[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 103 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Attention: All work safe boards are soon going to be on the 4channel.org domain.

For now, all boards are accessible through either domain.

Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: 1200px-PK-LQP_Lion_Air.jpg (86 KB, 1200x801)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
Wow, that was fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610
>>
>>1251119
It'll be interesting to see what the cause was. Given safety records in Indonesia, I'm inclined to blame the airline.
>>
>>1251119
>PK registration
im not shocked that they crashed, im shocked that they had a MAX in the first place.
>>
See, sidestick or yoke, doesn't matter, if pilots are retarded.
>>
Fuck, i always tell myself i'm not gonna fly again then i get tempted to think about doing it, then a fucking plane goes down.

God i'm gonna die one day in a plane even though i hardly fly.
>>
>>1251142
Or if the airline is indonesian
>>
>>1251144
Your chance of dieing in a car crash is higher over the course of your life, unless you're flying like 2x a day
>>
>>1251146

I know i know, i tell myself to stop myself from having a melt down when i'm on the planes. I legit fly a few times a year.

Gives me the spooks though.
>>
>>1251147
>Gives me the spooks though.
what are you afraid of? just pretend youre in a plane and dont look outside the window.
>>
Airships are safer
>>
>>1251144
Almost everything you do during your day can kill you. You could be driving and get driver's side T-boned in an intersection because someone ran a stop sign, or the footbridge you're walking on can collapse into the river from a structural defect, or when you're doing a bench press with a spotter he turns out to be a Hillary agent and presses the barbell down on you crushing your throat. If you can't accept risk then just become a NEET and never go outside.
>>
>>1251145
Same thing.
>>1251162
No, airplanes are much safer, especially when you control it.
>>
>>1251144
I'd recommend you taking a flying lesson in flight school. It will make you feel much safer.
>>
>>1251119
>The Chief Executive Officer of Lion Air said the same aircraft had reported a “technical issue” on Sunday night, but had been cleared to fly on Monday. He said he would not ground the other MAX 8 aircraft in Lion Air’s fleet
How they managed to ruin new plane in first year.
Even ryanair drivers can't ruin planes with their landings...
>>
File: ryanair 737.jpg (673 KB, 3947x2010)
673 KB
673 KB JPG
>>1251173
>Even ryanair drivers can't ruin planes with their landings...
a firm landing is a safe landing. Rynair crew is trained well above industry standards. Their safety record is impregnable. The aircraft are maintained more often than needed. And whats that "drivers" shit supposed to mean.
>>
File: its already built.jpg (8 KB, 200x156)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>1251168
>hes afraid of one of the safest forms of transportation
>i know! lets put him into a flying casket with a single engine up front and a safety record thats beyond good and bad, and if he survives, he wont be afraid anymore!
i like the way you think.
>>
>>1251176
>The aircraft are maintained more often than needed.
Because landing is much firmer than needed.
Why they do it on dry runways? There is no reason to do this, considering that a lot of airstrips are quite long for 737.
>>
>>1251178
Piston engines are reliable enough for small planes.
>>
>>1251182
>Why they do it on dry runways?
because if you land outside the touchdown zone its a goaround, no matter how long the runway is (at least in theory). And to be quite honest, i dont think ryanair landings are that much harder than any other landings, at least from my experience and i fly a lot. They are louder sometimes because of the thrust reverser (because of the short turnaround time, brake cooling is more of a factor, and thrust reversers ALWAS go to idle, and more often than not to second detent.)
>>
>>1251184
I guess they basically want to land as fast as safely possible.
>>
>>1251190
usually, the brake force applied depends a lot on which runway exit youre most likely to use.
>>
If the pilot's brown,
It's going down
>>
>>1251215
Are you 'cap' Joe?
>>
File: pix.png (90 KB, 1200x786)
90 KB
90 KB PNG
Any theories?
I think they accidentally it in ground. This graph sort of proves it. Ground speed is being the same, until 1000 ft. At that moment they probably tried to pull up (speed goes up), but failed.
>>
>>1251119
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610
Lion Air was among the first to receive 737MAX deliveries, so they've had this aircraft for over a year.
I would be interested to see what comes out of the investigation. Air Asia has had incidents before in the A320, but those were down to maintenance issues which were never addressed and the Captain pulling a circuit breaker for the flight computer with no warning.

I'm going to guess that one of 3 incidents has occured.
1. Engine failure after takeoff with SOP not being followed.
2. CFIT down to pilots losing all situational awareness.
3. Terrorism

While the 3rd one is unlikely, we might see another interesting development, maybe something dumb like sudden, explosive decompression á la DeHavilland Comet 1. I really have no idea at this stage, but considering that the aircraft disintegrated and sprayed human body parts everywhere, something very catastrophic took place.
>>
File: lol.jpg (195 KB, 1024x576)
195 KB
195 KB JPG
>>1251230
Engine shroud seems quite intact tho.
How did plane enter the water?
>>
>>1251230
>2. CFIT down to pilots losing all situational awareness.
I bet 1$ for CFIT
>>
>>1251144
Indonesia has a pretty shitty aviation record, the USA is the safest because Pilots have to get a lot of flight hours (experience) to even be noticed by the airlines. (and a fucking degree too even though I find them worthless)
>>
>>1251237
Okay. Can a thirdworlder with thirdworld degree and some airbus driving experience (>1500 hours) be hired by US airline? I just want H1B.
>>
AF447, but with Boeing?
>>
>Population: 264 million (2017)
They'll hardly notice.
>>
>>1251248
Time for the "sidestick is a design flaw" tards to get btfo's then.
>>
>>1251248
AF447 cant happen on a Boeing (jokes are mechanically connected) It might have been pilot error, but not the same one as in AF447.
>>
>>1251253
Sidestick is flawed (I believe that controls have to do same thing no matter what). But it was a pilot error, since this baguette was holding his stick in pull up.
>>1251254
AF447 is a mix. Instruments sort of failed, and pilots failed. So, entire plane failed.
>>
>>1251255
airspeed failed, that happens. literally memory items for that (airspeed unreliable):
>disengage autopilot
>disengage autothrottle
>flight directors OFF
>set pitch 4° nose up
>set throttle 75%
and then the QRH.

AF failed because the airbus cockpit switches off a big part of the redundancy that two pilots give you because of the sidestick system, which is not interconnected. the cpt. on AF was not aware of the FO pulling back on the stick, simply can not happen on a Boeing, period. Apart from that, at one point (early on) both pilots pulled back. this happens if the way of flying the aircraft rapidly changes in an emergency situation.

The airbus cockpit and the general "fly with control wheel steering mode at all times until something goes wrong" idea is unergonomic, works against the human mind, and is a recipe for disaster.
>>
File: pic.jpg (121 KB, 791x1200)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>
>>1251119
So this is the power of boeing
>>
>>1251261
Why altitude is so jagged?
>>
737s are deathtraps. they need to be banned from flying.
>>
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aVWfd_1540802111
Doesn't look like it was too extreme inside the plane
>>
>>1251272
737 are fine as long as pilots are white.
>>
>>1251259
The main factors with the AF incident which are forgotten, is that the crew failed to carry out Positive Transfer of Flight Controls, and what's more, is that they failed to realise that the sidestick input indicators were clearly indicating that the F/O was inputting something,
Furthermore, the crew ignored all "Dual Input" aural warnings before the start of the "Stall Stall" aural warning, at which point Stall was a higher priority than Dual Input.

Both Boeing and Airbus responded with Airspeed Unreliable proceedures and QRH updates to prevent such incidents from occuring again.

Plus incidents involving improper responses to things can be seen in even yoked aircraft, such as in this flight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
>>
>>1251274
no, theyre not. a 737 under any pilot is a flying coffin. just look at its numbers, it has an insane accident number.
>>
>>1251273
Good vids.
Looks like there were some problems with pressurization and it was quite shaky...
Engine again poked some windows?
>>
>>1251276
737 are built since 1966, no wonder there were too many accidents.
>>
>>1251280
they were built back when they were only meant to make few, small hops. but now they have to be a long haul aircraft, and for that it is inherently flawed.
>>
>>1251275
>sidestick input indicators
>the crew ignored all "Dual Input" aural warnings
im not saying those were good pilots, but this is EXACTLY what im talking about. connected yokes are superior to any sort of fancy aural or visual warning. its simply ergonomic and a direct feedback that shows you something is wrong, even if you try to ignore it.

