Boeing 737 Max design error

All that is indeed adding. All to solve a problem that is pretty much non-existent.

So show us all the accident reports over the last 50 years, where manual trim being too slow was the cause or a major factor in the crash. That is what aircraft designers and FAA look at before making huge changes in systems that already work. And then, we don't know that your new hydraulic system is any better. Boeing thought their improvement of MCAS made the plane safer too. And I cited for you what happens with a hydraulic piston driven actuator when a hydraulic line fails. We saw that with the American Airlines DC-10 at O'Hare, 1979.

Wrong, always wrong. Here you are, the village idiot, coming up with stupid solutions, when anyone who has followed this Boeing MCAS problem knows that it does use trim and not the full elevator. It's abundantly obvious, for example Boeing put out the procedure to deal with the same thing happening again. IT's to follow the runaway TRIM PROCEDURE, which is shutting off two switches that turn of the TRIM MOTORS and then TRIMMING MANUALLY.

Geeez, if you spent just a fraction of the time learning that you do posting, you might improve. The above is easily verfiable online. And not a single person in this thread agrees with the BS you just posted either.

That another lie. Wrong, always wrong. The trim on the tail is a small element and it is used to neutralize the forces on the controls.

IOW, the pilot no

Bingo. And that's what MCAS uses, the TRIM, to point the nose down.

Geeez.

Irrelevant of course, because it's all wrong.

how a 737

alling.

gs in

plane

l.

te.

Still waiting for the simple answer from the alleged expert:

A 737 has been flying level for 30 secs at 300mph. Explain to us how it can suddenly be stalling.

I am not an expert, but I do know more about how aircraft fly than you do.

The reason I do not respond to this particular question of yours is because: - it is not an important question - if I did, you would just move on to another unimportant question based on a poor understanding of how aircraft fly

Wrong, always wrong. Here's are pictures of the flap actuator with the jack screw clearly visible:

And a video of the JACKSCREW rotating on a 737 as the flaps are deployed:

Wrong, always wrong.

Obviously you're ignorant of hydraulic motors and think that hydraulics can only work via pistons. Pistons have serious disadvantages, as the world saw with the DC-10 crash at O'Hare. Capiche?

Good find. It's interesting that how hard it can be to turn the trim wheels seems to have been given little notice and the instructions about how to maneuver, lower speed, to make it easier disappeared from the Boeing manuals. It seems that runaway trim must be a very rare failure and even then, it probably doesn't typically run away to seriously out of trim, or there probably would be more crashes, focus on it, etc.

Only true in the Ethiopian crash. There the pilot with just 200 hours correctly identified the runaway trim and followed the procedure. Sadly it looks like by that time the plane was so badly out of trim that he couldn't move the trim wheels. We don't know much, because the Ethiopians have still not released the CVR. The other crash, they never identified the runaway pitch problem or followed the procedure. Had they done so, there would have been no crash, that plane flew for like 7 minutes with them moving the trim back and forth, so if they had been competent, that crash would not have happened. For proof of that we have the previous LA flight where the same thing happened, the jump seat pilot told the flying pilots what to do, to follow the runaway trim procedure, they did and the plane flew on to it's destination.

That it flew on to it's destination also points to lack of safety concern and procedures for foreign airlines and countries. Here if that happened they would have informed ATC and returned to the airport.

A vague reference to a plane is not an accident summary. Show us where B-1 accidents have been attributed to a fly-by-wire failure. Also noted is your quick attempt to use a MILITARY plane that went into service 35 years ago, when we're talking about today's commercial aircraft. But let's start with this. Is the B1 bomber even fly-by-wire? I doubt it.

Well, that's what I asked you. Show us the crashes attributable to fly-by-wire. There are thousand of commercial airliners that are fly-by-wire, show us the crashes due to a fly-by-wire failure or problem.

