Author Topic: Howard Rush and Paul Walker (Read 8707 times)

Tim Wescott · « **on:** March 12, 2019, 07:14:46 PM »

Howard Rush and Paul Walker retire from Boeing, and then airliners start falling from the sky.

Coincidence?

Larry Renger · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2019, 11:17:31 PM »

I think not!

Brett Buck · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2019, 11:19:58 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on March 12, 2019, 07:14:46 PM

Howard Rush and Paul Walker retire from Boeing, and then airliners start falling from the sky.

Coincidence?

This is more in Howard's area, I think.

People seem to be rapidly jumping to conclusions as to cause, I would wait until/if we ever get a real explanation.

Brett

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2019, 11:30:09 PM »

Flat Battery ?

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2019, 12:03:42 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on March 12, 2019, 11:19:58 PM

This is more in Howard's area, I think.

People seem to be rapidly jumping to conclusions as to cause, I would wait until/if we ever get a real explanation.

Brett

Is it possible that the vortex generators came off?

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Lyle Spiegel · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2019, 04:16:21 AM »

Maybe the lines were hooked up backward? Or handle was picked up the wrong way?

pmackenzie · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2019, 05:01:14 AM »

Just a reminder that something like 350 people are dead, perhaps a bit soon for the jokes?

Peter in Fairfax, VA · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2019, 05:18:54 AM »

True, 350 people died in that aircraft crash. Putting that in context, about 3,300 die per day in road crashes. Even though the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 incident was rare and recent, 10,000 people have died in the three days since then in road crashes. From an engineering, economics and even basic human compassion perspective, which transportation focus would yield a stronger return on investment, road or aircraft safety?

https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

Dan Berry · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2019, 07:29:32 AM »

Quote from: Peter in Fairfax, VA on March 13, 2019, 05:18:54 AM

True, 350 people died in that aircraft crash. Putting that in context, about 3,300 die per day in road crashes. Even though the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 incident was rare and recent, 10,000 people have died in the three days since then in road crashes. From an engineering, economics and even basic human compassion perspective, which transportation focus would yield a stronger return on investment, road or aircraft safety?

https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

How many people were in car crashes and didn't die? THAT is the important statistic.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2019, 07:53:50 AM »

Quote from: pmackenzie on March 13, 2019, 05:01:14 AM

Just a reminder that something like 350 people are dead, perhaps a bit soon for the jokes?

I feel for the victims.

And I like the thought of people making witty jokes about me when I'm gone -- as long as they're based on knowledge, not supposition.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2019, 08:02:34 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on March 12, 2019, 11:19:58 PM

This is more in Howard's area, I think.

People seem to be rapidly jumping to conclusions as to cause, I would wait until/if we ever get a real explanation.

Brett

I was getting mine in when there's still enough of a dearth of evidence that it could be true.

I wish I had production figures for how many are out there, and how many passenger-miles (or flight hours, or whatever). The Lyons Air crash sounds like it was at least partially the fault of the operator; I'm waiting on hearing information about the Ethiopian Airlines crash.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2019, 09:07:59 AM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on March 13, 2019, 08:02:34 AM

I was getting mine in when there's still enough of a dearth of evidence that it could be true.

I wish I had production figures for how many are out there, and how many passenger-miles (or flight hours, or whatever). The Lyons Air crash sounds like it was at least partially the fault of the operator; I'm waiting on hearing information about the Ethiopian Airlines crash.

Well, smoking/possibly on fire, and parts or luggage falling out, sure doesn't seem like a problem with the control system to me.

Brett

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2019, 11:45:26 AM »

My fishing buddy retired from the Renton plant where they assemble 737's, more recently than Paul (who worked on the F-22, not commercial). Or Howard, who worked at Everett (747) plant. But I'm real sure that nothing he did (which wouldn't have been very much!) wouldn't have caused a 737 to crash. He refers to Boeing as "the place I used to waste my daylight hours".

I've recently seen a couple of episodes of "Why Airplanes Crash" on Weather Channel. One detailed a crash where the computer system essentially crashed the plane, because the flight engineer had a switch set wrong. I hope I didn't confuse a couple of different episodes/tragedies. I tend to not watch stuff like that, because I'm not a big fan of getting in a "silver silo" in the first place. A lot of it is just putting my life in the hands of a total stranger. If Ted or David was known to be the pilot, I'd be cool with that. On the other hand, if "Bob's Your Uncle" was a BOAC pilot, I'd never get on the plane.

