Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by corethatthermal »

You seem pretty bent out of shape about which God is which. Don’t you know all Gods are made up anyway.
I would think that an atheist has these opinions. The majority of homosapiens living on this 3rd rock from the son believe in some sort of god or gods, and who am I to get bent out of shape for that simple reality, The problem is when certain "religions" believe in a "god" that tells them they are superior and everyone else is inferior and also commands them to hate the inferior ones and subdue them and conquer them and kill them! That's when I have a little problem with religion ! IF YOU were living in certain countries that the majority had the above ideology and YOU were the infidel, then I would imagine that you would a little concern about what this "god" is and why are they persecuting you and what can be done to stop the pain and suffering !
---------- ADS -----------
 
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by boeingboy »

No they reached full aft column 100s in. At that time the MCAS had trimmed fully nose down. They did trim the nose up, enough to get the aircraft flyable and climbing away from the ground, when the GPWS warning stopped, they hit the trim cutout switches.
They did trim the aircraft, then actioned the drill like they were supposed to.
There are no holes, keep dreaming with your emotional bias. The aircraft is not flyable with full nose down trim without excessive airspeed.
It was not quite fully back at that point - and that was only in response to the nose down trim - it last only a second or so. As the stab moved nose up - the column was relaxed. So - your statement about only flying faster to stay aloft is not true.

Now if they held that trim another 10 secs - they would have trimmed the airplane for normal flight and landed just fine. So no - they did not action the drill as they were supposed to. The only reason the stab got so far out of trim was because they let it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by boeingboy »

I'm not sure mach tuck had any effect on the accidents. Their speeds at low altitude were fairly low.

You keep bringing up new subjects and keep deflecting my original question: why would it have helped to reduce the throttles? Reducing the throttles while maintaining altitude would have increased control forces, not reduce them.
I'm not sayin it did. Mach trim kicks in at Mach 0.6 which is roughly 400 kts. They were doing 350 kts so they weren't that fast - but they weren't that slow either. My point was - you were saying the only way they could stay up was to go faster, faster, faster...thinking the nose would come up due to increased lift - I'm simply saying that that is not the case - you get to a point where the nose will drop whether you like it or not due to aerodynamic forces (Mach tuck)

I'm not deflecting anything. Your claim of reducing the throttles would have increased forces is not true. Again - with a grossly mis-trimmed airplane the forces will increase with a higher speed. The increased lift provided by higher speed is negligible compared to the forces acting on a stab that is - for all intents and purposes - hanging down in the breeze.(aerodynamically). In any case - there are many different dangers of exceeding the VMO of an aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by boeingboy on Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by digits_ »

boeingboy wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:22 pm

I'm not deflecting anything. Your claim of reducing the throttles would have increased forces is not true. Again - with a grossly mis-trimmed airplane the forces will increase with a higher speed. The increased lift provided by higher speed is negligible compared to the forces acting on a stab that is - for all intents and purposes - hanging down in the breeze.(aerodynamically)
Why is this not true? If the stab was hanging in the breeze (stalled/ineffective/useless) the plane would have crashed right away. It didn't, it was doing its job, albeit at an undesired angle.

Look at this FAA AD triggered by an unrelated accident in 737-8. It talks about the most basic trim/column forces, and then all the added augmentation.
https://www.satcom.guru/2018/11/stabilizer-trim.html. The actual AD doesn't matter for our discussion, but it has a graph that shows that what I'm saying is true for transport category jets as well.
Figure 4 is what I am referring to: Image
Why would this relationship not be valid in the MCAS runaway case?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by boeingboy »

When I said it was hanging in the breeze - I meant aerodynamically - not literally. A very simple demonstration can be done in your car....drive at 40 MPH with you hand at a given angle, now - without changing the angle of your hand, increase to 70 MPH and keep your hand at the same elevation. The force acting on your hand increases as a result of higher speed and you apply a higher force to compensate.

