Ethopian plane crash, the final minutes

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
23,563
2,058
113
It is technical but the part where they tried to turn MCAS to trim the plane and got slammed to the ceiling of the cockpit is pretty horrific
 

multimedia

Member
Aug 19, 2007
202
18
18
Boeing admitting their mistake now and saying sorry because they don't want pent up anger to come out stronger when the real results come out.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
The AoA failure led to conflicting warnings and unusual flight characteristics that overwhelmed the pilots. Nobody was trained for that failure, and trying to solve it led them into uncharted territory from which they did not recover.

That failure mode of the MACS was never analyzed by Boeing. MACS was an expedient way to make up for unfavourable flight characteristics resulting from pushing the basic 737 design too far: namely, slapping on engines that were too big, and had to be relocated higher towards the wing, which affected its stall recovery characteristics.

I always thought that the 737 flew like a shit box, and that's starting with the original 737-100. I think now that the max design has gone too far. The 737 came out as Boeing's attempt to adapt the 707 into a smaller version, and is basically a 707 airframe chopped shorter with 2 engines. It was a compromise from the beginning. As the aircraft matured, the compromises just kept adding up until this. A fly by wire system could have prevented this, like on an Airbus, but the 737 has no such thing; It's still got bellcranks, cables and pullies to the flight control servo actuators (PCU's), with the addition of artificial feel and yaw damper.

The final version was like putting lipstick on a sow.
 

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
The AoA failure led to conflicting warnings and unusual flight characteristics that overwhelmed the pilots. Nobody was trained for that failure, and trying to solve it led them into uncharted territory from which they did not recover.

That failure mode of the MACS was never analyzed by Boeing. MACS was an expedient way to make up for unfavourable flight characteristics resulting from pushing the basic 737 design too far: namely, slapping on engines that were too big, and had to be relocated higher towards the wing, which affected its stall recovery characteristics.

I always thought that the 737 flew like a shit box, and that's starting with the original 737-100. I think now that the max design has gone too far. The 737 came out as Boeing's attempt to adapt the 707 into a smaller version, and is basically a 707 airframe chopped shorter with 2 engines. It was a compromise from the beginning. As the aircraft matured, the compromises just kept adding up until this. A fly by wire system could have prevented this, like on an Airbus, but the 737 has no such thing; It's still got bellcranks, cables and pullies to the flight control servo actuators (PCU's), with the addition of artificial feel and yaw damper.

The final version was like putting lipstick on a sow.
You know there's been over 10,000 737's made and it is the most successful airliner of not just it's type, but any type? Pretty good for a plane that was a shitbox from the very beginning.

Shitboxes don't fly for half a century in commercial service where they need to make money and have entire airlines built around them or have an additional 5,000 orders made for them.

Take a look at any successful airframe, and you'll see every one has been stretched, re engined, had their wings modified and avionics replaced. The 737 is no different.

Fly by wire is also not immune to problems.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a3414/4271563/

Pilot was unable to override the flight control system.

Read up on Air France flight 296.

Ethiopian Airlines decision to send the black boxes and flight data recorders to France instead of the U.S. was very smart of them.
 

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
Boeing admitting their mistake now and saying sorry because they don't want pent up anger to come out stronger when the real results come out.
No question Boeing is at fault.

Like it or not, they will survive, just like Ford with their Explorer rollovers and GM with their full size pickup gas tank problems.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
You know there's been over 10,000 737's made and it is the most successful airliner of not just it's type, but any type? Pretty good for a plane that was a shitbox from the very beginning.

Shitboxes don't fly for half a century in commercial service where they need to make money and have entire airlines built around them or have an additional 5,000 orders made for them.

Take a look at any successful airframe, and you'll see every one has been stretched, re engined, had their wings modified and avionics replaced. The 737 is no different.

Fly by wire is also not immune to problems.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a3414/4271563/

Pilot was unable to override the flight control system.

Read up on Air France flight 296.

Ethiopian Airlines decision to send the black boxes and flight data recorders to France instead of the U.S. was very smart of them.
I was referring to its manual flight characteristics, Einstein. Nothing to do with its commercial performance. Did you ever fly the 737? I did for a few years so don't tell me how well it flies.

AF296 was a deliberate attempt to push the aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope, without any margin for error and recovery. Nothing to do with the design of the Airbus, that I also flew for a few years.

A B2 does not have the level of certification of a civilian airliner. To say that, since a B2 crashed because of its FBW system, all FBW designs are faulty is ludicrous.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,070
3,969
113
I was referring to its manual flight characteristics, Einstein. Nothing to do with its commercial performance. Did you ever fly the 737? I did for a few years so don't tell me how well it flies.

AF296 was a deliberate attempt to push the aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope, without any margin for error and recovery. Nothing to do with the design of the Airbus, that I also flew for a few years.

A B2 does not have the level of certification of a civilian airliner. To say that, since a B2 crashed because of its FBW system, all FBW designs are faulty is ludicrous.
I swear poorboy works for Boeing or Boeing's supply chain.

He's like a broken record already in every thread on the issues of the 737 constantly saying how great the 737 is and how this is all just "teething problems" etc etc etc.
 

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
I swear poorboy works for Boeing or Boeing's supply chain.

