I can't believe they did not fly it out of there beforehand. They had plenty enough warning.
They surely did , just so dumb, some bean counter probably warned them off ‘don’t you know how expensive this is to run and how it can only land at 1/4 of the airports ?
Still, at this is one thread safe from Irish input
I can't believe they did not fly it out of there beforehand. They had plenty enough warning.
it was in maintenance :(
2 off his little brothers are in the south of France (Istres).
Probably maintained by Russians................
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:31 pm
by TheFrog
Made my first flight on a Max today. Can't say there wasn't a bit of anxiety although I know that theoretically that aircraft must be pretty safe now with the scrutiny it has been under. Nevertheless, when shortly after take off I felt a distinct nose down movement, I worried for a while. But all was well and my message is testimony to this
Looks like Boeing is struggling to certify Max 7, and friends at Congress are telling me that Boeing is lobbying hard to get Congress to approve a legislative amendment to a regulation that increases certification requirements from Jan 1, 2023, meaning there would be a need for Boeing to make major modification to its avionics systems to meet these new standards, killing any commonality with previously certified models of the Max.
I understand Max7 could be certified in 2022, but Max10 certification is slipping to 2023.
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:41 pm
by Torquemada 1420
TheFrog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:31 pm
Made my first flight on a Max today. Can't say there wasn't a bit of anxiety although I know that theoretically that aircraft must be pretty safe now with the scrutiny it has been under. Nevertheless, when shortly after take off I felt a distinct nose down movement, I worried for a while. But all was well and my message is testimony to this
Rather you than I. "Pretty safe"? You can't change the rules of physics.
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:32 am
by TheFrog
TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:23 am
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Suicide?
Is there no automatic protection build in to prevent extreme maneuvers?
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:39 am
by inactionman
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:04 am
CCTV captured the jet just before it crashed.
almost hoping for oxygen failure or somesuch, in vague hope no-one really aware or in position to care.
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:41 am
by Guy Smiley
TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:23 am
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Yeah... it's weird. I know next to nothing about flying, I thought that a stall would induce a spin, not a sheer dive like that.
TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:23 am
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Suicide?
Is there no automatic protection build in to prevent extreme maneuvers?
I've been out of loop for a few years, but the simple answer is not really. There are stick shakers on Boeings* that make it hard/uncomfortable to get the aircraft into dodgy positions, but the pilot is the ultimate arbiter of intent.
Also worth noting that sensors etc can fail and it's possible to get into weird configurations as the aircraft gets a bit flummoxed - and, perhaps more significantly, the crew can misinterpret and start to contradict in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Especially if in a high-stress situation
* Airbus took a different approach and would essentially refuse or water down pilot commands to avoid e.g. stall, but in my understanding the 737 family is still cables and pulleys and direct mechanical/ hydraulic coupling so it can't 'undo' pilot commands, just add weight to the controls to try to make it difficult to do something daft.
TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:23 am
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Suicide?
Is there no automatic protection build in to prevent extreme maneuvers?
I've been out of loop for a few years, but the simple answer is not really. There are stick shakers on Boeings* that make it hard/uncomfortable to get the aircraft into dodgy positions, but the pilot is the ultimate arbiter of intent.
Also worth noting that sensors etc can fail and it's possible to get into weird configurations as the aircraft gets a bit flummoxed - and, perhaps more significantly, the crew can misinterpret and start to contradict in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Especially if in a high-stress situation
* Airbus took a different approach and would essentially refuse or water down pilot commands to avoid e.g. stall, but in my understanding the 737 family is still cables and pulleys and direct mechanical/ hydraulic coupling so it can't 'undo' pilot commands, just add weight to the controls to try to make it difficult to do something daft.
Wasn't there a military airbus where a copilot got an object stuck/wedged near the controls putting it into a dive and the safety systems stabilised and levelled the aircraft?
Is there no automatic protection build in to prevent extreme maneuvers?
I've been out of loop for a few years, but the simple answer is not really. There are stick shakers on Boeings* that make it hard/uncomfortable to get the aircraft into dodgy positions, but the pilot is the ultimate arbiter of intent.
Also worth noting that sensors etc can fail and it's possible to get into weird configurations as the aircraft gets a bit flummoxed - and, perhaps more significantly, the crew can misinterpret and start to contradict in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Especially if in a high-stress situation
* Airbus took a different approach and would essentially refuse or water down pilot commands to avoid e.g. stall, but in my understanding the 737 family is still cables and pulleys and direct mechanical/ hydraulic coupling so it can't 'undo' pilot commands, just add weight to the controls to try to make it difficult to do something daft.
