Bad day for Boeing

For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.

In memory of our lost political forum members. :cry:

Moderator: Biker

Post Reply
User avatar
Stapes
World's Only Blue Collar Guy
Posts: 12853
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#101

Post by Stapes »

Image
I blame Biker.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#102

Post by AnalHamster »

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... tigations/

An article about why the manual trim attempt didn't work, forcing them to try the electrical system again triggering the last fatal mcas activation. Or mysterious unknowable event that definitely wasn't related to all the evidence if you're biker. I wasn't far off guessing simple force load at high speeds, but it's worse than that and another design fault. The pilot input to try and fight the dive raises a flap at the rear of the stabilizer, it's not enough to counteract the big stabilizer full down, but it helps. But it also applies a force directly counter to the manual trim wheel, making it extremely hard to turn. This has been a known flaw since the 737-200, but the way round it is no longer in the training or manuals, which is to rollercoaster, go into the dive to take the pressure off, spin the wheel, fight the dive again, rinse and repeat. They would not have had the altitude for the manoeuvre if they had known to try it.

Mcas is far more aggressive than previous runaway stabilizer problems could be, by the time it has engaged twice, in this case about thirty seconds, the rear stabilizer is way down, the pilot is pulling way up, and the manual wheel isn't going to turn without the pilot going into the dive to take the load off, which in both cases wasn't an option due to the altitude they hit the problem at. Just gets worse and worse for Boeing.
User avatar
Wut
Denmarkian Citizen
Posts: 5841
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:11 pm
Location: On a rock

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#103

Post by Wut »

I'm still going with mice chewed a hole on something.
wut?
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#104

Post by CaptQuint »

Wut wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:31 pm I'm still going with mice chewed a hole on something.
Passenger had information that would led to the arrest of Hillary Clinton
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
Wut
Denmarkian Citizen
Posts: 5841
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:11 pm
Location: On a rock

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#105

Post by Wut »

CaptQuint wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:34 pm
Wut wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:31 pm I'm still going with mice chewed a hole on something.
Passenger had information that would led to the arrest of Hillary Clinton
Probably the guy with the visitor logs for the pedophile pizza shop.
wut?
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#106

Post by AnalHamster »

Wut wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:31 pm I'm still going with mice chewed a hole on something.
Probably trying to get away from the fire in the hold.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#107

Post by CaptQuint »

Why does Boeing make the whole plane out of the black box?

Image
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#108

Post by CaptQuint »

Change to 737 MAX controls may have imperiled planes, experts say

NEW YORK/SEATTLE (Reuters) - Much like tapping the brake pedal in a car to disengage cruise control, a sharp tug on the controls of older models of Boeing Co’s 737 used to shut off an automatic trim system that keeps the plane flying level, giving the pilot control.




The difference may help explain why pilots struggled to keep their aircraft climbing after takeoff on two fatal 737 MAX flights less than five months apart that killed 346 people.

Pilots of a Lion Air flight that crashed in October scoured a handbook for answers as the plane repeatedly lurched downward in the first minutes of flight, Reuters reported.

An Ethiopian Airlines flight that went down on March 10 showed “clear similarities” to the Lion Air accident, aviation authorities said after seeing black-box data.

A pair of switches on the center console between the pilots will turn off the automatic trim and a mechanism, new on the 737 MAX, known as the Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, that is suspected of playing a role in both disasters.

TRAINING MATERIAL ‘NOT CLEAR’
But pilots would have needed to know that MCAS existed, that it had unusual power to force the plane down and that “a hard pull on the yoke” would no longer turn off the automatic trim that uses MCAS, John Hansman, an aeronautics professor at MIT, said in an interview.

“That wasn’t clear to the pilots flying the airplane,” Hansman said. “The training material was not clear on that.”

Boeing declined to comment. In the aftermath of the Lion Air crash, Boeing pointed to long-established procedures that pilots could have used to handle a malfunction of the anti-stall system, regardless of whether the pilots knew MCAS existed.

That checklist tells pilots to switch off the two stabilizer trim cutout switches on the central console, and then to adjust the aircraft’s stabilizers manually using trim wheels.

An American Airlines flight manual mentions MCAS only in a table of acronyms, according to an October 2018 edition of the 1,400-page book seen by Reuters. Pilots have raised questions about why more detail on MCAS was not included.