>>1251276
which is mostly because the 737 flies since ages. newer variants are by no means more dangerous than their competitors, any the older ones werent either. its obvious that the data is "wrong" when the 737's from 50 years ago drag down the numbers of newer ones with them.

like it or not, the 737 is a safe, modern, and amazing aircraft, that will fly for decades to come.
>>
>>1251284
>like it or not, the 737 is a safe, modern, and amazing aircraft, that will fly for decades to come.
Last 737 are fly-by-wire or classic links and hydraulics?
>>
>>1251284
>its simply ergonomic and a direct feedback that shows you something is wrong, even if you try to ignore it.
Except when they did ignore it and the Stick Shaker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
>>
>>1251273
This is what happens if you don't thank an airb... Boeing drivers.
>>
>>1251286
>Except when they did ignore it and the Stick Shaker.
i'm talking about the redundancy of two pilots. in a Boeing, the guy on the right can NOT pull back on the stick without the guy on the left noticing, IF the guy on the left pushes down. If both pilots are absolutely retarded and pull up? well then youre lost, no matter what aircraft.
>>
>>1251289
Not in Airbus, there is a retard-protection system.
Only if retard-protection fails you're ded.
>>
>>1251273
oh so thats why they crashed, som retard had his phone not on flight mode.
>>1251278
even if there would have been a press. problem you would not have noticed it. the aircraft was way below what the cabin altitude would have been in cruiseflight, no masks dropped etc.
>>
>>1251291
and the pilots are being trained, and fly every single day, for hours on end, with the retard protection active. but oh well when SOMETHING goes wrong youre left alone with no retard protection, and 8000 now worthless hours on a retard-protected aircraft.
i know enough airbus pilots.
>"i hope that shit doesnt break because i havent flown a plane the way its ment to be in 20 years"
>>
>>1251292
>even if there would have been a press. problem you would not have noticed it. the aircraft was way below what the cabin altitude would have been in cruiseflight, no masks dropped etc.
Yeah, right, it is bellow 10 000 ft (or 15 000, I don't remember).
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aVWfd_1540802111
Wonder why they did drop masks? Or pic are unrelated?
>>
>>1251295
its 14000 feet for passengers, pilots have to don masks at or above 10000.
the images are either unrelated OR the pilots dropped the masks manually, maybe its procedure at the airline so the people shut the fuck up.
>>
>>1251293
Will flying small cessna for fun fix it? (But I guess no airline pilot ever flies for fun, since he/she will be fed up with flying relatively fast)
Or they fly into sea for fun nowadays?
>>
>>1251297
Can faulty pressure instruments cause it to drop at wrong pressure?
>>
>>1251299
yes, thats always a possibility, but the pressure indicators on the inside are responsible for that... thats a lot of shit going wrong if youre asking me, i dont know.
>>1251298
i know pilots you enjoy flying the small things as well, but flying an airbus is something completely different to flying a normal aircraft. the Boeing actually has an autoflight mode called "CWS" (control wheel steering) where you set a pitch and it remains like that until you actively give imputs against this pitch to even it out (thus, no trim, or similar to flying the aircraft with the trim). on the airbus, this mode is the normal mode.
>>
>>1251284
>safe
wrong. it has far too many accidents to be considered safe, and a majority of those accidents were the airframe's fault. they werent meant to be stretched out and flown for longer, simple as.
>>
>>1251315
simply a lie.
>>
>>1251317
its the truth. theyre falling apart at the seems all because boeing doesnt want to spend the extra money on designing a plane thats fit for the task.
>>
>>1251276
It's a 52 year old design. Post 1990 (when the A320 first flew) it matches the A320
>>
File: 6565.png (118 KB, 1408x959)
118 KB
118 KB PNG
Is 10 degrees pitch too much for b737 max8?
>>
>Frist flight of the day

Someone forgot to remove the pitot covers.
>>
>>1251363
They would notice it much earlier I guess.
Btw, this is why plane shouldn't be painted red, or orange.
>>
>>1251365
depends. if they are well trained, yes. if they are monkeys with CPLs, no.
>>
>>1251365
>They would notice it much earlier I guess.
Not necessarily, there was a Malaysian flight a few months ago down in aus that took off with the pitot covers still on, reported unreliable airpspeed and altitude and ended up returning.

http://newsinflight.com/2018/07/21/malaysia-airlines-a330-took-off-with-pitot-covers-on/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bL7rBT8zw
>>
>>1251367
>>1251368
Ok then. I guess it was the case here I think
>>
>>1251370
>>1251365
theres actually depending on the airline procedures quite a few things where you should notice this.
>the walkaround of course
>airspeed alive call
>80 knots incap call
>v1 call
>vr call
so yeah if they really took off with them installed they both fucked up really really good.
>>
>>1251144
yeah dude, keep driving its much safer

retard
>>
>>1251411
Worry not, I drive badly, I will make you feel unsafe even at home
>>
>>1251184
> I fly ryanair a lot

God it must suck to be you
>>
File: 1523541191987.jpg (68 KB, 673x789)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>Americans build a plane
>Everyone dies
Hurrr durr yurpossps free rent living head obseesed xdxd
>>
>>1251446
And? Boeing is just slightly less retard-proof than Airbus.
Problem is that thirdworld shitholes have pretty shitty pilots.
>>
>>1251144
I felt the same way, hadn't flown in 10 years prior to last week (on a regular 737, nonetheless). I freaked out when I smelled the jet fuel in the gate, but really it's not so bad once you're leveled off and up there (and drinking).

>>1251446
Delete your account.
>>
File: 1538614552063.png (123 KB, 720x400)
123 KB
123 KB PNG
>>1251144
Don't fly on a third world airline where huffing avgas takes priority over simple procedure.
>>
>>1251331
taking off numbers just to make it look better isnt going to solve the problem of this thing being a flying coffin.
>>
>>1251506
Why don't you contain your shitposting to the thread you created you stating the exact same thing, you fucking mongoloid?
>>
>>1251512
sorry for stating basic facts.
>>
>>1251515
>Germanwings
>>
>>1251239
no stay in your shithole
>>
>>1251536
Why? I'm not that retarded to make an airplane a submarine or subway train...
>>
>>1251168
not him but I did that
did some stalls
won't fly ever fucking again
>>
>>1251443
Explain that please.
>>
>>1251596
Why not train getting out of stalls?
Try again, try again until you...Crash
>>
>>1251178
Imagine being this paranoid. You could safely glide down and land a tiny GA plane on a field if the engine quits, and those engines will almost never quit.
>>
>>1251184
>because if you land outside the touchdown zone its a goaround, no matter how long the runway is
Sure if you're a C-130 landing on some 2000' dirt strip in Al-fuckistan, but I doubt that's an actual FAA regulation. If my calculated landing roll allows me to land half way down a runway, I'm probably just going to accept a slightly long landing if I'm carrying too much energy on final. Forcing it down when I don't need to isn't doing the airframe any favors.
>>
>>1251963
Can you land GA plane on parking lot of some Walmart?
>>
>>1251178
If you crash in a Cessna 172 with an instructor you are the most retarded person on the planet. That thing can be flown by toddlers
>>
>>1251969
theoretically it's possible to land a small plane on any street wide enough to accommodate it as long as there aren't traffic lights that will get in the way
>>
>>1251969
If I can do assaults with a C-130 then I could probably figure it out in a tiny cessna, as long as I don't hit a powerline.
>>
>>1251124
On lease from China.
>>
>>1251176
"Driver" is just a slangy synonym for "pilot." E.g. USAF F-105 pilots referring to themselves as "Thud drivers."

t. military aviation 'sperg
>>
Not quite related, but I finally understood what happened in AF447
It is not retarded pilots, it is retarded ergonomics of side stick. Pilot probably moved his hand backwards slightly and was thinking that stick is in neutral, while it wasn't...
Plus, hand just can't move backwards much...
Interesting, what happened here...
>>
>>1251273
That's a bullshit collage, none of that is related to the crash we are talking about.
>>
>>1251176
In the trade, pilots are reffered to as "drivers."
>>
>>1252107
Why pilots are called pilots?
>>
Okay /n/, what will you do in case of a crash happening?
Pray? Take a video? Go to toilet? Go to cockpit and do the barrel roll? Or steal something?
>>
>>1252107
no they are not
>>
File: 1525597134349.jpg (88 KB, 334x334)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>1252107
>>1252123
they just call me baby, baby driver.
>>
File: 1479930002855.jpg (102 KB, 1014x690)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>1252112
drop pants and expose micropenis

give the recovery team something to laugh at
>>
>>1252059
> I finally understand
Read the BEA report you retard
>>
>>1252112
Shout at the top of my lungs, "The Prophecy is true!!!"

Also, shit myself.
>>
File: 1480213153996.png (10 KB, 284x284)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>1252112
I was in a plane crash. We lost engine power and the pilot glided but the problem was we were in the mountains so no place to really put it down that was level. I don't remember the moments leading to crash, only some alarms before. After the crash I woke up and I started immediately feeling a stabbing pain in my stomach. It hurt me so bad I couldn't move. The pilot dragged me out. I layed on the ground. It remember looking at the strands of grass, my face was planted to the ground I couldn't move. This other girl was screaming and I saw a lady that lived in a house nearby bring her a blanket.

