Forum menu
I thought MACS was in use in all phases of flight after WOW release due to the inherent tendencies of the larger (more forward mounted) engined 737s to pitch-up after at higher angles of attack? The larger 737s have a limited rotation angle which (i thought) means they had to pitch slightly more aggressively after takeoff.
the inherent tendencies of the larger (more forward mounted) engined 737s to pitch-up after at higher angles of attack?
This part I don't understand. So they had to move the engines forward and upward to give ground clearance. That would move the center of gravity forward relative to the aerodynamic center of pressure, so the aircraft should tend to nose down. However, the newer models have also been stretched, plus aerodynamics have been revised, so surely all that should have been integrated to keep the aircraft stable when it's properly loaded. Unless Boeing really screwed the dog, of course.
Edit. Explained here. https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/
Just announced UK has blocked the aircraft from flying over UK airspace.
Ignore me
It would appear that the vairous aviation authorities are effectively grounding the fleet. Which saves me from having to work out if I'm flying on one in the near future - and demanding a different flight.
Phew, two very similar appearing incidents in the first two years of operation does point to either a serious design flaw, a serious flaw in the conversion training of the air crews, or both.
Which saves me from having to work out if I’m flying on one in the near future – and demanding a different flight.
Yep, quite glad about that, as I'm flying next week...
But how the shuddering **** has this been released as a production aircraft without *someone* thinking that perhaps the input from the altimeter might be a useful thing to consider?
Altimeter not a reliable source for critical situations.
Trump's knows what the problem is. All this new technology, apparently.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1105468569800839169?s=19
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1105471621672960000?s=19
Amusingly, given what we currently know of the issues with that plane, he could actually be correct! Although a wiser man would shut up about it until after the investigations have concluded, also, nice job protecting Boeing, a US company, last I checked.
Amusingly, given what we currently know of the issues with that plane, he could actually be correct!
The most amusing thing about those tweets is it took 12 minutes between the first one and the second one being posted which is ironic given the topic of split second decisions...
Wonder if he knows about the autopilot thing on Air Force One...?
I'm reading "Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine" at the moment, about algorithms/AI stuff.
The Air France crash is discussed in the section on self-driving cars, and the general point is made that the more assistance people have from auto-drive/self-drive, the less capable they'll be when they have to intervene in an emergency simply through lack of practice. It mentions that the AF junior pilot had clocked 3000 hours or so, but most of them would have been watching the auto-pilot rather than flying the plane.
Old and simple. That's Trump.
...the general point is made that the more assistance people have from auto-drive/self-drive, the less capable they’ll be when they have to intervene in an emergency simply through lack of practice.
Even if this is true, auto pilot/self drive may still be the correct decision if it is safer overall. If the auto pilot prevents 99% of accidents that would normally result from human limitations or error, you wouldn't turn it off just so the human has more practice for the remaining 1% of incidents.
From 1970 to 2018 fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometres decreased 54 fold from 3,218 to 59. Old and simple was better, eh Donald.
Trump is such a tube.
I was in the Cheviots a couple of weeks ago and in the Manor Valley there is a beautiful memorial to all of the aircrew lost in the area during the second world war. 19 aircraft al lwithin a few miles and (I think I am right in saying) not a single one shot down. All flew into ground. All because they were being flown by humans without technology to back them up.
Humans go into a funk when technology isn't doing what they expect. Look at all the YouTube videos of runaway automatic cars to see what happens.
From 1970 to 2018 fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometres decreased 54 fold from 3,218 to 59. Old and simple was better, eh Donald.
There is probably a balance to be found somewhere in terms of automation vs making sure that humans are capable of and have the tools available on hand to correct automatic systems when they go wrong.
There is probably a balance to be found somewhere in terms of automation vs making sure that humans are capable of and have the tools available on hand to correct automatic systems when they go wrong.
CAA has stopped UK reg aircraft flying and all MAX aircraft from UK airspace.
Check out @UK_CAA’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/UK_CAA/status/1105461217886375937?s=09
From 1970 to 2018 fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometres decreased 54 fold from 3,218 to 59. Old and simple was better, eh Donald
It's not just tech Vs pilot error though.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g73/12-airplane-crashes-that-changed-aviation/
It mentions that the AF junior pilot had clocked 3000 hours or so, but most of them would have been watching the auto-pilot rather than flying the plane.
I might well be wrong (and not for the first time... ) but I think, if AF447 had been left to autopilot, it wouldn't have crashed. They were confused by the info conflicts (which put it into alternate law, which turned off the anti-stall, I think?), and they weren't clear about who was in charge (captain was on a rest break) - the junior pilot pulled the nose up without telling his oppo he was doing it and just kept them stalled to the end. 🙁
There is probably a balance to be found somewhere in terms of automation vs making sure that humans are capable of and have the tools available on hand to correct automatic systems when they go wrong.
