|
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31108689)
Don't judge a book by its cover. TV is designed to grab eyeballs, so there is naturally going to be some attempt to grab those eyeballs. After that title card is some important information, including from Dennis Tajer at AA. Given his experience and position at AA representing the APA, I would think other pilots would give his words at least a minimum of deference.
|
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 31113033)
NYT: right up front:
“Every day, there is new news about something not being disclosed or something was done in error or was not complete,” said Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilots union and a 737 pilot Turns out that the simulators (which were not ready at launch) don't replicate the MCAS stall condition, so no way to train on it.... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/b...imulators.html p.s. the bathrooms on Boeings are the worst, really third world. What a sad joke Boeing has become. |
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 31113033)
NYT: right up front:
“Every day, there is new news about something not being disclosed or something was done in error or was not complete,” said Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilots union and a 737 pilot Turns out that the simulators (which were not ready at launch) don't replicate the MCAS stall condition, so no way to train on it.... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/b...imulators.html p.s. the bathrooms on Boeings are the worst, really third world. What a sad joke Boeing has become. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 31113207)
would you agree that we should also give other experienced pilots who don’t agree with Tajer the same amount of deference? |
Originally Posted by EmailKid
(Post 31113145)
Um, much like seating 3-3-3 on 787, that is a customer choice @:-)
Boeing makes the planes. There are minimums on hundreds if not thousands of aspects of the plane. They could easily tell their customers that there is a minimum lav module size if they wanted to. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31113829)
Boeing makes the planes. There are minimums on hundreds if not thousands of aspects of the plane. They could easily tell their customers that there is a minimum lav module size if they wanted to.
|
Originally Posted by Bear96
(Post 31113852)
An Airbus executive's dream!
|
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31113855)
I don't think Airbus needs anymore executive's dreams given the massive screwups by Boeing on the 737MAX. Airbus could be reaping the benefits of Boeing's errors for decades to come.
|
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31113822)
Given that Tajer represents 15,000 pilots at AA, and he was selected by the leadership of the APA to speak for them, logically his opinions count for more than a random pilot from a random airline. <shrugs>
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 31113207)
would you agree that we should also give other experienced pilots who don’t agree with Tajer the same amount of deference?
You don't accept an argument because of the qualifications of the person who makes it. You accept an argument because the argument itself has merit. Find two experts who disagree then compare their arguments.
Originally Posted by BF263533
(Post 31113569)
I think MCAS had ant-stall characteristics because it pushed the nose down.
MCAS is a maneuvering characteristics augmentation system. It corrects a too-light pitch feel in certain high-AoA conditions by introducing a nose-down bias through the application of stabilizer trim. The nose-down trim makes the pitch control heavier which eliminates the light pitch feel. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 31113855)
I don't think Airbus needs anymore executive's dreams given the massive screwups by Boeing on the 737MAX. Airbus could be reaping the benefits of Boeing's errors for decades to come.
|
Originally Posted by BF263533
(Post 31110263)
I am sure that in the various lawsuits simulator evidence will be produced to get to the bottom of the question of whether theEthiopian Airlines plane could have been saved. In the simulation even the reduced speed of 250 knots prevented the pilots from moving the manual wheel. Addis Ababa Bole International Airport is at 7625 ft. I think the ET plane was like 3000 ft. above the ground. So if they needed 8000 ft. for the roller coastering recovery technique they would have been several thousand feet below the ground before they recovered. Ouch! I had a bad experience in Kenya last August, but I am keeping an open mind. Standards in Africa need to be improved, but I am not convinced, YET, that the pilots could have done anything to save the plane being so close to the ground.
https://www.heraldnet.com/business/w...7-max-crashes/ “Reenactment in a flight simulator Countering the notion that U.S. pilots could have overcome the emergencies that brought down the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines jets, the latest issue of trade magazine Aviation Week describes a simulator test flown as part of recurrent training by a U.S.-based 737 Max crew that re-created a critical part of the crashed Ethiopian flight. The simulation indicated that the pilots “faced a near-impossible task of getting their 737 Max 8 under control.” Starting from the point where the Ethiopian pilots hit the cut-off switches and stopped MCAS from operating, the U.S. Max crew tried in the simulator to recover. Even though the U.S. crew performed the simulator experiment at a normal speed of 250 knots instead of the more than 350 knots of the Ethiopian jet, the forces on the jet’s tail still prevented them from moving the manual wheel in the cockpit that would have corrected the nose-down attitude. To get out of it, the pilots used an old aviator technique called the “roller coaster” — letting the yoke go to relieve the forces on the tail, then cranking the wheel, and repeating this many times. This technique has not been in U.S. pilot manuals for decades, and pilots today are not typically trained on it. Using it in the simulator, the U.S. Max crew managed to save the aircraft but lost 8,000 feet of altitude in the process. The Ethiopian Max never rose higher than 8,000 feet, indicating that from that point in the flight, the crew couldn’t have saved it. A similar experiment, though without the use of the roller-coaster technique, was performed by a European airline pilot and 737 flight instructor who runs a popular You Tube channel called Mentour Pilot about aviator skills. His simulator session ended as the pilot pulled with all his might on the yoke to try to keep the jet’s nose up, while the co-pilot beside him tried futilely to move the manual wheel.” The crew initiated a 20degree manual pitch up about 5:35 into the flight at signs of the first AOA malfunction. As a crew you would know if you were 20deg off on climb vs. what your instruments say? then trim is adjusted two ways manually from 5:38-5:39. Airspeed is still going up and the AC is still climbing but the crew has this thing in a 20deg pitch up from normal and trying to trim it out. Then MCAS first activates at 5:39 to seemingly prevent a stall. The crew had this thing pitched up pretty good based on their manual inputs and didn't disconnect the throttles. Yes AOA was faulty but MCAS initiated after the crew put it in a near stall IMO. MCAS had nothing to do with that. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...95510e5e26.png |
Originally Posted by prestonh
(Post 31114525)
The crew initiated a 20degree manual pitch up about 5:35 into the flight at signs of the first AOA malfunction.
Then MCAS first activates at 5:39 to seemingly prevent a stall. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 31114071)
Ah, so the fact that someone is elected to speak on behalf of others, that affords them instant extra credibility. Hmmm ;)
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 31114268)
Regardless of who you choose to believe, that approach creates an appeal to authority fallacy.
You don't accept an argument because of the qualifications of the person who makes it. You accept an argument because the argument itself has merit. Find two experts who disagree then compare their arguments. Despite numerous inaccurate media reports, MCAS is not a anti-stall, or stall recovery, system. The MAX has conventional stall characteristics and does not require any such system. MCAS is a maneuvering characteristics augmentation system. It corrects a too-light pitch feel in certain high-AoA conditions by introducing a nose-down bias through the application of stabilizer trim. The nose-down trim makes the pitch control heavier which eliminates the light pitch feel. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:09 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.