I was transported to a nearby hospital and got really lucky and there was a decent surgeon there. I had internal bleeding in a bunch of places. My dad wanted me to be transported to a big hospital instead but their wasn't time.

I'm 32 now and I have back pain and a herniated disc. I'm pretty sure the crash caused that also. I also suffer from a lot of depression. My mom claims I was never sad before the crash, she thinks it somehow caused my depression. I'm not sure about that. Kinda doubt it. Sometimes I wish I'd have died on impact though. I mean I don't remember the actual crash so maybe before you hit your brain just blanks everything out and you feel nothing. I only felt pain after I came back conscious and the plane was at rest.
>>
Concussions and brain trauma in general are often associated with depression but it serves you right for being a richfag.
>>
>>1252202
I was 8. Obviously not rich enough, couldn't afford a second engine.
>>
>>1252191
That is why planes need three-point seat belts, not lap meme.
>>
>>1252191
Which one exactly?
>>
>>1252231
Yeah, I was sitting backwards/in a rear facing seat. The pilot said if my seat belt was tighter I'd have been better off. I didn't even know we were crashing though, I was only 8. The plane was gliding and without the engine there was alarms but because of the wind noise I never knew the engine was out. The pilot never told me what was going on. At least not that I can remember. I'd say from 3,000ft to 0 I don't remember. So maybe he did.

My car now has this thing where if it detects an impending crash it tightens the seat belts. Maybe something like that would have helped. Or maybe my belt was tight and it had nothing to do with it. My sister says it was just the pilot trying to pass blame from himself (I don't blame the pilot, she just says he felt guilty for almost killing a kid so wanted it to be about some seatbelt and not that the plane hit a mountain).

I fly a ton for work and always keep my seat belt on low and tight. I like to keep a pillow or two around even if I don't use it because I figure it would be good to have in another emergency.


>>1252236
It was a private plane, it never hit any news that I know of.
>>
File: Spoopy house in Palu.jpg (216 KB, 976x650)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>1251119

Maybe God is getting tired of Muslims, and their antics?
>>
File: 1410302011758.jpg (13 KB, 193x200)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>1252191

Did the plane scene in the Batman movie give you flashbacks?
>>
>>1251144
>being afraid of the safest form of travel in the world

I really have never understood this. A single pilot from a good airline has more training and experience in flying than a random sampling of 5 million car drivers have in driving. More people die in car crashes every day than the total deaths from any plane related incident in half a decade.
>>
>>1252281
>I really have never understood this
Easy to understand. It flies above ground with no support, thus intuitively it is dangerous and it will drop like a turn into loo in case of engine failure.
At least a lot of people think like that.
Easiest way to prove it wrong for retards is to make them fly in glider.
>>
File: 99.png (36 KB, 941x592)
36 KB
36 KB PNG
Someone af447 on boeing?
>>
>>1252264
No, but the movie Scully made me feel ill. I almost had to turn it off. I'm not sure why, I mean the outcome was good. Actually the only movie I've had a problem with was that.

I fly all the time still. Probably done 20 legs this year, half of them overseas. I still get nervous sometimes flying but I do okay.
>>
>>1252123
I hear "driver" thrown around all the time with pilots, at least in military aviation. Big amongst the fighter community: Eagle driver, Viper driver, Hog driver, etc
>>
>>1252346
I wonder if Airbus drivers call themselves an Airbus pilots.
>>
>>1252357
Audi drivers do. Ghey.
>>
>>1252281
Planes fly above the ground, which is inherently more frightening than being on solid ground. If something goes seriously wrong with a plane, there is literally nothing you can do except hope to live. In many car crash scenarios there are things you can do prevent/mitigate them, and still you might be only injured instead of killed. Humans find scenarios where they are in control less frightening than ones where they aren't, even if they're objectively less safe. Human fears never have and never will be amenable to statistical arguments.
>>
>>1251361
>>1252290
I calculated angle correctly, lol.
I have other question: what can cause plane to move nose up and down.
>>
>>1251964
>actual FAA regulation
Ryanair doesnt give a SHIT about FAA regulations.
>accept a long landing
simply "NO"
>Forcing it down when I don't need to isn't doing the airframe any favors.
you dont force it down at any time, you just flare less. Its safety vs. comfort.
>>1252052
>"Driver" is just a slangy synonym for "pilot."
>"I'm a Boeing 737 driver"
i actually like that, thanks
>>1252059
YES, 100%. Read this:
>https://www.fastcompany.com/1669720/how-lousy-cockpit-design-crashed-an-airbus-killing-228-people
>>
>>1251969
Depends on the plane and the weather. Some planes don't need much of a runway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHMrYq-85po
>>
How long it might take to read FDR?
>>
>>1252958
Assuming they've found the FDR, they will need someone who will have the equipment to read FDRs, and since very few organisations have the equipment to read data from a CVR and FDR after a crash, it will likely be BEA who will read the FDR, if not AAIB or the NTSB (which is more likely since they have a stake in this incident as it is a Boeing aircraft).
>>
>>1251142
>doesnt even know what went wrong

>LETS BLAME THE PILOTS
>>
>>1253327
Who else to blame?
Plane manufacturer? It is not 1940's, planes are reliable and have enough fail safe systems. Wings don't collapse, controls are redundant.
Terrorists? It would be obvious, because winged bus drivers are trained to set proper squawk-code in that case.
Ground service? Pilots should check shit after them.
ATC? Not in this case.
Fire? There were no fire.

Pilots are to blame, since they overspeeded for some reason, as well as they couldn't keep altitude constant. I bet that plane would fly fine if they both would go to piss or fuck in toilet. At least it wouldn't crash as badly.
>>
>>1253333
>Who else to blame?
retarded cockpit design, thus the socially inept engineers that think pilots are robots
>>
>>1253363
Well who the fuck let engineers do UI design?
>>
>>1253363
No. Pilots are being trained to cockpits, thus it is not an issuer here. Plus, it is Boeing, where everything is obvious, unlike Airbus, where you have to watch carefully to displays in order to find out what it is doing.
>>
>>1253365
There are special engineers that design UI.
Actually, engineers do quite good design, but it is not normie-compliant, because it requires training.
>>
>>1253333
the company said from the RTCAS they recieved a "technical problem" prior to the rapid descend
and considering that the previous flight the crew reporting unreliable air speed and altitude its safe to say tha the avionics werent really up tot he task that day..
>>
>>1253390
So, it is ground crew and pilots do blame.
Ground crew to blame because they serviced it badly.
Pilots are to blame that they decided to fly this piece of shit.
>>
>>1253420
i gave the only facts we know so far and you still are blaming people without knowning if it was random or not
>>
>>1253367
in this specific case i also think the pilots were most likely at fault, but at AF447 its a whole different story.
>>1253365
Airbus
>>
>>1253537
What can be better than blaming dead?
>>
>>1251120

Word coming out of Indonesia is that they found severe contamination in the pitot tubes on flights days prior to the crash, so it sounds like faulty maintenance is part of it.
>>
>>1251363
I just told someone else here, but there is word coming out from there that there were some pitot contamination problems in the days prior to the accident. Which could mean that maintenance did not clean up well enough. Plenty of critters in the tropics that can jam up a tube.
>>
>>1253333
MAINTENANCE. Fix and maintain your plane or people die. This isn't like AF447 where some retarded French pilots thought it was chill to fly through a thunderstorms anvilhead, this is looking more and more like shoddy care of an aircraft.
>>
>>1253803
Okay, what should be done on brand new plane?
It is not 30 yo flying bucket.
>>
>>1253816
Just because a plane is new doesn’t mean you get to neglect it. Even new planes may have components that need replacing sooner than anticipated. Shit breaks, that’s just the nature of things.
>>
>>1253826
I know that shit break all the time, but I don't think something serious will require replacement in 1 year.
What do they service on planes in general?
>>
>>1253826
That doesn’t happen on Airbus planes because of superior European engineering and manufacturing.
>>
>>1253845
In one year even super chink car will have zero faults tho.
Case is really weird, and I suspect pilot suicide or something now...
>>
>>1253846
Well apparently they were getting bad ASI readings on previous flights on that specific plane. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was simply a matter of supreme incompetence on the part of the pilots and maintenance crews.
>>
>>1253853
By the way, what should a pilot do in case airspeed is unreliable?
>>
>>1253854
75% thrust, 5* nose-up attitude… go from there.
>>
>>1251119
I kind of wish i could see the underwater sonar images, anyone got any interesting pics?
>>
File: remove-before-flight.jpg (51 KB, 450x624)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>1253854
I went for a flight with a pic related on. Landed as usual. You can always feel the airspeed from how the plane handles, mostly from the stiffness of controls.
Actually, I wonder if airbus joysticks have some sort of feedback.
>>
>>1253921
>I wonder if airbus joysticks have some sort of feedback.
They don't, absolutely zero.
>>
>>1253967
But do 777 and other FBW Boeings have feedback?
As far as I know, 777 has some mechanical links, but but sure about 787 and 777 max (or how it is called).
Don't know how it feels in planes, but I hate over assisting power steering on cars. Good thing that most modern electric ones turn off on high speed
>>
>>1253989
>But do 777 and other FBW Boeings have feedback?
yes. thats why they have probes at the stabilizer region. they constantly measure dynamic pressure at different positions to maintain an accurate feedback.
There is a reason most people who actually fly airliners are Boeing guys.
>>
>>1254007
Fucking kek. That is even more overengineered than Airbus.
Why not just keep hydraulic lines?
>>
Looks like they have decrypted FDR and airspeed was unreliable.
So, I guess that my guess was correct. Shitty maintenance, and low spec bus drivers.
Airbus would do the same thing I guess...
>>
So yes, you can AF447 even in Boeing.
>>
>>1254012
One thing that always perplexed me is why pilots never seem to heed the stall warning when they have an ASI disagreement. Stall warning is controlled by a vane and is independent of the P/S system.


