Posted on 03/14/2019 2:33:55 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Lion Air Flight 610 plunged into the sea off Indonesia because the pilot “lost (the) fight with his software,” Canadian Transport minister Marc Garneau chillingly told a Wednesday press conference announcing the grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX 8.
There is nothing wrong with the basic mechanics of the aircraft: Its engines, wings and control surfaces are all believed to be working fine. Rather, the passenger jet may have killed 346 people for the terrifyingly modern reason that human pilots were unable to override a malfunctioning computer.
The cause of the Lion Air crash — and the suspected cause of the recent downing of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — is a little-known piece of software known as MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.
The 737 MAX 8 has heavier and more fuel-efficient engines than prior editions of the 737, a change which causes the aircraft to pitch upwards ever-so-slightly after takeoff.
Rather than instructing airlines to warn their pilots of this quirk, Boeing simply equipped the MAX 8 with MCAS, a program that would automatically tilt the nose downwards to compensate.
In normal circumstances, the system is not a problem, but it only takes a minor maintenance error to turn MCAS into a deadly liability.
In the case of Lion Air Flight 610, the 737 MAX 8 had a faulty “angle of attack sensor”; a small blade sticking out of the cockpit that records the angle of the aircraft in flight.
The sensor was wrongly telling the MAX 8’s flight computers that the aircraft was climbing much more sharply than it was. As a result, pilots were left wrestling with an aircraft that was repeatedly plunging itself towards the ground for no reason.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
I heard that Boeing decided to go with a single sensor instead of redundant ones.
Yeah it's foreign jockeys who don't bother to read bulletins or understand the subtleties of either quickly discovering how to stay within the MCAS envelope, or in the alternate, how to fast-track uncorking the autopilot.
The Ethopian co-pilot Control Discenta Intoterrain had 200 hours of flying experience. If Capt. Getachew was fighting the Max to the point of mayday, then their only chance -- coordinating disengaging autopilot -- fell to the rookie. Not a chance.
Neither, it was the Sensor. But the humans flying it at the time, unlike the previous crew, did not identify the problem as faulty data from a sensor and disable the MCAS or auto-trim system as it was referred to earlier.
They should have been able to react.
I myself am in the business of building aircraft instruments, and on other aircraft I’ve been involved with there is an explicit flight test to demonstrate that the human pilot can override an inappropriate full-nose-down command from the autopilot.
Indeed. They keep saying software but Lion Air was due to the faulty AoA Sensor, and that’s hardware. If that many pilots reported issues, 1) they were able to handle it and 2) I’d be looking real hard atcthe sensors.
bigbob— caught another bit of commentary that was purportedly factual.... that a device called a QRS-1 is on all aircraft that directs the satellite connection of the onboard entertainment functions to be in continuous contact with the appropriate satellite.
Said device, the QRS-1 (or is it QRS-11) device was patented by the Rose Law Firm Patent Attorney, Hillary R. Clinton.
Question raised was— could an aircraft’s navigation and flight controls be directed by an intentional application of this same device— ie. hinting at electronic hi jacking.
It may have been paranoid— the device is quite old (if in fact the patent holder is true), and maybe the whole post was fabricated. Will check this.
Seems to me we are jumping all over these planes as the fault without waiting for final results of the investigation.
Automation - because we know better.
An airline that employs substandard training could conceivably have a problem in this area.
Nonetheless, this problem only scratches the surface and is being used as an instrument by the Deep State (DS) to coerce US aviation.
However, as Duncan alludes, Boeing is complicit in government-related corruption as it pertains to its Boeing-Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto-Pilot (BHUAP). As a result, I believe we're also (and potentially confusingly) seeing the DS strong-arming Boeing, frankly as it has repeatedly strong-armed several aviation companies.
Through a government-brokered deal, Boeing aircraft are now being produced in China. China is using its resources to build the infrastructure that has learned to make Boeing a/c.
Other a/c companies have also begun seeing their a/c built in China. Most notably, Textron Aviation, its Cessna Caravan series has been built in China.
Part of the deal early on with both these companies, I am given to understand, was that the craft made in China would not be allowed to come back the to the US to fly in our skies. That means the domestic manufacturers would retain an edge for sale of its US-manufactured craft in the US, which is the most lucrative market for these. The same would hold true for any airline that would intend even foreign-based craft to fly in the US.
That structure allows Chinese-made craft to be part of a deal that meets a growing demand for our domestic manufacturers' designs without cannibalizing US sales.
Things change dramatically if China would be allowed to see its craft certified for use in American skies as well. This is the very area currently at issue. China wants it.
Globalist, anti-American forces are at work to cut down the mighty Boeings (particularly) down to size.
Note that certification of these craft for whatever airspace they might be allowed to fly occurs (presently) with FAA and not as a last defense with the manufacturer. (I doubt Boeing would (or could?) go so far as to queer the entire deal.)
Because of things related to BHUAP, Boeing is compromised. There could be severe backlash against Boeing for its complicity in government activities related to that device, IMHO.
I alluded to Textron Aviation's complicity, as well, in government plans. I've written a book about it. What the DS has done to throw elections in the US is a huge issue and as yet, completely underappreciated by the public.
Because my book's subject has not (yet) brought DS perpetrators to justice, those embedded assets in the Obama Administration were able to commit its treasonous attacks against PDJT related to the 2016 election and all the nefarious DOJ/FBI (and other agencies all over DC (think FAA)) related events playing out to this very day.
The people at the top of these aviation companies live in daily fear of what the DS is able to do to them. We need disclosure to clear the air and rid ourselves of the entanglements of the DS in these issues.
And no, in case it should come up, I'm not the least bit suicidal.
In a manner of speaking, that to which Duncan Waring and I are referring could lead to extremely sensitive disclosures that will change the course of history in a significant way.
It’s the Wright brothers fault.
Why can’t pilots just turn off the MCAS before they take off? Then there would be no need to ground the planes. Turn off the MCAS and disconnect the switches. Too simple?
Except Chesley Sullenberger.
CC
Thankfully Green Goddess @AOC will rescue Americans from the dangers of airplane travel.
Boeing can’t change that, it’s structural on the new Max airplanes. The bigger engine was designed for the Max series and the wing was relocated because of it. Max is a major redesign, these aren’t simply 737s with bigger engines.
What happens when you let computers be in control.
Coming to you on the street near you with driverless cars and TRUCKS.
>>>What happens when you let computers be in control. Coming to you on the street near you with driverless cars and TRUCKS.
Hopefully, soon. Between 2010 and 2019, exactly one person died in a crash on a U.S. passenger airline. (That was the person killed aboard a Southwest flight in 2018, when an engine exploded and the debris hit her window.) By comparison: About 100 Americans die every day in car crashes.
Exactly. The other pilots figured it out. What really bothers me about that crash are the reports of 26 pitch up/down maneuvers. Ok, yeah, got it...the pilots were fighting what was probably MCAS activating due to a faulty AOA sensor. Apparently the pilots were capable of overriding or at least countering the auto-trim. So why 26, why not 27, 40, 100...whatever it took to keep the aircraft in the air. Two pilots, one stays on the stick and trims up continually if need be. Let the other pilot call the ground for help, run checklists, etc. Fly the aircraft.
I really don't understand why they gave up and let the aircraft fly into the ground. I don't care if they were getting stick-shaker, stall horns, whatever. If there's ground in front of me, I'm pulling up. If I'm going in, I'll pancake in rather than nose in. After the first few excursions I gotta believe they should have realized in spite of what the warnings were telling them they weren't actually in a stall.
The only thing I can come up with is they were maybe over-trained, or more precisely over reliant on their procedures. As I understand it, in a 737 the stall recovery / stall avoidance maneuver is to gently apply forward pressure on the control column to lower the nose, reduce angle of attack. Once that is achieved, increase thrust to recover airspeed. The faulty AOA sensor apparently caused the computer to repeatedly activate the stick shaker and maybe even the stall horn. Ok, the pilot did as he was trained, and/or MCAS did it's thing. Then the pilots tried to recover altitude, re-establish the climb or at least simply arrest the descent??? But at some point they either stair-stepped into the ground or they believed the systems telling them they were in a stall. I realize I'm biased, my personal flight experience has been in a high performance aerobatic aircraft that we fly seat of the pants. (other than approach) It is a very forgiving little beast that gives you plenty of feel for how it is flying, mushing very gently at stall. Maybe in a 737 there's no real flying by feel, by just looking out the cockpit at the horizon and saying yeah, I've got thrust, I've got airspeed, and I've got the horizon on the nose - I'm doing ok no matter what the computer is telling me...
thank you HAL.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.