| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 150266 | 2021-11-11 21:29:00 | Do You Remember The Previous Post About Boeing Plane Crashes | zqwerty (97) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1481977 | 2021-11-13 22:42:00 | continued, So as you say the MAX may have behaved well enough without MCAS but was different enough from normal 737 variants to warrant Boeing including MCAS to make the plane behave predictably to the pilots. .................... This is why MCAS was included in the first place to avoid having the pilots deal with a flight behaviour they were unfamiliar with. yes and no. the actual difference between them is minor, its tiny and its only at high AOA. reports from piolets is that it fly's much the same as other versions. but the small difference is enough for the FAA to require a different type cert. so really the MCAS is all about getting around the paper work rather than actual real world flying issues. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1481978 | 2021-11-13 22:45:00 | Interesting conversation this one is (quote by Yoda). Lots of info. I am an aeroplane lover but not a lot of knowledge. You guys have lots of knowledge. Can I ask if it is practical knowledge or obtained from Mr Google? Ken :) |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 1481979 | 2021-11-13 22:53:00 | The planes that crashed were heading towards the ground instead of climbing during takeoff which the pilots tried to stop by pulling back on the stick and bringing the nose up. MCAS was overcompensating because the sensor, (only one was designed into the input of MCAS by Boeing even though two were available), was sending back faulty data to the MCAS input, this sensor was known to fail in this way. The pilots didn't know how to turn off the MCAS, didn't even know of its existence, apparently, they physically couldn't overcome the MCAS faulty correction (pointing the aircraft nose down because all indication to the MCAS said the aircraft was on the verge of stalling) for any length of time physically speaking. If they could have turned off the faulty MCAS the plane would resume to normal but extreme nose up behaviour, as you say, remember the plane was climbing after taking off. The faulty MCAS flew the plane into the sea or land when the error occurred unless the pilots knew how to turn MCAS off. The plane always had a larger nose up tendency than normal that is why MCAS was included, to make the plane behave like a normal 737 the pilots usually flew, instad of giving the pilots extra training on the MAX which was not like a normal 737 variant. yes the faulty MCAS caused the crash by the stupid setup with the sensor and it was ridiculous over compensating. however pilots could still turn it off by following the standard run away trim procedure they are trained for. that actually happened in a few cases. but one of the issues was poor indication of what was happening which confused the pilots. plus some misses in procedure (failure to reduce throttle which led to the overspeed and eventual crash) and possibly some skill (knowing how to unload the control surfaces so they are easier to adjust). all that compounded by being close to the ground just after take off. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1481980 | 2021-11-13 23:01:00 | Interesting conversation this one is (quote by Yoda). Lots of info. I am an aeroplane lover but not a lot of knowledge. You guys have lots of knowledge. Can I ask if it is practical knowledge or obtained from Mr Google? Ken :) my old neighbour is a pilot for AirNZ and i follow some of the aviation channels which is done by a commercial passenger jet pilot. one of the issues is that so much of the media, hence also google, dramatized the hell out of it. they made a mountain out of a mole hill. hence why so much BS is out there. same thing with other big stories, the media latches onto some minor detail and tries to make a big deal out of it. a lot of incidents get used as cases studies by the pilots, so its really interesting to hear from the pilots themselves what the actual issues where. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1481981 | 2021-11-13 23:15:00 | Glad I didn't buy any shares on 1st March 1919. :D 11193 |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1481982 | 2021-11-14 02:36:00 | You mean 2019 don't you B.M.? Yup the situation in companies can change very quickly, just like acting, you're only as good as your last movie, and Boeing's new management just made a huge hash of competing with Airbus. |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 1481983 | 2021-11-14 03:08:00 | You mean 2019 don't you B.M.? Yup the situation in companies can change very quickly, just like acting, you're only as good as your last movie, and Boeing's new management just made a huge hash of competing with Airbus. Yep, another typo. At least the Screenshot got it right. :) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1481984 | 2021-11-14 05:44:00 | my old neighbour is a pilot for AirNZ and i follow some of the aviation channels which is done by a commercial passenger jet pilot. one of the issues is that so much of the media, hence also google, dramatized the hell out of it. they made a mountain out of a mole hill. hence why so much BS is out there. same thing with other big stories, the media latches onto some minor detail and tries to make a big deal out of it. The media does exactly the same with Climate Change, Covid 19 and anything else they think will generate clicks and advertising revenue. Air accidents are interesting to everyone so they sure make the list. |
CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1481985 | 2021-11-14 06:10:00 | Nope I believe the media are understating the Climate Change Crisis, the pot is almost boiling and it won't be long before all the frogs will be cooked, too late now to do anything but enjoy everyday as it comes. We should have done something in the 70's. | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 1481986 | 2021-11-14 10:08:00 | Whilst we are talking about the Climate Crisis, here's the latest: World is on track for 2.4 degrees of warming despite COP26 pledges, analysis finds: edition.cnn.com Our collective goose is cooked, so to speak. |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||