The anti stall does have an off switch, pilots need to use it to override, stick pulling won't work. It may not be to blame in this crash, but it sounds a right crappy system. A third sensor for proper redundancy would be a start...
if AF447 had been left to autopilot, it wouldn’t have crashed. They were confused by the info conflicts (which put it into alternate law
AF447, being a bus, has a proper fly by wire system. It behaves quite differently to the Boeing version. When AF447 got confusing data, it switched to alterate law which switches off the autopilot. Basically if the autopilot gets conflicting inputs it goes "WTF - I'm outta here, you have the plane". The pilots then reacted improperly, and alternate law does not protect the flight envelope in the way normal law does so they crashed.
Ah - fair enoughski, I stands corrected, ta. 🙂
So pretty much only the US left flying this plane now.
Seems the FAA don't want to admit that they plane they said was safe may not actually be so.
19 aircraft al lwithin a few miles and (I think I am right in saying) not a single one shot down. All flew into ground. All because they were being flown by humans without technology to back them up.
All because they were very young men, training to become pilots very, very quickly, often in adverse conditions, which, more often than not, resulted in them flying into a cloud stuffed with rocks.
Similar things can happen even with aircraft fitted with modern technology.
But it doesn't happen very often, I think, is the point.
I just shared that report with a colleague who used to work in the aviation industry. His comment was "MCAS = Make Craft A Shovel."
So pretty much only the US left flying this plane now.
...and Canada, because it mainly follows its big brother. Even Air Canada's own crews are saying they don't want to fly on them.
"and Canada" - Not anymore... they've just followed most of the world "following new information"
The pilots then reacted improperly, and alternate law does not protect the flight envelope in the way normal law does so they crashed.
AIUI didn't one pilot observe the plane was nose diving and tried to pull up, the other observed that it had stalled, causing the dive, and pushed down to gain speed, and because it's flyby wire the plane just summed the two sticks and flew itself straight into the sea?
AIUI didn’t one pilot observe the plane was nose diving and tried to pull up, the other observed that it had stalled, causing the dive, and pushed down to gain speed, and because it’s flyby wire the plane just summed the two sticks and flew itself straight into the sea?
That was my understanding. The aircraft took the average input and it was only in the last seconds that one of the pilots realised that the other one had been providing an opposite input the whole time....
the plane just summed the two sticks and flew itself straight into the sea?
Not at all. Read what happened here:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/
Not at all. Read what happened here:
Read from 2:12:15 onwards. It's not what caused the descent, but is why they didn't correct it even once they realised what had happened.
The plane may have been averaging inputs for those few seconds, but it didn't fly itself into the sea.
sweaman2
Member
“and Canada” – Not anymore… they’ve just followed most of the world “following new information”
Phew!
@Nicko74 - Indeed.. I don't have anything booked currently but do fly quite a bit and had an honest discussion with sweamrs this morning about choosing planes and the like.
Fingers being pointed... at Trumpington!
US has grounded them now also.
There was an American airlines captain on R4 morning. He said that AA had installed additional angle of attack indicators, as the AA pilots didn't like not having one/enough, and they early on worked out that they needed to know how to switch off some system that is now suspect - and trained pilots to do so.
IANAP.
The plane may have been averaging inputs for those few seconds, but it didn’t fly itself into the sea.
In the transcript, there was one bloke pulling back on the stick the whole time. At 10000ft the pilot tried to drop the nose to level the wings and regain some speed but the other bloke was still pulling back on the stick.
Because it was in dual input mode it averaged those inputs...
The pilot had over 1min 30s to arrest the descent. It was only after this minute and a half that the bloke admitted he'd been pulling on the stick the whole time. By then, they were too low and even though blokie then relinquished control and the pilot tried to dive, blokie then started pulling back again.
So, while that wasn't the main part of the incident the crash could probably have been averted if the captain had been in full control for the 90secs he had when he thought he was dropping the nose at 10,000ft.
A sad tale, whatever the cause!
Not sure of the truth of this but...
Also was fascinated to read that type certification is largely grandfathered (back to the original 737?), and that training onto the new aircraft could involve as little as an hours work on an iPad.
I'm not a pilot, those who are can explain the ins and outs/why's and wherefores, but to the layman it does sound a bit light on training.
Report from CNN, here’s one quote; “Other pilot complaints from the federal database include a report saying it is "unconscionable" that Boeing, the US aviation regulatory agency (the Federal Aviation Administration) and the unnamed airline would have pilots flying without adequate training or sufficient documentation.
The same entry also charges that the flight manual "is inadequate and almost criminally insufficient."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/pilot-complaints-boeing-737-max/
Aircraft manufacturers release new aircraft then spend the next X amount of years fixing all the faults.
So no different to the MTB industry.
I flew the 2/3/4/5 variants of the 737s and they were great aircraft.
I just wonder if Boeing have developed it a step too far in an attempt to compete with Airbus and their relatively modern a320 series.
And yes, the iPad training does sound suspiciously light.
The training package for the new Airbus 320 NEO was an iBook and a quiz.