Results 51 to 75 of 270
Thread: 737 MAX
-
03-14-2019, 05:28 PM #51
-
03-14-2019, 05:47 PM #52Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
-
03-14-2019, 05:48 PM #53
Les Nessman!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR ForumsI rip the groomed on tele gear
-
03-14-2019, 07:16 PM #54
-
03-14-2019, 07:24 PM #55Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,299
Hitting the ground like wet sacks of cement!
-
03-14-2019, 07:37 PM #56Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
-
03-14-2019, 07:38 PM #57Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,885
Besides those incidents of the 737 Max pitching nose down the pilots are saying it has completely different instrumentation on which they lack proper training
" I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold.
My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely. The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material) "
It sounds like the airline in this case was assuming that a 737 is just a 737Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
03-15-2019, 02:16 PM #58
Four of those fatal crashes occurred in the first five years so alarming in the sense that all plane crashes are alarming to the public regardless of eventual investigative determined cause, particularly so with a new airframe or type.
And, the MCAS system does effect the stabilizer trim even though it doesn't move the primary controls. So if the system malfunctions it behaves sort of like a runaway trim wheel except in increments of 10 seconds if it's interrupted by the pilot. At the same time MCAS is not entirely defeated unless a pilot flips the stab trim controls, etc. To make matters worse Boeing didn't initially explain how the system works, hence all the outrage and confusion even among US/Canadian/Euro pilots.
Again this is speculative, but if the MCAS is trimming nose down in 10 second increments then that may well explain the 20 second period see-saw vertical flight path profile, a runaway trim scenario of sorts, seen in the LionAir/Ethiopian crashes.
-
03-15-2019, 03:47 PM #59Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
-
03-15-2019, 04:42 PM #60
-
03-15-2019, 04:57 PM #61
-
03-16-2019, 07:02 AM #62
-
03-16-2019, 10:18 AM #63Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,299
Basically what Sully chimed in with. Not enough training and learning to fly properly. The description of the Lion air pilots not be able to pull back on the yoke because of the force being generated by autocrash is pretty chilling though
-
03-16-2019, 10:29 AM #64Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,885
sounds the Max 737 is really a different enough airplane to require some retraining for pilots who have flown 737s cuz they don't know what some of the buttons do
Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
03-16-2019, 10:42 AM #65
-
03-16-2019, 11:30 AM #66
People are really going to freak when they hear the modifications necessary for the 737 MAX 10. Due to the new larger engines and the stretch, the landing gear needed to be lengthened at takeoff. However, they need to retract to normal height to accommodate existing airport gates. So the new design has a telescoping mechanism so that the gear actually get longer after the plane leaves the gate and taxis out to the runway. Then, of course, it needs to shrink again when retracted. I have a feeling this design change is going to get a lot of backlash since there's already a perception that Boeing is trying to stretch the basic 737 design too far.
-
03-16-2019, 11:38 AM #67
They should just flip the fuselage. Wings on top, plenty of room for engines without adjustable landing gear.
Which is the one with folding wingtips? That also seems like stretching a design
Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
-
03-16-2019, 11:48 AM #68Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,299
Now I'm really confused. I thought the 737 had to be modded previously because of clearance issues of being too low at the gate because it was original designed for tarmac staircase use. Jetways were too high for the design. Now it has the reverse problem?
Any way, the approval of the current iteration reeks of the a plane that should have gone through the entire approval process, not just the easier path of an update to an existing model.
-
03-16-2019, 01:12 PM #69
That's the 777X. Folding wingtips were actually designed for the original 777 back in the early '90s. I think either United or American requested them to fit into the gates they were using for 767s. Boeing went through the entire design and then the airline decided they didn't need them after all. The folding wingtips for the 777X are a brand new design, though.
The first 777X variant, the 777-9 was just rolled out for employees last week. Here's a shot I took showing the wingtips in the folded configuration. Those wingtips don't seem that big compared to the overall scale of the plane, but they're about ten feet long. This is a big airplane.
Boeing 777-9 by Kirk & Barb Nelson, on Flickr
-
03-16-2019, 01:55 PM #70
AD was talking about -10. Afaik, the problems with the current -8 is that the new engines are forward from the COG & wing creating issues when on max thrust, causing pitch up. Thus MCAS to alleviate the potential stall problems that might cause.
Lipstick on a pig, as a friend stated (flying pilot).
But, what the fuck do I know as I am not even a dentist.
The floggings will continue until morale improves.
-
03-16-2019, 02:07 PM #71Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Posts
- 3,581
-
03-16-2019, 02:08 PM #72
-
04-04-2019, 04:10 PM #73
Preliminary Report for the Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX crash:
The Aircraft possessed a valid certificate of airworthiness;
The crew obtained the license and qualifications to conduct the flight;
The takeoff roll appeared normal, including normal values of left and right angle-of-attack (AOA).
Shortly after liftoff, the value of the left angle of attack sensor deviated from the right one and reached 74.5 degrees while the right angle of attack sensor value was 15.3 degrees;then after;the stick shaker activated and remained active until near the end of the flight.
After autopilot engagement, there were small amplitude roll oscillations accompanied by lateral acceleration, rudder oscillations and slight heading changes; these oscillations also continued after the autopilot disengaged.
After the autopilot disengaged, the DFDR recorded an automatic aircraft nose down (AND) trim command four times without pilot’s input. As a result, three motions of the stabilizer trim were recorded.The FDR data also indicated that the crew utilized the electric manual trim to counter the automatic AND input.
The crew performed runaway stabilizer checklist and put the stab trim cutout switch to cutout position and confirmed that the manual trim operation was not working.
It's a nightmare. The report says that the pilots found manual trim impossible after STAB TRIM CUTOUT. And they didn't have enough time to correct the stabilizer. At 05:43:20, the aircraft began pitching nose down. Additional simultaneous aft column force was applied, but the nose down pitch continues, eventually reaching 40° nose down.
http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/204...8-d7af1ee17f3e
-
04-04-2019, 04:21 PM #74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but electric manual trim is disabled by the stab trim cutout because it disables the motor that both auto and manual electric trim use. They have to turn the wheel by hand. So they didn't quite follow the procedure which would be keep turning the stab trim wheel by hand. Or am I misunderstanding?
Originally Posted by blurred
-
04-04-2019, 04:28 PM #75
Manual trim was not working. Perhaps because under high aerodynamic load it's all but impossible to trim without motor assist. Also keep in mind this was happening at 1000ft AGL
The crew performed the runaway stabilizer checklist and put the stab trim cutout switch to cutout position and confirmed that the manual trim operation was not working BUT they couldn't land with the stabilizers incorrectly trimmed. So perhaps re-enabling and trimming electronically was the only, fateful, option they intuited was available at the time.
Boeing's documentation and simulator training from 30-40 years ago might have better prepared the pilots for this series of events but the more recent FAA/Boeing MCAS directives failed to prepare for this scenario.
Bookmarks