key indicator of the "health of the wing" so to speak, long-established SOPs have kept transport aircraft and their crews out of trouble for decades and millions of hours, and that is a statistic that needs respecting in the sense that it is successful. I didn't realize until yesterday that the MCAS uses both AoA data sources; rather, I am informed, the FCC which controls the MCAS, alternates each leg, much like say, "A" & "B" ignition systems or #1 & #2 cabin pressure controllers etc., might be alternated. To me that has huge implications - it means comparison is possible right away and so is presentation of the data for the respective PFDs. It begs the question asked since last October, "If the data was wrong, why was it used?", which in turn begs the question, was rejecting wrong data and switching to a more rational source, (appropriate for the state of the aircraft given other available inputs) think even more important is the comparator & warning function. BTW, almost certainly, there is nothing that can go wrong with the actual, physical AoA sensor. To send a reading of "+20deg", it would have to be physically stuck in that position. So the source for the incorrect data (for 610) is elsewhere, and may be here, too.