The American Airlines manual’s two-page description of trim controls describes a “trim circuit,” but not how MCAS could be triggered by a faulty sensor reading, which is also suspected in the two crashes.

PREVENTING A DANGEROUS STALL
The MCAS system was designed to counteract the effect on the plane’s handling caused by new larger 737 MAX engines, which had to be placed farther forward and higher on the wings because the 50-year-old 737 design sits relatively low to the ground. That move gave the MAX a tendency to nose up into a stall, a dangerous position in which a plane loses lift as too little air flows across its wings.

MCAS, essentially a few lines of computer code in the flight control system, relies on data from two small, blade-shaped sensors near the nose of the aircraft that measure the angle of air flow. Faults in the sensors are not uncommon, and MCAS relies on only one sensor at a time during flight. In the Lion Air crash, investigators found a faulty reading led the plane’s computer to believe it was stalled and to push the nose down.

Boeing later issued a bulletin reminding pilots how to respond to such a faulty reading. An optional warning light could have alerted pilots to the faulty sensor.

MAINTENANCE, TRAINING UNDER SCRUTINY
Investigators unraveling the Lion Air crash are looking at maintenance records and whether the pilots had enough training to handle the emergency, among other factors.

The 737 MAX can fly without MCAS, so the feature was not considered “flight-critical” even though it has extraordinary power to steer the plane, said an industry expert with knowledge of the system who spoke on condition of anonymity. MCAS controls the large horizontal wing on the plane’s tail known as the stabilizer, while the pilot controls smaller flaps or “elevators” on the stabilizer.

Over several minutes, the stabilizer can shift position enough that the elevator controls can no longer counteract the downward direction of the plane, the source said.

“They gave more control power to the automation than to the pilot,” the source said of the MCAS design.

The Lion Air pilots flew for about five minutes by using the elevator to counteract the stabilizer every 15 or 20 seconds, said Hansman, based on readings from the flight data recorder. After that, the pilot tried pulling back hard on the controls.

“That’s what suggests that the crew didn’t understand the system. They thought they were shutting MCAS off and didn’t,” Hansman said. “Whereas any time during the entire sequence, they could have reached to the middle console and just shut it off.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethi ... SKCN1R322M
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#109

Post by AnalHamster »

doofus in chief wrote:What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?
Part of the latest tweet storm :lol:
User avatar
FSchmertz
UJR Chief Meme Factchecker
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#110

Post by FSchmertz »

AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:17 pm
doofus in chief wrote:What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?
Part of the latest tweet storm :lol:
Well, for once I agree with him.

Yet again, what the hell does he actually know?

P.S. The worst kind of ignorance is the willful kind, and he seems to be proud of it.
Last edited by FSchmertz on Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#111

Post by CaptQuint »

Image
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
FSchmertz
UJR Chief Meme Factchecker
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#112

Post by FSchmertz »

Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:46 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:17 pm
doofus in chief wrote:What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?
Part of the latest tweet storm :lol:
Why is he wrong about rebranding it?
The reason they didn't make it the "Boeing 800" or something is it would have taken more time to run it through the regulatory process and testing, and they couldn't make the claim that pilots could fly it just like any other 737. They were in a big rush to create a competitive product to a recent Airbus plane.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#113

Post by AnalHamster »

Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:46 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:17 pm
doofus in chief wrote:What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?
Part of the latest tweet storm :lol:
Why is he wrong about rebranding it?
Waste of time and money since it would make international headline news that they're trying to change the name, the airlines won't want to play ball and try to deceive their passengers, and the service record follows the model not the name in any case. Passengers who care enough to check what model they are flying would not be fooled since the first google hit will be the name change, and passengers who don't won't care.

