Boeing 737Max

FLYBOYJ said:
At the end of the day - YES. They have to be certified so if all the gizmos fail, they can still be flown by hand with a couple of "steam gauges."
Click to expand...
Including Airbus?? Where "the gizmos" are between your Atari stick and your control actuators? Hey Biff, can you bypass "the gizmos" on the throttles in the 'bus? It seems to me that the gizmos are coming to be considered part of the passive control linkage, like bobweights and servo tabs, a mentality that seems to have caused Boeing to feel MCAS was "just part of the flight control linkages", thus not needing any specific explanation or training.
I think any pilot properly trained by a North American or European airline would have connected the MCAS behaviour to essentially a runaway trim condition and responded accordingly.
My friend Kathleen, in her -800 training, was subjected to two runaway trim episodes, both in worst case scenarios involving engine outs, night IMC, turbulence, icing, heavy weight, a single engine ILS to a missed approach and a divert to another field, all with electric trim cutout and hand cranking all the way, and flying on the standby steam gauges, all screens off. One of these included a depressurization and an emergency descent from FL340. Somehow I doubt the Lion and Ethiopian crews were subjected to that kind of rigorous worst case training in their "economy class" program peddled by Boeing to third world countries. If they had, this conversation probably wouldn't be taking place.
Cheers,
Wes
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I've also found many airline pilots who "come back" into flying GA aircraft have a tendency to flare high.
Click to expand...
My employer in my CFI days had the school's Beech Sundowner wheelbarrowed and pancaked by the new CAP Air Force Liaison Officer, a full bird, who had just come off two consecutive tours as a BUFF command pilot. Insisted he'd flown "these Musketeer types" plenty in the past and didn't need a checkout. After it was pointed out that CAP regs required it, he browbeat a new young instructor into signing him off after one landing. He flew into a relatively short strip at night at too high an approach speed, landed long in wheelbarrow mode, and crowhopped it off the end of the runway into the localizer antennas. Everybody walked away, but it took six months to repair the plane.
Cheers,
Wes
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Including Airbus??
Click to expand...

Airbus have three flight control computers, the loss of one will allow the aircraft to continue flight with minimal systems degradation. The loss of two will have major degradation, but will still allow a 'return to land' scenario. i.e. no single system failure should result in an uncontrollable aircraft. MCAS seems to be the single point failure in these cases.
 
swampyankee said:
The concern is how flyable is the aircraft when something goes wrong. A friend — with about 75 hours in Cessnas — did okay flying an F-106 simulator until he stalled it, had it go into a spin, and recovered 50,000 feet later (the instructor said he did pretty well; 35,000 ft was about about normal for a trained USAF fighter pilot).

While an early supersonic fighter is not a late-generation airliner, the point is that experience and training can help prevent problems and makes recovering from them more likely to succeed quickly.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there. I was only saying that it is possible for someone with general aviation to manually fly an airliner as well. I'm not convinced that everyone will walk away from the landing, but it can be flown...:D
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Including Airbus?? Where "the gizmos" are between your Atari stick and your control actuators? Hey Biff, can you bypass "the gizmos" on the throttles in the 'bus? It seems to me that the gizmos are coming to be considered part of the passive control linkage, like bobweights and servo tabs, a mentality that seems to have caused Boeing to feel MCAS was "just part of the flight control linkages", thus not needing any specific explanation or training.
I think any pilot properly trained by a North American or European airline would have connected the MCAS behaviour to essentially a runaway trim condition and responded accordingly.
My friend Kathleen, in her -800 training, was subjected to two runaway trim episodes, both in worst case scenarios involving engine outs, night IMC, turbulence, icing, heavy weight, a single engine ILS to a missed approach and a divert to another field, all with electric trim cutout and hand cranking all the way, and flying on the standby steam gauges, all screens off. One of these included a depressurization and an emergency descent from FL340. Somehow I doubt the Lion and Ethiopian crews were subjected to that kind of rigorous worst case training in their "economy class" program peddled by Boeing to third world countries. If they had, this conversation probably wouldn't be taking place.
Cheers,
Wes
Click to expand...

I think that if those airlines had been aware of the system being installed on the aircraft this conversation would not be taking place.
 
nuuumannn said:
Ahh, the "don't eff up" culture. The engineer's creedo, until, like every single engineer out there, you do. I've seen some of the best and brightest guys out there do some pretty significant damage to aircraft - happens to everyone.
Click to expand...
I'm investigating one now...
Luckily no injuries, but they've got to replace the engine.
 
1553112033334.png
 
Milosh said:
I am surprised no one has started a topic on this a/c. Two fatal crashes in the last 5 months.
Click to expand...
Y'know, as an A&P, duly licensed by the FAA, what's been going on with the MAX has been striking me as very wrong. With the first incident, there should have been an immediate grounding off all others of that type until an emergency repair has been developed. Happens with every other type, and not because the incidents hit the mass media, such as what happened at Burlington Airport around 1990. Here is the Cliff's Notes version of that incident.

I was walking from the hangar at Burlington, Washington Airport just as 45Delta, a Beech 18 that was owned by Methow Air Service making it's final cargo delivery for pickup by UPS. As I watched him(I used to work for Methow, and knew most of the pilots at that time, and knew them to be good sticks, even on the Beech 18 Westwinds, a mod of the Twin Beech that was considered a ground looping fool, making it a bird not very popular with the pilots), and as he touched down, the left wing dipped, and the engines roared as he panicked and firewalled the throttles, and he rotated back up, and as he gained altitude, the left mlg swung freely, and having worked on Beeches, knew that the retraction strut must have broken loose at on end or fell off(it didn't).

He began an orbit of the air port in order to consult with home base, and as he went overhead, I saw the left main wheel sitting at a strange angle, and as the UPS van had arrived to picvk the freight up, I walked to him and told the driver that the plane jsut had an accident(I pointed at the bird, and he saw the main, too), and that there might not be a pickup that day, so he left.

45 Delta also left, having gone back to Paine Field in Everett, where, after declaring an emergency, and waiting for the runway to be foamed. The boss said no foam, so the Beech just greased on in, the left prop being turned into scrap, an some aluminum scraped off the bottom. And with that. that little emergency was over, she was hauled back to the hangar, landing gear repaired, and she went back to freight hauling.

With this incident, all Beech 18s were immediately grounding pending the completion of the investigation.

No news or any other kind of announcement, other than the EAD the FAA issued.

Had there been a crash................................................

What failed was the bottom connection of the landing gear retraction strut had failed completely. There was no warning, completely unexpected. This was due to the age of the aircraft, and nothing else.

Why has this been happening to Boeing birds lately? I've been hearing of similar incidents(near crashes and other squawks on other Boeing birds)that the birds seem to have been getting a pass?

O, and the pilot of 45Delta? A month later, he came in, flying 45Delta, and I was able to hear his thoughts(commonly referred to "hangar flying"), and the only other thing that had to be done, besides the repairs, was to get the seat cleaned and his pants replaced, because since he was flying at gross, and had a goodly amount of fuel onboard, when that wing dipped, he literally shit, because he realized he might not have had enough time for his life to flash before his eyes.

And the passengers of a 737MAX died.

Boeing is referred to by many of us mechanics as "The Lazy B" I wish they'd work a bit harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

F
Boeing B17 parts
Replies
0
Views
498
frenchie
F
Back