>>
>>1254010
>more overengineered than airbus
it has a feel system, doesnt it?
>>1254013
you cant
>>
>>1254051
>it has a feel system, doesnt it?
Probably, and I'm not sure if it is a gimmick or not. (I never flown a plane). Feedback is definitely a good thing, but why to make fly-by-wire in first place?
>you cant
I can, just give me a chance.
I think it would be more difficult, considering feedback and mechanical linkage between 2 yokes. Also travel distance is greater, so it is more obvious.
Anyway, I had a shitbox with over assisting steering, it sucked.
>>
>>1254013
>I don't know the circumstances of AF447, the post
>>
>>1254068
>Probably, and I'm not sure if it is a gimmick or not.
its absolutely not
>why to make fly-by-wire in first place?
for instance, on the 777 when you extend or retract the flaps, it doesnt change your flightpath. thats only possible with FBW.
>>
>>1254079
>thats only possible with FBW.
If a computer can correct for it, why can't a pilot?
>>
>>1254080
they can? dude what the hell are you flying?
>>
>>1254080
A pilot could do it, but it’s obviously a lot easier if he doesn’t have to trim out the plane every time he chooses a different flap setting.
>>
>>1254085
>>1254088
If a pilot can do it, it's possible without FBW.
>>
I guess, even if your controls have no direct feedback, there are still a lot of clues which you can use to tell if you're flying too slow or too fast. When you're flying slow the plane is getting mushy. Even a full control deflection does not result in an immediate change of attitude, conversely when you're flying very fast, even a slightest change in the pitch will get you thrown up or down in your sit. All this fancy electronics which were designed to help reduce the workload during normal operations are actually in the way in a case of emergency. When something goes wrong - step one level down and just fly the plane. Once it's flying, you can figure out what to do next. Of course, to be able to do it you still need to remember how to fly a plane though.
>>
>>1254102
I’d say FBW is generally a good thing. It’s only when pilots seem to forget the basics that problems (AF447 being the most obvious example). In that instance the pilots should have had a pretty good idea that they were low on speed and about to stall, yet they managed to burn over 30,000 feet doing the opposite of what you are taught at the very beginning of flight training.
>>
>>1254114
That problems arise* fuck
>>
>>1254114
FBW is NOT the shit airbus uses.
every newish airbus is FBW, but not every FBW aircraft handles like a fucking airbus. its hard to explain to people who dont fly, but flying an airbus is like control wheel steerin in a Boeing, ie. flying with the trim. its absolutely un-natural flying.
the pilots did the opposite of what they were taught BECAUSE the aircraft they were flying does not fly like a normal airplane in normal mode. these pilots have been un-trained by the airbus' way of flying for thousands of hours.
>>
>>1254116
>FBW
I don't really care what moves the control surfaces (push rod, tension cables, hydraulics or electric motor) as long as there is no single point of failure.

I'm also ok with a fully automatic flight when, pilot sets the heading, altitude and speed (or even the whole route) and a computer does all the flying. That's perfect as long as everything performs normally and there are systems which continuously control the overall performance.

What i'm really afraid of is a semi-automatic closed loop control system where computer is responsible for stabilization while taking pilot inputs as parameters. It is sort of a situation when control surface deflection depends on IAS, power setting, etc.

At any moment in time it should be clear what or who is flying the plane. It is either one of the pilots or a computer. If it is a pilot, inputs should be taken literally. Any form of a closed loop should be via the neural network in the pilot's brain.
>>
>>1254151
> Any form of a closed loop should be via the neural network in the pilot's brain.
I'm told the F-16 would be practically impossible to fly if this were the case and they didn't have computer controlled stabilization.
>>
>>1254151
>What i'm really afraid of is a semi-automatic closed loop control system where computer is responsible for stabilization while taking pilot inputs as parameters.
congratulations, you just described every airbus.
>>
>>1254153
That sounds legit. Fighter jets differ from airliners. They are bloody rockets with wings.
- Flight path evolutions on a jet fighter could develop too fast for human brain to react and correct;
- You can't have both aerodynamic stability and maneuverability at the same time;
- F-16 pilots are probably used to this closed loop control because they are driving it 100% of the time, while en-route manual control on an airliner is somewhat an emergency;
- aaand, if something goes wrong with that control loop on F-16, you should probably vacate the aircraft immediately. Good luck doing that on airliner.
>>
>>1254155
No, not really.

The Airbus system (in formal flight law) will adjust the trim automatically and also move smoothly to certain pitch attitudes and bank angles within the flight envelope.

The result is that the Airbus sidestick input must not be thought of as a raw input method, but rather as a flight command. Moving the sidestick to the left is a command to bank left, with the level of deflection commanding the bank angle (up to 66° of continuous input or 33° after putting the sidestick into a neutral position). The attitude controls will also operate with the same overall principle, with pulling back a command to nose up, with the severity of sidestick deflection being the rate to pitch up at. The Flight Augmentation Computer, will limit the nose up and will level off should the aircraft reach the end of the flight envelope (to prevent a stall) and the FAC will also level off when nose down (pulling down) when the aircraft starts to overspeed.

The only time this changes will be in an alternate law, when the FAC will no longer prevent stalls and overspeed, and in direct law, when the sidestick inputs are direct inputs to the ailerons and elevator.
>>
>>1254148
This. FBW is just a bunch of hyrdoelectrical actuators with some ECU.
>>
>>1254167
>Airbus sidestick input must not be thought of as a raw input method, but rather as a flight command.
Sounds reasonable. But
>The only time this changes will be in an alternate law
I think this is the problem people have with the airbus philosiphy; the fact that it DOES change. Suddenly the aircraft behaves in a manner you're not used to. In an emergyncy no less. The worst time to have to deal with unfamiliar flight characteristics.
>>
>>1254170
jesus christ finally someone who gets it. THe airbus system is inheritely flawed, and if you think about it, it might even seem that the engineers made a system on purpose that allows them to scream "pilots fault" everytime shit happens.
>>
>>1254176
Why anyone would ever think to change sensitivity (and overall laws) of controls/inputs? That is retarded I guess. Imagine brakes in your car becoming softer in case of speedometer fail, or steering wheel changing it's ratio...
>>
>>1254176
Speaking as an engineer, i honestly can not see that being an intention.
>>
>>1254163
>F-16 pilots are probably used to this closed loop control because they are driving it 100% of the time
You are now aware that even military aircraft have autopilot and can be set to follow waypoints or fly at certain altitude and heading no differently than commercial airliners

>while en-route manual control on an airliner is somewhat an emergency
Unless you're flying low altitude through mountains because the mission calls for terrain following approach, you're probably on autopilot to reduce fatigue

>aaand, if something goes wrong with that control loop on F-16, you should probably vacate the aircraft immediately
Only if you have no altitude. See every filmed military crash ever where the pilot only bails out at the very last possible second trying to save their aircraft or ensure it doesn't crash into a building or people
>>
>>1254170
Alternate law's flight controls do not behave differently to normal law.
The only thing that changes is the flight envelope protections.

Direct law only applies during a catastrophic failure, usually electrical (although an electronic failure could also cause the switch to Direct Law, though this has never happened as far as I know).

As far I know, Concorde, the A300 and A310 all have a similar system, however, when the pilots make an input which was contrary to the flight envelope, the artificial feel system would prevent the yokes from moving. That said, those aircraft had different input systems, which did not relate control deflection relating a requested bank angle or attitude.
>>
>>1254185
>The only thing that changes is the flight envelope protections.
Bad enough?
>>
>>1254184
>You are now aware that even military aircraft have autopilot and can be set to follow waypoints or fly at certain altitude and heading no differently than commercial airliners
Are you suggesting that jet fighter pilots are spending the same proportion of their TT while flying on autopilot as the airline pilots do? Because it you're not, you're missing the point. The point I was trying to make is that pilots should be proficient (and current) with flying that thing manually through the whole flight envelope, not just occasional VFR approach to save the fuel.
>the pilot only bails out at the very last possible second
You're sitting on top of a rocket and just lost that one thingy which was controlling your pitch, roll and yaw. You know you can't control this thing with the power of your mind. So what's the point in sitting there if you can't do anything anyway?
>>
> AIRBIS IS FLAWED BECAUSE I CANT READ THE FUCKING MANUAL BEFORE FLYING

Oh my fucking God 4chan will never let it go
>>
Why airplanes are so unnecessary complicated? Why not use just fucking mechanical links, and Chad pilots, not some skinny virgins, who magically passed aeronautical medical?
>>
>>1254194
>Are you suggesting that jet fighter pilots are spending the same proportion of their TT while flying on autopilot as the airline pilots do?
2 hours on autopilot to target, 6 hours of autopilot circling except for refuel or dropping ordnance, 2 hours back home. I seriously hope you aren't implying they're doing this all by hand.

>The point I was trying to make is that pilots should be proficient (and current) with flying that thing manually through the whole flight envelope, not just occasional VFR approach to save the fuel.
I absolutely agree, and most pilots are. You aren't going to get military-level flight hours or sim hours in a commercial pilot though, because the cost in both time and money is prohibitive due to the sheer amount of pilots that you'd need to rotate through sims.

>You're sitting on top of a rocket and just lost that one thingy which was controlling your pitch, roll and yaw. You know you can't control this thing with the power of your mind. So what's the point in sitting there if you can't do anything anyway?
Oh no, my flight envelope protections are disabled. Now I can actually stall the aircraft if I tried. Good thing it won't fall out of the fucking sky because literally all that happened was removal of AoA and stall safeties. It's not like your fucking horizontal stabilizer falls off when a pitot tube blocks up. Retard.
>>
>>1254205
>2 hours on autopilot to target, 6 hours of autopilot circling except for refuel or dropping ordnance, 2 hours back home. I seriously hope you aren't implying they're doing this all by hand.
So, you do imply that fighter jet pilots fly on autopilot the same proportion of time as commercial airline pilots? Interesting.

>Oh no, my flight envelope protections are disabled. Now I can actually stall the aircraft if I tried. Good thing it won't fall out of the fucking sky because literally all that happened was removal of AoA and stall safeties. It's not like your fucking horizontal stabilizer falls off when a pitot tube blocks up. Retard.
Can you stay on topic? That was about not being able to fly F-16 without computer-based stabilization. If that shit fails, you're buggered.
>>
>>1254209
>Can you stay on topic? That was about not being able to fly F-16 without computer-based stabilization. If that shit fails, you're buggered.
Can you stay on topic? The stabilization software is completely different and separate from Airbus Normal Law/Alternate Law and Boeing Normal Mode/Secondary Mode, which only provide certain flight envelope protections and the backup controls if the flight computers no longer have enough data to provide those protections. You know, what the actual thread discussion is about.

But to humor you, no, an F-16 would not spontaneously tumble out of control without it's stabilization software, unless the pilot stopped making control inputs or attempted to perform extreme maneuvers. The kind of thing you're thinking of is the F-117 and B-2, which without stability software would very quickly lose control.
>>
>>1254198
what do you fly
>>
>>1254180
>Why anyone would ever think to change sensitivity (and overall laws) of controls/inputs?
because they are french. these people cant build guns, cars, or functioning societies, what makes you think they can build fucking airplanes
>>
>>1254304
Twingo (first gen) is pretty based tho.
>what makes you think they can build fucking airplanes
Airbus has German electronic stuff as far as I know.
>>
>>1254304
>airbus is french
what is it with france that makes everyone so mad about it
>>
>>1254309
the french dont like the rest of the world, and the rest of the world doesnt like the french. its perfectly balanced.
>>
>>1254315
France has good relations with plenty of countries of the world
/int/ memes are irrelevant IRL
>>
>>1251239
Check with American and JetBlue
>>
>>1254317
That's not an /int/ meme. I travel a lot and work with people from all over the world, and the French are pretty rude all around. Really it isn't the French as much as it is Parisians.
>>
>>1254302
I flew A320 on full simulators, and fly Robin DR42
Currently working my way to flight school

What do you fly?
>>
>>1254361
We're not rude, I just don't care about you you dick
>>
>>1254352
Thanks. I will check in 8 years. I hope nothing changes.
>>
>>1254364
a 737-800
if you ever fly an A320 commercially id suggest you pray nothing goes wrong before every flight, because the aircraft will switch from normal law into alternate/direct if shit happens, but your brain wont be able to do the same after thousands of hours in normal.
>>
>>1254383
Again, sounds like a under trained pilot and not a design flaw to me
>>
>>1254384
Actually both.
Retarded pilot, because he doesn't know all modes of plane, and flawed design.
>>
Detailed reports from the Bali to Jakarta incident, the flight prior to Flight 610, in which the aircraft was involved, revealed that the aircraft had suffered a serious incident. Passengers in the cabin reported heavy shaking and a smell of burnt rubber inside the cabin.
If there's a malfunction in the aircraft's AOA sensors, the aircraft's computer, which is designed to prevent an aerodynamic stall, may think that the aircraft is stalling. Thus, it may cause an abrupt dive. The Federal Aviation Administration urged every airline which uses the Boeing 737 MAX 8 to heed the warnings.[119]
On 7 November, the National Transportation Safety Committee confirmed that there were problems with Flight 610's angle of attack sensors. Initially, the aircraft suffered an airspeed indicator problem for its last 4 flights. The last flight was the Bali to Jakarta flight. Thinking that it would fix the problem, the engineers in Bali then replaced the AOA's sensor of the aircraft. However, the problem persisted. A 20 degree difference between the AOA's left sensor and right sensor was recorded. The NTSC confirmed that Flight 610 suffered the same problem with the Bali to Jakarta flight. Just minutes after take off, the aircraft abruptly dived. The crew of the Bali to Jakarta flight, however, managed to control the aircraft and decided to fly at a lower than normal altitude. The aircraft then managed to land safely.[120] KNKT chief Soerjanto Tjahjono told the press that future reporting or actions enacted to prevent similar problems on similar planes will be up to Boeing and US aviation authorities.

Huh... You still want self-driving cars and planes?
>>
>>1254184
There are 2 types of fighter bailouts, controlled and uncontrolled. The ones you've seen are controlled ejections where the jet just lost engine power or set on fire while maintaining control authority, there's a whole checklist you can run to make sure you eject as safely as possible ideally about 2000' above the ground. The ones you haven't seen are the uncontrolled ejections, where the jet's control surfaces fail hardover or get damaged causing the jet to depart controlled flight. Those are the ones where you have to get out as soon as possible, and are also the ones that can kill pilots. No military pilot should ride an uncontrollable lawn dart into the ground.
>>
>>1254452
I'm aware, but the anon I was responding to was talking about losing software, not missing a piece of the plane due to battle damage/structural failure.
>>
>>1254384
its an inheritely flawed design. it doesnt have the human in mind. even if you consider yourself to be some kind of "uber pilot" who can function like a machine, most pilots arent.
>>
>>1254416
In an Airbus, if the AoA vane breaks and no longer works, but the data it gives is inconsistent with a realistic flight profile (such as normal airspeed and no decrease in altitude) the aircraft enters Alternate Law, which disables the Flight Envelope Protections, informs the pilots on the ECAM and recommends to land ASAP. Airbus realises the need for a fail-safe condition, and such a condition exists.

Airbus has had two incidents of this thing happening before with no hull losses, so they have adjusted their software. I'm surprised that Boeing has never thought to think of it. Boeing introduced new procedures for Airspeed Unreliable after AF447, even though that was an A330. While Airbus implemented the exact same kind of new procedure, Boeing is usually aware of what happens if you forget about what your own aircraft are doing.

Unless Boeing steps up their focus on their flight computers, their aircraft will suffer from more embarrassing incidents since Boeing pilots' trust in themselves often leads to computer issues being ignored, even though flaws with the Engine Derate/Assumed Temperature and flight augmentation computers are brushed aside with the Boeing philosophy.

The 737 Classic was the last 737 to properly fulfill the flight philosophy from the 1960s. The Classic had an A/P which hated flying in nothing but perfect conditions, and at the slightest sign of abnormality, shut itself off. The NG and MAX are using outdated philosophies.
>>
>>1254416
>You still want self-driving cars and planes?

The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by pilot error. You are taking an isolated incident and using it to prove your dumb agenda. The human brain constantly misjudges and makes mistakes, computers almost never.