I already explained to him similar, McDonald Douglas using pistons to actuate the flaps on the DC-10. An engine broke off on takeoff at O'Hare, which severed hydraulic lines in the wing, the pistons lost pressure, the flaps on that side retracted and about a minute later the plane crashed killing all on board.

His misconception is that he thinks hydraulic=piston, unaware of hydraulic motors which turn jackscrews. He's wrong, always wrong.

Yes, agree with all that. And it might be more than just systems engineering, ie management that made decisions too, kind of like the Challenger o-ring disaster.

It seems like that's what we have with those foreign pilots, at least. Out of 7, we know 4 couldn't identify runaway trim. Whether they could have remembered the procedure had they identified it sure seems doubtful. We know one pilot flying jump seat remembered it, followed it and all was well. We know one pilot with just 200 hours also correctly identified it and followed it, but looks like it was too late. By the time they cut off the electric trim, the plane was trimmed too far nose down. On the other hand, they had used the trim buttons to trim it back up. Why they didn't do that FIRST, before going manual, we'll never know. It looks like that was what they attempted during the last seconds, because the trim was turned back on. But it looks like no one was pushing the UP button, so MCAS shoved it further down.

Another factor there is that it was the co-pilot with just 200 hours that was on the correct path. That must have been a terrible situation, one that only added to the disaster. If the experienced pilot had been on the right track, identified it, called out what to do, probably would be different. It's quite remarkable that a 200 hour pilot had the balls to tell the pilot what was wrong, though that is how crew management is supposed to work, with anyone able to challenge the other.

s how a 737

stalling.

ings in

a plane

all.

vate.

Translation, I'm right, you know a 737 isn't stalling when it's been flying level for 30 secs at 300 MPH. Thanks for playing.

You're attitude is likely pervasive in the Boeing team that developed MCAS too and at the FAA. Shut up! You don't know anything. We're the experts! We saw how well that worked. Perhaps if they had some folks with some common sense and common knowledge to weigh in, ask questions, challenge them, it might have been different.

As should the other two pilots who were flying. They could explain what they were thinking and why they didn't identify it as a runaway trim problem. But with the Indonesians running it, I wouldn't count on it. Like the media, they are putting all the focus on Boeing.

IDK, it's not clear what went on there. A lot of unanswered questions. They fought back and forth with MCAS for at least a couple of minutes, then turned off the trim, couldn't move the trim wheel manually. So then this:

"Roughly five minutes into the flight, and at 13,400 feet of altitude, the data recorder registers another automatic nose down trim command for five seconds. It appears the pilots reactivated the system that would trigger MCAS."

So, with the plane at ~6000 feet above ground altitude, they had the trim back on and should have been able to trim it back up with the trim buttons? Did they try? We don;t know, because AFAIK Ethiopia has not released the relevant FDR data. The only logical reason to turn it back on would be to use it to get trim nose up again, so what happened?

And hopefully in the meantime this AOA isn't being used on other aircraft if there is something wrong with them. The Ethipopian crash, from what I saw, the AOA there just suddenly went nuts, to like 75 deg, instantly, shortly after takeoff. I think they suspect a bird strike might have caused it.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I knew about hydraulics back in the '60s. How many decades before you were even born was that you pathetic twerp?

Tom Gardner wrote in news:qpkAE.324314 $ snipped-for-privacy@fx04.am:

Trust me, TraderTard4 is a bigger idiot than just that.

Sylvia Else wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

Sorry but you are unaware of the histroy of TraderTard4's posting.

Again. The asshole we refer to deserves everything... every plate of shit I give him.

Do stay out of it.

That's going to be your explanation at the disciplinary hearing is it? "He started it."

As you say, I'm unaware of the history, or even that there is a history to be aware of. That's often going to be the case when you behave like that. You may think you're justified, but people will still judge you for it.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

And you think that I give a shit about it? It was defined for you. Now you know. Time to move on.

When people judge you, it affects your ability to earn a living, get services, find a spouse, and so on. Not caring about it seems rather reckless.

Sylvia.