He's like a broken record already in every thread on the issues of the 737 constantly saying how great the 737 is and how this is all just "teething problems" etc etc etc.
No.

I look at published FACTS. I'm not making up things I post. I don't post OPINIONS like you do on the 787 or on how aircraft evolve. Everything I've posted is verifiable. It's a FACT that the 737 is the world's most successful airliner. Find another airliner with 10,000 produced.

As well, I've stated multiple times that Boeing is at fault and not once have I said I like Boeing. This problem could have been with an Airbus and I would have adopted the same stance. There's basically no difference between the two anyway as a consumer. It's like the difference between FedEx and UPS or Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado. Both choices are equally good/bad as a flying passenger.

I've also stated that it doesn't matter who makes a new aircraft. Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus, Leonardo, etc., all encounter problems with new aircraft evolutions.
 

poorboy

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,268
105
63
I was referring to its manual flight characteristics, Einstein. Nothing to do with its commercial performance. Did you ever fly the 737? I did for a few years so don't tell me how well it flies.

AF296 was a deliberate attempt to push the aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope, without any margin for error and recovery. Nothing to do with the design of the Airbus, that I also flew for a few years.

A B2 does not have the level of certification of a civilian airliner. To say that, since a B2 crashed because of its FBW system, all FBW designs are faulty is ludicrous.
You can have an opinion on the 737 that it's a shitbox. Free world. Differs from the guys I know who fly them. Most are happy they've made it into the big leagues.

Kind of like this guy who preferred the 737 to the MD80.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/pilot-report-boeing-737-vs-mcdonnell-douglas-md-80/


I never said all FBW designs are faulty. I said they are not immune to problems.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
You can have an opinion on the 737 that it's a shitbox. Free world. Differs from the guys I know who fly them. Most are happy they've made it into the big leagues.

Kind of like this guy who preferred the 737 to the MD80.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/pilot-report-boeing-737-vs-mcdonnell-douglas-md-80/


I never said all FBW designs are faulty. I said they are not immune to problems.
You can have an opinion on the 737 that it's a shitbox. Free world. Differs from the guys I know who fly them. Most are happy they've made it into the big leagues.

Kind of like this guy who preferred the 737 to the MD80.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/pilot-report-boeing-737-vs-mcdonnell-douglas-md-80/


I never said all FBW designs are faulty. I said they are not immune to problems.
You can have an opinion on the 737 that it's a shitbox. Free world. Differs from the guys I know who fly them. Most are happy they've made it into the big leagues.

Kind of like this guy who preferred the 737 to the MD80.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/pilot-report-boeing-737-vs-mcdonnell-douglas-md-80/


I never said all FBW designs are faulty. I said they are not immune to problems.
Looks like you'll do anything to get an argument. You can't take it at face value that I say from personal experience, that it doesn't hand fly very well compared to all the other jets I flew. You have to dig up some obscure blog, and bingo, there's your expert rebuttal.

The pope could have written an opinion about B737 handling, and you would have taken that at face value, because you're obsessed to oppose an opinion on a matter that you know nothing about, just to satisfy your ego that nope, you know better, even though you've never flown one.

A lot of real pilots are questioning the above blog, comparing the 737NG with an MD80, that is one generation older, and then declaring that the 737 is great to fly. If he thinks that the EICAS trims the engines, he didn't pay much attention on his 737 ground school, and I wonder how he passed his FAA oral. He's confusing the EICAS (Engine Instruments and Crew Alerting Systems) with the EEC's (Electronic Engine Control). A blunder that reveals an impostor.

His carry-on about 737 versus MD80 performance difference giving better margins is utter bullshit. It doesn't matter that the 737NG has more thrust: both must meet the same balanced field length performance requirements, including especially 2nd segment climb performance of 2.4% climb gradient on a single engine. They load up the aircraft up to that performance limit, so it doesn't matter what the total thrust is. Just that the MD-80 will carry less weight in order to achieve the same minimum performance. Having more power on the take-off roll reducing time on the runway is also bullshit because all airlines employ reduced thrust techniques, using the full balanced field length, in order to reduce the wear and tear on engines and because of noise considerations. Nobody routinely uses full thrust take-offs, unless there's wind shear or you're at your performance limit maximum take-off weight for the density altitude and runway length limits.

Then there's this:

the MD-80 is famous for it’s slow acceleration–I’ve been there MANY times–and when you’re escaping from windshear or terrain, I can promise you the pucker factor of the “one, Mississippi, two Mississippi” on up to six to eight seconds will have your butt chewing up the seat cushion like horse’s lips.

It's 8 seconds from idle to max thrust. But how did he get into a position, MANY times, of having to do a windshear escape manoeuvre from idle thrust? Or never mind idle thrust, doing so many times a windshear escape manoeuvre? Doesn't he pay attention to the weather radar and avoid severe weather? Is he suicidal? Looks also like he likes pointing his airplanes towards mountains, given the MANY times he had to do a GPWS escape manoeuvre? If you're on approach, the engines are spooled up, not idling, so that you can get near instant thrust in case of a go-around, and that applies to JT8D-XX MD80 engines . Sounds like the experience of a Microsoft Flight Simulator pilot, and/or a guy who's got 75 hours in a Cherokee.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially from those who try to mask their ignorance with fancy buzzwords.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts