|
Originally Posted by mduell
(Post 31109469)
Anything can do that. Swiss 111 was brought down by a failure starting in a DAL E system. But only DAL A can do that without any possible mitigation.
|
So, since 2 planes crashed... should be DAL-A?
|
Originally Posted by copperred
(Post 31109348)
I'm more confident in them than Boeing. Of course I'm also more confident in the decomposed corpse of Jeffrey Dahmer than any Boeing flunkie, but even so Ethiopia has been open about sharing data and the burden of proof is squarely on Boeing.
|
Originally Posted by N830MH
(Post 31109504)
Exactly! Boeing had responsibility for those 350 people who being killed. That's big problem! |
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.” |
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/And of course, in simulator training both pilots know what's coming. It's not a surprise. In real life, the surprise likely costs several seconds. “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.” |
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.
The manual trim wheels each have a fold-out handle to provide good grip and leverage. The two wheels are installed so that the two handles (Captain's and First Officer's) are mounted 90° of rotation apart. This provides that at least one pilot has good leverage at any point in the wheel's rotation. In a situation where airloads make it difficult to rotate the wheel, this design allows both pilots to work together to turn the wheel with at least one always having good leverage. Again, the key is not allowing the runaway, regardless of cause, to get you into that full nose-down stabilizer position. This is exactly what the crew of the Lion Air incident flight did and what the Captain of the Lion Air accident flight did through 21 unscheduled MCAS activations. In the simulator trials in the report, the crews started with the stabilizers in the full nose-down position. Those trials showed that, even then, the situation is recoverable. Recover from that situation is difficult and requires a high degree of crew coordinated. |
Originally Posted by LarryJ
(Post 31111170)
Recover from that situation is difficult and requires a high degree of crew coordinated.
|
Sorry to diverge from what is an interesting discussion of the core max issues, avionics, and CRM/response protocol, but perhaps to re-raise the more practical question for this forum: what is the latest thinking/info on the state of flights labeled as having a MAX aircraft in the summer timeframe (e.g. 4th of July)? Are folks asking to be moved off of these yet given the state of these re-entering service?
|
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
(Post 31109745)
So, since 2 planes crashed... should be DAL-A?
|
Originally Posted by aCavalierInCoach
(Post 31111214)
Are folks asking to be moved off of these yet given the state of these re-entering service?
The MAX represents less than 5% of the narrowbody fleet. |
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31111492)
I mean, if you were to call, they might move you as a customer service gesture, but few people expect the MAX to be back in service by then, so it's likely that UA will simply swap in another aircraft.
The MAX represents less than 5% of the narrowbody fleet. |
Originally Posted by aCavalierInCoach
(Post 31112178)
I principally just don't want to see a cancellation -- 5% isn't much but it is not as if UA has tons of slack capacity, to my knowledge. I'm headed to a holiday destination on a holiday weekend, but then again so is everyone else.
Additionally, there is probably zero chance the MAXs will be on commercial routes by August. So expect any present MAX flight before then to have a change in aircraft type. |
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)
......
p.s. the bathrooms on Boeings are the worst, really third world. What a sad joke Boeing has become. I am trying to get past my Boeing fanboy, and the MAX fiasco .... well, it's a fiasco :( Guess I'm on my way, but really, restrooms :confused: If AA et al didn't ask for them i'm sure Boeing would not have offered them. Thankfully I've only read about them. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:46 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.