Post: #26

Tin foil hat time:

China has the ability to hack into the autopilot systems of certain airlines. They crashed the plane and are using it as a leverage point against the US.

Similarly to the plane that got hijacked by the odd gay pilot and flown to Diego Garcia. Ironic that no one ever found debris for that plane.

After 9/11 I personally believe that airplanes can be flown 100% remotely from the ground and pilots' jobs are really only to just monitor everything on the plane and provide PA announcements.

Post: #27

(03-11-2019 12:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Tin foil hat time:

China has the ability to hack into the autopilot systems of certain airlines. They crashed the plane and are using it as a leverage point against the US.

You're trying to tell me that the new MCAS™ by Huawei is not a reliable product?

Post: #28

Southwest has about 750 planes. Normally 15-20 are in some type of phase maintenance. SWA maybe has 5-10 broke planes a day.

With this contract dispute and the mechs are refusing the mandatory OT I believe and they aren't signing up for OT. Union line. Phase maintenance is backing up and broke planes aren't getting fixed as fast either. Instead of 20-25 planes planes down and 725 planes in the air, 30-40 are down. Each plane flies 3-7 lines a day.

The recent crash doesn't have anything to do with the cancellations.

Post: #29

(03-11-2019 12:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Tin foil hat time:

China has the ability to hack into the autopilot systems of certain airlines. They crashed the plane and are using it as a leverage point against the US.

Similarly to the plane that got hijacked by the odd gay pilot and flown to Diego Garcia. Ironic that no one ever found debris for that plane.

After 9/11 I personally believe that airplanes can be flown 100% remotely from the ground and pilots' jobs are really only to just monitor everything on the plane and provide PA announcements.

This probably isn't incorrect, at least as far as remote flight capability goes.

While it's possible China is conspiring to make the USA look bad during a trade war, I think there is another likelier explanation. Witnesses to the Tanzania flight said they saw smoke coming from the engine, and this weekend another flight in Houston with the same model of plane had really frightening engine issues:

"Rivas didn't know when people noticed the mechanical issues during the flight. Passenger Chris Morrison told KRIV that he heard a "really loud bang," then a "flash of light."

He said the noise woke him up."

chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/United-flight-lands-safely-in-Houston-after-13678766.php

I have zero knowledge about engines or aviation, anyone know what could cause something like this? It does seem prudent to ground the planes until the issue is IDed, even though it happens on like .01% of flights.

Post: #30

(03-11-2019 10:35 AM)jcrew247 Wrote:  So how exactly are they able to fix or shut down the trim system?
It seems like the best course of action would be to the eliminate this sensor because it is forcing the plane into an accelerated nose dive into the ground. Very scary stuff!

During simulator training pilots are expected to memorize and perform Quick Action Items. One of the required items is "Pitch Trim Runaway". I've never flown a 737 but on the aircraft I've flown it is usually pressing and holding a red button on the control yoke which disables all automation and then pressing a button on the center panel that disables trim.

The problem is pitch trim runaway is very difficult to spot until it is too late. The trim setting is then locked in wherever it was disconnected at which means you could be pulling or pushing 50+ lbs. In the simulator you know its coming because the instructor tells you. Right after takeoff in real life though? Good luck.

Post: #31

For you guys who are worried about flying 737s, it's important to remember that there is a difference between a 737-800 and a 737-8 MAX. The MAX is new and has had 2 recent crashes. The -800 is tried and tested with an excellent safety record.

While there are similarities between those two recent MAX accidents, it's important to not jump to conclusions. Those accidents do not necessarily mean the MAX is unsafe.

Post: #32

Also regarding a Stick Pusher issue... that's difficult to deal with as well, especially at low altitude. As I said earlier its a motor that pushes the stick forward and nose down. It will scare the fuck out of the pilots. Its loud, the yoke shakes, and its very violent. I've seen a shaker in flight (as you approach the max angle of attack) due to turbulence but never a pusher. And my blood pressure was through the roof from just that.

Post: #33

Guys, I found out the reason why the plane crashed !

Quote: Ethiopian Airlines is marking International Women's Day by operating an all-women flight from Addis Ababa to Oslo.


7 March 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from...e-47468141



...

Post: #34

With the news of a CFM International Turbofan powered 737 that had an emergency landing in Houston, could it be a design flaw in those engines?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-emergency

The plane in question was powered by a CFM-56, while the new MAX 737s are powered by CFM LEAP engines.

CFM International is a joint venture between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma).

Haven't heard bad engine news from say Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce.

The engine could've had something like a compressor stall or one of the engine components blowing out the engines. Rumors are circulating (unverified) that the Ethiopian jet's engine had a catastrophic failure.

Post: #35

(03-11-2019 04:52 PM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  With the news of a CFM International Turbofan powered 737 that had an emergency landing in Houston, could it be a design flaw in those engines?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-emergency

The plane in question was powered by a CFM-56, while the new MAX 737s are powered by CFM LEAP engines.

CFM International is a joint venture between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma).

