Another Boeing 737 Max-8 crash

Discussion in 'General' started by SPL170db, Mar 10, 2019.

  1. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    Meh....Aircraft land everyday with no power and nobody makes a big deal about it.








    1 or 2 place gliders.....:D
     
  2. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    Yup. Also, it’s not like he went and contacted a NYT reporter with his opinion. He’s a vastly experienced pilot who posted his opinion on his personal FB page and the media ran with it.

    I don’t know who’s at fault, but I think the rush to blame Boeing is a bit comical. 200 hours of flight time to be a first officer on a big ass jet? How much actual flight time can a pilot get in a full time week? 20 hours? That’s 10 weeks of actual flying. From I’ve never flown a plane before to now I’m flying a jet with 150 people. Yeah he has training and simulator time but that’s utterly ridiculous.
     
  3. HPPT

    HPPT Admin/Mod

    That's the first officer's total flight time?
     
  4. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    I think your view of what’s technologically possible and what a business is actually willing to do are miles apart. Why would airlines spend money on it? They’re the ones who’d have to build and maintain the infrastructure. It provides no benefit to their core mission of making more money, and no real downside since the current option of recovering the black box usually works fine.

    They have automated maintenance updates from the engines. They invested in that because it decreases maintenance cycles and increases the operational tempo of their aircraft.

    Businesses are conservative by nature. Big banks still use extinct computer systems and software developed 30+ years ago to process transactions, and then slap on interfaces and fixes to integrate them with modern systems and keep them going. Tons of companies still use EDI systems originally developed 40 years ago to exchange data.

    If it’s not going to produce revenue or reduce costs business will not invest in new tech.
     
    pscook likes this.
  5. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    That’s what the initial reports say, but unconfirmed. Pretty insane if true.
     
  6. speedluvn

    speedluvn On a Quest For Speed

    Da fug you been all dis time, mang?
     
  7. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    Whatever. I could totally fly a 121 jet.

    Where i would have trouble keeping up with the pro pilots isnt in the cockpit...its the alimony, drinking and coke usage. Im in a whole different league.



    :D
     
    speedluvn likes this.
  8. MGM

    MGM Well-Known Member

    He wasn’t the only one that did the job that day. And ask yourself why the RAT wasn’t out when the airplane hit the water...
     
  9. speedluvn

    speedluvn On a Quest For Speed

    :D[/QUOTE]
    Huh?
     
  10. jksoft

    jksoft Well-Known Member


    Huh?[/QUOTE]
    It's the little turbine that drops down and can provide backup electric power. I'm not sure what the implication is though. Perhaps deploying it was part of the engine out procedures.
     
  11. Mongo

    Mongo Sacko

    I don't totally disagree but I am truly amazed at just how many subjects he is an expert on just because he knows planes float :D
     
  12. Rebel635

    Rebel635 Well-Known Member

    Didn’t the report say that one engine was still running but at ground idle? Or was that bad data?

    What are you saying? Engine was on so he had power and hydroaulics or that the RAT failed to deploy?

     
  13. MGM

    MGM Well-Known Member

    Taking nothing away from an absolutely amazing performance. The fact that everyone walked (swam) away safely is an impressive feat. The crew was put in a position that I hope never repeats itself. However, I think that Sully could also have done a better job of giving the crew more credit. He didn’t seem to really include them or give credit very well. If you read the final NTSB report, it is written VERY carefully. What it does not say is as important as what it does.

    The RAT automatically deploys with a loss of hydraulics or electrical power. The RAT was stowed when the airplane hit the water because there was power/hydraulics. The first item on the checklist was “Thrust Levers....Idle”. Was there enough thrust to return to a field? Nobody will ever know..
     
  14. dieterly

    dieterly Well-Known Member

    If I remember right one enginine was running around 30% N1 or something like that, so I’m not sure what the RAT would have accomplished, but I also never have flown a baby Airbus 320.
     
  15. speedluvn

    speedluvn On a Quest For Speed

    Explain this, RAT? Is it similar what was called an APC on 727’s and or Super 80’s?
     
  16. worthless

    worthless Well-Known Member

    Why would the airlines be responsible for paying for it? They aren’t the ones who buy and install the flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder.
    I spent 30 years in IT and 25 of those years in disaster recovery/business continuity. Banks and big businesses may use some antiquated systems for less critical business functions, but, the big banks that I worked with had leading edge systems that provided multiple copies of data in multiple locations that would allow seamless operations in the event of a loss of a device/server/data center. Storing the only copy of data locally just doesn’t make sense. Following the first World Trade Center bombing, many companies within the WTC started moving their data centers elsewhere or building failover solutions that provided them with enhanced backup capabilities. I was working for IBM during 9/11 and worked with quite a few businesses that had operations in the WTC and surrounding area. The ones who took measures to store their data and move critical business computing processes offsite were minimally impacted by the tragedy, from a data/IT perspective.
    To the best of my knowledge, once a flight is done, the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorder data is gone. Having accessibility to past flights would provide the manufacturer access to a significant amount of data that would allow them to analyze past flights and see how the plane and crew reacted to different situations that could possibly proactively prevent future tragedies. I would think that it would be beneficial if they were able to run a query that said ‘show me every iteration of a type x plane that had a certain incident occur and show me what either the plane software or the crew did in response’.
    Every one of these crashes/groundings cost the plane manufacturer a bunch of money, so, it’s not necessarily how a system like this could create revenue, but, it could potentially save them money in damages and brand reputation.
     
    I'm with Stupid and joec like this.
  17. Rebel635

    Rebel635 Well-Known Member

    Ram air turbine. Think of it as a little windmill looking thing that pops out into the wind stream and gets propelled by the passing air to generate electricity. This in turn powers a small hydraulic pump that provides rudimentary powered flight controls.
     
    speedluvn likes this.
  18. HPPT

    HPPT Admin/Mod

    First thing people say before taking a shot. :D

    We may not know whether the airplane had a chance of making it back to the runway, but we do know that the choice they made resulted in everyone on board making it out of the airplane alive. So whether he gets credit for being a great pilot or a great poker player, I'm good with that. He can brag all he wants. :D
     
  19. MGM

    MGM Well-Known Member

    Not taking a shot at all. Just stating facts of the event. Sounds like we are in agreement
     
  20. beechkingd

    beechkingd Well-Known Member

    The fans (N1) were gone, obviously at least one gas generator (N2) was still running and providing electric and hydraulics, just no usable thrust.
     

Share This Page