It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Another 737 MAX-8 down
page: 20share:
a reply to: KansasGirl
Should sports car manufacturers be responsible when an inexperienced driver floors it and torque -steer takes them off the road or into a wall? I think there is some responsibility by the manufacturers to identify potential issues, "this has a lot of torque-- be careful accelerating", but Ferrari isn't responsible for putting drivers through driving school. If most driving services employ experienced drivers who have no problem avoiding getting into trouble with excess torque, but a few start hiring new, inexperienced drivers who get into accidents is the car itself unsafe? Where does the problem lie?
And again, I'm not sure to what extent this was communicated by Boeing or carriers, so it's hard to exactly parse blame, but in all the flight hours in developed countries with higher pilot training/experience standards, not one incident has resulted in a loss of aircraft to this cause. That's significant to me.
(I also don't expect you to know, but I hated working on projects for Boeing and Boeing Defense. They are a nightmare to work with. I am not exactly their biggest fan. So it's not exactly as if I'm trying to carry water for them)
Should sports car manufacturers be responsible when an inexperienced driver floors it and torque -steer takes them off the road or into a wall? I think there is some responsibility by the manufacturers to identify potential issues, "this has a lot of torque-- be careful accelerating", but Ferrari isn't responsible for putting drivers through driving school. If most driving services employ experienced drivers who have no problem avoiding getting into trouble with excess torque, but a few start hiring new, inexperienced drivers who get into accidents is the car itself unsafe? Where does the problem lie?
And again, I'm not sure to what extent this was communicated by Boeing or carriers, so it's hard to exactly parse blame, but in all the flight hours in developed countries with higher pilot training/experience standards, not one incident has resulted in a loss of aircraft to this cause. That's significant to me.
(I also don't expect you to know, but I hated working on projects for Boeing and Boeing Defense. They are a nightmare to work with. I am not exactly their biggest fan. So it's not exactly as if I'm trying to carry water for them)
a reply to: KansasGirl
There's no such thing, and never will be such as thing as a 100% safe aircraft. And what i'm saying is somewhere in the middle. It's something that needs fixing, the sooner the better, but the fact that no accidents or serious incidents have happened anywhere that requires much stricter training requirements is telling.
It's serious, but not nearly as serious as the media would have you believe.
There's no such thing, and never will be such as thing as a 100% safe aircraft. And what i'm saying is somewhere in the middle. It's something that needs fixing, the sooner the better, but the fact that no accidents or serious incidents have happened anywhere that requires much stricter training requirements is telling.
It's serious, but not nearly as serious as the media would have you believe.
Lion Air cockpit recorder initial.
Recording initial
* Cockpit voice recorder says were airspeed, altitude issues * Panic in last 20 seconds of recording - investigators * Have 90 pct of data needed for final report, due in August * Third pilot was in cockpit on second-last flight (Adds details on third pilot on prior flight)
Recording initial
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: KansasGirl
Should sports car manufacturers be responsible when an inexperienced driver floors it and torque -steer takes them off the road or into a wall? I think there is some responsibility by the manufacturers to identify potential issues, "this has a lot of torque-- be careful accelerating", but Ferrari isn't responsible for putting drivers through driving school. If most driving services employ experienced drivers who have no problem avoiding getting into trouble with excess torque, but a few start hiring new, inexperienced drivers who get into accidents is the car itself unsafe? Where does the problem lie?
And again, I'm not sure to what extent this was communicated by Boeing or carriers, so it's hard to exactly parse blame, but in all the flight hours in developed countries with higher pilot training/experience standards, not one incident has resulted in a loss of aircraft to this cause. That's significant to me.
(I also don't expect you to know, but I hated working on projects for Boeing and Boeing Defense. They are a nightmare to work with. I am not exactly their biggest fan. So it's not exactly as if I'm trying to carry water for them)
Of course, but those drivers aren't ferrying hundreds of people back and forth in the air all the time, are they?
