Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
10 Mar 19
23:32
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Dec 01
Boeing 2 new jets gone in the Past 6 months 
167 killed in Ethiopia today
167 killed in Ethiopia today
Show More
I know it’s not simple , it’s complex
That’s the problem , it is the fault of poor design
You don’t bring in computer systems to compensate for fundamental problems in the aircraft design
That’s a disaster waiting to happen
That’s the problem , it is the fault of poor design
You don’t bring in computer systems to compensate for fundamental problems in the aircraft design
That’s a disaster waiting to happen
Now those problems may not even be very major ones , all aircraft will have their own characteristics
Don’t hide the way ab aircraft is from its pilots by using tech to modify those problems
Why because those same things are patching up the underlying fault
And when that fails it’s mayhem
Don’t hide the way ab aircraft is from its pilots by using tech to modify those problems
Why because those same things are patching up the underlying fault
And when that fails it’s mayhem
not what you were saying before, you were saying how come the pilots didn't turn off mcas and recover
Yes that’s right I said why did they not turn mcas off ( assuming it can )
My point also is that mcas should not have been on the aircraft to turn off
The two things are interconnected
My point also is that mcas should not have been on the aircraft to turn off
The two things are interconnected
can you think of any reasons why they didn't turn mcas off?
You will have to read the rest of the thread , and think for yourself
Just a little bit
Just a little bit
and you seem to be very arrogant , just my opinion
nevertheless you will have to try thinking for yourself , too difficult ?
nevertheless you will have to try thinking for yourself , too difficult ?
i don't need to, i'm fairly sure given your posts above which show how little you know about aviation and actual flight you'll continue to push your view no matter what anyone says
ah, nothing then from elise
If you don't agree with any thing ive said that's fine
its not the first time and I wont be in the least disappointed
life is like that, full of little dissapointments
If you don't agree with any thing ive said that's fine
its not the first time and I wont be in the least disappointed
life is like that, full of little dissapointments
if him being a fckwit is trapping someone then yes, i'm well and truely trapped
anythings possible detraveller I suppose
Mar 19, 2019 -- 2:56PM, elise wrote:
if him being a fckwit is trapping someone then yes, i'm well and truely trapped
If its your first time with lfc, then nothing to be ashamed of.
This post taken from a 737 pilot on PPRuNe is as good an appraisal of why it's not as simple as just turning MCAS off as I have seen:
Originally Posted by Aloha_KSA View Post
As a long-time 737 driver I'll just chime-in a few points. Regarding the trim wheel ability to move the stab at high speed from full deflection: I seriously doubt that there would ever be too much force on the elevator that the trim wheel could not move it. There is a lot of leverage in the jack screw, and the turns of the trim wheel make very minute changes to the angle of the stab.
But know that moving from full deflection to neutral would take a painfully long time. On the -200 we used to wind the trim full fore and aft as part of the preflight checks. (We stopped doing that on the NG.) . Using the motor-driven trim this took about a minute to go full forward, full aft, then back to about 4 units. It is not physically possible to wind the trim wheel that fast for that long manually, especially when your aircraft is lurching about like a rodeo bull. Also note that it doesn't take much movement to change the aircraft's attitude significantly, and the aircraft is very controllable using manual trim. Back in the cargo days I once did a 20 minute flight using only the rudder and stab trim and manual power (on the -200) from after flaps up to 10000' on descent. That's right - I didn't touch the yoke, autopilot-off from climb-out to descent. It was very controllable and stable. (That was a good training exercise, too.)
My First Point: If we don't catch this mis-trim early, un-doing it manually will take a very long time and maybe more time than is available when your aircraft is only 1000' AGL. AND to use the trim wheel for more than small changes, one has to fold the handle out. A handle that has injured many a knee in simulator sessions because combined with the trim motor's speedy rotation of the wheel, it can leave one with a permanent limp.
Second: For all the arm-chair Monday morning QB's who are saying: "Oh, they should have recognized it immediately and disconnected the trim:"
(1) Just after takeoff there is a lot going on with trim, power, configuration changes, and as noted above, the darn speed trim is always moving that trim wheel in seemingly random directions to the point that experienced NG pilots would treat its movement as background noise and normal ops. Movement of the trim wheel in awkward amounts and directions would not immediately trigger a memory item response of disconnecting the servos. No way.
