121–130 of 365 posts
Did anyone else find it odd that it took 40 minutes to get the plane towed back to the terminal?
It probably takes 15 minutes to drive there, 10 minutes to hook up the plane and 15 minutes to drag it back. Seems to make sense to me.
40 minutes for the truck to arrive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or to only engage reverse thrust once the landing gear has weight on it. Having reverse thrust depend on a sensor that could fail seems like a poor choice. What if the landing gear don't drop? Is there a situation where you would still want reverse thrust without landing gear?
Sometimes you'd like to have reverse thrust in-flight if you want to descend really, really quickly. Airliners don't have that feature anymore, but the C-17 and C-5 do. Actually, maybe some ex-Soviet airliners can still do it. DC-8s being used by cargo airlines could possibly still technically do it, but don't use the ability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just Boeing unfortunately. Every software driven aircraft seems to suffer from these bugs. The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land.
> The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land. From what I remember, the first time 4 USAF F22 were flying across international date line to deploy to Hawaii(?), they had software related issues. As they flew across the international date line (first time in a real flight), all computers on the jets crashed, inclu…
Sort of off topic, but reverse thrust sort of boggles my mind. If you're sucking air in from the front of the aircraft and ejecting it out the front, don't those forces counterbalance each other?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a notion of blame wrapped up with "too quickly".
There's a further implication that an instruction, but not a failsafe, exists to prevent the given condition. E.g. "do not reverse thrust until ground mode has fully activated." but no check to actually prevent the crew from doing so. I'm not a lawyer; couldn't tell you where the fault would split in that case, but if my hunch about the lack of a failsafe for a given instruction is correct... it's still a surprise to…
The older I get, the more I believe your expectation is wrong. Lessons learned are rarely transferred to new people who were not present when the lesson was initially learned.
I've even worked at companies that try to compile a database of "lessons learned", but they never instruct anyone to read through the whole thing. Even if they did, when confronted with a large amount of material how much of it actually sticks?
The we move on to more procedural methods like fault-tree analysis, FMEA, etc... That's great and can help a lot, but it's still a GIGO process and new people need to learn how to do it well. There are always new people learning new things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/... “Indonesian investigators have said the Lion Air Boeing 737 jet that plunged into the sea, killing 189 people in October, was not airworthy on a flight the day before it crashed. They further found that Lion Air must improve its safety culture and better document repair work on its planes. The flight from Bali to Jakarta on 28 October had experienced sim…
> “Indonesian investigators have said the Lion Air Boeing 737 jet that plunged into the sea, killing 189 people in October, was not airworthy on a flight the day before it crashed. And was repaired between the two flights as I quoted above. Are you selectively ignoring the information in the very post you replied to? Here's that information again to refresh your memory: > The chief executive officer of Lion Air, Edwa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always love it when you have worked on something for months and someone new comes by and says "Why don't you just X?".
I always appreciate those comments. Sometimes they include something obvious I never thought of.
It is less appreciated when people phrase things in a condescending manner, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an odd safety override. An overthrust situation is always dangerous for various reasons. One of the more spectacular is the possibility of liberating airfoils from the engine and shooting them into the cabin. It's not a self-destruct button, it's anti-destruct limit. As for the thrust reverser, there are many integrated systems on the aircraft. It's possible that the cockpit detected weight-on-wheels, but th…
By self destruct, I meant switching off the engines in flight seems to me to be a terribly dangerous behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tough call. Your solution would disappoint a pilot who actually wanted to slow down ASAP more than Boeing's solution, and might contribute to a runway overrun.
No, it would not. If the engine is shut down moments before touching down it would mean that there would be no reverse thrust after touching down since it takes a considerable amount of time to re-start a turbo-fan (not 60 seconds as OP wrote as the engine is still spooling but still a significant amount of time and I don't think that any pilot would go through the workload and checklists of re-starting an engine dur…
Or if the manual override is turned on.