The graph you posted has to do with desired stick forces. Your now getting into the Speed trim system which is a stability augmentation system. If you actually read through that section it explains it well - it also states you have a well trimmed airplane. A higher than normal trim setting (+ or -) and an out of control airspeed is not a well trimmed airplane.


"Stability augmentation for both phugoid and stick force gradient can be achieved simply by providing a small stabilizer offset. The offset is scaled such that the stabilizer trims nose down as the airplane slows down, and conversely stabilizer trims nose up as the airplane speeds up."

Speed trim is really much more complicated than what is going on with a seriously out of trim stab.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AOW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by AOW »

corethatthermal wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:54 am
But nice try, bigot.
Nice try with the name calling, doesn't work with me ! Facts are facts !
Yes... facts are facts! You tried to claim that because the pilot was Ethiopian, he was likely Muslim; I countered with the FACT that Ethiopia has a Christian majority, so your assumption was mathematically incorrect.

I then described you as a bigot, because you seem to associate the pilots’ religion with their performance. Having flown with people from all around the world, of many different faiths, I cannot support this correlation. Using the OED definition, “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”, I thought this was an appropriate description.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by C.W.E. »

I would think that an atheist has these opinions. The majority of homosapiens living on this 3rd rock from the son believe in some sort of god or gods,
I was an atheist until I started flying outside of Canada for a living and then I found my God, Benjamin Franklin who never ever let me down.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by C.W.E. on Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by PilotDAR »

Ahhhh, what's this thread about? Boeing, the FAA and certification? Religion? Trim vs speed?
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by digits_ »

boeingboy wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:00 pm When I said it was hanging in the breeze - I meant aerodynamically - not literally. A very simple demonstration can be done in your car....drive at 40 MPH with you hand at a given angle, now - without changing the angle of your hand, increase to 70 MPH and keep your hand at the same elevation. The force acting on your hand increases as a result of higher speed and you apply a higher force to compensate.
Yes, that is Lift and Drag. It does seem logical that a stabilizer at high angles of attach generates more drag.

Let me ask you this: why would a 737 with a stabilizer trim behave aerodynamically differently than a 172 with a trim tab or a metro with a stabilizer trim (just picking random differently sized airplanes, feel free to replace it with types of similar size)?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Curiousflyer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by Curiousflyer »

boeingboy wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:10 pm
No they reached full aft column 100s in. At that time the MCAS had trimmed fully nose down. They did trim the nose up, enough to get the aircraft flyable and climbing away from the ground, when the GPWS warning stopped, they hit the trim cutout switches.
They did trim the aircraft, then actioned the drill like they were supposed to.
There are no holes, keep dreaming with your emotional bias. The aircraft is not flyable with full nose down trim without excessive airspeed.
It was not quite fully back at that point - and that was only in response to the nose down trim - it last only a second or so. As the stab moved nose up - the column was relaxed. So - your statement about only flying faster to stay aloft is not true.

Now if they held that trim another 10 secs - they would have trimmed the airplane for normal flight and landed just fine. So no - they did not action the drill as they were supposed to. The only reason the stab got so far out of trim was because they let it.
You’re reading the graph with an intentional bias. At full power with the aircraft nose down, losing altitude, it lost over 1000 feet agl, it doesn’t take long to get to VMO. The control column was only relaxed after they electrically trimmed the aircraft. And were once again climbing. Then they hit the cutout switches.
They did do the drill perfectly correct, the drill does not call for “trim the aircraft electrically to perfect balance before hitting the cutout switches. It says cutout switches, then trim manually, which they did. Unfortunately they weren’t able to successfully trim the aircraft with the cutout switches off.
You can argue your point all you want but at the end of the day you are wrong, and your beloved Boeing machine is grounded - and for good reason.
---------- ADS -----------
 
sportingrifle
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by sportingrifle »

I don't think the crews reluctance to reduce thrust was so much related to trim speed as it was due to the pitching moments. In most twin engined jets with large underslung engines, there is a marked pitch up moment with thrust increase and an equally large nose down pitch moment with a thrust decrease. And relative to the size of the aircraft and its elevators, the Max has very large engines that are very underslung. That is in fact the whole genesis of the original problem!