(2) The pilots could very reasonably not have noticed the stab trim movement. Movement of the stab trim on the 737 is indicated by very loud clacking as the wheel rotates. On the -200 it was almost shockingly loud. On the NG, much less so. HOWEVER, the 737 cockpit is NOISY. It's one reason I am happy to not be flying it any more. The ergonomics are ridiculous. Especially at high speeds at low altitudes. With the wind noise, they may not have heard the trim wheel moving. The only other way to know it was moving would be yoke feel and to actually look at the trim setting on the center pedestal, which requires looking down and away from the windows and the instruments in a 'leans'-inducing head move. On the 717, for example, Ms. Douglas chimes in with an audible "Stablizer Motion" warning. There is no such indication on the 737.
(3) The fact that they were at high power and high speed tells me the stick shaker was activated. With that massive vibrator between your legs, alternating blue sky and brown out the window, your eye balls bouncing up and down in their sockets as the plane lurches up and down in positive and negative G's, it would have been a miracle if one of the pilots calmly reached down, flicked off the stab servo cutout switches, folded out the trim handle, and started grinding the wheel in the direction of normalcy. These pilots said over the radio that they had "unreliable airspeed". So they did not even know which instruments to rest their eyes on for reliable info. Their eyes were all over the cockpit looking for reliable info, the plane is all over the place like a wild boar in a blanket not behaving in any rational way. And the flying pilot may have been using the tiny standby IFDS for airspeed and attitude. Ouch.
Finally, runaway stab trim is a very, very rare occurence up until now. We trained it about once every other year in the sim because it is so rare. And when we did it was obvious. The nose was getting steadily heavier or steadily lighter with continuous movement of the trim wheel. That is a VERY different scenario than what these pilots faced.
We also trained for jammed stabilizer, the remedy for which is overcoming it with force. The information they were faced with could very reasonably have been interpreted that way, too.
An URGENT AD from the FAA/ Boeing after Lion Air would have helped get it back to the front of the pilot's minds for sure. Extra training by the airline or an urgent pilot memo would have helped. Maybe one was issued, we don't know yet.
A better question might be: given this nose down attitude, high speed, and fully nose down or almost fully nose down stab, how much altitude would they have had to have to be able to recover. I'm thinking at least 10000 feet to recognize the problem, disconnect the switches, fold out the handle and start frantically winding the stab back to normalcy while the flying pilot tries to gain control via the elevator. It's entirely possible that this scenario, if not recognized early on, is unrecoverable at any altitude.
Originally Posted by Aloha_KSA View Post
As a long-time 737 driver I'll just chime-in a few points. Regarding the trim wheel ability to move the stab at high speed from full deflection: I seriously doubt that there would ever be too much force on the elevator that the trim wheel could not move it. There is a lot of leverage in the jack screw, and the turns of the trim wheel make very minute changes to the angle of the stab.
But know that moving from full deflection to neutral would take a painfully long time. On the -200 we used to wind the trim full fore and aft as part of the preflight checks. (We stopped doing that on the NG.) . Using the motor-driven trim this took about a minute to go full forward, full aft, then back to about 4 units. It is not physically possible to wind the trim wheel that fast for that long manually, especially when your aircraft is lurching about like a rodeo bull. Also note that it doesn't take much movement to change the aircraft's attitude significantly, and the aircraft is very controllable using manual trim. Back in the cargo days I once did a 20 minute flight using only the rudder and stab trim and manual power (on the -200) from after flaps up to 10000' on descent. That's right - I didn't touch the yoke, autopilot-off from climb-out to descent. It was very controllable and stable. (That was a good training exercise, too.)
My First Point: If we don't catch this mis-trim early, un-doing it manually will take a very long time and maybe more time than is available when your aircraft is only 1000' AGL. AND to use the trim wheel for more than small changes, one has to fold the handle out. A handle that has injured many a knee in simulator sessions because combined with the trim motor's speedy rotation of the wheel, it can leave one with a permanent limp.