I'm not even bringing up the issue of who should be responsible, I'm just saying I feel like it's a big deal for there to be a defect built into a passenger plane that can cause it to crash.
a reply to: KansasGirl
But that's just it, it's not a defect. A poor design decision isn't a defect. And at this point we don't know that MCAS did cause the crashes. In fact, at least with Lion Air, it's fairly obvious that the crew played a major role. I'm not saying MCAS didn't play any role, but the fact that the flight to Jakarta saw the same thing, and arrived safely says a lot.
The media, and others keep pushing that a malfunction of MCAS caused the Lion Air crash, but it didn't. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, but read the data from a bad sensor. If the crew had recognized a runaway stabilizer situation, and taken steps to correct that, they would have been fine.
Several other aircraft that went on to be considered quite successful had worse issues when they began. Boeing will straighten this out, in a year most people will forget it happened, and the Max will go on to become successful.
But that's just it, it's not a defect. A poor design decision isn't a defect. And at this point we don't know that MCAS did cause the crashes. In fact, at least with Lion Air, it's fairly obvious that the crew played a major role. I'm not saying MCAS didn't play any role, but the fact that the flight to Jakarta saw the same thing, and arrived safely says a lot.
The media, and others keep pushing that a malfunction of MCAS caused the Lion Air crash, but it didn't. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, but read the data from a bad sensor. If the crew had recognized a runaway stabilizer situation, and taken steps to correct that, they would have been fine.
Several other aircraft that went on to be considered quite successful had worse issues when they began. Boeing will straighten this out, in a year most people will forget it happened, and the Max will go on to become successful.
edit on 3/23/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason
given)
a reply to: KansasGirl
I'm not sure it's really a "defect" per se. If the drivers were ferrying people around or if they started hitting school buses or something would the dynamic change any? The problem would be inexperienced drivers. Hundreds of miles get driven by experienced drivers without issue.
Boeing is going to pay the piper for the self-certification and not notifying the safety committee about the changes, etc. No doubt about that in my mind. But the product itself, if unusual should not be a safety issue given what we so far know publicly.
Far bigger issue is having pilots in command with a couple hundred hours total flight time ferrying large numbers of pax to and fro, and poor training in regards to the system. Those things aren't happening here.
I'm not sure it's really a "defect" per se. If the drivers were ferrying people around or if they started hitting school buses or something would the dynamic change any? The problem would be inexperienced drivers. Hundreds of miles get driven by experienced drivers without issue.
Boeing is going to pay the piper for the self-certification and not notifying the safety committee about the changes, etc. No doubt about that in my mind. But the product itself, if unusual should not be a safety issue given what we so far know publicly.
Far bigger issue is having pilots in command with a couple hundred hours total flight time ferrying large numbers of pax to and fro, and poor training in regards to the system. Those things aren't happening here.
a reply to: RadioRobert
No argument on the low hours issue. However, having just a single sensor involved in such a critical control element the aircraft, a sensor vulnerable to fouling, may not technically be a "defect", but it's certainly a negligent and deficient design.
It would be one thing to just give a faulty reading on the flight deck, but it's another thing altogether to take control of the aircraft and then compete with crew inputs resulting in a crash and total loss of life! That to me is a pretty serious defect.
Now granted, the final results are not in yet. I realize this. But if this is ultimately found to be the cause then it's all on Boeing.
And, if this so-called "safety feature" on the aircraft makes it harder (not easier) to fly then it defeats the fundamental purpose by making the aircraft more dangerous (not less).
No argument on the low hours issue. However, having just a single sensor involved in such a critical control element the aircraft, a sensor vulnerable to fouling, may not technically be a "defect", but it's certainly a negligent and deficient design.
It would be one thing to just give a faulty reading on the flight deck, but it's another thing altogether to take control of the aircraft and then compete with crew inputs resulting in a crash and total loss of life! That to me is a pretty serious defect.
Now granted, the final results are not in yet. I realize this. But if this is ultimately found to be the cause then it's all on Boeing.
