Thread: Airline News

with all this computer control , the problem I have is the cnut holding the st^dick can feel that he is not flying and cannot move the machine into a flying position

if you cannot feel you are unstable you should not even be driving a pram

Originally Posted by Troy

I think you may have lost the plot on the Ethiopian accident. They had a stall warning via stick-shaker shortly after take-off. The Ethiopian AIB confirmed this in their prelim report. The correct procedure was to check configuration, power and lack of stall, finding why the stall warning occurred ( IAS disagree) and carrying out that procedure. An IAS disagree is a nasty problem that has led to crashes in the past if it isn't spotted. This has to be a contributory factor. Training for this is carried out in a sim not on an ipad.

MCAS is nasty and contributed to both accidents but was not the only factor. One thing I did hate was all the warnings going off at once though. It makes it hard to think straight and makes you learn where the CBs are.

They correctly observed that the stall warning was false, but they also twice called anti-ice (!) and L alpha vane warnings. The fucking plane was going mental. And then Boeing's shit software told it to start pointing the plane at the ground.

It's an imbecilic design and the fatal errors stayed there because it was rushed through certification without being properly checked, thanks to a corrupt FAA and a money-oriented Boeing.

HANG THEM.

Originally Posted by baldrick

with all this computer control , the problem I have is the cnut holding the st^dick can feel that he is not flying and cannot move the machine into a flying position

if you cannot feel you are unstable you should not even be driving a pram

A lot of pilots complain that all this automation means that pilots aren't properly prepared when they have to get a plane out of trouble by hand.

The Russian A310 that crashed on the way to HK a few years back was because the autopilot "partially disconnected". Admittedly the pilots were Russian, and they had not trained on the aircraft properly, plus they let some kid go in the cockpit and play with the controls, but logic suggests the simple options should be - on or - off.

Maybe they should stop letting non-pilots write flight control software until they understand what the fuck it means to pilots.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Maybe they should stop letting non-pilots write flight control software until they understand what the fuck it means to pilots.

A lad I was at school with went to university and got a degree in maths. He then got a job teaching pilots to fly (or so he said). He'd never flown a plane himself.

Originally Posted by Neverna

A lad I was at school with went to university and got a degree in maths. He then got a job teaching pilots to fly (or so he said). He'd never flown a plane himself.

He might have got a job teaching pilots math-related subjects, but that would be about it. Probably used that line to chat up bints.

A great video that explains the relationship between Boeing and Airbus . and why older "types" of aircraft are expanded and modernised rather than creating new types.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He might have got a job teaching pilots math-related subjects, but that would be about it.

That's probably what it was.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A lot of pilots complain that all this automation means that pilots aren't properly prepared when they have to get a plane out of trouble by hand.

The Russian A310 that crashed on the way to HK a few years back was because the autopilot "partially disconnected". Admittedly the pilots were Russian, and they had not trained on the aircraft properly, plus they let some kid go in the cockpit and play with the controls, but logic suggests the simple options should be - on or - off.

Maybe they should stop letting non-pilots write flight control software until they understand what the fuck it means to pilots.

Aeroflot 593. Autopilot is two channel, pitch and roll, that can be disengaged independently. That means you can be in autopilot in pitch for (say) altitude hold whilst flying manually in roll. The kid disengaged the roll, putting it in manual and no-one noticed. The autopilot was fully engaged in one channel and fully disengaged in the other.

The flight control engineers I know can fly an aircraft far better than the pilots I know can design control systems.

Originally Posted by Troy

The flight control engineers I know can fly an aircraft far better than the pilots I know can design control systems.

Maybe they should get a job flying the Max then. I'm sure they'd be head of the queue.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They correctly observed that the stall warning was false, but they also twice called anti-ice (!) and L alpha vane warnings. The fucking plane was going mental. And then Boeing's shit software told it to start pointing the plane at the ground.

It's an imbecilic design and the fatal errors stayed there because it was rushed through certification without being properly checked, thanks to a corrupt FAA and a money-oriented Boeing.

HANG THEM.

That left alpha vane was a clue to the trained eye (AOA overheat and pointing to bad side for IAS). It did not mean the plane was going mental. I didn't see anywhere in the prelim report a call out for IAS disagree or a reason for stall warning being mentioned.

The max should have been grounded and a fix is required for MCAS but at the same time I have deep concerns about pilot training especially having captain and fo together with such limited experience. It's one reason why I only fly with the big carriers ...

Wondering how the recent crushes - and the mess of the clever software - have influenced eagerness of young people to become a pilot

Originally Posted by Troy

The max should have been grounded and a fix is required for MCAS but at the same time I have deep concerns about pilot training

Yeah, me too.

Boeing has reportedly admitted for the first time that there was a flaw in its 737 MAX flight simulators.

“Boeing has made corrections to the 737 MAX simulator software and has provided additional information to device operators to ensure that the simulator experience is representative across different flight conditions,” the manufacturer told the AFP news agency in a statement.