Second: For all the arm-chair Monday morning QB's who are saying: "Oh, they should have recognized it immediately and disconnected the trim:"
(1) Just after takeoff there is a lot going on with trim, power, configuration changes, and as noted above, the darn speed trim is always moving that trim wheel in seemingly random directions to the point that experienced NG pilots would treat its movement as background noise and normal ops. Movement of the trim wheel in awkward amounts and directions would not immediately trigger a memory item response of disconnecting the servos. No way.
(2) The pilots could very reasonably not have noticed the stab trim movement. Movement of the stab trim on the 737 is indicated by very loud clacking as the wheel rotates. On the -200 it was almost shockingly loud. On the NG, much less so. HOWEVER, the 737 cockpit is NOISY. It's one reason I am happy to not be flying it any more. The ergonomics are ridiculous. Especially at high speeds at low altitudes. With the wind noise, they may not have heard the trim wheel moving. The only other way to know it was moving would be yoke feel and to actually look at the trim setting on the center pedestal, which requires looking down and away from the windows and the instruments in a 'leans'-inducing head move. On the 717, for example, Ms. Douglas chimes in with an audible "Stablizer Motion" warning. There is no such indication on the 737.
(3) The fact that they were at high power and high speed tells me the stick shaker was activated. With that massive vibrator between your legs, alternating blue sky and brown out the window, your eye balls bouncing up and down in their sockets as the plane lurches up and down in positive and negative G's, it would have been a miracle if one of the pilots calmly reached down, flicked off the stab servo cutout switches, folded out the trim handle, and started grinding the wheel in the direction of normalcy. These pilots said over the radio that they had "unreliable airspeed". So they did not even know which instruments to rest their eyes on for reliable info. Their eyes were all over the cockpit looking for reliable info, the plane is all over the place like a wild boar in a blanket not behaving in any rational way. And the flying pilot may have been using the tiny standby IFDS for airspeed and attitude. Ouch.
Finally, runaway stab trim is a very, very rare occurence up until now. We trained it about once every other year in the sim because it is so rare. And when we did it was obvious. The nose was getting steadily heavier or steadily lighter with continuous movement of the trim wheel. That is a VERY different scenario than what these pilots faced.
We also trained for jammed stabilizer, the remedy for which is overcoming it with force. The information they were faced with could very reasonably have been interpreted that way, too.
An URGENT AD from the FAA/ Boeing after Lion Air would have helped get it back to the front of the pilot's minds for sure. Extra training by the airline or an urgent pilot memo would have helped. Maybe one was issued, we don't know yet.
A better question might be: given this nose down attitude, high speed, and fully nose down or almost fully nose down stab, how much altitude would they have had to have to be able to recover. I'm thinking at least 10000 feet to recognize the problem, disconnect the switches, fold out the handle and start frantically winding the stab back to normalcy while the flying pilot tries to gain control via the elevator. It's entirely possible that this scenario, if not recognized early on, is unrecoverable at any altitude.
Mar 19, 2019 -- 2:58PM, lfc1971 wrote:
anythings possible detraveller I suppose
Not the answer to my question. Please avoid using my name if you are not addressing me.
so the question remains is there a switch that disables mcas or not, if not that's a problem right there with the design
With auto pilot it is a matter of the pilot pulling back on the controls quite sharply
that makes sense
If it is complicated and tricky to disable mcas that is a design fault
With auto pilot it is a matter of the pilot pulling back on the controls quite sharply
that makes sense
If it is complicated and tricky to disable mcas that is a design fault
The thrust that the wings and tail provide cannot be controlled by the design so im guessing its a pilot error not design.
how can there be a system that gives control of the aircraft to a computer that cannot be brought back under control by the pilot and quickly if not immediately
A system can be hacked to act in such a way. The MCAS hardly employs any firewall and up until the software update in 2018 was without any protection at all. It is possible someone hacked the planes.
The engine only provides the necessary electronics to move the wings up or down, depending on whether you need to take off or land. When in the air, the engines can be shut down. Airplanes can glide you know. What in aviation term is known as auto pilot.
