Actually all western nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a 737 strike, as that was the largest plane flying when the regulations were written.
> Actually all western nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a 737 strike, as that was the largest plane flying when the regulations were written.
The 737 was a smaller complement for the 707 and 727 when introduced, it was never the largest plane flying.
I'd highly recommend anyone who wants to see what an MCAS runaway looks like and the steps needed to correct it watch the following video by Mentour Pilot.[1] He's a 737 pilot for a European budget carrier, and I believe he is qualified to certify other pilots. In the video he goes over what an MCAS failure/runaway stabilizer would feel like to the pilots, the troubleshooting steps, and at the end of the video he sho…
Great video, thanks for sharing. That simulator work at the end was a fantastic demonstration of team work. Crew Resource Management.[1] I still remember DAM CLAS from the Navy.[2] Numerous examples in the video. Sad and terrifying thinking about what it must have been like for the pilots and passengers of the crashed airlines. If the issue was MCAS, the slowly worsening situation, never disabling the trim, just one…
I'll need to check for relevant sources, but I'm fairly sure that the idea that boeing removed the "trim brake" is wrong. It's simply that the MCAS doesn't respect it. I think this is consistent with the Speed trim system which may be trimming opposite the pilot in normal operations.
I imagine it would still be more dangerous to drive to the airport than it would be to fly on a 737 Max.
Note sure about that. Only around 350 737 Max 8's had been delivered by the time of the second crash. How many models of car have a 1 in 175 total loss rate?
Why muddy the waters by comparing apples (airplanes) to oranges (cars)? The loss rate of other aircraft models is what's relevant.
Boeing's actions are absolutely mind boggling. All consumers want is _some_, _any_ evidence that they take passenger safety seriously. Pilots have to take less training to operate a proven deadly aircraft, with software patch on top, than I have to take to work in an office job... that's fucking insane. How can we make Boeing feel some pain for this? You know, actually enough for them to start taking this seriously.
I can't agree more. The existence of MCAS is a testament that the behavior of the plane wrt. to the pitch axis is vastly different. Handling this needs training and anyone doubting that please spend a moment on what happens when this savior MCAS has to be switched off. Yes, the pilots need to be able to handle the plane without. And they have to handle the plane at that point in time in an odd flight situation, are stressed themselves and have their hands on hypersensitive engine and rudder controls. Pilots train to handle airplanes with only one engine - there is a reason for that.
Anyone doubting that Boeing needs to have its authority wrt. to airplane certifications cut should ponder what they are proposing here.
The thing that was the most chilling to me was the fact that the last item on the memory checklist is to try and prevent the trim wheel from moving using physical force. At that point it almost seems like "well, you are probably going to die, but you might as well keep yourself busy in the process." I thought the communication was really interesting. Air France Flight 447[1] crashed due to the pilot flying pulling ba…
I can’t watch the video at the moment, but I’m of the understanding that the manual wheel actually easily overpowers the electric trim motors—-that it is simple to stop them from spinning and not to difficult to manually spin them as required.
I wouldn't say "easily": at some point in the video the guy on the right tries to trim manually but fails -- it only starts working when the guy on the left starts helping him.
Note sure about that. Only around 350 737 Max 8's had been delivered by the time of the second crash. How many models of car have a 1 in 175 total loss rate?
Why muddy the waters by comparing apples (airplanes) to oranges (cars)? The loss rate of other aircraft models is what's relevant.
literally the comment before:
> it would still be more dangerous to drive to the airport than it would be to fly on a 737 Max
Except it has failed, twice. It’s not as though shoving it back out the door and crossing fingers isn’t potentially going to lead to more tragedy and an even worse image, plus the potential for ruinous lawsuits. Boeing is in a terrible position they created and the only way out will hurt them, but less than staying the course.
Once. Do you have a copy of the running report for the Ethiopian crash? We don't know yet.
Great video, thanks for sharing. That simulator work at the end was a fantastic demonstration of team work. Crew Resource Management.[1] I still remember DAM CLAS from the Navy.[2] Numerous examples in the video. Sad and terrifying thinking about what it must have been like for the pilots and passengers of the crashed airlines. If the issue was MCAS, the slowly worsening situation, never disabling the trim, just one…
I'll need to check for relevant sources, but I'm fairly sure that the idea that boeing removed the "trim brake" is wrong. It's simply that the MCAS doesn't respect it. I think this is consistent with the Speed trim system which may be trimming opposite the pilot in normal operations.
And the reason MCAS doesn't respect it is because MCAS is designed to activate in high AoA situations. You get into a high AoA situation because you're already pulling back hard on the yoke, likely in an attempt to avoid something bad happening such as avoiding a collision. If MCAS did cutout when the yoke was pulled back hard, it would disable itself at precisely the time it is actually needed. This design decision does make sense. The real problem is not telling the pilots about it.
I wholeheartedly agree and am going out of my way to not fly 737max and 787 (those aren’t any better. Their batteries still burn up, just now in a “metal container”. Just google ‘787 smoke’ and you’ll get tons of incidences, the last one was two days ago. And those planes fly over-water for thousands of miles - https://simpleflying.com/united-787-noumea-diversion/ ). A once-proud engineering company that has become n…
Bingo. This is the end state of capitalism, a total lack of concern for brand on the part of the companies; a total lack of loyalty and trust on the part of the customer.
The core issue with Boeing is that they have captured the government. Boeing the largest defense contractor, and one of the biggest lobbyists. Boeing recently successfully blocked Bombardier from competing with the 737 by getting the US government to effectively ban the C-series aircraft. (Bombariders "solution" was to give Airbus a controlling interest in a joint venture to build the C-series). I don't think this is really capitalism, it is corporatism - where the government and mega-corporations are indistinguishable and they only care about profits (and consequently about preventing competition)
Bingo. This is the end state of capitalism, a total lack of concern for brand on the part of the companies; a total lack of loyalty and trust on the part of the customer.
The core issue with Boeing is that they have captured the government. Boeing the largest defense contractor, and one of the biggest lobbyists. Boeing recently successfully blocked Bombardier from competing with the 737 by getting the US government to effectively ban the C-series aircraft. (Bombariders "solution" was to give Airbus a controlling interest in a joint venture to build the C-series). I don't think this is…
It is the unavoidable end state of poorly regulated capitalism. When a player achieves regulatory capture, there is no amount of market that can fix the issue.