Gathering of the Clan

Page 2 of 3

Author:  Further North [ Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

Buxtehude wrote:
Just as an aside from the above entries....I don't think I'd want to ride in a plane flown by " The Donald."

Aren't we already? Metaphorically, sorta?

Author:  Colston Newton [ Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

This music seems appropriate to this thread. (I think Bux was a technical adviser on the movies):

Author:  4SeasonFisher [ Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

Doug G wrote:
From an aviation guy:
In my opinion the defect in Boeing 737..max

The issue with the 737Max started when Boeing's biggest 737 customer, Southwest, wanted a newer more efficient airplane. Boeing killed the 757 and began the Max program. The customer wanted an airplane that wouldn't require any new training or a new type rating. Boeing claimed that the Max was just an updated, more efficient version of it's venerable, proven, workhorse; the classic 737. But the Max wasn't just an updated version of a previously certified airframe. The Max had a new wing and new engines; changing the airframes center of gravity and center of lift. Those characteristics changed the way the airplane flew. So, to make it fly like the current 737-800; Boeing installed a new, secret, 'safety' system called the MCAS. The MCAS was needed to make the airplane fly and feel like the current version 737-800. But it was so secret that Boeing chose not to tell anyone about it. They didn't included it in any maintenance manuals, they didn't include it in any training manuals, they didn't include it in any aircraft operating manuals. They especially didn't tell the pilots about it. The airplane was successful certified as a 737 and no new training was required. A win for Boeing and a win for its biggest 737 customer. With the new flight characteristics the Max might have a proclivity to pitch up under certain flight conditions. To counteract this pitch up moment, Boeing developed and installed the MCAS. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System is designed to push the nose or nudge the nose over during a critical pitch up moment. It takes information from computers fed by information from the Angle of Attack vanes. Apparently, the Lion Air crash was caused by faulty information fed to the MCAS. The MCAS pushed the nose over. This caught the pilots by surprise. The airplane was not behaving like they expected or like they were trained to expect. In a effort to arrest this uncommanded, nose over moment, you should be able to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly, manually fly the airplane using your pilotage skills. But, this new secret system was designed to operate in both Auto-flight and manual-flight mode. So even when you are in manual flight mode, if the MCAS is getting false information, it will continue to push you nose over, push your nose down. Runaway trim is something pilots are trained for. That is what Boeing would like to hide behind. That is what Boeing would like to use when it points to pilot error. At least with the Lion Air flight, the passengers and crew were done in by an aircraft system that Boeing chose to keep secret. If @FAA there is nothing wrong with the Max, why has Boeing recently said there is a software update coming out soon. Air France 447, was scheduled to have it's defective pitot tubes replaced when its fatal last flight was scheduled to land in Paris. Just a little too late for 228 passengers and crew? Did the Boeing software update come too late for the 157 passengers and crew on Ethiopian 302

I want to know the results of the black box. Were the pilots complaining about the nose tending to point downward?

Author:  4SeasonFisher [ Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

Boeing is going to update some software in these planes. ... 15497.html

Author:  Buxtehude [ Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

It's too bad that the aircraft manufacturers don't have a say in the standards of ability that the pilots hold. The two aircraft that were destroyed were piloted by those of "off the beaten path" nations. This isn't just my ethnocentrism talking...there seems to be a need to have some of the "Hometown boys" in the cockpit rather than the generally more capable pilots from the "first world."
Be honest....when the stewardess gets on the mike and tells us that "Captain Uzbeck Madignack and co-pilot Captain Shazzam Toomobboo welcome you aboard ......C'mon now...that gives anybody the puckers. :shock:

Author:  4SeasonFisher [ Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

I know a female pilot who flies for Avianca Airlines in South America and there aren't many female pilots. She said she has greeted passengers and then had them get up and leave the plane.

Author:  Buxtehude [ Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

A number, maybe four or five, of my students, were women....three young, two in their 50s. They were generally easier to teach than the males. They got such a hoot when I stepped out of the plane and said...."Now go show me some take-offs and landings as good as your last 5 or 6. The hugs, later, were to remember....helping others to reach beyond where they were led to believe they could, is a gift in itself.
It's a whole lot beyond what you would think. Bux

Author:  Oldfrat [ Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

Ed, this column sounded credible to me. What think? ... ts/584941/


Author:  Buxtehude [ Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

I'd rather have John Roach respond to your questions. Though the fundamental considerations apply to all aircraft, there is a plethora of vital details that vary between "airliners" and what could be called "private aircraft." I've flown as a co-pilot on Cessna 310s and Piper twins, but that experience is dwindled when compared to others who have flown the large commercial and military aircraft... Bux

Author:  4SeasonFisher [ Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Boeing

I am willing to bet that there have been engineers, analysts, or other positions in the past decade or two that knew there could be problems with the design and software of this aircraft. They likely voiced their concerns to supervisors but ultimately the message was ignored or didn't even make it to the decision makers who could have demanded the changes. I have seen this happen in my career in completely different fields. Those on the "bottom" usually know what is going on and voice their concerns but somewhere along the way the message goes nowhere until it is too late. Any investigation should include the flow of information and when, if any, communication was ignored.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group