As you say, the techno on these new planes is over-riding the pilots decisions ,and all control is lost
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737MAX_RevA.pdf
,
,
I can assure you detraveller they don't shut the engines down at any time whether in the air or not
Jesus this thread has seriously went from intelligent discussion to .. something else, hasn't it.
When we have two crashes of the same aircraft a new aircraft in such a short time then something is wrong with modern aviation
They seem to be building in potential problems , they are too complex
They seem to be building in potential problems , they are too complex
Flaws in the mcas system and problems for the pilots to counteract these when things go wrong
well we will have to wait and see
well we will have to wait and see
Lion air flight apparently was saved the day before it crashed by an off duty pilot from nosediving. He showed the on duty pilots how to disable the system and saved the plane.
Almost unbelievable that they are flying an aircraft and don’t know how to or can’t quickly correct a fault like that
They didn't even know the aeroplane had MCAS fitted because Boeing DIDN'T TELL THEM.
Obviously some pilots knew so Boeing must have told somebody
These systems have to be tested , inspected , engineers , testers , pilots must have known it was on the aircraft
"There's just been one crash lfc"
2 that I know of
2 that I know of
Just can’t get my head around the idea that there would be a fundamental system like this ( or any system ) on an aircraft and the pilots not to know about it, just doesn’t make any sense at all
Google "Seattle Times Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system"
Right , for the possibility that some pilots were unaware of this system ( which shouldn’t be the case in any event )
It must mean there was no specific way to disable MCAS , ie a switch in the cockpit , whatever
That can’t exist
Therefore the means of disabling MCAS must rely on the procedures that pilots would follow naturally if an aircraft started to stall
These would be the taught procedures , ie disable auto pilot ( easily done ) and take manual control
But the problem with MCAS was that these usual procedures didn’t work
And this caused confusion and mayhem
So it’s possible the fault lies in not having a stand alone way to disable MCAS ( such as a switch in the cockpit)
Which any pilot would have seen and asked what’s this ?
And also a breakdown in communication and training between Boeing and some pilots some airlines
However all airlines must have known at some level that these aircraft were fitted with MCAS for maintainance purposes etc
It must mean there was no specific way to disable MCAS , ie a switch in the cockpit , whatever
That can’t exist
Therefore the means of disabling MCAS must rely on the procedures that pilots would follow naturally if an aircraft started to stall
These would be the taught procedures , ie disable auto pilot ( easily done ) and take manual control
But the problem with MCAS was that these usual procedures didn’t work
And this caused confusion and mayhem
So it’s possible the fault lies in not having a stand alone way to disable MCAS ( such as a switch in the cockpit)
Which any pilot would have seen and asked what’s this ?
And also a breakdown in communication and training between Boeing and some pilots some airlines
However all airlines must have known at some level that these aircraft were fitted with MCAS for maintainance purposes etc
“ going against a long Boeing tradition of giving the pilot complete control of the aircraft “
This jumps out right away
This jumps out right away
what jumps out straight away is how you manage to know so little about so much
Yep can believe pretty much believe everything in that article
So pilots around the world were notified by Boeing and knew about MCAS
But problems with training , understanding of the system , and fundamental flaws in the system itself
And of course money driving decision making both in the case of Boeing and the Airlines
But problems with training , understanding of the system , and fundamental flaws in the system itself
And of course money driving decision making both in the case of Boeing and the Airlines
* after the first crash
And there had been nothing in the pilots flight schedules
What a mess !
And there had been nothing in the pilots flight schedules
What a mess !
News just said the lion crash crew voice recorder showed they were scanning the manual to try and work out how to switch off the system that killed them.
But it wasn't even mentioned in the manual, as Boeing had decided not to put it in. (That's if it's possible and I've not read from a reliable source it is).
How Boeing can get away with this without ending up in court .. tempted to see about shorting their share price.
But it wasn't even mentioned in the manual, as Boeing had decided not to put it in. (That's if it's possible and I've not read from a reliable source it is).
How Boeing can get away with this without ending up in court .. tempted to see about shorting their share price.