I wonder what will come first, the repairs for the problem which have been pushed back again, or you admitting that the problem actually exists.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#114

Post by AnalHamster »

FSchmertz wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:50 pm
Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:46 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:17 pm
doofus in chief wrote:What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?
Part of the latest tweet storm :lol:
Why is he wrong about rebranding it?
The reason they didn't make it the "Boeing 800" or something is it would have taken more time to run it through the regulatory process and testing, and they couldn't make the claim that pilots could fly it just like any other 737. They were in a big rush to create a competitive product to a recent Airbus plane.
I don't think the name is relevant on the certification side, they just stuck with calling it the 737 because that's the 60 year old airframe. They could have called it the Boeing Bonsai Kamikaze and still have specified 737NG pilots needed only an hour with an ipad to make the switch.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#115

Post by AnalHamster »

Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:23 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:14 pm
Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:46 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:17 pm
doofus in chief wrote:What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?
Part of the latest tweet storm :lol:
Why is he wrong about rebranding it?
Waste of time and money since it would make international headline news that they're trying to change the name, the airlines won't want to play ball and try to deceive their passengers, and the service record follows the model not the name in any case. Passengers who care enough to check what model they are flying would not be fooled since the first google hit will be the name change, and passengers who don't won't care.

I wonder what will come first, the repairs for the problem which have been pushed back again, or you admitting that the problem actually exists.
Nonsense. The gen pop has a short memory. Remember Valujet? After a couple of incidents and poor image, they were rebranded to AirTran. The search engine wont really articulate how poorly they were regarded but those old enough to remember would know
You've just argued against yourself. If you're relying on the general ignorance and short memory of the gen pop, there's no need to rebrand. As I said, people who care will know the name changed, and people who don't won't be affected by the name change because they do not care.

Valujet didn't just ditch the name, it also ditched the dodgy cost saving practices that caused the problems along with most of its fleet. And AirTran went tits up anyway.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#116

Post by CaptQuint »

I took Airtran last trip to Disney, I brought up the Valuejet swamp crash while underway. Family was a bit pissed at me.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#117

Post by CaptQuint »

And it was a non kamikaze 737
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#118

Post by CaptQuint »

Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:30 pm
Valujet didn't just ditch the name, it also ditched the dodgy cost saving practices that caused the problems along with most of its fleet. And AirTran went tits up anyway.
Nope, it was basically the same company. And they didnt go tits up, they were bought by Delta
Southwest
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#119

Post by AnalHamster »

Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:30 pm
Valujet didn't just ditch the name, it also ditched the dodgy cost saving practices that caused the problems along with most of its fleet. And AirTran went tits up anyway.
Nope, it was basically the same company. And they didnt go tits up, they were bought by Delta
Southwest, AirTran no longer exists.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#120

Post by AnalHamster »

Btw when the final report comes out and confirms what we already know to be the case you aren't getting out of it by claiming the plane that crashed had a different name, welcher.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#121

Post by AnalHamster »

CaptQuint wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:34 pm
Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:30 pm
Valujet didn't just ditch the name, it also ditched the dodgy cost saving practices that caused the problems along with most of its fleet. And AirTran went tits up anyway.
Nope, it was basically the same company. And they didnt go tits up, they were bought by Delta
Southwest
We can't rule out the possibility that the search engine data is wrong and only biker's secret emails hold the truth.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#122

Post by AnalHamster »

Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:44 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:40 pm Btw when the final report comes out and confirms what we already know to be the case you aren't getting out of it by claiming the plane that crashed had a different name, welcher.
So you want to change the terms of the bet? Seems like youre the welcher

If you want, I'll agree to your alterations in exchange for 15 days
What term are you falsely claiming I want to change welcher?

Still pretending that MCAS wasn't a major factor in the crash after the preliminary report and the CEO of Boeing told you it was? Did the CEO send you another secret email?
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#123

Post by CaptQuint »

AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:41 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:34 pm
Biker wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:30 pm
Valujet didn't just ditch the name, it also ditched the dodgy cost saving practices that caused the problems along with most of its fleet. And AirTran went tits up anyway.
Nope, it was basically the same company. And they didnt go tits up, they were bought by Delta
Southwest
We can't rule out the possibility that the search engine data is wrong and only biker's secret emails hold the truth.
Why consult wikipedia when you can derp out random things?
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#124

Post by AnalHamster »

The report already out confirmed a bad AOA sensor and repeated MCAS activations as a result, exactly as I predicted. The pilots performed the correct procedures in response. You think the final report is going to state that the thing that directly caused the crash wasn't a major factor in the crash?
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#125

Post by AnalHamster »

About what specifically, welchin' biker?
Post Reply