Steve

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2019, 12:40:56 PM »

If you have 10 "eye witnesses", you will get 10 different versions.

As Brett said, it's best to wait for the expert's evaluation.

I believe, any automatic control system should be capable of over-riding by the pilot.

Electronic systems are handy, but I don't trust any of them.

Joe Yau · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2019, 02:38:01 PM »

Quote from: FLOYD CARTER on March 13, 2019, 12:40:56 PM

I believe, any automatic control system should be capable of over-riding by the pilot.

Electronic systems are handy, but I don't trust any of them.

I totally agree.. I'm quite surprised that the pilots wasn't even aware of the implementation of the "MCAS" system (basically an auto Anti-Stall system) on the first 737 Max-8 that crashed. and I heard it's not in the manual either.

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2019, 02:55:20 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on March 12, 2019, 11:19:58 PM

This is more in Howard's area, I think.

People seem to be rapidly jumping to conclusions as to cause, I would wait until/if we ever get a real explanation.

Brett

Tip Stall....

Ken

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2019, 04:57:27 PM »

Well, the President just ordered all of the 737 MAX models grounded. Some sort of satellite data from Canada showing a similar flight pattern to the Lion Air crash. There was a report I didn't get to read, that the FAA had come out with some mandated changes for the 737 MAX in relation to the Lion Air crash, and was ready for release to the media at the time of the Ethiopian crash. Both airplanes with just minutes into take off. I read a report where due to significant air frame changes on the recent models ( larger and more powerful engines) and other aerodynamic issues, this auto system was developed in answer to that. This required a new take off check list. The crew of the Lion Air air airplane had done the check list in that airplane before, but did not on the fatal flight. Like most air liner accidents, it is usually a cascade of small events that lead to the fatal event. I would suspect that this won't be any different , and given the locations of the accidents, I'll guess that some sort of failure on the part of the crew will be part of the answer. It for sure a sad day for the families involved including some Americans. but there have been a heck of a lot of these new airplanes racking up a lot of hours in this country with no issues. Some complaints from flight crews about manuals and such, but nothing serious enough for them to refuse to fly them which I think is their prerogative, isn't it? I'll be watching this closely.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Randy Powell · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2019, 04:58:18 PM »

Sounded like a software issue.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2019, 05:45:32 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on March 13, 2019, 04:58:18 PM

Sounded like a software issue.

+1

Paul Walker · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2019, 06:43:17 PM »

There are a lot of "experts" here airing opinions about the problem.

Yes, they are grounded. Why? I don't know. FAA claims some additional info that they haven't shared is the reason, not Trump's
Twitter post.

Until they know definitively why they crashed, inspections and actions mean nothing. Let's wait until the black box tells it tale, and then understand the event. Then concrete answers and actions can be given.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2019, 06:51:13 PM »

Abi · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2019, 07:15:41 PM »

Quote from: pmackenzie on March 13, 2019, 05:01:14 AM

350 people are dead, perhaps a bit soon for the jokes?

In America, it is a good tradition to memorize the dead with a positive memory. Humor is a positive memory. Positive thoughts is the blessing the departed give us.

I particularly liked the upside down handle joke.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2019, 08:28:40 PM »

They have had the data recorders for a few days now, haven't they. I would have thought there would be at least a preliminary report on the findings. Unless those findings influenced the action. This grounding is really an unprecedented action, isn't it? I can't recall a mass grounding of a commercial aircraft on this scale. Military aircraft, yes, but I can't recall any commercial aircraft after a series of accidents. I have seen on line news reports that say Boeing suggested it. Stay tuned for further developments as they become available.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2019, 08:49:28 PM »

Quote from: Dan McEntee on March 13, 2019, 08:28:40 PM

They have had the data recorders for a few days now, haven't they. I would have thought there would be at least a preliminary report on the findings.

According to NPR they're on their way to Germany for analysis. From which I gather they haven't been looked at yet.

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #24 on:** March 13, 2019, 09:03:07 PM »

[quote author=Dan McEntee l I can't recall a mass grounding of a commercial aircraft on this scale. Military aircraft, yes, but I can't recall any commercial aircraft after a series of accidents. I have seen on line news reports that say Boeing suggested it. Stay tuned for further developments as they become available.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
[/quote]

The deHavilland Comet was grounded in 1954, due to improper riveting and overs tressed bolt locations.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Brett Buck · « **Reply #25 on:** March 13, 2019, 09:12:53 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on March 13, 2019, 08:49:28 PM

According to NPR they're on their way to Germany for analysis. From which I gather they haven't been looked at yet.

Correct, and why anything you might see about it is premature/wild speculation. Some of the "learned descriptions" I have heard about how the system worked and how it failed were so patently ridiculous that no responsible human being would have permitted it to be designed that way. And they didn't - I haven't been terribly impressed with the sophistication of the aircraft controls designs I have seen, but that's largely because they are *extremely* conservative, particularly Boeing. For very good reason.

Most of what I have heard and read about this problem is immediately dismissible as bullshit on even a casual analysis. No one on the internet seems to know the first thing about it, so assume everything you read about it is uninformed nonsense.

Brett

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #26 on:** March 13, 2019, 10:23:43 PM »

Quote from: Larry Fernandez on March 13, 2019, 09:03:07 PM

[quote author=Dan McEntee l I can't recall a mass grounding of a commercial aircraft on this scale. Military aircraft, yes, but I can't recall any commercial aircraft after a series of accidents. I have seen on line news reports that say Boeing suggested it. Stay tuned for further developments as they become available.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

The deHavilland Comet was grounded in 1954, due to improper riveting and overs tressed bolt locations.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Hi Larry;
Well, I was born in 1955, so that was before my time! The British Navy flew them until quite recently as the Nimrod sub hunter, though, correct? The square windows on that airplane played a part in it also, if I remember correctly There was issues with the Lockheed Electra in civilian use and it was in service for a short time, but I don't remember a mass grounding.,and our Navy flew them , again , until quite recently as the P-3 Orion. The local news tonight also reminded me about the Boeing Dream Liner groundings after some battery fires. But there were only a few in service at that time, I think, only 3 or 4? Quite a difference from what is happening now. The local news also said that a Southwest Max-8 that landed here was the last one to touchdown. Some people on board were completely oblivious to the whole story and didn't even know of the crashes, or what kind of airplane they were on! I wonder what life is like on their planet?? I do think that Boeing has a good airplane, and I think they are confident that they got a good airplane. I would walk out the front door and get on one right now with a current US crew. I'm still thinking that the foreign operators will be a common contributing factor in the final analysis.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #27 on:** March 14, 2019, 12:38:06 PM »

Historically, our FAA seems eager to conclude "pilot error" ion just about everything. Then, they look for clues to back their first opinion.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #28 on:** March 14, 2019, 10:45:56 PM »

Quote from: Steve Helmick on March 13, 2019, 11:45:26 AM

My fishing buddy retired from the Renton plant where they assemble 737's, more recently than Paul (who worked on the F-22, not commercial). Or Howard, who worked at Everett (747) plant. But I'm real sure that nothing he did (which wouldn't have been very much!) wouldn't have caused a 737 to crash. He refers to Boeing as "the place I used to waste my daylight hours".

I've recently seen a couple of episodes of "Why Airplanes Crash" on Weather Channel. One detailed a crash where the computer system essentially crashed the plane, because the flight engineer had a switch set wrong. I hope I didn't confuse a couple of different episodes/tragedies. I tend to not watch stuff like that, because I'm not a big fan of getting in a "silver silo" in the first place. A lot of it is just putting my life in the hands of a total stranger. If Ted or David was known to be the pilot, I'd be cool with that. On the other hand, if "Bob's Your Uncle" was a BOAC pilot, I'd never get on the plane. Steve

I’m pretty sure you’re misquoting me. I always thought I was useful or at least potentially useful.

The suspect system came along after l retired, so all I know about it is speculation from fellow flight controls geezers at our Christmas party. It was not a festive party.

Details of accidents come out in NTSB reports several months later and are usually published in Aviation Week.

This makes me sad.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #29 on:** March 14, 2019, 10:55:50 PM »

Quote from: FLOYD CARTER on March 14, 2019, 12:38:06 PM

Historically, our FAA seems eager to conclude "pilot error" ion just about everything. Then, they look for clues to back their first opinion.

I doubt that. My homeboys never assumed pilot error. You can’t improve anything that way. If a pilot did something wrong, we tried to figure out how to prevent that action.

frank williams · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2019, 07:51:03 AM »

One news report said that the "stick shaker feedback" could exert up to 90 lbs of force for the pilot to overcome. That seems like alot. Is he supposed to put his feet on the "dash"?

