Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
#1804161
Oldfart wrote:Surely the initial cause of this accident was not MCAS, but the crews failure to retard the thrust levers from TOGA power after take off, until they crashed. Obviously distracted by the erroneous stick shaker at lift off. But really basic airmanship should have kicked in.
Continuous Take Off power, and a light weight aircraft (short sector) is always going to end in tears.


If you pull the power off in a high speed 737 which is already trying to tent-peg itself, which way do you think the nose is going to want to go?

Not up, that’s for sure. It wouldn’t help.
#1804176
If you pull the power off in a high speed 737 which is already trying to tent-peg itself, which way do you think the nose is going to want to go?

Indeed.

The pitch/power couple evident in non flybywire aircraft with underslung engines. Indeed this is precisely the powerful effect that MCAS is designed to counteract. (If it worked only when desirable!)

Those wishing to avoid flying on 737 Max should bear in mind two things. Firstly, a number of more conventional 737s have been lost due to uncontrolled rudder ‘hard overs’. (This aircraft’s basic design is unlikely to be accepted were it a new type today)

Secondly, do recall that IAG (the owner of BA) signed a letter of intent for 200 Max in the aftermath of their grounding. Presumably when prices were at rock bottom! All presuming BA survive in any recognisable Formosa course!
#1804186
A4 Pacific wrote:..IAG (the owner of BA) signed a letter of intent for 200 Max in the aftermath of their grounding. Presumably when prices were at rock bottom! All presuming BA survive in any recognisable Formosa course!


Usually called Taiwan, these days .. :wink:

[I wonder whether BA ones would be on Spanish register, now that there's an EASA Recertification (does this automatically mean there's a UK one, as it's before 1 Jan ?) rather than UK .. :roll: ]
#1809651
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Oldfart wrote:Continuous Take Off power, and a light weight aircraft (short sector) is always going to end in tears.


Why? Won't (shouldn't?) it just result in a faster climb rate?


They left Take Off power set for the whole of the short flight. The other warnings overcame basic airmanship, if you are accelerating so fast and exceeding flap limits etc. after takeoff, perhaps a good idea to reduce from full power?
#1809653
I don't care if the FAA, EASA and the CAA clear it to fly, I will not be getting on a 737 Max. This whole episode has exposed serious failings and I do not have faith in the reworking of these aircraft, Boeing or the FAA.


Neither will I. Fortunately I won't need to travel as much as before when this lockdown ends. But in any case my airline of choice doesn't use Boeings nowadays.
#1809668
I spent the majority of my career flying Boeings, (B747) Wonderfully safe, and a pleasure to fly. In over 10,000 hours never gave me a fright! We were of course, properly trained and experienced in the first place.
One accident doesn't damn a whole marque.
And we mustn't forget that in many recent accidents, Boeing/Airbus, poor airmanship played a large part in the evolving situations. For example in the ET Max accident. After the initial confusion with the erroneous stick shaker, the crew forgot to reduce the power after take off.
Full TOGA remained set until impact, massively impeding any possible recovery.
#1809723
The Japanese 747 accident I think was a sub-standard repair of the rear pressure bulkhead following a previous tailstrike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
flybymike liked this
#1809751
mikehallam wrote:There have been some horrid 747 accidents, and not pilot error but poor detail design.
E.g. baggage doors blow out consequences, Japan and others.



Blow out baggage doors were DC10s
JAL 747 Fin loss, was due to sub standard repair, not conforming to Boeing repair scheme, Hardly Boeings fault.

Please be anti Boeing if you wish, but with the facts!
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22