This effect is very noticeable on the B777 and also the A320/A330. In fact in many jet transport AOM's recommend forward elevator input to keep weight on the nosewheel during thew early stages of the take off roll for exactly the reason. Maybe somebody with Max operating experience can comment.

With this in mind, I can certainly see that if it is taking 110% effort just to keep the airplane level, at low altitude pulling the power back and removing the nose up pitching moment would probably be a guaranteed way to meet your God .... whatever flavor that may be. (See, I am following the previous posts!). Coupled with the inability to retrim the airplane manually, it was probably doomed from the outset. I am going to be near a Max sim in the next week, if I can get in to it I will give it a go and report back.

Sportingrifle
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by photofly »

Do you think a sim will accurately reproduce the yoke and trim forces in that flight regime?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by photofly »

Double post
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by photofly on Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by photofly »

Double post
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
sportingrifle
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by sportingrifle »

The sim will mimic the pitch force/thrust relationship. If I can I will also manually mis-trim it and see how ugly it is. I know check pilots have had their eyes opened playing with it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by boeingboy »

You’re reading the graph with an intentional bias. At full power with the aircraft nose down, losing altitude, it lost over 1000 feet agl, it doesn’t take long to get to VMO. The control column was only relaxed after they electrically trimmed the aircraft. And were once again climbing. Then they hit the cutout switches.
They did do the drill perfectly correct, the drill does not call for “trim the aircraft electrically to perfect balance before hitting the cutout switches. It says cutout switches, then trim manually, which they did. Unfortunately they weren’t able to successfully trim the aircraft with the cutout switches off.
You can argue your point all you want but at the end of the day you are wrong, and your beloved Boeing machine is grounded - and for good reason.
I have an intentional bias??? Go look in the mirror.

I work from facts my friend.

First of all....it would be common sense to trim it as much as possible before turning it off. If they held the trim another 10 secs we would not be having this discussion. Even Boeings memo says they expand on that - you know - to cover the lowest common denominator.

Second - Read the memo. Operating instructions - note. The crew was aware of this information.

Sorry - there are issues with the machine and I've always acknowledged that, but to say it was unrecoverable is pure nonsense. The plane crashed because the crew stopped flying it and let it get away from them.


Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
nikopo
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:54 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by nikopo »

Don’t forget to perform the “roller-coaster” manoeuver :D

Image

Cheers
---------- ADS -----------
 
Curiousflyer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by Curiousflyer »

boeingboy wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:11 am
I have an intentional bias??? Go look in the mirror.

I work from facts my friend.
Yes you do have a bias and it’s been proven, it took me 4 posts for you to finally admit that the control column is fully aft 100s into the flight.
boeingboy wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:11 am First of all....it would be common sense to trim it as much as possible before turning it off. If they held the trim another 10 secs we would not be having this discussion. Even Boeings memo says they expand on that - you know - to cover the lowest common denominator.
No it doesn’t, it makes sense to get your descending airplane climbing and out of the gpws alarm. Then trim and hit the cutouts. Which they did.
boeingboy wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:11 am Second - Read the memo. Operating instructions - note. The crew was aware of this information.
The memo says hit the cutouts and trim manually, which they were unable to do.
boeingboy wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:11 am Sorry - there are issues with the machine and I've always acknowledged that, but to say it was unrecoverable is pure nonsense. The plane crashed because the crew stopped flying it and let it get away from them.
Yes, and Sully could have made it back to LGA :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by digits_ »

nikopo wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:25 am Don’t forget to perform the “roller-coaster” manoeuver :D

Image

Cheers
Thank you for that reference!

Who would have guessed, an airplane is an airplane. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Boeing allegedly Misled FAA on MAX certification.

Post by C.W.E. »

Who would have guessed, an airplane is an airplane. :wink:
Yes, even a dangerously flawed one. :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”