Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
El stovey said:
George Smiley said:
saaby93 said:
How many flights would they have to do to convince everyone they'd fixed the problem - assuming there is one
George Smiley said:
El stovey said:
George Smiley said:
saaby93 said:
How many flights would they have to do to convince everyone they'd fixed the problem - assuming there is one
Boeing don’t “brag about it” because it’s an unwanted characteristic created by the new engines and location.
It’s basically an undesirable consequence of constantly developing the 737 rather than designing a new type instead.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 10th March 20:22
George Smiley said:
A safety feature that seemingly wasn't needed- when was the last time you heard of a nose up stall causing death? Now 400 people as a result of a redundant safety feature
As mentioned, AF447 entered a high altitude nose up stall (approx 40 degree nose up pitch) which is the fatal event that caused the crash. All because of erroneous pilot control inputs. Wether an anti-stall system such as the 737Max would have prevented this particular accident will of course never be known. But as the aircraft had essentially reverted to manual control with very few flight envelope protections in place, such an anti-stall system would also probably have been disabled too.I wonder if with these apparent 737 Max incidents, if the pilot had just left the controls alone, rather than fighting the system, would the aircraft have sorted itself out and not crashed?
El stovey said:
williamp said:
Worse then the fires on the dreamliner?
Dreamliner crashes = 0737 max crashes = 2
737 Max fatalities = 346
Obviously, we need to wait for the findings of the investigation into ET 302, but based on what we already know and the striking similarities with the crash of JT 610 there are now very serious question marks about the safety of the 737 Max. I will not be flying on one for the foreseeable future and I would not want to be in the shoes of Boeing’s CEO tonight.
Incidentally, Ethiopian is a full member of Star Alliance, so will be fully compliant with all international safety standards and processes. ET are certainly not a third world cowboy outfit.
dvs_dave said:
I wonder if with these apparent 737 Max incidents, if the pilot had just left the controls alone, rather than fighting the system, would the aircraft have sorted itself out and not crashed?
Short answer is no. Taking lion air, the aircraft applied up to 10 seconds of nose down trim multiple times. In an attempt to force the nose down toward the ground. The only reason it didn't hit the ground sooner was because the pilots where pulling against this.
Sitting back and letting the ac get on with it would result in a nose dive into the ground.
In normal flight conditions you would only apply nose up or down trim for a second or two as it is very powerful.
Through the grapevine, i have heard that that other pilots on frequency overheard they had airspeed unreliable and problems controlling the ac.
montymoo said:
dvs_dave said:
I wonder if with these apparent 737 Max incidents, if the pilot had just left the controls alone, rather than fighting the system, would the aircraft have sorted itself out and not crashed?
Short answer is no. Taking lion air, the aircraft applied up to 10 seconds of nose down trim multiple times. In an attempt to force the nose down toward the ground. The only reason it didn't hit the ground sooner was because the pilots where pulling against this.
Sitting back and letting the ac get on with it would result in a nose dive into the ground.
In normal flight conditions you would only apply nose up or down trim for a second or two as it is very powerful.
Through the grapevine, i have heard that that other pilots on frequency overheard they had airspeed unreliable and problems controlling the ac.
Back to leaving the anti-stall alone, does the aircraft not then have protections to prevent it from going into a low altitude nose dive? Seems very odd that this wouldn’t be the case. It won’t let itself stall, but then it will happily allow itself to become a lawn dart.
dvs_dave said:
ntersting. I wonder if it’s another case of unreliable airspeed readings causing the flight computers to give up, taking envelope protections with them and the pilot not realising or knowing how to handle the aircraft appropriately in those conditions?
Its getting late where i am, hopefully someone else could give you a more detailed reply or take a look at prune, between the crap there is some good info.If this is the same fault we saw on lion, angle of attack sensors giving erroneous readings with airspeed unreliable, Its not that the flight computers give up per say, its that they actively trim the aircrafts nose down in an attempt to free itself from what it perceives as a low speed event aka stalling.
Afaik, the crew had not been briefed on this possible scenario(faulty aoa leading to uncommanded nose down trim)
Boeing knew about the possibility of this happening with the mcas, but did not pass on the pilots for fear of giving too much info to average pilots.
As has already been mentioned the training given when transitioning from the current 737 series, to the max can as little as a short Elearning course.
dvs_dave said:
Back to leaving the anti-stall alone, does the aircraft not then have protections to prevent it from going into a low altitude nose dive? Seems very odd that this wouldn’t be the case. It won’t let itself stall, but then it will happily allow itself to become a lawn dart.
This kinda is the case.From the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/10/ethi...
“An eyewitness told AFP the plane came down in flames. “The plane was already on fire when it crashed to the ground. The crash caused a big explosion,” Tegegn Dechasa recounted at the site. “I was near the river near the crash site. Shortly after the crash police and a fire crew from a nearby air force camp came and extinguished the plane’s flames on the ground.”
He added: “The plane was in flames in its rear side shortly before the crash. The plane was swerving erratically before the crash.””
“An eyewitness told AFP the plane came down in flames. “The plane was already on fire when it crashed to the ground. The crash caused a big explosion,” Tegegn Dechasa recounted at the site. “I was near the river near the crash site. Shortly after the crash police and a fire crew from a nearby air force camp came and extinguished the plane’s flames on the ground.”
He added: “The plane was in flames in its rear side shortly before the crash. The plane was swerving erratically before the crash.””
George Smiley said:
El stovey said:
George Smiley said:
saaby93 said:
How many flights would they have to do to convince everyone they'd fixed the problem - assuming there is one
The 737 has an inherent problem with the wing box. Originally designed for a low bypass engine the whole aircraft sits on short undercarriage legs. Fitting the higher bypass LEAP engine means the engines are effectively part of the wing and pulled forwards. The A320 does not have this issue norr has the C series and the Comac 919.
China Airline grounding their fleet will be as much political as practical. They want to sell 919s outside of China.
Does anyone know if the flight law takes a single sensor input or multiple. It seams odd that a primary flight control can put a full position change in place as fast as has been reported in the Lion Air case.
China Airline grounding their fleet will be as much political as practical. They want to sell 919s outside of China.
Does anyone know if the flight law takes a single sensor input or multiple. It seams odd that a primary flight control can put a full position change in place as fast as has been reported in the Lion Air case.
Teddy Lop said:
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
Not sure how old you are but the Comet was before I was born! Hence why I said living memory.
oh fairy muff, I guess the comet issue was establishing the fundamental makeup of airliners too rather than refining systems.Fatigue and fast fracture material behaviour was not that well understood 70 ish years ago.
( we did the Comet disasters as a materials case study at Uni )
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff