ET crash ADD NBO

[Boac]

So, we move on. I wonder what the next Boeing 'Easter Egg' will be? Let's hope it doesn't kill anyone this time.

[Slasher]

So, we move on.

Some of us won't mate.

Boeing was always a pilot's first choice as its philosophy was 'if everything screws up, take out the whizzbang gadgetry and fly it as an aviator.' Also its system manuals were well laid out and contained every damn thing you needed to know to fly it confidently with no surprises.

Bill's mob has lost a hell of a lot of trust and goodwill among airline pilots and, as you said, what's gonna be the next design fcukup they'll make. It's gonna take a looong time indeed before a Boeing is accepted again, particularly a brand new one.


And who FFS was ever taught to trim in a steep turn?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Airbus got it right when they said from day one (1988) they will NEVER use the stabiliser as part its flight control software for stability augmentation nor for any type of upset (e.g. stall protection) recovery.

[Boac]

"they will NEVER use the stabiliser as part its flight control software for stability augmentation nor for any type of upset (e.g. stall protection) recovery." - no, but they DO use it effectively as a primary flying control which is allowed to go full travel on its own to prevent the poor boy or girl actually having to think about flying the aircraft. Witness AF447.

Actually on second thoughts it IS a form of stability augmentation since it is designed to maintain the requested g. In the case of 447, 1g, as the speed fell to zero - until it ran out of authority!

[OFSO]

I read that China has set up a commission to examine Boeing's proposed changes to MACS. I assume the FAA's expected approval is being regarded with some scepticism in Beijing.

[Boac]

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday released its initial review of Boeing’s update to its 737 Max anti-stall software suspected of contributing to two fatal plane crashes, calling it “operationally suitable.”

The draft report from the FAA’s Flight Standardization Board recommends that pilots take additional computer-based training for the MCAS automated flight system.

[Slasher]

AF447 was a pilot gross fcukup pure and simple Boac. The auto trim was doing its job properly as intended via the ELAC. The 'Unreliable Speed' and 'Stall Recovery' procedures can be found online. Both are memory items.

[Slasher]

Actually on second thoughts it IS a form of stability augmentation since it is designed to maintain the requested g

No mate it's not. It's designed to automatically set a trim-free body angle akin to CWS. The ELAC is software'd for a g-rate demand up to 2.5 clean (2.0 unclean) design limits via the elevators. This means one can suddenly pull full backstick at any airspeed in Normal Law (e.g. GPWS hard warning, Windshear recovery after T/O) and one won't break the aeroplane apart due to overstress.

[G-CPTN]

FAA’s Flight Standardization Board recommends that pilots take additional computer-based training for the MCAS automated flight system.

Recommends - not mandates? . . .

?

[Boac]

"No mate it's not. It's designed to automatically set a trim-free body angle akin to CWS." - this is probably the wrong thread to be discussing AB, Slash and I appreciate WHO crashed 447 and that the "auto trim was doing its job properly as intended via the ELAC." but "its job", as you put it, was to maintain a zero stick force for the pilot - who wanted 1g flight, regardless of speed or pitch angle, until it reached the TP end stop. That was its flaw. As I understand the AB system it is 'g' driven and not 'angle', which is where if differs greatly from CWS.

[Boac]

Recommends - not mandates? . . .

- in my 'armchair' opinion, that is ok as I see it at present, and 'ground-school do-able', although line experience may change that. I think the changes in the system will make it into a beast that crews could handle in a reasonable time-frame. It is, to me, however, a great pity that crews need to be protected from having to learn the vicissitudes of an individual aircraft type or airframe, although based on my experience of 'type-hopping' in 737s between trips it may be advisable.

Personally I would have liked a little orange light on the panel saying 'MCAS Active'!

[G-CPTN]

Personally I would have liked a little orange light on the panel saying 'MCAS Active'!

After which the PNF spends precious minutes looking for the manual then thumbing through A-M until they reach - then WTF?

[Boac]

WTF! IF PNF needs those 'minutes' because he/she cannot recall a memory drill, then at least the new system will give them those 'few' minutes?

[Slasher]

Yes zero-stick force longitudinally Boac. I meant CWSish, not strictly CWS.

I can't write out full explanations here, so you need to come to Honkers where I can teach and demonstrate the Airbus Flight Control system to you in toto. You may have to pay for a bit for sim time though. Shouldn't take you any more than a full day. This'll clear up the g rate pitch demand by the pilot through the elevators via its ELAC supplier and the machinations of the THS.

ELAC - elevator aileron computer x 2
SEC - spoiler elevator computer x 3
FAC - flight augmentation computer x 2
THS - trimmable horizontal stabiliser (so the Frogs call it)

I'll throw in a 5 quid discount for me services.

[Boac]

.and a bottle of moonshine?

[Slasher]

Yep that'd be great. If you can manage to bring in 2 bottles I'll deduct a further £15!

[Capetonian]

There's an email doing the rounds with an attached video supposedly of this ET crash.

It's a stupid pointless and sick spoof and is actually of the 747 that crashed a few years ago at the Bagraim AF base in Afghanistan.

[Boac]

Slasher - continuing the thread diversion into Airbus, pour yourself a glass of your training aid and answer this:-

AB320 (say) S&L at 0.74m, autopilot off. The side stick will be neutral' - no?

Now throttle back. The a/c will maintain S&L - no? What does the AB FCS do to achieve this? Do the side-sticks or elevators move? Which control surface does it use to adjust pitch attitude to maintain S&L as you slow down?

[Wodrick]

The Side Stick is always neutral without pilot input, and it returns to neutral after 'hands off'

In my opinion for your second case the THS moves to maintain pitch attitude.
One is assuming a fully serviceable aircraft.

[Boac]

"the THS moves to adjust pitch attitude."

[Wodrick]

OK not a pilot am I