Haven't heard bad engine news form say Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce.

Rolls had some issues with their engines on the 787 a few years ago.

Post: #36

(03-11-2019 05:02 PM)Laner Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 04:52 PM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  With the news of a CFM International Turbofan powered 737 that had an emergency landing in Houston, could it be a design flaw in those engines?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-emergency

The plane in question was powered by a CFM-56, while the new MAX 737s are powered by CFM LEAP engines.

CFM International is a joint venture between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma).

Haven't heard bad engine news form say Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce.

Rolls had some issues with their engines on the 787 a few years ago.

Ah yes the Rolls Royce Trent, which had compressor blade fatigue due to corrosion, forgot about that.

I know jet engines are very sensitive when it comes to that.

I was watching a video on the replacement of blades from an old GE J47 Turbojet. Interesting to me:

Post: #37

(03-11-2019 04:52 PM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  With the news of a CFM International Turbofan powered 737 that had an emergency landing in Houston, could it be a design flaw in those engines?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-emergency

The plane in question was powered by a CFM-56, while the new MAX 737s are powered by CFM LEAP engines.

CFM International is a joint venture between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma).

Haven't heard bad engine news from say Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce.

The engine could've had something like a compressor stall or one of the engine components blowing out the engines. Rumors are circulating (unverified) that the Ethiopian jet's engine had a catastrophic failure.

An engine failure is possible but I find it an unlikely cause. Modern aircraft fly perfectly fine on one engine and pilots receive extensive training on how to do so. I've probably done a thousand V-1 cuts in the sim (When the engine fails during takeoff, but you're at the speed where you must continue the takeoff single engine anyway) and they're pretty easy.

Now if the engine failed catastrophically and destroyed other systems... that is definitely possible. Also the terrain in that region is also pretty high and rugged and would make an engine failure more difficult to deal with.

Post: #38

(03-11-2019 05:10 PM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 05:02 PM)Laner Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 04:52 PM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  With the news of a CFM International Turbofan powered 737 that had an emergency landing in Houston, could it be a design flaw in those engines?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-emergency

The plane in question was powered by a CFM-56, while the new MAX 737s are powered by CFM LEAP engines.

CFM International is a joint venture between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma).

Haven't heard bad engine news form say Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce.

Rolls had some issues with their engines on the 787 a few years ago.

Ah yes the Rolls Royce Trent, which had compressor blade fatigue due to corrosion, forgot about that.

I know jet engines are very sensitive when it comes to that.

I was watching a video on the replacement of blades from an old GE J47 Turbojet. Interesting to me:

That was a great video! Subscribed to his channel.

There sure are some smart men out there doing incredible things.

Post: #39

(03-11-2019 06:49 PM)Laner Wrote:  That was a great video! Subscribed to his channel.

There sure are some smart men out there doing incredible things.

According to the video that jet engine is going back into a vintage F-86 fighter. That would be cool to see.

In an earlier video the mechanic was unwrapping brand new old stock original blades from the factory...from the 50s!

It's amazing the variety of skills are needed to keep things going let alone developing new technologies.

Post: #40

(03-11-2019 06:18 PM)RIslander Wrote:  An engine failure is possible but I find it an unlikely cause. Modern aircraft fly perfectly fine on one engine and pilots receive extensive training on how to do so. I've probably done a thousand V-1 cuts in the sim (When the engine fails during takeoff, but you're at the speed where you must continue the takeoff single engine anyway) and they're pretty easy.

Now if the engine failed catastrophically and destroyed other systems... that is definitely possible.

Question:

Supposedly, witnesses to the Ethiopian crash say whatever happened caused the rear of the aircraft to smoke and luggage to rain down behind the aircraft.

Supposedly, the plane that crashed with Lion Air had had an earlier incident on the previous flight that filled the cabin with a burnt smell and passengers reported strange engine noises.

It is reasonably possible for something like a fire/explosion the witnesses described to bring down an aircraft and for that to not be discernible from the flight recorder? Meaning, is it possible Lion Air had little to do with the MCAS and that there's actually a fire-related design issue with the 737 MAX? I don't know what data is actually captured, but I'd assume things like engine temperatures would be.

Post: #41

(03-11-2019 08:38 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 06:18 PM)RIslander Wrote:  An engine failure is possible but I find it an unlikely cause. Modern aircraft fly perfectly fine on one engine and pilots receive extensive training on how to do so. I've probably done a thousand V-1 cuts in the sim (When the engine fails during takeoff, but you're at the speed where you must continue the takeoff single engine anyway) and they're pretty easy.

Now if the engine failed catastrophically and destroyed other systems... that is definitely possible.

Question:

Supposedly, witnesses to the Ethiopian crash say whatever happened caused the rear of the aircraft to smoke and luggage to rain down behind the aircraft.

Supposedly, the plane that crashed with Lion Air had had an earlier incident on the previous flight that filled the cabin with a burnt smell and passengers reported strange engine noises.

