For the aviation fans

[Lotus]

Why would you track his flight?

It's a thing in our family - travel updates, where are you now, are you there yet....

 

Plus, he's my youngest and I miss him already.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Lotus

[Robbie Stewart]

It's a thing in our family - travel updates, where are you now, are you there yet....

 

Plus, he's my youngest and I miss him already.

 

Sorry to hear, Lotus.

 

When I moved to Cape Town, after saying goodbye to the folks, I had a bit of a man-cry in the car on the way home...my wife just kept glancing at me, seeing something was up, but not quite sure what.

 

_{(did I just say that out loud?)}

[Kranswurm]

It's a thing in our family - travel updates, where are you now, are you there yet....

 

FB

 

Plus, he's my youngest and I miss him already.

[Grebel]

Every now and again, I click on a post that has been hidden as a result of my ignore settings and then I realize why I set it up like that in the first place.....

[Velouria]

 

But I am going back to the problem of over-automation and the belief that the computer will fly the plane. Remember that Asiana Airlines Flight 214?

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a local crash investigator who was giving one of the subjects during our Com Course.

 

His take was that Boeing and Airbus (and more correctly the US and France) had very different design philosophies when it came to building aircraft.

 

In the US, the pilot is like a god. Just look at their history - The Right Stuff, test pilots, astronauts etc. They design a plane that a pilot can fly because the pilot can handle everything. Give him the tools, and he'll navigate his way out of every situation.

 

Whereas in Europe, the engineer is like a god. The designer and creator of things. Pilots just steer their creations. If you want to do something complex, you automate it. You create a system that can do it and don't rely on the pilot.

 

Now sure, both approaches have their pros and cons. But somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot.

 

In the case of the 737 Max - I'd like to believe that this is Boeing realising that modern jetliners are complex machines and that they are only getting more and more complex with each iteration. So they put a system in place to deal with that complexity. Except they did it on the cheap, and as an optional extra.

 

As sad as these two crashes are, at least the aviation industry sits up when there are incidents like this and fix the problem. If only other spheres of our lives were as rigorous (imagine if there was as much outrage over the Easter carnage on our roads as there has been of the Ethiopian crash, and we actually did something to stop it from happening again)

[Long Wheel Base]

Every now and again, I click on a post that has been hidden as a result of my ignore settings and then I realize why I set it up like that in the first place.....

? What on this thread gets ignored?

[Grebel]

? What on this thread gets ignored?

Not what, but who......

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[kosmonooit]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a local crash investigator who was giving one of the subjects during our Com Course.

 

His take was that Boeing and Airbus (and more correctly the US and France) had very different design philosophies when it came to building aircraft.

 

In the US, the pilot is like a god. Just look at their history - The Right Stuff, test pilots, astronauts etc. They design a plane that a pilot can fly because the pilot can handle everything. Give him the tools, and he'll navigate his way out of every situation.

 

Whereas in Europe, the engineer is like a god. The designer and creator of things. Pilots just steer their creations. If you want to do something complex, you automate it. You create a system that can do it and don't rely on the pilot.

 

Now sure, both approaches have their pros and cons. But somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot.

 

In the case of the 737 Max - I'd like to believe that this is Boeing realising that modern jetliners are complex machines and that they are only getting more and more complex with each iteration. So they put a system in place to deal with that complexity. Except they did it on the cheap, and as an optional extra.

 

As sad as these two crashes are, at least the aviation industry sits up when there are incidents like this and fix the problem. If only other spheres of our lives were as rigorous (imagine if there was as much outrage over the Easter carnage on our roads as there has been of the Ethiopian crash, and we actually did something to stop it from happening again)

 

I am sure most of the computer aids make life easier for the pilots and flight safer, one can think of many systems for flight and engine management. ie the A350 has a system that will manage your landing speed and stop you at you desired exit ramp.

 

From what I can see all the 727 Max's have MCAS, which in most situations is good safety feature, pushing the nose down by trimming the horizontal stabiliser when the aircraft pitches up close to stall BUT

 

1) Boeing didn't educate pilots enough about this new system, assuming they didn't have to worry or know about it because it was a safety feature, so certainly when things when wrong all it takes is flick of the two switches to disable the auto trim however if you don't know or understand what is trimming the aircraft nose down and spend your time trying to fight it, you are going to lose and the aircraft likely will crash. Certainly with Lion Air this is what happened.

 

2) This MCAS system is flawed is that it only used one of the AoA sensors, so if that fails you have a big problem with MCAS and need to turn off the autotrim pronto. Hard to believe their is no redundancy here although one finds it just about everywhere else.  Probably due to cost saving.  Using the 2nd AoA sensor was optional, I think South West took that option.