Mar 20, 2019 -- 3:38PM, the old nanny ;-) wrote:
"There's just been one crash lfc" 2 that I know of
I was just trying to put lfc off his path. He didn't take the bait on this one.
Mar 20, 2019 -- 11:23PM, Just Checking wrote:
News just said the lion crash crew voice recorder showed they were scanning the manual to try and work out how to switch off the system that killed them.But it wasn't even mentioned in the manual, as Boeing had decided not to put it in. (That's if it's possible and I've not read from a reliable source it is).How Boeing can get away with this without ending up in court .. tempted to see about shorting their share price.
Dont short. I think their stock has already paid the price for this. Just because some people died doesnt make it any worse. At the end of the day, a stock like that reacts to how much money it will cost them and I am pretty sure a decent compensation after court ruling is priced in. People are not going to cancel their orders or stop ordering because of an accident or two. So the only financial hit they'll take is the one in court.
JNJ was 'knowingly' distributing cancer in their powder and yet shorting it wouldn't have made you a single buck. They were made to pay 29 mil to one woman and the stock didnt even react to that.
Mar 20, 2019 -- 11:23PM, Just Checking wrote:
News just said the lion crash crew voice recorder showed they were scanning the manual to try and work out how to switch off the system that killed them.But it wasn't even mentioned in the manual, as Boeing had decided not to put it in. (That's if it's possible and I've not read from a reliable source it is).How Boeing can get away with this without ending up in court .. tempted to see about shorting their share price.
You can disable it through the Stab Trim Switch, but the way you come to do that is by running the Trim Runaway checklist, and this does not manifest as a trim runaway problem, as in that scenario the trim would run all the way to the mechanical stops and not run for just 10 seconds before resetting.
The Lion Air crew had practically no chance as they had no idea that MCAS was even a thing.
Ethiopian should at least have been aware of it, but had roughly 1000ft to play with (Lion Air managed to eek out about 6000ft), which, most pilots agree, does not provide an awful lot of latitude for trouble shooting.
if it wasn't a trim runaway problem what else could it be ?
Mar 20, 2019 -- 11:58PM, detraveller wrote:
Mar 20, 2019 -- 10:23PM, Just Checking wrote:News just said the lion crash crew voice recorder showed they were scanning the manual to try and work out how to switch off the system that killed them.But it wasn't even mentioned in the manual, as Boeing had decided not to put it in. (That's if it's possible and I've not read from a reliable source it is).How Boeing can get away with this without ending up in court .. tempted to see about shorting their share price.Dont short. I think their stock has already paid the price for this. Just because some people died doesnt make it any worse. At the end of the day, a stock like that reacts to how much money it will cost them and I am pretty sure a decent compensation after court ruling is priced in. People are not going to cancel their orders or stop ordering because of an accident or two. So the only financial hit they'll take is the one in court.JNJ was 'knowingly' distributing cancer in their powder and yet shorting it wouldn't have made you a single buck. They were made to pay 29 mil to one woman and the stock didnt even react to that.
Detraveller is correct. The only way the share price will take a real hit is if Boeing has problems with re-certifying the aeroplane once the national regulatory bodies really start to do some digging. They already had 5011 pre-orders for the MAX at the end of Jan, and even after a few billion dollars in compo claims, the thing will still be massively profitable, assuming no-one ditched their orders.
When an aircraft has stabiliser movement the first thing a pilot should do is stop this movement
The pilots may or may not have thought it was a runaway trim problem but they should have still acted to stop the movement of the stabiliser
The pilots may or may not have thought it was a runaway trim problem but they should have still acted to stop the movement of the stabiliser
The stab will routinely trim as a matter of course. It does so to reduce the amount of stick pressure required by the crew.
You have absolutely zero comprehension of what you are talking about and should just be quiet.
You have absolutely zero comprehension of what you are talking about and should just be quiet.
The stab will trim as a matter of course
This was not trim as a matter of course and should have been stopped
This was not trim as a matter of course and should have been stopped
now unless you can think logically I suggest you be quiet
Mar 21, 2019 -- 12:00PM, elise wrote:
what a moron
I honestly can't decide if he's just a fisherman playing a 'hilarious' game or whether he is just an absolute weapons-grade throbber, but either way, I am done communicating with him.
