Ethiopian Plane Crash
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
Jc, no offense, you sound like Star Lord Conrad Black. Defending the rights of the powerful to do as they please. It's becoming clear that 148 died over Boeing failure of due diligence. Teething process my sweaty culo,they deserve all the scorn we can muster.
..so as Maury from Goodfellas says, fuck them Boeing motherfuckers, fuck em in the ear!
right on!
Think about it. These are "AI" systems flying airplanes, failing because of stupid design mistakes. Normally on an airplane system failures like these do not result in catastrophes, because there are highly trained pilots monitoring the systems. In these two cases, failures happened in very critical situations - take offs - and catastrophes ensued.
Consider a couple of million cars on the streets driven by "AI" systems, with relatively untrained people sitting in the driver seats. Pray!!
We don't know what happened, yet. Might be something really simple. Remember the famous O'HARE crash? Bloody mechanics and pilots who failed to prevent stall. Or the Air Transat that run out of fuel? Again, maintenance and complacent pilots. One was a catastrophe and the other just a bunch of soiled underwear. We shouldn't condemn a whole line of otherwise very successful aircraft before we know for sure what happened.
Actually, the 737 has always been problematic.
Google "737 rudder crash" and see for yourself.
Some say the 37 is just a cursed airplane. Others say it's a bad design.
One thing is for sure, it's an ancient design that just happens to fit the demand for smaller 2 engine aircraft. 787s are not exactly selling well these days as they are too big to fill and often leave half empty. I don't think the 37 was even originally designed for flying the distances they are flying now. They were originally designed as planes that would fly shorter routes, less traveled routes. Down to Florida and what not.
Teething is entirely predictable. It's trivial downside is a few nights of cranky crying; The tragic deaths of three or four hundred passengers in two similar crashes cannot be in anyway equated to it.
The prediction aspect is a different story: Boeing's word was that the plane was essentially the same B737 everyone was used to,so pilots needed no new training. Pilots in school, and airplanes and simulators for them are a very expensive, and they earn the airline no money while they're paid to learn and passengers are flying on other carriers. Eliminating that made Boeing's plane cheaper, and mor competitive. Boeing pressured the newly-deregulated, business friendly FAA big-time, to have them see the modifications their way 'no biggie, just have the pilots read the new manual pages', and the deregulated, cost sensitive airlines certainly preferred that low-cost scenario. Everyone's agenda to cut cost and increase sales was served. But look at that line-up again: manufacturer, toothless business-promoting regulator, penny-pinching airline. Whose first concern was our safety? Old saying: When something is everyone's job, it's no one's job. Murphy's Law took over. Predictably
So far, the little anyone knows about both crashes appears to point to similar circumstances involving differing stall responses, with tragic results. The pilots trying to force the airplane do one thing, and the airplane, through its software, fighting to do something different. Exactly the sort of weakness the experiences of training and testing are meant to detect, learn about and teach how to cope with over time. Safely.
There's no reason for any plane to go into stall at take off while in a predictable configuration. I'm not a licensed pilot,but I have enough stick time to know that. Neither will pilots, for any respectable airline, go into new aircraft without simulator time. Unpredictability, erratic altitude changes and control issues simply do not happen without an unpredictable element being introduced to the equation. A perfectly competent pilot can fly into terrain when, for example, faced with competing data. It had happened many times. Let's wait for the investigation to get some answers.
Just avoid booking any flight which flies Boeing 737 MAX 8. Your lives are much more worthy and irreplaceable than the money Boeing is making from selling the Boeing 737 MAX 8. Using your own instinct and logic regardless what others try to say or defense in this aircraft.
It's a simple calculation, when most of people avoid booking flights that utilize this aircraft, airlines will notice the lost of ticket sales on these flights and eventually stop buying more of this aircraft, cancelling the orders which have yet been built and delivered, and grounding the existing Boeing 737 MAX 8 in their fleets.
It's a simple calculation, when most of people avoid booking flights that utilize this aircraft, airlines will notice the lost of ticket sales on these flights and eventually stop buying more of this aircraft, cancelling the orders which have yet been built and delivered, and grounding the existing Boeing 737 MAX 8 in their fleets.
This could be a problem as the 737 is the most popular jet ever made and the "Max" is in wide usage in Canada by both West Jet and Air Canada.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-will-continue-to-fly-boeing-737-max-8-after/
Both had a dozen copies in the air in earlier today according to this report.
Yup AC must be really regretting its decision to buy these old heaps vs the A320 NEO. At least they will be deploying A220, which is as good as it gets.
New MAX software https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-upgrade-737-max-flight-control-software-456540/
FAA wants it installed no later then April, clearly they are terrified of more accidents..
FAA wants it installed no later then April, clearly they are terrified of more accidents..
I came across a very interesting article on CNN this morning that speaks to the design of the 737 max.
Basically Boeing has stretched the old 1960's airframe over time to make the old design match what the market is now demanding. In addition they have had to move the engines from where they were originally attached which is problematic.
What is interesting about this is that it shows that there are basic constraints inherent with the original design from the 1960's (when this plane would have been engineered with slide rules) that Boeing is trying to find "work - rounds" for. You just can't change a planes bones like that.
I smell that Boeing was fucked with its latest generations of planes. They were too big to fill and the only thing Boeing had in its catalogue that came close was the 737 and it was a grand pappy. Designing a new state of the art plane would take a pile of money and a pile of time. Not attractive to the Beancounters of Boeing.
So what did they do?
Dust off the 737.