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #31 on:** March 15, 2019, 08:40:17 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on March 13, 2019, 04:58:18 PM

Sounded like a software issue.

Software will almost certainly be involved, but what little I understand about the system (from general press reports after the Lyons Air crash) is that it's got aerodynamic, mechanical, software, and electrical elements to it. It could be any one of a whole lot of things, or (more likely, these days) some combination of a lot of things.

Perry Rose · « **Reply #32 on:** March 15, 2019, 09:47:25 AM »

Is is true that the 737 series all use the same basic wing?

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #33 on:** March 15, 2019, 09:49:10 AM »

Quote from: frank williams on March 15, 2019, 07:51:03 AM

One news report said that the "stick shaker feedback" could exert up to 90 lbs of force for the pilot to overcome. That seems like alot. Is he supposed to put his feet on the "dash"?

The key words here are "news report"

Ken

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #34 on:** March 16, 2019, 10:23:40 AM »

Thought I might add a bit to the speculation. My little brother is director of the Lincoln Test Flight facility at M.I.T. I asked him if he had any idea what is going on. He said that they are following it closely but the test pilots he knows at Boeing are being very closed lipped. He did say two things that really scare me. First is that some airlines actually do not tell pilots of changes in their automated systems if they feel the risk of failure is very small and that pilots today are really not being taught how to fly the airplane, they are just there to monitor the automated systems.

The first one I can understand, the second one however is dangerous. When I fly I want to know that the guy up front can fly the plane with half of the rudder gone, the hydraulics leaking and the instruments out at night in a thunder storm. Maybe a bit over the top but you get the drift. My brother used to teach airline pilots how to do that - up in the sky. Now they learn it in a simulator or not at all and it is just not the same. Those poor 737 Max pilots never got to hit the reset button and try it again.

Technology is a wonderful thing but when we let it progress faster than our ability to master it we create a monster.

God Help us - Ken

Fredvon4 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 16, 2019, 12:56:40 PM »

Ken I agree with all you said EXCEPT...your belief about simulators is dead wrong sir......if you ever can...go fly one---- most today are exceptionaly well designed and can induce any flight operation/condition/fault/attitude/weather/total failure you could possibly dream up

OTHO simulator time is expensive, as are the training hours for the type rated pilot....so somewhere in the chain is the Training plan for that airline...

Some expend a LOT of bucks-- and others the bare minimum.....
If you only got 15 minutes of simulation on turning OFF the two switches of AoA auto pilot for a false AoA low airspeed condition...then you and many others might just die a tragic death

MY assumption on both these tragedies is poor and incomplete pilot training...NOT Pilot error

I was one of MANY school (Rucker Safety Center) aircraft crash investigators spending nearly 4 years to find out why Army UH 60 Sikorsky Helicopters lawn darted and killed a lot of soldiers....

insert "seen a thing or two so know a thing or two"

Peter in Fairfax, VA · « **Reply #36 on:** March 16, 2019, 02:23:31 PM »

Sim time is available to the general public in Atlanta at the Delta Flight Museum. It's a 737-200. While my visit was relatively short and I did not schedule or pay for sim time, I enjoyed this museum.

https://www.deltamuseum.org/visit/visit

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #37 on:** March 16, 2019, 03:51:42 PM »

Quote from: Fredvon4 on March 16, 2019, 12:56:40 PM

Ken I agree with all you said EXCEPT...your belief about simulators is dead wrong sir......if you ever can...go fly one---- most today are exceptionaly well designed and can induce any flight operation/condition/fault/attitude/weather/total failure you could possibly dream up

OTHO simulator time is expensive, as are the training hours for the type rated pilot....so somewhere in the chain is the Training plan for that airline...

Some expend a LOT of bucks-- and others the bare minimum.....
If you only got 15 minutes of simulation on turning OFF the two switches of AoA auto pilot for a false AoA low airspeed condition...then you and many others might just die a tragic death

MY assumption on both these tragedies is poor and incomplete pilot training...NOT Pilot error

I was one of MANY school (Rucker Safety Center) aircraft crash investigators spending nearly 4 years to find out why Army UH 60 Sikorsky Helicopters lawn darted and killed a lot of soldiers....

insert "seen a thing or two so know a thing or two"

Maybe I was misleading in my simulator comment - my bad. What you cannot simulate is the way you react to stress when you know that everybody is going to die if you get it wrong and you don't know what "it" is yet. I have flown a F-18 simulator but it was a long time ago and from what my brother tells me they are 1000% better now.