The sooner we engineer pilots out of the cockpit the better.

t. Software engineer who fucking hates arrogant pilot faggots
>>
>>1254687
>The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by pilot error.
nowadays, the vast majority of pilot errors are caused by shit ergonomy and systems that fail unpredictably. Id like to put you in a self driving car, and switch off the self driving mode at 150 mph, 50 feet before you crash into a brick wall. Obviously driver error.

t. a pilot who fucking hates pathetic software engineers who think they know ANYTHING about flying.
>>
>>1254734
Pilots are just like glorified taxi drivers. The sooner we eliminate them from the transportation system, the better.
>>
>>1254742
Troll harder pls, at least the guy before was trying.
>>
>>1254687
>The human brain constantly misjudges and makes mistakes, computers almost never.
Nah, software niggers will never accept that their software is shit.
>>
>>1254742
Pls do now, I want cheap tickets due to fallen demand.
>>
>>1254687
>>1254734
Usually a pilot error is causing a crash only after a software has already failed to perform it's task (e.g due to inconsistent or unreliable inputs) and it was switched off either manually or automatically. I'd hate to live in a world where everyone will be forced to use self-driving car and self-flying planes with no human backup. Either software, hardware or pilots could fail. In all three cases it's a human error. But usually it takes all of them to fail to cause a crash. Eliminating the pilot is bound to increase the number of crashes.

Also, just look at some enterprise C#/Java code outsourced to some no-name company oversees and tell me that you would trust it with your life.

t. software engineer who just happen to be a hobby pilot.
>>
>>1254754
>Life-critical software will be audited to the same standard as the most dog-shit web applet
(You)
>>
>>1254772
I used to work in a health software industry. It is a sobering experience to say the least.
It is the same enterprise dog-shit but with more red tape to fulfill the regulation obligations.
What makes you think aviation is much different? Looking through AWBs for one of the most popular GA transponders you could find things like "QNH compensation was applied with a wrong sign" or "in presence if Mode S interrogator, transponder may 'lock up', send intermittent replies, or display 'NO COMM' message". Really makes you think, huh?
>>
So to put it simply this crash wasn't the pilots' fault, was it?
>>
>>1254687
You will never in this lifetime program an autopilot that can land itself visually without any kind of precision instrument.
>>
>>1254995
Not that fag, but it is quite possible.
Cameras tho should be high quality tho.
>>
>>1254010
hello you forget the boeing's take on the sst back in the day?

the nose mechanism was so fucking complex that not even boeing wanted it
>>
>>1254012
>airspeed unreliable
i mean why you even lie?

>On Nov 7th 2018 Boeing issued an Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) to all Boeing 737 MAX Operators stating that the investigation into the crash of PK-LQP found one of the Angle of Attack Sensors had provided incorrect readings, which could cause the aircraft's trim system to uncommandedly trim nose down in order to avoid a stall during manual flight. The OMB directs "operators to existing flight crew procedures to address circumstances where there is erroneous input from an AOA sensor." The OMB reiterates the Stabilizer Runaway non-normal checklist.
>>
>>1255861
>This emergency AD was prompted by analysis performed by the manufacturer showing that if an erroneously high single angle of attack (AOA) sensor input is received by the flight control system, there is a potential for repeated nose-down trim commands of the horizontal stabilizer. This condition, if not addressed, could cause the flight crew to have difficulty controlling the airplane, and lead to excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude loss, and possible impact with terrain.

The EAD requires operators to update the procedures in the Aircraft Flight Manuals within 3 days according to Boeing's Service Bulletin (see the text above), however, includes the possiblity the trim could move even after the cutout switches were set to cutout. The text of the proedure for a Runaway Stabilizer mandated reads:

Disengage autopilot and control airplane pitch attitude with control column and main electric trim as required. If relaxing the column causes the trim to move, set stabilizer trim switches to CUTOUT. If runaway continues, hold the stabilizer trim wheel against rotation and trim the airplane manually.

literally a miss judged sensor input reading from guess who
BOEING
>>
>>1255862
> however, includes the possiblity the trim could move even after the cutout switches were set to cutout

WHAT? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
so basicly even if you disable the mmr the fs still flips you off and just continues to trim ?
>>
>>1254180
Apparently they do it to speed up pilot training (airlines love spending less money on training) and to keep pilots from overstressing the airframe when they don't have to.
>>
>>1255863
it wasnt the mmr apparently the max has the mcas which *cough cough* takes its data OUT OF A SINGLE GYROSCOPE for its AoA data
airbus has a similar feature but the kernel discards the sensory input unless it sees significant changes on the three gyroscopes
according to avherald for whatever reason the pilots did manage to turn this thing off but it continued to trim down the plane

at some point boeing needs to get their shit together and test their new shit BEFORE commercial use
>>
>>1255865
samefagging

FROM: THE BOEING COMPANY
TO: Boeing Correspondence (MOM)
[MESSAGE NUMBER:MOM-MOM-18-0664-01B] Multi Operator Message
MESSAGE DATE: 10 Nov 2018 1810 US PACIFIC TIME / 11 Nov 2018 0210 GMT

This message is sent to all 737NG/MAX Customers, Regional Directors, Regional Managers and Boeing Field Service Bases.

CATEGORY: Maintenance, Engineering, Flight Operations, Management, Safety, severe

SERVICE REQUEST ID: 4-4298138108
ACCOUNT: Boeing Correspondence (MOM)
DUE DATE: No Action Required
PRODUCT TYPE: Airplane
PRODUCT LINE: 737
PRODUCT: SEVERAL
ATA: 0000-57

SUBJECT: Information - Multi-Model Stall Warning and Pitch Augmentation Operation
>>
>>1255867
samfagging no2

for those that dont know MCAS wasnt being mentioned on the flight manual
>>
>>1255868
so wait boeing actually created a new system slapped it on the max series and didnt even bothered to give documentation for it?

oh man boeing shills are going mental right now
>>
What the fuck happened, after all?
I know that CVR isn't yet found, but FDR is.
What had B*eing done about all this?
>>
>>1255888
Boeing, being Boeing, has an aircraft it appears they failed to put adequete levels of redundancy into. Part of it may be working on a philosophy which is out of date (that of the pilot being always in control). As such, having a system which can trim down even despite manual override is in conflict with their philosophy, because it means the reliance in the event of system failure is immediately on the pilot, whereas in the Airbus, in the event of a system failure, the different philosophy means that the aircraft goes to one of many other redundant systems.
>>
>>1255888
>>1255861
>>1255862
>>1255863
>>1255865
>>1255867
>>1255868
>>1255873

basicly they had a new system that required additional level of shutdown for it to be completely disabled that they didnt mentioned on their documentation..
tl dr mcas even if you give a normal shutdown code it will STILL remain active
and thus yet another disaster could be avoided if boeing was a serious company..
>>
>>1255890
>Part of it may be working on a philosophy which is out of date (that of the pilot being always in control)
There is nothing wrong with it.
>>1255891
>basicly they had a new system that required additional level of shutdown for it to be completely disabled that they didnt mentioned on their documentation.
So, B*eing implemented system, that is always active, can override manual inputs (which doesn't seem right, considering they claim they make manual shitboxes), and is not document at all? That is some new level of Airbus engineering.

That is stupid, I'd say.
> because it means the reliance in the event of system failure is immediately on the pilot
Not really, considering pilots can't override it easily.
>>
>>1255892
>That is some new level of Airbus engineering.
eh the comparable airbus system discards any automatic sensory input unless its showing on all three sensors
kinda different from a totally new system that relies ON A SINGLE sensor
>>
>>1255897
Well, that is even worse than my level of engineering.
Only absolute retard would make an automatic system, that can't be overridden easily, and which relies only on 1 (one) sensor.
I think that entire department, who designed this system, should be gassed.
>>
File: 87.jpg (1.34 MB, 3264x2684)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB JPG
>>1255899
Lol, really.
>>
>>1255899
at least it explains the sudden right downwards turn in the end of the flight...
i really hope they sue the shit out of them this time they trully deserve it
>>
>>1255905
This is twice as funny, considering their philosophy.
>>
>>1255904
>manual flight only

nigga what?
>>
>>1255907
A/P should disconnect in case of failure, but this shit will be active and will prevent you from converting to islam, or at least crashing some interior pieces.

