Jump to content

M61A1

Members
  • Content Count

    2,858
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by M61A1

  1. Yep, that one is my opinion. They don’t make the top 20 list and according to Wikipedia they’ve had quite a few accidents and incidents. (61). You can fly on them anytime you like, but you won’t get me on them.
  2. I will consider myself chastised. I should have known better than to think that facts and industry knowledge would be welcome in an internet discussion.
  3. If you were actually interested in understanding the system and the events that occurred, you could find pretty much all the information you need in minutes. You asked for link to a document you could have found yourself in 10 seconds and an then implied that it was too complicated, so I would assume you aren’t really that interested in the facts, just getting on the anti Boeing bandwagon. A few here have told us how they would have designed the system to fix it, and in doing so demonstrated a lack of understanding of both AFCS and the certification process. I don’t know that it will make a difference to you knowing that I am a maintainer. I have worked on earlier 737s and still work on other aircraft with AFCS. In the past I have found Boeing engineers to be extremely conservative and risk averse, perhaps things change, but we live in a risk averse society so I doubt that. Methusela’s rant about jailing Boing executives is definitely screeching.
  4. I am quite aware that the trim on a 737 works via a jackscrew which moves the whole horizontal stabilizer. Yes, I also understand that the higher the load on the stabilizer the more difficult the manual trim wheel may be to operate, up to the point that it may not physically be possible. By the reports, they had it stabilized, despite being grossly out of trim, and taking a lot of force to hold, not "aiming at the ground", but then the trim was turned on again. I also understand that possibly they turned the electric trim back on in order to manually (electrically) drive the trim, but you have to wonder why they left it on, and why the throttles remained wide open until impact. They were doing over 500kts when the impacted, the overspeed clacker was going off long before that, and the faster you go, the more you load the stab. What I'm hell-bent on is not crucifying the manufacturer just yet. Many here just seem hell-bent on blaming Boeing, they aren't my favourite people, but most of the online screeching seems to be from people who appear to have no understanding of the aircraft system an no interest in understanding it. There is a lot of evidence shown that suggests that the aircrew has some or a lot of responsibility here. I know it's easy to criticize after the event, but the actions and inaction of the crew is difficult to explain away. Methusela's comment that pilots shouldn't have to make complex decisions is just plain wrong. That is exactly what is required of a modern airline pilot with the amount of automation in a modern airliner. Having said that a decision about the operation of the system that is being blamed is far from complex (at operator level). I'd rather have a good pilot who knows their machine, flying me in a piece of junk than someone in a shiny suit and a nice resume flying a flash looking new aircraft.
  5. There have been plenty of high hour, well regarded pilots that made serious errors resulting the deaths of many. What part of the Safety Bulletin after the first crash did you miss? You might be able to blame the first crash on lack of education by Boeing, but the Ethiopian crew had the information acted on it then undid their actions and crashed. The Comet problem resulted in aircraft falling apart mid-air, but if the MCAS syatem has a problem you turn the trim off it will fly just fine, how you can compare the two is beyond reason.
  6. Yep, and the sort people you employ. Whether they are pilots, maintainers, trainers or accountants. Edit: what I mean by that is that the “culture” of the organisation is important.
  7. According to the reports posted here, the MCAS operates from information on the pilot side AoA sensor. The autopilot had shown an AoA disagree warning. As I said before, if you understand the system you would know that MCAS is relying on data from the pilot side sensor and if the pilot side is telling you that you have 20 degrees AoA when you a clearly nose down, it shouldn’t be hard to to determine which one is erroneous. That is the job of a modern airline pilot.
  8. The system does compare data from both sensors. if they disagree by a very small margin the crew get a warning telling them so. (common in pretty much all AFCS ) Based on that, if they understand which bits do what function, you will know what systems are affected by the side which has an erroneous reading and act accordingly. For example they had a warning that there was AoA disagreement, and that the l/h side was reading over 20° while the horizon and standby instruments tell them that isn't the case. Then they know which sensor isn't working and by default they should know which systems are controlled by the defective sensor. These are things your average airline pilot should know about his/her aircraft.
  9. Seriously? That Safety Bulletin couldn’t be any clearer, yet the crew failed to manage essentially a minor failure and made a big hole in the ground. They were clearly aware of it as they did what it said, then undid it. You’ve been told it’s “lethally flawed” by media, but The evidence is there that the crew had all the information necessary to safely put that aircraft on the ground, but failed to do so. If they had understood their aircraft’s systems and applied the information supplied they and many others would likely be alive.
  10. And where do you suppose the autopilot gets it's information from? The aircrew need to understand the systems they are using. It was exactly the same with the early Airbus crashes. They all flew aircraft into the ground because they didn't understand how it worked.
