the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

A very good point has been raised in discussions on other fora. In other episodes of the malfunction, high time pilots disabled the elevator trim and landed safely.

For those offshore, a high time pilot is one who is experienced, so-called because pilots record their hours (time) they spent flying in logbooks.

Also keep in mind that one of the things you are paying for on first world airlines is the aircrew. Minimum time to fly for a major in a widebody is 1500 hours and most new co-pilots have significantly more than that.

Many times local airlines in developing countries have much lower standards. 300-400 hours of total time is not unheard of for the co-pilot. And no, I'm not naming those airlines here.

This also goes back to the previous discussion of human resources talent availability in the third world and the increasing use of automation. Lesser experienced, and lower skilled, aircrew cost less, but make more mistakes and generally respond less effectively when something goes wrong. And that doesn't get into less stringent training standards or the higher levels of training/maintenance documentation falsification inherent to less developed countries.

Wouldn't blame the pilots when the construction/software obviously has problems. Should you need the best pilots in the world or should the aircraft manufacturers have a reasonable safety standard?

Peacedog wrote: And that doesn't get into less stringent training standards or the higher levels of training/maintenance documentation falsification inherent to less developed countries.

Pilots all over the world have international practice. They all study and practice in countries with the highest standard. So the standard of the education of pilots is about the same where ever you go. Again, don't blame the individuals if the manufacturer make it harder for individuals with less experience.

And again, the responsible people for the lack of training and information of the new software standard and changes should go to prison.

And that doesn't get into less stringent training standards or the higher levels of training/maintenance documentation falsification inherent to less developed countries.

To continue my rant, in many less developed countries the pilots are even better and more well trained than in "more developed countries" because many pilots have a background in the military pilot training. This goes for many Chinese pilots as well. And they also go abroad to the US and/or Europe to get additional training.

One or two years ago, a plane from Chengdu I believe, don't remember exactly, but the window broke in the cockpit. The Pilot succeeded to emergency land the plane safe. He got a 5 million RMB reward. He also has a background as a pilot in the military. Don't know if it's the same I am thinking about as this one reported down here. Here it says that a co-pilot was half sucked out through the window but stayed calmed. Haven't heard about that detail before.

"The situation was very critical. The windshield was blown off at a 10,000-meter-high altitude. The aircraft was in a state of low pressure and a temperature was minus 30 to minus 40 degree Celsius," Jiang Wenxue, a Civil Aviation Administration (CAA) official, was quoted as saying by state news agency Xinhua."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/15/asia ... index.html

But sure, I the experience of the pilot is extremely important when it comes to dealing with problems and malfunctions. But maybe the experience is more important than where the education has taken place. As Michael posted earlier:
"Off-Duty Pilot Saved Doomed Lion Air 737 From Nosedive Day Before Deadly Crash"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/lion-ai ... eport.html

Afa pilot training, the general consensus is that preparation and training for the 737 Max was insufficient --everywhere. In the case where the MCAS system malfunctioned earlier, the solution (by the off duty pilot in the jump seat) was to turn it off.

These last crashes were not the result of pilot error, though it would have been possible for the pilots to save the planes.
The evidence has shown that there was a problem with one of the attitude sensors. The MCAS was reacting to that. That's where the jack screw issue came into play. The pilots were trying to manually adjust the plane's trim, but were unable.
All this happened at low altitude, the system continued to lower the plane's nose and increased the speed. There was simply no time.

Afa pilot experience, even the best make errors --and usually it's in their judgment. But, another factor is fatigue. Many pilots feel they are over-worked. That doesn't just happen to pilots in developing countries.

Anyway, all plane crashes are usually the result of several factors, any one of which would not have downed the plane on its own.

Another one down.

The latest seems to be a runway overrun, which can happen in planes of all sorts. The bird was a 737-800, not a Max. No one killed; the news story I read said there were noncritical injuries to some onboard. Bad weather seems to have been a factor.

Back in the nineties, a couple of 737's crashed killing all on board due to an unexpected design problem in the rudder actuator. It seems unavoidable that the real world will wring out the work of engineers and do so quite unforgivingly.

Ok, different plane. I was wondering about that.

Did you the Russian one that caught on fire?

Good news for a change. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/nasa-en ... oLtrLxxbT8

The vid that Steve posted appears to have the right take on the Moscow crash. Newer news:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... unway.html

http://tass.com/economy/1058372

The pilot hit the runway hard, three or four times, and the last hit broke the airplane. His skill, judgment and qualifications have all been called into question in the news. I think the verdict will be pilot error, with contributing factors of electronics damage and bad weather.

The theme again emerges: In a highly automated plane, you have to be ready to turn off all that crap and fly with stick and rudder. In America we are fortunate; aviation as an aficionado culture is alive and well, and most of our pilots have time in simple airplanes. I credit "Sully" Sullenberger's save of USAir 1549 to the fact that he is also a licensed glider pilot, not just a jet jockey. He could tell by eyeballing it that he was running out of altitude and options. Pressing on toward the nearest airport would have killed everybody.

Peacedog wrote:Klonk,

I'd say another issue is that controlling some of these newer aircraft without computer assistance may or may not be possible. I do know that some of the newer military aircraft are aerodynamically unstable and the fly by wire systems are the only thing that makes controlling them possible.

I hope we never get to that point with passenger or cargo aircraft, for there would be no point in it. It is possible to design shapes that are inherently stable; you can design a model plane that will fly stably without control inputs, and simple RC jobs that steer with only rudder input.

I suppose there is a reason for making a fighter dynamically unstable, and able to fly like a trick pony with only the software keeping things inside a survivable flight envelope, but if you lose the computer, the only option left is to punch out.

Practical planes for passengers and cargo split the difference between stability and a useful degree of maneuverability. You don't want it to fly like it's on rails, but you don't want it squirreling off into doing something weird if the pilot sneezes.

He talks about what you mean by losing skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qDLR4s45U

Amazing. Unloading the wing to ease the trim adjustment (called here the "roller coaster maneuver" or "reeling in a marlin") is something you can demonstrate in a one-propeller training airplane. Maybe I should not be surprised that he has an exquisite example of a little plane (Luscombe Silvaire) in the background.

Glad to see that Boeing is going down.

Thank you whistleblowers.

I know active military in naval activation who will never fly Boeing. Basically the cooperate culture chose production over safety and we can see the results.

A Boeing from Tehran to Ukraine just went down. We don't know what happened yet but Boeings seem to be going down left and right.