Airbus engineers at least are autistic, not retarded.
>>
File: Aerospace-Engineer.jpg (74 KB, 570x370)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>1255908
>A/P hear me out you are reading the data incorrectly
>YOU MUST OBEY MY MASTERS
>A/P you fuckwit we are going to crash you are trimming so much i can see a vagina down there
>BUT MY SENSOR SAYS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO A BARREL ROOL
>>
>>1255908
>but this shit will be active and will prevent you from converting to islam, or at least crashing some interior pieces.
I meant it will force you to convert to islam...
>>1255911
*A/P performs barrel roll*
>>
>>1255912
>*A/P performs barrel roll*
Nose down barrel roll.
>>
>>1255913
well technically speaking you can do a barrel roll like that
>>
>>1255917
Yes. Btw, I'd do exactly this in that situation.
>>
>>1255892
>There is nothing wrong with it.
Whether or not there is something wrong with it, Boeing just implemented a system which directly conflicts with their own philosophy. Boeing either needs to update their philosophy to relfect this, or they need to remove whatever other new systems along with this in their aircraft.
>>
>>1255928
Clearly they need to remove the system.
I still don't understand why they are keeping yoke in absolutely FBW planes like 787...
>>
>>1255930
Boeing probably is using it as a marketing thing.
Boeing engineers were really keen to point out how wonderful yokes were after AF447. Right now, the only people still making aircraft with yokes are Boeing, Embraer and Antonov. Bombardier is still making the Dash-8 as is, but the C-Series is sidestick, Airbus has been sidestick since the A320, Sukhoi Superjet 100 is sidestick, UAC is making the MS-21 sidestick, Comac is making the C919 sidestick. Comac/UAC C929 will be sidestick as well.
>>
>>1255935
Sidestick is just a way to go with FBW. It is lightweight, and it way cheaper to make, since there is no need to simulate feel.
>>
>>1255940
>no need to simulate feel
well, there is need for that, they just dont do it because airbus doesnt know how to build a fucking plane
>>
>>1255955
B*eing can't as well.
I guess all people, who could design an aircraft had died, and modern engineers just draw shit in AutoCAD (or whatever shit do they use) and change until numbers are OK.
Also, Airbus (at least companies that merged) know how to design planes, even supersonic ones, while B*eing wasn't able to roll out their twice.
>>
>>1255940
>>1255955
Gulfstream the sidestick is mechanically linked, so if you pull it in the right seat it pulls in the left seat and vice versa. I know nothing about airplanes, but was on one of these the other day and the pilot pointed that out when I asked about the sidesticks.
>>
>airbus retarded
>boeing retarded

who's left /n/
McDonnell Douglas?
>>
>>1256043
Cessna.
>>
>>1256043
>McDonnell Douglas
They merged with Boeing in 1997. Perhaps you meant Lockheed which is now Lockheed Martin, but they haven't made commercial aircraft since 1984, the Lockheed TriStar.
>>
>>1256054
Cant do transatlantic in stock conf.
>>
>>1256063
Depends on the model, innit?
>>
>>1255998
thats a step in the right direction, but i still want actual aerodynamic forces simulated on the stick/yoke.
>>
>>1256068
I can't afford this one. I barely can 150..
And it has too not enough seats for airlines.
>>
>>1256083
Why to simulate? I think that for feel it would be enough to run couple cables to some controls elements. It shouldn't be super thick and strong, just strong enough to transfer 500-1000 kg-f
>>
>>1256085
Gram force, fix.
>>
>>1256085
you cant do that with fully powered flight controls, and the "simulation" pretty much is the real thing anyways. the pitot tubes are on the stabilizer/rudder to simulate the actual, real forces acting there at this very moment
>>
>>1256095
Why you can't do that?
>>
>>1256098
actually you can. The reason you don't is that one of the pluses of FBW controls is to save weight from the hundreds of meters necessary for direct hydraulic/mechanical linkages. (compared to regular servo assisted systems).

You could also simulate feedback from the control surfaces using servos (even driving syms can simulate feedback), but that would be yet another point of failure in the system and would make learning how to fly the plane take longer since the handling is not as consistent.

What I don't get, and is a problem in both airbus and boing designs, is why the trim controls are completely separate from the stick/yoke. You'd figure that if for example the pilot is pushing the stick full forwards and the airplane isn't responding enough because the trim is fully backwards (because the autopilot left it there) it would make sense to automatically change the trim to a more neutral position rather than forcing the pilot to remember that maybe the trim is not set to the correct position when he is otherwise occupied.
>>
>>1256107
>The reason you don't is that one of the pluses of FBW controls is to save weight from the hundreds of meters necessary for direct hydraulic/mechanical linkages. (compared to regular servo assisted systems).
Yes, but there is no need in heavy-duty cables. Just bike-tier brake cables would do just fine, since they don't need to transfer much force.
It will be definitely lighter, simpler and more reliable, than servo, but heavier than simple side stick.
>You could also simulate feedback from the control surfaces using servos (even driving syms can simulate feedback), but that would be yet another point of failure in the system and would make learning how to fly the plane take longer since the handling is not as consistent.
I guess this is why Airbus haven't implemented feel in their sidestick.
>What I don't get, and is a problem in both airbus and boing designs, is why the trim controls are completely separate from the stick/yoke.
On Boeings they have buttons for trimming on yoke, afaik.
>>
>>1256107
>What I don't get, and is a problem in both airbus and boing designs, is why the trim controls are completely separate from the stick/yoke.
On the Airbus systems, the trim wheel is automatically adjusted by the Flight Augmentation Computer. If the aircraft ever enters Direct Law, the trim wheel will become manual as well, and will need to be set by the Pilot Monitoring.
>>
>>1256151
But what about A380 or A350, which don't have physical wheel?
How mechanical? backup is realized there?
>>
>>1256151
>will need to be set by the pilot monitoring
Again, that's exactly my problem, the trim are entirely separate from the controls and the pilot in command in what is probably an emergency situation has to troubleshoot why the airplane isn't responding as it should. I suppose you can train pilots to always adjust trim wheels whenever the plane assumes direct law, but that just something easily overlooked, and fatal, like in this accident:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19981211-0
>>
>>1256152
I have no clue about how trim is managed in the A380 and A350, as I am less familiar with them.
The trim wheel is the only other mechanical backup (besides the rudder pedals) which can control the aircraft in some way is there is a complete and total electrical failure.
>>1256168
That was an A310, which has a trim system which is set manually using switches on the yokes. The Airbus A320 onwards has a fully automatic trim system which adjusts the trim according to the FAC.
>>
>>1256173
oh so they did change it, my bad.
>>
>>1256175
Trim on an A320 and later is not comparable to Boeing or similar aircraft.
Essentially, the Flight Augmentation Computer, will adjust the trim according to various factors like wind speed, air speed, altitude, the attitude, the flap setting and so on. Small adjustments to the attitude with the sidestick might even result in the trim moving instead of the elevators. Smooth movement of the trim to various positions is a key feature of the Airbus compared to Boeing aircraft.
>>
>>1254007
As I recall Boeing had to invent a feedback system in the Mid 50s because of B-52 pilots having a tendency to over-exercise the yoke on account of the newfangled fully hydraulic controls.
>>1254452
I know a guy in the NC outer banks that has a piece of wreckage from the F-15 that bore the only known supersonic ejection that wasn't fatal to the whole crew.
>>1255911
Ayyyyy
>>1256107
Any reason you couldn't have a fighter style "China Hat" trimmer on a commercial stick?
>>
I have stupid question: are hydraulics really required? Can you move controls manually (cables and links) like in small planes.
Sure, it would be hard, but is it doable?
>>
>>1256355
I'd imagine the force required to move the moving parts would be totally impractical.
t. clueless bike guy
>>
>>1256356
Sure, it would be extremely uncomfortable.
I was once in bus expo, and I tried turning steering wheel on old bus, that had no steering assist. 6 metric ton machine, and it was quite difficult. I can't imagine how based was drivers back then.
But it was absolutely doable.
>>
>>1256355
A plane moves much faster than a bus, and thus creates a shit ton of air resistance on the control surfaces, and the surfaces are also really big to steer really large and heavy planes, compared to smaller GA planes that only need mechanical push-rods and cables to steer. I fly the C-130 and in the sim I once tried flying it without the hydraulic flight control booster system. While it was still "flyable" the amount of force it took just to move the controls at 200 knots was ridiculous, and it was actually more effective to steer it just using differential engine power at that point.
>>
>>1256355
Yes and no.
Early jet aircraft used either servo tabs or some kind of similar tabs on the control surfaces to use the aerodynamic forces to move the control surfaces, especially at speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servo_tab
Servo tabs were last in use on the Boeing 737 Classic, as a final cable backup in the event of a hydraulic failure. You can see small tabs on the ailerons on the 737 Classic.
What these tabs do, is that they basically are smaller moveable parts, but they move in the opposite direction of the desired input in order to cause the aileron, rudder or the elevator to deflect as necessary.
Servo tabs were the go to in the 1950s and 1960s as aircraft got faster and faster and jets started to be a thing.