I flew in 737s 30 years ago, but they seemed to disappear. Now they are back with a vengeance. The airlines have figured out what they need in terms of size and fuel economy and Boeing answered the demand with a plane almost 60 years old. It was either that or wait 7 or 8 years while their engineers came up with a modern design to match the demand and during that time airbus happily eats Boeing's lunch and sells the 320 (and now the state of the art C series).
Here is an interesting excerpt from the article on CNN
(CNN) — The tragedy of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, a crash that killed 157 people this past Sunday, has uncomfortably similar characteristics to Lion Air's October 29 crash in Indonesia. Both airplanes are Boeing's latest offering, the 737-800 MAX.
As many are aware, the 737 design has been a safe and reliable airline fixture since it began service in the late 1960s. The airplane's fuselage has been stretched with almost each new variant, but the cockpit remains the same basic configuration with the only substantial difference being a change to contemporary avionics technology, which involves a "glass cockpit" with electronic instrument displays rather than the old style "steam gauges."
Additionally, the MAX's two engines are powered by the latest fuel-efficient technology. Because the engines are larger and have more thrust, Boeing had to mount them farther forward on the wing and slightly higher -- basically so they wouldn't strike the ground on takeoff or landing. To compensate for the engine's mounting position and greater thrust, Boeing designed an automatic system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) that would prevent the nose from pitching too high when pilots hand-fly the airplane at slower speeds, typically during takeoff and landing. The nose pitching too high translates into an angle of attack (the angle between the wings and the air flow) that could potentially cause an aerodynamic stall.
What's problematic is that the MCAS system is invisible to pilots. As a matter of fact, Boeing failed to inform many airlines via the airplane operating handbook that it even existed. If the system has a fault, and it senses an aerodynamic stall that doesn't exist, pilots are left trying to wrestle an airplane that is heading for the ground because MCAS is designed to nudge the nose down, a basic recovery maneuver for all airplanes that are approaching a stall.
Link to the rest:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/11/op...index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/search?q=737
Basically Boeing has stretched the old 1960's airframe over time to make the old design match what the market is now demanding. In addition they have had to move the engines from where they were originally attached which is problematic.
What is interesting about this is that it shows that there are basic constraints inherent with the original design from the 1960's (when this plane would have been engineered with slide rules) that Boeing is trying to find "work - rounds" for. You just can't change a planes bones like that.
I smell that Boeing was fucked with its latest generations of planes. They were too big to fill and the only thing Boeing had in its catalogue that came close was the 737 and it was a grand pappy. Designing a new state of the art plane would take a pile of money and a pile of time. Not attractive to the Beancounters of Boeing.
So what did they do?
Dust off the 737.
I flew in 737s 30 years ago, but they seemed to disappear. Now they are back with a vengeance. The airlines have figured out what they need in terms of size and fuel economy and Boeing answered the demand with a plane almost 60 years old. It was either that or wait 7 or 8 years while their engineers came up with a modern design to match the demand and during that time airbus happily eats Boeing's lunch and sells the 320 (and now the state of the art C series).
Here is an interesting excerpt from the article on CNN
(CNN) — The tragedy of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, a crash that killed 157 people this past Sunday, has uncomfortably similar characteristics to Lion Air's October 29 crash in Indonesia. Both airplanes are Boeing's latest offering, the 737-800 MAX.
As many are aware, the 737 design has been a safe and reliable airline fixture since it began service in the late 1960s. The airplane's fuselage has been stretched with almost each new variant, but the cockpit remains the same basic configuration with the only substantial difference being a change to contemporary avionics technology, which involves a "glass cockpit" with electronic instrument displays rather than the old style "steam gauges."
Additionally, the MAX's two engines are powered by the latest fuel-efficient technology. Because the engines are larger and have more thrust, Boeing had to mount them farther forward on the wing and slightly higher -- basically so they wouldn't strike the ground on takeoff or landing. To compensate for the engine's mounting position and greater thrust, Boeing designed an automatic system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) that would prevent the nose from pitching too high when pilots hand-fly the airplane at slower speeds, typically during takeoff and landing. The nose pitching too high translates into an angle of attack (the angle between the wings and the air flow) that could potentially cause an aerodynamic stall.
What's problematic is that the MCAS system is invisible to pilots. As a matter of fact, Boeing failed to inform many airlines via the airplane operating handbook that it even existed. If the system has a fault, and it senses an aerodynamic stall that doesn't exist, pilots are left trying to wrestle an airplane that is heading for the ground because MCAS is designed to nudge the nose down, a basic recovery maneuver for all airplanes that are approaching a stall.
Link to the rest:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/11/op...index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/search?q=737
Similar reports going back to November last year in The New York Times about the software/wetware/hardware interaction problems brought on by the new engines and cockpit control systems, and insufficient training and oversight.
All my own pretensions to insight come from the Sunday Times.
What is sinister is WHY they did this. MCAS in itself is not a bad thing. (clearly some flaw that need to be fixed however) but the reasons they chose not to tell pilots about it, is so they can keep the same type rating and save on crew conversion costs. This was so they can compete with Airbus who had a plane that was more readily upengined and already 100% fly by wire so adding saftey features like this is just a matter of tweaking the software. They were also 2 years behind Airbus on reengine. So if they did a clean sheet they would have been 7 years behind by the time the plane was ready, 10 years by the time they ramped up production. They would have been CREAMED in the single aisle market. The dumb fucks were to arrogant to buy Bombardier.....now 300 people are dead and they are gonna face HUGE lawsuits.
I am supposed to fly to DR on Sunwings MAX, I am hoping for resolution or grounding. In either case v nervous and may not go.
But, the Liberal Minister of Transport said the plane is safe except for these two crashes.