Boeing acknowledged that the flight simulators were incapable of reproducing the kind of flight conditions that occurred at the time of the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March or the Lion Air crash in October.

The planes have been grounded worldwide since the two crashes, which killed 346 people. Both accidents were blamed on a defect in the anti-stall system.

Boeing did not say when it became aware of the simulator problem.

Boeing had already acknowledged earlier this month it knew a safety alert on 737 MAX planes was not working correctly.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/19/boeing-admits-to-flaw-in-737-max-flight-simulators/

What exactly were the racist views?

Originally Posted by RamblinWriter

What exactly were the racist views?

I think he's referring to the Boeing CEO who absurdly tried to pass the blame for his fucking deathtrap of an aircraft onto the johnny foreigner pilots.

AirAsia to start direct flights from Chiang Mai to Shenzhen in June

AirAsia is expanding its growing Chiang Mai International Airport hub with the airline announcing that it is beginning direct flights to Shenzen, China starting from June 15.


The CNX-SZX flights will run four times weekly although it’s not clear at this stage which days as the flights are not in AirAsia’s booking system at the time of writing. At least one flight will depart Saturday night with the return flight leaving Shenzhen early Sunday morning.


FD592 will leave Chiang Mai at 11:10 p.m. and arrive in Shenzhen at 3 a.m., with the return flight, FD593, leaving Shenzhen at 4 a.m. arriving in Chiang Mai at 6 a.m.


The new Chiang Mai service is in place of an existing Chiang Rai – Shenzhen service which has been reduced from seven flights a week to three flights a week.


The new service is the first new route from AirAsia ex-CNX since it announced flights to Da Nang in April.

https://chiangmaione.com/airasia-to-...n-in-june-3640

This geezer did a good job, considering.

Originally Posted by Troy

The max should have been grounded and a fix is required for MCAS but at the same time I have deep concerns about pilot training especially having captain and fo together with such limited experience. It's one reason why I only fly with the big carriers ...

I'm not sure if you can answer this, but you do appear knowledgable .

There is an article on the benefits of Flight Simulator Training (FST) on the Leeham News site. The site appears to cover and comment on news technical, financial, operations and Certification/legal issues of the airline industry.

This link below is to one on FST on the 737 MAX

Pontifications: Mandate sim time for MAX return to the skies

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/20/po...es/#more-30114

It has many comments, of which this is one;

"Steinar Norheim May 20, 2019

One hypotesis why Boeing is resisting sim training;

Sim training experiencing the normal function of the MCAS v.2 is no problem.

Sim training experiencing inoperative MCAS v.2 would reveal a stick force gradient going negative above say 10 degrees AoA. This might be a problem for Boeing. If FAA accepts such an aircraft behaviour, the question remain if the pilots will accept such an aircraft behaviour?

Sim training of a runaway trim putting the trim to say 2 to 2.5 units out of trim ND on a sim correctly mimicking the manual trim wheel forces would reveal the pilots inability to get the aircraft back in trim using the afforementioned manual trim wheel.

This would make it clear for everybody that the non normal check list regarding runaway trim are completely inadequate and would open a whole can of worms as to which check list would need to be rewritten and the extent of additional pilot training, not to mention the possibility of significant hardware changes to the aircraft.

This would be completely unacceptable for Boeing as this would make any timeframe for reentering service for the Max in less than one or two years unrealistic.



Thanks.

Originally Posted by Troy

The Niki Lauda accident with reverse thrust in flight was modelled in Gatwick within 48 hours of the accident findings.

Another example of Boeing being given too much latitude by the FAA and resulting in needless deaths.

^ Indeed, and one that should have grounded 737, 747 as well as the 767, with fadec fitted. This system did not provide feedback of engine pla to the throttle position in A/T. That, is the throttle didn't move back to idle when the bucket opened so not immediately obvious what was happening. It was made worse by the reverser light coming on intermittently beforehand and the crew suspected moisture causing a false warning.

Yet another time when Boeing's should have been grounded.

Originally Posted by Troy

^ Indeed, and one that should have grounded 737, 747 as well as the 767, with fadec fitted. This system did not provide feedback of engine pla to the throttle position in A/T. That, is the throttle didn't move back to idle when the bucket opened so not immediately obvious what was happening. It was made worse by the reverser light coming on intermittently beforehand and the crew suspected moisture causing a false warning.

Yet another time when Boeing's should have been grounded.

No - yet another time when Boeing shouldn't have effectively been able to certify themselves.

The CAA, DGAC, L-B, JCAB and the other world aviation authorities also certified the 767 fadec. The testing was as per the flight regimes of the time. Lessons learned would be a more objective assessment in my view

You appear to be very anti Boeing Harry...are you boycotting their aircraft when travelling?

Airbus also had to redesign their aircraft following the fadec problem with failure to backdrive the throttles.

How about filtering out posters unable to post up a simple vid, but have all the answers about air crashes.