  11. If you have trouble understanding that, don’t fly anything more complicated than a hang glider.
  12. Here's just one of many links. I chose this one because it shows actual pages of the bulletin. https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeing-nearing-737-max-fleet-bulletin-on-aoa-warning-after-lion-air-crash/
  13. Actually, Boeing issued a "Safety Bulletin" after the Lion Air crash in 2018. These don't get distributed unevenly, they are sent to all operators. According to information posted in the videos here previously, the Ethiopain airline crew followed the amended procedure, then for some reason turned MCAS back on. @ Methusela.... I stand by the third world airline comment. Brain is in gear. Go and have a look how operators work over there and open your eyes. Western aviation is not representative of the whole world.
  14. So why have western nations not crashed any despite reporting similar events? I think a significant portion of the blame is squarely on the shoulders of third world airlines and their pilot training. ( and possibly third world ground handling for the damage they do to aircraft) I'd be more careful WHO you fly with than worry about the type of aircraft.
  15. If you've ever seen a corroded airframe, you'd know that's not true. A quality and properly applied surface finish (inside and out) is good insurance for longevity.
  16. It can be good when used properly, but also can be abused. Clearly RAAus has a problem managing it. It was only hours after using my work email address with RAAus, (because we have a lovely scanner there), that I started getting all manner of spam and phishing emails. There have been several cases where personal data has been accidentally or deliberately mishandled by govt agencies, with serious consequences
  17. From my perspective as an ex service person there are many who are virtually unemployable outside in the real world. They can usually read instructions and apply them to a degree, as anything that can be left to interpretation will be. They are generally better of where the can just do what they are told and do it with a bottomless bucket of other people’s money. I know many maintainers, but I would I allow a small handful near my own aircraft.
  18. What it really comes down to is that management doesn’t want to end up in court because they didn’t do everything possible to protect their employees from themselves.
  19. That's exactly what I'm talking about, and it's got worse since they adopted the civvy style OH&S, and especially since "equity and diversity". There have been a few reports scathing of defence when someone was injured, usually while doing the wrong thing. They just use their 5 x 5 risk assessment matrix, and rather than cop another blast from the ABC if something goes wrong, rather than offend a minority or risk a minor injury, they just won't do it. From where I sit, it appears defence has become no better than a "special school", employing people because of their gender, race etc, rather than their competence. edit: I just read the whole article, and saw who made the decision. point proved.
  20. See above...comes under "really had to". In any case, I'm not defending the aircraft, only time will tell if it works out for us. We always get naysayers every time we get a new type. When we got Blackhawks, they weren't right because they weren't Hueys. There was a huge amount of negativity when we got F111s, then everyone whinged that they were irreplaceable when they were retired. Some reckon we should have AH64s instead of Tigers, but our Tigers outperformed the AH-64s in their last major exercise. It bothers me that most western military hardware is technically brilliant but is not tolerant of damage, but I don't get to make the decision about what we get.
  21. And that would mean you really had to ......right? I don't know if you are aware, but for some time now, our defence force has been really risk averse. So, training flights and demo flights in poor weather would be a no-go. Especially demo flights as the added maintenance burden due to erosion and such is quite high. The same was the case with our F111s.
  22. Actually they said it was to do with the fuel system, apparently the newer ones have lightning protection built in and older ones will be retrofitted. Don't know why they wouldn't have been designed with it. In any case, why would anyone fly in an electrical storm unless they really had to?
  23. Do you have a schematic drawn up? It can help with faultfinding by allowing you to see the areas that are common and those that aren't. A total electrical power loss I would think points to a master switch or breaker or connection/solenoid in that system. If the regulator fails the battery should still supply and if the battery fails, the alternator should still supply. I had a brand new good quality key switch (the master controlling the master solenoid) a while ago that failed intermittently because of a poor swage on the back of it. I could reproduce the fault by jiggling the key or moving the harness attached to it. As your aircraft is wood, Check the earth side if you haven't already done so, losing an earth could easily open circuit everything.
  24. Being a weekday, Amberley will most likely be active. 4500' is plenty through there, have a look at google earth, there is a nice valley through there. I never rely on Ozrunways to tell me whether or not they are active. Amberley is an operational base with C-17 traffic coming in in out at any time. Oakey is a training base and their hours tend to be reliable and fixed, they just go home and leave a message on ATIS saying when they will activate again. If they are active, ATIS won't tell you when they will deactivate. That's when a phone call to ops is necessary.
×