Ken

Bill Adair · « **Reply #38 on:** March 16, 2019, 05:33:54 PM »

Quote from: Ken Culbertson on March 16, 2019, 03:51:42 PM

I have flown a F-18 simulator but it was a long time ago and from what my brother tells me they are 1000% better now.

Ken

That must have been a blast!

I got to fly one of the Boeing motion base simulators for the 747-400 while working at Boeing. My boss at the time was a former Simulator section supervisor, and squeezed a couple of us in one night, when they were not training commercial pilots three shifts per day, and seven days per week.

One of the other guys had a private ticket, and still managed to crash the 747. I had a great time on my turn, and managed to get that beautiful airplane up and back down again without crashing (thanks to my boss sitting in the right seat). Might have collected a few runway lights on that seemingly endless roll out however!

Prior to that I'd spent many hours with the MS Flight Sim, and a rather basic PC game called "Ace's Over Europe". Those PC games, and my R/C flying were a big help, but I've no illusions of being able to fly a real airplane that way.

Bill

Fredvon4 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2019, 10:04:15 AM »

Ken so true and I did not intend my post lauding the great simulators as perfect substitutes for actual seat time with an good instructor pilots.... and real conditions, shear, wx, birds....drones

One report I heard mid week was they found the boxes fairly fast. In good shape but parent country does not have the lab to decode the data so they mailed off the boxes to Europe...

AP news at the time speculated weather it would be France, England, or Germany

Fox prognosticators speaking for FAA would like to also examine the data

I would like to believe the POTUS grounding the airframe was based on inside data and serious consultation with Boeing....but politically, theses days who the hell really knows the truth of anything...

heard one guy today state that he doubted the same failure mode of the second crash was related to the first AoA crash...his argument was...EVERY 737 Max8 pilot, world wide, would know exactly the emergency procedures for that fault mode

Perry Rose · « **Reply #40 on:** March 17, 2019, 11:29:53 AM »

Maybe I was misleading in my simulator comment - my bad. What you cannot simulate is the way you react to stress when you know that everybody is going to die if you get it wrong.
Ken

I must disagree about the stress level in a simulator. In the sim. the thing that is going to die if you get it wrong is your job and you have to live with the humiliation that goes with that. The stress in the sim. is just as great as in the plane if not greater. Airlines cannot use airplanes to train anyone. Sim. time is far less expensive and less dangerous. You don't want to practice imminent stalls in any large or heavy aircraft or any other unusual maneuver.

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #41 on:** March 17, 2019, 04:52:19 PM »

After I retired from United Air Lines I worked for a number of years at the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) as an "Expert" Analyst (their description, not mine) of aviation incidents reported by pilots, maintenance, ATC, Flight Attendants etc. from all forms of aviation, air carrier, general aviation, occasional military etc. ASRS receives in the neighborhood of 80 to 90+ thousands of reports a year. These reports are limited to "incidents" and we had/have no official part of accident investigation although synopses and narratives of pertinent reports may be utilized by associated authorities during investigations of accidents.

Because of the interest in the -800s due to the two accidents I went to the ASRS Web Site and conducted a rudimentary search of the last 100 reports submitted from -800 crew members. A quick review resulted in only two reports potentially relevant to the current speculation and I thought I'd copy and paste the narratives provided (all such reports are de-identified prior to publication as to who and where specifically are concerned).

The first is obviously one that will be of interest with respect to the current investigation: Notes in black parenthesis for clarity by Ted.

Day 3 of 3 departing in a MAX 8 after a long overnight. I was well rested and had discussed the recent MAX 8 MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) guidance with the Captain. On departure, we had strong crosswinds (gusts > 30 knots) directly off the right wing, however, no LLWS (Low Level Wind Shear) or Micro-burst (Dramatic "down draft of air and precipitation) activity was reported at the field. After verifying LNAV (Lateral Naviation Auto Flight Mode), selecting gear and flaps up, I set "UP" speed. The aircraft accelerated normally and the Captain engaged the "A" autopilot after reaching set speed. Within two to three seconds the aircraft pitched nose down bringing the VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator i.e. rate of climb/descent) to approximately 1,200 to 1,500 FPM. I called "descending" just prior to the GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System") sounding "don't sink, don't sink." The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pitched into a climb. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. We discussed the departure at length and I reviewed in my mind our automation setup and flight profile but can't think of any reason the aircraft would pitch nose down so aggressively. (Underline added for emphasis)

Synopsis

B737 MAX First Officer reported that the aircraft pitched nose down after engaging autopilot on departure. Autopilot was disconnected and flight continued to destination.