From what I've read of how they previously disabled it and saved the plane, it wasn't something as simple as "disable MCAS", a 3rd pilot managed to work out that they should disable the actual motor doing the trim activation NOT disable the software trying to crash the plane. I'm guessing that's not obvious at all and buried in a menu somewhere, given modern cockpits.. If that's the only way to do it, not "disable auto anti stall trim" but "disable a servo motor", that's yet again shocking.
Boeing apparently outsourced a lot of the avionics like this 10 years ago. I wonder how much of that is a factor, 3rd parties who are less invested in the product trying to just meet a specification they've been given from an external source, versus people who are integral to the company who feel part of creating a safe product...
Boeing apparently outsourced a lot of the avionics like this 10 years ago. I wonder how much of that is a factor, 3rd parties who are less invested in the product trying to just meet a specification they've been given from an external source, versus people who are integral to the company who feel part of creating a safe product...
i'm of the view he's fishing but is actually a weapons grade throbber and unaware of it
He takes pleasure in talking nonsense and then sitting back and laughing when people start arguing and taking him seriously. And he is bloody good at that.
Wouldn’t like to be in an aircraft if any of you hobininnys were flying and something went wrong
That requires calm and clear and logical thinking and you obviously don’t have the aptitude
That’s quite clear , sorry
Don’t allow yourselves to believe anything else
Read , read what I have said , read it carefully and read it again ,
and try and understand
Anythings possible , I read it somewhere
That requires calm and clear and logical thinking and you obviously don’t have the aptitude
That’s quite clear , sorry
Don’t allow yourselves to believe anything else
Read , read what I have said , read it carefully and read it again ,
and try and understand
Anythings possible , I read it somewhere
There's no way for you to find out who will be flying your plane. So you'll be clueless about who's flying it, just like you are clueless now. Now that probably doesn't make sense. But try to think abt it with a clear mind. You might get it. Anything possible, I read...
there's little doubt about what a collosal **** you are lfc, i bet you've read that somewhere before too
Boeing apparently provide safety features for the Max8 as 'extras' for an additional cost to customers.
An Indonesian airline has canceled the order of 49 jets that were ordered in 2014. Considering the huge order cycle I am not sure how Boeing will manage cancelations? The order was worth about 5 billion dollars.
Will also be interesting to see how many orders from China had been placed. They aren't usually all that concerned about safety like the western countries but they were quicker to ground the planes than Europe and America. I am wondering if the Chinese use this to their advantage, especially after tariffs and the Huawei arrest. And the fact that America is shamelessly trying tk convince everyone not to use Huawei equipment for 5G.
One would need to find out the details about Chinas orders at Boeing because if they are big, China might well deliberately fk Boeing.
Will also be interesting to see how many orders from China had been placed. They aren't usually all that concerned about safety like the western countries but they were quicker to ground the planes than Europe and America. I am wondering if the Chinese use this to their advantage, especially after tariffs and the Huawei arrest. And the fact that America is shamelessly trying tk convince everyone not to use Huawei equipment for 5G.
One would need to find out the details about Chinas orders at Boeing because if they are big, China might well deliberately fk Boeing.
They're already investigating the ex Boeing employee and Acting Secretary of Defence for switching military orders from the Lockheed Martin F-35 to the less effective Boeing F-15 it's all corrupt.
F-15 is an old design but good, F35 is mired in scandal for being hugely overpriced and not as good as it was made out to be. Maybe he had a point!
20 years time wouldn't surprise me if drones are doing a huge amount of combat roles. Never mind big expensive ones, I'm talking about swarms of cheap drones being sent to take out AA/Artillery etc. It'll happen, it's just when. Britain is look at that as are obviously other major nations.
It's just the Boeing drones will randomly crash and target allied vehicles etc.
20 years time wouldn't surprise me if drones are doing a huge amount of combat roles. Never mind big expensive ones, I'm talking about swarms of cheap drones being sent to take out AA/Artillery etc. It'll happen, it's just when. Britain is look at that as are obviously other major nations.
