(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:37 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  with Boeing having 3 crashes in 6 months, I completely agree with this move.

3, I thought is was 2?

Amazon Cargo jet that crashed in Texas just east of Houston was a Boeing 767, happened probably 2 weeks ago or so

That one nosed down as well, and pilot radioed that he had lost control of the airplane. But that's a completely different aircraft and that was a landing approach accident rather than a takeoff accident. Would be interesting to know if it was a newer model with similar generation software. The 767 dates from the 1980s and I don't know how much they've updated it. The 37 is older, from the 60s or 70s, but there have been a lot of updates.

I'm always a little leery of computerized fly-by-wire technology, especially if human overrides are difficult to accomplish. If I remember correctly the Airbus crash at the Paris Air Show, the pilot radioed that the computer had taken over and he couldn't override.

(03-13-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:37 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  with Boeing having 3 crashes in 6 months, I completely agree with this move.

3, I thought is was 2?

Amazon Cargo jet that crashed in Texas just east of Houston was a Boeing 767, happened probably 2 weeks ago or so

That one nosed down as well, and pilot radioed that he had lost control of te airplane. But that's a completely different airplane and that was a landing approach accident rather than a takeoff accident. Would be interesting to know if it was a newer model with similar generation software.

I'm always a little leery of computerized fly-by-wire technology, especially if human overrides are difficult to accomplish. If I remember correctly the Airbus crash at the Paris Air Show, the pilot radioed that the computer had taken over and he couldn't override.

Weird thing is that I am currently watching a video of a guy flying a 737 on a simulator and the computer started to descend way before the run way, he wanted to keep it at 7k ft, but the computer took the plane down to 5k ft before he took over and took it back up to 7k.

Good move.

(03-13-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:37 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  with Boeing having 3 crashes in 6 months, I completely agree with this move.

3, I thought is was 2?

Amazon Cargo jet that crashed in Texas just east of Houston was a Boeing 767, happened probably 2 weeks ago or so

That one nosed down as well, and pilot radioed that he had lost control of te airplane. But that's a completely different airplane and that was a landing approach accident rather than a takeoff accident. Would be interesting to know if it was a newer model with similar generation software.

I'm always a little leery of computerized fly-by-wire technology, especially if human overrides are difficult to accomplish. If I remember correctly the Airbus crash at the Paris Air Show, the pilot radioed that the computer had taken over and he couldn't override.

Yeah the was the first generation fly by wire Airbus. The Pilot was unaware of a slight gap in real time throttle adjustment. He was slow and low, no recovery time.

(03-13-2019 03:13 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Good move.

Yes it is.

(03-13-2019 03:12 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:37 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  with Boeing having 3 crashes in 6 months, I completely agree with this move.

3, I thought is was 2?

Amazon Cargo jet that crashed in Texas just east of Houston was a Boeing 767, happened probably 2 weeks ago or so

That one nosed down as well, and pilot radioed that he had lost control of te airplane. But that's a completely different airplane and that was a landing approach accident rather than a takeoff accident. Would be interesting to know if it was a newer model with similar generation software.

I'm always a little leery of computerized fly-by-wire technology, especially if human overrides are difficult to accomplish. If I remember correctly the Airbus crash at the Paris Air Show, the pilot radioed that the computer had taken over and he couldn't override.

Weird thing is that I am currently watching a video of a guy flying a 737 on a simulator and the computer started to descend way before the run way, he wanted to keep it at 7k ft, but the computer took the plane down to 5k ft before he took over and took it back up to 7k.

If he programmed it to have a faulty air speed indication the readings would pitch the nose down. It has happened to American pilots flying the Max. They disengage auto pilot and all is good.

(03-13-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:37 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  with Boeing having 3 crashes in 6 months, I completely agree with this move.

3, I thought is was 2?

Amazon Cargo jet that crashed in Texas just east of Houston was a Boeing 767, happened probably 2 weeks ago or so

That one nosed down as well, and pilot radioed that he had lost control of the airplane. But that's a completely different aircraft and that was a landing approach accident rather than a takeoff accident. Would be interesting to know if it was a newer model with similar generation software. The 767 dates from the 1980s and I don't know how much they've updated it. The 37 dates from the 60s or 70s, but tee have been a lot of updates.

I'm always a little leery of computerized fly-by-wire technology, especially if human overrides are difficult to accomplish. If I remember correctly the Airbus crash at the Paris Air Show, the pilot radioed that the computer had taken over and he couldn't override.

The Atlas Air 767 that crashed was an older plane. The 767 crash is a strange one.

http://www.thedrive.com/news/26933/amazo...-ntsb-says

(03-13-2019 02:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:44 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Did he cave to pressure or did they actually find something wrong?

You don't find the numerous complaints of nose diving issues from trained pilots credible enough to join most of the rest of the civilized world in grounding the plane?

No, I trust statistics over emotional, reactionary politicians. Just because the rest of the "civilized world" does something, doesn't make it right.

Sounds like it was out of pressure. People are losing their minds.

Along with their minds, they also lost 346 lives in 5 months, but hey.

(03-13-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:37 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  with Boeing having 3 crashes in 6 months, I completely agree with this move.

3, I thought is was 2?

Amazon Cargo jet that crashed in Texas just east of Houston was a Boeing 767, happened probably 2 weeks ago or so

That one nosed down as well, and pilot radioed that he had lost control of the airplane. But that's a completely different aircraft and that was a landing approach accident rather than a takeoff accident. Would be interesting to know if it was a newer model with similar generation software. The 767 dates from the 1980s and I don't know how much they've updated it. The 37 is older, from the 60s or 70s, but there have been a lot of updates.