Wasn't there a military airbus where a copilot got an object stuck/wedged near the controls putting it into a dive and the safety systems stabilised and levelled the aircraft?
Is there no automatic protection build in to prevent extreme maneuvers?
I've been out of loop for a few years, but the simple answer is not really. There are stick shakers on Boeings* that make it hard/uncomfortable to get the aircraft into dodgy positions, but the pilot is the ultimate arbiter of intent.
Also worth noting that sensors etc can fail and it's possible to get into weird configurations as the aircraft gets a bit flummoxed - and, perhaps more significantly, the crew can misinterpret and start to contradict in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Especially if in a high-stress situation
* Airbus took a different approach and would essentially refuse or water down pilot commands to avoid e.g. stall, but in my understanding the 737 family is still cables and pulleys and direct mechanical/ hydraulic coupling so it can't 'undo' pilot commands, just add weight to the controls to try to make it difficult to do something daft.
Wasn't there a military airbus where a copilot got an object stuck/wedged near the controls putting it into a dive and the safety systems stabilised and levelled the aircraft?
I'm not aware of that case. I'd imagine it can be placed into autopilot in that situation, although that won't be of much use if it's in a nosedive and the autopilot can't recover. Other than that, the aircraft very rarely tries to overcome the pilot, as it simply cannot reliably infer what the pilot is intending to do and it's not good to have pilot and aircraft fighting each other.
As a notable exception, most large aircraft have mechanisms to prevent deep stalls, where they become too nose-up to maintain speed and essentially fall down flat, as these are almost impossible to recover at low altitudes - there's no airflow over control surfaces and not enough thrust to accelerate out of the problem. I'm not aware of anything limiting ability to dive - I understand that the aircraft won't pull out of an instructed dive because, as far as the aircraft logic can ascertain, the pilot is making the aircraft dive. The pilot in no situation or context ever wants to enter deep stall, which is why there are safety features* - I'm not sure if there are any limiters to angle of attack of dive, although there are sink rate and ground warnings galore.
I'll concede I haven't worked with Airbus or RR for 8 or 9 years so things might have moved on, but this would require rewrites of design and certification standards and ATA chapters etc (the 'rulebook' which governs how aircraft are designed, operated and maintained) which moves at pretty glacial pace.
* intended to be safe, anyway - good old MCAS on the 737 Max was a system designed to stop the nose pulling up under thrust, and that didn't work out so well.
Sounds like co-pilot got back into the cockpit - matey was on his tod with his camera beforehand - and regain control . Sounds like autopilot was on, but there are modes where it will still respond to stick commands.
TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:23 am
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Yeah... it's weird. I know next to nothing about flying, I thought that a stall would induce a spin, not a sheer dive like that.
Why is my gin and tonic falling out of the side of my glaHOLY FUCK!!!
Is there no automatic protection build in to prevent extreme maneuvers?
I've been out of loop for a few years, but the simple answer is not really. There are stick shakers on Boeings* that make it hard/uncomfortable to get the aircraft into dodgy positions, but the pilot is the ultimate arbiter of intent.
Also worth noting that sensors etc can fail and it's possible to get into weird configurations as the aircraft gets a bit flummoxed - and, perhaps more significantly, the crew can misinterpret and start to contradict in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. Especially if in a high-stress situation
* Airbus took a different approach and would essentially refuse or water down pilot commands to avoid e.g. stall, but in my understanding the 737 family is still cables and pulleys and direct mechanical/ hydraulic coupling so it can't 'undo' pilot commands, just add weight to the controls to try to make it difficult to do something daft.
Wasn't there a military airbus where a copilot got an object stuck/wedged near the controls putting it into a dive and the safety systems stabilised and levelled the aircraft?
TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:23 am
Bloody Hell, that was going in vertical! Watching the footage, you can see some sort of explosion on its way down. What the hell could cause an airliner to go vertical from 29,000 feet?..
Yeah... it's weird. I know next to nothing about flying, I thought that a stall would induce a spin, not a sheer dive like that.
It's impossible to put a commercial airliner into a nosedive position like that unless intentionally with the caveat that the plane was intact
- nothing major broken off e.g a tail
- some weird systems failure (which I think is impossible on Airbus) that would lock the plane into a dive
FlightRadar reported that this indicated a vertical descent at 31,000 feet per minute, or about 350 miles per hour.