Servo tabs were abandoned due to how useless they became for faster jets, and although they were a mechanical backup in some aircraft designs up to the 1980s, fly by wire was just far more useful and effective. Aircraft like the Concorde and the A300 proved that mechanical backups weren't necessary, and if the aircraft ever needed to rely on them, well, the plane was already doomed.
>>
>>1256458
Didn't know that, cool.
>if the aircraft ever needed to rely on them, well, the plane was already doomed.
Not really. Some soviet flying buckets had complete electrical pizdec, yet hydraulics were still working.
Sure, Airbuses and B*eings have much better wiring and so (and I wasn't invited to design), but I as electronic hobbyist I don't trust come copper cables and batteries.
>>
>>1256465
>Not really. Some soviet flying buckets had complete electrical pizdec, yet hydraulics were still working.
And yeah, in any FBW in case of complete electronic failure (even if backup system fail) it would save the day.
>>
>>1256447
>A plane moves much faster than a bus, and thus creates a shit ton of air resistance on the control surfaces
Bitches don't know about my (anti)servo tabs/all flying tail/stabilator and control horns.
>>
>>1256465
You might not trust the copper wiring and batteries, but those aircraft are certified to be able to fly on 30 minutes of battery power alone if there is a complete electrical failure, enough time to take a plane from cruise altitude down to landing in an emergency.
As for the wiring, that's tested thoroughly before the aircraft is certified for air worthiness.

Now, aircraft have almost never had to rely on the batteries anyway, because the APU can still provide electrical power in an emergency, and failing that, the Ram Air Turbine can also generate electrical power. Both the APU and RAT can generate hydraulic pressure for the control surfaces.

The A380, A400M and A350 also feature new systems which can pressurise individual control surfaces in the event of total hydraulic system failures.
>>
>>1256486
Yes, they are certified and tested, and engineers will have their balls cut in case of failure.. But there might be a person like me on board, which causes electronics go wild. That is not a joke. I break almost anything electronic that is close to me.
>>
>>1256503
Do you happen to work for Jet Blue's customer service department?
>>
>>1256560
No. What is wrong with Jet Blue's customer service?
Btw, I had flown a B777 of Transaero, and accidentally broke In-Flight-Entertainment (which was some simple VHS-based thing) and I broke light in toilet, and I guess it is the reason they went bankrupt...
>>
>>1256355
the 737 still has cables, even in a complete hydraulic failure you can fly the aircraft. i did it in a full flight and its SHIT. i mean, shit. there is a huge deadband in the middle and the forces required are insanely high. youd be able to land it like that i suppose, in an emergency. but dont count on the aircraft being fine afterwards
>>
>>1256458
>and if the aircraft ever needed to rely on them, well, the plane was already doomed.
bullshit
>>
File: MCAS System.jpg (52 KB, 768x561)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
> the absolute state of boeing

You can't override this by acting on the yoke, you have to manually override the stab trim
what a retarted design
>>
>>1256676
holy fucking shit what the hell were they thinking
manual trim means literally manual, as in working the wheel? or is the electronic stab trim working too?
>>
>>1256719
I guess they fucked up so badly, that you have to catch a wheel that spins quite fast...
>>
>>1251120
Didnt they had serious flight control issues on the previous 3 flights? Are these clowns allowed to fly in western countries?
>>
>>1256747
Yes, that was in the news. Some of the carriers over the are pretty sketchy.
>>
>>1256676
There should be a clear aural message indicating the system is active. I feel like you'd sooner look at the autopilot portion of the panel if you felt the plane fighting your inputs all of a sudden.
It might badly compound a situational awareness issue. What is the probable release time for the CVR transcript?
>>
>>1256769
>There should be a clear aural message indicating the system is active.
no, for fucks sake, NO. this will just overload the pilot. if this system becomes active, shit is already going down. ANOTHER aural alert will make things worse.

just get rid of that FUCKING SYSTEM and keep it like in the NG, easily overrideable by the stab trim on the yoke.
>>
>>1256834
Why they would change anything? I mean, sure, installing more kosher engines and wings is a good thing, but why they would change stuff in cockpit and control systems?
>>
>>1256835
i dont quite get what you mean. are you asking me why thew went from the speed trim system to the MCAS?
>>
>>1256357
They let you drive the bus at an expo?
>>
>>1257129
No, they won't let some asshole like me drive it. I'm lucky they allowed me to sit in cabin and rotate the wheel.
>>
>>1257133
and you think professional bus drivers would be so retarded as to turn the wheel while the vehicle is stationary?
>>
>>1257166
Well, at some point you will have to turn stationary.
Sure, not on rute tho.
>>
File: 1457698074648.png (144 KB, 680x283)
144 KB
144 KB PNG
>its another badly trained pilots encounter a minor technical problem and cause a catastrophic crash episode
>>
>>1257202
>its another shit-ergonomy induced crash just like the fucking air france crash youre referring to you undeucated retard
>AC is trimming full nose down in less than ten seconds and the only way out is grabbing the trim wheel
>while at 350 knots
>"MINOR TECHNICAL PROBLEM"
kys please
>>
File: 34333.png (132 KB, 1408x959)
132 KB
132 KB PNG
>>1257209
It is a memory item.
>I. Runaway Stabilizer

>CONTROL COLUMN - HOLD FIRMLY
>AUTOPILOT (if engaged) - DISENGAGE
>Do not re-engage the autopilot. Control airplane pitch attitude manually with control column and main electric trim as needed

>If the Runaway Continues
>STAB TRIM CUTOUT SWITCHES (both) - CUTOUT

>If the Runaway Continues
>STABILIZER TRIM WHEEL - GRASP and HOLD

They had like 2 dives. Why they didn't turned off it? They had like 5 minutes to do so...
Considering how jagged is line, I think they just couldn't fly manually, and decided to turn this shit on again.
>>
>>1255897
>the comparable airbus system discards any automatic sensory input unless its showing on all three sensors

Excuse my ignorance, but in the case of one of three or more faulty automatic sensors, don't airbuses just go into alternate law?
>>
>>1257242
I think he could have explained that better, but yes if all the sensors are putting out garbage values autopilot cuts and the plane goes into alternate law.
>>
>>1257218
yeah, i know, i'm flying a 737-800.
>couldnt fly manually
the electic trim is a part of flying manually. have you ever flown an aircraft?
>stab trim runaway
>minor technical problem
another absolutely retarded thing to say. a stab trim runaway is not a minor technical problem, its a huge fucking problem. also, the system in the MAX works faster than the speed trim system in the NG, and faster than the normal trim.

>>1257242
>>1257245
they do go into alternate law, which shows yet another time how extremely retarded the airbus cockpit ergonomy is. these pilots fly an aircraft a certain way (not the same way you fly any other aircraft, not the same way they learned flying aircraft etc.) and in an emergency situation, the aircraft demands to be flown like any othe raircraft again.
goes against every human aspect, but it makes it easy to shout
>PILOT ERROR!!!!
as soon as one goes down again.
yeah no shit was it piot error, that guy flew the aircraft in a way for 8000 hours, and now, suddenly, in an emergency situation, he has to fly it completely differently again.
>>
>>1257290
>they do go into alternate law, which shows yet another time how extremely retarded the airbus cockpit ergonomy is. these pilots fly an aircraft a certain way (not the same way you fly any other aircraft, not the same way they learned flying aircraft etc.) and in an emergency situation, the aircraft demands to be flown like any othe raircraft again.
Actually, Alternate Law controls the exact same way as in Normal Law. Alternate Law just loses the Overspeed and Stall protections, but the aircraft will control in the exact same way as Normal Law when the aircraft is in Alternate Law.

The only time this will ever actually change will be if the aircraft enters Direct Law, however, there are far more severe conditions required before entering Direct Law, mostly related to significant system failure.
>>
>>1257290
>have you ever flown an aircraft?
No, only as passenger, obviously.
>the electic trim is a part of flying manually.
Yes, sure, but in case of >>1255904 you have to disable electric trim and rotate wheel manually, right? I guess pilots are trained to deal with absolutely manual trim.
>another absolutely retarded thing to say. a stab trim runaway is not a minor technical problem, its a huge fucking problem
Sure, it is huge problem, since it affects handling. I didn't say that it is a minor problem.
> also, the system in the MAX works faster than the speed trim system in the NG, and faster than the normal trim.
So, MAX can spin it faster than NG, and both can spin faster than manual (electric), right?

I still don't understand why they didn't turned off the system after first dive?
>>
>>1254687
yeah because the humans who make programs never fuck up and are always 100% bug free. now fuck off and go make epic javascript rockstar webapps for mobile somewhere else.
t. computer nigger who fucking hates fucking arrogant computer niggers
>>
>>1257197
No you don't. Learn to drive.
>>
>>1257394
Huh?
Maneuvering in bus depot will definitely require steering while bus is stationary. Or in traffic jam.
>>
>dual instruments don't have matching readings
Sure as fuck, somehow the pilots will be blamed. Glass cockpits are infallable, must be pilot error. :-/
>>
>>1257463
Why planes are so over complicated?
>>
>>1257470
There are aircraft as simple as a bicycle, but they crash too often to be considered as transport (same as bicycle).





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.