It is reasonably possible for something like a fire/explosion the witnesses described to bring down an aircraft and for that to not be discernible from the flight recorder? Meaning, is it possible Lion Air had little to do with the MCAS and that there's actually a fire-related design issue with the 737 MAX? I don't know what data is actually captured, but I'd assume things like engine temperatures would be.

Interesting eyewitness reports. I don't think the Lion Air CVR analysis has been completed yet. It's gonna be a good while till this Ethiopian CVR is analyzed as well. Might be time to opt for Scarebuses or maybe little bit older Boeing variants.

I know that air crashes are extremely rare, but this is definitely one of the ways that I do NOT want go. I'm already anxious enough in the sky to begin with. RIP to the all the victims & their families.

Post: #42

The CFM 56 engine core has been in service for more than 40 years and it has been very reliable. I don't know for a fact, but I assume the recent engine failures are related to the newer blade design or some other "upgrade."

Post: #43

(03-11-2019 08:38 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 06:18 PM)RIslander Wrote:  An engine failure is possible but I find it an unlikely cause. Modern aircraft fly perfectly fine on one engine and pilots receive extensive training on how to do so. I've probably done a thousand V-1 cuts in the sim (When the engine fails during takeoff, but you're at the speed where you must continue the takeoff single engine anyway) and they're pretty easy.

Now if the engine failed catastrophically and destroyed other systems... that is definitely possible.

Question:

Supposedly, witnesses to the Ethiopian crash say whatever happened caused the rear of the aircraft to smoke and luggage to rain down behind the aircraft.

Supposedly, the plane that crashed with Lion Air had had an earlier incident on the previous flight that filled the cabin with a burnt smell and passengers reported strange engine noises.

It is reasonably possible for something like a fire/explosion the witnesses described to bring down an aircraft and for that to not be discernible from the flight recorder? Meaning, is it possible Lion Air had little to do with the MCAS and that there's actually a fire-related design issue with the 737 MAX? I don't know what data is actually captured, but I'd assume things like engine temperatures would be.

I suppose an explosion in the cargo bin could cause this... which could easily destroy hydraulic systems that would inhibit or destroy flight control systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6

Post: #44

I work around a lot of tractors, and those motherfuckers are always breaking. Granted airplanes don't get used and abused like tractors, but still, makes you think. I'm honestly surprised this shit don't happen more often. Putting your life in a machine and defying physics. Not to mention for those of us who visit low iq countries and knowing the ground crews are looking after these things. Nothing a couple of in flight whiskeys can't fix.

Interesting fact I was looking at the wiki page for Ethiopian airlines. They had a hijacking one time that went down near Madagascar and killed most people. Pilot survived, but that was his third time being hijacked. That's insanity.

Post: #45

Chick I know lost her father and brother on that flight. She's on suicide watch.

A Slovakian MP lost his wife and two children on the flight as well. Tragic.

As a family, we never went anywhere in the same car, bus or plane. Pops and mom would split and take 2 kids each people thought it was weird we never even went to church in the same vehicle.

Starting to make sense now.

Post: #46

I stick with Airbus planes I think

Post: #47

Looks like civil aviation authorities and numerous airlines in Europe are doing their own thing and grounding the MAX, while, Boeing and the FAA continue to insist there's nothing wrong. Apparently, the UK didn't even allow a pair of Turkish Airlines flights that were already en route to complete their flights, forcing them to return to Istanbul.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boeing...2019-03-12

I'd love to say it's their own fault Boeing is fucking this up and their stock looks like a chart of a MAX's altimeter readings, but I don't know that there was any good way out of this.

- If it turns out they were both caused by the suspected issue, they look like they failed to address the issue on the first pass.
- If it turns out they were both caused by another issue, they look like they handled Lion Air dishonestly or incompetently.
- If it turns out they were both caused by unrelated issues, they look like the MAX is a simply an engineering debacle.

They're apparently on the hook for extensive grounding costs and 80% of their booked production queue is for China.

I was doing some reading over lunch about the DC-10 and get the impression that it was a major contributor to running McDonell-Douglas out of the passenger airliner business, which ultimately led to them getting bought out by Boeing. I'm sure that's at the front of some old-timer's mind at Boeing today.

Post: #48

What kind of plane needs to constantly be stabilized because the placement of the engines naturally pulls the aircraft up into a stall? But hey, it's super fuel efficient guys! It's not like systems ever fail on an aircraft right? And why would you want it to naturally be aerodynamic and able to glide in the event of a total failure? HAHAHA, how crazy would that be?

Jesus fucking Christ Boeing.

Post: #49

(03-11-2019 10:45 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  I work around a lot of tractors, and those motherfuckers are always breaking. Granted airplanes don't get used and abused like tractors, but still, makes you think. I'm honestly surprised this shit don't happen more often.

If tractors were built and inspected/maintained like planes are, a tractor having a big break down would shock you because it would be so very rare.

Post: #50

The fleet is effectively grounded as a number of countries have closed their airspace to it in addition to grounding the planes.