737 Max Crash

Page 2 of 3<123>
March 16th, 2019 at 8:45:46 AM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Quote: odiousgambit

so to think you need to have a system to automatically correct the situation does say they have to allow for pilots who are inexperienced. Why would they be flying big airliners?


Ignorant opinion here, but I don't think the system is just for the inexperienced. Weather can erase visual cues, and plane movement can erase "seat of the pants" feel. In a cloud of swirling grey, a few dials is all that tells you what you're doing, and dials fail / get ignored / are misread.

It does seem odd, what with all the altimeter info, that THAT is not the prime directive. Stalling is sometimes just an simple, easily correctable error. Driving into the ground is always a big deal.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
March 16th, 2019 at 7:54:08 PM permalink
beachbumbabs
Member since: Sep 3, 2013
Threads: 6
Posts: 1600
I'm a pilot and a controller, but that doesn't mean I know a lot about flying jets.

However, I think there are unaddressed issues beyond the obvious. One is that type-ratings are expensive and time-consuming. The B737Max has evolved from about 50 years of producing B737. Just about the only things the Max has in common with a B737-200 (first widely flown production model) is the number of engines. 2. End of story.

The B737 is the most flown, by model, of all air carriers. So there are hundreds of thousands of certificated pilots for it. Sales point in marketing the Max: your pilots already know how to fly it! They're already type-rated (licensed to fly)! Plug n play compatibility!

Except it's not. The powerplants are different. The fly-by-wire aspect of the stabilizers and trim - the pilot almost CAN'T fly manually in the newest planes. The software and safety overrides of unbelievably sophisticated electronic packages, that consolidate human physical input, dozens of sensor readings, miles (literal miles) of wiring to all components and control surfaces, radardome weather and traffic and GPS returns...it's a delicate balance.

And the hierarchy of programming and responses to a huge variety of possible inputs - it could be simply glitches in the computer response to a particular sequence of events that are unanticipated in normal flight.

There's a good chance Boeing should have drawn a line well short of calling this aircraft a B737.

There's another good chance that the training was inadequate to the airplane, for those type-rated in general but transitioning to this model.

There's a chance that, since each airline or operator will have their own procedures they layer on top of basic operation of a jet, the Lionair and Ethiopian procedures.may have precipitated the porpoise motion.

For example, IF (pure speculation) those two both instructed their crews to throttle back leaving 10000 ft on their climb profile to save on fuel (climb more slowly to altitude than the ideal profile), when the aircraft was instructed to climb to 34000 ft, the sensors would have indicated the loss of airflow over the wings, so the computer thought they were indicating a stall, and proactively retrimming, pushing the nose down to regain airspeed. If the pilots didn't know how to override or cut out the computer quickly, it could produce the type of profile the data shows in the climb/descent oscillation for both. Again pure speculation on my part.

But pilots have been largely relegated to flight monitors, so their training and expectations may reflect that these days. It's also allowed that, depending on the regulatory agency, up to 100% of training for type can be done in a simulator, not an actual aircraft. It's been at least 15 years since we heard, with some surprise and foreboding, that there were now pilots who, the first time they flew an actual aircraft, had paying passengers in the back.

Idk about you folks, but that scared the hell out of me at the time.
Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has
March 17th, 2019 at 1:24:25 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Quote: beachbumbabs
There's another good chance that the training was inadequate to the airplane, for those type-rated in general but transitioning to this model.

There's a chance that, since each airline or operator will have their own procedures they layer on top of basic operation of a jet, the Lionair and Ethiopian procedures.may have precipitated the porpoise motion.

But pilots have been largely relegated to flight monitors, so their training and expectations may reflect that these days. It's also allowed that, depending on the regulatory agency, up to 100% of training for type can be done in a simulator, not an actual aircraft. It's been at least 15 years since we heard, with some surprise and foreboding, that there were now pilots who, the first time they flew an actual aircraft, had paying passengers in the back.

Idk about you folks, but that scared the hell out of me at the time.

Too much complexity for the pilots most of it undisclosed.
Sort of boilsdown to asalesman's dream but an engineer's nightmare that places passengers at risk when suddenly the plane goes way beyond the training and experience of the pilots.
March 17th, 2019 at 4:42:55 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: beachbumbabs
It's been at least 15 years since we heard, with some surprise and foreboding, that there were now pilots who, the first time they flew an actual aircraft, had paying passengers in the back.

Idk about you folks, but that scared the hell out of me at the time.


Are you kidding me? I assume that only happens in other countries.
March 17th, 2019 at 4:59:09 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
too much training is to minimal standards of performance and expected routines. its like driving around the block for a driving test and then getting licensed to hit thefreeways in a ferarri.
pilots sit there and read tv screens. they don't have to fly planes any more.
when things suddenly change its too late to teach them to fly.
March 18th, 2019 at 5:09:57 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
one pilot won't even dead head on air india because too many of their pilots have zillions of hours in their log books but do not know how to open doors or adjust seats and therefore all their logged hours are works of pure fiction.
March 19th, 2019 at 9:58:37 AM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 239
Posts: 6095
I think the day will eventually come, perhaps within a generation, when planes can be flown like drones.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
March 19th, 2019 at 10:35:09 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Wizard
I think the day will eventually come, perhaps within a generation, when planes can be flown like drones.


We are most of the way there now. Autopilot gets turned on right after takeoff. IMHO the biggest obstacles are that the programming for takeoff and landing would be very difficult. Lots of fuzzy logic. A bit like driving a car on snow or ice, have to feather the controls just right.
The President is a fink.
March 19th, 2019 at 12:13:08 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
the problem is that drones can be hijacked and not too many command and control systems are designed to be robust and secure. think about key fobs etc. think about imposters.
March 19th, 2019 at 2:21:48 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: Wizard
I think the day will eventually come, perhaps within a generation, when planes can be flown like drones.


RC enthusiasts have been landing scale models for years. Mostly without destroying the plane.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
Page 2 of 3<123>