I'm always a little leery of computerized fly-by-wire technology, especially if human overrides are difficult to accomplish. If I remember correctly the Airbus crash at the Paris Air Show, the pilot radioed that the computer had taken over and he couldn't override.

The Max has some sort of air speed indicator on the nose of the plane (guessing primary) but surely has to have back pitot tubes elsewhere, and the Max is a bigger plan with larger engines mounted at a different position under the wings than the previous models.

Similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes have focused attention on an anti-stalling system used in the new Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft.

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is an automated safety feature on the 737 Max 8 designed to prevent the plane from entering into a stall, or losing lift.

Both the Lion Air jet, which crashed in October, killing 189 people, and the Ethiopian Airlines aircraft, which went down on Sunday, leaving 157 people dead, were fitted with the system.

Both planes experienced similarly erratic steep climbs and descents and fluctuating airspeeds before crashing shortly after takeoff.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while noting the similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents, stressed that it was too early to draw any conclusions.

MCAS was introduced by Boeing on the 737 Max 8 because its heavier, more fuel-efficient engines changed the aerodynamic qualities of the workhorse aircraft and can cause the plane's nose to pitch up in certain conditions during manual flight.

Angle of attack sensors on the aircraft tell the MCAS to automatically point the nose of the plane down if it is in danger of going into a stall.

This is done through horizontal stabilizers on the plane's tail which are activated by the aircraft's flight control computer.

According to Boeing, MCAS does not control the plane during normal flight but "improves the behavior of the airplane" during "non-normal" situations.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ethiopian-...x.html#jCp

(03-13-2019 01:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:44 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Did he cave to pressure or did they actually find something wrong?

You don't find the numerous complaints of nose diving issues from trained pilots credible enough to join most of the rest of the civilized world in grounding the plane?

For what it's worth, pilot unions for Southwest, American, and United all say they're comfortable with the MAX.

(03-13-2019 03:40 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  Similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes have focused attention on an anti-stalling system used in the new Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft.

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is an automated safety feature on the 737 Max 8 designed to prevent the plane from entering into a stall, or losing lift.

Both the Lion Air jet, which crashed in October, killing 189 people, and the Ethiopian Airlines aircraft, which went down on Sunday, leaving 157 people dead, were fitted with the system.

Both planes experienced similarly erratic steep climbs and descents and fluctuating airspeeds before crashing shortly after takeoff.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while noting the similarities between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents, stressed that it was too early to draw any conclusions.

MCAS was introduced by Boeing on the 737 Max 8 because its heavier, more fuel-efficient engines changed the aerodynamic qualities of the workhorse aircraft and can cause the plane's nose to pitch up in certain conditions during manual flight.

Angle of attack sensors on the aircraft tell the MCAS to automatically point the nose of the plane down if it is in danger of going into a stall.

This is done through horizontal stabilizers on the plane's tail which are activated by the aircraft's flight control computer.

According to Boeing, MCAS does not control the plane during normal flight but "improves the behavior of the airplane" during "non-normal" situations.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ethiopian-...x.html#jCp

And I read MCAS is only operational when auto pilot is disengaged.

Good for him. I wonder how this will effect ticket prices. That and the Airbus 320 are the hardest working planes out there. Basically just effed up all of Southwest’s year.

(03-13-2019 04:33 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Good for him. I wonder how this will effect ticket prices. That and the Airbus 320 are the hardest working planes out there. Basically just effed up all of Southwest’s year.

As I understand it, it's only the Max 8's and not all 737s and there's only something like 65 in 3 US flag airlines. So won't destroy anybody. But it will be a pain in the rear for some.

Whomever runs the FAA should have done it earlier.

737 Max 8 = death trap

I've read the crashes of the max 737 were by inexperienced pilots. Maybe they didn't have the same training available as in the USA. Also heard USA pilots are comfortable with this aircraft but also have thousands of hours of training.

(03-13-2019 06:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  737 Max 8 = death trap

In the hands of a competent pilot, probably not. The two that crashed were being flown by basically novices.

There is apparently some kind of software glitch, like what happened to the Airbus that crashed at the Paris air show or the one that crashed in the Atlantic between Rio and Paris. They need to ground them long enough to figure it out and fix it. There are 65 of them in use in the US, and each has probably made hundreds of flights, so you're probably looking at something between 30,000 and 50,000 US flights with no crashes. Not exactly death trap stats.

I'm guessing that whatever happened has happened before, and well-trained and experienced US pilots worked out a solution. I'm guessing that was beyond the capability of relatively inexperienced and poorly trained pilots on these aircraft.

I'd say a good first step would be to talk to experienced pilots to find out who had similar incidents and how they handled them. Maybe it is fixable with a change to SOP. But I do think a software fix is needed.

(03-13-2019 06:40 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  I've read the crashes of the max 737 were by inexperienced pilots. Maybe they didn't have the same training available as in the USA. Also heard USA pilots are comfortable with this aircraft but also have thousands of hours of training.

The pilots here are complaining about an issue. Experience and inexperience, these crashes will occur no matter what skills you have.

(03-13-2019 01:52 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:51 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:44 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Did he cave to pressure or did they actually find something wrong?

You don't find the numerous complaints of nose diving issues from trained pilots credible enough to join most of the rest of the civilized world in grounding the plane?

Why is everything a confrontation with you?

Over 2 years of losing and counting.