-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Ah, so CNN is pure news with no "interpretation" then. Nice to know. ;->
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
It does lack the kind of "interpretation" that rabid right wingers expect t o get with their daily dose of propaganda, but services like CNN do present stuff in a way the main stream of the population finds acceptable.
That how the free market works. CNN is primarily serving an American audien ce, so their slant is slightly more right wing than the British BBC or the Australian ABC, but it isn't a gross difference, and you have to look hard to find an example of a perceptible difference.
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
flaw/inde
One of the few things I find to be a gain in the crapstorm DJT has caused is that it makes it easier to spot the extreme idiots as they come out of the woodwork with their "fake news" declarations.
CNN's article is also grossly-defective I'd say. They talk about a microprocessor failure, when in fact the issue is the microprocessor's software. The complaint is pushing the button on the yoke doesn't make a fast enough elevator-trim change. And by fast, we're talking a few seconds. That's easily fixed in the program, if everyone agrees.
Winfield Hill wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@drn.newsguy.com:
They reported what they got off of the AP newswire surely. I heard that too, and knew what they really meant.
Yeah... I want an overide lever/motors somewhere so that hand cranking dials is not ever needed. Or if they can guarantee the dials are crankable in the mechanical aspect of the design, then add cockpit motors to do it (fast) in a fail mode, and if those then fail, THEN the hand cranks get used.
And then factor in the added failure modes and possible scenarios introduced by all that additional complexity. Perhaps you can point us to all the accident reports over the last half century from runaway trim where the pilots followed the correct procedure but were unable to correct it in time? So far, I know of only one case where that *might* have happened, that's the crash in Ethiopia of the
737 Max. And that's already been addressed to a large extent, by limiting how much MCAS can nose down the plane and for how long and by disabling it if the AOA sensors disagree.
IDK how you can say it was engineered properly when if the trim runs away signifcantly, puts the plane into a steep dive that increases the necessary force, a pilot doesn't have enough strength to overcome it. What's interesting is that apparently it hasn't been a problem in the last half century, where trim ran away to that extent, until now.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
The dial crank cockpit trim adjust device has been in place long before MCAS got incorporated into this model.
No. MCAS dialed the trim to its extent in one direction and the pilots in these cases did not override the faulty MCAS operation in time.
The stabilizer trim dials work fine and are not merely on Boeing airframes.
Still MCAS to blame not the cockpit connection to the stabilizer. That hard connection is the last resort in a failure and has been in the basic design book for a long time. Long before 737Max8.
Trim never 'ran away to that extent' before. The MCAS was actively driving against the pilot's attempts to adjust. MCAS has ran away. Cockpit secondary stab controls have been in place for decades.
Not quite. Because of the increased surface area on the max and aerodynamic load at high speeds, the force required to counteract the runaway mcas trim exceeds that which can be manually corrected with the trim wheel. That's why both crashes were unrecoverable.
Not according to people who actually fly them and others who should know about such things.
Perhaps, but in the case of both crashes, mcas forced the nose down at low altitude, where there was not enough height for recovery by the roller coaster method.
There's a long running set of threads on this at the pprune site here, going back ages:
formatting link
Worth having a look at to see how bad the situation really is...
Doesn't the aerodynamic load tend to restore the elevator to the neutral position? That's why some planes pivot the elevator near the center of loading. No?
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.