Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876543
My connecting WestJet flight was listed as a 737-700 which it turned out to be.
I noted the Max was listed on other connections and I made sure I didn’t select one of these.

I maintain that an aeroplane of any civilian type should be able to be chucked, and glide with its own stability like a balsa glider.
Compterised stability belongs on military aircraft, not on civil aircraft where a higher standard of safety is important.

One or two more crashes will put paid to this aircraft, perhaps it’s only a matter of time.
Rob L, Nick, cockney steve and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876576
stevelup wrote:Turns out it was all one bloke's fault...

https://apnews.com/article/business-tex ... c80c8e4119

"Deputy Heads will roll"
kanga, Josh, johnm and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876669
Except though pilot interference I don’t know of any Airbus that has departed stable flight through the interference of an augmenting system.
The design of Airbus aircraft includes engines that fit under their wings with thrust and mass vectors that are stable.
In my opinion the Max needs a bigger tailplane, a bigger tailplane would statically cope with the bodge up installation of a bigger engine.
A4 Pacific liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876711
MichaelP wrote:I don’t know of any Airbus that has departed stable flight through the interference of an augmenting system.


Did Airbus not have an accident over the south of France with an A320 where the outside AOA sensors & computers conflicted or something similar - on an airline test/acceptance flight? I a sure there was one of those National Geographic Air Investigation shows about it - the accident was quite some time ago and I remember thinking "Airbus learned a lesson and changed the design/logic etc, why didnt the Boeing guys learn from this accident too".

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876869
Not relate-able.
There’s a reason we stall aeroplanes at specified altitudes.
When I read one and a half pages about spinning in the Mooney I went even higher, up to 5,000 feet AGL as I read between the lines...

The captain moved the stick forward a little in the Airbus, he should have perhaps moved it forward a lot!
The thrust vector of low slung engines as they spool up probably forced the nose up... I didn’t watch the whole video...

When the pilot of the Air France Airbus put the stick forward it unstalled the aeroplane, but for whatever reason he pulled it back again and stalled into the Atlantic.

There have been similar incidents of stalling in airliners.
The Boeing 757 is one notable type to suffer this when the pitot static system was blocked.
Yet the 757 needs no augmentation to enable it to recover, it’s the proper design the 737-Max should be replaced with together with conversion training for the 737 pilots.
Bin the Max, build the 757, and eat the expense of training for a different type. It’s safer.

A good reason for upset training... In my opinion the T67 is probably the better training aeroplane than the Extra for this.
User avatar
By Human Factor
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876871
A good reason for upset training... In my opinion the T67 is probably the better training aeroplane than the Extra for this.


Very much so. While the Extra is a suitably epic aircraft and my name is down for a 330LX (when Euromillions comes up), it reacts too quickly for for effective teaching of an ab initio student. The T67 being something of a jack of all trades responds correctly and quickly enough while giving the student time to appreciate what has just happened, the CG generally being far enough forward.
MichaelP liked this
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32