 

It seems to be Boeing has something to answer for here, and the FAA.

[MrJacques]

Southwest’s Boeing 737 MAX emergency lands in Florida after engine problem

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/454827-boeing-737-max-emergency-florida/

[Robbie Stewart]

And then this happens...

https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/22486-civilian-passenger-gets-unexpectedly-ejected-from-rafale-b-jet?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email

[Robbie Stewart]

And at Lanseria on Saturday past while loading up a Cessna Caravan, it tipped onto it's tail. Apparently it was rectified soon after, with no obvious damage.

 

[Robbie Stewart]

I am sure most of the computer aids make life easier for the pilots and flight safer, one can think of many systems for flight and engine management. ie the A350 has a system that will manage your landing speed and stop you at you desired exit ramp.

 

From what I can see all the 727 Max's have MCAS, which in most situations is good safety feature, pushing the nose down by trimming the horizontal stabiliser when the aircraft pitches up close to stall BUT

 

1) Boeing didn't educate pilots enough about this new system, assuming they didn't have to worry or know about it because it was a safety feature, so certainly when things when wrong all it takes is flick of the two switches to disable the auto trim however if you don't know or understand what is trimming the aircraft nose down and spend your time trying to fight it, you are going to lose and the aircraft likely will crash. Certainly with Lion Air this is what happened.

 

2) This MCAS system is flawed is that it only used one of the AoA sensors, so if that fails you have a big problem with MCAS and need to turn off the autotrim pronto. Hard to believe their is no redundancy here although one finds it just about everywhere else.  Probably due to cost saving.  Using the 2nd AoA sensor was optional, I think South West took that option.

 

It seems to be Boeing has something to answer for here, and the FAA.

 

I read this piece in the NY Times about the Boeing Max fiasco.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html

 

It seems that Boeing was warned by American Airlines that they were going to order all their next batch of planes from Airbus, and subsequently decided to forego building a 737 replacement which would take a decade or more, and rather upgrade the existing 737 NG to MAX levels, which they could roll out in about 5-6 years.

 

Boeing never took Airbus, or American serious, and once it looked like they were going to lose out, they rushed the 737 MAX through production.

 

One of the major points of design was that nothing was allowed to be added that would require simulator training, as they wanted to piggyback on the NG's features with which pilots are familiar.

 

One example given was the new glass cockpit, which could have been employed to use new, improved methods of displaying avionic data and other crucial information, but because of the design limit around simulator training, they merely digitized the current analogue systems, creating exact replicas for the MAX. They lost a huge opportunity to take avionics display up a notch.

 

Airbus on the other hand decided to launch the A320 Neo, which Boeing also dissed. The 320 Neo would come with larger, more powerful engines, and American queried this, as there would be a significant performance and aerodynamic change as a result, which Airbus took into consideration in their design plans, compensating for it.

 

Boeing's response was a knee-jerk reaction to add bigger engines because the Neo has bigger engines, but instead of updating the aerodynamics and performance characteristics of the plane, they added MCAS, and decided to not tell the pilots, as it was a background feature which the pilots were not likely to interact with.

 

American ended up splitting their order 50/50 between Boeing and Airbus as a result.

 

 

[Lotus]

And then this happens...

 

https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/22486-civilian-passenger-gets-unexpectedly-ejected-from-rafale-b-jet?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email

Wow, he must have been surprised and confused for a while there. They mention he hurt his back on the runway, but I've heard back injuries are common from the thrust of the ejector seat?

[Lotus]

And at Lanseria on Saturday past while loading up a Cessna Caravan, it tipped onto it's tail. Apparently it was rectified soon after, with no obvious damage.

 

BDF89496-526A-4CBE-9F22-26B426F965D3.jpeg

 

I want to be a 737 Max when I grow up.

[Robbie Stewart]

Wow, he must have been surprised and confused for a while there. They mention he hurt his back on the runway, but I've heard back injuries are common from the thrust of the ejector seat?

 

I can only imagine the forces at play to successfully eject from an aircraft normally moving at very high speeds. Apply those forces to the human body, and injuries are secondary to preserving a life. One can deal with an injured back, but not of your'e dead.

[Long Wheel Base]

And at Lanseria on Saturday past while loading up a Cessna Caravan, it tipped onto it's tail. Apparently it was rectified soon after, with no obvious damage.

 

BDF89496-526A-4CBE-9F22-26B426F965D3.jpeg

I see its a zimbabwe registered plane. Wonder what they were loading so much of that it did that. Maybe stuff for the cyclone victims? Maybe enough zim dollars to pay for lunch?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Long Wheel Base