And, if this so-called "safety feature" on the aircraft makes it harder (not easier) to fly then it defeats the fundamental purpose by making the aircraft more dangerous (not less).
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
It only battles crew input if they don't recognize what is happening and stop it. They can turn it off or dial in manual trim, as hundreds of crews apparently have done.
Just like torque steer only rips control from the driver if they decide to floor it in low gear.
It is a design deficiency, imo, but not a defect. If the investigation comes back that the FCS is acting in a way that is not designed, then it is a defect. I don't think that will happen and there is no evidence to that publicly, but maybe.
I agree that this is an example of the "solution" creating more issues than it solves. I said so, up thread. Pilots would have been better served simply dealing with the pitch up at alpha and recognizing the trait along with the stickshaker warnings.
They did it this way ( probably at the request of the carriers) first to avoid dual qualifications being necessary across the B737 fleet. Secondly to alleviate crew workload and improve ride comfort in the cabin.
The second two advantages disappear if the crew isn't experienced enough to recognize what is occurring.
but it's another thing altogether to take control of the aircraft and then compete with crew inputs resulting in a crash
It only battles crew input if they don't recognize what is happening and stop it. They can turn it off or dial in manual trim, as hundreds of crews apparently have done.
Just like torque steer only rips control from the driver if they decide to floor it in low gear.
It is a design deficiency, imo, but not a defect. If the investigation comes back that the FCS is acting in a way that is not designed, then it is a defect. I don't think that will happen and there is no evidence to that publicly, but maybe.
I agree that this is an example of the "solution" creating more issues than it solves. I said so, up thread. Pilots would have been better served simply dealing with the pitch up at alpha and recognizing the trait along with the stickshaker warnings.
They did it this way ( probably at the request of the carriers) first to avoid dual qualifications being necessary across the B737 fleet. Secondly to alleviate crew workload and improve ride comfort in the cabin.
The second two advantages disappear if the crew isn't experienced enough to recognize what is occurring.
a reply to: RadioRobert
If more than one sensor was contributing to the actions of the system (i.e. redundancy) maybe the crew wouldn't have to know how to turn it off as frequently, or compensate for it, and maybe it wouldn't be invoking itself to require that knowledge be muscle memory.
Ultimately, if this is found to be the cause, one has to ask the question...if the same crew, with the same level of training, had been flying a 737 without this system would they still have crashed? Again, we don't know the final cause (yet), but I suspect if this is found to be the cause then the answer to that question would be "no". That's a problem.
If more than one sensor was contributing to the actions of the system (i.e. redundancy) maybe the crew wouldn't have to know how to turn it off as frequently, or compensate for it, and maybe it wouldn't be invoking itself to require that knowledge be muscle memory.
Ultimately, if this is found to be the cause, one has to ask the question...if the same crew, with the same level of training, had been flying a 737 without this system would they still have crashed? Again, we don't know the final cause (yet), but I suspect if this is found to be the cause then the answer to that question would be "no". That's a problem.
edit on 3/23/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)
that investigation does not report what were the airspeed and altitude issues. but im fairly certain the Ethiopian flight did stall and crashed
reply to: Blackfinger
reply to: Blackfinger
a reply to: Hyperboles
If you look at the transponder data, it's similar to JT610, but there's enough difference that it appears something different happened. They never saw the extreme descent rates that Lion Air saw, even before the transponder cut out.
If you look at the transponder data, it's similar to JT610, but there's enough difference that it appears something different happened. They never saw the extreme descent rates that Lion Air saw, even before the transponder cut out.
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Even the option for another sensor only puts a light on the dash to say, "one of these inputs maybe faulty" .
There a hundred systems you can ask that question about on any aircraft in an incident.
I agreed several days ago (and above) that not having the system altogether seems preferable to me. That still doesn't mean it's "a problem" or "defect". It means people who have poor training are apt to have problems with it. If I make a small laser and someone shines it in their own eye, is my laser defective?
Even the option for another sensor only puts a light on the dash to say, "one of these inputs maybe faulty" .
