Another Boeing 737 Max-8 crash

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

  1. speedluvn

    speedluvn Man card Issuer

    There is this idea of test pilots and wait for it . . . training and test flights!
  2. Hyperdyne

    Hyperdyne WERA 15

    It's all moot until they get the black boxes back and analyze the data.
  3. speedluvn

    speedluvn Man card Issuer

    I’ve heard that they wanna add cockpit video to the already present cockpit voice recorder and the data recorder.
  4. beechkingd

    beechkingd Well-Known Member

    It would be easy to do. The new recorders are basically just hard drives in a box that are fed data from the ship computer.
  5. XFBO

    XFBO Well-Known Member

    Seriously? I thought that was part of the whole experience!

    Damn, that's why I rarely fly.
  6. Hyperdyne

    Hyperdyne WERA 15

    It's already there on some of the new ones as well as video of the passenger compartment.
  7. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    Yes it was planned to some degree. I think it was after some maintenance or something. I dont think it was supposed to roll inverted and dive

    And least amount of altitude was something like 15-20,000 feet. You can here the computer calling Altitude as they get it back to level, (along with overspeed and some other alarms).

    Ill also say that not every stall in a big jet will go this way. But it can and thats why most crews dont stall them and why the planes have had measures to prevent stall for decades (stick shaker and stick pusher, etc)

    Even things go bad in small planes...heres something from the 70s/80s. They were doing spin tests/research and the plane decided it didnt want to stop spinning. Pilot bailed and the VHS camera recorded the spin into the ground.

    The last spin starts about 12 min in. The earlier minutes show it spinning and the pilot making an easy recovery. When it didnt recover he didnt take long to bail out.
  8. jksoft

    jksoft Well-Known Member

    The Air France crash over the Atlantic was similar in that they suspect it was a bad air speed sensor which caused confusion for the pilots of what reading to trust.
  9. BHP41

    BHP41 Well-Known Member

    The millions they pay these folks to fly commercial airliners and put them intentionally in low survival rate situations, we could be flying NY to LA for $50. Not to mention the savings Boeing and AirBus could save in insurance.

    What would be really cool if someone could invent something that simulates these situations, that would be totally awesome. If only someone could come up with some kind of one day in the future.
  10. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    This post is masterful. You are so utterly off base and wrong I can’t even tell if this is a facetious troll or drug induced delusions. Kudos either way.
  11. speedluvn

    speedluvn Man card Issuer

    Flight crews making millions? I’d love to hear from an insider what comercial pilot makes from the smallest to the largest planes.
    Not the small regional planes that make little but a major airline pay rates.
    stk0308 likes this.
  12. BHP41

    BHP41 Well-Known Member

  13. speedluvn

    speedluvn Man card Issuer

    I assumed sarcasm. I certainly hope it was :rolleyes:
  14. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    This is awesome. Those guys have some mega balls. I honestly got a bit of a boner watching that. I repeated it like 10 times. Imagine getting paid to take aircraft costing tens of millions of dollars and pushing them to the limit of their performance envelope! Only person with a better job was Casey Stoner when he was still testing.
  15. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    That was pilot error...and those effing airbus sidesticks.

    There was a difference in speed readings between pitot tubes. The auto pilot disconnected. It also went into an alternate law logic. This didnt have envelope protection (where the computer doesnt let the pilots eff up). The lower time co-pilot flying stalled the wing by pulling up and holding the stick back until they hit the ground. Since the side sticks on an Airbus arent mechanically linked, the other pilot didnt know the dude to his right was holding the nose up.

    So basically the he killed them all by freaking out and hand flying the plane into a stall and holding that for a couple minutes until they hit the water.
    Gino230 and ducnut like this.
  16. Gino230

    Gino230 Well-Known Member

    This was during stall flight testing on the 717 (formerly DC-9). You can tell it was an intentional stall because the autoflight paddles on the glareshield are down, preventing the autothrottles from "waking up" when the airspeed drops below 1.3 VS.

    That particular airplane was bent. I think the original story was a tug ran into the jig when the wing was being constructed and they didn't realize it was slightly tweaked. Anyway, when they stalled it, SURPRISE, one wing stalled first, and Bang, over she went (causing the roll.) Without any airflow they were powerless to correct. One hell of a job on the recovery. Could have easily over G-d that baby on the pull out. Jets accelerate incredibly quickly with the nose down, thus the overspeed warning was going off almost immediately. This is why you can see the Co-pilot putting his hand in front of the yoke to remind the pilot flying not to over stress the airplane on the pullout.

    Jim Outzs, who was chef of flight testing for the 717 program was our 717 program manager at Air Tran. That's how I know the backstory. The pilot flying in this video (I didn't know him, forgot his name) was a great test pilot, he was killed flying his personal Citabria when the engine failed in mountainous terrain.
  17. Gino230

    Gino230 Well-Known Member

    The Lion Air crash was pilot error, caused by poor maintenance (dispatching the airplane TWICE with a failed AOA sensor) and the crew's failure to run the appropriate checklists for the conditions(s). It was a very complicated situation, and IMO the news is looking to sensationalize the situation by over stressing the MCAS system on the 737. That being said, I have done the unreliable airspeed scenario in the simulator and it's not intuitive / easy to diagnose. But it's common sense that if these indicators go haywire, you need to fly pitch and power until you can get the damn thing away from the ground and run some checklists.

    With the Ethiopian crash, we literally know NOTHING right now. The only thing they know is some data from FlightAware that might not even be accurate. They don't have radar coverage over half that area.

    IMO the biggest problem facing our industry right now is that these foreign airlines are hiring pilots with ZERO time, and within a year they are in the right seat of an airliner. 3-4 years later they are the Captain. When things go right, everything is fine. But if they are put into a situation that is outside the scope of normal checklists, they are going to be hard pressed to get out of it, because they just don't have alot of "stick and rudder" time. This is one reason Airbus is so popular with these foreign airlines. It was designed to keep low time pilots out of trouble.

    Now I'm starting to sound like an old curmudgeonly pilot. You kids get off my damn lawn.
  18. Gino230

    Gino230 Well-Known Member

    Yes...and No. The FAA insists that in certified airplanes, the nose automatically falls when the airplane stalls. The issue with the MAX-8 is that if you are flying at a high pitch (initial climb, for instance) and you pitch too high and the airplane stalls, the nose will not come down on it's own with full thrust applied (you have to push...duh)- the FAA didn't like that, so Boeing designed in the MCAS system. It starts trimming down when the angle of attack approaches stall.

    As I said in the other thread, it's part of the same trim system in every 737 ever built, and if it "runs away" for whatever reason (Stall sensor failure in the Lion Air case) the trim runaway checklist is available to stop it. Two switches on the pedestal cut power to the trim motors.

    For the same reasons I stated in the other thread, I don't think Boeing is the bad guy here. Just my opinion, of course.

    Stalling these big airplanes is not fun- I have done it in the simulator and it's a handful. Also, the swept wing on jets makes it much easier to lose control in the stall. Another reason to not get near a stall in a jet.
    ducnut likes this.
  19. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab

    I'm not a pilot but it seems to me that an automated system that will actually fly
    the plane into the ground is not a good feature.
    You'd think the plane would at least know where the ground is for Christsake.

    Get off my debris field.
  20. RGV 500

    RGV 500 OLD, but still FAST

    As a part of the flight test program while doing development, yes. A bit higher actually.

    During normal commercial operation, no.

Share This Page