You can have an extra attack sensor if you buy the special tech package for an extra 47m, you get bluetooth in the first class, and a redundant autopilot too
Posted on 02/23/2022 3:22:30 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
MD basically was a Military Aircraft Company that didn’t know how to efficiently and effectly run a company.
If you were a military contractor in the 70’s and 80’s, you put your plant in the most expensive real estate because every thing was cost +10%. The higher the cost, the more the “10%”.
You lose all of the mid level engineers that can no longer afford to live near the factory. You get kids that live like a dog for a while, but they leave at the first offer. and when the oldtimers retire and move to Arizona, you got nothing but overpaid managers.
Those were what Boeing got with the C-17 and the 717.
if you search for my comments way back in the past, I was vilified for even suggesting that the Mc merger was the worst thing ever for Boeing
You can have an extra attack sensor if you buy the special tech package for an extra 47m, you get bluetooth in the first class, and a redundant autopilot too
If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going!
“Software controlled the take off maneuver, caused an over controlled pitch up attitude and stall recovery was too low.”
Software performed exactly as designed.
“caused an over controlled pitch up attitude “
Your ignorance is on display!
Triple 7 and prior were great aircraft. My brother still builds 737’s and my cousin’s husband is Customer service for 757.
BTW Airbus aren’t much better these days.
Too many MBA’s and not enough engineers.
Go read the NTSB report. Have a nice day.
My, what an adult response.
“Software controlled the take off maneuver, caused an over controlled pitch up attitude and stall recovery was too low.”
It was a sensor error, not a software error.
“caused an over controlled pitch up attitude “
MCAS cannot cause a pitch up, it ONLY pushes the nose down.
That is to counteract the pitch up caused by the engine placements and was a concern during steep turns to prevent the pilot from pulling into a stall.
“My, what an adult response.”
Just a statement of fact.
>yawn<
“Go read the NTSB report. Have a nice day.”
Ok.. You state that the MCAS caused a pitch up resulting in a low altitude stall:
You: Software controlled the take off maneuver, caused an over controlled pitch up attitude and stall recovery was too low.
NTSB says MCAS forced the nose down:
Preliminary reports into the deadly crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 five months later indicate that an automated system erroneously engaged after being triggered by a faulty AoA vane, and forced the planes’ noses to point down.
Boeing specifically said there was no need to requalify. Just the pivot point of this entire argument.
To get the bigger more efficient turbo fans on the 737 chassis, they moved the engines up in a weird manner. This changed the physics of the aircraft.
To workaround having to requalify pilots, they attempted to cover it up with software, enter mcas. Thing is mcas could technically work, but they cheaped out on that too, AND to avoid requal they downplayed it.
The combination of pathetic mcas and not forcing pilots through requalification, and you get the disasters that occurred.
If it wasn’t for the people who needlessly died, it would be total industrial comedy.
“Naw man, she fly just like da’ol’one!”
Bwahahahaha. Except hundreds died.
“Software controlled the take off maneuver, “
MCAS will not activate if autopilot engaged.
One time pulling back on the control should tell any automation the pilot isn't sleeping and the altitude rapidly decreasing from 5000 feet isn't a joke.
“The combination of pathetic mcas and not forcing pilots through requalification, and you get the disasters that occurred.”
US pilots successfully coped with the problem. Even the previous crew on the first downed airliner coped.
“One time pulling back on the control should tell any automation the pilot isn’t sleeping”
The MCAS was designed to counter the pilot’s pulling back on the control to keep the pilot from initiating a stall!
One angle of attack sensor overruling the pilot time after time is criminal engineering. Someone should be in jail.
So did Europeans ones. But the airlines here and in europe have bigger money and they handled training differently, despite what Boeing told them.
If Boeing made a specific sales pitch, then they should have to deliver to the lower end airlines. Otherwise they could have been honest and told them upfront there was a change in plans.
But when checks per plane have that many zeros, folks had to die before it all came out.
Remember the pivotal part of this was a combination of physics, software, and sales promises about pilot training.
When I heard about the test pilots bragging about snowing the faa, I lost my Boeing love at that moment. Most of my passenger experience is on southwest 737s. A few flights on mad dogs, a couple Airbus rides, but generally all 737. I still trust southwest pilots, but what other hidden gems are there in the new 737? Now I wonder what else the faa got snowed on by Boeing.
“One angle of attack sensor overruling the pilot time after time “
Note on operation:
The MCAS moves the stabilizer trim electrically. In the case of a runaway trim the pilot can turn it off. Problem solved.
Many contributing problems related to design interfacing with third world pilots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.