There a hundred systems you can ask that question about on any aircraft in an incident.
I agreed several days ago (and above) that not having the system altogether seems preferable to me. That still doesn't mean it's "a problem" or "defect". It means people who have poor training are apt to have problems with it. If I make a small laser and someone shines it in their own eye, is my laser defective?
Southwest moved six aircraft to Victorville today until the grounding is lifted.
a reply to: Zaphod58
Looks like they parked those right next to the 12,000 2015 TDI VW's.
Hopefully Boeing gets the 737 issue resolved before the Comac C919 starts flying state side.
I don't trust Chinese carbon fiber layup but the cost effectiveness of their aluminum manufacturing tells the story.
Looks like they parked those right next to the 12,000 2015 TDI VW's.
Hopefully Boeing gets the 737 issue resolved before the Comac C919 starts flying state side.
I don't trust Chinese carbon fiber layup but the cost effectiveness of their aluminum manufacturing tells the story.
a reply to: Zaphod58
That is just it though... it is a system. A combination of software and hardware that must work as a whole. The sensors should be redundant and backed up with watchdogs. There should be zero tolerance for bad or corrupted data from any part of a system.
...read the data from a bad sensor.
That is just it though... it is a system. A combination of software and hardware that must work as a whole. The sensors should be redundant and backed up with watchdogs. There should be zero tolerance for bad or corrupted data from any part of a system.
a reply to: charlyv
Exactly!
And this...well, this is really disturbing...
Link
This should have never been allowed by Boeing to not be the case. It should have always been that way! And, then there's the part about pilot control...the pilot should always be in absolute control of the aircraft! That, something, anything, can wrest control away from the pilot and make violent changes to control inputs without the pilot's invocation of such is fundamentally wrong. Warning is one thing, but control is absolutely NOT okay!
Exactly!
And this...well, this is really disturbing...
Boeing said it was making changes to its flight-control software, known as MCAS, that was designed to prevent the aircraft from stalling. The system will rely on multiple angle of attack sensors, will push the aircraft’s nose down only once and will make changes more subtly, giving pilots more control.
Link
This should have never been allowed by Boeing to not be the case. It should have always been that way! And, then there's the part about pilot control...the pilot should always be in absolute control of the aircraft! That, something, anything, can wrest control away from the pilot and make violent changes to control inputs without the pilot's invocation of such is fundamentally wrong. Warning is one thing, but control is absolutely NOT okay!
edit on 3/24/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I also agree with that. The pilot has to be totally aware of a system that is injecting control overrides. I know it is designed to save the aircraft and everyone in it, but an obvious, flashing indicator should say something like: "MCAS is engaging and modifying flight controls. Press HERE if you want to disengage it."
I also agree with that. The pilot has to be totally aware of a system that is injecting control overrides. I know it is designed to save the aircraft and everyone in it, but an obvious, flashing indicator should say something like: "MCAS is engaging and modifying flight controls. Press HERE if you want to disengage it."
new topics
-
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago
top topics
-
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 10 flags -
This is adorable you guys!
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions: 14 hours ago, 5 flags -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
George Stephanopoulos and ABC agree to pay $15 million to settle Trump defamation suit
Mainstream News • 25 • : Echo007 -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness • 1 • : Echo007 -
Light from Space Might Be Travelling Instantaneously
Space Exploration • 27 • : 777Vader -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions • 24 • : FullHeathen -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3713 • : 777Vader -
Rant. I am sick of people saying the police are revenue raising.
Rant • 12 • : inflaymes69 -
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness • 10 • : nugget1 -
Drones everywhere in New Jersey ---and Elsewhere Master Thread
Aliens and UFOs • 174 • : nugget1 -
The Mystery Drones and Government Lies --- Master Thread
Political Conspiracies • 106 • : cherokeetroy -
Statements of Intent from Incoming Trump Administration Members - 2025 to 2029.
2024 Elections • 45 • : WeMustCare