It's just the Boeing drones will randomly crash and target allied vehicles etc.
Preliminary investigation result = Ethiopa crash had the MCAS system activated.
They really need to be sued and sued hard, it might concentrate minds on making ill though out and stupid (money saving?) safety decisions in the future, that just appear wreckless in retrospect and should have been huge red flags at the time to any competent engineer involved.
They really need to be sued and sued hard, it might concentrate minds on making ill though out and stupid (money saving?) safety decisions in the future, that just appear wreckless in retrospect and should have been huge red flags at the time to any competent engineer involved.
it seems boeing are continuing to dig the hole .....
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/03/boeing-doubles-down-on-737-max-rejects-need-for-simulator-training.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/03/boeing-doubles-down-on-737-max-rejects-need-for-simulator-training.html
It's that ISA time of year. I think I'll buy some airbus shares :)
Think they'll be grounded for quite some time if the latest reports are true.
yes just checking
This is a massive boost to the European Airbus sales
although in a tragic way
This is a massive boost to the European Airbus sales
although in a tragic way
Boeing in serious trouble. They've got a massive problem regaining any confidence in these planes and the CEO's statement rang hollow in accepting responsibility.
Did you see they've highlighted a separate, non-related failure in the software, too? What else is still lurking? They could have real problems getting the MAX recertified, let alone getting the public to fly on the thing.
Mar 29, 2019 -- 2:07PM, Just Checking wrote:
It's that ISA time of year. I think I'll buy some airbus shares :)
I think you will find that you are already too late for that.
You also mentioned shorting BA at 370 and its at 394 now.
Whatever went wrong will be set right soon. At least on paper. At worst some people will be punished. The legal battle will be a small cost. I won't be surprised if the settlement costs are less than the profit they made from the crashed plane itself. All this will make a lot of noise but wont affect the company too much imo.
I am very interested in what the Chinese do. I am too lazy to find out what position they have in the world market but last year they successfully made the 737 equivalent(called Comac or something like that). They were very quick to ground all max planes, even quicker than Europe, which sets quite high standards for passenger safety. If their 737 equivalent takes off, it might just kill Boeing and Airbus.
25% of boeing commercial planes go to China. And only the Chinese government can authorize airplane purchases in China, not the airlines themselves. I am pretty sure the Chinese sat down after the second crash and thought this is our opportunity to feck Boeing. So if boeing goes down, it will most probably be because of what China does and not because two of their planes crashed.
Only this week the Chinese have ordered 290 A320NEOs and 10 A350s (the govt orders them and then allocates them to airlines).
China's C919 passenger jet — the country's answer to Boeing's popular 737 single aisle aircraft — is approaching 1,000 orders, the Chinese government-owned jet maker says.
The C919, made by Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China Ltd. (COMAC), has gained 815 orders from 28 customers in China and abroad, COMAC stated after winning its latest order for 30 more jets.
The newest buyer is China Huarong Financial Leasing of Beijing, a financial asset manager that orders COMAC regional jets, too.
The value of the deals was not disclosed.
As COMAC wins more C919 orders, it could undermine Boeing's own sales in China, where Boeing now sells one in three new 737s made in Renton, and where it's also launched a completion center for 737s in a joint venture with COMAC.
The C919, made by Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China Ltd. (COMAC), has gained 815 orders from 28 customers in China and abroad, COMAC stated after winning its latest order for 30 more jets.
The newest buyer is China Huarong Financial Leasing of Beijing, a financial asset manager that orders COMAC regional jets, too.
The value of the deals was not disclosed.
As COMAC wins more C919 orders, it could undermine Boeing's own sales in China, where Boeing now sells one in three new 737s made in Renton, and where it's also launched a completion center for 737s in a joint venture with COMAC.
Too late to buy airbus ISA compatible shares for the ISA year 2018-2019 in March 2019? What a bizarre thing to say, even for chit chat.
I could still buy (more) now if I wanted...
I could still buy (more) now if I wanted...
I wonder if the Chinese planes have components and technology that are surprisingly similar to counterparts in the west?
