737 Max

FAA already issued an emergency directive about this months ago. Pilots rep orted this crazy nose down thing as being almost routine and they shut down the autopilot feature when it occurs.

"Investigators in the Lion Air crash suspect it may have been caused by an angle of attack (AOA) sensor on the outside of the plane which transmitted incorrect data that could have triggered automated flight software called t he Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that forced the p lane's nose down."

Why don't the idiots just replace the sensor and see how that goes.

And there's no excuse for any kind of automated this or augmented that not picking up a flight control error that's obvious to a pilot at the controls . The automation is supposed to pick up on things the pilot doesn't notice.

l

On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 2:19:34 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wr ote:

What happens when the voting device has a failure?

Reminds me of an Air Force system a friend had worked on which had a "check ing" circuit to monitor correct operation. Then there was a "self-checker" that monitored the operation of the "checking" circuit. Then you might as k, "What checks the self-checker?", and the answer is, the self-checker che cks itself. ;)

Rick C.

5 y

oor

n n

y not

he

e

We aren't talking about parking lots. This was a road with a 45 MPH speed limit. No one has ever indicated that the driver should have been able to prevent the accident. Just as you are doing, no one cared about having the facts before making a judgement. I watched the video where the person wit h the bike was not visible until just a moment before the collision. None of the reports I saw provided enough information to show who had the last c lear chance to avoid the accident.

I think about things like this every time I drive. We all get distracted e ven if only by tuning the radio. It literally only takes a second for a te rrible situation to develop and result in catastrophe. Most won't acknowle dge it. They point to the fact they haven't had an accident in all their y ears. They just weren't distracted at the right moment yet.

Rick C.

5

or

not made with knowledge of the facts.

street in the dark and clearly in ignorance of the approaching car. She l iterally walked in front of the car.

She was not oblivious to the oncoming car. She was trying to run out of the way and misjudged. This is easy to do a night, it's much more difficult to judge the closing rate of a vehicle just based on the lights and not being able to see the body of the car.

e. Even if there were, what is unusual about using a car to kill someone?

tem/

How is a "rogue" safety system any different from an engine failure or a la nding gear failure or any of the thousands of other things that can go wron g with aircraft that are potentially fatal? The difference is emotional. We accept that things "break". But we don't look at this sort of failure t he same way. It's purely emotional.

I believe they have met that criterion in aircraft.

Rick C.

ystem/

landing gear failure or any of the thousands of other things that can go wr ong with aircraft that are potentially fatal? The difference is emotional. We accept that things "break". But we don't look at this sort of failure the same way. It's purely emotional.

Any aircraft with thousands of potentially catastrophic failure modes will not be allowed to fly.

Not a stall, as far as you describe it.

Aerobat isn't any more aerobatic than an ordinary 150, but a bit more strongly built. None of them want to snap out of stalls.

Well, I'm not a pilot, but he let me do stuff. He was an aerobatic instructor, and he said that if we had a few thousand feet below us, there's nothing we couldn't recover from.

We'd steal toilet paper from work, where they had the worst, toughest toilet paper. We'd toss out a roll at 4000 feet maybe, let it unfurl, and see how many times we could cut it in half before it hit Lake Pontchartrain.

But flying or owning a small plane is, to me, a noisy hassle. Soaring looks interesting.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Cessna's 150/152s have still never suffered inflight airframe failures as far as I know. They're tough, and not "too easy" to fly- which is what you'd want from a trainer. A solo student (at TSTI Waco, TX) tried an outside loop with a 152 (IDIOT!) and bent the door hinges.

Seems that Trump now has blood on his hands:

Boeing's fixes to 737 MAX software was delayed for five weeks by the government shutdown. The fix is now expected to be mandated for installation by the FAA by the end of April.

Cheers

Klaus

Klaus Kragelund wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

fixe

claims/

I agree with your first declaration. Trump has blood on his hands.

He is very good at mumbling after brand new aircraft fall out of the sky. The first time for him was back on 10-10-1989. And it was one of his.

The root problem is the rapid growth of the aviation industry and the need to train a lot of new pilots. The ideal situation would be that there would be at least one experienced and/or bright pilot in each cockpit and one trainee, but is this a reality ? The control system should behave predictably, so that a less proficient person could understand it.

I can understand the weight issue in aviation/space, but after all, there are only a few really critical systems that should be handled properly. One is the pitot tube and hence speed measurements. There have been too many crashes due to frozen pitot tubes or insects occupying the pitot tubes.

Do you really expect that an average pilot would understand such subtle issues ?

Pilots are just glorified industrial control room operators. 99 % of time it is just boring daily routines, but during the 1 % of time you are required to do some critical decisions.

Did I understand correctly that MCAS was added due to the changed center of gravity issues compared to original B737 ?

Anyway, Airbus received previously a lot of flak when old school pilots crashed a few planes, when the pilots did not understand the automation concept (Mulhouse).

The voter can be quite basic. For instance a bar with three coils driven by three control system. If at least two system pulls the bar in one direction, the bar moves in that direction, doing some mechanical work, opening a hydraulic valve etc.

One other case is that the voting mechanism works against gravity or spring loading. Of course, one should analyze, does it work properly during an earthquake.

onsdag den 13. marts 2019 kl. 22.42.27 UTC+1 skrev snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com:

day

s

at's

m/

or wasn't told about them:

" the newly installed ATR prevented the pilots from successfully performing the normal remedial measure to halt compressor stall, i.e., throttling bac k the engines, as the ATR system ? designed to prevent pilots using less than normal thrust when climbing out after take-off for noise abateme nt reasons ? restored engine take-off power throttle settings contr ary to the pilots' reduced throttle commands. This damaged the engines, unt il eventually, they failed completely."

The pilot stopped flying after that, he no felt he could trust airplanes and for a long time he got the blame for ruining the engines

That's in the nature of cracking. The forces that started the crack are now applying at the extending tip of the crack, but with the whole length of the crack added as a lever arm.

Clifford Heath.

I do not know if this was his total flight experience or just B737 MAX, but the trend seems to be that new pilots do not necessary have any flight experience in C172 or similar planes, before occupying the right seat on an airliner.

I really hope that they should have at least some stall recovery experience on a C172 (AF447 ?).

Aerospace tries very hard to make it so that a single point failure does not immediately seal the fate of an aircraft. Most common failure modes of aircraft flight systems should have been considered and an acceptable remedy or work around found long before it happens.

A passenger plane can usually fly with one engine failed and still make a controlled landing unless they are very unlucky. They can still land if badly with landing gear failure too although it closes the runway while they pick up the bits, put out any fires and fix the gouges.

No. It is bad design to have a control system that makes a fly-by-wire plane unflyable in the event of a relatively trivial sensor fault.

I wish that I thought you were right.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

-system/

o s

ot

at

.

a landing gear failure or any of the thousands of other things that can go wrong with aircraft that are potentially fatal? The difference is emotiona l. We accept that things "break". But we don't look at this sort of failu re the same way. It's purely emotional.

l not be allowed to fly.

I guess all aircraft are grounded then.

Rick C.

** Passenger planes must be able to continue a take off safely even if one engine fails during the take off run. Also, if an engine fails at any time during cruise, the plane must be able to reach a suitable airport on the re maining one/s. For planes making long trips over water, many hours can be i nvolved.

Contrary to popular opinion, passenger jets can glide very well. On at leas t two occasions, jets ( A300 & B7670 )have glided for over 100kms and lande d safely after running out of fuel.

Then there was the one that ditched in the Hudson river....

.... Phil