{EDIT} See inactionman above ^^^
You have to do something retarded like this
and even here, it it had happened with sufficient ceiling, it would have been recoverable.
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:25 pm
by inactionman
Looks like one of the black boxes has been recovered.
Apparently it's quite badly damaged, not unsurprising given the nature of impact, but hopefully something useful can be taken from it.
This all goes back to the nonsense of black boxes: esp the much cruder ones used by Boeing. In this day and age, there should be permanently connected, live telemetry from all flights relayed to some recording base with BBs as a back up.
Apparently it's quite badly damaged, not unsurprising given the nature of impact, but hopefully something useful can be taken from it.
This all goes back to the nonsense of black boxes: esp the much cruder ones used by Boeing. In this day and age, there should be permanently connected, live telemetry from all flights relayed to some recording base with BBs as a back up.
There is already telemetry through ACARS (Rolls-Royce have their global engine health monitoring centre in Derby which processes all of this), but I gather this is mostly report-based rather than real-time. Wonder if bandwidth would be an issue, as ACARS is text-based and voice recordings etc are generally quite large.
Also not unusual for aircraft to be out of radar and radio range, particularly when over the sea, so makes sense to have onboard - although there are issues recovering the black boxes anyway if they go down midocean.
I worked with someone who had developed the data streams for passing telemetry data through ACARS but in his work this was only done close to the airport and only for maintenance support (e.g. reporting a higher than expected engine temperature, excess vibration etc).
Apparently it's quite badly damaged, not unsurprising given the nature of impact, but hopefully something useful can be taken from it.
This all goes back to the nonsense of black boxes: esp the much cruder ones used by Boeing. In this day and age, there should be permanently connected, live telemetry from all flights relayed to some recording base with BBs as a back up.
Presumably the time it takes to get technology approved for use is a significant issue too ?
Flash cards are essentially indestructible, but how long would it take to get them approved for use as even a backup data recorder ?
Apparently it's quite badly damaged, not unsurprising given the nature of impact, but hopefully something useful can be taken from it.
This all goes back to the nonsense of black boxes: esp the much cruder ones used by Boeing. In this day and age, there should be permanently connected, live telemetry from all flights relayed to some recording base with BBs as a back up.
There is already telemetry through ACARS (Rolls-Royce have their global engine health monitoring centre in Derby which processes all of this), but I gather this is mostly report-based rather than real-time. Wonder if bandwidth would be an issue, as ACARS is text-based and voice recordings etc are generally quite large.
Also not unusual for aircraft to be out of radar and radio range, particularly when over the sea, so makes sense to have onboard - although there are issues recovering the black boxes anyway if they go down midocean.
I worked with someone who had developed the data streams for passing telemetry data through ACARS but in his work this was only done close to the airport and only for maintenance support (e.g. reporting a higher than expected engine temperature, excess vibration etc).
Agree that BB onboard should remain (for the reasons you outline) and it's an interesting point on bandwidth: when you see what bored housewives stream on their mobile phones, I'm sceptical of there being a problem outside of a lack of willpower (it costs money). You are right that text would be horrible but text compresses better than anything else but voice is fat. However, stripping the voice element out would still be a huge improvement upon what we have.
On the radar bit, remember we are talking comms with satellites rather than ground based for the traffic.
Apparently it's quite badly damaged, not unsurprising given the nature of impact, but hopefully something useful can be taken from it.
This all goes back to the nonsense of black boxes: esp the much cruder ones used by Boeing. In this day and age, there should be permanently connected, live telemetry from all flights relayed to some recording base with BBs as a back up.
Presumably the time it takes to get technology approved for use is a significant issue too ?
Flash cards are essentially indestructible, but how long would it take to get them approved for use as even a backup data recorder ?
Approvals for airline industry are normally very slow but in regards this kind of safety reporting, I don't think it would be regulatory red tape but the need to get broad enough consensus across parties on what system to implement that would be the hard part.
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:31 pm
by TheFrog
Mark Forkner not guilty.
I know he was a scapegoat but still... what message does that send?
Re: Aircraft thread
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:44 am
by Torquemada 1420
TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:31 pm
Mark Forkner not guilty.
I know he was a scapegoat but still... what message does that send?
The message we already knew: Boeing will always be protected at all costs by the US.
