Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ethiopian Airlines crash en route to Kenya
#21
Quote:Recall, after all, that the whole point of the 737 Max project was to be able to say that the new plane was the same as the old plane. From an engineering perspective, the preferred solution was to actually build a new plane. But for business reasons, Boeing didn’t want a “new plane” that would require a lengthy certification process and extensive (and expensive) new pilot training for its customers. The demand was for a plane that was simultaneously new and not new.
But because the new engines wouldn’t fit under the old wings, the new plane wound up having different aerodynamic properties than the old plane. And because the aerodynamics were different, the flight control systems were also different. But treating the whole thing as a fundamentally different plane would have undermined the whole point. So the FAA and Boeing agreed to sort of fudge it.
The new planes are pretty different
As far as we can tell, the 737 Max is a perfectly airworthy plane in the sense that error-free piloting allows it to be operated safely.
But pilots of planes that didn’t crash kept noticing the same basic pattern of behavior that is suspected to have been behind the two crashes, according to a Dallas Morning News review of voluntary aircraft incident reports to a NASA database:
Quote:The disclosures found by the News reference problems with an autopilot system, and they all occurred during the ascent after takeoff. Many mentioned the plane suddenly nosing down. While records show these flights occurred in October and November, the airlines the pilots were flying for is redacted from the database.
These pilots all safely disabled the MCAS and kept their planes in the air. But one of the pilots reported to the database that it was “unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models.”
The training piece is important because a key selling feature of the 737 Max was the idea that since it wasn’t really a new plane, pilots didn’t really need to be retrained for the new equipment. As the New York Times reported, “For many new airplane models, pilots train for hours on giant, multimillion-dollar machines, on-the-ground versions of cockpits that mimic the flying experience and teach them new features” while the experienced 737 Max pilots were allowed light refresher courses that you could do on an iPad.
A lengthy article on the decision to build the 737 Max and the reasons Boeing tried to make it just another 737.. There were other pilots who experienced the same problems but did not crash...WHY... because they disabled the automation.. 
 https://www.vox.com/2019/4/5/18296646/bo...are-update
Reply
#22
Could it be that the pilots were not as well trained or of the standard that would be expected from any European or American firm. Has PC once again caused the death of many people ?
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, THE EU IS FATHER AND MOTHER
Reply
#23
(04-06-2019, 11:04 AM)Wallfire Wrote: Could it be that the pilots were not as well trained or of the standard that would be expected from any European or American firm. Has PC once again caused the death of many people ?

The question I resisted asking, although the answer does seem to be in Sky's report!
minusculebeercheers
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#24
Most of us have heard about the revolving door policies between government and companies. It really is worse than just going to work as a lobbyist for a company after doing a stint in government . The following video is about Boeing and all the money they have in the past been fined for knowingly falsifying records (12 million fine); and another fine of 615 million..

Boeing spends around 274,803,310 a year on just lobbying.....I assure you they think it is worth it or they would not continue to do it. They did receive a little over 28.9 billion in 2017 government contracts so they can certainly afford it as the 28.9 made up about 1/3 of Boeing's earnings for that year...

The whole time I was writing this Lockheed was in the forefront of my thoughts as far as another revolving door company. Back in the late 70s Lockheed got in trouble for paying bribes and it looked like there was going to be a big fine levied... Nope as I flew the CFO to Japan with new paperwork that would solve the problem.. The CFO was a sailing friend of mine and a darn good card shark evidenced by all the money he won from me on occasion !!

I have and still do have big problems with the money we spend on defense and the absolute waste that goes on with this brand/type of doing business. F-22 got so expensive that they had to cancel the program... so we ended up with maybe 1/3 of the aircraft we originally wanted ... Then you read stories about our front line bombers and fighters having piss poor mission availability due to maintenance/parts problems..

I was in the service and when you are fighting a war with stuff that does not work it makes an already challenging situation much worse. Try flying an F-4 with no guns and missiles that hardly ever worked over Hanoi during the Vietnam war to get a taste of frustration. See 2d video as there was a time when 55 sparrow missiles were launched at the enemy with NO HITS.. The much vaulted fire and forget missile were not to be used as two Naval aircraft were shot down by other Navy aircraft... So... get in close and identify your target with your mark one eyeball. Unfortunately the Sparrow missile had a better kill envelope at a range of one mile.. not close in.. How embarrassing to get shot down by a Mig-15 that was first introduced in Korea and could turn inside a smoky F-4 that you could see from miles away .... Most of the guys would shoot two Sparrows at a target hoping one would actually work.. It was so bad they finally put a center line M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon gun pod on the F-4... The reason I bring this up is people/friends get killed when stuff does not work as advertised..M-16 rifle is a great example of getting people killed when it first came out and it only took a few years and several lives to get the bugs worked out.... Procurement of military stuff needs a revamping and a true accounting by people who actually know what the heck is needed and is going on IMO.

When people say we spend more on defense than the next several countries together it is true .. But how much of that money is actually spent on hardware and not just padding the mega inflated prices for the MIC and the way business is done today ?

I doubt anything will change as since Vietnam (probably before) this culture has embedded itself into the way things are done.. Get as much as you can and drag a program out to the maximum extent possible to enhance earnings..add-ons an fixes that is where much of the profit comes from as it is just icing on the multilayered cake IMO.



Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)