The second report, alas, got lost when I inadvertently opened a new window on top of it. If I find it I'll rethink whether or not to bother to add it as it was only related in that it was a minor, quickly resolved auto flight system rate of climb anomaly. A minor anomaly that might well mean more during an investigation this intensive. Sorry to have dumped it.

If anyone wants to do a search of their own here's a link by which to start your search. It is, by the way a resource open to the public and nothing I'm using inappropriately: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html

Ted

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2019, 05:51:42 PM »

Thanks for your insight and input Ted. If you find the other report, I would be interested in your thoughts on that also. I had heard once, that on the day of the Ethiopian crash, the FAA had ready for release a mandated design change on the Max as a result of the investigation of the Lion Air crash, but I had not heard anything else about it since. I'm curious as to what that was. The day the grounding was called for, it was reported that data from a Canadian satellite had detected "similarities in the with the Lion Air crash final flight path" or something similar. Makes me wonder what other info they were considering that wasn't released that dictated parking the whole fleet? I also wonder, does production cease, or at least the final preparations for and the delivery on new aircraft? I'll be the sale of Tums to the guys that are responsible for replacing the grounded airplanes with replacement equipment has gone way up! I haven't heard anything about the pinch on scheduling that this may be causing either. The MAX hasn't been in service that long, but a fair number of them are out there in service, so I would think it has to make an impact on replacing them with equipment that you can utilize the current crews on also. A lot of logistics involved!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2019, 08:29:24 PM »

Got this link from my Brother. It is a pretty comprehensive review. How can they be so stupid?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

Ken

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2019, 09:23:10 PM »

Very interesting reading. What would be a possible scenario where a commercial airliner would enter a high speed stall, that would make it necessary to have a system like the MCAS?
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Brett Buck · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2019, 10:10:31 PM »

Quote from: Dan McEntee on March 17, 2019, 09:23:10 PM

Very interesting reading. What would be a possible scenario where a commercial airliner would enter a high speed stall, that would make it necessary to have a system like the MCAS?

Negative static stability margin.

Brett

Howard Rush · « **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2019, 11:54:36 PM »

Quote from: Dan McEntee on March 17, 2019, 09:23:10 PM

Very interesting reading. What would be a possible scenario where a commercial airliner would enter a high speed stall, that would make it necessary to have a system like the MCAS?
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Two that I know of. Airplanes with T tails have reduced tail effectiveness in the wake of a stalled wing. This caused loss of some BAC 1-11s. The British certification agency had us put a “stick pusher” on the 727 to prevent stalls. Don Shultz made a cartoon of their chief pilot riding the 727, saying, “bloody magnificent stick pusher.”

The other case is where the engines are low. When the airplane slows down the pitch-up moment from the engines stays the same while aerodynamic pitch-down moment from the wing and tail reduce as the square of airspeed.

Both are exacerbated by the tendency of swept wings to stall tips-first.

These aren’t usually high speed stalls, though, which is what you asked about.

Perry Rose · « **Reply #47 on:** March 18, 2019, 06:20:01 AM »

And all this computer stuff is now operating automobiles. How safe is that going to be with young drivers?
I understand that the F.O. on the Ethiopian plane had a whopping 200 hours total time.

Fredvon4 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 18, 2019, 10:01:32 AM »

Further---managing wing flight control due to a narrow AoA vs speed is exacerbated by the placement of the Engines and their cowling .....I read elsewhere the the engine cowls induce a rapid rate of lift as AoA increases

FWIIW I have a Buy order in for Boeing stock at XXX price

I am CERTAIN they will fix this and then go on to fill the thousands of orders for this one aircraft

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #49 on:** March 18, 2019, 10:22:33 AM »

Quote from: Fredvon4 on March 18, 2019, 10:01:32 AM

Further---managing wing flight control due to a narrow AoA vs speed is exacerbated by the placement of the Engines and their cowling .....I read elsewhere the the engine cowls induce a rapid rate of lift as AoA increases

FWIIW I have a Buy order in for Boeing stock at XXX price

I am CERTAIN they will fix this and then go on to fill the thousands of orders for this one aircraft

What needs fixing is the culture. Why they went to passive control override makes me not want to ever get on another new Boeing jet. I want pilots who have their lives at stake flying my planes not some programmer whose only exposure is his/her job.

Ken