Hope they didn't copy the MCAS
Hope they didn't copy the MCAS
I am sorry i dont know what ISA compatible shares are, what I meant was if you are buying Airbus because you think Boeing will lose orders, you are too late for that. And that Boeing losing orders doesn't necessarily means Airbus wins them.
As for your counterfeit comment, I think people will never get over the china stealing and counterfeiting. I've observed that with Huawei and 5G. People think just because Huawei steals and copies products means their products aren't good when the reality is Europe is resisting american pressure to not install Huawei despite the fact that two european companies offer 5G services. European operators say Huawei's product is better and cheaper while the only thing i've heard from pro nokia and pro ericsson people is that Huawei steals.
As for your counterfeit comment, I think people will never get over the china stealing and counterfeiting. I've observed that with Huawei and 5G. People think just because Huawei steals and copies products means their products aren't good when the reality is Europe is resisting american pressure to not install Huawei despite the fact that two european companies offer 5G services. European operators say Huawei's product is better and cheaper while the only thing i've heard from pro nokia and pro ericsson people is that Huawei steals.
Nokia and Ericsson people? Are you sending this reply from 2002?
No JC, 2019. You clearly don't have a clue what these companies do or else you wouldn't have said that.
Back to original topic ,I think there is still something else we are not being told about the max 8 problems and suspect the issue is something else . Reason i say this this is one if not both of these crashes was after some work had been carried out ,the AOA sensor and pretty sure one of these flights had two AOA sensors which was a manufacturing option ,so there was a problem and there was people trying to rectify issue ,I do not believe the amount of AOA sensors that were reported faulty were faulty .One of these flights is reported to have had AOA sensor/sensors just changed ,Reading between the lines with my thinking head on I think the issue could well be something else or the correct procedure for changing and calibrating the sensors was/is not being followed or is in correct .I do not believe so many sensors could be faulty on such a new craft ,either wrong sensors ,incorrect installation or something along those lines ,when the manufacturer was getting so many bad sensors returned they must have looked into it ? These returned sensors would have been tested ,aircraft stuff is manufactured to space tech standards ,everything is tested to within an milimeter of its life .Is it possible there was upgraded sensors and they were not fitted correctly or not calibrated into the system correctly and the system did not recognise them due to being out of sync with system parameters ? A bit like a body rejecting a new organ ? I think the system would need to bed in a new sensor ,maybe even a learning process ,I wonder if a communication breakdown on the technical side at Boeing is the real reason behind these tragic losses ? Reading about these sensors literally being faulty out of the box and this is a huge red flag .aircraft parts are simply not like that .
All 737 MAX aeroplanes have two AoA sensors fitted. The problem is that the MCAS software was taking its cues from a single sensor (whether it was left or right changes during each flight) and was not required to provide a cross-check against the other AoA sensor. That this single point of failure was allowed to provide such a catastrophic control input is staggering.
There is some suggestion that a foreign body was at work in the Ethiopian crash as the AoA sensor in use at that particularly time was operating fine until just a few seconds after they became airborne, such as possibly hitting a bird on take-off.
In the Lion Air crash, the aeroplane had been generating multiple (and increasing) error messages in its preceding flights (the prescribed engineering work clearing those errors on each occasion before the aeroplane was returned to service), so it's not impossible that there is something else going on.
As Boeing confessed in their statement on Thursday, they have already highlighted one other (unrelated) bug in the MAX software which they are already working on fixing.
There is some suggestion that a foreign body was at work in the Ethiopian crash as the AoA sensor in use at that particularly time was operating fine until just a few seconds after they became airborne, such as possibly hitting a bird on take-off.
In the Lion Air crash, the aeroplane had been generating multiple (and increasing) error messages in its preceding flights (the prescribed engineering work clearing those errors on each occasion before the aeroplane was returned to service), so it's not impossible that there is something else going on.
As Boeing confessed in their statement on Thursday, they have already highlighted one other (unrelated) bug in the MAX software which they are already working on fixing.
Boeing now admitting they knew the problem
Christ
They are IDIOTS
Christ
They are IDIOTS
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539